Volume 648 Week 79 - Tuesday 1 July 2008 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 648 Week 79 - Tuesday 1 July 2008 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17015. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 1 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Cook Islands—Parliamentary Delegation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the Parliament of the Cook Islands led by the Hon Cassey Eggleton Deputy Speaker is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be given a warm welcome. 
Australia—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Commonwealth Parliament 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I also have much pleasure in further informing members that the Hon Dr Mike Kelly Parliamentary Secretary for Defence from the House of Representatives Commonwealth of Australia is present in the gallery. I am sure members would also like to give him a very warm welcome. 
Resignations 
Nandor Tanczos Green Party 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Nandor Steven Tanczos resigning his seat in the House with effect at the close of 26 June 2008. 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Russel William Norman has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Nandor Steven Tanczos. 
Member Sworn 
Dr Russel Norman was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House. 
Points of Order 
Privilege—Heather Roy 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a serious matter under Standing Order 395. Late yesterday afternoon I was rung by the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s Audrey Young and asked about an allegation of a breach of privilege being made against MP Heather Roy. I knew nothing of the matter. I asked Heather Roy about it and she knew nothing of it. We contacted our office and I am sad to say we had received no letter about a breach of privilege and in fact we did not get the letter until this morning. What I am concerned about is that we have had a Minister of the Crown make a very serious allegation against a member of Parliament. There is a requirement under Standing Order 395 to make the member aware of the allegation “as soon as reasonably practicable”. What we have had is this Minister running around and telling the media about the breach of privilege but not actually telling the MP. I have looked at the alleged breach of privilege. The Minister did not even bother to explain what the breach is. He has made a very serious allegation against a member of this House. He has not made it as required to you and made it available to the member but he has rushed off and politically made that allegation against the member in the media. I say that for a Minister of the Crown to be using such a tactic against an MP is disrespectful to you because you are the sole arbiter; it is disrespectful to MP Heather Roy; and it is certainly disrespectful to this House. I suggest you say that you expect MPs and Ministers of the Crown to follow proper process. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are two quite separate issues here. One is whether a member who is raising a breach of privilege matter may release that fact into the public arena. That—unfortunately in my view—has been a longstanding practice of members in this House on all sides over a considerable number of years. The second matter is whether a breach of Standing Order 395 has occurred. It would appear from what has been said that I think it has to be accepted that a breach of that Standing Order has occurred because as a matter of courtesy a member should really send a copy of the complaint— 
Hon David Parker 
: It was sent. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was sent? According to my colleague the letter was in fact sent. If that is so then the problem may lie in the office of the member who raised the allegation in Parliament. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The totality of Mr Hide’s complaint lies with a private communication to you Madam Speaker and that is how this kind of matter has always been handled. To come to this House and seek to litigate it in front of the public is simply wrong. The member should have been stopped in his tracks the moment he intimated to you that that was the cause of his complaint. The plain fact is that as every member here knows the Speaker would on such occasion write to whichever member is the subject of the complaint and ask that member what his or her side of the story is. A lack of notification is of course something that Mr Hide can raise with you then. But to get up posture and waste this House’s time should not be allowed. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters is making my point entirely. It should be—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member wants to interrupt now— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue with your point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: My point is precisely that it is a communication to you Madam Speaker. I can assure you— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. Would the member please be seated. You are relitigating what you have already said. I thank the member. The member knows quite well what the process is. He has followed it himself on many occasions. He makes an allegation of privilege he releases it to the media then I send it to the member who is involved—or it has already gone to the member. There has been nothing improper as far as I can see in the process that has been pursued. I will look at the matter—as I always look at these matters—after receiving a reply from the member. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just on this matter I wonder whether you might consider also giving the House a ruling on how the application of Standing Order 400(n) would play out in this case. It states that “reflecting on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House:” is a contempt of the House. That is exactly what David Parker has done. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not agree with that but I am happy to look at it and to give it due consideration for the member. But I think the member should be very careful if he wants a ruling on those sorts of matters. One would expect presumably a very narrow ruling. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Question No. 1 was put down to the Prime Minister and transferred to the Minister of Finance. Although I understand that the Government may at any time transfer a question I put it to you Madam Speaker that the Prime Minister announced this deal the Prime Minister was at the unveiling of those shiny red and grey trains this morning and the Prime Minister put out the press statement after the unveiling of the trains this morning. I think this is a clear situation where the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government has responsibility—or is it that she like every other taxpayer in New Zealand thinks we paid too much— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point of order. He will please be seated. The member has made his point. As the member made quite clear himself the rulings are that the Government can assign the question to whomever. The member will please ask his question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could turn your attention to Speakers’ ruling 137/6 then subsequently to Speakers’ rulings 138/3 and 138/5. Speakers’ ruling 137/6 talks about the Minister primarily responsible. The Prime Minister is the Minister primarily responsible in all matters relating to the Government. When it comes to Speakers’ ruling 138/3 the Speaker does have the option of requiring that the Minister who is asked the question does answer it effectively refuting that there should be a transfer in this case. Speaker’s ruling 138/5 states: “The Speaker would only refuse to permit a transfer of a question in very exceptional circumstances—”. We understand that that would of course be the case. But this is a major purchase. As Mr Key has said the Prime Minister was there to unveil the new livery colours of the new rail this morning. She has taken all the publicity on this. Surely it is not so exceptional that the Prime Minister might answer a question in the House about such a very large purchase or do we refer further to that Speaker’s ruling which suggests that the question might better go to another Minister who might know more about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 If it is to be taken that the Prime Minister is primarily responsible for all Government business presumably all questions should be addressed to the Prime Minister which would make question time interesting for the Prime Minister and rather boring for the rest of us within Cabinet. I am in fact the Minister who has been responsible for carrying the issue of negotiations with Toll. I am the shareholding Minister in all State-owned enterprises and indeed Crown companies. I am the Minister primarily responsible in this matter. I am delighted that the Prime Minister thought it was important enough to issue a joint press statement with me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 138/1. The reason for that ruling is that it is not for the Speaker or the House to determine the Minister who has responsibility for the question. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said the Government has assigned the question to the Minister it feels is responsible. It is not for the Speaker to determine who the responsible Minister is in any particular circumstance. That is why we have those rulings. 
Toll Holdings—Rail and Ferry Purchase 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the full and final cost of the Government’s purchase of Toll NZ Ltd’s rail and ferry business? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The total purchase price including transitional arrangements is $690 million as appropriated in Budget 2008. As is usual the purchase of a company involves taking over existing debt which in this case will be around $140 million. This includes an additional $18 million debt that has enabled the Government to obtain full ownership of all the buildings and to charge land and building rents at market rates from day one and to move to commercial rates for freight forwarding. 
John Key 
: What is the Government’s best estimate of the cost of purchasing or upgrading rolling stock that taxpayers will now have to fund? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated this morning a steady-state case—in other words no improvement in business—would involve roughly $80 million over the next 5 years. I will be taking a paper to Cabinet in a few weeks’ time probably at the end of this month with a longer-term more aggressive investment programme. Of course Toll was looking for some form of subsidisation of any investment that it might undertake into rolling stock in any case had it retained ownership. It needs to be remembered that the youngest locomotives in the fleet are already something like 20-odd years old. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What reports has he seen on New Zealanders who support the buy-back of the rail system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that most New Zealanders have responded with enthusiasm to the buy-back of the rail system. They know it is a vital system in terms of our future and that only Government ownership will guarantee the investment we need. Some have mocked this as misplaced nostalgia for the glory days of rail. With oil at US$140 a barrel I thought perhaps even Mr Key had caught up with the fact that life has changed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that such a buy-back would have been obviated had National not on 20 July 1993 sold New Zealand Rail not for $400 million but $328 million and given that it carried a $30 million debt; that National was the recipient of a promise of $200 million of capital development by the buyers—Fay Richwhite and Wisconsin Central Transportation—that did not happen and that ended up after recapitalisation driving the shareholdership down from $9 - plus to at its lowest 28c; and is this a case of gall or amnesia or both that such a question could be asked by National today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To be fair I think Mr Key was on his overseas experience at that particular point in time but in fact it is worth noting that this morning the Rt Hon Jim Bolger the new chair of KiwiRail did state very clearly in his speech there had been gross under-investment in rail over recent years by the private owners and there was a need to catch up in that regard. 
John Key 
: If the Minister of Finance thinks the National Government is to blame and got the decision wrong and lacked the business acumen when it sold the rail in 1993 why has it reappointed the person who was Prime Minister at that time to run the new rail service? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some of us are capable of learning from our mistakes. The member makes his so quickly in response to questions as he did this morning with the media he has not time to learn from them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that in 1993 the Booz Allen report stated that the railways were in that year making a profit of $36 million; that the rail was forecast in 1994 1 year later to make $100 million profit at which point National sold it off to its mates—National did not go to the market just directly to its mates on that fateful day 20 July— 
Hon Member 
: Dreadful! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is daylight robbery. It is dreadful. It is awful and that member is the kind of sucker who goes for it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member just ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case can the Minister please describe to this House why on earth he would put in charge someone who made that sale—namely Jim Bolger—for the same reason that Labour put him in charge of Kiwibank even though he sold the New Zealand bank the BNZ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can say is the Rt Hon Jim Bolger has proved to be a very successful chairman of State-owned enterprise boards and New Zealand Post and Kiwibank have been highly successful. I have every confidence he will achieve the same success for KiwiRail. 
John Key 
: What is the Government’s best estimate of the cost of upgrading the national rail network over the next 5 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have that figure in front of me. I know that ONTRACK has put out a figure of a $460 million investment over the coming period of years. That investment of course would be required whether or not the Government bought the rolling stock operation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister give us any reports that he may have received as to the costs to New Zealand of having sold New Zealand Rail back in July 1993 not in an open market or by any tenderer situation but exclusively to the then National Government’s mates in this case Fay Richwhite; and could he quantify what we may have lost as a consequence of that given that within 3 weeks the sharemarket showed an uplift of $188 million when the world markets heard about the value of New Zealand Rail after the buy-out? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have reports that enable me to quantify those numbers but clearly New Zealand Rail was sold for far less than its value at the time. Equally clearly what was demonstrated by the success of New Zealand Rail previously and its subsequent history is that State-owned enterprises are perfectly capable of being run as successful commercial enterprises. Private sector businesses in the infrastructure area do not always invest sufficiently in that infrastructure. 
John Key 
: Can Dr Cullen confirm that the reason the trains were painted red is so that they can be a constant reminder to the taxpayers of New Zealand that that is the colour of the ink that will be flowing through the books post this purchase? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member is so opposed why does he not come straight out and say that if National is elected it will sell KiwiRail? I ask John to say—to have the courage to get the bottle and to come out with it—that he is opposed to State ownership of the rail system. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister received any reports about parties in this House that predicted the failure of Kiwibank and how much money it would lose for the people of New Zealand; and is there any report at the moment on parties in this House that are saying similar things about the New Zealand rail and what is the likelihood that they are right on this? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We were assured by Mr Key and his associates that Kiwibank would be a failure; it has succeeded. We were assured that KiwiSaver would be a dud; it has succeeded enormously well. National members are telling us that KiwiRail will be a failure and I am sure that within at least 3 months Mr Key will be claiming full credit for the success of the takeover. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister of Finance accept that the Government has paid far too much for the assets of KiwiRail and in fact the happiest people today are not the taxpayers of New Zealand but the shareholders of Toll Holdings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Toll certainly needs to cash up—there is no question about that particular fact of life; there is no question the Government has paid a premium price. But the alternative is continuing to subsidise a foreign-owned company failing to invest sufficiently in basic infrastructure increased expenditure required on roading increased accidents on the roads and increased greenhouse gas emissions at a direct cost to the taxpayer. Which part of all of that does Mr Key not understand in his desperate desire to ensure that his mates in Merrill Lynch and elsewhere can make millions out of privatisation? 
Rodney Hide 
: If it is correct that rail was sold according to Mr Peters for $328 million and it was then run into the ground with no investment how on earth has the taxpayer been hit with a $690 million cost to buy it back plus $140 million in debt; or did this Minister get suckered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Having made the most profitable purchase according to the accountants of New Zealand history in one area certainly not. We bought the track for $1 and it is now valued at $10.5 billion. 
Rail—Reports 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s plan to revitalise New Zealand’s rail system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today 15 years after New Zealand’s rail system was sold off it is back in the hands of New Zealanders. The rail assets of Toll NZ have been transferred to the Government and will be managed by a transition board headed by a former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. The organisation is now called KiwiRail. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister received on the benefits of a strong rail system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At a time of rising concern over climate change and the huge increases in the price of petrol it is clear that rail has a big role to play in the future of our transport system. The fuel efficiency of diesel-powered trains is four times better than that of road transport used to carry the same load; electric trains when they can be used for freight are 10 times more fuel efficient. With the price of oil passing US$140 a barrel recently I think all members of the House know that it is time that something must be done to make the transport system more efficient—particularly more environmentally efficient. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister received on opposition to Government ownership of New Zealand’s rail system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that suggest that the Government purchase of the rail track was a bad idea; then later that it was always “a pretty sound idea”; that Government ownership of the rail network is “a dumb idea”; that rail is not at all superior to bus transport; that the Government should not be buying the rail network; and that any future Government should wait 3 years before selling it off. All of that collection of confusing reports comes from Mr John Key who must have thought he was being push-polled at the time he was being asked those questions. 
Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Changes 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What changes does he propose to make to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill to gain sufficient votes for it to pass? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 As I said in response to the same question last week the bill was reported back to the House in very good shape and talks with other parties are continuing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister plan to compromise on the phase-in dates for agriculture or liquid transport fuels in order to meet the Greens’ demands so as to have the emissions trading scheme go through? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Talks with other parties are continuing. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has the Minister seen on calls for delaying the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The  
NZ Energy and Environment Business Week 
 newsletter last week said: “National’s call for further delay is illogical. The issues have already been thrashed to death during the consultation and submission process. The implication from National is its version of the ETS will give business and farmers an easier ride. If this is so then inevitably a higher cost will fall on taxpayers. National is simply trying to have a dollar each way.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Government consider reversing the delays announced by the Prime Minister in order to meet the Greens’ demands in return for having the emissions trading scheme go through? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Talks with other parties are continuing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Do the talks with other parties include discussion about the compensation that householders might receive for the costs put on New Zealand households as a result of the emissions trading scheme and is the Government seriously considering the levels of compensation requested by New Zealand First? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have said repeatedly as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly and as the Minister of Finance has said repeatedly that is one of the issues that are being discussed with the support parties. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Government contemplating proposals that superannuitants receive compensation for the impact of the emissions trading scheme but other groups such as low-income families and beneficiaries do not because of the expense of compensating everybody? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Talks with other parties are continuing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm whether the length of time that it has taken to conduct talks with other parties means that in order to have the emissions trading legislation go through the Government will be required to jumble together a series of contradictory policies demanded by other parties whose objectives are directly contradictory with no attention to the practicalities of actually implementing the final messy policy? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to raise this point of order when Mr English mentioned New Zealand First in a prior question but I am raising it now: obviously the Minister has no responsibility for the policies of other parties but more particularly the member is misleading the House when he says that New Zealand First seeks to make this matter a tradable negotiable item. We think it is important in and of itself and by itself. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate. It is not a point of order although the member has obviously raised it as such. I listened very carefully. The member was not actually asking for a comment on others’ policies; he was asking what the Government was doing. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is out of order for the member to try to conduct his negotiations with the Government in the House. The House is for question time and for points of order that are related to order not debate—and not the negotiations which seem to be failing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Does the member have another supplementary question? 
Hon Bill English 
: I will ask that one again because it was not answered. Can the Minister confirm that the time that it is taking for the Government to get enough votes to pass the emissions trading legislation means that the Government will ultimately be required to put together a bunch of contradictory policies that reflect the divergent objectives of parties like the Greens and New Zealand First; and can he confirm that the Government is going about this process without paying any attention at all to the practicalities of actually implementing some of this contradictory policy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that the negotiations are of course happening in private and I will not comment on other parties’ positions in those negotiations other than to say that I find that the engagement with other parties on what is an important issue to be responsible. 
Rodney Hide 
: What does it say about the integrity of the process that the Government is following with this legislation and indeed about his ability as Minister that all parties bar ACT agree with the emissions trading scheme that the bill has been before a select committee which heard substantial submissions and made a thousand-odd changes and that now behind closed doors major planks of the legislation are still being negotiated and the Minister cannot even tell us what the parameters are? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have previously said to the House—and as I would have hoped the member now understood—the fundamentals of the emissions trading scheme are quite simple: it creates a marginal price for increases in emissions it avoids distortions between different sectors of the economy and therefore it incentivises lower-emission alternatives over high-emission alternatives. Those principles which are fundamental to the scheme remain intact. 
Obesity—Reports 
4.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent reports has he received on obesity? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The recent New Zealand Health Survey shows that the increase in the rate of obesity has slowed. After increasing between 1997 and 2002 the rate has remained static. However one in three adults is still overweight and a further one in four is obese. That is why this Labour-led Government continues to support many programmes to encourage physical activity and proper nutrition at all age levels and is why we are targeting obesity in the Public Health Bill. That is supported by many groups from the Cancer Society of New Zealand to Diabetes New Zealand but I note not by the National Party. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has he received any other reports on tackling obesity? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that states: “Basic attitudes to food have to change before the tide of overweight and obesity will begin to reverse.” Another report states that school students would get “free Coke and Fanta and pies and all that sort of stuff you know.” The first quote is from the National Party’s contribution to the inquiry on type 2 diabetes. The second quote is from the National Party Leader of the Opposition John Key in August of last year. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How do websites that cost $5.5 million to create and that encourage kids to interact with their computer screen actually get kids outside and running around using up energy; and is that not nanny State gone mad? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Although that might not be the way that you Madam Speaker or I or Murray McCully or Gerry Brownlee become inspired to get out and exercise the reality is that that does inspire young people to get out and become active. I quote from the website the words of one young person who said: “I learnt how to dance these neat moves. I told my friends about them and we practice.” The reality is that that website is indeed working. That is in complete contrast to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition on the radio this morning in making a new policy one based on slippery stats from slippery Nats I would have to say. His statement says: “Firstly the plan is literally to give them money and to measure them on a pretty low a low a trust model if you like—quite a high-trust model—in which we will simply say: ‘Here’s some more money. You can choose to spend it how you like.’ ”. That is the new National Party policy on fighting obesity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Would the Minister further see an announcement that performance-enhancing grants for Olympic athletes are to be withdrawn announced 6 weeks before the Olympics as something that would be drafted by a group of Australians rather than by people loyal to New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Indeed that is the kind of unpatriotic behaviour that we have seen from the National Party consistently in every area of policy in Government. It is not that the National members have many policies. The simple facts are that we get consistent slippery stats from slippery Nats and that is what we will see right through the campaign. 
Inland Revenue Department—Outstanding Taxes 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Does he have confidence in his department’s ability to collect outstanding taxes; if so what directions if any has he given when taxes are not paid in accordance with the law on goods and services tax? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Yes I do have confidence in the department’s ability to collect outstanding taxes and for that reason I have not issued any instructions or directions to the Inland Revenue Department. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue is responsible for administering the revenue Acts and is charged with collecting the highest net revenue over time that is practicable within the law and I expect him to meet that obligation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Referring to section 6 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 what was the solution presented by the National Party to the department in its dilemma over non-payment of GST in the 2005 election; and is he satisfied that its solution upheld the integrity of the tax system which is the subject of section 6 of the Act? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not permitted under the legislation to disclose the affairs of individual taxpayers. What I can say is that section 6 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 does impose obligations upon the commissioner with regard to the collection of revenue and he needs to do so mindful of the resources available to him at the time and also of the duties and the responsibilities of the taxpayer concerned. I would expect those obligations to have been followed in this case as with every other case. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that when National put legislation to the House to enable it to comply with the GST rules Parliament objected including New Zealand First but that New Zealand First then voted for retrospective legislation to make sure it did not have to repay to the taxpayer all the money it owed after the Auditor-General’s report? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On two counts is that not an inappropriate question by the member namely the Hon Bill English? Firstly it raises a different issue but secondly as a former Minister of Revenue he should know all about integrity and that is why he is embarrassed today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the question was within the Standing Orders. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not responsible for what happened in the House in the time that the member described but like him I do recall what happened and I am sure all members will draw their own conclusions. The key point is that the revenue Acts impose certain obligations upon the commissioner and taxpayers with regard to their responsibilities and my role is to see that they are met. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he concerned— 
Rodney Hide 
: Just pay it! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have paid it. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes we have—unlike the National Party and unlike as I will demonstrate very shortly that member! OK? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No would the member please be seated. Interjections do provoke disorder and we just saw an example of that. So I ask members to keep their interjections rare otherwise I will be asking them to leave the Chamber if they create disorder. Now will the member just ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned that no prosecution was brought against the National Party for its non-payment of $112000 of GST after it blatantly and knowingly overspent its State-funded broadcast allocation during the last election campaign; and what message does that send to the hundreds of small businesses— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Well that’s the pot calling the kettle black! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well here comes “Bob the Quitter”. Madam Speaker I am trying to ask this question and he is shouting out having ripped off the ratepayers of Tauranga to the tune of $12 million for a stadium. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. The only way we will get through this question is if it is heard in silence. Would the member please repeat it quickly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned that no prosecution was brought against the National Party for its non-payment of $112000 of GST after it blatantly and knowingly overspent its State-funded broadcast allocation during the last election campaign; and what message does that send to hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are chased up by the Inland Revenue Department daily due to overdue non-paid GST? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have a tax system that relies on fair compliance by all taxpayers. Clearly when any taxpayer or group of taxpayers fail to meet their obligations it not only creates a sense of unfairness within the system but certainly generates a feeling amongst other taxpayers that some people are getting away with things that they are not able to get away with. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that despite claims of an honest mistake the deputy leader of the National Party was the last Minister of Revenue when National was last in Government and the 2005 election was the seventh election since GST was introduced; did his department take this into account when it decided not to prosecute National over $112000 of unpaid GST; and is he confident that the public’s perception of the integrity of our tax system has not suffered as a result of this deceitful episode of one law for one group and another law for another group? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am happy to confirm that the Goods and Services Tax Act was passed in 1985 and that Mr English was the Minister of Revenue at the time of the 1999 change of Government. I cannot comment on what negotiations may have taken place between his party and the commissioner for the reasons that I outlined earlier on. The other point that I would make is that I do have a concern across the board about the integrity of our tax system and for that reason I am keen to see all taxpayers meet their legitimate obligations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that when the National Party came up with an arrangement to pay some money by way of a donation for a charity to Television New Zealand that payment attracted gift duty and has the National Party paid that gift duty yet? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As I have said in response to earlier answers I am not in a position to comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers and therefore I am not able to answer that question directly—nor frankly should I be. 
Electricity Generator Whirinaki—Diesel Use 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How many litres of diesel has the reserve electricity generator at Whirinaki used this year? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The generator at Whirinaki has used 35.285878 megalitres of diesel. For Mr Brownlee’s benefit each of those is bigger than a nanolitre by 1015. In practical terms that represents less than 1 percent of total generation this year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that on Tuesday of last week the Electricity Commission published a consultation paper in which it stated that it may need to spend another $165 million this year on using the Whirinaki generator just to keep the lights on and that that would treble its budget for this year; and can the Minister further confirm that the $165 million will be recovered from consumers so that Labour’s midwinter Christmas present to New Zealanders will be an increased power bill for everyone? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Madam Speaker— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it’s lower. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As Mr Mallard interjected the effect will be that the cost to consumers is lower because electricity funded in that way will have less of an effect on prices than the status quo. Of course the Whirinaki generator is being used this year. Last year it was not used at all—I think it was fired up on 1 or 2 days just for trial purposes—because we had lots of water. That is why one has reserve generation—for dry years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister recall telling the House a couple of weeks ago that the current spot price does not affect residential customers and that they should not expect increased power bills as Meridian Energy had predicted; if so can he now tell us how the levy of $165 million which will be met in large part by householders will lower their power bills? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that I said that residential consumers are not exposed to the spot price but of course the member is now ignoring the interests of commercial users some of whom are exposed to the spot price. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the level of Lake Hawea—whose sole purpose in the electricity system is storage—is currently at the very bottom of its resource consent range and that the guardians of the lake are extremely concerned about the environmental harm that will be created if the lake goes below the 338-metre level which has not occurred for some 26 years; and does he regard that environmental damage—[ 
Interruption 
] Do you want me to start again Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No continue. But would the member please desist from interjections. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the level of Lake Hawea—whose sole purpose in the electricity system is storage—is currently at the very bottom of its resource consent range and that the guardians of the lake are concerned that if it goes below 338 metres which it has not done for some 26 years considerable environmental damage will be done; and does he think it is acceptable for him as Minister to preside over that damage taking place when his Government talks so frequently about sustainability and protection of the environment? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I cannot confirm it as stated by the member. It is true that the level of Lake Hawea is close to the bottom of its normal operating range; none the less the terms of its resource consent that now apply that have long applied and that were approved and granted by the Environment Court state that in very dry years it can be drawn down by another small amount. Whether that happens remains to be seen. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Electricity Commission has also said it may need to spend a further $5 million to run a conservation campaign later in the winter and does this not mean that the commission has no confidence in the Minister’s continued assurances that there is little prospect of a crisis there is no need for a conservation campaign and everything will be OK? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is not yet clear how much of the funding that has been provided to the Electricity Commission will need to be drawn down because that depends upon hydro inflows between now and the end of winter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the overall picture for electrical power in New Zealand looks a bit like this: spot prices are the highest they have ever been lake levels are incredibly low thermal generation is producing 45 percent of our power needs the so-called reserve generator is guzzling millions of litres of diesel consumers are being told to cut back on their power use industry has already cut production we are reliant on an asbestos-ridden inefficient gas plant at New Plymouth and the Electricity Commission wants another $165 million from consumers to keep the lights on yet the Minister claims we do not have a crisis and says that we should not worry because the system is working? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In no particular order yes and no. 
Paid Parental Leave—Changes 
7.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What changes helping workers take effect today? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The maximum parental leave payment will increase from $391.28 per week to $407.36 a week from today. The minimum parental leave payment for self-employed people also increases from $112.50 per week to $120.00 per week before tax. Parents already receiving payments will automatically receive a higher payment from today. For the year ended 21 March 2008 over 22400 Kiwi parents received parental leave payments. Since the scheme was introduced in 2002 more than 130000 parents have received paid parental leave. I am glad the National Party has promised to abolish it. 
Darien Fenton 
: What other changes is the Minister supporting to assist workers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am supporting a raft of changes in the employment relations environment. These include entitlements to flexible working hours which are available today thanks to Sue Kedgley’s initiative; enhancements to protect casual and temporary workers; amendments to ensure the transferability of public holidays for shift workers; entitlements to meal and rest breaks; and entitlements to facilities and time for infant feeding where that is appropriate and reasonable. I find it quite interesting that the National Party has not figured out how it can support any of those changes. It is sad that it thinks that working people should just be ground into the dirt. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen the comment posted on the  
New Zealand Herald  
website today by Kim H from Australia who writes: “I had the misfortine of working for a couple of companies in NZ that refused to allow flexible working hours (along with a very rigid do-as-you-are-told" culture and they sucked. Invariably run by fearful short sighted management staff moral was low turnover high with everyone looking on job search sites during the day and a strong culture of blame. Typical NZ company unfortunately.”; and does he agree that that is yet further evidence that the new flexible working right which comes into effect today as a result of a Green Party member’s bill is sorely needed in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To the second part of the question yes. To the first part I have not seen it. But I have been reading the  
New Zealand Herald  
blogs today and there is a very good one about the man who says “Yes” when he means “No” “No” when he means “Yes” “Right” when he means “Wrong” and “Wrong” when he means “Right”. I recommend that people look at the political blog on the  
New Zealand Herald  
website today because it describes John Key very very well. 
Leaky Homes—Government Initiatives 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Does he stand by his answers in the House in February and March this year that taxpayers are getting value for money from the Government’s initiatives to fix the leaky homes problem and that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service is working well? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes but as always there is room for improvement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister contradict these earlier statements at last week’s Social Services Committee by admitting there were serious problems with the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and saying “I wonder whether they should all just go straight to the High Court.”; and does he now accept that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal has been an expensive flop? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Not surprisingly the member has taken out of context what was a very lucid dissertation on my part. The observation was made by the chair of that very committee that perhaps too many lawyers are involved; I presume that those are the ones acting on the instructions of local government who want to drive the complainants into the High Court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister simply explain then being so illicit as to— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Lucid! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister simply explain to the House what he meant by the statement “I wonder whether they should just go to the High Court.”? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Unfortunately my expertise does not stretch as far as that of the member on matters to do with the High Court. I will however point out that there is a trend: too many parties in particular those associated with local government are using lawyers in what should be a non-litigious process and they are making life difficult for the complainants. Those who do not use lawyers are enjoying expeditious consideration. I say to Mr Ryall who is hopping around like a bunny from burrow to burrow to keep quiet. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What moral authority does the Government have for damning councils builders and developers for employing expensive QCs to minimise its liabilities over leaky homes when this is exactly what the Government has done in spending over $5 million on QCs in denying any liability? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The lawyers currently representing local government and others are not employed by the Crown. The process that has been developed was developed as a mediation service with arbitrators being able to make binding calls. We expect parties to come with the spirit of reconciliation not ongoing adversarialism. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister justify the $110 million spent on weathertight homes resolution over the last 6 years when only 18 percent of claims have been resolved amounting to a cost of $110000 on the bureaucracy of processing each claim when the average settlement is only $70000; and would it not be far better to spend this taxpayer contribution on actually fixing the houses? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There are opportunities for homeowners to seek loans; there are opportunities for homeowners to use this service or to go in a different direction. There have been 6313 properties under consideration and a number of them remain in the process of being repaired. A number of homeowners have elected to go elsewhere. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister seen the estimates from Local Government New Zealand that $800 million is to be spent on litigation over leaky homes and the report by Otago University that states that over $474 million will be spent on health costs associated with leaky homes as well as causing an additional suicide each year and are these facts not sufficient for the Government to accept that a fresh approach that focuses on getting the houses fixed is required? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Let us recall the Don Hunn report: this problem is reflective of a systemic failure originating at a time when there were no rules and regulations adequately monitored or kept in check. Dr Smith is well aware of that; after all the party that he belongs to held sway unfortunately for that period of time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the consistency in the Government’s position when it has said over and over again that the problem of leaky homes is the fault of the previous Government and the 1991 Building Act—despite Labour having voting for it and George Hawkins saying that it was all Labour’s work—and the Government is also saying now that it was all the fault of councils and that the Government has no liability; where is the consistency? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I would direct the member’s attention towards the Sacramento decision and other High Court jurisprudence that states clearly that the parties facing liability are local government and a variety of other providers not the Crown. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it not a sign that this Government is tired and past it when after 6 years seven Ministers four legislative attempts and $110 million less than one-fifth of leaky home claims have been resolved under the resolution service when the Minister admits that claimants would be better off to go directly to the High Court and when the Government has no idea how to move forward and get the homes fixed? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I repeat yet again: where highly priced lawyers are used by local government to make the lives of these homeowners unnecessarily miserable then the homeowners are very unwise to expect to find an open cheque at central government that no doubt has been promised to them by that member. 
Sue Moroney 
: What progress has been made with resolving disputes and getting homes repaired under the scheme brought in by Labour to fix up a mess that happened under another Government? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Over half of all claims have now been resolved or closed. They are being settled within 17 weeks compared with 12 months under earlier administrations and 75 percent are settling at mediation which allows the parties to be in control. That shows that the Government’s intention of streamlining improving is working despite the best efforts of rapacious law firms. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Contrary to the Minister’s claims of 50 percent of cases being resolved I seek leave to table the Weathertight Homes Tribunal’s own statistics through to May 2008 showing that only 18 percent of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Public Transport and Roading—Budgets 
9.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Can she confirm that yesterday the Government announced in this year’s National Land Transport Programme a public transport budget of $325 million and a roading budget of $1.94 billion—in other words six times more for roads than for public transport? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes this year’s National Land Transport Programme allocates a record $2.7 billion for the development of New Zealand’s transport network. The programme provides 24 percent more funding for public transport than last year—more than double the 11 percent increase in funding for roads. However as well as the record $325 million National Land Transport Programme investment in public transport the Government is investing an additional $300 million in rail infrastructure. I think it is worth remembering that public transport funding was frozen at $40 million a year throughout the 1990s and has been increased 15 times by this Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not true that the Government is still on the biggest road-building binge this nation has ever seen and does that not show that this Government is in deep denial about the end of cheap oil? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No but the Government is committed to continuing to maintain and build roads in New Zealand because we need good roads for passenger transport as well as for our cars. I think it is important to remember where the revenue to pay for our passenger transport is being taken from: it is coming from the users of our roads. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister share with the House other advances that the Government has made and any other reports that she has seen in respect of public transport? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Today is a great day for passenger transport in New Zealand because today our country’s rail and ferry services were transferred back into Government ownership. The purchase of those services will substantially benefit all New Zealanders in terms of more energy-efficient transport of passengers and freight. I believe we can now make some strategic decisions on investment that are needed not only in terms of rail but also in terms of an overall sustainable transport system. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister confirm that for the good of our economic and social well-being this country needs to inject more capital into roading and there needs to be a balance between funding for roads and funding for other transport modes; does she believe that she has got the balance correct or is it correct that as every Australian knows we cannot have good public bus transport without good efficient public roads? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Deciding the priorities for expenditure of the National Land Transport Fund is very difficult because there are many more demands than there is money within the fund. So what we have done is give a reasonable balance between those priorities. We cannot stop building and maintaining roads; in fact the Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons acknowledged that recently at a forum that I was at with her—we will always need roads. But getting right the balance between roads and passenger transport is very important. We have committed more money to passenger transport than any other Government has done and we will continue to do so. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When will the Ministers of this Government get out of their Crown cars catch the bus to work as I did this morning and realise that the public transport system is groaning and bursting at the seams as owing to higher petrol prices people get out of their cars and try to catch a bus or train to work only to find that the system has been underfunded and under-invested in for many many years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest that the member first directs his anger at the lack of investment in passenger transport right throughout the 1990s. He may have noticed that I said the amount was $40 million a year. In the 9 years that Labour has been in Government there has been considerable investment in passenger transport and we are committed to doing more. So I feel a little aggrieved at the attack on our funding of passenger transport. I also say to the member that a large number of my colleagues walk to work; others including me have a bus ticket and have caught the bus to work. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the VIP car service that is available from Selwyn Street in Spreydon to the Beehive in Wellington? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not. But let us be straight about this: there are members of Parliament who travel here in VIP cars; there are members of Parliament who drive their own cars; there are members of Parliament who catch taxis; and there are members of Parliament who ride a bike or walk. Their means of transport is their choice. I do not think we ought to judge people’s choices in that way. We ought to encourage people to use other modes of transport whenever they can and that is certainly what we have been doing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister received any advice that there is a connection between the woeful underfunding of public transport in this country and the fact that five party leaders of five political parties in this Parliament are driven around each day in Crown cars and have no idea what it is like out there because they do not know what is going on with public transport? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very unfortunate assumption to make about party leaders in this Parliament. I think the member is drawing a long bow to say they do not know what is happening in terms of passenger transport. I can certainly speak for the Prime Minister who is very aware of passenger transport and is very aware of being responsible for the Northern Busway which was one of the biggest public transport projects ever funded in New Zealand and which was funded by this Government. I believe that many members in this House are very aware of the importance of public transport and I suggest we ought to work together on that issue rather than that member whipping up a political storm for political purposes. 
Surgery Elective Procedures—Discharges 
10.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement of 19 May 2008 that “in 2001/02 there were 199 discharges from elective surgery procedures per 10000 people. In 2006/07 that had grown by 207 people per 10000”; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes; but as the member was advised last Friday in reply to his written question there was a typo in the statement and the word “by” should have been “to”. It should have read that “in 2001/02 there were 199 discharges from elective surgery procedures per 10000 people. In 2006/07 that had grown to 207 people per 100000”. New Zealanders will see this as great news about our well-resourced public health system. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that this data only counts elective surgery for adults not children and that when children are included the elective surgery rates per head of population have hardly changed at all; and is this another example of what he calls a “factual misunderstanding”? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I have explained the typographical error. I confirm that those figures relate just to adults but even when we take into account elective surgery for children we see that the rate has gone up. I cannot trust any of the statistics from slippery National Party members. I am quite happy to go away and find out the details of any of the questions the member has and give him factual answers not the fiction that he keeps coming up with. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister confirm that notwithstanding Mr Ryall’s constant attempts to undermine the health system the number of elective surgeries has increased under this Labour Government; if so by how many? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes; last year alone 7000 more elective procedures were carried out than in the previous year. It is about time the National Party fronted up and told New Zealanders how deep the cuts would be to the public health system if National were ever given the chance to take the reins of power. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by other surgery-related figures he has released such as his claim that the number of patients getting a surgical first specialist assessment had doubled under Labour when he must have known he was comparing a half-year result in 2001 with a full-year result in 2007; and what sort of “factual misunderstanding” is that? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Again those are slippery figures from Tony Ryall. The reality is that in 2001 there were 123943 surgical first specialist assessments and in 2007 there were 241000. That is the kind of progress that we have made in the public health system and I know that under a National Government New Zealanders will be bound to John Key’s philosophy: “Well in the end it’s called the market. If general practitioners decide to charge a lot more then probably someone will go down the road.” That is his attitude to general practitioner fees and the public health system and it is the attitude of Tony Ryall as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the 2001 figure he gave is a half-year figure and that is why the figure doubled and that in fact there has been a complete flat-line showing that fewer New Zealanders get a first specialist appointment today than 9 years ago? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I quoted the figures that have been given to me and I do not for a moment believe any of the statistics that are put out by National Party members because they have to change them time and time again as they do with their policy and ideas. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What sort of factual misunderstanding is behind the Minister’s claim yesterday that hospital emergency departments are performing well for seriously ill and injured patients—triage 2—where he said: “Auckland is seeing these patients faster” when in fact it is taking longer and when some of our biggest emergency departments like Waitemata and Wellington are falling behind? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I do not accept the member’s claims for a moment. We are constantly barraged by wild claims accusations and attacks on the public health system by National Party members. They are not prepared to front up and say what National would do should it ever get into power. We know that National would undermine and dismantle the public health system and we would see a drastic reduction in all services. This Government has put billions of dollars of extra funding into the public health system and it is delivering more benefits to New Zealanders in every single area of its performance. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Minister talked about a “factual misunderstanding” last week did he mean that he misspoke; and what other “Clintonesque” excuse does he have for the fact that despite the doubling of the public health budget there has been hardly any increase in elective surgery or first specialist assessments for New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That member might call it “hardly any” but I say that 10000 additional elective surgeries is a huge improvement that has made a huge difference to the lives of at least 7000 New Zealanders. If that member wants to belittle that progress and what that has done for 7000 New Zealanders then God help us if he ever were to become Minister of Health. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table evidence that the dramatic increase in hospital operations in this country occurred in 1998 as a result of the New Zealand First budgetary initiatives which— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a press statement that used the figures the Minister used in his answer which was subsequently retracted— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Homeownership—Shared-equity Scheme 
11.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What Government initiative to help first-home buyers starts today? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Applications open today for the shared-equity pilot and the first loans will be granted at the end of the month. Eight hundred and thirty inquiries have been received to date and 470 information packs requested. Meanwhile the National Party is refusing to tell the public whether it intends to scrap the scheme. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How will the Government be delivering the shared-equity scheme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Government has signed up Kiwibank to deliver the scheme—the same Kiwibank that just like KiwiSaver and KiwiRail New Zealanders support and National opposed. 
Education Ministry—Performance 
12.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he satisfied with the performance of the Ministry of Education; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes but I am sure that it like all of us can always do better. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister support the Auditor-General’s report on the ministry’s monitoring of schools’ board of trustees and the Auditor-General’s claim that he “cannot be confident that [the ministry] is consistently identifying all boards at risk and that it is offering timely support to these boards.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Auditor-General’s report has been noted and the Ministry of Education is continuing to ensure that all boards are supported. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why does the Minister defend his ministry when despite it having information to identify schools having difficulties it sat on its hands for up to 5 years and did not intervene in three schools that were clearly in financial trouble and in dire need of the ministry’s help? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I would be interested to know which three schools those are. On getting that information I will ensure that the ministry follows it up 
Anne Tolley 
: Is it acceptable that a whole cohort of students can spend their entire time at a secondary school that is ignored by the ministry which knows full well that the school is in dire financial straits and negatively affecting the students’ learning but takes no action to arrest the school’s financial decline? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I would need the member to name that school so that I could understand clearly where she is going with this questioning. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister accept the Auditor-General’s conclusion that the ministry in many instances “took too long to put a statutory intervention in place to assist boards who were experiencing financial difficulties”; and will he apologise to the students of the three schools identified in the report as having been deliberately neglected by the Ministry of Education for up to 5 years? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In response to the first part of the question yes there could have been better delivery. In response to the second part of the question the member did not allude to those three schools being part of the report. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Has the Minister read the submission from the Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand to the Ministry of Education that identifies that funding to provide for children with learning disabilities is noticeably absent from the Schools Plus proposal; and does he agree with the foundation that “Schools Plus is fundamentally flawed the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for underperforming school leavers who are already disengaged and disenfranchised and have had years of inadequate support.”; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government officially recognised dyslexia in April 2007 and significant progress has been made in incorporating work on teaching students with dyslexia to read working with groups such as the Dyslexia Foundation of New Zealand and SPELD. We are spending $57.8 million on literacy and numeracy programmes which have been reviewed and now include a specific focus on dyslexia. As to the second part of the question Schools Plus is certainly about ensuring that youngsters stay in some form of education to the age of 18. That is the Labour Party’s policy. I ask National members what their policy is; I am quite certain that National has no education policy. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has he read the letter of May 2008 from the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft which stated that robust research suggested that the route to offending may start with classroom difficulties caused by undiagnosed learning problems; and when will the Ministry of Education consider that learning difficulties are a priority for education funding? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That same judge is very supportive of B4 School checks and of ensuring that something is proactively done about those teenagers who tend to drift out of school. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What assurance can he give the Principals Federation that additional resourcing will be invested in schools to help principals cope with the increasing demands of policy and of children with special needs and behavioural issues as well as administrative support principal development and other funding issues? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: All of those issues are well covered in the policy of the Labour-led Government. The Labour-led Government has made investing in New Zealand schools a priority. We spend 4.4 percent of GDP on compulsory schooling compared with the OECD average of 3.6 percent. We are well ahead of Australia which invests 3.5 percent of its GDP and the USA which invests 3.7 percent. Funding for education has gone up by 84 percent since 1999 under this Government. 
Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I had quoted two figures—199 and 207 per 100000. That should have read “per 10000”. It would have been a tenfold increase in both. 
Questions to Members 
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Report Back 
1.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: When will the committee report on the bill in my name the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee currently has a report-back date for the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill of 6 October 2008. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the chairperson confirm that that effectively means the bill will not be reported back before the House rises for the general election and will he further confirm that the reason for this is pressure of work within the committee on other matters not a desire to keep a contentious matter from coming back to the House pre-election? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the first part of the question can be answered but not the second. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I cannot confirm that. The committee will determine its work in accordance with the workload which is heavy at the moment but some of the bills we are working on are near conclusion. 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill to have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is objection. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 
. This amendment is outside the current scope of the bill although the current scope of it does refer in one instance to the Government Superannuation Fund. All that this amendment does is to provide that the rights in respect of Government superannuation of existing employees of Toll NZ who are within the Government Superannuation Fund are unaffected by the change in the ownership of that company. It does not of course open up the whole issue of the change in ownership; it is simply about preserving the rights of those existing members of the fund and follows previous legislation in this form. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Labour forgot about the workers. That is what has happened here. Labour bought back the railway and forgot about the workers. When New Zealand Rail was sold 15 years ago National did not forget about the workers. We made sure that the people who worked for New Zealand Rail at the time could remain as members of the Government superannuation scheme and keep their entitlements even though they were transiting into the employment of a purely private sector employer. It was quite straightforward. Workers who had their entitlements kept them because they had had them for a long time under New Zealand Rail. It was part of the deal. There was never any sense of insecurity for those workers. 
But Labour forgot about the workers. In fact it sounds as though Labour found that out only today after it had signed the deal. Labour goes around the country bleeding from its liberal heart about how fantastic rail is and about all the good things it will do for New Zealand but it forgot that the several thousand people who worked for Toll had entitlements under the Government superannuation scheme and that under the deal Labour has done the workers will lose their entitlements. As of now they have no entitlements; they are gone. Well does that not tell us just what Labour is up to? 
In fact it reminds the House about the original motives for the whole deal around rail. The workers certainly know it was nothing to do with the welfare of the employees of Toll because Labour has shown it was not interested in that. The original motivation for the deal with Toll was purely political. The House may remember Helen Clark at one stage some 6 months ago saying the biggest issue in election year was going to be State assets. Then Labour set out on a set of reckless and expensive political moves to try to make State assets an issue. It decided to intervene at the last minute in the Auckland airport sale. That destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of value. It has made the shares in that blue-chip company virtually unsaleable to anyone except the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Labour tried to turn that sale into a big political issue but that failed. It got headlines for a day or two but those went. So then Helen Clark rang up Michael Cullen said Labour needed to do something else and suggested that he buy back rail. On the urgings of the Prime Minister and the chief adviser in his office Dr Cullen then set out to buy back rail. The result of that is the expenditure of about $1 billion of taxpayers’ capital today—about $1 billion. 
From the way that the Government has gone about this particular purchase one would think that capital was endless. Well it is not. The New Zealand Labour Government cannot put enough classrooms on the site of schools in Queenstown near my electorate because it says it does not have enough money but it can find $1 billion at short notice when the economy is turning down to buy back New Zealand rail. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Unbelievable. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is unbelievable. The motivation was purely political. The Government is trying to dress it up now in terms such as sustainability and the enhancement of public transport. The fact is that the Government does not have any long-term plans for either of those things. The purchase of New Zealand rail or Toll does not change the fundamental fact that it will still need to be subsidised. As my leader pointed out today the trains are coloured red partly because Labour wants the advertising but also because that is the colour of the ink that will flow through the Government’s books as either Labour or National—whichever one is the next Government—struggles hard to recoup some of the taxpayers’ dollars that have been spent. 
When Dr Cullen was sitting down with his open cheque book with Mr Paul Little on the other side of the desk he forgot about the workers because he was so focused on giving Toll Rail everything it wanted for this particular asset—an asset that was not performing very well. The workers have every right to feel aggrieved because Dr Cullen instead of worrying about their entitlements and their security was sitting there with an open cheque book and what happened? Well he wrote out the cheque that Toll asked him to write out and it became bigger last night. Last night in the run-up to the deadline the Government decided to shell out another $18 million on top of the $840 million or so for the assets and the debt that it has already shelled out—another $18 million to actually buy out of a promise it had made in the original deal. In the original deal the Government told Toll that it could have rent-free access to particular warehouses around the rail system and that it could have cut prices on our rail system for the Toll-owned trucking company. Having made that undertaking earlier on Dr Cullen yesterday spent $18 million to $20 million on buying out of that promise. 
That adds up to a figure that is getting towards $900 million for the purchase of New Zealand rail. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion being debated here is specific and I believe that the speaker is going well wide of that motion. The motion is about a Supplementary Order Paper and I ask you Mr Deputy Speaker to direct the member to stick to the debating point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is an interesting intervention from a Government that is clearly embarrassed by the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper is here at all. I read it earlier this morning and it is entirely consistent with the whole purchase as Mr English is pointing out. The member across the other side of the House does not seem to understand that if there had not been a purchase if there had not been neglect of the workers and if there had not been a failure in the negotiations around this particular purchase or initiative by the Government—not that it is a great initiative I have to say—then we would not be here having this debate. So it is perfectly reasonable that the House consider why this Supplementary Order Paper has to be here. 
After all the sale is a straight commercial sale—or so we thought. But now we find out that the entitlements those workers have had for literally 15 years have somehow been taken off the table. None of those workers right now have the cover they were guaranteed by a National Government 15 years ago. Michael Cullen has taken it away from them. This is about putting it back on the table—about making it legal for the scheme of arrangement that was put in place in 1993 to continue. To suggest somehow that there should be no recital of the history that there should be no consideration of the negotiation and that there should be no questioning of the initial decision by the Government to make the purchase is an utter nonsense. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Brownlee and I thank Sue Moroney for raising the matter. I ask the Hon Bill English to continue. I tend to agree with Mr Brownlee. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The point is pretty obvious. If the Government is doing a transaction with Toll then the interests of the workers one would have thought would be something that the Labour Government would take into account. [ 
Interruption 
] That is the point I was coming to. What about all the protections Labour says it has put in place as it goes around the country—all the things it says it has done for workers? It has passed vulnerable worker legislation and flexible working hours legislation and it goes around telling everyone it has put up the minimum wage and has encouraged collective bargaining. It has had 9 years to put in place protections for workers yet here we have a large group of workers some of whom are well paid but many of whom are not very well paid who are suddenly vulnerable not to a transaction that someone else is doing but to one that the Government is intimately involved with. That tells us something does it not? 
Whenever the Government is talking about other businesses it is very keen to make sure that workers have widespread protection and businesses and other workers simply have to carry the costs that are imposed by more legislative entitlements. But when the Government is doing its own business transactions it forgets about the workers and overlooks their welfare and security then at the last minute—or after the last minute—expects Parliament to turn round and correct the fact that it has paid no attention to the people who are the heart of the Toll business. I invite the next Government speaker to get up and tell us why the protections that Labour says it has put in place over the last 9 years for workers’ entitlements around business sales did not apply in this case because that is the only reason we need this legislation. I would have thought if there are issues here about vulnerability and entitlements that the frameworks Labour has put in place would protect these people. 
The workers in Toll have learnt the hard way that Labour has long forgotten about their genuine interests. This Government spends more time on trying to talk about who does National’s polls than it does on the facts that the economy is turning down that people are being sacked every day because businesses are running out of money that the Government is the only part of the economy that is actually still growing and that oil prices are $140 a barrel. And in that sense we are with the Greens. This is something on which we do agree with the Greens. The Government’s allies got up today and said it was time that Ministers got out of their BMWs and found out what was going on in the real world. Well I bet the workers of Toll who have built up 25 and 30 years of superannuation entitlements that are now gone would also like Annette King the Minister of Transport to get out of her BMW and find out what is going on in the real world. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister should get up and tell us. She is the person responsible as Minister of Justice for the Electoral Finance Act—an Act that will stop these workers campaigning for their rights unless they register as a third party because they would have to spend over $12000. Annette King should get up and tell us why she should be cruising around in a BMW and be so out of touch with what is going on in the real world that she has supported the Labour Government in buying back New Zealand’s rail company and leaving the workers stranded. 
The Government has said it encourages savings and looks after workers. It has deserted workers it has forgotten their interests and it has put their savings at risk. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think the points raised by Mr English should be well understood by the wider public because here we have a Government that literally for months has been running around the country saying how wonderful it is that it is buying back New Zealand rail. It has neglected the fact that New Zealand rail was actually not going anywhere any time soon; New Zealand rail was always going to be in New Zealand. Nobody who was operating it could pack it up and take it away. The previous owners had no choice other than to continue operating it. The problem was that the Government in taking over the rail track decided to put a huge value on it. 
Today we heard Michael Cullen crowing about the fact that the railways were bought for a dollar and are now valued at over $10 billion. But that is the problem. You see poor old Toll was asked to pay a rental on the tracks that reflected that $10 billion value. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members laugh at me for saying “poor old Toll” but that is exactly what the Government did and I will come to that in a minute. Toll was encouraged or required to pay a track rental that reflected a return on that $10 billion. They said: “We can’t do it. We can’t make the rail system in New Zealand work if we have to pay rent on those tracks when you’ve put a value of $10 billion on them.” They sold them for a dollar the Government made them $10 billion in value and Toll said: “What are you doing? This is not going to work.” Negotiations went on and on and finally the Government said: “Poor old Toll. We have to help them out. We’ve put them in a dreadful position so we’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse.” They started talking about the numbers. We heard it would be $600 million then $700 million. Toll said it was worth a billion. These numbers get so big that we almost lose sight of what it is. Finally today we heard that $690 million - odd has been paid to Australian shareholders of Toll because the Government obviously felt sorry for them. There can be no other reason. There will not be one extra train one extra track or one extra freight load taken as a result of today’s change in ownership. 
All we are seeing today is a change in ownership a liability back on the New Zealand taxpayer and further a new set of colours for the trains and the rolling stock. Some people unkindly said today that it was the Labour Party colours painted on them. I think Mr Key was far more accurate when he said it was a graphic representation of the ink that will run across the Government’s books as a result of this particular purchase. In fact the red and the grey livery of the new KiwiRail are the old colours of the Progressive party which was once here in the House. You see I think the Government is trying to say that this is a progressive move. 
Dr Cullen also said to the House today that he thought that New Zealanders including Mr Key might have noticed that the oil price has gone up. Well we certainly have. But how is that helped by the purchase of this organisation today? The fact is that those trains and those ferries run on diesel so the one thing that everyone needs to be sure of and needs to know for certain is that as a result of the purchase today not only will New Zealanders using those services pay more because of the cost of operation but they will pay a lot more because of the cost of capital invested in those businesses—far in excess of what is reasonable and realistic. 
Then today the appalling situation arose whereby Dr Cullen said he has just discovered that the superannuation entitlements of many of the workers employed in Toll are suddenly lost. Those workers have had 15 years of protection since that rail company has been in the private sector. It returns to the Government today and those entitlements are lost. So we have this little Supplementary Order Paper being appended to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It is quite out of the scope of that bill but nonetheless it is thrown in there so it can be got though. The question I have for Dr Cullen is this: what would have happened when he found out about it this morning if there had not been the happy coincidence of this bill being on the Order Paper this afternoon? The reality is that those people’s entitlements would have sat in abeyance until the Government found a bit of time to try to enact some retrospective legislation to put it right. What it really tells us is just how little the current Government cares about working New Zealanders. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They could have done it in the organised crime bill—that’s next. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague says—if we consider how this process works and what we are talking about here today—the Government could in fact have come to the House with this Supplementary Order Paper and attached it to the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill which is next but that would be too close to home because it is almost an organised crime for the Government to have gone out and spent the money it has on this particular organisation knowing that it will never be able to make a single penny out of it. 
We of course will not want to see workers who have served Toll and New Zealand Rail for all that time penalised. That is our record. [ 
Interruption 
] Darien Fenton over there one of the doyennes of the union movement in this country was one of those who in 1993 made the Government aware of the problem—and the National Government did not quibble. There was no quibbling at all. The entitlements that people had accumulated over all those years were simply transferred with them. They were able to stay in the Government Superannuation Fund as they worked for the successive private entities that owned that organisation. It is such an irony is it not I say to Ms Fenton that we are here in the House today having discovered that a Labour Government was the Government that took those entitlements away from those workers? 
There is another bill on the Order Paper that the Government could have attached this particular Supplementary Order Paper to and that is the Judicial Matters Bill but that also would have been somewhat of an irony given the extraordinary lack of judgment that the current Government has shown not only in making the purchase in the first place but in failing to recognise the need to protect workers. How many times have we seen Labour members stand up in this House and talk about vulnerable workers? How many times have we heard them talk about the economy not delivering to hard-working New Zealanders about the benefits of KiwiSaver and about the minimum wage that should be paid to New Zealanders—all those things that engender the idea that Labour cares deeply about workers in this country? Then Labour has one very clear symbolic opportunity and it forgets about workers. 
What really amuses me is that we know what would have happened here. As they were going through that negotiation Dr Cullen would have been going down to the Labour caucus room on a Tuesday and giving them a bit of an update on how it was all going and not one of them—not one of them—would have asked the question: “What about the workers?”. I would have thought Parekura Horomia would say: “Wassup Dr Cullen?” but no nothing—not a squeak not a murmur not a mention. So here we are in the House this afternoon having to approve a jacked-up process to try to protect the workers of New Zealand—in particular the workers who have transferred from New Zealand Rail to Tranz Rail to Toll Rail and now to— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Boo hoo! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is old Parekura Horomia over there pretending he is crying. He does not care. He did not care through months and months of caucus meetings and Cabinet meetings and Cabinet committee meetings and then ultimately when sitting in the Cabinet room at the top of the Beehive making the decision. He did not care. Well we care. We think the workers are entitled to this but we want to make sure that all New Zealanders know that this is a day that Labour was exposed as being a party that could not give a tuppence about workers in this country. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I think it is important to make clear to those who are listening to the House today just exactly what sort of a position this House has got itself into. When we look at the Government orders of the day the business before the House we see that order of the day No. 1 is the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. So people who were expecting the House to move on to that straight after question time will be surprised to hear that we are having a debate that does not seem related to that legislation at all. That is because Dr Cullen tried to seek leave to stick a very shabby little Supplementary Order Paper a one-pager in as part of that bill. He thought he could just come down here get the leave of the House and stick in something that as my colleague Gerry Brownlee says is not even slightly related to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. Actually as Gerry Brownlee also said Dr Cullen was exceedingly lucky that that bill was on the Order Paper at all because the next one down was the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill the next one was the Judicial Matters Bill and the one after that the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. It could have been that the Toll workers got their superannuation protected through the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill with a Toll Supplementary Order Paper attached to it. 
I want to go back and check some of the history of this. I can tell the House that I was around then; I was a member of Cabinet at the time of the sale of New Zealand Rail back in 1993. I was part of the Cabinet that did it. But I want to ask some questions first of all. 
Sue Moroney 
: Disgraceful! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: “Disgraceful!” says Sue Moroney. That is really interesting. Let me ask Labour a couple of questions. Did Labour vote for the bill that sold New Zealand Rail? There is a good question. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did they? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I know the answer. Let me just check this because Sue Moroney said that it was disgraceful. Did Labour vote for the bill that privatised New Zealand Rail? I cannot hear any answers. I will ask the question a third time. Sue Moroney must know. If what went on back in 1993 when we sold New Zealand Rail for $370 million was so disgraceful I assume that Labour voted against it. Is that right? I ask Sue Moroney whether Labour voted against the legislation. She has to help me with this one. You see Labour will not answer the first of the hard questions because it actually voted for the legislation; it voted for the sale of the railway line. 
Now we come to something more interesting. Rodney Hide made a great point and members should listen to how this works. The Government sold New Zealand Rail for $370 million and I remember the issue about the workers their superannuation and their entitlements. It was a major issue. What is the name of the railway workers’ union? I cannot remember what the acronym is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: EPMU. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it is not EPMU. It is the maritime and rail something. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: The Rail and Maritime Transport Union. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The Rail and Maritime Transport Union. I can remember that the union that represented the workers was very very vociferous at the time. I am interested to note that it has not been heard on this issue. I have not heard the union saying anything on the issue this time. But at the time it said that this would be an outrage to its workers because they would be sold into private hands and would have all those long-service Government superannuation entitlements. We thought that the union was right and we thought that the point was exactly fair and stuff was put into the legislation to protect those workers—as it should have been. That was 15 years ago at the time of privatisation. 
Let me go through Rodney Hide’s reasoning today because I thought this was a cracker. We sold New Zealand Rail for $370 million—that is what the owners bought it for. Then we hear from Winston Peters and Labour that the private sector then took this asset and ran it into the ground. The private sector asset-stripped it and ran it into the ground. So the private sector bought it for $370 million then took everything out and ran this thing into being almost a shadow of its former self until it was almost of no value at all. Does that not beg the question of why one would then buy it back for close to $1 billion? It has been bought for $690 million plus there is $120 million of debt so that comes to $810 million plus there are some other payments to take account of. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Commercial leases. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes the commercial leases and so on—it is the thick end. Let us go with $900 million. But let me go through the logic of New Zealand First again. We sold it for $370 million and the private sector then asset-stripped it tore it to shreds and made it worth nothing. And the Government is buying it back for $900 million! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Without the trucking company. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is right. Gerry Brownlee reminds me that the actual jewel in the crown of the business—in fact the only part of it that is really profitable and a great little bit—is the trucking operation. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Who got that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well Toll has kept that. We have been done over a few times by the Aussies with the underarm bowling incident and the single aviation market. But we have never been done over by the Aussies like this—they must be back at the headquarters right now in fits of laughter. The question I would like to ask Labour is why this needed to happen at all. Would the railways have just gone away if the Government had not bought it? Would Toll have just said that that was it that it could not keep doing it and that it would give up? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We’ll pack it up. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: We will pack it up. Well it might have taken its train set but it would have been quite a good idea to let it do that. It could have bought some new trains in at a better price and not paid all the legacy costs surrounding it. So that question really needs to be asked. One could have started “Rail Two” or whatever one wants to call it almost straight away once the Aussies had walked off in a fit of pique. But no this Government decided to pay top dollar—actually when one takes the trucking operation out of it and everything else it is more than top dollar. The one thing that Labour keeps crowing about almost as a sort of mantra is that it is the party of the workers. If Labour were the party of the workers it would have been talking to the people from the Rail and Maritime Transport Union and telling them not to worry because it would look after their workers. Labour would have told them that when the deal was done it would make sure that all the entitlements privileges and all the stuff that they carry from history would be protected. 
Suddenly we get to the day after the deal is done—it was done yesterday 30 June and agreed to as of midnight last night. The big announcement occurs this morning and suddenly it is a case of “Oh dear!”. Labour voted for the sale to privatise the railways it openly admitted that an asset worth $370 million had been run into the ground and then it bought it back for $900 million. And that was without the trucking operation which was basically everything that was of value in the operation. Suddenly the people whom Labour supposedly represented the workers missed out altogether. 
I say to the House—and my colleagues Bill English and Gerry Brownlee have made this clear—that we will not stop this; we will not vote against Supplementary Order Paper 211 even though attaching it to a bill like the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill will have people in the future sitting and scratching their heads. People who are looking at legislation in the future will ask what on earth was going on on that day that somehow an instruction to the Committee in respect of a Supplementary Order Paper had to be moved because it was not accepted by leave it did not comply with any Standing Order in terms of being within the spirit of the original bill. People will ask how that happened. 
Hopefully historians will say that the reason was simple: Labour in spite of all of its massive dealings in the media and all of the coverage that Michael Cullen received about what a wonderful idea it was to be buying back the rail operation had not thought for one minute about the workers at Toll who would be coming into the State sector. It is really important that members of the public and members of the railway union understand that when the National Government privatised the railway back in 1993 it made sure that those privileges protections rights and historic coverage of all of the Government superannuation were covered and protected when it moved to the new entity. Not so the Labour Government: in its race to buy an asset that was not worth even half of what it paid for it it could have told Toll Holdings that it would give it $370 million which is basically what was originally paid for it—take it or leave it. I can tell members that Toll would have taken whatever price was going. 
The whole sale process is best summarised by one of the best cartoons I have ever seen in the  
New Zealand Herald.  
It is a split cartoon—on one side is the Phoenix Mars Lander and on the other side is a railway train off the tracks facing side on with its wheels fallen off. On the left-hand side we have what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration got for $430 million for the Mars Lander and over on the right-hand side we have what Dr Cullen got for $690 million. 
This is a very symptomatic shoddy little piece of legislation that shows that Labour thought nothing about workers; and I am surprised at the union: next time I see the Rail and Maritime Transport Union before our select committee I will be asking its members why they were so vocal at the time when National was looking to privatise but why we did not hear anything from them in the media about why the Government was not taking count of their privileges their rights and their protections. It is just a little too late a little too little and very disingenuous. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I remind everybody that today is 1 July. Supplementary Order Paper 211 which was brought to the House by Michael Cullen states that it will affect—and only a Labour Government would do this—“any person who immediately before 30 June 2008 is employed by the company” which is Toll NZ. I will come back to that point. So Labour not only forgot about this matter but is doing something about something that happened yesterday. 
When Labour members put down patsy questions in the House today they did not seem to remember even at that stage the Toll NZ workers. The Labour member Darien Fenton asked the Minister of Labour what changes to help workers took effect today. Well National members could have told her that the changes that took effect today would have resulted if it were not for the cooperation of the House in the Government Superannuation Fund contributions of thousands and thousands of workers from Toll NZ not continuing. 
What sort of Labour Government is this? Its members stand up in this House day after day and claim that Labour is the only party to look after the workers. Well I have bad news for those members: they seem to look after the Australians better than they look after workers here. After all as my colleagues say the Government has happily handed over what we now know is $800 million—$600 million - odd in cash and $180 million of debt—to the Australians. The Australian shareholders are actually very happy that someone is prepared to pay an inflated price for their shareholding in Toll NZ. 
Supplementary Order Paper 211 is very interesting. It is supposed to become part of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill which I am looking forward to debating. I thought the debate would be centred on the regional fuel tax all sorts of Government policy statements and national and regional roading transport project planning but suddenly we are landed with a Supplementary Order Paper that is quite strange. I will take the public through its provisions. It is to do with ensuring that the Government Superannuation Fund contributions of workers who until yesterday were employed by Toll NZ but today are employed by KiwiRail continue. 
It is interesting to note the way that the Government will have that happen. New clause 41(1) states that any person employed by the company is “deemed to be an employee in the Government service so long as that person continues to be an employee of the company.” Interesting things happen in Parliament; it is suddenly deemed that for the last 9 years those workers continued to be employees of the Government service rather than employees of a private company! New clause 41(4) states in relation to employees of the company who are contributors to the Government Superannuation Fund that the “controlling authority in relation to those employees means the company’s board.” Suddenly a Crown entity is set up and the Supplementary Order Paper tells us apparently that its board of directors should be treated in the same way as the board of a private company. So with this piece of paper people who are actually employees of a private company can be deemed to be employees of a Government service and a board of a private company can be deemed to be the same as a board of a Crown entity. I wonder who the top advisers are who can dream up changing people’s status with just a simple piece of paper. 
On the one hand Labour members try to blow their own trumpets by claiming that on 1 July all sorts of legislation comes into force—flexible working hours and whatever—and on the other hand they suddenly realise that a quite large number of workers were totally forgotten in all the intense burning-the-midnight-oil negotiations involving the Minister of Finance and Toll NZ. It is quite interesting to reflect on that because some commentators have said of Dr Michael Cullen’s role in the “Treelords” negotiations that he is the only member of the Labour team who not only is capable of seeing the overall picture but actually has the mana to pull together all the details and to make sure that the various parts of the machinery fit together. Well in the light of that compliment—that he is the only Government member who is capable of making sure that every little detail falls into place—one has to ask how he could overlook thousands of employees of Toll NZ. 
Another question needs to be raised—and National members will raise it. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee constantly meets with union delegates who come in front of the select committee and make statements about their looking after the interests of their members. I wonder what happened to the union representatives from Toll NZ—the ones who looked after the railway workers. Did they remind Dr Michael Cullen? Did they ever raise the issue with the Labour Government? Were they ignored? I would be interested to see a Labour member take a call to enlighten us as to when the omission occurred and who discovered that the workers were the only ones to be forgotten by the Labour Government during those intense negotiations. Government members always proclaim that they are looking after the workers. I want to know when the omission was discovered who reminded the Minister of Finance of this huge omission and how the Labour Government managed to produce the Supplementary Order Paper. Usually when National members ask for a technical amendment etc. we are told that there is not enough time to put anything together. When the Labour Government wants something done in a hurry somehow the advisers and the technical draftspeople can always be counted on to put it through. 
I say that today is a day of shame for the Labour Government which claims it is the protector of the workers because the workers were the ones who were forgotten in this golden handshake deal. The Government is kind to the Australians only rather than the Toll NZ railway workers. But National will cooperate because we would not want to see the workers suffer just because the Labour Government forgot about them; we will support Supplementary Order Paper 211. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are here this afternoon debating the motion on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that under instruction the Deputy Prime Minister has moved. It is a serious matter that needs worthy attention of the House particularly when Labour members bestow upon us the view that they are the ones who look after workers’ rights. Well you have heard some contribution from this side of the House this afternoon but we would like to make further contribution on Supplementary Order Paper 211 because it is very important. If you could Mr Deputy Speaker please look at the Standing Order I think it is 137(3) to do with moving a closure motion which states it has to be reasonable to do so. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 We have had six calls now on this motion. The last five calls have all been from the National Party. There is no debate occurring on this motion. The National Party has said it supports it and I would like you to take that into account Mr Deputy Speaker. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Before you rule Mr Deputy Speaker I think there is a very serious principle at stake here and that principle is the right of the workers to be heard. I know it is a delicious irony that this comes from a National MP but members of the Government who thump the table time and time again in defence of workers are not prepared to stand up and debate this issue. I think we owe it to the workers of New Zealand to debate this issue fully. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Thank you for raising those matters. It is true that this debate is a restricted debate; it is as to whether the Committee should have the power to consider this matter. The debate should not wander too widely. It certainly does not extend to the principles the objects or the provisions of the bill that is before the Committee. It is not relevant that all of the speakers after the person who introduced the motion happened to come from one party; it might even show that that party is very interested in this matter. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for your very well-considered judgment. I initially was not going to take a call on this debate when I came to the House because like my colleague Maurice Williamson I thought I was coming to listen to a very reasoned debate on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. But I have sat through these proceedings and I have to say that I am absolutely appalled by what is transpiring here. As I said in the point of order that I raised it is a delicious irony that it is a National member of Parliament who is standing up to defend the rights of workers in this country. I pose this question to the House: what is the most often trumpeted core business of the Labour Party? 
David Bennett 
: What is it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is supposedly looking after the rights of workers. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does it do that? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well it did not do that. Here we have a test of Labour’s integrity a test of whether it will actually put its money where its mouth is and protect the workers. At the last hour—in fact at the last moment—we have in this House a Supplementary Order Paper trying to protect the superannuation entitlements of Toll’s workers because the Government in its haste to buy this organisation forgot about a fundamental principle the protection and the rights of workers in this country. My colleague Pansy Wong not only stated that the Government had forgotten about the rights of New Zealand workers but also claimed—I think not quite rightly—that it had actually looked after the rights of Australian workers. I take issue with that because it did not even look after the rights of Australian workers—only of Australian shareholders. This money has gone straight into the pockets of Australian shareholders and the Government says to hell with New Zealand workers. That is what I am so appalled at and why I felt compelled to get on my feet and take a call. 
My colleague Gerry Brownlee also gave some background as to why this Supplementary Order Paper had been introduced to the House at the eleventh hour. Simply the Government had valued the rail network at something like $10 billion. The board of Toll must have looked at their business and asked what type of return on asset it was getting in New Zealand. The answer would have been with that asset backing a very poor return. So the decision at board level would have been to try to sell the business. But I can imagine the conversation then going along the lines that it was all very well to want to sell the business but they just would not find anyone silly enough to buy it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Connell you have had almost 4 minutes of introductory remarks. I will say again that this is a procedural motion and it is a narrow debate. The only matter under debate is whether the Committee should have the power to examine and adopt this Supplementary Order Paper. It is not about the rights or wrongs of superannuation and it is not about the purchase of KiwiRail. Those matters can come into it in a small way but the thrust of your argument which is undermined a bit by the willingness of the Opposition to actually support this motion should be why the Committee should not have the power to examine this Supplementary Order Paper. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I thank you for your guidance Mr Deputy Speaker. In my defence I say that I wrote down points that were raised in the debate. I was really just expressing some opinion on those points which you have actually already ruled on. So I think without questioning your decision that I am within the Standing Orders in raising some of these issues. 
With your agreement Mr Deputy Speaker I will just finish the point I was making then address this issue in particular. My issue was whether the board could find an organisation that would buy Toll. I think the debate that must have gone on in the Toll boardroom was that they thought they knew a party that might be gullible enough to do so. When that proposition was put to the Government I think it was in such haste to sign up that it forgot about the fundamental rights of the workers in this country—that is the protection of their entitlements which for 15 years had been enshrined in legislation. I think that is fairly fundamental. 
I raise this issue because I think it goes to the heart of public confidence in the Government. I say that for this reason: if the Government purports to have as its main platform the protection of workers and workers’ rights and then falls at the first hurdle I ask what confidence the people of New Zealand can have in a Government that would do that. 
With those things said my contribution was simply to make those points. As I said earlier I was appalled at what I was hearing. I thank you for the opportunity to make those points because I think another member of the National Party had to get up and argue to protect the rights of workers because the Government has been found woefully lacking on this particular issue. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Not quite. I take it Mr Bennett that you will talk about why the Committee should have the power to consider the Supplementary Order Paper and if it thinks fit adopt it. All future contributions must relate to that or I will take the question. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 We have been asked to consider a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by the Minister of Finance at a very late hour in the transaction of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Very sudden. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes it is a very sudden Supplementary Order Paper coming before the House just today. Mr Deputy Speaker you are quite right to say we need to debate the relevance of that Supplementary Order Paper and whether it should be debated or should in fact be passed through the House today. The reason why it is so important to debate whether we accept Supplementary Order Paper 211 relates to the nature of what it represents. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is the nature? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This Supplementary Order Paper represents a mistake made by the Minister of Finance. The Supplementary Order Paper tries to rectify a mistake made by the person whom the Labour Government entrusts with the financial management of this country. It deals with the mistakes of the Labour Government. 
There are many mistakes of the Labour Government with regard to the Toll purchase and we can go through them at length. But the mistake we are looking at today is a fundamental mistake. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Who does it affect? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is fundamental in that it affects the workers of Toll. It affects all workers in New Zealand as well because it shows that the Minister of Finance does not consider their needs to be imperative in any deal that he does. He is not concerned about New Zealand’s workers. He has said on TV that he just wants to hold on to power. That is what he is about. So it is important that we debate Supplementary Order Paper 211 in this House and that we continue to debate it because it represents the real intention of the Minister of Finance. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Or a lack of intention. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes—or a lack of intention. The Minister’s intention is not to do what is best for New Zealand; his intention is to do what he thinks will win him another election. 
The Minister of Finance has made a big mistake because in trying to buy back an asset that did not need to be bought back he has made a few fundamental errors. He did not think about the debts that he would incur. He did not think about the fact that he was giving preferential rights to certain land to Toll’s trucking operation a decision that he has now had to reverse again. He did not think about the fact that he is leaving the workers out in the cold—which again he is trying to reverse with this Supplementary Order Paper. What does that tell us about our Minister of Finance? It tells us that he is not a very smart business person. It tells us that as soon as he walked in the door of Toll Holdings to negotiate with it that company was licking its lips. That is why we need to look at this Supplementary Order Paper. 
This Supplementary Order Paper shows the deficiencies of the Minister of Finance. It shows the deficiencies of the Labour Government as well because Labour is a party that is based on the notion that it knows better than anyone else. It thinks that it knows what is right for New Zealanders. The Labour Government does not give New Zealanders the ability to make their own decisions in life. Labour takes New Zealanders’ money and then distributes it. It redistributes that money under its guiding ambitions. 
Sue Moroney 
: Stick to the point of the debate. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The point we are talking about is that Labour entrusted the Minister of Finance to undertake a major commercial deal which he stuffed up and this Supplementary Order Paper tries to deal with his stuff-ups. That is what we are doing here today. 
We need to debate this Supplementary Order Paper more in this House this afternoon because that is the only way that the public will understand what a failure we have for a Minister of Finance. He has put our country in the position of having some of the highest interest rates and the lowest growth rates in the world and of having an economy that is going down the tubes at a great rate of knots. That is what we have had from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance does not know what to do. He is useless at these financial matters and this Supplementary Order Paper is a practical example of his ineffectiveness. So we need to debate it more. We should be debating it all day and night because it shows the lack of credibility of the financial management of the Labour Government. 
Labour has been going around for many years saying it is there for the workers and is there for the economy but the reality is that it has just been sitting on something that has been in terms of pressures in the international economic environment a reasonably good time. Now that we are going into tough times we see the deficiencies and Labour’s lack of economic management. Should we entrust the finances of the rail company into the hands of 60 ex-unionists? I ask whether we should we do that because this Supplementary Order Paper is what we get when we do that. We are having to do deal after deal day after day to try to rectify the mistakes that those members made when they were signing a commercial agreement. The reason they made those mistakes is that none of them have ever had to negotiate a commercial agreement in their lives. None of them have had to go out there and make money in business. They do not know what it is like they never will know what it is like and they cannot be entrusted to run a country when they do not know the reality of commercial management. 
Today we are seeing the result of that. What more do we need to show us that than to see the Minister of Finance have to come into this House put forward a Supplementary Order Paper and say that he forgot about the workers that he did not look after the people who voted him in and that he has made a mistake in the biggest commercial negotiation he has done this year. He made a mistake. He has had to come to this House to have it rectified. It is important that we debate it and that we debate it strongly because it shows the ability of the Minister of Finance. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Or lack of ability. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: He has a lack of ability in commercial matters and the people of New Zealand have seen that. The people of New Zealand are voting against this Government in the polls because of the economic conditions they are now in. They know that the Minister of Finance has not managed this economy they know that tough economic conditions are coming their way for the next couple of years and they know that Labour has no idea about economic management. They know that Labour is at fault in relation to the conditions we have and they know that they cannot trust the Minister of Finance. 
What more do we need to show that our lack of trust is justified than for the Minister of Finance to have to come into this House and ask for his mistakes to be rectified? We could want nothing more from the Minister of Finance in order to show us how incompetent he is at his job than for him to have to come to this House and show that he has made a huge mistake on the biggest deal he has done this year. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The recent transaction by the Government is worth around $800 million. There has not been one speaker from the Government on whether— 
Hon Members 
: It’s not about that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually I thought there was supposed to be quiet when we have a point of order for goodness’ sake! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes that is true. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Supplementary Order Paper 211 is important and it is an important issue as to whether we should allow the Committee to deal with the matter or whether it should be dealt with in another forum. That is all that this debate is about and I think it is incumbent on the House to listen to as many people as possible; members opposite should not just sit here and push things through willy-nilly without any debate. It is called the House of Representatives and this side certainly is about representing those people whom maybe the Government does not want to represent. We should have our fair share and our fair say on an issue the cost of which is going up and up. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. I have considered all of those issues as we have gone through the debate. We have had six speakers and throughout the debate there has been some encouragement for them to stick to the instruction that is before the House which is that the Committee should have the power to consider this matter adopt it etc. They were not warnings; they were just guidance to bring members back to discussing those issues. All of the members who have spoken have gone much wider. I think that three members now have asked that the question be now put and I think that the right place to discuss the issues that you and others have raised is in fact in the Committee. So I accept what Mr Parekura Horomia has asked for. The question is that the question be now put. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This is a very important bill affecting land transport in New Zealand. A lot of effort and work has been put into this legislation by many people. I will begin by thanking members and staff of the Ministry of Transport for the work they have done in helping to prepare this bill and servicing the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee during its hearings. I also thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the very good work they did on this bill during its time at that committee. In particular I acknowledge the chairmanship of Mark Gosche in steering this bill through the committee. 
The bill is important because it has a number of key aspects to it. The first is that it reserves fuel excise duty for land transport purposes. This is something many members of this House have wanted for a long time and in this respect I would like to acknowledge members like Peter Brown and Mark Gosche who have argued this for many years. This is called hypothecation—in other words dedication of all funds that are taken from road users either by a petrol excise duty road-user charges or motor vehicle licensing—and it is put into the National Land Transport Fund dedicated to transport. For many years Governments have dipped their hands into that money and spent it on other activities. No one is saying that they were not worthy activities but the money was certainly not being spent entirely on transport. This bill ensures that whatever revenue is collected is then dedicated to transport. 
It also introduces 3-year regional land transport programmes and a 3-year National Land Transport Programme. It puts in place a 3-year planning cycle which is something people have said we have needed for a long time. The first real long-term planning came in Budget 2006 when we set out funding over a 5-year period. What came through very strongly was the need to have longer-term planning for our transport system to ensure that those who are building the roads those who are providing the passenger transport and those who are involved in the transport sector have the ability to plan ahead and know what they are doing. 
It also provides for a 3-year Government policy statement. This is important. The Government policy statement will be set out for a 3-year period and it will be updated every 3 years so that we can ensure that people know the expectations of a Government and where its priorities are in transport. The bill also streamlines the membership of the land transport committees. As is known by many members in this House land transport committees in some areas have been large and cumbersome and have found it hard to make decisions. The bill reduces the number of members on those committees while retaining community representation. It also brings about the merger of two Crown entities—Transit and Land Transport New Zealand—into a single statutory Crown entity. It implements much of the Next Steps review that we undertook in terms of changes to the transport sector. The aim is to have an efficient safe well-integrated transport system for New Zealand with every mode working well. 
We know that transport is more than just roads. Roads are important but it is more than just roads. This bill allows for the introduction of a regional fuel tax. A region can decide that it would like to bring in a regional fuel tax for a particular project it wants to bring forward and see funded. I see it as a very fair mechanism. For example if Auckland wanted to bring in a regional fuel tax to electrify rail and ensure a better journey for those travelling on trains in Auckland it would then through a phased-in regional fuel tax pay for it out of the region. I see that as being very fair because people in Invercargill would say: “If everyone is getting their fair share of the National Land Transport Fund then why would we pay for a project that Auckland wants over and above that fund?”. The regional fuel tax is not compulsory. It is not imposed; it is a tool in the tool box of regional councils and regional authorities around New Zealand if they wish to use it. They have to ensure that they have consulted with their community and that they have agreement on their priorities and their projects. 
I will also talk briefly about the Supplementary Order Papers attached to this bill particularly the one about which we have just had a debate about in terms of its inclusion in the bill. Rather than the Government forgetting about the workers in less than 12 hours after the Toll sale being agreed to we have introduced through this Supplementary Order Paper the retention of the superannuation rights of Toll workers. It could not have been done faster than the way this Government has done it by adding a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] A bill could not be introduced when the rail had not been purchased. It would be stupid to bring in a bill to protect superannuation rights when the trains have not been purchased. That is the sort of thing we might have got from National but it certainly is not what one gets from this Government. Rather than forgetting the rights of workers within hours we have ensured that their rights are retained and those are the facts. 
I was a little disturbed by the talk about forgetting about the workers. We all know that the workers of New Zealand got a 68c increase in the minimum wage over 9 years of a National Government. That is how much National cared about the workers and New Zealanders should never forget that. Today National members are crying crocodile tears about the workers when we know that in 9 long years they increased the minimum wage by 68c. 
The debate today on the Supplementary Order Paper being part of this bill is important. It told us that National opposed the purchase back of rail by the Government. That is what the debate told us and I am glad New Zealanders were able to hear it. As I said this is a very important bill for Parliament. I welcome the debate; it is timely. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to take the first of what I hope will be many calls that you will allow the Opposition Mr Chairperson. One of the things that this Government is getting very cute at is bringing legislation to this Parliament. If we look at the size of the Land Transport Management Bill we see it is a 247-page bill but it is being brought in in only two parts. There is a Part 1 then a fractional Part 2 that contains a little bit of miscellaneous provision. Because of the way in which the debates now occur at the Committee stage we deal with bills part by part. 
This is a massive Part 1 that is as I said in my second reading speech like the curate’s egg—it is good in parts. I will not even begin to say that this bill is bad across the board but if things are done reasonably and this Parliament works as it should members of the Opposition should be allowed to pick a 5-minute speech on each of about five or six of the main subjects the Minister has just covered. The Minister talked about Toll then she talked about hypothecation then she went on to talk about the Government policy statement the planning cycle and so on. I want to cover off a few of those things right now. I think the Minister is dead right about getting a more concentrated planning cycle that everyone can work around. I think it has been overdue for a long time and I congratulate her on legislation that sets up those structures. 
But there is a range of questions that we want answered. For example in relation to the regional petrol tax which I hope to be able to cover as well how come we now see an Supplementary Order Paper that instead of saying “You can introduce a regional petrol tax if you want.” now states that there will be a schedule associated with it? Supplementary Order Paper 209 proposes to substitute a new subsection (4) of section 65G in clause 31. Subsection 4(b) states: “the total rate of any regional fuel tax scheme may not exceed—(i) 2 cents per litre … in 2009; and (ii) 5 cents per litre … in 2010.” That is really interesting because later on I will refer to a quote by the Prime Minister who said that she had no intention of allowing the regional petrol tax to be put on to long-suffering motorists “next year”. She made that comment in June 2008 so I presume “next year” means 2009. However the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King in almost flouting the wishes of her Prime Minister has shoved a schedule into the Supplementary Order Paper to allow a rate of 2c in 2009. 
There is more that National members would like to debate if you will give us those calls Mr Chair. The first is to do with the structure of the new agency because I think it is always worth while trying to look for gains in efficiency of Government departments not that that has happened under Labour when we look at the hugely bloated growth in bureaucracy and floor space in the 9 years since Labour came to power. If the Minister wants to debate that issue I am happy to give her the total number of bureaucrats and the total amount of floor space that has been rented since Labour came in. I am happy to look at some efficiency gains but we must always call into question those issues of conflict of interest. 
I tell the Minister and she probably remembers it well that in the mid-1990s the clarion call from local government was that Transit by being both the funder of roading and the provider of the State highway network had a complete conflict of interest. I have the documentation and the letters from councils up and down the country. I dug them out of the box at the time the select committee process was going on. They told me over and over again—indeed they kept beating me up—that I could not let Transit be the one who decides who gets what money and also be the operator of the State highway network because Transit would continue to favour itself. In the end I gave into that because I thought there was some real merit to the case that Local Government New Zealand and others were running—that there was that conflict. What is really interesting now is that we are putting them back together again. We are going to take the funding agency—that is Land Transport New Zealand—which decides which projects get which money in each year and then we are going to incorporate it back into that body and call it the New Zealand Transport Agency. That is the very body that is looking for State highway funding all the time in the form of Transit New Zealand. 
So again on one of the calls that I will take on Part 1 if we get them I will explore whether there is enough protection. We were told at the select committee that there was. Interestingly enough of those who should have been concerned about that conflict did not express it and in fact when asked about it said that no they thought there were enough protections. I would like the Minister if she can during one of her calls to give a detailed explanation to the Committee about how those protections will work to stop the agency being both the funder of roading and the owner and operator of the State highway network. If we talk about conflict of interest I would have thought that today we have seen one of the most classic conflicts of interest ever to occur in this country. We have seen the Government buy back the rail network today and today we have also seen the Government put an increase in road-user— 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I welcome the member’s support for the changes that have been made in planning and funding. Obviously the member as a former Minister of Transport understands those issues well. But I know that the issue of one agency was raised at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that considerable debate took place at the committee about this issue. I know also that the chair of the establishment board Brian Roche appeared before the committee to talk about how the new board would manage the transparency between the operation of the old Transit agency and the responsibilities of Land Transport New Zealand. 
My understanding is that a very good briefing and a very good understanding was given to the committee as to how the new agency would operate. A lot of thought has been put into the operation of the new agency to ensure transparency. That was a matter of concern and I acknowledge we need to have transparency. My understanding is that a very good briefing was given to members and that they could see a serious issue was being taken seriously and addressed by the establishment board and by those who have some knowledge of how the sector works. It is important that we do not ever have one part of an agency dominating any other part of the agency. Therefore the way it operates and the transparency of the operation are very important issues. I think the previous speaker should have been reassured by the submissions made to the select committee and no doubt the chair of the committee will talk further on this issue shortly. 
The previous speaker is obviously interested in the regional fuel tax and I know that the National Party is very keen for this Parliament to pass that part of the bill. National members do not wish to vote for it and they do not want to dirty their hands but they do want it to be passed because they know it is another tool in the tool box. I am waiting to see whether Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will cross the floor of the Chamber and vote with the Labour Party and other members who are supporting this bill to support the regional fuel tax. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has assured the people interested in Penlink the people who are interested in building a road in their area that he would cross the floor to support the regional fuel tax. This is the time for him to come to the Chamber and say he will do what he said he would do for the sake of the people of Whangaparaoa. One cannot make those sorts of promises to people and think they will forget them. They do not forget them; they remember them. They have them in their minds. Those people took note of that and they are waiting for Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to come to the Chamber and vote when we get to the vote on this part of the bill to ensure that the regional fuel tax as a tool for regional government is able to be used. 
I move  
That the Committee report progress and sit again presently. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
House resumed. 
Instruction to Committee 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I thank the Committee for enabling the House to sit again. When I was last in the Chair I neglected to put the question on the matter that we were debating. I do that now and the question is that it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the Hon Maurice Williamson. People would never have thought from the questions he was asking that he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that dealt with this bill. I am sure he was awake. I recall that he questioned people about the single agency having gone on about the fact that he had created seven or eight separate bureaucracies. He is a member of the National Party which has said it would get rid of bureaucracy. When we actually do that National members vote against it. That tells us so much about the National Party. It created seven or eight different sets of bureaucracy in transport; we have pulled that number back to three or four. 
We had very good information from the person who is putting in place the new agency—one Brian Roche. I know that the National Party trusts him because both Governments have used him in very important roles. He was the head of Housing New Zealand when I became the Minister of Housing and we have used him to chair the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. He is being used to put this agency together because he is a very competent gentleman—and so are the people who work with him. 
This is interesting legislation. I think it is one of the most important that I have worked on in the 12 years that I have been in Parliament because it finally addresses regional needs and gives regional government the power to fund regional needs. It gets us away from the issue of people in the South Island asking why they should pay for the creation of new infrastructure in Auckland or people in Waikato asking why they should pay extra for Wellington infrastructure and so on and so forth. It is interesting that National members will vote against it because people in the Bay of Plenty will want to know why National members are voting against their having the ability to finance the $200 million worth of projects that they desperately want done and that will not be done unless there is a regional fuel tax. People in the Wellington region will want to know why National members are voting against the $400 million worth—I think it was—of projects that will not be able to proceed if the regional fuel tax is not available to that region. 
Of course people in Auckland will want to know what the National Party would do to electrify its rail system. The other day I drove from Greenhithe to Mount Wellington. I was almost always on a motorway. I left Greenhithe at 4.30 p.m. and I got home just before 5 o’clock. I was driving on motorways that had been built by this Government; not one bit had been built in the 9 years of the National Government. I drove through “Spaghetti Junction” which was built by this Government. National members opposite who say they are serious about infrastructure development are a joke. They are saying to the people in Auckland that they do not support their having public transport. I was able to make that journey in less than half an hour because Aucklanders are getting on public transport in a way that they have never done before. They are able to do that because we have spent real money on it—significant money. But we know that to meet the ongoing demand—and it is growing by the day—we need to electrify the rail system. 
National members say they will do it by magic. They will not support this bill; they will have some other way of funding the electrification. Well we are waiting to hear what that way is. Maurice Williamson is supposed to be the National transport spokesperson and he has yet to say what its policy is to come up with $600 million to electrify the rail system—or whatever the sum might be. Aucklanders are waiting to hear. They want to put in an order for new electric trains and they know that unless this bill is passed they will not be able to do that. They want some certainty about the funding. Will they get it from the National Party? No way. 
Aucklanders and New Zealanders also want to know why the National Party is voting against hypothecation. For years those members have said that it is terrible to take money out of the petrol tax and road-user charges and use it for something else. National members will vote against that. They have to tell people why they will vote against it because it was their big policy at the 2005 election if I recall rightly. They were going to spend all the fuel tax on roads Maurice Williamson said. But now he is going to vote against it. His party is going to vote against it. Why is it going to do that? Is it just to spite somebody on the Government side of the House? Is it just to spite New Zealanders who believe that it is the correct thing to do? Why is the National Party going to vote against hypothecation? 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was a very interesting speech from Mark “Julius” Gosche—the man who built every road that exists in Auckland and believes he is the founder of New Zealand’s transport system in the sense that every road he travels on has been built by the Labour Party. That is absolute rubbish. The reality is that this Labour Government has not completed the roading network in Auckland. It is a complete fabrication for its members to say they are doing it now. The reality is that they have not done it and they will not do it because they will not introduce a regional petrol tax. Their Prime Minister has said they will not introduce one next year. They are passing legislation today to give them the ability to put in a regional petrol tax and then the Prime Minister says she is not going to introduce it! She will not go to the polls knowing she is telling the public of Auckland that they are going to have to pay another 10c on their fuel bills. She refuses to do it. 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s wrong. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The Minister of Transport is saying that that is wrong—it cannot be right. She is going to go out there and introduce a little bit of the tax so she can potentially go back to the people of Auckland and say they will have some certainty about their electric trains. The very thing Mark Gosche was talking about having certainty about—for the purchase of electric trains—is up in the air because the Prime Minister will not actually allow them to impose a regional petrol tax next year. She does not want to do it because it is not politically expedient for her to go into an election campaign with a regional petrol tax for the communities of Auckland and other big cities around this country. 
The other thing Mr Gosche said that was quite interesting was that we need to give power to the regions so they can fund what they want to do. It was a very important point for him to emphasise—power to the regions. How come in this legislation he has not listened to what all the regions have said—apart from a few of the main cities that have a public transport issue? All the other regions wanted to have the ability to dictate where that 10c would go. The Waikato region the Bay of Plenty region and the Taranaki and King Country region wanted to have the ability to determine what that 10c was spent on. But in this legislation there is a mandatory apportionment. I say to Mark: “Give power to the regions if that is what you are going to do. If you are going to give them power listen to their submissions because their submissions said they wanted to have power to distribute that money. They did not want you to tell them they had to spend 5c on public transport. They wanted to have the ability to determine that for themselves.” 
By not doing that he is not giving power to the regions; he is doing what the Labour Party does and knows it does best—telling people how to live their own lives. It is a party based on redistribution and on the principle that it knows better. The regions went to you in this select committee process they came in front of you and they implored you to take— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —into account the wishes of the regions. The regions want to have the ability to distribute that money in the manner that fits their requirements. The Labour Party will not allow that. The Labour Party will not allow the regions to do what they wanted to do and its members ask why we vote against it. Why would we vote for something that all the regions apart from some of the main centres said they found was a problem? Why put through legislation that the regions are not happy with? It does not make any sense. The regions came to the select committee and they had a reasonable rational case for them to be able to distribute that 10c according to their needs and the Labour Government ignored them. It ignored them because it is paying back the Greens. 
That is what it is doing with this legislation. It is not about what is right for New Zealand it is not about what the regions want it is not what the regional land transport committees around the country have been advocating or seeking; it is what this Labour Government needs to do to stay in power. It needs to get the Greens onside and to do that it has compromised the select committee process it has compromised the submissions of all those regions—all those rural provincial regions that came out and said: “Just give us the ability to determine what we do with that money; just give us that power.” What was so hard about that? Why cannot the Government of the day give the regions of New Zealand the power to decide what happens with that money? No it will not do that. That is the fundamental problem with this legislation; it is the fundamental problem with this Government. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and particularly on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 209. I realise that I left the House somewhat on tenterhooks on Thursday afternoon when I drew attention in my second reading speech to what I called then the Minister’s pork-barrel clause whereby the projects that the Ministers can decide should occur in Auckland—not in any other region but with the second 5c in Auckland—were not subject to any set of Auckland regional priorities. I was particularly concerned that in a bill that strengthens the role—quite rightly we in the Greens think—of the regional land transport strategy and adopts the principle that regions can determine their own destiny their own priorities for expenditure and whether to levy a regional fuel tax it was quite inappropriate for Ministers then to be able to impose projects on Auckland that were not in accordance with the priorities in the regional strategy. The Supplementary Order Paper fixes that and we are very happy that that has been fixed. 
The Supplementary Order Paper adds a short statement to new section 65N(1) inserted by clause 31 which states that the Ministers must be “satisfied that the projects are consistent with the Auckland regional land transport strategy”. That is a big improvement. It closes a big loophole that the Greens were very concerned about and we are now able to vote for the bill. Although we are not ecstatic about everything in the bill we are now able to vote for the bill on balance without further reservations. 
The Auckland regional land transport strategy was prepared under a very democratic process as provided for in the Land Transport Management Act. There was large-scale consultation. As I recall about five options were put out although it may have been six for the balance of expenditure between roads and rail and for different kinds of projects that were to be funded over the long term in the region. The public got involved and chose which option they wanted to go for. They chose well in my view. They said that they needed to get the rail system fixed and that it was a high priority and they chose option five which did that. It would be quite inappropriate to allow that decision to be overturned for projects that did not even make it on to Auckland’s priority list at all to be funded by the Minister’s 5c which let us remember is not money that comes from central government. The Government for that second 5c in Auckland raises the loan and puts it on the Crown’s balance sheet which does not require any immediate expenditure but it is Auckland that pays an extra 5c on its petrol to raise the money to service that loan. If Auckland is paying to service the loan then it is essential that Auckland gets to say what projects it is used for. 
I am very glad that has been fixed. I thank the Minister for recognising the danger going into the future that some future Minister might use it for totally pork-barrel reasons which would not be appropriate. 
It still however leaves the fundamental problem of transport funding and that is the financial assistance rate. We still have a problem that if Auckland and I use Auckland as an example but it is the same anywhere wants to build a State highway for Aucklanders to use to get from one side of Auckland to the other—let us say State Highway 20—then that is 100 percent funded out of the National Land Transport Fund paid into by motorists across the country. OK fine; it is like that in every region. But if Auckland wants to improve its rail system to carry millions more passengers from one side of Auckland to the other performing exactly the same function then Auckland has to find at least half of the money to do that. If we compare dollar for dollar rail is the better option. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I took an Auckland-focused interest in this bill because that is where I live and have worked for many many years and it is where my family live. Over those years I have travelled up and down the pitiful motorways that we had in the 1990s and experienced the years of transport neglect that we saw under past administrations particularly National administrations. It is a great pleasure to see this bill come in on top of all the things that this Government has already done. 
I heard one of the members opposite calling out that Mark Gosche did not take public transport to his place at Greenhithe. He did not say that actually. He said that he drove. If he had wanted to take the bus he could have used the northern busway which is a fantastic investment in the area that I work in on the North Shore. I was present at the opening of the busway. I walked along the motorway with the Prime Minister. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I thought you worked in South Auckland. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No I work on the North Shore. I tell Jonathan Coleman to catch up. It was a very proud moment to see the railway on wheels that we have on the North Shore. 
I live in the west of Auckland even though I work on the North Shore. I live in a part of the town that is serviced by the railways. My experience of them has been very interesting. Apart from the fact that my son worked as a ticket collector on the railways for years when he was at university I remember what a mess they were. The railways were single tracks so they were very very slow. The rolling stock that was bought had mud and grass hanging out of it the railway stations were run down—they were not a particularly nice place to be—and the trains ran on single lines. There were years and years of argument about that and about how we would pay for them to be fixed. I am really pleased that one of the provisions in this bill will enable the electrification of rail. The Government of course has already assisted with double tracking of the rail in Auckland. That is well under way and it is making a huge difference. 
The National Party needs to answer some questions about its opposition to this bill. People in Auckland are quite worried about National’s opposition and what it means. How will we pay for the electrification of railways if a future National administration decides it is not a good idea? 
Hon Member 
: It won’t happen. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is true. We do not have to worry I suppose but these are the questions that are being posed. The other day Brian Rudman in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said that Mr Williamson should tell us what his party will do in Government if the regional fuel tax becomes law in a few weeks despite National’s opposition to it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: They don’t have any ideas and don’t have any policy. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. That is the problem. National members do not have any ideas and they are not telling anybody what their plans are. It is of great concern to the people who live in Auckland and it is of great concern to the workers of Auckland who are relying increasingly on public transport. We heard a ridiculous display from National members this afternoon. They were trying to pretend that they care about workers. It was just astonishing. It really was one for the books. 
This Government has expanded public transport funding. The Minister said in the House today that funding was frozen at $40 million during the 1990s and now it is 15 times as much as that. But we will have to continue with investment in public transport and that is what this bill enables people in Auckland to do through the contribution of the regional fuel tax. 
I am also interested as one who works on the North Shore in Penlink. 
Hon Member 
: When? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Has the member not seen my office in Birkenhead? He should come and visit me. I would be happy to welcome him to my office at 88 Birkenhead Road. The Penlink people have come to see me as well. They are very very concerned and I am very very concerned about what might happen if this bill is not passed and the regional fuel tax does not go through. I wonder what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will be saying to those people when he has to explain to them next week that National voted against this bill. What will be his answer? What is going to happen next? People from Dr Smith’s electorate are very concerned. They came to our select committee and talked about Penlink and their support for this bill yet their local MP is voting against it. 
I am really pleased as an Aucklander and as someone who has worked there for years and years to see this bill come through and to see some answers for once—building on the years and years of work this Government has done—to our public transport issues. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution to the Committee stage of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I want to talk specifically to new section 4 inserted by clause 5 which refers to the Treaty of Waitangi and to take this opportunity to express the disquiet New Zealand First has in terms of this provision. Section 4 as it stands now states: ”In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to land transport decision-making processes …”. I have submitted on behalf of New Zealand First an amendment to omit the words “principles of the” but to still retain reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. 
New Zealand First’s position in respect of that wording should not come as any surprise to this Committee. Our amendment shows that New Zealand First is consistent on this matter and is an indication of our strong feelings and belief that undefined principles by this House have no real benefit for this bill. It is not about doing away with the Treaty as some of our opponents would like this House—and indeed the New Zealand public—to believe; nor is it about doing away with reference to the Treaty in legislation. We would like to see references to the Treaty retained but not references to the principles because they are undefined and lead to a lot of unclear understanding. 
I want to give an example of how that applies in our society today. At the moment we have 21 different district health boards each required to deliver health services that give due recognition to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. First I suggest to members of the Committee that each district health board probably has a different understanding of what those principles are. Secondly I had the privilege of availing myself of our wonderful health service about 18 months to 2 years ago and after my operation I asked the surgeon under which principle of the Treaty of Waitangi he had undertaken his service to me. He could not give an answer. He told me just to be thankful that he was able to carry out his duty. That doctor was able to do that without any reference to the meaning or understanding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I suggest that this bill will be just as effective without references to undefined principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and I hope the Minister will consider lending some support to the amendment I have presented on behalf of New Zealand First. Again I say to the Committee that New Zealand First does have difficulty in terms of supporting the bill if the words “the principles of” are retained in new section 4. We have no difficulty with the section as it is proposed if those words are omitted. Kia ora. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am looking forward to seeing whether the Government rejects New Zealand First’s amendment. Does that mean New Zealand First would then not support— 
Hon Member 
: Will you support it? 
PANSY WONG 
: My learned colleague Maurice Williamson has already given that indication. But we will be interested to see whether New Zealand First pulls its support for the bill if the Labour Government does not accept its amendment. 
I want to talk about two points. Part 1 is the largest part in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and there are quite a few issues that I would like to raise with the Committee. In one of the regulatory impact statements—that is the reasons why this bill entered the House—the advisers pointed out that there is a need to meet a national transport objective. They said that the existing organisation and the existing structures are not clear and because of that they are not delivering the Government’s priority objectives. However it is difficult to deliver the Labour Government’s objectives because in previous years it has talked about such things as having economic transformation and sustainability; this year it has dropped that completely and talks about an emissions trading scheme. So it is difficult for the various agencies of local government that are supposed to deliver Government objectives if the Government is not very clear about what objectives it is going to pursue. 
I want to share with the public that I doubt very much whether the passage of this bill will make it easier because it talks about these agencies grouping themselves together and delivering the objectives set out in the GPS which I presume is something akin to a Government policy statement. Part 1 gives the definition of GPS and section 84 inserted by clause 32 states: (1) “A GPS which is issued by the Minister every 3 financial years enables the Minister to—(a) guide the Agency and the land transport sector on the outcomes and objectives and the short- to medium-term impacts that the Crown wishes to achieve—(i) through the national land transport programme; and (ii) from the allocation of the national land transport fund; and (b) link the amount of revenue raised from road users with the planned levels of expenditure …”. This is all very good until we get to the next section. Section 85 states: “To avoid doubt a GPS is not—(a) a direction for the purposes of Part 3 of the Crown Entities Act 2004; and (b) a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989; and (c) a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989.” 
So one could be forgiven for asking whether this Government policy statement is really going to give clear direction to the super-transport agency that Part 1 is going to set up. We know what the Government policy statement is not but we are not clear what it is. Anyway in the preparation of the Government policy statement section 87 states: “(1) The Minister must in preparing the GPS—(a) be satisfied that the GPS—(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system; and (ii) contributes to each of the following: (A) assisting economic development: (B) assisting safety and personal security: (C) improving access and mobility:”—unlike the Prime Minister’s motorcade that parked on the disabled parking bay I presume that means—“(D) protecting and promoting public health: (E) ensuring environmental sustainability;”. 
Maybe the Minister can take a call and explain to us how any agency or any Government policy statement will satisfy this motherhood and apple pie stuff because formulating a plan that tries to achieve all of these at times conflicting objectives would be almost impossible. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us what the time line is in terms of issuing the Government policy statement that takes into account all these objectives—which of course are all fantastic and well meaning. 
But I can just imagine anybody who wants a public transport system—a rail or roading project—simultaneously achieving all those objectives about protecting and promoting public health. I presume it means that somehow we have to look at fuel usage or the design of the bus or rail carriages. I am not too sure what else we can do to promote public health. After all at the select committee the Labour members said they were not actually very happy with advertisements on buses. I thought we could promote health with messages on buses but they said they did not want to see any messages promoting public health on buses. Also how do we assist safety and personal security? They are very lofty ideas. I am not sure how they will all be carried out. 
National members are not the only ones who have lots of concern about this bill. I want to share with the Minister the Committee and the public the view of Local Government New Zealand which is the shall I say overall coordinating body for all local government in New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand like most people supports the general intent of the bill. But it is worried. Firstly it feels that the consultation and the provision in the bill would not foster the partnership relationship and as we know the Labour Government has always claimed it is in partnership with local government. But Local Government New Zealand believes that this bill is being imposed on it rather than being developed in a partnership way. 
Secondly it is very concerned about accountability. It wants to know how the creation of a super-agency—the New Zealand Transport Agency which will end up encouraging a top-down process planning will be driven by a technical consideration and will be solely focused on a national solution—would be beneficial to the regions. I think it has raised a very very good point. It uses the example of local communities in the Bay of Plenty and Christchurch. Apparently those two good cities have successfully used non-statutory agreements founded on best practice and political agreement to develop long-term strategies. Their big concern with the existence of this super-agency is whether those local community - derived solutions will still have room to blossom. 
The other issue I have raised before about that lofty idea of the Government policy statement concerns how the consultation requirements will be conducted under this bill. Local Government New Zealand reckons there is duplication between the consultation requirement under this bill and the Local Government Act 2002. I cannot say that Local Government New Zealand is a body that will be anti-transportation. It raised concerns firstly about the super-bureaucracy and secondly about the fact that the partnership approach was touted but was not implemented during the development of this bill. So with the super-agency that will be created how will this genuine partnership exist? I do share its concern about the duplication of roles within the bureaucracy. 
I am sure that the Hon Maurice Williamson would have shared with us again the fact that 10 years ago he was being got at on a daily basis about the super-agency that should be broken up because the national interest has always overridden the regional interest in terms of transport. So he conceded that and then 10 years later it is a case of back to the future. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call to answer the member’s questions particularly around the Government policy statement. One of the issues that has been of concern to Local Government New Zealand is that our transport planning has never lined up with local government planning and of course it is a major partner in transport and has a major responsibility for its ratepayers’ funding. So the Government policy statement lines up with local government’s long-term council community plans. Local government is on a 3-year funding planning cycle and the Government policy statement actually lines up with that. We will put out a Government policy statement that local authorities can then take into account in their long-term funding proposals. This is something that local government has asked for and something that the Government policy statement enables. 
The first Government policy statement will be issued in July. The consultation has taken place with many stakeholders by first issuing what we called a trends and issues paper. Through that consultation which we did with many of the stakeholders including Local Government New Zealand we have been able to include the issues that local government would like to see addressed in a Government policy statement. We release that and then local authorities can use it for their long-term planning for local government. It finally lines up a whole lot of issues that are not taken into account now when we are planning for transport and I think it is a very sensible move. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: In accordance with the decision of the Business Committee for Dr Russel Norman to give his maiden statement at 5.30 I will report progress and ask to sit again presently. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Maiden Statement 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 So here I am inside the people’s House. Tena koutou. We are inside the people’s House where so many words have been spoken where words have been transformed into deeds that have changed this country sometimes even for the better. I look around and I see men and women with the power to do good and to change things for the better. I hope that we choose to do so. 
I want to greet those who have come before me. I want to remember my predecessor Rod Donald. Rod achieved a great many things in politics but perhaps one of his greatest achievements was to make this Parliament much more democratic. Without Rod’s leadership in making the case for MMP we would not have parties like the Greens in Parliament today. The elected dictatorship would still hold sway. Rod go forth from here go to the other side. 
I want to remember my late father Colin Norman. Col was someone who had a deep enduring passion for science and engineering. My dad also really understood the opportunities that he got because of the social democratic movement that came out of the Depression and the war. I share his passion for fairness and for science. Go forth from here go to the other side. 
To family members of us all who have left us and to House members no longer with us I say to you in a traditional way: E nga mate o konei o tatau katoa. Haere. Haere ki tua o te kahurangi. Go forth from here go to the other side. 
Of those around me now I want to mention Nicola and Holly Rod’s partner and daughter. I am deeply touched and honoured that they are here today. I want to mention Olive Norman who on a tight budget brought up six lucky kids. Not only that she was part of the glue of the whole street that we grew up in. Even today at the tender age of 70-ish she drives Meals on Wheels to those who need help. Thanks mum for coming all the way here from Brisbane. I give special thanks to my beautiful Katya—my best friend my chief adviser and my beloved. May this election year have a better outcome than the last in more ways than one. 
To one of the country’s finest citizens Jeanette Fitzsimons and to all the other Green Party MPs staff members and supporters I say that I am in this place and able to put forward these views only because of your efforts; I will never lose sight of that. I pay tribute to Nandor Tanczos Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty. I greet those in the gallery and those watching and listening across the land. 
My wise Green colleagues suggested I should talk a little more about history especially my own. But first I want to talk about what our country is like now. I want to talk about those Kiwis less fortunate than us here those tens of thousands of New Zealanders whom successive Governments have marginalised and those people who have become outsiders outlaws and outcasts. And I say “have become” because outsiders are not born; they are made. 
On the same day that I was sent to Parliament—last Friday—a man named Sean was sent to prison for 12 years. Sean was abandoned to a boys’ home in Australia as a young child. Since then like so many he has been institutionalised mostly in prisons—universities of crime that we throw our scarce tax dollars at. Two decades of jail under centre-right lock-’em-up - type Governments have not helped this man and they have not helped his victims either. Last year he took part in an angry 3-month - long crime spree in the South Island. He robbed two banks stabbed people and crashed into cars. Around 20 people suffered from this rampage. 
I condemn his actions—make no mistake. My gut response to people like Sean is to make them pay and to make them suffer. But I know that the evidence shows that locking up more people will not make any of us safer. Revenge might feel good but it does not build safer communities. The difficult truth is that if we show people how to be human and if we respect them as human then they are more likely to act humanely. In the past 20 years we have doubled our prison population yet we are no safer in our homes and on our streets. 
Here I am in Parliament and I wonder if someone had not given my parents and my grandparents a hand up whether I would be standing here today. My parents were from poor Depression-era families. My grandparents were born at around the turn of the century and by the time my parents were born in 1930 things were not going so well. Both of my grandfathers were out-of-work builders. They were alcoholics and were treated with indifference by their society and they responded in kind. But something incredible happened. In the 1930s and the 1940s in our part of the world those who could do good did do good. Governments could have turned their backs on the poor but they chose not to. They chose instead to change the destiny of millions of lives including my parents’ lives for the better. My parents were able to access affordable Government housing and family benefits. They were able to access the opportunity of education. Although my parents were poor for a long time my dad was able to get a trade—as a fitter and turner—then get his steam ticket and work in the sugar refineries of North Queensland. He then got to university and became an engineer. My mum received family support from the State to bring up a family and get them through school. My parents and the generation before them built a nation and they built it on justice and a fair go. 
It has been said that the soul of a nation is found in the homes of its people. Back in Brisbane we lived in a housing commission house in a housing commission suburb. My mother still lives there. It has weatherboards and fibro-walls. We were lucky. It was cheap. The mortgage was for 45 years and we had a place we could call home. No this does not mean that a State house kid can do anything; it means that State commitment of resources towards housing and education can really make a difference. Those Governments proved that compassion could triumph over competition and that we are all part of the human family and deserve to be loved and looked after especially when we are down on our luck. 
We remember those who showed their love. At Bastion Point in Auckland there is a memorial to Michael Joseph Savage. It is a simple concrete obelisk above his grave looking over the beautiful Waitemata Harbour and it says at the base: “he loved his fellow men”. Savage a fellow immigrant from Australia knew that having a right means having a chance. It means having a roof to shelter under and a meal on the table and a school and a doctor. It means that a nation that truly values the rights of her citizens promises a fair go to each and every one. Savage helped to create a society where there was hope of a better life and there was fulfilment of that hope. 
The first agenda item of Savage’s first Cabinet meeting in December 1935 was a Christmas bonus for the unemployed. This was not popular amongst the bankers in London. It was however an act of compassion. When was the last time we did that for beneficiaries? We punish the children of the poorest by refusing them the in-work payment of $60 a week. The truth is that we have yet to restore Jenny Shipley’s benefit cuts of 1991. 
There is another memorial in Auckland—one dedicated to those who turned their backs on ordinary New Zealanders. In the Auckland central business district there is a memorial to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson. It is a casino in the shape of a syringe. They created a society in which desperate people’s only hopes are the pokies and drugs. “You’re gonna reap just what ya sow.” and we are reaping in South Auckland and Bridge Pa. 
Last month the Child Poverty Action Group said New Zealand had the fastest growth in income and wealth inequality in the OECD. I will repeat that because I did not say we had the fastest GDP growth; I said New Zealand had the fastest growth in income and wealth inequality. We are becoming more divided. The latest figures show that about 150000 children are in benefit families in significant or severe hardship. These 150000 are the children of the poor and they have been forgotten. These are the children of the poor whom Michael Cullen should have been focusing on in his last nine Budgets. These are the children of the poor whom John Key should start telling us how he will offer hope to assuming he wants to be more than just a breathing replacement of a struggling Government. These may well become the teenagers and young adults who feature on our television screens a 6 o’clock in a decade’s time. “We’re gonna reap just what we sow.” 
I fear that the people in this room have forgotten their history. Is this the future that Mickey Savage dreamt of? Is this what he had in mind with his “applied Christianity”? The takeover of Labour then National by the extreme right in the 1980s and 1990s meant that those who genuinely cared for a better society had nowhere to go. My parents left the Labour Party after Hawke and Keating performed their smash-and-grab job over there. It was bad for them there but it was even worse here because there was no restraint. 
I started a different journey one that led me into left-wing politics. I am not ashamed to have a history in the socialist movement. I am not ashamed to think that everyone deserves a fair go and a fair share of what this life has to offer; to believe that this world is too divided. But nor do I shy away from my reasons for embracing Green politics for moving on. The two great failings of socialism as I knew it were a lack of democracy and a failure to grasp the reality that the life-support system of the planet itself is endangered. 
When I first got involved in Green politics we were trying to stop the logging of old-growth forests in Gippsland Victoria. We set up the South Australian Green Party in the mid-1990s affiliated to Bob Brown’s Australian Greens before I came to live in Aotearoa in the 1990s and join the Green movement here. 
There is perhaps a single new idea at the heart of the Green movement and that is that the planet is finite. The planet has limited ability to absorb our pollution and supply us with resources. It has limited minerals forests soils rivers and lakes. The realisation that the planet is finite is a simple yet profound insight into the true nature of human existence. It is an insight that we the human race are struggling to come to terms with. In trying to live sustainably on planet Earth we are facing the greatest challenge to our society and economy since that faced by Savage in confronting the Great Depression and the war. To make our economy and society sustainable will require an enormous change in the way we live. And just as Savage had to confront powerful vested interests so will we—those who believe that their short-term economic interests are more important than the survival of the human species those who are so blind that they cannot see that their grandchildren need them to change their ways. 
Savage had powerful enemies but he was able to forge a nation in a furnace of Depression and war. He told people the truth. He shared the burden. He put forward a vision in which everyone had a fair go. Those who came after him in the 1980s and the 1990s did not build a nation they dismembered it. Our challenge is to bring the nation together again to face up to the basic scientific and physical reality of our environment—the planet is finite. 
We must tell people the truth. Oil will never be cheap again. Anyone who says otherwise asks people to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. We must cut our greenhouse emissions rapidly—read the science. We must act fairly. We need to offer people affordable decent housing that is warm and enables them to live well while using less power. We must offer people a vision of a better future. We desperately need a public transport system that allows everyone to get around. We need safer cycling and walking. A Government that is engaged in the biggest road-building project in the nation’s history is a Government in denial. The Greens have the courage to tell New Zealanders the truth about the state of the world because we believe that ordinary people can handle the truth. 
Mickey Savage once said in this House: “We might make mistakes but we would make other things too.” As someone who has come here to get things done I am pretty sure I will make mistakes and bugger the odd thing up. But my greatest hope is that we will as Savage said make other things too—make good things that we can feel proud of: a nation and a people steeped in fairness democracy peace and hope living graciously on and caring for these beautiful islands on this planet we love. Thank you. 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003  
(continued) 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
:  
I would like to explore as I said earlier on a whole range of issues in this legislation but sadly with it all being nearly in one part I will have to focus on just one aspect. I will focus on the issue of road-user charges and say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King that one of the problems we heard from a number of people was that it is difficult enough having to deal with refunds and offsets in a particular way when the road-user charge system is in place but having a regional fuel tax implemented as well will mean that commercial operators will now have to work with both forms of charging. 
I guess it is really important to explain to people out there that when we are running motorcars with petrol we pay just the petrol tax by way of tax on that petrol. But commercial users of trucks have to buy road-user licences by estimating how many kilometres they want to buy and their hubodometers on their trucks tell them whether they have done those kilometres. They purchase the kilometres for a certain number of tonnes and then they travel that distance. That is the road-user charge. But of course if a truck goes off-road and into a forest as forestry trucks do it still has its hubodometer running so the driver then has to record how much off-road travel the truck is doing and get refunds and rebates. 
I know that a number of commercial trucking companies out there say that it is a real nightmare to do that but they have to to try to make the system work and one of the reasons why we are very strongly opposed to a regional fuel tax is that it adds a separate charge for those people. It is not increasing their road-user charges at a regional level—it is not saying “for your road-user charge you will pay the extra”—it is saying that on diesel there will now be a tax that people will pay per litre when they buy their fuel. As those operators quite clearly pointed out they will now have two sets of compliance on which they have to do their returns and refunds to show that diesel was being used either on proper roads or in forests and off-road in order to make the reclamation of those sums of money. So I say to the Minister that it is very very worrying for us that there are two separate regimes. Had the Minister wanted to move to just a total fuel tax that would be all right; we could have lived with that. Had the Minister wanted to go to just a straight road-user charge regime that would be all right— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Is that what you are suggesting? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I am just saying “Had the Minister wanted to …”. But I tell Mr Duynhoven that the problem is the two regimes; I would be pleased if he would listen and get it through his head. It is the two regimes that cause the problem for the people out there and it is unfair to impose two total regimes on them. 
I also talked earlier on about the conflict of interest between the funder of State highways also being the funder of other roads and therefore looking after itself. But I point out to the Committee tonight that what is so delicious an irony is how much of a conflict there is with what the Government has done today with road-user charges. Today the Government has bought back the rail operator. It now owns the railways; it is the owner yet today it has put up road-user charges for the trucking fleet. If people ever wanted an example of a conflict of interest I say that this is one: I own this business; I bought it today and it is mine—and by the way I have now got the powers and I will use them to put up the costs of those who compete with me. The Government does not own a trucking operator—well not yet but I am fearful that if I give this speech too often that is exactly the next thing it will be looking to buy—but today 1 July 2008 will go down in history as the day when the Government took control and ownership of the rail operation. Tonight we will be passing as part of this bill the provisions of a Supplementary Order Paper to cope with some of the superannuation requirements for the people concerned which is a bizarre part of this bill and which was not even there until this Supplementary Order Paper appeared. But on the same day the very same day that the Government has bought back the rail operation the Minister has come out and fired in a road-user charge increase—oh and by the way she permits with this legislation a regional fuel tax which will start charging a fuel tax on those companies out there that are operating trucks. 
I have been contacted today and I am sure other members have as well by a number of trucking operators who are furious about it. In fact Tony Friedlander has put out what I think is quite a hard-hitting press release saying that he feels he has been betrayed. He was given a commitment last year by officials and the Minister that if there was going to be another road-user charge increase trucking companies would be given a month’s notice of it and be given that warning. 
Nathan Guy 
: Consultation! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Consultation—they would be given it. But it came like a bolt out of the blue today to them and as he said in his press release—and the Minister can shake her head all she likes—he feels that he has been betrayed by people who gave him commitments and so on. And there are more issues to this bill that I would like to explore. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I take just a brief call to reply to two points made by Maurice Williamson. With reference to the regional fuel tax I tell him a truck that fills up with diesel would not be running a second system. The tax is paid by the distributors before the diesel gets to the pump so in fact truck owners will not have to run a second system. If for example they are paying a regional fuel tax on diesel in the Auckland district when they fill up at the pump it will already be paid for by the distributors. There are two systems: if they are on the road they pay a regional fuel tax; if they go off the road they already collect information to be off the road so the situation is no different. 
The second point Maurice Williamson mentioned was the increase in road-user charges. I say to the member that we have today had just the second increase in road-user charges since 1989—the second increase. I tell the member to compare that situation with that facing every petrol user in New Zealand who have had the petrol price adjusted in terms of the CPI nearly every year. It is impossible to give notice of an increase in road-user charges at this stage for a simple reason. Last year when we had the first increase in road-user charges since 1989 3 days’ notice was given and truck owners forward-purchased $17.5 million of road-user charge certificates at the old price. That represented money that did not go into the National Land Transport Fund which was not fair on other road users. 
So the issue is about being fair. The only way to change it would be to change the Road User Charges Act. Changes to that Act will be made in the future to allow a finite period for the road-user charge license to run. That policy work has not been completed. So to have allowed a month’s notice would have allowed every big truck owner to forward-purchase road-user charge certificates for as long as they wanted because those certificates have no end period. Would that have been fair to the road users of New Zealand? Would it have been fair to the motorists that Maurice Williamson says he cares about? We have to have a fair approach and that is exactly what those who pay road-user charges and those who drive petrol vehicles got today. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I just want to make a brief comment on what I understand is Pita Paraone and New Zealand First’s signal that they want to move an amendment to new section 4 to delete the phrase “principles of the” in relation to the Treaty clause clause 5 in the bill. We have given some serious thought to that having only just heard about it. New Zealand First has certainly raised that issue considerably often in the past in a number of its members’ bills to delete references to the principles of the Treaty. Just as we oppose those bills we will oppose this amendment. I want to set out why we oppose it so it is clear that the issue is not about politics but is actually about the law. 
My grave concern about deleting the phrase “principles of the” is that it leaves a lacuna in the law about what implementing the Treaty in a court under the provisions of the legislation would then mean. The Green Party is of the view that the principles are not the best way to interpret how the Treaty should be applied. We would prefer that the Treaty itself and its provisions were taken more seriously and that they were dealt with rather than principles developed by others over time. None the less we have nearly 30 years of jurisprudence around the definition of the principles of the Treaty and a significant body of law both legislation that describes or refers to the principles and also judge-made law—case law—that interprets what the principles are and how they should be applied. 
New Zealand First has never offered an alternative concept for how the Treaty itself might be interpreted differently from the principles of the Treaty. If we were to take that phrasing out of the legislation it would leave it to legal argument to make that determination. We would be opening a great legal debate about the Treaty again with no guidance whatsoever from Parliament from New Zealand First or from anyone about what to do with it. As a default position a court may look at that and use the principles or return to an interpretation based on the principles because that is the law we have at hand to understand how to deal with the Treaty in legislation. But if Parliament expressly takes the reference to the principles out of the legislation there is an argument that that leaves open the question of whether the courts should apply the principles as they understand them when Parliament has clearly said that the principles should not apply. Again it leaves a huge hole in the interpretation of Treaty law. 
I have no problem with the concept of looking more closely at the Treaty and particularly with the concept that Maori should be the ones who determine how the Treaty should be interpreted in relation to legislation. But that is not what New Zealand First is offering. It does not provide any structure or system for doing that; it provides no wording that allows for that. New Zealand First simply wants to take out the reference to the principles. I know that its leader Winston Peters has a long history of objecting to Treaty lawyers in the various phrasing he has used about them. I have always wondered whether that is just because he became an MP rather early in his legal career and never got to jump on that particular gravy train himself which he might well have done had he not been a member of Parliament when the Treaty law hit the law books in the 1980s and 1990s. 
The Green Party is also opposed to this provision because it sets a precedent for the New Zealand First campaign to delete references to the principles. We have seen in their past members’ bills very poor drafting—drafting that actually takes out the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation rather than just the principles. That is careless and unnecessary particularly when it comes to members’ bills because getting them pulled out of the ballot is a very precious opportunity and one would want them to be in the best possible form. I have always been disappointed that New Zealand First did not provide a proper analysis of what it wanted to do by taking out references to the principles in terms of what it expected them to be replaced with and particularly the processes it envisaged around Maori making the decisions about what could replace those references. 
So we will not support New Zealand First’s provision. We do not trust its motives on this issue and we certainly are derisory of its inability to provide any kind of structural alternative that recognises that Maori are the ones who should determine this issue in the first place. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am highly surprised that members of some other parties are not taking a call. However I would like to follow through on a couple of other issues. One thing we heard in terms of the justification of the regional fuel tax was that people in Invercargill will not want to pay for things in Auckland. I think there is some merit to that argument. In New Zealand we should always recognise that some things are in the national interest and that we will all in some way contribute to them. I am sure that all New Zealanders’ taxes paid for Te Papa; I am sure all New Zealanders’ taxes have paid for a number of national things along the way. Let me just take up that argument and use my constituency Pakuranga as a good example. 
A number of people have raised with me their anger at the proposed regional fuel tax. At the time of its announcement with the suggestion that we should be moving to it and allowing it the argument was that it would help Aucklanders to get out of their cars and on to public transport. I want to make it clear to the Minister that the people who live in the eastern suburbs—in my electorate out in Botany further out in Flat Bush and so on—have a number of questions about that. If people in my electorate end up paying 10c a litre extra for their fuel tax and the alternative is to move to rail our question is: where is that rail in the eastern suburbs? Out in the west not only is the rail being double-tracked but also a lot of money is to be spent on electrification. So the people out on the west of Auckland will say it is OK to pay the regional fuel tax because they can either pay it or use the double-tracked electrified rail system. The people on the North Shore can say they have a dedicated busway that cost $130 million so if they do not like paying the regional petrol tax they can move on over to the dedicated bus lane on the North Shore. 
I ask the Minister again what the people of—not just my electorate because it goes quite a long way down and around other electorates: the new electorate of Botany certainly; the new electorate of Papakura; the new electorate of— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I wish to make a correction to statistics that I read out in answer to a question in the House earlier today. I have just been alerted to figures that were provided to me by the Ministry of Health. I have quoted a figure from 2001 of 123943. That figure is right but it applies to a 6-month period not to the 12-month period. 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 With regard to this opportunity of debating a bill to amend the principal Act the Land Transport Management Act 2003 I could not let the opportunity go past to test just whether the Government is genuinely serious about welcoming public-private partnerships—that is private-sector participation. When I have looked at projects overseas on a regular basis from the Millau Bridge in the south of France to the M6 Toll in Birmingham to the M7 in Sydney to the ConnectEast project in Melbourne I have seen that those projects have all had a concession period in the order of 50 60 or sometimes 65 or 70 years. The private funders have all said to me that the legislation in New Zealand is so restrictive at 35 years maximum that every time they try to configure up a funding proposal they find that they just simply cannot make the return in that time frame. 
Thirty-five is not the absolute number because if we read the principal Act it states that the term of a concession agreement must not exceed 35 years and the Minister gets to set what that time is. It may be that the Minister chooses 25 or 35 years but I would like to remove that artificial limit of 35 years so I have put forward an amendment to the principal Act that changes the figure from “35” to “70”. I stress again to members that that is just a maximum. It will be a real test as to whether Labour really does want the private sector involved in public-private partnerships because that would be the one issue that I have had raised with me as being the barrier more than any other by the financial institutions. If 35 years has to be the limit to recover one’s net investment in the public-private partnerships then it just cannot work. I would say to the Minister again that she should look at any of the very successful public-private partnerships that we know about including some that I have seen around the place—certainly in New South Wales Victoria Britain France and other places—and she will find that none of them have been able to be configured up with a concession period of 35 years. That is the reason for the amendment I am putting forward in my name. 
I will come back to the eastern suburbs of Auckland because that poses an important question. People ask me where if they are to pay a regional petrol tax their double-track electrified railway line is. They ask where their dedicated busway is. Where are their options to use public transport? The people of Invercargill do not want to pay for all of these things but why should the people of the east Auckland area pay for all these things when there is no railway line in sight for them? There probably never will be because of the economics of trying to build a new railway passenger system and so on. I think that those people have a genuine issue. 
The next issue I would raise with the Minister which is quite an interesting one that needs some work done on it is to do with the fact that the power has now been granted to the Secretary for Transport to designate what a State highway is. One of the problems we have had in this country for a long time—and I acknowledge that it was the case under both National and Labour so I am not getting at anybody—is that the designation between either State highway or local road is too much of a blunt instrument. I think that we probably need to go to say a three or four-tier category like a number of other jurisdictions do. We should have roads of national importance roads of regional importance roads of strategic importance and then local roads. I find it bizarre that in my electorate when I look out of my electorate office each day I look out on to the six-lane Pakuranga Highway which carries 64000 vehicles per day. I want to stress that number because it is more vehicles per day than any other road other than the motorway—64000 vehicles per day; more vehicles than any road other than the motorway. Yet that is a local road funded administered and operated by Manukau City and its ratepayers. I wonder why that is when I can look at another road elsewhere even in Auckland that because it has the designation “State Highway” in front of it is 100 percent funded from petrol tax and road-user charges because people were lucky enough to get that designation. 
I think that if there is one thing we will need to do in the future and I know that other jurisdictions have done it quite well it is to try to segment the various roads. We will have to say that this is a road of national importance and it will be 100 percent this is a road of regional importance and it will be 75:25 and this is a road of local importance and it might be 50:50 as we do. It may be that we could even get down to some small roads that are more the property developer and local territorial authority’s responsibility to be funding the vast bulk of but I would just stress again that I am not sure whether giving the Secretary for Transport this power is the right thing to do. I know that when Transit used to do the complete review of what was designated in the State highway system each year there were all sorts of pressures on people. Some of the local authorities wanted their roads out of their books and they wanted them moved to being State highways because if they could get that then those roads would be 100 percent funded by the State. Others were always on about and asking why this road was a State highway and another road was not. This legislation will confer to the Secretary for Transport quite strong powers. 
The last thing I want to do is to mention what I think is grossly unfair and I hope that at some stage this matter can be reconsidered and that is the representation on the regional transport committees by road users. It was brought to our attention along the way by the Road Transport Forum and by the Automobile Association that their people pay for all of this and I guess that is exactly right. It is the motorcar driver and the truckdriver who pay either the petrol tax or the road-user charges and therefore they should seriously have a voice. It should not have to be a crowded-out voice or multiple voices where they can win the day by their numbers but I would have thought that the old “no taxation without representation” principle really really should have kicked in here. Yet the regional transport committees—we are dropping the word “land” I remember—are still not acknowledging that those people have a right to both be represented and have voting rights. Yes they have to be consulted but so too does Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and everybody else. If we look at the consultation list I cannot think of anybody who will not be consulted along the way; in fact we probably should have put in an amendment stating that anyone who was not consulted will be anyway. But these people are the ones who pay the piper. I think that the Automobile Association and the Road Transport Forum represent very well the vast bulk of either motorcar drivers or commercial road users and I would have thought that letting them have a place at the table of the regional transport committees that are setting regional strategies would be the right thing to do. 
I said that that would be my last point but I would point out one other problem I have with regional transport programmes. Something like the Kopu Bridge is in the Waikato zone. I know that for the Waikato region Kopu Bridge is not its high priority. It is not its highest priority; there are lots of things to do with the Waikato Expressway and lots of things to do with other roads around Hamilton Cambridge Huntly and Ngaruawahia. But the biggest priority of the Kopu Bridge rests with people from Auckland and with people from the Coromandel who are trying to get to and from Auckland. We have people living on one side of the region who are trying to get through that bottleneck to the other side and when they are locked blocked and stopped it is by far a major priority. But when it comes time for the region where that located point is to set its priorities it does not. So again one of the issues we have about informing the National Land Transport Programme is that it should be very careful not to be driven solely by the regional plans. Thank you sir. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that is before us we see that it includes the regional petrol tax which is the part of the legislation that everybody has been focusing on. I will come back and focus on that as well but first I want to draw the attention of the Committee to another part of the bill which is to do with representation on regional transport committees. This legislation provides for a certain number of Government appointees to represent certain areas. I believe there are five such appointees to represent the areas mentioned in the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 and there is to be formal representation on each transport committee to that effect. 
The problem with that is that if there is a full complement of appointees which would be the norm then there is the potential that in some regions the number of local government representatives may be fewer than the number of Government appointees on the regional committee. There would be the potential if say a busy mayor did not attend a meeting for the Government-appointed officials on the committee to be in the majority; the elected representatives from that region would not have a majority at that meeting. I believe that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we had the numbers on the potential for that to happen. A number of committees represent areas that do not have a lot of territorial authorities within their region and this situation could potentially happen to them. So there is then a dilemma if a regional transport committee’s decision making is being made by appointees rather than by elected representatives. There would be a tremendous uproar in many areas if people knew that the decision makers were not their elected people but rather the appointees under certain requirements in the legislation. That could be a fish-hook that comes out in the future and it is something that the Committee needs to be aware of. 
The regional petrol taxes present an interesting dilemma. We have already touched on the fact that the regions are not being given the discretion to determine how to use that money. There is no discretion it is a mandatory apportionment—5c one way and 5c the other way. It is 5c for roading and 5c for public transport. A slight amendment was made to that at the select committee to bump up the 5c for roading and to take a little bit off the 5c for public transport in relation to things like walking and cycling but those components were minor. That defies the submissions we received from around the regions which wanted discretion. It was obvious that the regions wanted the ability to determine their own future and not to have a mandatory clause saying that it was a 5c-5c split. 
When we spoke to those regions we indicated that we would put forward an amendment to that effect. However it appears that we do not have the numbers for that amendment to go through. It will be interesting to see whether the New Zealand First Party will make a commitment when Peter Brown gets up to speak as to whether it is in favour of the 5c-5c split as in this legislation or whether it would give regions such as the Bay of Plenty which has asked for discretion in relation to the 10c. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Taranaki. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes and Taranaki and Waikato. New Zealand First indicated at the select committee that the discretion was of prime importance and it is now time for that party to stand up and deliver. If it does so then we may have the numbers to achieve that goal. 
Peter Brown 
: Have you got a Supplementary Order Paper in? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We will if the member agrees to do it. 
Peter Brown 
: Oh it depends on us! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes it does in this case because the public needs New Zealand First to do what it says it will do at the select committee and not to come to this Chamber and change its mind as it normally does and just vote with the Government. That is the reality— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’re trying to be nice to him! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes but to see some honesty from that party would be good in this case. 
Basically this legislation takes away the ability of regions to determine their own future. It is set up on the basis that we will have a mandatory 5c-5c split for regions. The history of that is that in Auckland there is a need for public transport and electrification was the big justification for this initial 5c— 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am a little bit slow on my feet nowadays. It has been a long day and I was beaten by the two members opposite who were seeking the call. Had I thought you would give me the call I certainly would have sought it because I have not yet had a call in this debate. It is a very important bill. There is a whole range of aspects to it that have yet to be touched on. I urge you— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
PETER BROWN 
: I had not quite finished my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was simply urging you to reconsider. If you will not reconsider then I seek leave to have at least one call. To be honest I would like more than one call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to note that Colin King came down to the Chamber specifically to talk about Part 1 in relation to an issue in his own electorate in Blenheim. He is keen to take a call on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that I have accepted the closure and the only way this can happen now is for the member to seek leave to take the call. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call for no longer than 30 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member being serious? Is he seeking leave for one 5-minute call? 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are aspects of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that New Zealand First is very happy with. I will name those aspects briefly and I think the Committee is well informed on them. The first is the hypothecation of all the excise tax taken on petrol. We think that is long overdue. I think we are the only party that has consistently advocated for that and we have done so since our formation. We are delighted that that will occur. We also like the idea that the excise tax taken on petrol that goes into leisure boats will be used for search and rescue activities in respect of that industry. 
But we do have some concerns. One is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We object very strongly to having the words “principles of the” in front of the words “Treaty of Waitangi”. Nobody knows what that means. Nobody has been able to tell us what it means. We think those words should be deleted. 
We also have concerns about the regional fuel tax regime as it is stated in the bill. We will support the Minister’s amendments because they improve the regime. We have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to add another criterion that will make the whole thing subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. We are hopeful that the Committee will see its way to supporting that because it seems logical. 
I know that regional councils want a regional tax but there is a better way of doing it. There is a better way of achieving the same end and that is to hypothecate part of the GST taken on petrol into a regional fund and allow regions to bid for it. I suggest that anything over 20c a litre of GST taken on petrol is windfall GST. A year ago the GST on petrol was 17 point something cents a litre—today it is 23c. So 4c a litre going into a regional fund would solve all the problems. It will not add to motorists’ costs and it will provide a fund that the regions could dip into for want of a better term on a project-by-project basis. I urge the Committee to give serious consideration to that. 
New Zealand First will vote against the provision dealing with the regional fuel tax even with the amendments. I urge the Maori Party to give consideration to our GST idea. I know that my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters has spoken to the members of the Maori Party and I hope they take that on board. If they vote for this provision just as it is then they are adding cents per litre simply for regions. 
I think it was the Hon Maurice Williamson who outlined that not every area in the country will benefit from the regional fuel tax. The regions will pay it but not every township will benefit. It is better that the money required is taken from the windfall GST. That would be acceptable right across this country. That would be easily done. The other night I spoke informally to the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne and in two sentences he indicated how easily it could be done. 
David Bennett 
: What about the 5c-5c split? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Bennett that I am serious when I say that I did not make any promises about that whatsoever except that New Zealand First would look at any Supplementary Order Paper provided by the member. But that member is too darn lazy to get off his butt and produce a Supplementary Order Paper. Had he done so we would have given it serious consideration but I am not paid to do his work. I am not paid one cent to do his work. I have watched his performance at the select committee with interest and I see that he is carried by his senior colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson. If it were not for Maurice Williamson on that committee the National Party would be hopeless. I do not agree with everything the Hon Maurice Williamson says but I know he puts in the time and effort required to put his view across. 
To come back to the issue of a regional fuel tax I say that we have an amendment in the name of our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters to insert a clause to make the regional fuel tax subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. That is a common-sense amendment but I make it clear that after that it is very very unlikely that New Zealand First will support the segment of the bill that deals with the regional fuel tax. We say there is a better alternative. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 4 the words “principles of the”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 65A(1) the following paragraph: 
(d)subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to add new clause 41 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3  
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 What a dramatic start there was this afternoon to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I feel that a more appropriate title would be the “Belatedly Looking After the Workers Bill” because at the eleventh hour after the transaction had gone through—the Labour Government is paying nearly $700 million plus the $100 - million odd for the loan plus the rent holiday; it is probably a billion-dollar transaction all up to buy back the railways—Labour found out that it had forgotten about the workers. At the eleventh hour today as part of this bill the Minister of Finance had to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 211 to ensure the Toll workers—[ 
Interruption 
] Actually if the ex-Tauranga member would like to speak he had better take a call. The ex-Tauranga member always likes to chip away without standing up—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The bill could be renamed the “New Zealand First Cave in Bill” too. Apparently in Part 1 the New Zealand First members stood up and said no way were they going to vote for this bill if the Labour Government was not going to remove the wording about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But what happened? They voted for the bill anyway. It is like flying a white flag—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly! That party’s members say they will do what they have come here to do but when it comes to the crunch they cave in lie down and accept what exists. 
Let us get back to the railway workers. The Labour Government in 11 hours just suddenly remembered that during all the dealing the negotiations and pleasing the Australian shareholders when it paid a hefty price to buy back the railway it forgot about the workers. So National will support the Supplementary Order Paper to make sure the workers in the Toll company who are being transferred into the Crown entity KiwiRail will continue their contributions to Government superannuation. That was quite a dramatic start to this bill by a Government that always claims it looks after the workers. Actually it forgot about them during a very important transaction. 
The other thing I would like once again to reinforce relates to Local Government New Zealand raising serious concerns about the lack of a partnership approach in the introduction of this bill. I was very pleased that the Minister in the chair Annette King actually took a call. I raised a question with her about the Government policy statement. She explained that the issuing of the Government policy statement has been changed to a 3-year cycle to coincide with the local government planning cycle so that local government can take the Government’s direction into account. That makes sense except as Local Government New Zealand pointed out it sounds as though the policy is coming from the top down and the Government is to set out the priorities. 
What local authorities really want to see is a genuine partnership whereby the Government consults them before the policy statement is issued so that a local priority or a regional priority actually gets a fair hearing before it is too late. A certain local priority for a project may be agreed to but that might be overridden because of the Government policy statement. Local Government New Zealand therefore expressed concern—and I am not sure at this stage whether anything has been amended so that we have something here that will ease its concern—about the lack of a genuine partnership approach. 
So although the title Land Transport Management Amendment Bill sounds very bland the content of the bill is really significant. It is significant in the sense that there is concern about the super-bureaucracy that will be created with the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are some nights and days in Parliament when one is just utterly and totally amazed. That a National Party spokesperson would get to her feet and raise the issue of New Zealand railways is as I said today a case of her having either the utmost gall or total amnesia. There was an outfit according to Booz Allen Hamilton that sold a $100 million profit-going company in 1993 not for $400 million as was claimed but for $328 million. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She wasn’t here then. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Not being here is no excuse; to show total ignorance is the problem with National members. Too many of them were here. They are still on the front bench and they have learnt nothing. The reality of the whole thing is that they said: “We are doing this because we cannot afford $200 million of capital to develop infrastructure and Wisconsin Central Transportation and our friends Fay Richwhite can.” So did those companies invest $200 million? No. Did they recapitalise and take a $9-plus shareholdership down to 28c? Yes they did. And why have they been in court in the last 12 months? It is because they robbed the public blind. They are the very same people who are lining up behind the National Party as I speak today—and they all know it. So for the last speaker to get to her feet and talk about the railways repurchase is beyond anything in my wildest dreams that I would contemplate would happen here this evening. 
Parts of this bill are very good and parts are not. First I believe we should not act until we have international fuel stabilisation. Secondly I believe there is a windfall occasioned by GST that could mean we could pay this money across; we could actually hypothecate it to use a term that came out of some bureaucracy. But let me tell members this: we cannot sell that to the public—hypothecation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It is the same thing—you can’t sell it— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes we can. My mayor wrote to me as he would have written to all National Party MPs—although of course he does not have one now that “Bob the Quitter” has gone; if it is not for Bob and for Bob’s advantage Bob is not interested. The mayor wrote to me and asked me whether I would back this legislation because on the whole he substantially believes it would be good. Mind you I believe that he also thinks our ideas are more sound. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Simon is out there knocking on doors. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well if I were him I would knock on doors with my head because frankly no one can silk-purse a sow’s ear. National at the last election robbed the people of Tauranga blind by bringing in somebody who spent all his time complaining about the local council and trying to get deals done for himself. Robbing the ratepayers blind by getting a white elephant and selling it to ratepayers is what the National Party calls “socialising your losses”—passing them on to ratepayers. That is why Bob has gone and bought two farms just north of Tauranga for $24 million. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who won in 2005? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will tell the member who won. He should look at the Electoral Act. Nobody will get away with that sort of cheating again. Oh no—they are laughing nervously now. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who got the electoral petition? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will tell the member who won the electoral petition—the man who got the law changed. He won the petition in the end did he not? Just because one can find three judges who against all the record say one thing—but let me tell that eminent lawyer at the far end over there— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he is ranging too far. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know but I just want to say one thing. Those members will not be able to get up in this election and use mates’ rates of one-tenth of real and actual costs and get away with it—sorry but we are on to it. 
I come back to my point about hypothecation. It should have gone from the GST windfall straight across to the national roading account—transparent fee-equivalent no commission taken off on the way through—and we would have been happy with that. 
There is one other thing I want to say to Mr Williamson who mentioned the issue of public-private partnerships. If someone cannot get a project going in 35 years and make a profit then I would be very fascinated to know what that project is because if the project is being run on a profit—whether it is the Millennium Wheel the Tauranga Harbour Bridge or anything like that—and if the developer has the utility for the public at heart then it should be able to be done in 35 years. But the member is not talking about that of course. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we look back on this legislation I think we will see it in relation to the purchase of Toll NZ by this Government. The question from the ACT party today was pretty apt. It asked how such a deal could be so great in the Government’s eyes and in New Zealand First’s eyes when the purchase price some years ago was much less and the company was then rorted by the purchasers yet they now pay over $1 billion and say it is a good deal. What arithmetic is used by the Government and New Zealand First when it comes to purchasing? 
The reality is that the bill before us today the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a problem in the sense that it does not take into account what the regions actually wanted. The regions wanted the ability to distribute the regional petrol tax according to their needs. The Government did not give the regions the ability to do that; it imposed a mandatory split of 5c and 5c. The regions including Tauranga wanted the ability to distribute that tax of 10c per litre of their own accord. That is not what the Government handed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Region after region including the Bay of Plenty came and submitted that the Government should give that discretion. Would New Zealand First support the Bay of Plenty? No it did not. The Bay of Plenty wanted the ability to make that distribution according to its plans and not according to some mandatory distribution by the Government of 5c to public transport and 5c to roading. 
That is at the heart of the problem with this legislation. It does not take into account the roading needs of most of the regions of New Zealand. This legislation was set up because the Government had problems financing Auckland’s growth. It did not want to put the money in so it decided to charge the people of Auckland through a regional petrol tax. Then it decided that if it was going to charge the people of Auckland it might as well charge the people of New Zealand. That is the real reason for this bill. There was pressure on the Government to electrify the rail system in Auckland and there was pressure on the Government to provide some roading in Auckland. The Government would not stump up with the cash; it would say in its Budgets that it would build these things but it would not deliver any cash for them. Then it decided where it would get the cash: it decided it would have a regional petrol tax. This bill is the result. 
This legislation has been built around one region’s desire and does not take into account the desires of other regions around the country including the Bay of Plenty Waikato and Taranaki all of which wanted the ability to distribute the money as their regional plans dictated. That is the real crime in this legislation: it has been set up for one region then it has been extended across the country to give some kind of consistency but it does not provide the discretion needed for it to be effective. The regions wanted that discretion. They came in one after the other asking for that discretion. Did New Zealand First give them that discretion? No it did not. Did some of the other minor parties give them that discretion? No. Did the Labour Party give them that discretion? No. Those political parties stood against the wishes of the regions. The regions have been let down by this Parliament. Time after time they made submissions seeking that discretion and they have not received it. It is a shame on the Government of the day that it has not done that in this bill when it had the opportunity to do so. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of totally refuting that last speech I wish to table a letter dated 30 June 2008 from the Mayor of Tauranga Stuart Crosby on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill seeking my support for the legislation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I know that the previous speaker my good colleague from Hamilton East was talking about the regions and the relevance of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill to the regions. I just want to state to the Committee that my colleague the member of Parliament for Hamilton East along with the Government member of Parliament for Hamilton West wants to congratulate warmly the Rt Hon James Bolger on his appointment as chair of KiwiRail. Speaking on behalf of David Bennett and myself I say that we are immensely proud that a Waikato son—and I know Winston Peters joins me— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I don’t. He sold it mate. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I withdraw that immediately. But I just want to say that as Waikato members of Parliament we note the appointment of James Bolger to that role today. I personally think he will do a very very good job. The historical ironies obviously are not lost on us. 
I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister on being a very visionary Minister of Transport. I compliment her in terms of this bill which is another important step in terms of the roll-out of a very important vision. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson in his heart of hearts is envious and would agree with this; this Minister has achieved far far more in her term along with her predecessors such as the Hon Mark Gosche and the Hon Paul Swain and other Ministers. I am very keen that we go back to a situation of creating the New Zealand Transport Agency a new Crown entity replacing the existing Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I know that there were quite a lot of submissions to the select committee in terms of the split of those organisations but I have to say from a Waikato point of view that on balance I do believe that having one entity in the end will streamline strategic transport planning in this country. 
I know that the members for Hamilton East and Hamilton West would also be in accord in acknowledging the huge work already being done in terms of building Hamilton’s and the central Waikato’s transport infrastructure and in my own electorate I note that even under the current system the western bypass—the Rotokauri Road to Rifle Range Road bypass—is a good example of strategic planning and we see the wonderful green buses. I noticed Dr Norman today asking Ministers whether they took a bus or a car or whatever to work. I tell Dr Norman to come to Hamilton and he will see the roll-out of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
. He will see an equal investment in roading infrastructure and he will see a comprehensive commitment to public transport which is a direct and precise result of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 and which this land transport amendment bill will add to and indeed strengthen. I say to the Minister that I think that Hamilton is a very good example of the comprehensive— 
Hon Annette King 
: The biggest increase in passenger transport. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The Minister is correct; it is the biggest increase. It is quite easy sometimes to forget the huge strides that have been made. If we want to see—and Mr Maurice Williamson would agree— 
David Bennett 
: Come on Martin! You know what Land Transport New Zealand did last month. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I have to say that if the member drives north of Hamilton he will see the huge advances in the Waikato Expressway. He does not need to read volumes and tomes or even to read the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 to know about the big gains. He does not need to read volumes and tomes to come into Hamilton and see the huge advance in the western arterial route. He does not need to read to see the wonderful development in our bus network and indeed in terms of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 I offer compliments to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in relation to the impact of the SuperGold Card. I am really looking forward as a Hamilton and Waikato MP to older New Zealanders being able to use public transport for free in off-peak hours. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I guess when we are talking about the title of this bill we need to try to summarise some of the things in the bill and try to analyse whether the title conveys that impression. I think I would have named this bill the “Mixed Bag Land Transport Bill” because some things in it are very good and I have already canvassed those. The hypothecation issue was long overdue and it puts to bed the argument over the years of how much money was being siphoned off to the Crown account. Now all those revenues that come from petrol tax road-user charges and motor vehicle registration— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We’ve come a long way on this one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well actually Mr Peters is one of the earlier converters to this view but I think at the time when the economy was still struggling to get into balance across the board it was a bit hard to justify. But with the levels of surpluses where they are now I think it is the right time to do it. So yes we all learn and I think we should give some credit to people who have learnt. 
Peter Brown 
: Just apologise; we’ll listen. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I do not need to apologise. There are other good things in the bill like getting on to a proper planning cycle. I will be interested in the Government policy statement because the “GPS” the Government policy statement is a sort of a direction of funding and funding priorities— 
John Hayes 
: I thought it was something that goes in a vehicle. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it is not the global positioning system; the Government policy statement is about funding priorities and areas where the funding will fall across the regime. I guess that that in part will offset the concerns I have about the funding agency being included in the provision agency and so on. 
Having said all that I get back to some of the stuff National did not approve of. When we had the land transport agencies before the select committee with the Minister a couple of weeks ago we learnt that one of the reasons they finished the last financial year with $220 million unspent was that there were too many pots of money. They said: “There is some money in this fund here but it can’t be used for that. There is some money in this regional fund for this region but it can’t be moved to that region.” It was clear from that what happens when we build too many pots and I think there are already too many pots in the land transport account. We would be better to actually get rid of all those little internal barriers and use the money where best we can and if it is not available for that year use it somewhere else. 
Hon Annette King 
: He’d take if off them. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No actually I would not take it off anyone. If they were ready to go and their project was up they are the ones that should go ahead. The problem is that that money was unspent because some people who were supposed to be up and ready were not and they were not able to take advantage of it. In fact Wayne Donnelly I think gave Tauranga as a good example of a project that was supposed to be up and running but was not ready and had to be delayed for some time and the money could not be spent elsewhere. So we were quite strongly opposed. 
What is not in this legislation? If I wanted a better title for this bill it would be the “What’s Not in the Land Transport Management Bill”. If there was truly a desire by the Labour Government to see alternative funding mechanisms there would be more in this bill. I guess that after hypothecation is passed into law it is very unlikely we will see Ministers of Finance allowing much more dedicated fund money. There will not be Crown money or other stuff coming into it so alternative sources of revenue will have to be found. Elsewhere in the world those alternative sources are legion: private debt public debt public-private partnerships private equity schemes infrastructure bonds all sorts of shadow tolling regimes and so on. Yet we seem to be absolutely fixated on funding our land transport infrastructure on the one tired old boring regime of spending only the current revenue that comes in. I do not know anybody who bought his or her first house by paying cash. People went to debt markets they got the infrastructure early at the then price and then they serviced that debt over time. I do not know any big business that builds plant and equipment or commits to major capital expenditure without using debt funding or capital markets—that is what they are there for. 
The Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me why we needed to change the concession period from 35 years. All I say to him is that he should look at every one of the major projects that I think we could try to emulate. He should look at the ConnectEast and the CityLink around Victoria the M7 in Sydney or some of the other projects there. He should go to the North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane the Millau bridge in the south of France the M6 Toll in Britain done by the Labour Government and the Kilkock to Kinnegad Motorway in Ireland. Every one of those projects has had a concession period considerably longer than 35 years. When developers were asked about it they said that to get a return in that period either the toll had to be put at a grossly unrealistic level so that no one would use it or if there was a very long concession period the toll could have a flat rate at a realistic level so the return could be attained over time. And I am sad that that was not in this legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I take the opportunity in this part of the debate to put a few myths to rest. We have heard speaker after speaker from the National Party talk about the sale of New Zealand Rail. Officially it was sold for $400 million in 1993—I say “Officially” because that was fiction. New Zealand Rail had $72 million worth of debt so effectively it was sold for $328 million not $370 million as the Hon Maurice Williamson said earlier. That was in 1993 dollars and if we allow for inflation—which was fairly high in 1993 1994 and 1995 and has been modest ever since—the figure would be close to $600 million - plus. So $328 million in 1993 is worth over $600 million in 2008 when a reasonable amount is allowed for inflation. The Minister of Finance recognised that the Government had paid a premium for it. It was also quite correctly suggested that the rail was asset-stripped once it was sold. But I say “Fair go” to Toll; it has improved the rail. It is better now than it was when Toll bought it so there is a premium price to be paid for that. Let us compare an apple with an apple not an apple with an orange. 
The other thing is and the Hon Maurice Williamson suggested— 
John Hayes 
: What assets were stripped? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member should not show his ignorance. There is an old saying about closing one’s mouth and not showing one’s ignorance. I will not waste my time on that individual; the guy is thicker than this piece of wood. For the last 3 years the Hon Maurice Williamson has been a firm advocate for the hypothecation of all petrol tax. He has officially changed his mind about that tonight; we have not changed ours. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No I haven’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well the member has changed his mind insomuch that he has voted against it. 
Hon Member 
: That’s because of all the other stuff. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well we have put a priority on hypothecation and other aspects of this bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You were going to vote against the principles. 
PETER BROWN 
: We wanted to vote against the reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson said that perhaps he should have hypothecated the excise tax some years ago but he did not do so because of the economic situation. The price of not doing it then—not hypothecating all the excise tax into the road transport account—was $1 billion per year or thereabouts worth of congestion in Auckland. The price of steel and concrete has gone up by well over 30 percent and God knows what the price of bitumen has gone up by—I would say there has been a 40 or 50 percent increase. We have paid dearly for sitting on our hands in the 1990s and the early 2000s. We should have been transferring that money across years ago. 
In 1989—or early 1990; certainly it was when Labour was in power before National took the benches under Jim Bolger—I went to Winston Peters and said more money had to go into roading in order to keep pace with the freight that was going to move on our roads just as a result of port reform which was coming. As I recall the excise tax that was going into roading from petrol was 9c a litre at that time. I was a consultant involved in the port reform process. It stood out by a country mile that if we wanted this country to develop economically we had to do something about roading and we had to do it there and then. We should have hypothecated all the excise tax and been prepared to borrow against the income in order to get our roading into a fit state. In terms of the economy we have paid very dearly for not doing that with a billion dollars a year worth of congestion. Also people have lost their lives on the roads in this country because the roads have been less than satisfactory. So New Zealand First saw hypothecation as a high priority and voted for this bill. 
We are absolutely brassed off with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi clause—absolutely brassed off. We cannot find one person in this House anywhere who can tell us what that term actually means. We think we should have got—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member can tell me; maybe she can take a call and tell me exactly what it means. We cannot work out what it means and I would be delighted to know what it means in terms of clause 5 of this bill. 
We also wanted amendments to be made to the regional fuel tax. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has tabled a letter from the Mayor of Tauranga supporting a regional fuel tax. I think the words in that letter were that it was “another tool in the tool box to address the problems of regions”. But a far better way than the regional fuel tax—and we are very disappointed that the Maori Party did not support us on this—would be to use the windfall GST that is currently being paid. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Sorry. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member’s party should have given serious consideration to that. We will be going around this country and telling people that that is what we should be doing. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a marvellous piece of work and incredibly complex with page after page. On that basis the title of the bill is probably quite appropriate the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. But I make the point that there is so much management that we have bureaucracy getting in the way of the intent of the bill. Too often this House tends to take a high view of things and that is probably where governance has its rightful position. I will draw the House’s attention to some of the very drivers that repeat themselves throughout this legislation including these thoughts of assisting economic development assisting safety and personal security improving access and mobility protecting and promoting public health and ensuring environmental sustainability. 
To bring things down to a regional level and to support the comments of my learned colleague David Bennett from Hamilton East who spoke earlier I say that it is quite sad to see that the regions have effectively been closed out of this bill in the sense that quite often when we look at the major issues that confront them we see that they do not show up in a meaningful way in the overall configuration of the National Land Transport Programme. 
I draw everybody’s attention to a situation in my own electorate. I have a newspaper headline entitled “Buck passes on Butter Factory corner”. Butter Factory corner is on State Highway 1. It is on the other side of the Bombay Hills but the situation there has been around for as long as Blenheim has been around and we are not able to even get it up on the radar screen. That is hugely concerning because if members look at what works have been done around elevations and bridges and things like that they will see that all too often in the region it takes a death on the road before anything is done. But at Butter Factory corner we have a complex situation whereby everybody is blaming one another. Transit is being blamed by the council and  
Marlborough Roads 
 is saying that it cannot do anything yet there was an opportunity for the regions to be able to have that flexibility. 
It was good to hear that they did submit to the select committee to ask for that flexibility to be able to raise a petrol tax. It was something I felt compelled to mention at the first reading of this bill and it is something I am pleased to see was canvassed. I am very sad that it was not taken on board and worked into the process. Maybe in time to come it might be the next step forward because when we look at the structure and the framework about getting these matters on to the National Land Transport Programme it takes an enormous amount of effort. 
We acknowledge the building of the Awatere bridge. There were no accidents on that bridge yet it was seen to be of such economic importance that it was a must-do. On that basis credit where credit is due but we do have an enormous problem around a market town such as Blenheim that has grown exponentially. We have a situation at Butter Factory corner where we have a railway line 10 metres from the apex of the corner and when a B train truck stops on that route it is parked over the railway line. It is complex. There is the opportunity to do business with the local landowner; however there is a bureaucratic jam in the system where nothing is happening. There is a school just up the way and again no matter how good this legislation is we must be able to see that the ability of the local region is taken on board and that we are not stymied completely. 
The Automobile Association has recognised this area as the No. 1 priority. When trucks come off the State highway and turn into this particular road cars have to back into the Canterbury Meatpackers’ freezing works to allow them to get through. The biggest problem as is articulated here is sadly when Transit does business and sits down and tries to talk to the landowner the landowner feels that he or she is going to be screwed over. 
So I just want to tell the Committee that it is very important that this is contextualised. It is a great piece of legislation but there is a lot more work still to do. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 26 June. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I last spoke on this bill on Thursday 26 June and indicated that National supports the legislation. It is legislation in short form—it barely occupies two sides of paper. It is no wonder we support it because it actually steals National Party policy. The bill makes amendments to the Crimes Act by increasing from 5 to 10 years the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence relating to participation in an organised criminal group. It also makes changes to the Sentencing Act—and this is the stolen policy—because clause 6 
amends section 9 of the Act which relates to aggravating and mitigating factors that the court must take into account when sentencing. The explanatory note states: “The effect of the amendment is to insert a new aggravating factor that relates to offending connected with participation in organised criminal groups.” 
On Thursday I made some comments about organised crime and gangs in New Zealand. I would like to continue on that theme for a moment. Organised crime as such is an amorphous term—individuals motorcycle gangs or transnational crime can come under that umbrella term. Its operations are highly organised criminal enterprises with budgets far outstripping those available to the police. I have listened with interest to the debate in this House during question time as to the number of people who are actually associated with these gang movements. The information available to me from the police indicates that there are nearly 6000 patched members and an estimated 60000 associates who hang around ethnic outlaw motorcycle and youth gangs in New Zealand. So they outnumber sworn police officers by nearly 8:1. 
There are those who naively believe that New Zealand gangs will eventually self-destruct through their exposure to methamphetamine and P or that senior members may actively discourage their own offspring from following in their footsteps. But I think the reality is that for every gang member who leaves there are many disenfranchised and alienated youths ready to take up the colours. Some gangs may not survive—I accept that. But their members usually merge into other more powerful entities. In a trend that has come straight from the United States Canada and Europe some of the stronger New Zealand gangs are patching over as it is called smaller clubs. Patching over as the name suggests allows the stronger club to absorb the smaller club into its membership sharing the stronger club’s patch in return for a share of the smaller club’s earnings. 
I think what is happening in the United States in the area of methamphetamine use is interesting. The United States now lists methamphetamine as its single biggest drug problem. Americans are beginning to count the drug’s huge cost on social services. My understanding is that the latest data available from the United States indicates that the cost to America of the methamphetamine scourge which is primarily driven by the gangs is approximately $400 billion each year. A similar study in Australia 5 years ago said that the cost to Australian taxpayers of illicit drugs was estimated at $1.7 billion. In New Zealand we are seeing gangs legitimise their wealth by buying into established businesses. Many senior members of gangs have given up their identifying patches and wear long sleeves in order to hide traditional gang tattoos so as to better blend in with mainstream New Zealanders. 
This legislation is important but it is only a small start on what is a major problem. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 This is an interesting area of the law. Section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 is an important section that has not been properly utilised to date because of the limitations on gathering evidence. Section 98A reflects somewhat the law of unlawful assembly but it differs in that criminal groups—which is the correct title rather than “gangs”—act with greater subterfuge than those at street level that are identified by the offence of unlawful assembly. So although the rudiments of the two offences—unlawful assembly and organised criminal groups—are fairly similar the areas in which they apply are very dissimilar. 
In the time that I was at the criminal Bar— 
Simon Power 
: Those were the days! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Those were the days of good income and a lot of freedom. But anyway I appeared frequently in many of the High Court’s jurisdictions in the North Island and I had many encounters with serious members of gangs from the highest echelons to the lower echelons. It always struck me that it was never the masterminds of the criminal activity who appeared before the court. Whether it was a High Court class A or class B drugs trial or a District Court class C cannabis trial it was invariably the lower ranks of the gang hierarchy who took the blame for the serious ranks. So the law relating to criminal groups is important in our country because these groups are not the ethnic gangs referred to I think by the last speaker but rather groups of professional criminals. These groups transcend questions of ethnic association and forms of that. We are talking about gangs that probably are transnational and overseas influenced and we are talking about techniques that people would see on a TV screen but would never believe happen in New Zealand. 
I want to recount two examples. I have appeared in many trials involving undercover operations—sometimes for 6 months. I have appeared for the police who were involved in those undercover operations and were in strife themselves and I have appeared for the criminals and people charged with offending. Time and time again those operations—which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and a huge amount of man-hours and took police officers off the street while they conducted the surveillance—picked up the runners the shoppers and the sellers but never people of wealth because the money had always disappeared to regions unaccounted for. However in contrast I have also appeared for business people who were charged with possession of a serious drug for the purpose of supply who used the purpose of their business and excuses attached to that as some form of defence. 
I think what turned the corner for me in my criminal practice and one of the many factors that led me to this place—a very fateful and uncertain decision that was indeed—was a trial I once did in a High Court jurisdiction. I was acting for a tradesman a man whose job it was to work on vehicles and improve the quality of them. He was a very well-regarded man who worked for commercial operators and he happened to have two vehicles in his workshop that came from apparently different sources. He worked on them but they were never uplifted and he was never paid so they remained in his workshop. 
One day the police raided him and accused him of receiving these vehicles of some value and because he could not explain who the owner really was he was charged. Also charged in the trial was another individual of much scruffier appearance and with no clear means of income who was at first appearance a ne’er-do-well. As we conducted depositions in the lower court—and those were the days of depositions I should say—it became apparent to me that my client’s instructions were becoming less certain and he was becoming somewhat reticent. It turned out that the nondescript-looking co-offender in fact had connections to a gang of international reputation. He was conveying instructions to my client as to how my client should instruct me during the course of the deposition hearing. My client of course was a decent person and a decent businessman and did not want to follow those instructions. One night during the deposition hearing he was taken from his home at midnight to a remote spot and threatened with kneecapping unless he released to the gang a vehicle worth $25000 and changed his instructions to me the next morning. 
That was the time when I decided the work I had been doing in the criminal courts was becoming a less than useful function because in this instance the instructions that I was receiving as an experienced criminal barrister were being affected by someone who had a vested interest in the outcome—keeping one person out of jail and getting another person into jail. At that time I decided that gang membership was no longer a destiny for just the socially disaffected and those from impoverished circumstances; gangs that were not necessarily associated with some of the major patches we see in our newspapers were operating in this country at a level that I had not seen or experienced before. 
That is to me the definition of a criminal group and that is why I think it is a good idea that we increase the penalty from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment. One of the many effects of doing that which makes the offence a most serious crime is to bring it into the jurisdiction of police surveillance by modern surreptitious means. Quite clearly the only way to get to organised criminal groups in this country at a level that is effective—not at street level but at a level that is effective—is by way of interception equipment and other means that are made available by increasing the penalty. 
My anecdotal experience was one of the most nerve-racking experiences I have had at the Bar and it certainly woke me up to the way this country was moving in terms of serious crime. I have many other stories that relate to gang life—and I have to say that it has much colour and much interest. I am pleased to say that I have some friendships with serious gang leaders in this country— friendships that I value at the level they are. We certainly do not socialise together nor do we conduct any commercial activity together but the bonds forged from many battles are enduring. I respect those friendships with those people as I think their relationship with me is respected by them at the level they are. 
But for groups at the other level at the level that section 98A of the Crimes Act attacks no one of a moral perspective—of normal moral principles—can form any sort of relationship with these people because they have a different moral code entirely. They use people to an extent not imaginable by most people in New Zealand and they pervert the justice system in a way that would make all of us cringe. They operate at a level of high finance so their material position is much advantaged and they use it in a way that is sinister to say the least. I am aware of criminal groups in this very city that act as financiers and write cheques of considerable amounts to further the criminal group’s purpose. 
These people undermine the structure of our society. They undermine our whole economic system. They develop the black market but worst of all they undermine the lifestyle of you and me—law-abiding citizens who try to live honestly every day. These people live entirely outside the rules and they need to be identified for their criminality. They are not street thugs they are not the people we see in newspapers wearing patches and they are not the sorts of people whom we commonly associate with being gangsters. These are people who live sophisticated lifestyles that many other people would aspire to. Their source of wealth has to be disowned and discouraged and our criminal law should be set upon them. That is why I speak with some enthusiasm in support of this amendment to the Crimes Act. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill will have the support of the National Party at its first reading as my colleague Dr Worth indicated in his opening remarks which I believe he commenced on Thursday afternoon and concluded today. 
I must say that I always find the preceding speaker Russell Fairbrother interesting with regard to the comments he makes about these issues. He is probably one of the people in this Parliament who is best placed to talk from experience on some of these issues. I have noticed that Mr Fairbrother is getting more free and open with his views on these matters as certain dates loom. That is to be encouraged because some of that wisdom is now being imparted on a more widely recognised and digested basis and indeed he does bring considerable experience to this debate. 
The purpose of this bill as no doubt preceding speakers have indicated is to increase the maximum penalty for the offence under section 98A of the Crimes Act. This section relates to participation in an organised criminal group. That is important to state because for many many years we have heard political discussions about how to deal to gangs. This amendment to the section assists with dismantling organised criminal activity by increasing the penalties that are contained in that section from 5 years to 10 years. Increasing the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years for participation in an organised criminal group brings with it certain benefits as not only will it involve seeing those found guilty under section 98A taken out of circulation and society for a longer period of time but also it will reflect the range of culpability that may attend section 98A offending. 
Of course an offshoot of this increase in sentence length as indicated by Mr Fairbrother means that interception warrants will be made available for investigations under section 98A. That is a particularly helpful mechanism to make available to law enforcement authorities with regard to the offence of participation in criminal activity. As members will be aware the two suggestions contained in this bill were first floated by the National Party in August of last year. We have since discovered through discussions in this House that Cabinet had approved the two matters contained in this bill in early July last year. Under questioning in the House it became apparent—as one political editor made clear in his blog—that the reason for the delay in the introduction of this particular bill dealing with such a crucial issue of public safety was the then preoccupation with the Electoral Finance Bill and the fact that it kept various attendant Ministers busy at the time. 
What we saw there was clearly a decision made by the Government to put the Minister of Justice’s energies into the Electoral Finance Act ahead of issues relating to gangs. That is not acceptable. We know for a fact that the Government is now keen to see in force the two out of the four initiatives that National had suggested be adopted in the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill. The only regret we have in supporting this bill is that the other two points we made were not also adopted at this time in order to provide the police and other law enforcement authorities with a suite of tools that would be effective legislative measures for dealing with the influence of gangs and in particular their organised criminal activity. 
That point leads to the second part of this legislation which proposes a change to section 9 of the Sentencing Act that relates to the aggravated and mitigating factors to be taken into account by a court at the time of sentencing. This bill would provide that it is an aggravating factor where an offence is committed partly or wholly because of the offender’s participation in an organised criminal group. In other words if it was the intent of this individual to be associated with a wider network or association of criminal activity then that would be seen by the court and should be taken into account by the court as an aggravating factor at the point of sentencing. The message that Parliament would be giving judges and courts through amending this section is that this Parliament believes that membership of an organised criminal activity is a very big negative and that it should lengthen sentencing or at the very least should be taken into account at the point of sentencing. 
I am still a bit concerned that the ideas contained in the bill lack perhaps some of the detail of approach we suggested around things like gang fortifications and surveillance on gangs and gang fortifications—which curiously is contained in the Local Government Act—and I think that those issues should be dealt with at the same time as the ones I have already outlined. We know that any organised criminal group that is involved in the supply manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine or the drug P as it is commonly known should be dealt to by Parliament with a range of punitive tools that makes it clear that the drug P is an unacceptable scourge on our society. It is a drug that is having a devastating effect not only on our young people but also across all sectors of New Zealand society. This drug must be stamped out and those who manufacture supply and distribute this drug must be stamped out alongside the drug itself. 
Although this bill lacks a range of measures—in fact it is only two pages long—and a range of tools it is a start. At the select committee National will be interested in exploring the scope of this bill to include other methods or tools to increase the tool kit for law enforcement agencies to take the necessary action that is required. 
There has been some confusion amongst the media about whether it is this bill or the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill that we are debating. The Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill is of course already at the Law and Order Committee under the watchful eye of the committee’s chairman Mr Ron Mark. This bill is of course a different piece of legislation—one that is designed specifically to zero in on sentencing options for a judge or court at the point these matters come before that jurisdiction. Mr Fairbrother is quite right when he says that those who are involved in an organised criminal group live to a different moral code. From time to time Parliament has to make judgments about moral codes on a range of issues that are always controversial. This particular bill though is not controversial. It is a small step in the right direction. It is a late step in the right direction. It has been a delayed and hesitant step in the right direction as far as the Government’s actions are concerned. National which has incorporated in its original four-point plan released in August last year two of these matters will be supporting the bill through its first reading to I believe the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Oh how slowly the wheels of democracy turn! That is what springs to mind when I look at the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill and reflect on the history of this issue. It is timely to point out to the House that when I first came to Parliament in 1996 I was part of a coalition Government—New Zealand First and National—in which some attempts were made by the then Minister of Justice to improve section 98 of the Crimes Act with the similar intent of tightening the legislation to enable the successful prosecution of criminals who consort or associate with each other and act in a coordinated and organised manner against the citizens of this nation. 
On reflection I guess we would have to conclude that the approaches taken by the National Minister of the day were timid—very timid. But they were an improvement we thought on the legislation at that time. Subsequently the Labour Government in 2002 attempted to make some improvements to the Act again. It was an interesting time; the Labour Government was in coalition with or heavily dependent on—was it the Greens? It was interesting because at the same time it was also heavily dependent on United Future; I think it was in formal coalition with United Future and relied on the Greens for support. We saw improvements in the legislation but again as history and time have shown us those improvements have proven to be inadequate. 
Let us look at the history of section 98A. Going back to 2006 I asked on behalf of New Zealand First a number of written questions of the Minister of Justice about the number of prosecutions brought under this provision. It is interesting to note that in 2003 there were 76 prosecutions in 2004 there were 209 and in 2005 there were 58. The small number of actual convictions obtained is sobering. If we go back before that I have to give credit to Marc Alexander a former United Future member who raised questions about the small number of convictions obtained from prosecutions brought under that section of the Crimes Act. That again highlighted the flaws that existed in the provision. 
The fact is that when we talked to police officers they said that they know that these people are organised criminals they know they are members of gangs they know they act in an organised manner and they know they are specifically and deliberately involved in organised criminal activities for profit. Some of them said that it was difficult—indeed pointless—to attempt to prosecute those people under section 98A because it was too open and the offence was too difficult to prove and the chances of getting a conviction were slim. It is interesting that we had to wait until the killing of a baby girl in Wanganui before something was done. She was killed by people whom we knew were gang members and organised criminals and who conspired through their silence and obfuscation to attempt to defeat the course of justice and our attempts as a nation through our judicial process to bring to trial the people who killed that wee girl. It is interesting that other aspects of section 98A were again discussed and pored over as a result of Graeme Burton’s release and his murder of Mr Kuchenbecker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Harry Duynhoven that it gives New Zealand First some concern that of late there seems to be a pattern emerging whereby citizens who are riled come to Parliament go to MPs or approach the Government with their concerns about an issue—and indeed members of Parliament come to the House with members’ bills that attempt to deal with some of these issues—and one after the other in turn they are turned away. It is only when events transpire that result in a death that the Government moves. It saddens me that this Government is now seen in that light. To be specific I point to George Hawkins’ tagging bill. It was brought to Parliament in good faith on behalf of the people of Papakura in the electorate he represents and it was seen by the whole nation as a bill worthy of support but it got no support whatsoever from the Government until a young man was killed. That trial continues in our courts today. 
Martin Gallagher also brought a bill to the House—the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—and in the report back on that bill we discussed at length the problems of the proliferation of liquor outlets and the social damage and social chaos being inflicted on communities. We did not have to look very far to see other nations that had done the same thing and taken a free-market approach to the sale of liquor at all hours of the night and through all sorts of avenues. Wherever we looked it was easy to find incidents of liquor stores being robbed—of armed robberies and people being killed. The Law and Order Committee’s report on Martin Gallagher’s bill pointed out that this issue needed addressing but nothing happened until a Manurewa proprietor a member of the Sikh community was killed. 
I hate to say it but that leaves the nation asking what it is about this Government that makes it dismiss out of hand on so many occasions issues such as this that citizens have brought to its attention and wait until someone is killed before it accepts the relevancy and the accuracy of the arguments and moves. It is a sad sad thing to reflect on. It may not be the Government’s intent to be seen in this light. It may argue that that is not a fact and that it was working on the issue but the wider public is left with the perception that the Government ignores the problem. 
One could argue that section 98A has been a little slow in getting to the House; there are many reasons for that and we have heard some of them. The point is that it is here. But let us not fool ourselves. Section 98A will deal with one end of the gang and organised criminal fraternity and that is in the main the people who drive BMWs and Mercedes wear suits and are never seen wearing a Hell’s Angel patch—never! We like to think that this bill will specifically target the types of people who cut a swathe through a Hawke’s Bay party with machetes and knives the other weekend. It will not. The people who did that are the dumb end of gangs and organised crime the “el thicko” end the end of organised criminal activity that will always be easy to deal with in the sense that they will be caught and locked up. But we should not kid ourselves that we will confiscate an absolute fortune in criminal proceeds from their activities because the big boys who this bill is really aimed at are at the top end. Those people wheel and deal and work the $1.5 billion methamphetamine market in this country which is causing huge damage to youth and young people who get hooked on P—arguably more damage than 101 dumb Mongrel Mob members cause. 
New Zealand First is very very clear about who this bill is aimed at. We are very very clear that it should have been introduced a long time ago. We are very supportive of it. We hope we can get this legislation through the House before the election so that it is enacted and the police are given a valuable tool that they need. We congratulate the Government on finally putting the legislation on the Table and we look forward to hearing submissions in the select committee seeing the report back and finally the bill being given the Royal assent. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Mr Locke I will just make a comment. There are a number of conversations that occur and I always am conscious of the members from the parties at the end of the Chamber having to speak through long conversations and fairly loud conversations because I can hear them here. I notice also members of those parties at that end of the Chamber becoming agitated sometimes. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 There was a good article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
a few days ago on 25 June. The article was written by a chap called Brian Rudman and had the headline “Lock ‘em up? Must be election year”. This bill is about a law and order harsh and punitive approach to the problems with criminality in our society. It is a law and order competition between the Labour Party and the National Party. Labour has just pulled this cat out of the bag in trying to outbid National and as a political tactic it is idiotic. It is legitimising National’s right-wing “bash ‘em lock ‘em up” policies. National is always able to go one better than Labour. Richard Worth has already said earlier on today: “Labour has stolen our policy”. It is the same thing that has happened with tax cuts. Labour in adopting National’s tax cut strategy has in essence legitimised National Party policy and only given the National Party a greater poll lead. It has legitimised in the form of tax cuts the idea of looking after oneself rather than being concerned about social provision—that is looking after the environment and all the other things that the Government needs to spend tax money on. 
It is an idiotic tactic; it is putting Labour even lower and lower in the polls. That is demonstrably provable and a really progressive Government would not compete with National as to how many people to put in jail. The number of people in jail has gone up hugely in Labour’s term in Government. It is now around 8000; at 197 per 100000 it is one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. It is twice as much as most Western European countries and of course in National’s bidding Simon Power has promised another new prison to up that total even more. One does not need to be too smart to know that prisons are a training ground for crime. The more people we put in jail the more people we are training to commit more crimes and the more members of criminal groups as defined in this law whom we put in prison the more that jails are a training ground. 
Russell Fairbrother says that we are putting the leaders of gangs in jail and there is no denying a certain advantage in putting the leaders of criminal groups in jail but often it just means that more leaders come through the ranks and the leaders who end up in jail continue their work training the people inside. The young kids in the gangs who sometimes get caught up under this law as being associated with criminal activity get more training too. It is very hard for young kids in jail to get out of a gang because they do not have far to run if they get offside with a gang. It is not the best environment to get out of a gang and the rehabilitation programmes in jails are not particularly good. 
I was looking at my emails a few minutes ago and one came through from Prison Fellowship and it is appealing for money. It says: “Competing pressure and priorities facing the Government have meant that the recent Budget provided significantly less than we had hoped for. We need $200000 to meet our payments over the next 2 months.” This is a group that provides mentors and helps prisoners coming out of jail to get homes and jobs. They stand alongside them in the transition to a life inside the law rather than outside the law. This organisation wants $200000 which is just about the cost per year of keeping a couple of people in prison. It costs $92000 per prisoner per year to keep a prisoner in jail or a total budget for our Department of Corrections of about $800 million. It would be much better to spend that money on addressing the causes of crime in various ways and providing people in areas that are subject to a lot of criminality with more creative things to do. 
I was just reading over the weekend in one of the papers about the rather unusual policy in Venezuela. They went into an area with a high youth criminal rate and distributed classical musical instruments. The kids started playing them in a community setting and the crime rate dropped. I think creating strong communities is important. I think it is important to empower the community groups in poorer areas that just do not have the resources to run their various sporting and cultural activities properly so that they can pull in the young kids. We should be giving them more resources. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
article quotes Professor Coyle who was a prison governor in the United Kingdom for some time. He said that policy makers are now—unfortunately not in New Zealand in the Labour and National Parties—examining whether the cash for prisons would be better spent on “rebuilding the social fabric of community—schools healthcare public spaces etc.” That is the answer—to work where possible with gang members for constructive ends. Russell Fairbrother said that he does have some friends in gangs presumably at the less criminal end and hopefully his friendship is working towards constructive ends. The persecution of gangs is not necessarily productive; it can strengthen them because gangs tighten up when they are being attacked—that is what gang warfare is all about. If a leader is losing a bit of loyalty in his or her gang—it is usually his of course—that leader starts a scrap with another gang. 
The problem with this particular law—and it has been addressed and debated as it has been amended over the years—is that it is partly a law of guilt by association which is not the fairest way of approaching criminality. It has not worked very well as the last speaker indicated. At present clause 98 says that a person can be convicted if he or she is “reckless as to whether his or her participation may contribute to the occurrence of a criminal activity.” That is so vague that the conviction rate in a reasonable justice system ends up being quite low. It is a much looser definition than is required by the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Article 5 states that to qualify a person “takes an active part in [the] criminal group activities of the organized criminal group;”. The conviction rate under our loose definition is not much more than 10 percent. What has tended to happen is that the people who have been convicted have been convicted on another charge like violent robbery and then membership of a criminal group has been chucked in on top of that rather than being proved as the base crime. 
Now under this bill it will be a little different; it is going to be an aggravating factor in sentencing. All one needs to do is prove that the person has an association with a group. There is the argument that we need 10 years so that we can get interception warrants. But surely if the underlying crime that is being investigated and this criminal group is associated with it has a penalty of 10 years in most cases an interception warrant can be issued. Why do we need to up the ante for this particular offence to achieve that purpose? This bill is going in the wrong direction; it is only increasing our prison numbers and increasing the use of prisons as a training ground for further crime. There are examples all around the world and particularly in Scandinavia of going in the opposite direction; a better direction. 
Our goals should be to reduce the prison population not to boast how many people we have in jail. We are still a bit behind America which is the other very bad example but there are good examples in Scandinavia where they have decided to get the prison population down. They have put in rehabilitation programmes reduced sentences and looked for other ways of dealing with crime outside of imposing long sentences and the prison population and the crime rates have gone down. It can succeed if we put our money into groups like Prison Fellowship which I just talked about and into reducing poverty. When we have beneficiary families who are worse off than they were in 1991 at the time of the benefit cuts under the Bolger Government then that is a breeding ground for crime. We have to address all of those issues if we are to solve the crime problems. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. In parts of my electorate over the last week the mountains have been brushed with snowfall. In the quiet stillness of fresh snow there is a purity that is akin to wiping the slate clean. Everyone waits for the first person to tread a new path across the front lawn—the first footprints to leave their trail. It made me reflect on the bills that we are hell-bent on passing into law to crack down on gangs to stamp out organised criminal activity and to get tough on crime. 
What is the new path that we are treading here with this Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill and where will the pathway lead us? Make no mistake the Maori Party is as concerned as any New Zealander is about the mammoth costs of crime both personal and financial. We understand that the recently estimated economic and social cost to the nation was around $9.1 billion. The forecasted budget for the core criminal justice agencies for 2007-08 is approximately $2.7 billion. These are extraordinary costs that we all know could be spent much more effectively on building social capital. 
But the cost to families is just as savage. At 150 inmates per 100000 persons New Zealand has one of the highest per capita imprisonment rates in the Western World second only to the United States. In particular we have an extremely high rate of imprisonment for first offenders and young people. If we are not worried about this perhaps the comment of Baroness Vivien Stern from the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London might make us think again. She came here to attend Prison Fellowship New Zealand’s 25th anniversary conference and was reported to be astounded at the high rate of imprisonment in New Zealand. Baroness Stern’s comment was: “I would have thought that ideas of equality and justice would have been stronger in the face of pressure to lock up New Zealanders.” 
This bill is at its very essence all about locking up New Zealanders. Locking them up even though the Ministry of Justice’s recent Effective Interventions overview concluded: “Prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime.” Yet in this bill we are increasing the maximum penalty for the offence of participating in an organised criminal group from a 5-year maximum term of imprisonment to a 10-year maximum term of imprisonment. In this bill we are amending section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to make participating in organised criminal groups an aggravating factor that the court must take into account when sentencing yet prison is not the most effective or efficient approach to reducing crime. 
Everyone in this House is of course aware that in an election year some politicians and political parties are inspired to make political capital out of the misery of violence and crime. It is not as if this is a new issue. In relation to the issue of gangs one of our judiciary reminds us: “There is probably no subject in the field of law and order that can provoke more selective and distorted coverage from the media or more emotive and often ill-informed rhetoric from those in authority than gangs.” The legal authority in question was Justice Sir Clinton Roper and the year was 1987. The thing is we have been here many times before. In 1979 there was a parliamentary committee on violent offending. Two years later in 1981 a committee of inquiry was held into gangs—the Comber report. The Group Employment Liaison Scheme grew out of this report and another six years later in 1987 a commission chaired by Justice Sir Clinton Roper also came up with recommendations to address the gang issue. The Bail Act 2000 made getting bail harder for those charged with serious crimes who had been in prison before. Here we are 20 years later with another crackdown on gangs. 
Just six months ago Mel Smith an Ombudsman released his report to the Prime Minister in which he reminded readers that the barren inhumane and psychologically destructive nature of imprisonment makes offenders more likely to be recidivists upon release. He cited a research report that looked at 50 studies dealing with recidivism and that concluded that prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour and that on the basis of present results excessive use of incarceration has enormous cost implications. 
So I return to the fresh-fallen snow. Whose footprints are we seeking to lead us into the future? I put on record again my utter disgust for bullying or intimidation. I place on record again our stand as the Maori Party in opposing violence of any nature. I repeat our enormous sadness at the high rate of crime we are exposed to. But I must ask: when the Prime Minister asks the Chief Ombudsman for advice about improvements to the criminal justice system and that advice appears to be disregarded what hope do we have for rational debate on the sector? I remind the House of the Ombudsman’s key recommendation: “to establish a Commission of experienced and appropriately qualified people to investigate not only the operations of the entire criminal justice system but to put forward explicitly the philosophies and values which should guide its policies and practices into the future. Mel Smith believes that a royal commission is both necessary and appropriate precisely because the issues of crime and criminal justice have become highly politicised in that they are torn between two opposite philosophies: penal populism or soft liberalism. 
The most distressing aspect of the whole context of gangs for me is the impact of this culture on our younger people. A recent visitor British criminologist Kate Broadhurst reported her analysis that in New Zealand our school gang problems are as bad as those in Britain. She reported that certain risk factors such as the wearing of certain colours or the language that students used laid the ground for recruitment into gang culture. Yet the Ministry of Education supposedly disagreed saying levels of violent behaviour here were not nearly as bad as those in Britain. I have to tell it to wake up look at the scarves the bandannas and the colours that we know are being worn under school uniforms; wake up and find ways to work with young people that will prevent them from wanting to find a future in a gang. 
We cannot support this bill. We believe that Parliament needs to come up with much better answers than putting young people behind bars. We call on society to stop isolating these young people and to create an environment of social inclusion. Let us invest in young people in every way that we can. I have to reflect on the issues that this Parliament has given priority to. We have debated the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill the Serious Fraud Office (Abolition and Transitional Provisions) Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill etc. yet we have not had one bill come to this House to address child poverty. 
I want to leave the last word to someone who has experienced the senseless rage of gang violence in the last month. I am referring to the Hastings District councillor Henare O’Keefe whose daughter and mokopuna hid in fear while her partner was smashed stomped on and kicked in a brutal attack in their own home. Following this savage assault Mr O’Keefe said: “The community has really got to take ownership in the homes. Every parent and everyone who has aspirations to be a parent they have really got to rethink their role and say ‘Right what sort of child do I want to raise’. There’s no substitute for good parenting none at all. No legislation will give you that.” But he did more than talk. Henare O’Keefe called a march at which 2000 local people joined together to say that enough is enough. In the quiet stillness of his speech he apologised on behalf of all parents who had deprived their children of proper role models and he laid down the challenge to our young generation to stand up and break the cycle. His footprints are the pathway forward that we in the Maori Party want to follow. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I realise there is not a lot of time left but I rise to make a few points in support of the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill. I took some time to listen to the previous two speakers and their contributions to this debate. I say to my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia that although I accept that the long-term vision she has for addressing the gang problem certainly has a lot of merit and certainly is a way that we need to go I cannot get past the fact that we need to do stuff right now. You see when we are dealing with gang situations that have violent extremes in our community that leave people dead or injured and that leave communities scarred and scared someone has to do something. I notice that Keith Locke in the 10 minutes he offered us did not give a single solution on how we should deal right now with the situation we are confronted with. 
There is a level of philosophy that smaller parties are able to have that shows some sort of understanding of the triggers or the contributing factors that result in gang membership and gang offending. But it is left over to others if the responsibility is abrogated by smaller parties to take initiatives to deal with the nasty end of it. Just because legislation is proffered by the Government and supported by the National Party—legislation that actually deals with that messy end of it—that does not mean that no cognisance is taken of those triggers or factors that contribute to gang membership and the proliferation of gangs and gang offending in times to come. 
For one reason or another we all take various tracks on our way here and my path took me down a track where I ended up in gang premises on a lot of occasions standing nose to bottle or nose to whatever—with a bloody nose on occasions—with gang members who were about to take my head off or have the better part of me unless I responded in a certain way. Quite honestly giving them a classical musical instrument as Mr Keith Locke suggested was not going to cut it. I do not believe that the population of this country thinks that this will cut it—seriously. I am not saying it would never work. It might work somewhere on some drawn-out miniseries on television but it sure as hell will not work within our community. We would be abrogating our responsibility if we put our whole thrust into the long-term objectives and did not deal with those people caught up in the 20-year—if we are lucky—lag time between where the offending is now and where it will take us if we do absolutely nothing. 
This legislation addresses two things. It addresses issues around section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961. The problem we have there as outlined by Mr Mark is that we get precious little in the way of convictions—less than 10 percent in an average year. I am not sure that what we are doing here is the full answer to what we need to do with section 98A but increasing the penalty will allow easier monitoring of gang conversations and gang activity—and so it should because somebody needs to. Changing some definitions and allowing for the prosecution of people involved in that activity are other things that need to be addressed. 
This legislation also lists gang membership as an aggravating feature when it comes to sentencing and so it should. If someone does something as trivial—as some would say—as kick over a letterbox or pee in the street with a gang patch on and he is doing it in circumstances that intimidate maybe that person deserves a bigger penalty than a couple of silly kids doing that while wandering home from school. If a person robs a bank or a chemist or pack rapes a girl walking home and takes her back to his gang pad maybe he should get a heavier sentence as a member of a gang. Members on this side of the House and I am pleased to say members on that side of the House would agree with that. When people put on a patch it means that their presence is not just a passive presence; they are aiding and encouraging so the penalty should be harsher. 
National is pleased to support this bill. The point has been made on a number of occasions that this is National Party policy and has been for a long time but this is not just a case where people are putting their hands up and saying they thought of it first. I am pleased to say that the major parties in this House have taken an initiative. For once they agree which the public will be happy about to deal with the serious end of gang violence in this community while we wait for longer-term initiatives to sow their seeds and reap some growth. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 5; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 consider the bill and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 September 2008. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m. 
"