Volume 606 Week 16 - Tuesday 25 February 2003 
Volume 606 Week 16 - Tuesday 25 February 2003 
[Volume:606;Page:3685] 
Tuesday 25 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Delegation from National Assembly of Norway 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications from the National Assembly of Norway led by Mr Peter Lovik chairman of the committee are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish them to be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Noise in the Chamber 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am afraid that down at this end of House at least no one can hear a word that was spoken in that very important report from our Clerk. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a very valid point. It is incumbent on all members to listen when the Clerk is speaking. I will pay particular attention to that over the next few days. Would the member like it repeated? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes I would. I suspect there are some things of incredible importance to the House in that report. 
Business Committee Discussion: Iraq 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last week at the Business Committee the ACT party raised an issue of importance. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had a chance to reflect on that and report to us—that is in keeping with all other Parliaments around the world that this Parliament should debate the situation of Iraq. Can the Leader of the House give us a response to that request from the ACT party? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That matter can be raised at further meetings in the Business Committee. 
Question No. 12 to Minister 20 February—Amended Answer 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Education (Special Education)) 
: 
 Last week in answer to Question No. 12 on Thursday I stated that the number of at-risk students enrolled in the Correspondence School at the end of last year was 100 fewer than in 1999. That was incorrect due to a calculation error. The figure I was given for the 2002 year was 1051 when in fact it was 1592. I apologise to the House for using the incorrect figures. 
Questions to Ministers 
Minister of Youth Affairs—Speech on Welfare 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is it correct that she tried to stop Hon John Tamihere from circulating a speech which said that the “Welfare as presently practiced in this country literally kills [Maori] with kindness.” after the Knowledge Wave Conference; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why was John Tamihere’s speech removed from the Beehive website today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: For all the reasons that I have outlined: that one cannot make speeches that do not reflect Government policy outside one’s portfolio and one cannot bag colleagues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it correct that John Tamihere did not write the speech and that its contents are in fact correct or did he write the speech and is himself guilty of the bovine scatology of which he accused his colleague; in which case would the Prime Minister show some leadership and fire him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure Mr Tamihere may have had assistance with the speech from a staff member. I have not got the details of who crafted this or that sentence but I have laid out very clear expectations of behaviour from Ministers. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Did the Prime Minister say to any member of the media that she was “relaxed about the Hon John Tamihere’s speech”; if so as a matter of integrity can she clearly explain to the House why she changed her position from being relaxed to being seriously critical? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not changed my view of the speech. As I said at the press conference yesterday it was capable of a benign or a malign interpretation. I told Mr Tamihere exactly which interpretation the media and parties like ACT would take. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the high levels of poverty amongst Maori beneficiaries and that poverty kills more people than kindness does; and will she be asking the Minister responsible to increase core benefit levels accordingly? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am concerned about the standard of living that a significant minority of our people have—I will not say enjoy because it cannot be enjoyed. We have identified next year’s Budget as the time at which to make some specific progress on the income-related issues for low and modest income families. In the meantime it is fair to point out that in the course of the first 3 years of this Government 123000 extra people went into work which included many tens of thousands of Maori.  
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What latitude is the Prime Minister prepared to allow her Ministers and members of Parliament in contributing to debate on legitimate issues of public interest? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: For Ministers the convention is that one does not stray outside one’s portfolio attack core policy or bag one’s colleagues. I make one further point. Rising to the rank of Cabinet Minister is one of the major privileges of being in this House. That gives access to the policy-making process. That access should be used. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Clayton Cosgrove has been reported as saying: “Mr Tamihere’s comments on welfare have gone down well in the street.”; if so will Mr Cosgrove be asked to apologise as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the comments went down very well on Victoria Avenue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Have any of the Maori members of her caucus expressed support for the views outlined by Mr Tamihere; or is it a case of those members being lambs in the caucus and lions back in their constituencies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not heard any caucus member express support for those views. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table John Tamihere’s speech which was removed from the website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that speech. Is there any objection? There is. 
Taxation—Australia / New Zealand 
2.  
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Has he received any recent reports on the comparison between New Zealand and Australian business taxation rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Yes I read a letter from the chief executive of Fletcher Building Ralph Waters stating that the corporate tax burden is in fact higher in Australia than here and pleading—I hope successfully but I am sure not—for some honesty in the tax debate in New Zealand. He deserves to be listened to. He has worked and paid taxes on both sides of the Tasman in a business context. 
David Cunliffe 
: How does Mr Waters describe the alleged company tax advantage across the Tasman and why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Waters says it is a myth. There are three reasons: first when the Australians lowered their headline tax rate they also abolished accelerated depreciation rates; second they have a payroll tax of around 6 percent for large employers; third the administration of the Australian system is much more complex than New Zealand’s if that can be believed giving rise to large compliance costs. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: While the Minister may get off on letters to the editor how does New Zealand having the highest corporate tax rate in the Asia-Pacific region—after India Pakistan Bangladesh and Sri Lanka according to the 2002 KPMG corporate tax rate survey—assist in achieving the Government’s declared objective of restoring New Zealanders’ living standards to the top half of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can remember when the corporate tax rate was lowered from 48 percent compared with the 45 percent National had left it at to 33 percent. The 3 years after that were our worst for economic growth for many many years. 
Dail Jones 
: What action will the Minister be taking about the way in which the incomes of New Zealand families and businesses are taxed more heavily than say their Australian counterparts as set out in the OECD’s annual tax and wages publication—which indicates for example that a New Zealand family with a sole breadwinner and two children has a net tax burden of 18.2 percent of the gross wage compared with the equivalent Australian family which has a net tax burden of 14.7 percent of the gross wage which must be one of the reasons that New Zealand families are leaving New Zealand to live in Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Australian tax rates and income tax levels are higher than New Zealand’s but I will deal with that question more fully when we wait through courtesy for Ms Coddington’s question which deals with that precise matter. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why is the Minister boasting when the OECD report that is due to come out in April will show that since this Government took office the average married worker with two kids in New Zealand has had the second-highest increase in tax out of 30 OECD countries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unfortunately we now cannot wait for Ms Coddington’s primary question. I will answer it in reply to the supplementary question. Firstly those tables deal with only income tax. As the member ought to know most European countries have a range of other taxes apart from income tax that need to be taken into account. When those are taken into account New Zealand has one of the lowest rates of tax at that level in international comparisons. Secondly the primary reason for the increase is the substantial increase in family incomes in New Zealand over that period—much higher than the OECD average. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister have any plans to further advantage New Zealand businesses by comparison with Australia given that we are further from markets and our compliance costs may well be greater? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The second point is interesting. The point that Mr Waters makes is that compliance costs are higher in Australia than they are in New Zealand. Every developed country has high compliance costs. In every developed country business complains about those. On a comparative basis we do not have high compliance costs compared with other developed countries. We do have higher compliance costs than many underdeveloped countries but by definition we are richer than they are. 
America's Cup—Threats 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: When will the Police complete their inquiries into the serious allegations of threats made against crew members in the Alinghi team at the America’s Cup challenge? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 While this is an operational matter the police advise that the file remains open into threats posed by the receipt of the letter against the Alinghi syndicate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not true that according to police sources in Auckland the police inquiry at great expense to the New Zealand taxpayer is finished; and that the threat came from the Alinghi camp itself but no action has been taken for political reasons? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that sort of information. Reporters might indulge in those claims without any substantiation. The member should produce any information he has for the police so they can deal with his claims. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the ability of the police to protect the public watching and the teams competing in the America’s Cup? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police have demonstrated what a good job they are doing to protect both spectators of and competitors in the America’s Cup.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that ill-informed speculation on this matter contributes to New Zealand’s image overseas or does it serve to perpetuate a negative perception in our country which this whole sorry matter is generating? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The journalist wrote all sorts of things. There is an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning reporting on material in the  
Observer 
 which shows what nonsense is being written.  
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that the BlackHeart campaign and the personal attacks on Russell Coutts and members of the Alinghi crew not only could have incited the threats that have been referred to but also undermined New Zealand’s reputation as a good-hearted and sporting nation? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes but more important as most Kiwis are enjoying the event New Zealand and Auckland in particular is doing well no matter who wins. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister make a request of the police in Auckland to the effect that if the inquiry is finished as the information from Auckland suggests a charge be now lodged for laying a false complaint against the party concerned which it is suggested is within the Alinghi public relations camp? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If the member who asks the question has any information along those lines he should make it available to the police and the police will investigate accordingly.  
Parole Act—Feedback 
4. MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 on behalf of  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received any reports on feedback from victims on the operation of the new Parole Act 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have seen very positive reports on how the new law is operating for victims. The family of Kylie Smith murdered at Owaka by Paul Bailey for example said that their experience of the Parole Board under the new law was much better than their treatment under the old. Kylie’s mother said that the new Parole Board was attentive sympathetic and ready to listen to what people had to say. I believe that that is a strong endorsement of how the new board is operating.  
Martin Gallagher 
: Has this view that the Minister has just stated from individual victims been backed up by groups representing victims?  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes it has interestingly by one of the groups more critical of the legislation—the Sensible Sentencing Trust which has strongly backed up the comments of the victim I just referred to. Having observed the Parole Board the trust’s spokesperson Garth McVicar said that the trust was very impressed and that the situation was a totally different picture from what went on before it. He said: “Communication with victims’ families is much better and they feel as if their rights are being considered by the board.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What does the Minister say to a family after the Parole Board paroled the killer of their brother to live next door to the sister of the victim; to the South Island victim who discovered her serious sex offender was walking in her streets without notification; to the families of the victims of William Duane Bell whom the Department of Corrections left unsupervised for 5 weeks before the murders at the Returned Services Association rooms; and to the person who was bashed by a violent offender sentenced to 3 years in jail but let out by that Minister’s Government after only 5 months? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Each of the cases that the member has referred to has been addressed. I will take one of them because that is all that time will allow. We of course investigated very closely the case of the family living in the member’s electorate who discovered that the person found guilty of the manslaughter of their brother and son was supposedly living in the street next to them and they had not been notified. The family say that they lodged a notification form. Regrettably that was never received by the Department of Corrections. No explanation has been found for that but the Acting Minister of Corrections personally flew to Kawerau to explain the situation to the family and to apologise for the mistake that has been made. The family very much appreciated that effort on the part of the Minister. 
Stephen Franks 
: If he is so proud of the parole system why does he refuse to find out or tell us how many offences are committed on parole and hides the details of offending by individual criminals on parole including the Tukuafu burglary clan and so many other vicious criminals I have directly questioned the Minister about? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I refer to the specific example used by the member the Tukuafu family. I am very pleased to report that the two principal offenders of that family received 13 and 12 years’ imprisonment respectively. Those are probably the longest sentences ever given for burglary in this country which is in line with the tendency of the courts today to be much tougher on it. With regard to the statistics the member asked for his colleague Dr Muriel Newman has put down several questions to which I have replied fully. For example I indicated that of those people convicted of murder who have been released on parole in the last 4 years none has reoffended and none has been reimprisoned. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister give us an assurance that if any provisions of the Parole Act are inconsistent with the aims objectives and practice of the Victims’ Rights Act it will be the Parole Act that he will undertake to revisit and amend? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All legislation is under review to ensure that it does what it is intended to do. We will be watching very closely the outcomes of both the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act to see that they are consistent with the new Victims’ Rights Act. So far all three Acts have delivered good results but if shortcomings are found either in the legislation or in practice under the legislation they will be addressed. 
Ron Mark 
: With reference to the insinuation that the Minister will be considering a review of the new Sentencing Act will the Minister take on board the views of some families of victims who consider that under his stewardship people like William Bell got a sentence of 11 years non-parole for the murder of Mr Absolum 11 years non-parole for the murder of Mr Wayne Johnson 11 years non-parole for the murder of Mary Hobson and for brutally bashing and leaving Susan Couch for dead—Well that was thrown out as a freebie? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To the contrary William Bell received a life sentence. That sentence will remain for the whole of his natural life. A non-parole period of 33 years is the longest-ever non-parole period given in the history of this country. I happen to agree with the comments of the Crown prosecutor Simon Moore who suggested that this man will probably never be released. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Article 4 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does the Government accept that there is an Article Four to the Treaty of Waitangi; if so how will it be recognised in the Government’s partnership with Maoridom? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister advise Cabinet on policy that permitted officials of the Ministry of Health to include in the document currently available for submissions called  
Achieving Health for all People 
 a detailed reference to article 4 of the treaty as if it were another article in addition to the three with which we are familiar? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No the working document was the result of a series of hui to get discussion and opinions. That working document I understand will come before the various Government committees in June or July of this year. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the right to freedom of religion recognised in New Zealand law? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. All New Zealanders are guaranteed that right under section 21 of the Human Rights Act and section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister accept that such a freedom and right was not present on 6 February 1840 and that there is a Government document suggesting that there is a clause 4; if so what on earth is it doing there and as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations what does she have to say about it? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My understanding from the historians is that there was a verbal undertaking that New Zealand—at its birth in fact—should respect freedom of religion. That was never reduced to writing and it has never been considered as a fourth article. The articles in the Treaty of Waitangi are those set down in the English and the Maori version and are contained in schedule 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure it is the intent of the original question as well but I am asking the Minister what she makes of the fact that in the Government publication there is reference to an article 4. She completely failed to respond to that. Say “Rhubarb” but say something! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed that question in her first answer. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: If the Minister and her Government are prepared to refute the existence of the phantom fourth article of the treaty why will they not also refute the existence of the phantom principles that they have incorporated into law? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The principles are not the articles of the treaty. The principles that guide Government policy when interpreting the treaty are set out in the document I think I tabled on several occasions in 1989. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What in the Minister’s view is the difference between article 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which recognises everyone has the right to freedom of thought religion and belief and a verbal guarantee between Bishop Pompallier and Governor Hobson of that same religious freedom; do not both of them guarantee religious freedom for all New Zealanders? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes and the difference is that under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it is a legally enforceable right.  
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister instruct officials to remove from the Government-funded document  
Achieving Health for all People 
 the reference to article 4 of the treaty as if it were a new article; if so when will she instruct officials to do that? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As the Prime Minister has pointed out we are responsible only for our own portfolios. I have not had the misfortune to be the Minister of Health. 
Learning—Students 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been put in place to enhance students’ learning? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Numerous steps have been put in place. Because the Government is intent on improving the literacy and numeracy skills of school students we started the roll-out of Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning in Primary Schools programme last week. Those are world-leading tools which for the first time enable teachers to assess and accurately diagnose where students need more work so that they will have the basics rights before going to secondary school. 
Helen Duncan 
: What are the benefits for teachers parents caregivers and indeed the students themselves? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been extremely positive feedback from the teachers who have trialled the system over the past 2 years. They have reported that the analysis of results can be obtained very quickly and that the assessments are much more time-saving than manual methods of assessment. Parents and caregivers are also reporting that they get a much more accurate picture of how their child is doing early on rather than having the problems appear in the secondary school years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister in his very first decision as Minister of Education dump the assessment of all 9 and 11-year-olds in National’s literacy and numeracy initiative only to now resurrect the initiative in a half-baked form 3 years later? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The “half-baked” arrangement I “dumped” was something that would give one-off pencil and paper tests to kids with no diagnostic basis at all. What was left by the National Party would be very good at giving a national ranking but no good at all at showing parents where their kids’ strengths and weaknesses were. I changed that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How does a draconian escalation of secondary qualification entry fees which have risen by 500 percent in some cases in the year 2002-03—with the fees for Sixth Form Certificate in four subjects for example increasing from $25 to $150—enhance learning?  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a separate issue and to be frank my answer to the member would be “not at all”. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that student learning could be enhanced by an increased emphasis on character education; if so what measures are currently in place that go beyond the good work being done in the area of literacy and numeracy skills to teach children to become better citizens? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Two major programmes have been rolled out in schools which have been funded partially by the Ministry of Education on a contract basis. Although I would not say it is quite moral education it is certainly values-based education. 
Taxation—OECD Comparisons 
7.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What has been the change in tax bill for the average production worker with a dependent spouse and two children between 2000 and 2002 as a percentage of gross earnings and how does this compare with other OECD countries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The tax bill rose by 2.7 percent. That is one of the higher increases in the OECD and reflects a relatively high increase in average family earnings which was due to New Zealand’s strong growth over the period. The number in New Zealand is particularly affected by the consequences of the bleed-out of family support payments as family incomes increase. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is the hike in tax on working families what Labour meant when it campaigned to increase taxes on the wealthy; if not where is the fairness in stealing money from New Zealand families to spend on talkfests and corporate welfare? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Interesting though the question is it cannot cover the fact that ACT’s main whinge about the tax system has been the increase in the top tax rate on those earning over $60000 a year which every ACT MP repeats as his or her first promise to remove. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is this a reasonable comparison in terms of the change in tax burden of the New Zealand taxpayer compared with those overseas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because it is based on incomplete information. The OECD figures do not include social security contributions by the employers. Those are high in many OECD countries and non-existent in New Zealand— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Yes they do. Read the report. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have read the report. If the member can get past the first page where he collapsed with horror and on to the next page or two he would find that by the time we include those New Zealand was 22nd equal out of 30—from the top going down—in terms of the average tax burden. In other words only five OECD countries were significantly lower than us and 21 higher including a number that were more than twice as high as New Zealand—for example Belgium France and so on. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What does the Minister propose to do about the 2.7 percent increase in the tax bill paid by our average working families or is he satisfied to have the tax bill our average families pay increase by more than any other OECD country under his term except the Czech Republic? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will be happy to see this country’s average incomes rise faster than almost any other country in the OECD as they have done over the last couple of years. Should the structural surpluses now emerge—which National would have frittered away—in many different forms then next year we will face the prospect of substantial cuts in tax for precisely those people through the family support mechanism. But the member need not die waiting; he will not be getting a tax cut next year however much his family status might change. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table a media release from the OECD showing New Zealand had the second highest increase in tax bill for an average production worker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Health Services—Elderly 
8.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What steps has she taken to improve co-ordination of health services for older people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Last week I announced that $700 million of funding for disability support services for older people will be transferred from the Ministry of Health to district health boards from 1 October this year. This transfer will enable the district health boards to provide better-integrated services that respond to the individual’s changing needs which is in line with the key objective of the Health of Older People Strategy. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What will be the effect on older people of better-integrating their health and disability support services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The move will address the fragmentation of services that was so deeply imbedded in the policies of the 1990s. It will enable the district health boards to integrate fully with primary care and disability support services in the community to reduce preventable admissions to hospital. It will provide significant opportunities for older people to receive coordinated support and health promotion services so that they can continue to live and participate in their communities as they grow older. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Can she explain why if things have improved so much the Wellington City Mission and 8000 others submitted a petition to this House on aged care the Government has reduced the amount it spends on rest home care by $8.6 million and geriatric hospitals have still not received a single dollar increase under this Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Although the supplementary question is not related to the specific primary question I am happy to explain to the member that in fact in contradiction to the assertion made in her supplementary question in the year before last for the first time for many years additional funding was given to providers of residential care for older people and it went directly into price increases rather than volume growth. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How will she ensure that the district health boards take a consistent national approach to improve health service coordination for older people when this has not been possible in the past? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I understand the concerns of the member and can assure her and the rest of the House that this was at the forefront of the considerations of my colleagues as we moved to this process. There are two primary methods: firstly the district health boards will be required to demonstrate their ability to deliver a coordinated package of health services prior to the devolution of funding; and secondly the nationally consistent contracts which are already in existence will remain. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If the Government is concerned about health services for older people as we have just been told why has the level of funding for geriatric hospital care not increased since 1997 despite rising costs in the sector such as inflation and the cost of staff electricity food etc.? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The increase in funding for residential care of older people over the last 18 months has been targeted at that part of the sector that has been the most underfunded. Although the hospitals are anticipating increases in their prices that certainly has not been delivered so far. But I am delighted that by the middle of this year there will be increases in funding. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table the answer to question for written answer No. 13488 which shows that the cost to the Government of providing rest home care reduced by $8.6 million between 1999 and 2001. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that question. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Minister of Youth Affairs—Speech on Welfare 
9.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Youth Affairs that the welfare system “hands out enough to get you through until your next hand out. There are no mutual responsibilities. Recipients are denied a sense of worth and equality.”; if not how will he convince the Minister of Youth Affairs that his welfare policies contain mutual responsibilities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 This Government’s social security policies are based on the concept of mutual responsibility. Let me give two concrete examples. The unemployment benefit eligibility is based on the recipient actively seeking and being ready to take up paid employment. Changes to the domestic purposes benefit reinforce mutual responsibilities to assist people to improve their prospects of gaining sustainable employment. This is a significant advance on the old system which ignored clients until their youngest child turned 6. 
I seek leave to table a document that sets out the Government’s approach to social development and includes a section on mutual responsibility. The document  
Pathways to Opportunities 
 
was published in 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is he concerned that a member of his caucus summarises his welfare work using words like “statism” “old left” and “bullshitting”; and given Mr Tamihere’s highly regarded work in the welfare area who does he think the general public is more likely to believe? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first question no. In answer to the second question I agree. I think John Tamihere has a huge amount to offer in the area of welfare policy and in tune with the kinds of things that John Tamihere talks about we are of course exploring decentralisation and devolution. 
Dianne Yates 
: How effective is the concept of mutual responsibility in relation to the Government’s welfare and employment policies in helping New Zealander’s into work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Record results have been achieved in helping people into work. Last financial year a record of 51000 long-term employment placements were achieved. Numbers on the main unemployment benefit have dropped by over 27 percent in the last 3 years. This Government believes in mutual responsibilities and in creating opportunities for people to gain real jobs. Unlike the National Government we are not leaving people on work-for-dole schemes; we are getting them into real jobs. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that he has spoken to John Tamihere and that John Tamihere confirms that he will suffer bullshit policies in silence in the future speak about the matter no more parade himself up Lambton Quay at lunchtime with the Minister to show some sort of public relations reconciliation and further he accepts that the Waipareira Trust’s record under John Tamihere’s administration was no example of devolution at work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Working backwards I think he thinks the Waipareira Trust did quite well; no he is not going to parade down Lambton Quay; bovine scatology is something that I think he probably indulges in now and again like the member does; and I cannot remember the other questions before that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to repeat the part of the question that the member said he could not remember. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer whether or not he addressed the question satisfactorily. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I appreciate your very learned judgment—with some exceptions. I am seeking leave to repeat a part of a question that the Minister said he could not remember. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can certainly seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister what the Maori word is for “egg all over your face”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I could ask the member what the Maori is for “leaving the Chamber” too. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is the Minister concerned that recent comments made by the Associate Minister the Hon John Tamihere that the Minister should stop “bullshitting about the welfare system” coupled with the Minister’s outstanding achievement yesterday in winning the  
Dominion Post  
“Wally of the Week” award may have detracted just a little from his “life of blameless excellence”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am exhausted after that. No. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister confirm that benefit delivery services will not be privatised under this Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. 
Katherine Rich 
: Who has credibility on Maori welfare issues now: an ex - media studies academic or someone who has previously worked at the welfare front line as leader of the Waipareira Trust? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Actually my expertise was in social change as well as media studies but I think John Tamihere has a great deal to offer and we will carry on listening carefully to him. 
Retirement—Savings 
10.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he concerned that the findings of the recent survey by Research Solutions show no more New Zealanders are saving for retirement now than was the case five years ago? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I do have some concerns. That is why I intend to begin to address the matter of the overtaxation of retirement savings in this year’s Budget. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister also concerned that the establishment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has led to retirement savings complacency as the survey also shows that the proportion of those who are leaving it to the Government to look after them in retirement has doubled over the last 5 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thought the figure had actually trebled from 6 percent to 18 percent of those who believed that the Government pension was adequate. The purpose of New Zealand superannuation is to provide an adequate basic level of income in retirement. I regard that as the basic duty of a Government in a civilised society. Attempts to scare people over the last 12 to 13 years into saving have simply not worked. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other steps has the Government taken to boost retirement savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The periodic review group has been tasked with reporting on ways to improve employment-based retirement savings in particular. It is chaired by the chief executive of the Investment Savings and Insurance Association. Other members include the Retirement Commissioner and employer and union representatives. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Minister’s response to the comment made by Vance Arkinstall of the Investment Savings and Insurance Association that: “We’ve been concerned for some time that all the publicity about the Cullen fund has caused quite a large number of people to believe that they don’t have to worry about saving for themselves.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Considering that the weekly income for a married couple on New Zealand superannuation is slightly less than the increase per week in pay that that member used to seek as Governor of the Reserve Bank clearly it should not be relied upon too much—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister to have another go at that answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The point I was making— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was a high level of personal reflection in that answer. The Minister should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have determined that the Minister should give another answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The other answer is that people who are on high incomes are not going to regard the present level of New Zealand superannuation as an adequate income in retirement. But certainly the present level is a darn sight better than what that member would offer anybody in retirement who has not saved for himself or herself. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know how the Minister could have any idea at all what I would offer if I were running the New Zealand superannuation scheme. It seems to me a totally unwarranted comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know that the member favours increasing both the age at which New Zealand superannuation is obtained and the level of payment. It has been his stated position on many occasions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How is it acceptable for a Minister to answer a question by saying that he knows what someone else’s policy is? He is being asked about his own policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is strictly speaking correct and I will be watching this very closely. 
Rod Donald 
: Would the Minister agree that New Zealanders should be furiously saving for their own retirement given that he wants the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to adopt the same investment strategy that has caused the Government Superannuation Fund to lose $380 million in less than 14 months; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think every balanced managed fund in the world has probably lost money over the last year whichever country it happened to be in. Not many people are able to use a parliamentary income to invest in a property-based superannuation scheme to benefit their political party. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister prepared to consider further the introduction of tax incentives for retirement savings in view of the findings of the survey that 79 percent of people believe that such incentives would lead them to increase their retirement savings and a whopping 92 percent would support the introduction of such incentives? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have never known anybody to turn down a tax incentive gift-horse whichever mouth he or she is looking into at the time. But whether it would actually achieve anything in practice is a totally different matter. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Article 4 
11.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Will she categorically undertake that the putative “Article 4” of the Treaty of Waitangi will not be allowed to influence future Treaty settlements; if not why not?  
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why should we expect this hasty ringbarking by the Minister and the Prime Minister of a blossoming fourth limb of the living treaty to work any better than the solid legal rebuttals of the imaginary partnership principle have worked with the courts the Waitangi Tribunal and probably the politically correct appointees to the new Supreme Court if they think it is handy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The putative fourth article has been around since 1840 and has not in fact been accepted as an article of the Treaty of Waitangi. So I cannot see that it will now be accepted as an article of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Mark Peck 
: Is the Minister saying clearly to the House that there is no such thing as article 4 of the treaty? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s view will she instruct the Waitangi Tribunal not to consider or discuss article 4 in the light of comments today from claimant Harvey Ruru who says of the tribunal : “They believe that it’s a whole new claim area. It does raise lots of issues for the Waitangi Tribunal. And that was from Professor Keith Sorrenson at the Waitangi Tribunal itself.” When will she direct the tribunal to stop considering article 4? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It would be totally constitutionally improper for a Minister to direct any independent legal body’s decision making in that way. 
Iraq 
— 
Te Kaha 
 Deployment 
12.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has the frigate Te Kaha which is tasked with “escorting US and coalition vessels through the Straits of Hormuz” escorted any United States vessels carrying war materials for use in any attack on Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Defence 
: The  
Te Kaha 
’s role under Operation Enduring Freedom is focused on counter-terrorist activities. A small part of that role involves escort duties designed to protect shipping from terrorist attack in the Gulf of Oman and the Straits of Hormuz. The Maritime Interdiction Force group does not differentiate between ships requiring that protection by the cargo they might carry. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister confirm what was portrayed in a photograph in the February issue of  
Navy Today 
—that is  
Te Kaha 
 escorting the huge American navy transport ship  
Watkins 
 through the Straits of Hormuz—and does he think that this ship was not carrying war materials to be used against Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I repeat my answer that the Maritime Interdiction Force group made up of a range of different countries does not differentiate between legal vessels in terms of their need for protection against terrorist attack—or is the member actually suggesting that it should differentiate? 
Taito Phillip Field 
: What other countries does New Zealand operate alongside as part of the Maritime Interdiction Force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The countries that New Zealand operates with in that group are Canada the Netherlands Greece France and the United States. The member may note that that group obviously contains a number of countries that have strongly resisted the use of force in Iraq at this time but are very active in their anti-terrorist activities. 
Simon Power 
: Why when the Government has contributed the frigate  
Te Kaha 
 to escort US and coalition vessels has the Prime Minister announced today that New Zealand is not backing the American-British draft resolution declaring that Iraq is in material breach of a UN resolution to disarm? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but the primary question was addressed to the Minister of Defence not the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Backing a resolution at the UN is not a matter for the Minister of Defence. 
Simon Power 
: The primary question makes direct reference to “carrying war materials for use in any attack on Iraq” which precisely relates to the proposed resolution put today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suggest that the member slightly rephrase the question. The Minister is not responsible for the United Nations Security Council resolution; another Minister is. The member can I am sure construct another question. I will allow him to do so. 
Simon Power 
: Can New Zealanders trust any assurances or information provided by the Government on New Zealand Defence Force deployment such as that of  
Te Kaha 
 when the Prime Minister has previously made statements about the Government’s intentions to recall the SAS and such statements have later proved to differ from reality? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To the best of my knowledge all of the Prime Minister’s statements have been in direct line with reality and have not differed from it at all. That is why she is on 50 percent support while Bill English is languishing at 9 percent. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the overall command of the Maritime Interdiction Force operating in the Arabian Sea is based on a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier; if so why is New Zealand not prepared formally to join the coalition of the willing or is it that he and his Government are prepared to sacrifice our national interest to appease the loony left of the Labour Party? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The premise that each of those other questions were based on is wrong. The then Acting Prime Minister Michael Cullen made it quite clear that the command is not based on an aircraft carrier. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has there been any change in the terms of the deployment of New Zealand vessels operating in the Straits of Hormuz; if so what change; if not how long is the deployment expected to continue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No there have been no changes in the terms of the deployment.  
Te Kaha 
 has been in the region since late last year and its deployment finishes tomorrow. It will be replaced at that time by  
Te Mana 
 which will operate through to June. 
Keith Locke 
: How can we be seen as being anything other than complicit in the US build-up to war against Iraq when we are escorting a boat like the  
Watkins 
—called a floating brigade—that can carry “an entire US Army armoured taskforce including 58 tanks 48 other track vehicles plus more than 900 trucks and other wheeled vehicles” and that has been unloading materials in the Gulf for the US war effort? It is the second-biggest ship after the aircraft carriers. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is that the role of the Maritime Interdiction Force group—which is multinational including New Zealand France and other countries—is to protect against terrorist attacks. It is quite separate from the situation in Iraq. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table a briefing paper from the New Zealand armed forces that shows that the overall command of the Maritime Interdiction Force is based on a US nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article in the February issue of  
Navy Today 
 with an illustration of  
Te Kaha 
 escorting a US vessel. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question: Public Health Issue 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At lunchtime today I sought your permission to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Health about the public health issue now at Lake Rotoiti near Rotorua and you chose to decline that request. I now seek leave to ask a question of the Minister of Health about those public health concerns. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask this question. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table documents that show that two scientific researchers who are working on the lake have been taken ill with symptoms consistent with campylobacter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Tabling of Documents 
Achieving Health for all People 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document  
Achieving Health for all People 
 which I referred to in question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Wally of the Week" Poster 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my “Wally of the Week” poster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Urgent Debate Declined 
Government's Welfare Policies 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a speech made by the Hon John Tamihere on the Government’s welfare policies. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However no announcement of a change in Government policy in this area has been made and I am not persuaded that it requires the House to set aside its other business for an urgent debate today. The application is therefore declined. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the interests of Cabinet collective responsibility and public disclosure I now seek leave for there to be a debate of the type that I requested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly proper request. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Holidays Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with an instruction that the committee present its final report within 6 months. All parties agree that the current Holidays Act is an extremely difficult piece of legislation to apply and to interpret. Twenty-six percent of all calls to the Employment Relations Infoline last year related to the Holidays Act. In order to inform the change clearly needed in this area an advisory group including the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand representatives provided me with two reports recommending improvements to the current Act. I commend them for their effort in reaching and attempting to reach a consensus on the issues placed before them.  
The bill before the House today draws on the recommendations of this advisory group and will enable all employees to have access to entitlements at the standard that society as a whole considers acceptable; ensure that holiday entitlements are both robust and appropriate to accommodate increased diversity in working patterns; provide a balance between the needs of employers and employees; and promote a balance between work and life.  
Areas previously left to the courts to interpret and develop have been dealt with in the bill either through the codification of case law or by providing clear legislative direction as to the provisions that should apply. That will mean that users will not have to refer to the numerous judicial decisions that supplement the current legislation.  
The bill provides the same level of entitlements to all employees regardless of their type of employment industry or sector with a special exemption for the defence force. The bill also reflects the Government’s objectives of work-life balance and health and safety in the workplace. It provides employees with rest and recreation through an entitlement to 3 weeks paid annual leave after every 12 months of continuous employment. An employer must allow an employee to take the annual holiday within 12 months after the date on which the employee’s entitlement arose. To clarify the explanatory note of the bill employees must be paid for their annual holiday in the pay that relates to the pay period in which the holiday is taken unless the employer and employee agree that it is to be paid at the beginning of the annual holiday concerned.  
I realise there is currently a debate around 4 weeks’ annual leave as proposed by the Hon Matt Robson’s member’s bill. Although 4 weeks’ leave is not the Government’s current policy that will be an issue that the select committee will be able to consider.  
The bill provides a clear process for determining the timing of annual leave. It is to be by agreement but as a last resort the employer will be able to direct the employee to take annual leave upon at least 14 days’ notice.  
The method for the calculation of annual leave entitlements has been spelt out so that it can easily apply to all employment relationships and working patterns. Consistent with the objective of paid annual leave to provide rest and recreation limits have been placed on the ability to “pay as you go”. A “pay as you go” agreement occurs where employees’ annual holiday pay is paid proportionately with their regular wages payment. The bill provides that that can only occur with the employee’s explicit agreement when the employment agreement is for a fixed term of less than 12 months and where the holiday payment is an identifiable component of the employee’s wages. 
The bill retains the current 11 public holidays per year for the common observance of days of national religious or cultural significance. If a holiday falls on a day the employee would normally work and the employee does not work the employee is entitled to that day off at his or her ordinary rate of pay. If an employee agrees to work on any of the public holidays the bill provides for an alternative paid day off if the employee would have normally worked on that day. The bill provides for consistency in employee entitlements across all public holidays addressing the current confusion around Anzac Day and Waitangi Day.  
The bill also introduced a new statutory minimum payment of a rate and a half for working on a public holiday. Where an employee’s current rate of pay already incorporates a component for a payment of a rate and a half or where one of the parties contends that it does the bill provides a method for employees and employers to settle that dispute. The employment agreement must clarify how it complies with the legislation. That must occur when the employment agreement is renegotiated or within 12 months of the Act coming into force whichever is earlier. Mediation services in the employment institutions will be able to assist parties in addressing that.  
To ensure that public holidays are flexible enough to accommodate modern working patterns the bill provides for transfer of Christmas and New Year public holidays based on the working week of the employee. The automatic transfer of those holidays under the current legislation can result in employees working on the actual days without any recognition of that.  
The bill also provides employees with separate entitlements to sick and bereavement leave so as to provide insurance when employees are unable to work because of sickness or bereavement. Employees will become entitled to that leave upon completion of 6 months’ current continuous employment. Employees will be entitled to 5 days paid sick leave per year which may be taken in relation to the sickness or injury of the employee the employee’s spouse or a person who depends on the employee for care. That entitlement may be accumulated to a maximum of 15 days and expires upon the termination of employment.  
The bill provides an employer with the ability to require proof of injury or sickness if the employee is absent from work for 5 or more consecutive calendar days. The bill provides a two-tier entitlement to bereavement leave. Three days’ bereavement leave will be available to the employee on the death of a close relative and 1 day of bereavement leave will be available on the death of any other person where the employer accepts that the employee has suffered a bereavement taking into account closeness of relationship cultural reasons and any other responsibilities the employee may have in relation to his or her bereavement.  
The bill provides for appropriate remedies when its provisions are breached; remedies that are consistent with other employment-related legislation. The current penalties are increased to a maximum of $5000 for an individual and $10000 for a company or corporation which are consistent with those under the Employment Relations Act. The bill does not contain any provision for penalties for continuing offences.  
As I outlined earlier an emphasis of this bill is to clarify an ease of interpretation application which will significantly reduce the need for enforcement action. Overall I expect the benefits of the bill such as productivity increases associated with a more balanced and effective working environment to outweigh any cost to employers associated with the changes to the holidays legislation. Employers employees and practitioners will benefit from a bill that is clearer easier to understand and that applies to all employment arrangements and working patterns. The Holidays Bill recognises the relationship and balance between work and the demands of life outside employment by providing holiday entitlements at a socially accepted level. It represents a step forward for our society in recognition of the needs of a modern workforce. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 National will be opposing the introduction of this bill. That is not because the Holidays Act does not need changing because it certainly does need changing—and the Minister of Labour in her speech made it clear that the current holidays legislation is in need of some change. But change that imposes a huge amount of compliance costs on employers change that puts up horrendously the fines that employers face change that is anti-employer and change that means that employers will not hire new staff is not the sort of change that this nation needs and neither is it the sort of change that National will be supporting. 
We will be interested of course to watch how the United Future party votes on this legislation because it is a party that is fond of telling the business sector that it is here to moderate the Government. We will see in a short while whether it intends to oppose this legislation and to act as a moderating force or whether once again United Future members will speak tough with employers but come into the Chamber and vote to put extra costs and compliance on them. 
I want to cover a few of the issues in the bill that cause us grave concern. The first issue relates to sick leave and bereavement leave.  
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s a big one. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a big issue. There is a new component in this bill called bereavement leave. That is fine—it is something that is worthy of debate. But what worries us is that it is not clear whether the new entitlement for 3 days’ bereavement leave is an annual entitlement and it is not clear whether an employee can take fewer than 3 days—because it may well be that he or she needs only 1 day’s leave. It is not clear what the employer’s rights are—whether the employer has any ability to say to an employee in some cases that the bereavement leave should be for 1 day rather than the full 3 days. 
The sick leave component of this bill allows employees to carry over their sick leave from one year to another. That is also of concern. Employees can start to log up large amounts of sick leave then take that sick leave without having to provide any proof that they are in fact sick. We will want to hear submissions on that matter particularly carefully. The bill notes that if people are off work for a long period of time they can be required to provide evidence that their absence is necessary but if somebody takes 3 or 4 days’ sick leave one week then 3 or 4 days’ sick leave the next week the employer does not have any rights to ask for or enforce the provision of a doctor’s certificate.  
Helen Duncan 
: Oh! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: We think that is wrong. The Labour member Helen Duncan can scoff at that but I hope she will give employers who are worried about that and who come before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the courtesy of not just scoffing at them as she has just done. I hope she takes it a lot more seriously in the select committee than she seems to be doing in the House today. 
We are really worried about the penalty clauses in this bill. Labour seems to think that employers are all incredibly wealthy and make huge amounts of money and that when they do anything wrong massive fines should be slapped on them. That is the Labour approach to dealing with employers. So in this bill Labour has said to the little person who operates a sandwich bar and employs a couple of people part-time over the lunch hour or whenever: “If you get wrong the entitlements of those staff then instead of being liable for a fine of $500 as at the moment we will impose a fine of $5000 if you are an individual but if you have put your business into a company arrangement we will fine you $10000.” 
I know lots of employers who employ fewer than five people. It might come as a surprise to Labour members but those employers are not millionaires. They do not make millions of dollars. They often are worrying week after week about how they are going to pay the wage bill. I wonder whether those Labour MPs have ever been in a situation where they employ staff and on a pay day and because they have had a bad week have worried about how they will pay their staff. [ 
Interruption 
] Those Labour MPs have no understanding of that at all. They have never been in the situation of waiting for the next person to come in and make a purchase so that they can pay the junior’s wage—and hoping that it will happen before the end of the day. 
Labour members can scoff at that but those are the same employers to whom this Government is now saying if they get the entitlements wrong then the trade union will be able to prosecute them and the fine could be $10000 because they are running a small business and have set themselves up as a company. I ask Labour members what incentive that provides to hire staff. How many small employers will be saying: “Gosh that’s a good idea. I’ll go and hire another staff member now. That makes me feel better.”?  
This is a Government that has put a massive amount of extra costs on to small employers. In fact employers themselves have said that if they employ from 15 to 20 staff in a medium-sized business their extra compliance costs since Labour came into power are about $7000 per annum. Labour members might not think that is a lot. They might think those people have a lot to come and go on—but they do not. Employers make decisions every day about keeping not only their businesses afloat but their employees employed. That is what they do. To approach the Holidays Act with the cynical punishing envy-like attitude of Labour MPs that says to every little employer: “We’re going to whack you with high fines.” is a nonsense and we will be opposing it. 
The other part of this bill that one has to understand—and certainly employers around the country understand—is it is a Trojan Horse for Matt Robson’s bill seeking 4 weeks’ annual leave. He had a bill to promote 4 weeks’ annual leave drawn out of the ballot but Labour through Mr Maharey—whom Mr Tamihere thinks so highly of—had promised business organisations just a week or two before the election that 4 weeks’ leave was off the agenda. He reiterated the same promise the day after the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill was drawn out of the ballot then was rolled in caucus the following week. I say to Mr Robson that he is doing a good job. He has the trade union movement out there backing him to the hilt on his bill to provide 4 weeks’ annual leave and the trade union members of the Labour Party are doing exactly the same. This bill is a Trojan Horse for Mr Robson’s bill and National totally opposes that bill.  
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 As a small-business owner for some 30-odd years now I feel I can speak on this bill. In this country 95 percent of businesses are small businesses. The difference between words is interesting. A business especially a small business is in reality a person. It is somebody who has stood up to work for himself or herself. I have noticed over the years—especially the more recent years—that most people in a small business are working far longer and harder for far less. Nevertheless this is a bill that will bring a lot of clarity to the Holidays Act—an Act that causes a lot of grief and problems. So unlike National our party is looking at this bill with a little bit more of an open mind and sophisticated view than those parties that would simply oppose it for opposition’s sake. 
We see it as fulfilling two distinct functions. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It doesn’t help the business community. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: It will. The first function is to clarify existing minimum leave entitlements such as the 3 weeks’ annual leave the 11 paid public holidays and the day in lieu for staff who work on public holidays that fall on a normal working-day. The bill outlines many other provisions that either give statutory effect to case law or codify current practice. To be honest this is an area that most small-business owners struggle with. I personally have struggled with it over the years and have had to seek clarification on a number of issues such as these. So on this particular part and speaking as a small-business owner I welcome that clarification. 
The Holidays Act is in need of an overhaul as it is the source of confusion and conflict between employers and employees. The representatives of both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on the advisory group that consulted over the bill reflected a common desire to see tidy-ups in the holiday legislation. We welcome that. Simplification of holiday provisions would also have an impact on the work of the Department of Labour. Leave entitlements were the subject of 62000 inquiries to the Employment Relations Infoline last year and 68 percent of complaints to the labour inspectorate relate to annual and public holidays. The bill provides a formula for the calculation of holiday pay and this is great. We welcome any move that might help the labour inspectorate to cut down the time it currently takes which is an average of 3 months to investigate potential breaches of employment law. 
The second function of the bill as we see it is agenda based whereby the opportunity to clarify the law is being used by the Government to award new entitlements to workers in line with its traditional philosophy. Like National members we do not want to load additional costs on to businesses given the fact that 95 percent can be defined as small firms employing fewer than 10 staff. So we would like to withhold judgment on those new provisions until we get more information about the costs that employers will face. It is notable that where Business New Zealand in its advisory role departed from the Government it was over the issue of a minimum rate of time and a half for those working on public holidays—equivalent to an alternative day’s leave. It estimates that that will cost employers an additional 1 percent in wages. But we need better information on how many workers already receive these penal rates.  
We would really question sick pay. To give an example when I had a manufacturing business I decided that I would rather have my workers at work than on sick leave so I suggested to them that if they did not use all their sick leave in a year I would pay it out at the end of the year along with their holiday pay. My business’s sick leave entitlement dropped by 80 percent. So I do question sick leave. I understand that as with many laws the principle sounds good but the reality for the small-business person the man and woman dealing with the situation where the rubber meets the road is that many of these things that sound good and are intended to be good—there are no doubts about that—are not used by the employees of the company as they are intended to be used. This is a problem so I would be reluctant to see sick leave provision rolled over to up to 15 days. I know that it would be a huge cost to small businesses. 
I agree with Mr Sowry; he will be pleased to know that I share his concerns about our increasing the costs of small businesses. I do want to see more people becoming small-business owners. I do want to see more employment in this country. There is no doubt that if we increase regulations to such an extent that businesses no longer want to take on staff it would have a detrimental effect on our country and not one that I would like to see. I would welcome legislation that helped small-business owners. They work hard. When I closed my business for Christmas I noticed around my area that all the people who were sweeping the grounds who were tidying up were the owners of small businesses. As we mentioned if the 4 weeks’ leave provision is tied in with this bill United Future will not be supporting it. Many small-business owners would love to have 10 days’ leave in a row let alone 3 weeks or 4 weeks. In reality in the present environment they just do not get holidays. 
The new provision to separate bereavement leave from sick leave also needs further investigation. Again data from the Employment Relations Service shows that 96 percent of agreements covering 93 percent of employees contain specific provisions for bereavement leave. Over half of the agreements covering 40 percent of employees provide for 3 days’ leave but it is likely that many more contain some element of discretion when it comes to bereavement leave. One of the things that I think is missing in this nation and something that I would like to see re-established is the rapport that there used to be many years ago between an employer and his or her staff. Personally I have always had a very good working relationship with my staff. I have had staff work for me for over 25 years. We must allow for good employers to have provisions to retain their staff. If I have good staff I do want to retain them. I do not need a law to tell me how to do that. Likewise I think a bad employer will not retain staff because they should have the freedom and the opportunity to go to a better employer. I think it should be self-regulating in many ways. 
Employers are also targeted by an increase in fines for breaches of the Holidays Act from $500 to as much as $10000 for a company or a body corporate. That would be extremely scary for most small businesses. 
We would want much clearer evidence of the impact of these new provisions before we were prepared to support the bill going beyond the select committee. I have already stated that if Matt Robson’s member’s bill to provide for 4 weeks’ annual leave is considered alongside this bill in the select committee we will certainly oppose it for reasons we will outline when the bill is next debated. But we will vote for the first reading of this bill because we do not want to forgo the opportunity to clarify the current holiday legislation. The onus is on the Government to convince United Future and this Parliament that the new entitlements it proposes will not adversely impact on businesses in this country. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The holidays legislation in this country is in a mess. It is absolutely in a mess. Employers do not understand it; employees do not understand it. I may have an advantage over some people in this House—not Paul Adams; I respect that he has been in business—as I have been in business. If employers have a reasonable number of staff they spend hours sitting down working out people’s entitlements. It is not obvious what they are entitled to. The system is not transparent. 
I am a little bit surprised that the National Party will not support this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. When we first came to this House and were in coalition with National if I was told once by Max Bradford I was told a hundred times that the holidays legislation is in a mess and is in urgent need of sorting out. That is not to say we agree with everything that is in this bill but I notice that the National Party said it is not going to agree with the bill then raised three issues—all relatively minor I would suggest. Those issues are sick leave bereavement leave and the level of fines. We share its concerns on those three issues. But that is not to say we do not welcome this bill going to the select committee and the legislation being sorted out once and for all. What we need in this country is fair straightforward and easily understood holidays legislation. This bill gives the opportunity for us to provide that. 
I see that Matt Robson is getting quite excited. I should put him at ease and tell him that New Zealand First will at least support his bill going to the select committee. We will support it going as far as that. We know that some people in this country are in our belief entitled to a longer holiday than they get—maybe not everybody; maybe 3 weeks is adequate for many. But the people we are particularly concerned about are casual employees. I do not know whether members know what happens to casual employees. They simply get 6 percent tagged on their wage at the end of the week and it is all absorbed. Six percent is two-thirds of nothing I might suggest to an employee who has given his or her heart and soul to a company. Maybe there is a good case for it to be increased to 8 percent which is equal to 4 weeks’ holiday. So we welcome Matt Robson’s bill coming into the House and we will support it going to the select committee. If there are no pitfalls or obvious trickeries I think we might even give it a little bit more support—in qualified areas at least. 
But we think that the biggest possible effect of the Minister’s bill is on penal rates. That is a concern we share with United Future. It raised it and we share that concern. I am surprised that the National Party did not even raise the issue. We know that it is a concern of small businesses so we will be taking a very very close look at the long-term effect of that. 
Let me suggest that it might well be that employers have to pay a little bit more for their staff in various industries activities or operations but that will be overcome easily we believe if the legislation is simple straightforward and fairly easily understood. We believe that the aim of this Parliament should be to get positive legislation that everybody concurs with recognising that everybody is entitled to annual holidays and statutory holidays. 
In concluding I simply say that New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee. We will approach it with an open mind. We hope that the submitters make their submissions very clear and easily understood and that every other party takes an equally open mind so that when this bill re-emerges it is fair transparent and accepted by business and employees alike. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is no wonder that Mr Bill English the present leader of the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Roger Sowry has already called this Government a third-term Government. We have before us another step in providing progressive legislation for New Zealand and legislation that makes life better for the majority of people. Margaret Wilson is to be commended for driving legislation through to the House that reflects fairly and accurately the policies of both Labour and the Progressive party in this Government. 
As has been made clear by many speakers and I am pleased they have brought up the issue the Progressives also want to take another step at this stage which is an amendment to provide 4 weeks’ leave. I have heard a lot of speeches about people’s concern about the effect on others if 4 weeks’ leave is brought in. I just say to them that I too have employed people. I too in my first 3 years of business took very few holidays. But I never campaigned to have the rest of the country stripped of their 3 weeks’ holiday—or 4 weeks’ holiday if that was provided in their collective agreements—or any other legislation that made life better for people. 
I have also worked on a dairy farm. If one works on a dairy farm one does not expect to get the conditions that other people have most of the time. But one does not if one is sensible at all campaign to have the rest of the country have the same conditions that many dairy farmers have. So 4 weeks’ leave has to be seen within the continuum of necessary changes for the majority of the New Zealand people. 
Recently I have taken to doing some further reading and I received a book on one of the prime builders of General Motors. His name was Alfred P Sloan. It is a very interesting book. He was one of the drivers in the early 20th century of the General Motors empire—one of the people who helped General Motors to be able to say that what is good for the General Motors is good for the United States. His company became one of the prime movers and shakers of American business. It bought and sold Presidents and senators it profited from many of the wars that the United States was involved in and it will profit from the war in Iraq if it takes place. But what I noticed about Mr Sloan who was at the top of the General Motors tree is that when he found that his work for the corporation was of such intensity that it was draining his spirit he decided he needed to take a particularly long holiday. So Mr and Mrs Sloan in late July of 1919 left by ship for England and they had a very lengthy holiday. 
His workers at that time had if they were lucky 1 week’s holiday. In 1936 in Flint Michigan then later in Detroit there were some of the largest sit-down strikes of the organised labour movement that the world had ever seen. The issue spread from there across the world and in France employees were successful in getting 6 weeks’ leave in 1936. 
My point apart from telling members to read this book—it is a quite interesting book—on General Motors is this: there is also an attitude in this country that those at the top of the tree deserve adequate rest and recreation—and quite often they do—but those who are considered to be at the bottom are told that they must wait that this is not the time. People cannot get back 3 4 or 5 years of their lives that could have been spent with their children family and friends. It is not a matter of saying it is not time now in terms of people’s health. What is really being said by people who oppose this legislation is that although they may personally consider it time for them to have a break it is not time for all those others who contribute to our society. 
Four weeks’ annual leave would be a significant step forward in raising the quality of life of all New Zealanders. That is why in the context of this clarification of holidays of making sure that our holidays legislation brings fairness to all employees—and to all those who need their holidays to relate to the holidays that their families get—the provision of 4 weeks’ leave is a step that should be taken at the same time. It is a family-friendly and an employee-friendly policy. 
It is almost 30 years since we increased annual leave for workers. Peter Fraser’s Government introduced 2 weeks’ leave in 1944. If members read the  
Hansard 
 of the time they will see the same types of speeches that Roger Sowry Mr Adams and so many others have given in this House—“It is not time.” If they go and read the speeches on equal pay for women that were given in 1973 they will find that there were complaints that if women were paid equal pay they would not be employed any more and that they were worth only 80 percent of a man’s pay. If they want to do some more historical research they should go to the debate on the 10-hour working-day bill in Victorian England. The argument put forward by employers was that it was only in the last 2 hours of the day that any profit was made and that if the working-day was reduced from 12 hours to 10 no profit at all would be made. That was utter nonsense. 
In 1974 Norman Kirk’s Government decided that it was time to bring in 3 weeks’ leave. I believe that Mr Prebble was here at that time. He is a learned member of this House and has been here as long as that. He will remember that people were saying then that it was not the time to introduce 3 weeks’ leave. Improving the lot of the average New Zealander was important to a politician of the stature of Norman Kirk and it is important to me as I am sure it is to many members in this House. It is time to tread the path of those who have made those improvements. It is time for another milestone in improving the lives of New Zealanders. We can be proud of our nation’s history of leading the world on issues of social justice. We were one of the first countries to introduce the 8-hour day and votes for women and with the Pacific nations we led the world in having an antinuclear policy. 
We can also be proud that in the last term this Government introduced paid parental leave relieving stress on parents especially mothers around the country. But we cannot be proud of how long it took us to introduce it. Over 100 countries beat us to it. The Progressives do not want that to happen in relation to 4 weeks’ annual leave. Most OECD countries around the world have it. The European Union has set a minimum of 4 weeks’ leave and many of its constituent countries including France Spain Sweden and Germany have 5 or 6 weeks’ annual leave already. 
Shifts such as these come when the public is ready. There is public concern about people working long hours about parents not having the time they should have to spend with their children. A poll on my own website recently showed that 76 percent of the thousand people polled supported introducing 4 weeks’ leave. I do not pretend it was scientifically accurate but I just want to give members the figures. 
I am concerned about workplace accidents about the conditions many of our lower-paid workers find themselves in. I am concerned about the lack of concern about that issue shown by many members in this House. Many people are working well over 40 hours per week and the standard 8-hour day is only a dream for most. I am concerned that many families are struggling to pay for childcare while the parents have to be at work. We need to do more to help. An extra week’s leave can significantly reduce those costs for parents. Four weeks’ leave helps the most vulnerable working New Zealanders by giving them more time to spend with their children time to rest and time to take care of their health. It brings them the conditions that many New Zealanders already have especially those on higher salaries or on collective contracts. Only 10 percent of workers on collective contracts do not already have 4 weeks’ leave. So it is actually a catch-up mechanism. In return it will bring employers a happier healthier workforce with I predict a lower turnover and a workforce less likely to be having accidents on the job. 
The economy is doing well and I need not remind people that for over 3 years all our regions have been in positive growth mode year after year. Now is the time to make a step such as this. Economic development though is not just about increasing production for the sake of it; the reason that the Progressives want economic development is that with a stronger economy we can contribute more to improving social conditions for New Zealanders. Four weeks’ leave is one of those conditions. 
Mr Roger Sowry referred to a Trojan Horse. He needs to go back and read his classics studies if he took that subject in high school. The Trojan Horse was a trick. Inside the horse was an army which came out at night and succeeded in destroying the inhabitants. This is not a trick. This has been declared. This is one issue where members can say which side they are on. Are members on the side of providing 4 weeks’ leave for the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in New Zealand or are they against it? It is a simple choice. This matter will go to the select committee New Zealanders will be able to make their views known—all of them—and we will be able to consider it alongside the Holidays Bill. 
I commend the bill to the House and I also commend the studying of the member’s bill to provide 4 weeks’ leave at the same time. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this Holidays Bill going to the select committee. This is not simply a tidying up of the old Holidays Act; this is a sop to the unions from a Government that is terrified of reform. It is anti-Maori anti-consumer anti-business and it is anti-people.  
The preamble to the bill says it recognises the need to maintain a balance between work and life outside the workplace. Well thank you very much Labour Government but I would like to maintain my own balance between work and life. Not content with pushing us around inside the workplace this Government now wants to push us around in our leisure time as well. I am sure that 3.8 million New Zealanders do not want the bureaucracy to tell them what they should do in terms of how much time they spend with their children how much time they spend on leisure etc.  
This bill is not a great reform. As I said it is a sop from a Government that is terrified of reform. The reaction from the Council of Trade Unions hails this bill as a huge reform for workers. That indicates just how paralysed this Government is in terms of staying in office. It is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand it tries to pretend it cares about small business. On the other hand it has to please the unions from whence it is driven. It throws a small crumb to the workers but in the short term and over time it will hurt workers because it will do serious damage to medium-sized business. Business in New Zealand is already hurting. Just before Christmas Business New Zealand released results of an analysis that showed a disturbing trend in compliance cost. United Future says that Business New Zealand is happy about this bill but Business New Zealand is definitely not happy about it. Simon Carlaw the head of Business New Zealand wrote an article in the  
Dominion Post  
just this week in which he said: “New holidays legislation will require time and a half to be paid for staff working statutory holidays as well as a paid day’s leave. That could add 1 percent on the wage bill for a full year—about $7000.” Business New Zealand asked just one simple question when it did its analysis: how much is the Government hurting business? The short answer is heaps.  
This bill has already had a stifling effect on economic growth. We will never get to the top half of the OECD by 2010 despite the Finance Minister saying in  
Metro  
magazine last March that that goal was still on the agenda. Last week the Prime Minister said it had actually been pushed to the side of the desk so who is correct; what is going on? We know what is going on with this bill. This bill will seriously damage 80 percent of the businesses in New Zealand which are small businesses employing five or fewer people. Who owns those businesses? Mums and dads—ordinary working New Zealanders; people who mortgage their own houses to open a business. How many members of the Government have ever risked their own money on a business or on anything more than a Lotto ticket?  
This bill contains lethal clauses for employers. Take the changes to statutory holidays for example. We will now have 11 statutory holidays a year—not nine because we will add Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. All employees whether they are wage or salary earners will be paid time and a half for working on public holidays plus they will take a day off in lieu even if that public holiday falls on a weekend. So in effect there will be something like 22 extra holidays a year on top of the 3 weeks’ holiday that this bill will give—and two of those weeks have to be given 2 weeks in a row.  
If the member’s bill proposing 4 weeks’ holiday goes through what will we see with workers who already get 3 weeks’ holiday? Contrary to what this Government thinks there are many good employers out there who already give 3 or 4 weeks’ holiday. They will have to increase that to another week to maintain relativity. This Government wants to put all employers into the bad corner. What would an employee who already gets 3 weeks’ leave do? He or she would go for four. This will affect thousands of employers all over New Zealand. As I said there are only two ways for employers to deal with statutory holidays and minimum time and a half plus a day off. They either absorb the extra costs and pass them on to customers or they reduce staff. Either way consumers will suffer. Staff are consumers; they are not separate.  
This bill reflects the Government’s total ignorance of matters relating to the tourism industry. It is already hard for employers to get staff in the tourism industry. I have worked extensively in the industry—as an employee as a waitress and bartender and as an employer as the owner of a restaurant in a tourist town. What can one do? If the Government increases the cost of wages for an employer he or she has to absorb those costs. One cannot pass them on to consumers. One cannot charge tourists who walk in on Christmas Day New Year’s Day or Waitangi Day one and a half times more for a drink or a meal. There would be no customers. One would get terrible reviews for providing a different menu according to what day of the week it was. This Government is absolutely dreaming if it thinks that businesses will survive the extra costs. As I said it is already hard to get staff. There is no way that there will be differential pricing for statutory holidays. It is up to the employer to agree with the employee as to the conditions for working on public holidays. It is not for this Government—or for any Government—to dictate an agreement between an employer and an employee. This bill leads to less choice for employees employers and customers.  
As I said at the beginning this bill is also anti-Maori. I draw members’ attention to bereavement leave which will be a huge problem for employers. This Government thinks it is being culturally sensitive but in clause 62 there is a definition of the purposes of bereavement leave and details as to when employees can get it. It refers to “any cultural responsibilities of the employee in relation to the death.” We all know what “any cultural responsibilities” means—it means virtually whatever some judicial activist would take it to mean. What employer would employ Maori when he or she fears that all his or her Maori staff could take bereavement leave—which will now be granted on top of sick leave—because they have to go to a tangi? There will be severe detrimental effects for Maori employees throughout the country from that very loosely defined clause in the bill. With things like that employers and employees have to deal with each other in good faith; otherwise as my colleague in the National Party has said they will face draconian penalties. What is “good faith”? Who knows. It is like “cultural responsibilities”. It will be whatever a judicial activist takes it to mean.  
ACT is totally opposed to this bill. Anyone who thinks that it will be cleaned up in the select committee has to be absolutely dreaming. If this is what the New Zealand First Party thinks of as tidying-up I would hate to have seen the bedrooms of its members when they were sent there by their mothers to tidy them up. I imagine every drawer would have been pulled out and up-ended on the floor. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill. I believe it is a forward-looking bill that will be good for New Zealand’s development. It is designed to improve workplace productivity in the long-term and to recognise the importance of a work-life balance for all employees. It builds on the consultative provisions of the Employment Relations Act the amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the introduction of paid parental leave. It provides much-needed certainty clarity and consistency around the holiday entitlements of workers. It reflects the work patterns of modern business and the diversity of our modern work force. It keeps in place the base entitlement to 3 weeks’ leave but it provides some fairness in giving extra pay for working statutory public holidays.  
For some time there has been no recognition that working on a day when other people have a public holiday takes away the ability of many ordinary working people to be with their families. There needs to be some recognition of that loss. If they work on a public holiday that for them falls on a normal working day they will now be entitled to an alternative day off as well as some extra pay. It puts fairness and consistency in place ensuring that all public holidays will be treated the same way. That will make it easier for employers to apply the law and it will lower their compliance costs rather than raise them.  
Both employees and employers find the current Holidays Act outdated and difficult to understand. One just needs to look at the number of complaints made to labour inspectors and to the Employment Relations Service information line for an idea of the size of the problem. During 2002 75 percent of all complaints to the labour inspectorate were related to holidays. During the same period 26 percent of all inquiries to the Employment Relations Service information line also related to holidays. It is an area that definitely needs attention. 
I am particularly pleased that employees can now accumulate some sick leave. In the past people could not accumulate their sick leave if they did not use their 5 days’ entitlement per year. Now they can accumulate up to 15 days. That means that people who have a serious illness and need extra time off work can if they have accumulated their sick leave take a reasonable amount of time off. That seems to me to be very fair indeed.  
Although some elements of the business sector have welcomed the bill because it brings much-needed consistency to the application of the holidays law unfortunately we also have the usual howls from the prophets of doom and gloom—mainly the National Party and ACT representatives here who are always consistent in opposing any improvements to the conditions of the ordinary working people of New Zealand. But sensible business people know that workers who feel appreciated and are rested and refreshed by having reasonable holiday and sick-leave provisions are much more productive. They also recognise that a time of bereavement can be very stressful and that it is good to have a separate leave entitlement for that particular time.  
Whatever the Opposition has to say about increases in wages and salaries this law is good news for New Zealand business. It will result in lower compliance costs through more clarity greater efficiency in businesses because of fewer hassles over holiday entitlements and improved staff morale. That will lead to lower turnover rates greater productivity and much better relationships between employers and employees. I commend the bill to the House. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is really pleased to see the Holidays Bill finally on Parliament’s agenda today though we have one major caveat: we would have liked to see the bill entrench a minimum of 4 weeks’ paid holiday leave for all workers rather than the meagre 3 weeks put forward by the Minister in the new legislation. We think it is a real pity that Labour did not take the bull by the horns as it were and incorporate into this bill the intent of Matt Robson’s member’s bill which was to provide for 4 weeks’ leave. After all it is high time that all New Zealand workers including those on the lowest wages and working in the poorest conditions—those who are least likely to have been able to negotiate 4 weeks’ leave—had the benefit of 4 weeks’ holiday.  
I think most of us recognise that over the last 20 years those people who have been lucky enough to be in regular work have tended to work longer and longer hours and often in much less secure positions than in earlier times. Workers are feeling more stressed while at the same time having less time to spend relaxing with their family or friends. There is a lot of talk at present about the work-life balance and to us allowing all workers the privilege of 4 weeks’ leave a year would seem to be the minimum period in terms of people having enough time away from work to really recover and to spend quality time with their partners and children.  
On top of that I think we all realise that in this day and age many mothers as well as fathers are in the workforce making it even harder for parents to cover school holiday periods adequately. We talk a lot in this House about giving children a fair deal and about improving family relationships. Three weeks’ leave shared between two parents or held by one parent on his or her own is nowhere near to being enough time to allow that to happen and I hope that on those grounds alone United Future will see its way clear to support Green moves to add an extra week’s holiday leave to this bill. I am also hopeful that when Matt Robson’s bill comes back to the House Labour will find itself able to support it to the select committee as soon as possible so that everyone concerned with improving the holiday legislation can make submissions on both bills at the same time.  
During the process of getting the Employment Relations Bill through the House the Green Party was well aware that the whole matter of holidays was an area that needed tidying up. We know that since the passing of that Act a lot of work has been done by the Government employers and unions to try to reach some kind of agreement on modernising and improving the holiday legislation. Although the Green Party has not of course been part of that process it is good that at least some of the problems have been worked through already by the tripartite advisory committee prior to the bill being drafted. However how much consensus has been reached in practice will I am sure be shown in stark relief during the select committee proceedings.  
Apart from carrying out a badly needed overhaul of the current legislation which basically remains rooted in the 1940s this bill brings forward a number of clarifications and improvements that I am sure will be of benefit to both staff and employers. The Green Party is pleased that for example employees who work on public holidays will have to receive time-and-a-half and a day off in lieu that bereavement leave has been clearly separated from sick leave that sick leave can be accumulated as of right that clarity has been given to the status of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day and that guidance has been given on the holidays that are allowed to accrue and when that may occur.  
We also think that the provision of a clear methodology for calculating annual holiday pay in a wide range of circumstances will be of tremendous benefit to employers both large and small who have often struggled with the complexities of that in the past. The Green Party is well aware of the problems that small-business people and community organisations encounter when dealing with new workplace legislation. In this particular case I think the Government is paying attention to the problems that such employers face and once any problems in the detail are ironed out during the select committee process I feel confident that this bill will provide a clear and useful guide for employers in determining the application of holiday and leave entitlements. This bill will help to keep compliance costs down rather than the reverse of that.  
Apart from the fact that the bill allows for only 3 rather than 4 weeks’ leave there is one other area about which we have some concern at this early stage and that is around the question of sick leave. The bill does a good job in clarifying that all employees are entitled to a minimum of 5 days’ sick leave a year and that that sick leave is separate from bereavement or tangi leave. But what it has not done is to separate out what some of us call domestic leave which occurs when a worker takes time off work in order to care for a dependent family member who is sick or injured. One of the hardest things for two-parent families where both partners work and for sole-parent families where the caregiver works is what happens when a child becomes ill and needs care at home. In the old days it was assumed that one parent usually the mother would be at home with the child as a matter of course. Now with so many parents of dependent children working—often simply to ensure the family’s survival as much as for anything else—it has become a real nightmare for parents when children fall sick and have to stay at home.  
The Green Party would prefer to see a separation of domestic leave from both sick and bereavement leave with a separate minimum entitlement for all workers to whom it legitimately applies. We feel it is incumbent on all of us to face the realities of modern working life and not to pretend that we are still living in the 1950s. Employers benefit from greater productivity when staff are not stressed about having abandoned their children at home children benefit from having their mother or father with them in their hour of need and society as a whole benefits when we look after each other properly. After all that is what this bill is really all about. It is about bringing holiday and leave provisions for New Zealand workers into the modern age and dealing with the realities of working life in 2003 not 1943.  
It is almost inconceivable for some of us now looking back to realise it was only about 30 years ago that workers won 3 weeks’ annual leave up from 2 weeks. We need to make the same kind of leap again now. In years to come it will be just as inconceivable that we waited so long to allow all workers to have 4 weeks’ holiday a year as it was to some people in 1972 that we should allow all workers to have 3 weeks off a year. Society has changed hugely in that time. Women now make up nearly 50 percent of the workforce and as much as some conservatives would like it not to happen the vast proportion of us are working either by choice or by economic necessity and are in no hurry to rush back to a full-time life of childcare and housework.  
All workers deserve adequate holiday and other leave entitlements. I hope that both Labour and United Future will see their way clear not only to support the bill as far as it goes but also to amend it during the select committee process in order to provide for a much more reasonable 4 weeks’ leave for all. I also hope that we will see this bill passed in time for Christmas so that all workers will receive the benefit of clearer entitlements by the time 25 December 2003 rolls around.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in this discussion and I would like to compliment the previous speaker on her very moderate and rational discussion of the issues. There are some substantial issues here. It is interesting to note—and it is an acknowledged fact—that both employers and employees find the current Holidays Act outdated and difficult to understand. Interestingly the National Opposition is again out of step with its normal backers in Business New Zealand who consider the bill to be “more streamlined than the current legislation” and “simpler and more coherent than existing legislation”. That is an extraordinary situation and we welcome it. I am pleased to support the referral of this legislation to the select committee which I am sure will make any necessary improvements should there be any. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to participate in the first reading of this bill. I have no doubt that no member of this House and no member of the public will be surprised to see this legislation being introduced by this minority Labour Government. I say that because this Government is full of academics and unionists who would not know a job if they fell over one. Those members have never had jobs in the real world. In fact the Government is so out of touch with business that when it made its listing of what Ministers owned we learnt that only one Minister on the Government side of the House owned shares in any company in New Zealand. So it is a bit rich that Government members come in here and introduce legislation that will affect every business in New Zealand when they would not know what a decent job was even if they had one. That is what is happening. No New Zealander is surprised by this bill and I certainly am not surprised by it at all.  
The Minister has heralded this legislation as providing certainty clarity and consistency. 
Hon Annette King 
: Whose back did you climb on? 
JOHN KEY 
: In case the Hon Annette King did not hear me—and she is chipping away out of her retired caravan; there are a number of things we would like to see retired in the Labour Party but a caravan is not one of them—certainty clarity and consistency is what the Minister said that this legislation would provide. Well I will do something that I do not normally do: I will agree with the Minister. I will agree wholeheartedly with the Hon Margaret Wilson the real face of the Labour Party that this legislation certainly will give certainty in terms of compliance costs. Compliance costs will go in one direction if this legislation comes into force—and that is not down. Compliance costs will go up. One hundred and eighty thousand businesses from Kaitaia to Bluff will have a special present from the Hon Margaret Wilson yet again in the form of more compliance costs. There will be consistency all right; not one business will be missed. Not one nook and cranny will go unturned. All businesses will have a minimum of a whopping $7000 and maybe more added on to their bill. That is what will happen.  
This legislation will certainly be anti-employment. There are 400000 New Zealanders of working age on a benefit of some sort 120000 of whom are on the unemployment benefit. I simply pose this question: will this bill add to the likelihood of employment going up? Not a chance! I predict very confidently that when this legislation is passed unemployment will be on the rise and those people without a job who are sitting at home and unable to provide for their families will not be writing letters of thanks and congratulations to this minority Labour Government. They will not be doing that at all. Mr Cosgrove has entered the House and I say that in his home electorate of Waimakariri business will not be thanking him for this bill. There is great certainty here in this bill.  
Dr Cullen has come into this House and said time and time again that businesses in New Zealand do not pay tax. He has said we should not worry about cutting the corporate tax rate because 95 percent of businesses do not pay tax. Well there is a reason that businesses do not pay tax: they do not make money. And they do not make money because that Minister just keeps on wanting to lump compliance costs on them. Businesses do not even have an opportunity to do an honest day’s work and to employ honest New Zealanders because every which way that they turn compliance costs get whacked on them. There will be certainty all right with this legislation—certainty that it is bad. The unemployed want jobs and they do not necessarily want the nice little bits and pieces that this legislation tries to introduce. They just want a job.  
Let me turn to clarity. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: This bill provides that. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well I tell Mr Cosgrove that the bill does provide clarity for me because it once again shows the true face of the real Labour Party not the thing that one sees parading at the knowledge wave conference. Well let me quote the Hon John Tamihere. He said the Labour Party was bullshitting about its social welfare policy. Well he will be making the same statement when he talks about whether this legislation is good for employers. If any Minister says that it is John Tamihere will have to go to the knowledge wave conference once again and correct him or her because that is what any such Minister would be doing. I will not use that term very often in this House because it is a little unparliamentary. But I read that quote in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and I thought I should just share it with this House.  
Finally there is consistency. There is supposed to be certainty clarity and consistency in this bill. Those were wonderful words from the Minister. I say yes it will be consistently harder to do business in New Zealand.  
Why has this legislation come to the House when it is so bad? That is a pretty good question. Why is it being introduced? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What’s the answer? 
JOHN KEY 
: I tell Mr Tisch that the answer is that blood is thicker than water. This is just round two of pay-back time for the unions. I stood in this House and spoke at length in the debate on the health and safety in employment legislation. When it was passed I looked to the gallery and I saw that members of the unions were there on their feet applauding. I predict exactly the same thing will happen when this legislation is passed because that is whom it is good for. It is not good for those people who are really trying to employ New Zealanders or for those people who are looking for a job. It is not good for those 120000 unemployed New Zealanders and neither is it good for young people who are working hard in tertiary institutions to get qualifications so that they can get a job. It is not good for any of those people. But it is good for the cronies of the Labour Party and they will be on their feet again in this House and clapping because round two of pay-back time will have happened. Mr Cosgrove knows that that is correct. Even if Mr Cosgrove does not appear to be nodding I bet he is nodding inside because he knows that I am right.  
I want to turn for a moment to some of the specifics of the bill. But before I do that I want to make one simple comment. This legislation will add to one thing in our labour markets—inflexibility. If members know anything about driving an economy forward and making a country better to live in then they will know we need to have flexibility in the employment markets more than anything else. For the benefit of those who have not studied economics at all—in other words the entire Labour Cabinet—I suggest that they look at Japan. They will see Japan has massive inflexibility in its employment legislation. Today it will be proposing a new central bank governor for the Bank of Japan. That will have absolutely no impact like everything else in the last 10 years because Japan has massive inflexibility. That is what we are driving in New Zealand with this bill.  
I will talk for a few moments about the specifics of the bill. In particular let me look at the point relating to sickness which is a real doozy. There is still no requirement for employees to produce evidence of illness in order to use accumulated sick leave. One does not even have show that one is sick in order to carry that leave forward. One does not have to do anything. But I guess that is good for business somehow is it? Businesses all around New Zealand will have people accumulating sick leave from one year to another. Potentially 15 days will be accumulated and that is a massive liability for businesses. Will that make people go out and work?  
I now turn to some of the absolute specifics of the bill in terms of employers having to pay time-and-a-half and a day in lieu. What will that mean to the tourist sector? Hospitality New Zealand told us what it would mean. [ 
Interruption 
] The people from Hospitality New Zealand are wonderful; I know them well and they do a fantastic job. They said in a nutshell that we will receive worse service and it will cost us more. That sounds like a recipe for having a good time on a statutory holiday does it not? That sounds like a good idea! When we go down the road to a pub and ask for a beer the barman will say he or she is actually an employee who is covered under the holidays legislation so our pint of beer will cost $18. That is probably what it will cost. If we ask why is it so expensive the barman will say that because he or she is being paid time-and-a-half and has to have a day off the employer has to employ other people. That is what will happen. That will not make New Zealand competitive and will not drive employment.  
We know why this bill is here in the House. This is a lead-on for Matt Robson’s Trojan Horse of 4 weeks’ holiday. New Zealanders already have 3 weeks and 11 days of holidays and they will get more when that legislation goes through. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Was that not just a predictable speech from an old Tory? The Tories make sure they take their holidays at any time they want to. They make sure they maximise their holiday opportunities yet here they are trying to deny decent hardworking people the right to holidays. This bill is designed to modernise the workplace and they want to take us back to the time of the dinosaurs. This bill is about improving productivity and ensuring that people have a proper balance between their work and home lives. This is a good bill and the Opposition members should support it. They should get themselves into the modern world. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the people who have been putting up the argument for the Government are those who do not have an understanding or a feel for what business is all about. They have never put a dollar at risk and here they are telling us what should happen. They are telling employers—the people who really grow the economy are innovative and take the risks—what they should be doing and how they should be running their businesses. No one begrudges anyone having the sorts of conditions that one would like but it will boil down to individual agreements. It will boil down to those people and businesses prepared to grow the economy make money put a dollar at risk—there is nothing wrong with that—and being able to pass that on to their employees.  
Over the years I have run many businesses. I have a business now and it is not double-dipping either. It is a business that has concentrated on restructuring and refinancing. As a trouble-shooter in a previous life I have looked closely at how we can get businesses to grow. One of the big costs associated with business is labour—the cost of employees. We want to be able to give them incentives that will concentrate the mind and get them to participate. Employers then get the best out of people. The member from United Future talked about what he does and has done. In his business he has paid the unpaid sick leave provision. I have always done that. If my employees have not taken the sick leave provision that we negotiated in the contract I have written out a cheque for them as a bonus to say thanks. I have not had to go out and find somebody to take their place; they have been able to continue work and so it has been a win-win situation. I have acknowledged their loyalty and commitment and given them a bonus because I believe that is important in staff relations.  
This Holidays Bill will put huge compliance costs on business. The Government has talked about growth and innovation yet in the next breath it wants to stifle initiative. It wants to bring in huge compliance costs that will add burdens to the economy and to employers. My colleagues John Key and Roger Sowry talked about the bereavement leave entitlement. The entitlement to those 3 extra days which is not currently there will be paid out for the death of a close member of the family. How will we define who that member of the family will be? Will it be for each member of the family who passes on? What will be the limit? The bill does not state 3 days in total. It states 3 days’ bereavement leave for a close relative so employees could have quite a few days off and that is unacceptable. Business people cannot run their businesses if we have open-ended legislation like that.  
Others have talked about the fines. The current fine for breaching these requirements is $500 yet for an individual a sole trader—and most businesses in New Zealand are sole proprietorships and sole traders—the fine will go up from $500 to $5000. If I am in a partnership I will also be hit by a $5000 fine. And what about companies? To get around the draconian tax laws this Government has brought in there has been a huge move into company formation. Those laws state that if one’s taxable income is over $60000 one pays 39 percent tax when as a company one pays 33 percent. No wonder there has been a huge move into company formation! We have a Government that will not reduce the corporate rate down to 30 percent as it is in Australia so we have been hit immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh they do not know because they have never been in business. They would not have a clue. They do not know what makes the world go round. We have been at the coalface. We are the people who have put up the investment and taken the risk. If we take the risk we expect to make a dollar. That is how we improve the situation employ staff and grow our businesses.  
I will quote from an article entitled “Holiday bill flexes business” in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 19 February: “What it does is add to the complexity and cost of employing. For some it might be the straw that broke the camel’s back and for others it might just be yet another issue that has to be dealt with.” 
Opposition Member 
: Same tired old line. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member talks about the tired old line. This is not me saying this; it is what a commentator in the paper who knows a little about what business is about is saying.  
There are some other points that I want to bring to the attention of the House. There are 11 paid statutory holidays at the moment and this bill is saying that if someone works on a statutory holiday and it is not part of that person’s agreement now he or she will get time-and-a-half and a day off in lieu as well. In negotiating employment contracts—and I have had some experience in that field—we have always made provision for penal rates if an employee works on a statutory holiday so that is not the issue. What we are dealing with now is a situation in which firms in the hospitality or tourist industry will be hit very severely. I talked to a restaurant owner at Whitianga in the last couple of weeks and he said that if this legislation comes in in its current form he will not open on a statutory holiday. He does not make any money out of that at the moment because of the rates he has to pay. He does it as a service to the community but if this legislation comes in now he will close his doors.  
Many hospitality and tourist industry employees are part-timers and that has been its success. As we freed up the labour market in the nineties it allowed people to get involved in those industries. This bill is a complete contradiction; it will make it very difficult. Do members remember the saying before the 1990s? “Don’t arrive in New Zealand at the weekend because you will find it closed.” That is how it was because we had such restrictive laws about employing and the way we did business. National turned that around. We have grown the economy allowed people to take the risks and at the end of the day there has been some reward in it for them. We want to make sure that continues.  
I come back to the point in the bill about what this will cost. There is much information about the extra cost of employing. If one is working during statutory holidays the extra time-and-a-half will add about 1 percent to the wage bill for employers. That is what Business New Zealand has said. They are not my figures. For a medium-sized business employing 20-odd people the cost will be about $7279 a year. Businesses just cannot handle that sort of extra compliance cost. The Chief Judge of the Employment Court said just before Christmas and again this last week that if an employer were to dismiss somebody and it was found to be unlawful a minimum of $20000 should be paid in compensation. I do not know any small businesses around the country that are carrying a spare $20000 in their pockets. The reality is that the marketplace is very competitive and one of the things we want to do is give people an incentive to invest and grow the business but that is certainly not going to happen.  
This Government has brought forward a number of other anti-business policies. The 4-week amendment coming up will add considerably to the cost of doing business. The Accident Compensation Corporation has been renationalised and the amount of money built up in that fund from the employers’ levy is likely to be used for workers’ sickness provisions. 
There are changes to the occupational safety and health regulations—covering stress and mental fatigue in the workplace. I wonder what will that mean at the end of the day? We will be seeing that issue debated in the courts. I wonder whether employers will be able to get accident compensation for stress-related work incidents. The Kyoto Protocol has been signed. Wait till that hits those people who have to pay extra carbon tax! One of the most draconian things in the pipeline would affect employers selling their businesses and have staff that would go over to the new owner. However if staff do not want to go over to the new owner then redundancies would be paid. That is absolutely draconian.  
This Government talks about the need for investment growth and innovation if we want the economy of this country to grow but it puts on the compliance costs I have just mentioned. The way this Government is going we certainly will not be achieving growth. This is an anti-business Government. It has no understanding of what it takes to grow the economy or what it takes for business to make investments. National will not be supporting this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 84 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
 The bill removes an anomaly that unfairly deprives around 800 widows of pensions from the Government Superannuation Fund. It is our second attempt to do this. A member’s bill that was introduced by a former colleague Jill White when Labour was in Opposition was defeated by the then National Government. This time we will succeed. Under the Government Superannuation Fund’s old general scheme eligibility for the widows pension is suspended if the widow remarries and it remains suspended for the life of the new marriage. That is a hangover from the old male breadwinner concept and is out of step with current social mores so I am pleased that we are now removing it from our statute book.  
This bill was introduced in May last year and has been caught in the Government’s heavy legislative programme but any inconvenience to those who stand to benefit is temporary only as the bill once passed will apply retrospectively from 1 July last year. This bill was reported back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee in September. The committee has recommended only a small technical change—to remove an ambiguity in clause 4. Otherwise the bill is unchanged. It removes the inequalities in the treatment of members by firstly repealing the provisions of the principal Act that suspend the payments of benefits to a spouse in the event that he or she remarries and providing for the restoration of suspended benefits to spouses who have remarried. Secondly it aligns the allowances paid to children of deceased members by replacing the fixed annual allowance prescribed in the old scheme with the inflation-adjusted allowance provided for in the new scheme.  
Around 47000 people receive Government Superannuation Fund pensions. Of those 12000 are surviving spouses and of those about 800—all widows—may be affected by the bill. A very small number of children—about 19—are affected by the change to the child allowances. There are no non-regulatory options available to fix the problems that the bill seeks to remedy. Amendments to the legislation include clause 2—the Act comes into force on 1 July 2002. Clause 3 specifies that the purpose of the Act is firstly to entitle the spouse of a contributor under Parts 2 5 or 6 of the principal Act to be paid an annuity after remarriage; secondly to restore annuities currently suspended after remarriage; and thirdly to align cost of living adjustments to children’s allowances paid under Parts 2 5 and 6 of the principal Act with those paid under Part 2A.  
Clause 4 amends section 45 of the principal Act. The effect of that amendment is that the remarriage of the spouse of a deceased contributor does not affect that person’s entitlement to the annuity and the payment of annuities currently suspended will resume with effect from 1 July 2002 as if those annuities had not been suspended.  
Clause 5 amends section 47 of the principal Act by requiring that all children’s allowances under the old scheme must be calculated in the same way as children’s allowances under the new scheme. The effect is to increase the allowance from $78 a year to $2414 a year.  
I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I shall start by correcting something that the Minister said when moving the second reading of the bill. In fact the bill did not go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it went to the Government Administration Committee. I remember that because when the first reading occurred there was discussion across the House— 
Jill Pettis 
: National still voted against it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No we voted for it. Jill Pettis a whip does not seem to remember the history. I remember the history quite clearly as I spoke in the first reading and argued that the bill should have been referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But the Government of the day for reasons known only to itself—and reasons that Michael Cullen was not prepared to share with the House—sent the bill to the Government Administration Committee. I am pleased to see it back here with minor amendments. As we read it for the second time in the House today it certainly has the support of the National Party caucus.  
I recall a meeting in July last year when Lady McCombs—for those who do not know Lady McCombs is the widow of the Hon Sir Terence McCombs who was a respected member of Parliament for Lyttelton for many years. She came and saw me— 
Rod Donald 
: She is a great supporter of the single transferable vote. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She is also a great supporter of the Labour Party I might add. But she still bothered to come and see me and I appreciated the opportunity of meeting her and other representatives who were dramatically affected by this issue. At the meeting which was held shortly after the calling of the snap election in 2002 she asked whether the National Party would be prepared to support the legislation. I gave her an assurance that we would and I am pleased to be part of the second reading when we further deliver on the promise that I gave to Lady McCombs.  
The purpose of the bill has been outlined by the Minister the Hon Margaret Wilson. It removes an inequity that has existed for some time which occurred in 1985 in the time of the previous Government. It removes an inequity in the way widows and widowers are treated and I am pleased to say that it will be retrospective to 1 July 2002. But I am concerned about the timing of the legislation. It has taken a long time to wind its way through the process and then be back before the House for the second reading debate. I am far from convinced by the Hon Margaret Wilson’s excuse for that which was that the Government has a heavy legislative workload. This legislation could have passed through very quickly. It has widespread support in the House. Margaret Wilson argues that it affects very few people. She gave the numbers from the select committee report—about 800 widows and 19 children. Yes by anybody’s standard that is a very small number of people but that is not the point. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s the principle. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is more than the principle. This issue is a very big issue for that small number of people and every week that goes by they want not just the promise that the legislation will be passed and not just the fact that it will be retrospectively dated back to 1 July 2002. They want to see the law changed and they— 
Rod Donald 
: It will be by Thursday and it would have been passed today if ACT had not denied leave for its remaining stages. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not think for one minute that it is fair for Rod Donald to blame ACT for the legislative programme of the Government. Dr Michael Cullen who sponsors the bill is in charge of the legislative programme—and it is just a nonsense for Rod Donald who has been here for a couple of terms to suggest that Ken Shirley is in charge of the legislative programme. Dr Michael Cullen is the person who decides how important this legislation is. Is it more important than the Holidays Bill which has just had its first reading? To people like Lady McCombs it definitely is. Rod Donald should not blame Ken Shirley; he should blame the person who is making a mess of the legislative programme and is not prepared to get his priorities right. Instead of chipping in he should talk to his mate on the other side of the House and make sure that we get the legislative programme organised so that this legislation is passed in a timely fashion. I say that in all seriousness because when small bills that require inequities to be fixed come before the House it is incumbent on all members of Parliament—particularly when there is such widespread support for the legislation—to get on and actually do the job. It is not a matter of playing politics with it; it is a matter simply of reorganising the schedule reorganising the Order Paper and making sure that we get the legislation passed.  
There is little more that I can add to the legislation at this time. A small number of people are affected but I repeat for them it is a very big issue. I am pleased to be part of the second reading debate and to support the bill. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am very pleased to signal United Future’s support for the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) and I urge its speedy passage through the House. I am strongly in favour of correcting the obvious injustice that denies spouses’ annuities to widows or widowers who remarry.  
I am delighted that United Future MPs are actually allowed to use the “m” word—that is “marriage”—in this House because I understand that the word has been carefully expunged from the policy manifestos of both the Labour Party and the National Party. I find that tragic and against the criteria of observable reality and common sense incomprehensible. After all the great majority of New Zealand adults are currently married and marriage—be it for the first second or third time—is still immensely popular. This bill is before the House because many widows widowers and divorced people continue to remarry and it is great that they do because there is now a veritable library of information and social science that shows that marriage with all its imperfections and failures is still as good as it gets for most of the adult members of the human race. All the studies show that on average spouses—to use the language of the bill; or partners the terminology that is more common today—are the happiest human beings with the highest household incomes and the best health.  
Those are the kinds of issues that I came into Parliament to promote and if marriage is a key then all of us need to begin to talk it up. That does not mean of course that the single the divorced or the gay are regarded as somehow second-class. As far as United Future is concerned all people are welcome and by their very presence enrich all of us. Each of us in our own way makes a contribution to the health of New Zealand its families and its communities. Let us put this bill through in record time. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I take pleasure in rising and speaking on this bill on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues like Mr Jim Peters and Mr Dail Jones who are with us in the House today.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: Give us some substance.  
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Mr Brownlee should not worry; I will give the House some substance unlike the National Party over there which is shrinking by the day. New Zealand First supports this bill. I agree with Mr Carter the National speaker who was happy that the bill is retrospective to 1 July 2002; New Zealand First is very supportive of that fact as well. New Zealand First is also supportive of the aim of the bill which is to amend the Government Superannuation Fund Act of 1956 to repeal the provisions of the Act that suspend the payment of benefits to widows or widowers in the event of remarriage and to provide for the restoration of suspended benefits under those provisions.  
New Zealand First is also supportive of the change to the allowances paid to children of deceased members under the old scheme by replacing the prescribed fixed annual allowance with an inflation-adjusted allowance as provided for in the new scheme. New Zealand First supports good legislation and it opposes bad legislation unlike some parties in this House that just oppose for the sake of opposing. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know what that Labour member said when she interjected but New Zealand First is a party that is sensible and will support any legislation that is sensible and common-sense. I am very glad to speak on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues. We do support the second reading of this bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill and I find it somewhat ironic that we are even debating a bill that will cost as little as $2 million yet will provide for the widows of 1200 people who are deprived because of an anomaly in the previous legislation. The fact that someone should remarry and lose their benefit seems to me to be quite iniquitous and without any basis for opposition. For those reasons I support the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand certainly supports this bill. It also welcomes its speedy passage. In the light of the speeches that we have had from all the parties thus far the Minister who began the debate on this bill today really cannot get away with what she said. I heard her comment; she said that the bill had been held up by the heavy legislative programme of the Government. This bill is very simple and very clear. Its purpose is to remove an inequity that has been on the statute book. It was I think probably introduced inadvertently in 1985 but this Government has been in office for over 3 years and it has had ample opportunity to address this situation. It has been languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper. The Minister had the temerity to come to the House and say that the busy legislative programme had been the reason that the bill had been delayed. I can only assume that she was being sarcastic. I do not think she was sincere in saying that. Perhaps it was her little joke with the House because it is one big joke. 
When we look at the nonsense legislation that this Government has passed in its last term and continues to pass in this term—things like the renationalisation of accident compensation doing away with the Employment Contracts Act the Local Government Act and to increase taxation—all of those measures destroy the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. The Minister says that those bad policies that the Government was just so keen to take the time of this House to legislate for had priority over a very simple measure to remove the inequities between widows and widowers in this bill that we now have before the House.  
We heard Rod Donald try to blame the ACT party for the delay. That is rather comical because we wholeheartedly support this measure. We cannot understand why it was not introduced 3 years ago. The inequity has been there for a considerable length of time. This Government stands condemned for the time that it has taken to address this very important measure. I do not propose to take any more of the House’s time other than to reconfirm ACT’s commitment to support the removal of this inequity. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support this bill. Indeed it seems that every party in the House wants to support it. Therefore I invite the Government to seek leave at the end of the report back for the Committee stage and the third reading to take place today. I proposed that course of action at the Business Committee a couple of weeks ago given the non-controversial nature of this bill. If my recollection is correct I believe that it was ACT that actually blocked that procedure being taken. I would like to invite Mr Shirley not to oppose leave if the Government so chooses to seek it.  
As a number of speakers have pointed out the Minister in particular this bill deals with an issue of equity and it overcomes discrimination against people who choose to remarry. I guess that is a change because it is usually the other way round where discrimination takes place—people who are not married and who live in relationships analogous to marriage such as myself are the ones often discriminated against. But in this case we have a situation where those who are surviving spouses of former public servants find themselves in a situation that if they remarry they would lose their entitlements. So it is good that we are fixing that situation.  
I must say it is a pleasant change for the Green Party to support this bill. The last time a Government superannuation fund bill came to the House the Green Party was the only party to oppose it. I am very sorry that our concerns raised at the time that the Government Superannuation Bill (No 1) came to the House have been proved chillingly accurate. As we now know the Government has lost $380 million so far— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
ROD DONALD 
: I am coming back to that. The Government has so far lost $380 million in unrealised losses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is out of order. The member cannot refer to that when talking about this bill. The member will please come to this bill. 
ROD DONALD 
: I would like to say to those surviving spouses—and according to the bill there are 12000 of them—that they need not worry about the concerns that I have expressed about those losses because they will not affect their pension in any way whatsoever once it has been restored to them. The losses are something that the taxpayer will have to pick up not the beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund. The issue I am concerned about about those losses is not one that any beneficiary or for that matter any person who currently contributes to the Government Superannuation Fund needs to worry about. Of course we all need to worry about it as taxpayers but that is another issue to be debated at another time.  
I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill. It would be an ideal situation if we could deal with all remaining stages today. I say that as a member of a party that is very keen on proper process being conducted in this House but in this particular instance when the whole Parliament supports this bill it makes a nonsense of the parliamentary process to drag out the final three stages over 3 days. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 Nobody wants this bill to be dragged out. I am pleased that common sense has prevailed and that there seems to be universal support for this bill. In 1992 National voted against this bill but it has had a change of heart. I am pleased that we have learnt about its change of heart. I support this bill and commend it to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 National supports this bill. It is worth picking up on the point that the Hon Ken Shirley made. This bill has sat on the Order Paper for a very long time. The Government has not seen it as any sort of a priority at all. No doubt Government members have gone around the countryside spooking up audiences getting them a little bit agitated about the situation and saying: “As soon as we can get through it we will.” The Government has had lots and lots of opportunities. We have had plenty of occasions when the House has been in urgency when as Mr Donald said the bill could have been put through all of its stages. In the last 4 years we have had numerous occasions where the House has lifted either before 6 o’clock or before 10 o’clock. It would have been very easy for the Leader of the House to slip this on to the Order Paper knowing full well that he had the support of all parties here. The House needs to stick to the agreement that was reached last week in the Business Committee and let the bill go through stage by stage this week. At the end of the day it will not affect the date from which the payout to these people is available.  
I want to pick up on a comment made by Mr McNair. He thought that it was appropriate for him to give the House a bit of a history lesson. A history lesson for him would be that some 5 or 6 years ago there was a member in this House who brought a member’s bill forward to deal with this particular issue—Jill White from Palmerston North. That bill did not go through at the time because there were a number of things in it that probably caused a bit of a problem. But let me tell Mr McNair that it was the leader of New Zealand First the Treasurer of the day who exercised the veto effectively although not formally on that occasion. The high and mighty attitude that New Zealand First has displayed today is somewhat an effort in false piety. If Mr McNair would like to apologise to the National Party for his ruthless comments then I would be prepared to yield to him now.  
As I said this is an interesting bill and we support it. I have had widows in my electorate office who were in the situation of not being able get more than the half-pension and were facing the prospect in the latter years of life—in their 60s—of remarrying and losing all the income stream that they had. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. The bill addresses that and I am very pleased for those constituents of mine who will benefit from it. At the end of the day we are talking about contributions that have been made from their household income and in many other laws that household income is communal property belonging to them both. This puts that to right. 
Bill read a second time. 
Television New Zealand Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Television New Zealand Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1Title  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 The first point I would like to make is that this bill is misnamed. Bills should always be named relevantly. What we have here is something quite different. I suspect that this bill is not about television at all. It is about control and control of the media. What we have seen over the last 3 years— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Mr Hughes may giggle—he may be the only member on that side of the House who actually watches television I suspect— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Not after 10 o’clock. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is his bedtime I say to Mr Brownlee. We have seen a slow movement towards greater control of television. The reason for that is the revenge that the Prime Minister is seeking on Television New Zealand for her treatment throughout the election campaigns preceding her election as Prime Minister. This legislation is not about television but about social engineering. It is about deciding what is good for other New Zealanders to watch on television and deciding for them what they should select on their remote controls. It is also about deciding a better use for a limited State resource.  
There are a number of reasons that the name of this bill is insufficient. My first suggestion is that we do not call the bill the Television New Zealand Bill at all. Let us call it the “Let’s All Watch What Helen Wants Us to Watch Bill” or the “Labour Party Propaganda Bill”. Or we could call it the “How to Wreck Television New Zealand in Five Easy Steps Bill” because that is what is being done here. They have taken what was a very robust successful business and throttled it so that it is no longer the financial success that it was. There was certainly every expectation that Television New Zealand would be able to retain some of its dividend which is one of Labour’s election promises that it has not delivered on. Nobody thought for one minute that the way that TVNZ would be able to keep its dividend would be through losses rather than through having a part of the dividend retained.  
I also think we should call it the “Let’s Come up with the Most Bizarre Structure Possible That’s Never Been Tried Anywhere Else in the World and Impose it on What is Already a Fragile Business Bill”. Submitter after submitter came before the select committee and suggested that the structure was not a good one for TVNZ. I am pleased to see that the Minister has agreed with the Opposition and has decided to make some changes to the bill on a Supplementary Order Paper. We should call this bill the “Let’s Impose a Whole Raft of Vague and Unachievable Objectives and Then Expect the Business to Compete Bill” because that is more appropriate to this legislation. If we were to use that title it would be a better description of what this bill is about.  
The statements about television through the bill are very vague. Although Marian Hobbs the previous Minister suggests that the charter is a very detailed focused document members will see that the statements are very vague and nebulous.  
My last suggestion is that we should call this bill “Marian Hobbs’ Folly Bill” mainly because it has taken nearly 4 years to get it introduced to the House. I was not surprised at all that she decided to hand over the reins to the new Minister. This was probably the least successful of the tasks that she has not completed since she has been in Parliament. Quite clearly this bill is not about television at all. It is about imposing control on what was once a successful State-owned enterprise and imposing a new regime that can only damage the entity. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 1 the title of the Television New Zealand Bill I feel that title could be amended to read the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill”. Once again the Labour Government has not learned from the lessons of the past when it sold off billions of dollars worth of New Zealand’s assets in the 1980s. Here it is setting up a new structure for Television New Zealand in order to sell it off to the first available bidder so that Labour can try to cover up some of the problems it is having with its budgetary requirements.  
New Zealand First’s essential starting-off principle was to ensure that New Zealanders retained the assets that they had built up. This Labour Government is barely into its second and last term—as far as New Zealand First is concerned this is the second and the last term of this Clark Labour Government if Helen Clark is not unseated before the end of it—and it is proceeding with a bill that proposes by the way it is structured the sale of Television New Zealand. That is why I suggest the name of the bill should be the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill”. That is what this bill does. I suggest Labour is now creating a situation whereby it is setting up structures that will allow our television asset to be sold. That asset has been built up by New Zealanders since about 1962 when programmes were transmitted in black and white from 7 p.m. until 10 p.m.  
The name of the bill could also be the “Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill”. If members look at the proposals for the charter on Supplementary Order Paper 57 dated Thursday 20 February 2003—which has been thrown at us today—they can see at last what that charter is all about. It has been talked about for a long long time and finally we have the charter with all its silly ideas. I say the bill could have that title because the charter suggests for example that various measures could be included in the bill to provide for a wide group of people. In particular the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper to clause 10 states in subclause (2)(b)(ix): “include in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests;”. Is that not silly? That is why I say this bill should be called the Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill. There is a proposal that programming for a mass audience must have things for a minority audience but how often will a mass audience be interested in things with a minority interest? There is no better way to turn the mass audience off watching television than to start dealing with minority interests. If people are watching one of those thrilling Arnold Schwarzenegger movies will they keep watching that movie if there is suddenly a little excerpt of Thai dancing or some other fancy little thing of interest to a minority audience in the middle of it? Will we have a sudden break in a movie for something that appeals to a minority interest?  
What a silly idea this legislation is. It has been rushed into the House at the last minute. This bill has been before Parliament for a long long time. It has been before the Commerce Committee and we had the second reading last October. New Zealand First abstained from voting on the second reading because we wanted to know what the bill would do. I am still pleased that we did abstain because clearly the bill could as I have suggested have two titles one being the “Television New Zealand (Sale of New Zealanders’ Assets) Bill” and the other being the “Television New Zealand (Silly Ideas) Bill”. For reasons like that we will not be supporting this bill. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and support my colleague Katherine Rich in opposing this appalling bill that dares to waste the time of this institution. I support the amendments that she foreshadowed about the re-titling of this bill. I agree with her that the bill should be re-titled the “Television New Zealand (Befuddlement) Bill” because it represents 4 years of studious thinking by Marian Hobbs. The reason that we think the title is not a fair reflection of this bill is that we are aware of the confusion and the delirium that has backed the bill. We are aware that the former Minister who wrote and was responsible for this bill stood up on her first day in Parliament and could not tell the difference between the chairman and the chief executive of Television New Zealand. I remember that. The reason I raise that now is that I want to ask how one can say that this is the Television New Zealand Bill when the promoting Minister did not know whether she was Arthur or Martha or who was the chairman and who was the chief executive of Television New Zealand.  
That is an important point because Television New Zealand used to be one of the best publicly owned businesses in this country. It generated substantial amounts of money that were used to pay for schools hospitals cancer treatment and all the public-good sorts of things that we in this House want to support. Television New Zealand used to generate tens of millions of dollars. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could the member address the title please. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The point is that this company Television New Zealand used to generate so much money that the bill could be retitled the “Television New Zealand (Destruction of a Publicly Owned Cash Cow) Bill” because that is what this Government has done. That company used to generate tens of millions of dollars of dividends that were used to buy public-good services in the community and now that is wasted. Under the stewardship of this Government perpetuated by this legislation Television New Zealand is rapidly losing value and losing the premier position that it held in New Zealand broadcasting. It has ended up in befuddlement—a company that does not know where it is going and does not have any plans. All that it is focused on is its management. Does that not sound like the Government? Does that not sound like the very Government that is promoting this bill?  
So I support Katherine Rich. She single-handedly forced Marian Hobbs from the broadcasting portfolio. Katherine Rich is the person who should be in this House deciding on the future of Television New Zealand. I support her completely in her amendment to change the title of the bill. The present title does not reflect what this legislation will do. This bill is all about the continued destruction of value in Television New Zealand—so much so that the company has at times been running at a loss during the term of this Government and taxpayers have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars of dividend income that would have been much more appropriately spent and invested in other parts of the public service.  
During the rest of the debate on the title we will hear from my colleague the Hon David Carter. National intends to show why the bill’s title is a misnomer that does not fairly reflect the genesis or the progress of the bill. It is an absolute requirement for the title of any bill that it should clearly and fairly reflect the content of the bill. This legislation is not about preserving the value of Television New Zealand but about destroying the value of that company. It will deny the public an opportunity to receive those dividends and also deny them the opportunity of investing directly in a profitable broadcaster. This Government has destroyed the value of Television New Zealand. It is denying any future Parliament the opportunity to be involved in further capital investment. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I had the opportunity of going to a proctologist but instead I chose to listen to Mr Ryall’s speech. I obviously made the wrong choice.  
This bill should actually be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill” because on 13 October last year Peter Dunne and I went to see Michael Cullen and suggested to him breaking up TVNZ into two groups to operate as a public service broadcaster separately from BCL which should be allowed to get on with the job of setting up excellent transmission facilities for New Zealand. We wanted to make sure that BCL was allowed to go unchallenged as a business enterprise and could not be cannibalised by the charter. We achieved that and— 
Dail Jones 
: Oh! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well it is right here on Supplementary Order Paper 57. We have managed to separate the two which I think is a great thing. We will not end up with a situation where a Minister could be in the untenable position of having to make a choice between a $10 million investment in for example BCL that could return some very good profits to this country or dumping it into a television programme about the mating season for whales. So BCL will be able to carry on with the job of being a business and the charter will be able to look after itself.  
On the question of the charter we look forward to having the TVNZ bill allow Television One and TV2 to go unchallenged and be leaders in numerous areas. We can see from some of the clauses in Part 2 that will come later on— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could the member return to the question please. Could he relate his comments to the title. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The question is how we should title this bill and it addresses the charter. It fundamentally addresses how we are to set up TVNZ in comparison with what that would have been like without the involvement of United Future. We have at least saved the business side of TVNZ and I gather from TVNZ that it is very happy that we have done that as well. United Future can stand proud that it has saved the transmission side of the business from economic cannibalism which could have been undertaken had the two areas not been separated and I think that is very very important.  
So I do think this bill should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. We have saved the taxpayer from seeing something that could have been a huge black hole. It was quite within the realms of possibility that the bill would have been nothing more than a big black hole that taxpayers would have filtered their money through for many years to come and it would not have been a transparent process. The fact that BCL was separated from the rest of the business and that we cannot have that kind of a cannibalistic financial approach will say to the taxpayer that we can make TVNZ accountable and transparent. The “Thank God for United Future Bill” is what the bill should be called because that is exactly what it is. Because of our involvement we have separated the two parts of TVNZ and I think that everybody from here on out can be grateful that we did so. We can concentrate a little more on the charter later on in this debate. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As we address the title of this bill I think that Marc Alexander has at least touched on one of the issues that we need to address when we contemplate the title and that is that this bill as it will be amended by the Labour Government supported by United Future will be dramatically different from the bill that went through the Commerce Committee. It is a radically different bill and really that ought to be reflected in a radically different title.  
The submitters who came along and made submissions at the select committee discussed one particular structure for TVNZ and all spoke to that structure. Then at the eleventh hour like a bolt out of the blue suddenly we had the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 57. United Future has boasted that it managed to persuade Mr Cullen at the very eleventh hour and after the whole bill had been to the select committee to radically change this bill and to break up Television New Zealand. So instead of having an integrated company with a transmission arm and a content-producing arm we have split those two arms up completely.  
The United Future representative has boasted that Television New Zealand is happy with that change and that we should call this the “Saved by United Future”—or something—“Bill”. I have news for him: I have not spoken to a single person in the industry who is happy with this bill. People in the industry are appalled at this last-minute change involving the splitting-off of the transmission arm and the setting-up of a separate arm for the transmission service BCL Ltd which is now to be called Transmission Holdings Ltd—THL—or whatever its name will be. They believe—as does the Green Party—that far from strengthening this bill United Future and Labour in separating off the transmission arm will weaken Television New Zealand reduce its revenue-generating potential and leave it in a much more vulnerable state than it was.  
We believe that will indeed make Television New Zealand increasingly reliant on advertising revenue at a time when we have a charter telling it that we want it to be editorially driven not ratings-driven. But the splitting-off of BCL and all its revenue potential will mean that Television New Zealand will firstly become increasingly reliant on advertising revenue and therefore not able to implement the charter. Secondly it will be increasingly reliant on direct Government funding. That is of course always a recipe for potential political interference in this most crucial area of the fourth estate. I will elaborate on our concerns about the separating-off of BCL and the ways in which we believe that will weaken Television New Zealand when we come to Part 2.  
But we are at present discussing the title and I would like also to say at this point that the Green Party—unlike other speakers in this House—does believe that in this increasingly globalised world where our sovereignty culture and identity are being eroded it is absolutely crucial that we have a strong publicly owned television broadcaster here in New Zealand that is committed to promoting our identity programmes perspective and point of view. What is the point of having a public service broadcaster owned by the public of New Zealand if for example only 13 percent of the programmes on TV2 are New Zealand programmes— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member come back to the title please? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: So coming back to the title of the bill my major point is that it really does need to be changed in order to indicate that this bill has been radically changed from the version that emerged from the select committee. I suspect that Transmission Holdings Ltd will be the only State-owned enterprise to be created by an amendment from the floor of the House. That was an eleventh-hour amendment produced in the Committee stage of this Parliament after the entire membership of the select committee had finished its deliberations and stated that it made sense to keep Television New Zealand with a transmission arm and a content arm so that there could be a transparent cross-subsidy between the two arms. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party continues to oppose this Television New Zealand Bill which as Sue Kedgley from the Greens said is radically different from even the bill that we last debated in the House because of the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 57. It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all because this bill will destroy what was once a great institution which was returning over $60 million in profit and which had more than adequate— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very narrow debate. The bill has been to a select committee and members should be sticking strictly to the title. There has been a little bit of latitude I would suggest.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that matter. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I thank that member for providing guidance to a new member. As I said the bill should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill. In no way should what this bill creates be associated with what people in New Zealand know as Television New Zealand. People in New Zealand take pride in Television New Zealand. I think it should be called anything but the Television New Zealand Bill. As those members over there affectionately call their previous Minister of Broadcasting “Boo-Boo” we could call it the “Television New Zealand (Boo-Boo) Bill”. In fact that member has admitted that she does not watch television. She has not watched any television since the 1970s. 
We know why this bill is radically different. It has nothing to do with United Future members who say that it should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. We know that it has nothing to do with the “Thank God for United Future” party because the reason it is radically different is that the previous chairman of Television New Zealand has fallen from high favour in a very painful way. 
I will add to what the member from United Future said when he claimed that we have achieved separation of Television New Zealand into two. Well it is very prescient of him to say such a thing. I think he must have divine foresight because this bill has not been passed yet. It is not an Act. He has not actually saved the transmission arm from destruction. 
If he is so keen on saving the transmission arm why does he not also save the television arm? Why should we allow Television New Zealand to be reduced by what I say should be called the “What the Government Wants to See on Television Bill”? It should not be called the Television New Zealand Bill at all. That should not be the title. We have recorded in  
Hansard 
 the honourable member Jill Pettis saying that the Government wants to see more documentaries shown on television. Why does it not therefore call the bill the “What Politicians Want Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill” or as I said the “What the Government Wants Everybody Else to Watch on Television Bill”? It is a bit like those words from that cunning linguist the Minister of Finance that “The Government is skiing.” or “The Government is climbing mountains.” 
But as I said the ACT party totally opposes this bill; it does not matter what the title is. The whole thing is a disaster and we will continue to oppose it.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I certainly want to speak to the title and I want to speak particularly to the interesting contribution from Marc Alexander who suggested that he would table an amendment naming the bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. I say to Mr Alexander that he should put his money where his mouth is and table that amendment. I will work with my colleagues on this side of the Chamber and with the votes of “Mr United Future” I think we could get a change to this legislation. So I am challenging Mr Marc Alexander as we debate the title to be honest. He said he would put an amendment. I am challenging him to table the amendment and I will work with ACT New Zealand First and National to get support for it. I tell him that we would have the numbers to change the title of this bill successfully. 
I think he has gone a shade of white and I do not think that he wants to persist with his first suggestion which was to call the Television New Zealand Bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill”. I do not think that would do his electoral chances any good. We have had that suggestion from Marc Alexander for a change of title but I think that one is probably not going to see the light of day. 
My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall suggested the bill should be called the “Television New Zealand Destruction Bill”. I would be very supportive of that. I think it goes a long way towards tallying with the comments from Deborah Coddington who reminded the Committee that as we debate the Television New Zealand Bill we are debating an organisation that was once a proud organisation worth a lot of money. Now we are dealing with an organisation that is far from being a proud organisation. It is nothing like the organisation it used to be. It is certainly not worth anywhere near what it was worth only a few years ago. 
As we debate clause 1 “Title” I am interested in whether Helen Clark is going to unshackle the previous Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs as this legislation is her brainchild. I am most surprised that she has not taken a call to date as we debate the title “Television New Zealand Bill” and I will be interested to see whether she is allowed to make any further useful contributions as we proceed through the debate. 
I have one further comment to make as we debate the title. It is really a question of who will be happy to see this legislation passed. I cannot imagine that many average Television New Zealand viewers will be rapt with the changes being engineered in the Committee today. But those who will be happy are the many thousands of New Zealanders who have bought shares in Sky television. As we debate the title “Television New Zealand Bill” I say that mark my words the beneficiaries of this legislation will be the people who own shares in Sky television. It is going to become the channel of choice. People are not going to be interested in watching what Marian Hobbs tells them they are meant to watch. They are going to use the thing that she referred to as the “what-d’you-call-it”. She was unsure what a remote was called when she debated something concerning television a year or so ago. 
As we debate the Television New Zealand Bill today I say that the shareholders of Sky television will be the big beneficiaries. They will see that people up and down the country find that this bill the Television New Zealand Bill does nothing to improve the quality of what they enjoy watching. It might have something to do with Jill Pettis telling people what they should be watching and her feeling a lot better because— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Cartoons. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh no I think she talked about documentaries. It would be a documentary on Sonja Davies or somebody like her—some well-known Labour Party member. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1Preliminary provisions  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 Once again I rise to speak to the bill. I suspect that the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey as he looks at the commencement date listed in the bill must more or less hold his head in shame because the bill states: “The Act comes into force on 1 July 2001.” That is when the charter was supposed to come into effect. 
Hon David Carter 
: John Tamihere would have got it done in time. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: He would have got it done in time—quite clearly so. The commencement date is 1 July 2001 and here we are some 19 months later talking about this bill now. We are into the fourth year of talking about the charter the fourth year of discussing this bill. Now the Government is bringing in at the Committee stage changes that make the bill quite radically different from the bill that the Commerce Committee looked at. 
This part sets out the purpose of the Act. Once again things have changed dramatically. It was intended that there be no split of BCL from Television New Zealand. Unlike Marc Alexander who spoke before I do not see having the two parts of the organisation together as cannibalistic. There are some good reasons for having the two organisations together. BCL is a very profitable organisation and a lot of the profits from that particular part of the company have been able to be directed into the production of local content. That will not be possible now. If we are to look at the good sides of cross-subsidisation that was one. 
Now BCL is going to be split off. That is a total about-face by the Government but it has nothing to do with United Future. It has more to do with the fact that the Alliance is now no longer an important part of the Government. We all know that keeping the two organisations together was Jim Anderton’s goal. 
In terms of splitting off BCL and the changes that are outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper from the Government I would like to take the Committee back to some comments made by the Minister when he was being interviewed on Media Watch. At the time the Minister was asked: “So the elements of the structure we have now—two commercial channels with BCL part of the same entity—that’s set in stone?” Steve Maharey replied: “Yes.” 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s one of the things you say as a Minister that you don’t really say. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: This was actually 25 August 2002; even back then he said it was set in stone. The second question was: “Now there’s no temptation now that you’ll possibly have the opportunity to split BCL as the Government has always wanted to?”. He responded: “No. I think as I say the die is cast there to get this legislation through.” That was said back in August 2002 and here we are further down the track with a bill that is dramatically different from the one that was discussed in the select committee and with these eleventh-hour changes. 
If we look at the purpose of the bill we see it aims to put in place the charter. We have a document that comprises probably fewer than 500 words. This Government has managed to deliver less than one word a day. Frankly I am sure that if my colleague Tony Ryall had put pen to paper he could have written the charter in half an hour. 
In terms of where we have to go to from here the purpose of the Act although set out there in black and white is still incredibly vague. It states that the television business has to give effect to the charter. I ask the Minister what “gives effect to” means. Does it mean “implement”? What does it mean in terms of the way this charter will be measured? Some years down the track we are still standing here without any idea of how this charter will be measured how much it will cost or how much impact it will have on the TVNZ business. The purpose of this Act is quite vague and really should have greater detail. 
Of course the Minister says that the $12 million that the Government has put into the provision of the charter will make a big difference. I remind the Committee that on the day that press release came out Annette King was making a comment about the health sector. She said that $10 million if my memory serves me correctly was a mere trickle. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to talk about Part 1 the purpose of this Act. I reiterate that the Green Party does support the transformation of Television New Zealand into a Crown-owned company because we would like to see it change from being a commercially focused State-owned enterprise to being an organisation that hopefully is editorially driven rather than just commercially driven and that will have the satisfaction of viewers not the return of a commercial dividend as its primary objective. What is the point we say of keeping a television channel in public ownership if it is not going to focus on a New Zealand voice a New Zealand perspective and New Zealand programmes? 
We do need to remember that TVNZ has been more commercially driven more dependent on commercial income and advertising revenue than any other public service television in the world. Figures from a year ago show that whereas we were spending about $3 a head annually on public service television Australia was spending $30 and the United Kingdom was spending $120. So we support the idea of trying to change the culture of Television New Zealand from one that is simply preoccupied with advertising revenue and ratings to one that is focused on New Zealand programmes and the New Zealand perspective. 
In that regard we sincerely hope that TV2 will improve its performance. At present a mere 13 percent of the programmes screening on TV2 are New Zealand programmes. That is the channel that children watch. Our children are watching a couple of hours of television every single day on average. What are they seeing when they watch TV2 the young people’s channel? They will learn more about Los Angeles than they do about their own suburbs and communities because New Zealand society remains largely invisible on TV2. We sincerely hope that will begin to change—or what is the purpose of a publicly owned television channel? 
Although we support the transformation of TVNZ into a Crown-owned company we are totally opposed to the Government’s last-minute amendment which came like a bolt out of the blue to separate off the transmission arm. We believe that exactly as Katharine Rich said it will weaken not strengthen TVNZ. It will shrink the potential revenue base of TVNZ and therefore its potential to make New Zealand programmes. It will eliminate the option of having transparent cross-subsidies from the transmission arm and it will make TVNZ increasingly reliant on advertising revenue at the very time that we are asking it in the charter to be editorially driven not ratings driven. It will weaken the implementation of the charter. 
Given that advertising revenue is notoriously fickle and in particular will become so—as we and the pundits predict—as we move into the digital era we believe that this bill when the Minister of Broadcasting’s amendments are adopted with the help of United Future will inevitably increase TVNZ’s dependence on Government funding which of course has its own problems of potential political interference. If TVNZ is dependent on Government funding what happens when there is a change of Government and there is no more funding forthcoming? On the political interference argument there is an old saying: “She who pays the piper plays the tune”. It would be very easy for a future Government unhappy with Television New Zealand’s election coverage for example to threaten to reduce the Government subsidy—$10 million a year we are told for the next 3 years. Helen Clark made it plain that she was furious with TVNZ’s election coverage 4 years ago. It is not unimaginable that in future a Prime Minister would vow to reduce the amount of Government funding available for TVNZ because of his or her unhappiness with election coverage. That is what happened back in 1975 when Robert Muldoon refused to raise the licence fee essentially as a way of punishing the broadcaster. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to be able to speak in this debate along with Katherine Rich the National Party broadcasting spokesperson. I want to echo the comments she made about Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill. Part 1 lists the purposes of this Act and they have changed quite remarkably from when the bill was first introduced. When the bill was first introduced it was all about providing Television New Zealand with a very complex three-board structure with two subsidiaries with various people having various cross-directorships. 
Katherine Rich 
: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Dr Armstrong would have been on all three. But we now find that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled late in the day that provides for the splitting up of Television New Zealand into a television business and a transmission business. This is a quite fundamental change and about-face from the Government in recent times. Katharine Rich was the first person in the whole Television New Zealand debate to say that the transmission arm should be split off from the broadcast arm and she has been proved correct but I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to stand up and explain the remarkable about-face that we have seen in his tenure of the broadcasting portfolio. He was asked on the Media Watch television programme: “So the elements of the structure that we have now two commercial channels with BCL part of the same entity that’s set in stone?”. Mr Maharey replied: “Yes.” He said it was set in stone. He said that on the Media Watch programme on 25 August 2002. What a remarkable turn-round! 
The reason he has changed his position is the logic and the weight of the argument that Katharine Rich and the National Party in Opposition have brought to this bill. The Government simply could not withstand the weight of the argument. 
I would also like the Minister to stand up and explain the very generous references to Maori in clause 4. We are spending oodles of taxpayers’ money on a Maori television channel and now we find that the alternative channel will have to take lots of notice of Maori interests as well. Not only will there be a Maori television channel; the public service television channels will be dominated by Maori interests as well. Maori are not getting one channel; they are getting three. That is not what the Government promised the people of New Zealand. I want the Minister to stand up take a call and explain why Television New Zealand will have to take into account the aims and aspirations of Maori more than any other group in the community and where that sits with the fact that tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will provide a special channel for Maori. Why does Television New Zealand have to accept that responsibility which this Government has decided will be met through an independent television channel for Maori? I would like the Minister to get up and explain why some people can get two bites of the taxpayer cherry while others are shut out and get none of what is going on as a result of the segregationist approach that this Government wants to pursue throughout this country. 
I acknowledge the debate led by Katherine Rich that has led to the about-face by the Government. It is extraordinary that only 4 months ago the Minister was saying that the previous structure was set in stone. It is now a few months later and the Minister has done a complete 180-degree flip on that issue without giving any explanation to the people of New Zealand. We used to have a thing called the “Maharey principle” which refers to things people say when in Opposition that they do not really say when in Government. Now we have the “Maharey principle 2” which refers to things people say when in Government that they do not really say when they are in Government! Beat that! What a flip! Clearly this Government owes Parliament an explanation of why it has changed its position. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Part 1 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with the purpose of the bill which has now been totally changed by the Supplementary Order Paper we have just been given. The purpose of this bill is interesting because for the first time it brings in the dreaded word “charter” which we will get to later on in the Committee stage. Paragraph (b) of clause 3 on Supplementary Order Paper 57 states that the legislation will “ensure that the Crown entity responsible for the television business gives effect to its Charter while maintaining its commercial performance:”. Commercial performance is defined later on in this part but a tension is developed here. How can this Crown entity give effect to a charter that is trying desperately to please every single little sector of the public and at the same time maintain its commercial performance? There is absolutely no way that it can do that. 
Under the old bill before Supplementary Order Paper 57 came in there was a slight chance that that might happen. But now that BCL has been separated out and taken away the only way that Television New Zealand will get any funding is from the advertiser or from the taxpayer. We have already seen the Government commit $12 million to implement the charter. That $12 million has going to a business that was once a proud enterprise returning over $60 million a year in 1999. The Government already has to give it $12 million and that will increase because an enterprise like this cannot both be dependent upon advertising and try to be a public broadcaster. 
The ACT party would do away with this whole bill and sell Television New Zealand. Why do we need public broadcasting? What is the purpose of a public broadcaster? What is so special about television? Why does Labour not buy back all the publishing companies in New Zealand? There are many people who read more books than they watch television—probably including most of the people in this House. Books are enormously important in terms of seeing one’s own culture of seeing the Kiwi identity reflected—whatever “Kiwi identity” means; it is something defined by politicians. Why does not Labour buy all the publishing companies and deliver a charter to get rid of for one thing the secularisation of the State? That is a dangerous slippery slope that this bill goes down as we will see later. 
I see that the Minister of Broadcasting is not in the chair any more but perhaps the Minister who is now in the chair Jim Sutton could take a call and explain to us why Supplementary Order Paper 57 proposes to change the definition of “shareholding Ministers”. At one stage shareholding Ministers were defined as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Broadcasting but now that has changed to the “Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. What on earth does that mean? I call on the Minister to take a call and explain to us what that means. It is another one of those nebulous sorts of phrases that creep into legislation like this. For instance does it mean Parekura Horomia who might want to increase taxpayer funding for Maori programmes on Television New Zealand as well as the mythical elusive Scarlet Pimpernel - like Maori Television Service? Perhaps the Minister could take a call and explain to us what that means if indeed he knows. 
I will conclude by supporting Katherine Rich’s comment that the Minister of Broadcasting must be ashamed when he sees that the commencement date has changed from 1 July 2001. We see that time and time again with legislation that comes before this Committee. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I take pleasure in speaking to Part 1. I too have concerns as far as the purpose of the bill is concerned. There has been a big change from the structure in the original bill which was to “provide for a Television New Zealand Crown entity group consisting of a Crown holding company with 2 subsidiaries one of which conducts a television business and the other a transmission business” to one that “provides for the existing State enterprise Television New Zealand Limited to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business;” and so on. 
I think the Hon Tony Ryall had a very good point. Four months ago this Government said the previous structure was set in stone. Now all of a sudden this Government has done a total turn-round. It has obviously realised that its policy-making machine—or whatever it is that its crazy ideas sometimes come from—does not work. 
I will also speak on clause 4. It states: “In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—equal employment opportunities programme” etc. It then goes on to state in the definition of “good employer”: “including provisions requiring—” and it goes on down to paragraph (d) which states: “recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori; and (iii) the need for greater involvement of Maori as employees of the employer operating the personnel policy;”. It goes on to some other issues as well. It reminds me of the exact wording in the State Sector Act 1988—not that I was very old back then; at least Darren Hughes and I had been born at that point in time. The wording reminds me that the Labour Government has not changed its spots although it appears to be different and tries to be a new face of the Labour Party. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I was saying that the Labour Government has not changed its spots. The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues thinks that the phrase I used was a bit outdated. But clause 4 after the definition of “equal employment opportunities programme” talks about recognition of “the aims and aspirations of Maori” “the employment requirements of Maori” “the need for greater involvement of Maori as employees of the employer operating the personnel policy” and so on. As I said earlier that sounds like the Labour Government of old—the Labour Government under David Lange. The exact same wording is used in the State Sector Act of 1989. Where is the creativity in this part of the bill? This Government has a new look but underneath it all it is the same Labour Government. Four months ago this Government said that the previous structure was set in stone then all of a sudden it made a total turn-round. 
Five years ago we saw the Prime Minister all dressed up in nice photos; she looked very nice in them but that was not the real Prime Minister. The photos of her did not even look like her much. That is what the Labour Government is like. It is all dressed up with window dressing but really it has no substance. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Hang on! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That got a bite! I have concerns about this bill especially about Part 1. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I was very keen to take a call on Part 1 in which we are discussing the surprising—or maybe it is not surprising—about-face by Mr Maharey. In August last year he argued that in no circumstances would BCL the transmission arm be split out to be a separate company. Now after listening to and recognising the excellent contributions and work done over the intervening months by my colleague Katherine Rich the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting Mr Maharey has conceded that there may be a better way of doing things. 
But I want particularly to talk about clause 3 as it went to the Commerce Committee. It has now been eliminated under Supplementary Order Paper 57 which was drafted at the eleventh hour by this Labour Government. I refer specifically to paragraph (c) which stated: “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operates as a successful business:” Those are fairly simple words—“ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operates as a successful business:”. We acknowledge that the “Maharey principle” has been applied to this legislation. Mr Maharey has suddenly changed his mind and we are no longer talking about a subsidiary of Television New Zealand. 
However nowhere in the Supplementary Order Paper can I find any reference to the requirement that BCL still operate as a successful business. If it is there I expect Mr Maharey to take a call and point that out to us. But I suspect that what we are seeing here again is further destruction of taxpayer value—further destruction of a business that at this stage is still a profitable part of Television New Zealand—by allowing the business to operate on the basis of one of those wally-ish social responsibilities with no requirement at all that it be run as a sensible business. 
Marc Alexander 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Marc Alexander interrupts and says: “Rubbish!” 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: It is rubbish. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister has not taken a call. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: The member hasn’t asked a question yet. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes I have asked a question. I will repeat it seeing that Mr Maharey not only has changed his mind but appears to be hard of hearing. I ask him why the words “responsible for the transmission business [operating] as a successful business” have been taken out. Why have those words now been taken out of the original bill that went to the select committee? If Mr Maharey will take a call and explain that I will happily sit down and let him do so. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: No I’ll wait for a sensible question to be asked. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No he is not going to take a call. Maybe Mr Alexander would like to take a call because he has suddenly become a real expert on the Television New Zealand Bill. Let him take a call and assure the Committee that this particular arm of Television New Zealand once it is split into a separate entity will still be required to operate as a sensible and profitable business. It is a simple question. It should be easily answered. I am happy that Mr Alexander is prepared now to acknowledge that he will take the next call. It will be interesting to see whether he does—to see whether he jumps to his feet and defends the Government’s new change to the legislation before the Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] He might come with God’s message! I do not mind how he comes to the debate but let him now take the next call and assure us that he is supporting legislation that will not have this business become another part of the social agenda with no requirement at all that it operate as a successful business. 
We have already heard in the debate that Television New Zealand was worth a billion dollars. Now it would be difficult to sell even if the Government wanted to do so. That is the level of destruction of shareholder value that we have seen in 4 years. 
Marc Alexander 
: Because of the split? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No definitely not because of the split. The member should listen. It is because of the way that Television New Zealand has now completely changed its focus. It no longer has to focus on delivering dividends to the Government. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No not yet. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall consider this legislation from a New Zealand First point of view comparing its original purpose with its new purpose which is to split the company into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business. The previous speaker made an excellent point. Unfortunately for me he stole my thunder to some extent. I had also noticed that the original paragraph (c) in clause 3 made it clear that the purpose of the legislation was to “ensure that the subsidiary responsible for the transmission business operate as a successful business:”. Whatever happens however it might be owned we can only say that that is an excellent proposal. But on Supplementary Order Paper 57 thrust upon us on 20 February there is no requirement that whatever is formed operates as a successful business. United Future says it is a party of business people. From time to time we have heard from Gordon Copeland about his business past. I would have thought that United Future members would insist that that provision be inserted in the bill. 
Again New Zealand first objects to the split of anything that would enable the Government of the day whatever one it might be to sell part of it. It might not be the immediate Government but if there is a change and those members become the socialists they really are they would possibly sell off this business or if they go back to the Roger Douglas style they might sell off the entity that has been created. If it is not created if there is no split it cannot be sold and New Zealand First opposes the split. 
I would have thought that United Future which so boldly said that the title should be the “Thank God for United Future Bill” would include in the purpose of the legislation—in keeping with what it says is its philosophy—that all future television programmes should be of a family nature supporting the family and the development of family life in New Zealand. There is nothing in this bill that promotes family life. United Future talks a lot about family life. In its coalition agreement discussions with the Labour Party I would have expected that United Future would insist that family life be referred to in the purpose of this legislation. New Zealand First will be putting an amendment at an appropriate time to require that the programming feature programmes of a family nature that support the family and development of family life in New Zealand. That is consistent with my member’s bill the Commission for the Family Bill which is waiting to be drawn in one of the ballots that are forthcoming. I expect United Future to support my amendment. That is the basis on which those members are here in this House. I expect the United Future members to stand up and vote for the amendment along with whoever else cares to vote for it ensuring that family life is given full status in this legislation and ensuring that the legislation is not silent on the subject as is the case with the charter at the present time. If United Future members were strong they should have in all their negotiations for which they are taking credit and with all their talk about family life insisted that a purpose of the Act be that family life is given priority in television programming. But they have failed to do so. It goes to show that they were really not thinking of this much. To utter what I regard as almost a profanity in saying that the bill should be called the “Thank God for United Future Bill” and not to have the purpose of the bill take into account family life shows how little regard United Future really has for family life in New Zealand. 
The Government has thrust upon us Supplementary Order Paper 57. It could have done the dog legislation in the same way by way of a Supplementary Order Paper to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). But no we see in relation to the Television New Zealand Bill a Supplementary Order Paper that makes a dramatic change to how this bill will operate and to the future of television in this country. The Government is prepared to do that for this television legislation but on a relatively minor issue the dog legislation it was not prepared to take the same course. Instead that bill ended up back at the Local Government and Environment Committee from which it will never arise again. 
That shows how the Government tries to impose its will on us by way of this Supplementary Order Paper to which the Minister of Broadcasting has not spoken. We have had no explanation from any Government speaker as I recall during this Committee stage as to what this Government intends by this bill. Maybe the Government does not really know what it intends. Has this legislation been drafted by United Future? Does only United Future know about this? Is the Labour Party totally ignorant of what is in it? The Labour members who are in this House might want to take the next call and explain to us what is meant by the various amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper and how they work. Surely Parliament is entitled to know what is in the mind of the Labour Party. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I have followed this debate with interest particularly the contribution that has been made by National members who were on the Commerce Committee. It is interesting that Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich are the only two members who have spoken in this debate who have an understanding of what this is about. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Do you think we don’t know what this is about? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I know that other contributions have been made. I am saying that from a National point of view it has been really really important that two members of the Commerce Committee have made a valued contribution to the debate. They understand all the issues that have come forward. I am not decrying some of the debates that have come from our ACT friends and from New Zealand First because they have been substantial. 
Deborah Coddington made a very good point which I have written down. She was asking why the Government is involved in television at all. That is a good question and I would like the Minister of Broadcasting to answer that. 
Hon David Carter 
: Sky does a good job! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: As my colleague says Sky does an extremely good job. In the short call that I have I want to ask the Minister to take a call and explain why clause 3 “Purpose of Act” has been completely changed by Supplementary Order Paper 57 which has been promoted in his name. What we see now in clause 3(a) is a split to “provide for the existing State enterprise Television New Zealand Limited to be split into a Crown entity conducting a television business and a State enterprise conducting a transmission business;”—a complete split. That is one of the points that Katherine Rich has talked about and promoted for some time. Yet it was not in the original bill. It has only come about now in a Supplementary Order Paper that has come forward at the eleventh hour. 
I want the Minister to take a call and explain why this change has just happened. Why were the recommendations of Tony Ryall and Katherine Rich from National who were on the committee and looked at the whole of the Television New Zealand Bill not taken heed of? What we see now is that at the eleventh hour the Government has decided to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that splits out the two arms of Television New Zealand. That is something that Katherine Rich has promoted and something that National supports. 
But the issue now is that a once very profitable organisation—a State-owned organisation—has over recent times lost shareholder value. It has been losing it for some time. At some stage it was worth about $60 million; that is a figure that has been talked about tonight. What we will see now under the charter is a $12 million taxpayer injection into the making of programmes. What happened to the commercial model? We had a television station that worked extremely well yet in recent times it has been muddled around by this Government. That commercial model could have worked. With the split and the charter we are now seeing an injection of $12 million of taxpayer money into the production of television programmes. 
We find that that is not necessary. We are not supporting it and I doubt that that is surprising to members at all. 
Dail Jones 
: I am not surprised. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is not a surprise is it! The other point I would draw members’ attention to in the Supplementary Order Paper—and I once again ask the Minister to take a call on this—comes under clause 4 which states that “shareholding Ministers means the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the time being responsible for TVNZ”. I want to know from the Minister and I ask him to take a call on this what he means by “the Minister for the time being”. Is this an ad hoc approach? Is this just a temporary arrangement for the time being for TVNZ? I want to know whether that Minister will be the “Minister for Social Responsibility” or the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Stephen Franks 
: That is all they are! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well it could be. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to tell us. What does “the Minister for the time being” mean? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate very closely and I think finally Lindsay Tisch has asked a question that is worth answering. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I asked it first! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well if the member asked it earlier then I should have noticed and answered it then. I think it is a reasonable question; it concerns a change that I think the Committee does need to be aware of. 
One of the issues that we have had to deal with in relation to splitting the organisation into a State-owned enterprise and a Crown-owned company—a “CROC” as it is called—for the television business is the fact that in Australia the transmission arm operates under the name of Television New Zealand. Under the rules that operate in Australia around capital gains tax if one splits the organisation apart in the way that we are intending to do then one invites capital gains tax to be paid on that part of the organisation. What we are doing at the present time is ensuring that we do not expose ourselves to paying that kind of capital gains tax in Australia in relation to the organisation. We have ensured that the shareholding Ministers remain the same as they were before. In other words the ownership structure of this organisation remains the same until we see where we go from here. The Committee needs to know that we are simply protecting the value of the organisation in Australia. We have made sure that no money needs to be paid in relation to the changes that will take place. That is why these changes are in the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I may appear to be frivolous in the next few minutes but often the easiest way to illustrate a point is to show the extent to which it becomes ridiculous. In this case it is a very serious point. 
When we write law that is obscure that is deliberately ambiguous and that can mean just about anything someone wants it to mean we are really lining the pockets of lawyers and feeding the egos of the activist judges. We are giving them the ability to make decisions that this House is not willing to make. I point here to clause 4 and the definition of “equal employment opportunities programme” and the definition of “good employer”. 
With the equal employment opportunities programme definition in this Television New Zealand Bill the Government is telling TVNZ—under clause 22A which comes later—that it must develop and ensure the implementation of programmes to eliminate “all aspects of policies procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate … inequality in respect of the employment of any person or group of persons.” What the hell does that mean? What possible meaning can a court give to this when any persons or group of persons can come along and complain about inequality in employment? Does this mean it is wrong for TVNZ to have a screening policy for example that keeps out the stupid? Does this mean that it is wrong for TVNZ to do psychological testing to make sure it eliminates those who may pick on their fellow workers or who may steal money? Does this mean that the procedures for seeking references in order to shut out those who have a history of criminality can be precluded because those people can then come back and say: “You are excluding the group that has a criminal record.”? Does this mean that in any employment dispute this poor institution is going to face constitutional lawyers bringing up clause 22A and demanding to know why TVNZ has taken any kind of step that discriminates between the good and the bad? 
What does this do if for example TVNZ turns down a Jehovah’s Witness we find that TVNZ has no existing Jehovah’s Witnesses in its employment and it is asked why it does not eliminate this inequality? What does it do for Mormons or paedophiles in that situation? What about members of the Man-Boy Love Association who claim that their views should not preclude their involvement in programming? What about the Prostitutes Collective? I guess this provision would be wasted on the Minister in the chair who has led his life of “blameless excellence” and would not have any particular interest in this. The range of groups or persons who can claim that they have been the subject of inequality in employment practice is almost endless. 
We want to know from the Minister whether TVNZ is allowed to discriminate between the polite and the impolite or the respectful and the disrespectful or those who are sensitive to the mores of Catholics or of Maori and those who are not. Are we allowed to have even the vigour of broadcasters like those from The Rock who can make very good jokes that a number of others do not appreciate? This provision says to me that inequality—which is not defined—in relation to any persons or group of persons will be the basis for legal action. 
This is not trifling. This is not mere rhetoric. We could for example get the Libertarianz demanding to know why its members cannot be employed because their view that Inland Revenue Department workers should be brought before a Nuremburg-type tribunal probably has not been represented by TVNZ to date. That is pretty unequal because there has been plenty of representation of the view that more tax is good! We have had countless repetitions of the view of the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen that whacking up tax rates is clearly a social virtue irrespective of the fact that the Government has put up the tax rates on working families even more. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent” and substitute the words “1 July 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent” and substitute the words “1 July 2007”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to amend this clause by adding the following paragraph: 
(d)provide for greater ministerial interference in programming decisions. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) from the definition of  
good employer 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2Structure and shareholdings of TVNZG  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that has been essentially gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper—but it has been gutted for good reason because the Minister and the Government have come round to the Opposition’s way of thinking. One of the things that was quite clear and which we communicated very strongly was that the proposed structure as presented was never going to work. Nobody said it was going to be a good option for Television New Zealand. I remember when Jane Wrightson of the Screen Producers and Directors Association came before the select committee and described the structure as clumsy and designed to fail. We argued quite strongly that there was no other similar structure anywhere to be found in the public sector or in the private sector. Treasury confirmed this view when it presented its information to the committee. So it was really a structure made up by the Government and by Ross Armstrong and imposed on what is already a failing business.  
So why change the structure? Often this Government concentrates on changing structure but “bustle” is not necessarily “industry”. At the moment what we have seen is a few changes being made but in the meantime a lot of good programming has been put on hold at Television New Zealand. If we look at the amount that has been spent just on putting this bill through the House and through select committees etc. we see that this money could have funded at least 100 documentaries or at least three or four dramas. We could have seen a lot more content on television.  
One might have thought there would be some progress in broadcasting in the last 3 years so when Marian Hobbs the previous Minister was justifying why there had not been any delay she used to say that a lot of changes had been made “in anticipation”. It was interesting to hear the Minister on  
Media Watch 
 asked: “Do you think public television has become better in the not-quite-3-years that you’ve been here?”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What was the answer? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: “Ah no I wouldn’t actually claim that.” So we are beginning to wonder what changes have actually been made. We are into the fourth year of the Labour Party’s election policy and we have not seen any changes.  
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No more  
Montana Sunday Theatre 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Quite right and no more  
60 Minutes 
. No more  
Backchat 
; that was one of the first changes made under the new charter regime. Perhaps that was because a lot of negative political comment came out of that show that the Government did not like. One of the changes that I have seen is the picture of our Prime Minister on the new opening blurb for  
One News 
. I am wondering whether that is part of the charter as well.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
:  
Backchat 
 was on TV3.  
KATHERINE RICH 
: That Minister obviously has not watched much television! We had a confusing logic being used. We had excuses being made when there were delays in getting this bill through the House. We should remember that the start date for this whole thing was supposed to be 1 July 2001. Of course Part 2 is the part that introduces the charter and this is where we get into an exercise in creative writing—in the extreme. We have about six different clauses which are all designed to say the same thing. We all want to see a diverse range of programming on television but this charter says it in about six different ways. Somehow or other we are now to look at that square box in our lounge and see something that is going to add to our personal development. We are supposed to look at the square box in our lounge and see something that is supposed to add to our “ethical and spiritual understanding”. I say that it is a very very sad world when we expect a television to do all those things.  
In looking at the charter we see there are two ways it could be used—firstly for those suffering from insomnia it would probably put them to sleep and those suffering from depression would probably find that parts of it make them laugh— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If one was suffering from diarrhoea— 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I could not comment on that. Some of the things that have been overlooked are subjects quite dear to New Zealanders. For example sport barely gets a mention. We have all these different parts of the charter that deal with a lot of other different subjects but sport was an add-on at the end. Of course “independence of the media” was an add-on. That was something that really upset Television New Zealand because the independence of the media is something that it holds very dear to its heart. It was not until there was an absolute uproar that that was included and made clearer. We have a number of amendments on the Table which we will be asking people to support. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak to Part 2. Firstly like my colleague Dail Jones I would like to alert United Future to the fact that New Zealand First has tabled an amendment to the charter set out in new clause 10(2)(b)(xv) on by Supplementary Order Paper 57 to include an additional sentence “to include programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life in New Zealand”. In view of the proposed Families Commission we will be expecting United Future’s support on this amendment. I can see those members across there looking quite concerned so it will be interesting to see how the vote turns on that amendment.  
As we have said before New Zealand First basically opposes this part of the bill—the bill entirely. As Sue Kedgley has said too this is going to be a Supplementary Order Paper that has been created entirely on the floor of the Chamber and is not really a good option for Television New Zealand.  
I would like to speak on new clause 10(2) and I wonder whether the Government had been reading George Orwell’s novel  
Nineteen Eighty-Four 
 when it included this. I quote directly from new clause 10(2)(b)(ii) inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 57: TVNZ will “feature programming that contributes towards intellectual”—that is good; we will accept that—“scientific”—again that is fine—“cultural”—and we wonder which culture will be chosen; and then we come to the bit that Katherine Rich has already pointed out—“spiritual and ethnical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders”.  
It is really apparent from this part of the bill that the Government appears to want to be responsible for the spiritual and ethical aspect of our lives. Again I think it is a really sad world if we expect television to do this. New Zealand has always been free from any interference by the State as it should be under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I believe that all New Zealanders would stand up to defend this aspect of their lives. They need to be able to manage this themselves. New Zealand First believes that if there is a demand for the promotion of spiritual development through television then of course this should be covered but we have seen no evidence yet that it is required.  
I refer now to clause 16(2)(a)(iv) which states that TVNZ will “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice;”. New Zealand First questions why we are spending money—and a substantial amount; many many millions with no result to date—on setting up a Maori television station if the programmes are going to be shown on Television One and TV3. What is the Minister indicating? By taking this double-barrelled approach is the Minister indicating that he has no confidence in the Maori television station or is this recognition that many Maori in the Northland and Gisborne regions will never be able to receive the Maori television programmes and that Television One and TV3 had better provide them? Or is there at last a recognition that many families will have to go into debt to have the UHF aerials to receive the Maori Television Service in these areas?  
I am sure that a broad-brush approach like this will ensure that all New Zealanders have access to Maori programmes but to New Zealand First it appears to be a real put-down for the Maori Television Service and the legislation in this part of the charter is attempting to solve problems that are not even there.  
I refer now to paragraph (b)(xi) of the charter which states that TVNZ will “maintain and observe a code of ethics that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed;”. In view of the increasing rates of diabetes and obesity among our young people and our children which can partly be attributed to television advertising of fast foods New Zealand First will be really interested to know which aspect is going to be considered a priority for TVNZ. Will the priority be the health of our young people and our children—and of course my favourite subject their dental health—or will it be the many millions of dollars that this type of advertising brings in for Television New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I rise in this debate on Part 2 to support the Opposition debate being led by our colleague Katherine Rich. Over the last 3 or 4 years Katherine Rich has diligently highlighted the inadequacies in the Government’s approach to the Television New Zealand Bill and that is the reason we are seeing the Government do a complete 180-degree turn on the break-up of Television New Zealand and a major rewrite of the charter for Television New Zealand. The problem with this Government of course is that there are a whole lot of Ministers in it who do not know anything about television. They have never watched it. The Prime Minister says she really does not watch a lot of television. Marian Hobbs says that the only time she watched television was in the 1970s and now we have Mrs Dalziel giving us a lecture that  
Backchat 
 screened on TV3 because it was made with private money. Obviously she does not watch a lot of television. She is probably spending a lot of time with her friend arranging for Ukrainian workers to come to New Zealand.  
Marian Hobbs was asked about her charter on the radio. She was asked: “Do you think public television has become better in the not quite 3 years that you’ve been here?”. The answer from Marian Hobbs was: “No. I wouldn’t claim that.” That was from the very Minister who is supposed to be in charge of this bill at its genesis.  
Let us look further at this bill. This bill includes that Television New Zealand in its objectives will reflect the regions of the nation as a whole. Marian Hobbs was asked in that same interview: “You also promised to for instance look at ways of supporting regional television. I haven’t seen any evidence of that.” Marian Hobbs replied: “No there isn’t any.” That was from the Minister who promised to do something about regional television. There is nothing there.  
The National Party will vociferously oppose the imposition of a charter on Television New Zealand. We are sick to death of the spa-pool liberals in the Government enforcing their values on the rest of the nation. Let me give members an example of what the spa-pool liberals in the Labour Government want to put in Television New Zealand’s objectives. I quote from paragraph (b)(ii) of the charter: “feature programming that contributes towards intellectual scientific cultural and spiritual and ethical development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders promotes informed and many-sided debate and stimulates critical thought thereby enhancing opportunities for citizens to participate in community national and international life;”.  
Well that is what we get from Mike Hosking on  
Sunday 
 at 7.30. The fact is that this Government has the wrong values to be imposing any charter on the people of New Zealand. What is more this Government is spending tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to set up a Maori television channel and it is going to put Maori on the other two channels by dint of its charter as well. We are spending tens of millions of dollars to have a Maori television channel yet this Government wants to foist on us a charter that will make Television New Zealand run programmes that serve the interests of and information needs of Maori audiences including programmes promoting Maori language and programmes addressing Maori history culture and current issues on the other two channels as well.  
Is one channel not good enough? Do we have to have it on the other two channels as well? As far as I am concerned the spa-pool liberals opposite want to force this stuff down our throats at every opportunity they have. What I say to this Government is that this TVNZ charter is going to go. When the Government changes in less than a couple of years—if it can hold on as long as that—this charter is one of the first things that will get the chop. It will get the chop because it reflects an elitist view of what New Zealanders should watch. It reflects Marian Hobbs’ 1970s view which is: “Let’s have lots of  
Close to Home 
 and  
Kaleidoscope 
 on our television channels.” and it reflects the wishy-washy third-way irrelevance of Steve Maharey. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This part deals not only with the charter but also with the structure and the Minister said that no one has asked any questions on it. So I would like to ask a question and it is this: could he possibly explain the logic for this eleventh-hour decision by Labour and United Future to split off the transmission arm of Television New Zealand which is called BCL Ltd. The former Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs described the transmission arm BCL as a wonderful golden goose. It has been a successful enterprise which has been contributing profits to TVNZ since its inception. So why would the Government want to split off the revenue-generating arm of TVNZ at this point in time? Why would the Government not allow the transmission arm to plough its profits back into the television business?  
The independent audit firm—Arthur Andersen and Co; an accounting firm I think—was asked by the Government to see whether there was a case for separating off the transmission arm BCL from TVNZ. The audit company studied this for some months—probably at great expense—and it came back with the advice to the Government that there is no compelling reason to do so. So why has the Government done it? The only compelling reason for splitting this off is to make it easier to sell off and to open it up to a future sale which of course is why the National Party and ACT support this particular clause.  
Selling off this BCL with its national network of 450 transmission sites built up over many years at taxpayer expense—is this what is the Government’s hidden intention? It obviously is—to sell off an asset to sell off BCL which will now be called Transmission Holdings Ltd. I would like the Minister to explain the logic of separating off the revenue potential of BCL at the very time when advertising revenue in the digital age is predicted to decline at the very time when we are asking it through the charter not to focus on ratings but rather on programmes. Where will this extra money come from? What is the logic? Would the Minister please explain the logic to me?  
The United Future member said what a great idea it was to split off this transmission arm. He said the people at TVNZ think that it is a good idea. Well here is what the people in the industry say. Not one person whom I have spoken to thinks there is any logic to it. The Screen Producers and Directors Association the industry body believes that the split will have a catastrophic effect in the long term and that it will irrevocably damage TVNZ’s potential to remain a strong national presence. It said: “We cannot see how such a move will do anything other than hobble TVNZ’s potential to deliver on charter obligations in a meaningful way.” So could the gentleman from United Future or the Minister please explain the logic behind this that so escapes the Green Party and all the members in the industry whom I have spoken to?  
I have a series of amendments to the charter. First of all there is one about adding the word “independent” to make it clear that when we talk about the film and television industry that we are referring to the independent industry. This is crucial because already the chief executive of this cash-strapped organisation TVNZ which is now trying to figure out how it will get its money for programming now that it has split off the transmission arm is flailing around and looking at the independent industry. It looks at it and thinks: “Oh ho! We can get some profits from the independent industry by revenue sharing with the independent industry.” Basically it means sharing in the independent copyright and so forth.  
This proposal of the chief executive would threaten the independent industry. Surely nobody here wants us to go back to obliterate this creative flourishing and independent industry of New Zealand—the television and film industry—and return to the days where TVNZ was an in-house basic enterprise. That is a very simple amendment and I hope that everyone here will support it. It means a great deal to the independent industry because it feels under threat from TVNZ. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Members of the public who are following this debate will know that Part 2 which is before the Committee as I speak has been completely changed in substance since the bill was introduced. Those interested members of the public particularly those who participated in the industry will be saying to themselves right now how remarkable it is that the bill could be so different in respect of Part 2 and that the Minister responsible for the bill could be silent as to the reasons for a complete change to the character of Part 2. The Minister should take call. I will give members of the public who are interested and members of the Committee the benefit of my distilled wisdom on the reasons for the change. If the Minister wants to dispute my analysis then he should take a call. He is taking the Committee and the public cheaply in making these sweeping changes to Part 2 and not even having the courtesy to take a call to tell members of the Committee and members of the public why these significant changes have been made.  
I join with my colleague Katherine Rich in applauding the changes that have been made in relation to the structure. They are changes that were advocated by this side of the House when the bill was introduced. First of all for those who have difficulty recalling the history we were to have a parent company and two operating subsidiaries. It was a formula that had its genesis in one feature and one feature only—that was the chairman. The chairman of TVNZ at the time Dr Ross Armstrong was a very close friend of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. He was also the chairman of several other Government enterprises. That chairman decided that he wanted to formulate the structure in this bill to suit himself. He established a formula that saw a parent board of which he could be the chairman and two subsidiary boards of which he could be the chairman of both.  
I want the Minister to tell the Committee tonight whether he had any advice or his predecessor had any advice as to whether that was a good thing. I know and he knows that the officials who sit in the Committee tonight told him his predecessor and the Prime Minister that that was a loopy structure it was open to abuse and it put far too much power in the hands of one man Dr Ross Armstrong Helen Clark’s little friend and helper. That is what the officials told this Minister and his colleagues. I want the Minister to tell us tonight that that was the case.  
It was only after Dr Ross Armstrong Helen Clark’s little helper was fired by Dr Cullen while Helen Clark was out of the country that we saw this bill change. The Dr Ross Armstrong section of the bill Part 2 was only there for his benefit. It was only there so he could do the bidding of the Prime Minister in the most powerful medium in this country. I say to the Minister that he owes this Committee an explanation as to why Part 2 has changed in this dramatic way. I regard this as a very significant change to the bill yet the Minister has been silent.  
Clause 8 provides for a separation of the transmission arm into a State-owned enterprise. Clause 10 provides for a process of Order in Council for that State-owned enterprise to be established. I want the Minister to explain why it is that we have the unique occurrence of a State-owned enterprise being established by way of an Order in Council. Previously when we have looked at major changes of this sort they have been legislated more specifically. It is important that the Minister explains why this particular structure has been sought particularly when there is no certainty about the people who are to drive these changes.  
I have some questions that the Minister needs to answer. Who was to be the chairman of TVNZ who is to make these changes proposed in clauses 8 and 10? Will it be Mr Boyce the acting chairman who is there today; and who will be the two new board members who will have such a powerful position as a result of clauses 8 and 10? These are important matters. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have some questions for the Minister who asked why there were no questions. I will run quickly through those. In clause 9(4) there is a statement that the conversion is to take place for a consideration equal to the book value of the equity of the transmission business. I take it that that is a tax-driven clause. I take it and ask for confirmation that someone has had a look at this to decide whether the current book value is actually anywhere near what was expected when this set out. These book values may have changed to such an extent that instead of being a tax benefit which this was intended to confer it could go the other way around. I see that a poor representative of the Treasury has to be along here to watch this final symbolic act in the destruction of half-a-billion dollars’ worth of value to New Zealand taxpayers as we put this bill through. 
My next question concerns clause 10(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 57 which states “In carrying out its functions TVNZ’s principal objective is to give effect to its Charter … while maintaining its commercial performance:”. We know that this Government cannot stand to see the word “profit” does not like “return” or “contract” and goes for “agreement” and talks waffle about “partnership”. What is “commercial” in this context? Does “commercial” mean “not lose money”? Does it mean something good or something bad? Usually this Government refers to things commercial in terms that show it has that arrogant academic sneer towards grubbying one’s hands with commerce. Is that what is intended in this bill? Does “commercial” have its usual socialist left meaning of something undesirable? Could it be?  
My next question concerns clause 10(3)(b) on Supplementary Order Paper 57: “to develop and publish for itself an equal employment opportunities programme each year and to ensure that that programme is complied with:”. What does “to publish for oneself” mean? Is it vanity publication? How widely does one publish it? Who is being published to when one publishes “for itself”? Does it mean stick it on a website? Why is Parliament bothering with such tripe?  
Then subclause (4) states: “The Charter must be reviewed by the House of Representatives at least every 5 years.” Can someone please explain what that review would consist of? Does it mean that the charter would fall into abeyance? Is it a sunset clause? Does it simply mean that we will all have a look at it? What does a 5-yearly review by the House of Representatives mean I ask the Minister and if he does not know and cannot tell us what that means why is this crap in the bill?  
I go on to look at the careful provisions in the bill to govern really important things about TVNZ. Before changing the name of those poor new entities the Minister must consult the board and make sure it agrees. Changing the name is such an important matter! There are no provisions in the bill to govern the independence of the board appointment process or to ensure that board members who are uncomfortable cannot be thrown out at will or to make sure that board members be selected on merit and not politics.  
In most countries that is regarded as a vital constitutional provision. Here we have the most powerful organ in the fourth estate under direct political control—and there is not a thing here about controlling the exercise of those discretions except a provision carefully setting out consultation requirements on the change of the name.  
The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. This is a piece of absolute drivel. For a civilised modern country to put its most powerful media organisation so nakedly under political control with members of its board effectively removable at will without any compensation with no kind of independence requirement and with a whole set of charter requirements that put them under politically correct domination is a disgrace.  
It is a disgrace that will hurt New Zealand because people with pride will not want to work on an outfit like that. People with professional pride will not want to work on an outfit that is an organ of State propaganda. How do we distinguish the drivel in the charter from the sort of group-think stuff that Orwell wrote about which we saw from  
Pravda 
? 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak on a few things. First of all we remain unhappy with some of the wording of the provisions contained in the charter and we acknowledge some of the comments made from right throughout the House. We believe— 
Stephen Franks 
: Well why vote for it? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I ask the member to hang on. We believe that this was an opportunity to provide for TVNZ not only to set standards in the protection of young children in particular from exploitative advertising and violent programming but also to pull other broadcasters in the same direction by being a leader.  
I have an amendment that addresses some of those concerns about children who are the ones most easily exploited by the media. We are well aware of the Advertising Standards Authority and its guide to standards and of TVNZ’s adherence to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s codes of practice but we remain unconvinced that that is sufficient. We view the imposition of this charter as an opportunity to compel TVNZ to lift its game and become a leader in those areas. The Commerce Committee in considering those matters held that they might be better achieved outside the charter with an external monitoring regime. Yet at the same time committee members acknowledged how expensive such an undertaking would be—in other words how difficult it would be to find funding for it and to show its effectiveness.  
We further support the Greens’ amendment to add the word “independent” to subparagraph (x) of clause 10(2)(a). That is a much-needed addition in order to ensure the development and long-term stability of our small but excellent film and television production industry. With regard to Supplementary Order Paper 57 and the comments before about family-friendly programming I say one does not necessarily have to use the word “family” in order to achieve the same ending and objectives. I hope that my amendment will go through because that addition will help to protect those who are the most vulnerable at the hands of the media.  
The question as to why TVNZ will be split up in this way is fairly simple. We had an overall board that oversaw the TVNZ board and the Transmission Holdings Ltd board which made absolutely no sense at all especially when one considers that someone like Ross Armstrong was in fact thinking in terms of having an office at each of those organisations. We got rid of the overseeing board; it was an additional cost that did not make any sense. Liberating Transmission Holdings from the rest of TVNZ made good sense because that insulated it from the financial cannibalism that could have occurred had a potential Minister in charge of TVNZ decided at great expense on politically correct programming that three people in New Zealand would watch and by subterfuge accounting for the expense of that with Transmission Holdings money—money that should rightfully be left in that company in its own business interests. Therefore it seemed a good idea to split the two organisations up and to have any Minister with a conflict of interest who wished to pump money from one into the other being required to stand up and be held accountable for those sorts of decisions instead of leaving them in the back rooms and allowing the kind of financial cannibalism that could have taken place. We have liberated the business of Transmission Holdings and ensured its survivability and profitability.  
We have allowed TVNZ through the charter the opportunity to be a leader. United Future is unclear about some of the goals in the charter. We are not happy with some of the language used in it and in particular with clause 16(2)(a)(iv) which states: to “ensure in its programmes and programme planning the participation of Maori and the presence of a significant Maori voice;”. What on earth does that mean? I have absolutely no idea. I defy anybody to tell me what that means. There are quite a few politically correct phrases in the charter and a lot of them will undoubtedly be duplicated in the efforts to put together the Maori Television Service. I am unclear as to why we need that duplication unless we are of the opinion that Maori television will not go ahead and this legislation is the back-door way of bringing it to the public. 
Stephen Franks 
: So why are you voting for it? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Because overall this bill in conjunction— 
Stephen Franks 
: You are voting for something when you don’t know what it means. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The member should hang on. In conjunction with Supplementary Order Paper 57 the bill makes sense.  
Stephen Franks 
: Oh yeah? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Yes it does. We have liberated the business aspect and allowed it to flourish without the interference of Ministers who could potentially cannibalise it. We also have a charter that has the potential to lead this country in broadcasting. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 United Future ought to be embarrassed to support such junk legislation just through having done a nasty little deal with the Government. We expect better from United Future than that. Part 2 of this legislation can only be described in one way: just as the financial world refers to “junk bonds” this is junk legislation. That is the only way I can describe it. I congratulate my colleague Katherine Rich because Supplementary Order Paper 57 makes the bill not as bad as it once was. The Government is clearly embarrassed by this bill. We have not heard a single Government speaker stand up and defend Part 2. At least my colleagues like Katherine Rich got some sense put into it but it is still junk legislation.  
I feel I have some knowledge that enables me to speak on this bill. I have probably been involved in delivering television more than most members in this House. At one stage I had an educational television show for pre-school kids showing in four countries: Hong Kong Taiwan Australia and New Zealand. That educational programme was made by a private television company with none of the junk that the charter in this legislation brings in. It had none of that. I once ran a scientific programme in Australia for students after school. That natural science show was a live direct telecast and was a science programme for students after school. It was an informative and entertaining programme—at least it had a great rating so I guess it was reasonably entertaining—and it was delivered by a private television channel with none of the junk that there is in this charter.  
In this country I once ran a programme for form 2 kids called  
W3 
. It was an informative programme. In fact it had a great rating when we used to do it back in the late 1970s. They used to fly me over from Adelaide to front that show in the early days. A lot of people from around the country come up to me say they were on that show and ask whether I remember them. South Pacific Television made that show and it did not have a dopey charter like this to require it to do so. In those days we did not have a Government that felt the need to tell New Zealanders what they had to watch. We did not have a Government that was so arrogant that it thought it had to tell New Zealanders what they had to watch. I also once did a programme called  
It’s Academic 
 which was produced by a private production company called Kevin Moore and Associates. That company had nothing to do with Television New Zealand; Television New Zealand bought the rights to show the programme. None of the junk in Part 2 of this bill was required to have those informative programmes screened.  
One of those programmes—the one I used to do for pre-school kids that showed in four separate countries back in the mid-1970s—still shows in New Zealand today on Prime Television. I turned the television on at some hour of the morning the other day and there it was. I am probably too embarrassed to say what the programme is called but if members turn on the telly they will hear that famous little tune “What a Funny Old Fellow is Humphrey”. That programme is informative and entertaining for kids I fronted it in 1975 and it is still going now in 2003. A private television company produced it and it did not need this dopey charter.  
What is so objectionable about this bill is what the charter states. It states that Television New Zealand will feature programming that contributes towards intellectual scientific cultural spiritual and ethical development. What about the physical development of our kids? I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey that we have a problem with kids watching too much television. They are sitting on their backsides instead of getting out there and playing sport. What about changing the wording of that stupid charter to include physical development? 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 If we could now switch over from the National programme to the New Zealand First programme I am afraid that I cannot be quite as amusing as the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith but I point out that New Zealand First is concerned—as has been expressed by members of this Committee—that this particular part of the bill sets up Television New Zealand and our television stations to be sold off to private enterprise so that New Zealand would lose control of its television service. That is what we are seeing here. It is totally in keeping with the policies of the Labour Party from 1984 until 1990 and the National Party from 1990 to 1999 but it is totally against the policy of New Zealand First.  
New Zealand First wants to make sure that New Zealand’s assets remain with New Zealanders and that no opportunity is given to any Government to have the easy right to sell off those assets. Of course if Television New Zealand were sold off to private enterprise New Zealand would have no television station. I would like to see New Zealand have a television station along the lines of—although not totally like—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Of course the BBC in England is far too good to compare TVNZ with. We should always retain some ownership rights to television in New Zealand. Labour is setting up this legislation to enable that asset to be sold and it is supported by all those Labour members on the Government side of the Chamber who obviously do not support the public ownership of Television New Zealand. They are willing to run the risk that one day Helen Clark or Michael Cullen will walk into caucus and say the Government is short of money and after asking what the Government can flog off this time caucus will decide to flog off Television New Zealand. That is what this bill is set to do.  
In addition the bill has provisions regarding the charter. Clause 10(2)(a) on Supplementary Order Paper 57 has 10 subclauses stating what TVNZ would do under the charter and clause 10(2)(b) in that Supplementary Order Paper has another 14 subclauses stating what it must do. But in none of those measures is there any provision that Television New Zealand must have regard to family life. In keeping with the bill that I prepared in August last year—in support of the commission for the family—I am moving an amendment that in those various provisions there be a requirement that in the fulfilment of its objectives Television New Zealand will feature programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life. United Future has taken a lot of credit for this legislation. In fact it seems to have taken all the credit for it even taking credit away from the Labour Party. If United Future members have any regard for the family one would think they would have insisted that such a provision be included in the bill. I will be looking very closely at how United Future votes on my amendment.  
New Zealand First will be supporting the amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley from the Greens in order to ensure that there will be a leading role to be played in New Zealand television by independent companies. We will be supporting her amendment to put the word “independent” before the words “New Zealand film and television industry”. We will support the United Future amendment with regard to violence. In particular we will support any code with provisions on violence that specifically has regard to the effect of violence on children and young persons because that is part of our philosophy of supporting the family. I spoke on that philosophy in this House as long ago as 1976. We will also support anything that ensures the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed are kept to proper levels. We will support various other amendments because we want to take a broad-ranging approach to the charter and to make sure that all possible avenues are used in the charter to protect the New Zealand way of life.  
We would not support a situation that allows the Government to sell off this asset but in any event at least the Committee might support the amendments I have referred to especially if there is support from United Future. So far the bill has proceeded to the Commmittee stage mainly with the support of United Future and of the Labour Party. The Greens have been quite broad in their approach to the voting on this bill as one would expect on something that plays such a fundamental part as television in our life in New Zealand. I commend all the amendments to the Committee that will ensure decent standards for television and I look forward to the vote when it takes place. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I shall take us back to why we even need this bill. Television New Zealand was not broke. There was no need to fix it. There was nothing in the State-Owned Enterprises Act that stated that Television New Zealand had to return such a huge dividend to the Government. When Television New Zealand was making $60 million in profit it could have returned just $1 million of that and kept $59 million for making good programmes. But Labour and —I have to say—National appointed chairmen of Television New Zealand who used the enterprise as a cash cow for the Government which vacuumed all the profits out of Television New Zealand and returned them to itself. 
So what do we have now? We have a bill that will introduce this Government’s agenda of social engineering. This Government had appointed a chairman who was a very good friend of the Prime Minister and who was going to be there to implement social engineering— 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I refer to Ross Armstrong who fell from grace but who was the ideal person to carry through that social engineering. At the moment we have another very good friend of that other minority party—I cannot remember its name but it forms part of the coalition—Progressive thank you very much. He is a very good friend of that party—an acting chairman—who will also implement that social engineering.  
This charter is a shocker. ACT will be supporting the Greens’ amendment that will insert the word “independent” in front of “New Zealand film and television industry” because without it that clause is a stalking horse for the appropriating of property rights. That amendment will at least go some way to protecting the property rights of those independent producers who need it to raise money to make the programmes they can make without going cap in hand to New Zealand On Air or to politicians—not that the amendment will make much difference at all to this charter. Who will police this charter? What happens if it is not implemented? Will we have “thought police” running around looking at things like “national identity”? This Government is obsessed with national identity. Why cannot we decide as individuals what our identity is? Why do we have to have the State constantly passing legislation that talks about national identity?  
We go down to clause 16(2)(b)(ii) which talks about “programming that contributes towards … spiritual and ethical development” The State I remind members of this Committee is meant to be secular. The State should not be going anywhere near the promotion of spiritual and ethical development. Whose ethical and spiritual development are we talking about in that clause? ACT New Zealand opposed an amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter that would have brought in spiritual development for the very reason that the State under the separation of powers is meant to be secular. We see that provision being sneaked in here in this charter and it is the beginning of a slippery slope. We are seeing it also with other legislation like the Land Transport Management Bill which has to have regard to the same things.  
Further on down the clause is a provision to promote Maori language and culture. What facets of Maori culture are we talking about here? Are we talking about Alan Duff’s facet of Maori culture? Are we talking about the  
Once Were Warriors 
 facet of Maori culture which produces child brutality and brutality against women? There is absolutely nothing in this charter that clearly defines what is meant by these nebulous politically correct post-modernist relativist bits of wording in this charter.  
This charter is also an absolute insult to the people who currently work for Television New Zealand because it presupposes that they are not already informing entertaining and educating New Zealanders—not already featuring New Zealand films drama comedy and documentary programmes or not already doing programmes about New Zealand’s history heritage and natural environment. Those things are already happening. Current affairs is already promoted to a very high standard but this charter presupposes that that is not happening.  
If we go down to clause 16(2)(b)(ix) we see that Television New Zealand will “include in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests;”. Will we see programmes like  
Casablanca 
? Members should look at the wording of that provision.  
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I agree and my anger was rising along with that of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who took us back a couple of years to  
W3 
  
It’s Academic 
 and  
Here’s Humphrey 
. A large debate is going on in the National caucus team at the moment about whether we should move an amendment to bring back those programmes. We might very well do that because we know that their quality was superb and we certainly support our colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith.  
Jill Pettis 
: You weren’t even born when those programmes were on.  
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The member is quite right. I was not born at that stage and the member had just retired so we were certainly at two different stages in the generational cycle—I was being born and the member was just retiring. I think the retirement age back then was 60 but members can correct me if I am wrong.  
I too am concerned about the charter in this bill which tells New Zealanders how they should live their lives. One thing I am quite interested in is the provision in clause 16(2)(b)(i) which according to Minister Marian Hobbs and Minister Steve Maharey states that Television New Zealand will “provide independent comprehensive impartial and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs in New Zealand and throughout the world and of the activities and public and private institutions”. Judy Bailey will step up—I am not sure what to—and deliver these things as we have never seen them delivered before. I say “Good luck! Good on you Judy!”  
Interestingly enough I’m dreaming that Judy Bailey wrote to me on 14 February—as is her habit. In that letter—I must admit it was a personal letter—she outlined all sorts of goals that she had for the future. I will have to write back to her and say: “Judy there is no time for the social comforts that you seek because you will have to improve the intellectual scientific cultural spiritual and ethical development of New Zealanders in a way that reflects their diverse beliefs.” That is what she will do; that is what she will involve herself in—the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders and their intellectual spiritual and ethical beliefs.  
I am delighted because I will walk the streets of Whangarei comforting all those who are on a spiritual journey. I will say to them that no longer will they have to travel to the Himalayas to talk to the Dalai Lama or various Sherpa people who might tell them where to go in order to find inner peace; they can watch Marian Hobbs’ and “Slippery Steve’s” Television New Zealand programming. People will be delighted; they will find spiritual enlightenment and personal development. I am absolutely delighted about that.  
The Minister will also include—and members will be pleased to hear it—programming and television news. I wish people in the gallery would stop stampeding out the door to switch on Television New Zealand at home wondering what they are missing. Come back; I am speaking! I know they are dying to see what Television New Zealand has in store for them but I ask them to come back. In programming we the mass audience we will see material that deals with every minority interest. That will be great! Every dope-smoking tambourine-playing witch doctor will be on our television sets from 6 o’clock on and by goodness it might even be that Judy Bailey has to brush up her act. That is what we will have—a mass audience that has to deal with minority interests.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A degree of decorum is normally observed when describing people outside the House and especially with people who are held in high esteem by New Zealanders. All I am asking is that next time the member speaks in the Chamber he shows a little more decorum when speaking about someone who is so highly respected. Otherwise he brings this Parliament into disrepute.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that point of order.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 On behalf of other members who have asked questions of the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey I am disappointed that we do not yet have the answers we have sought. I want to go back to where I focused earlier—to clauses 8 and 10 which provide the mechanism by which the new State-owned enterprise Transmission Holdings Ltd—currently known as BCL—will be established. Essentially what will happen is that the directors of Television New Zealand will be charged with formulating a separation plan. Is that right Minister? The Minister does not know the answer so maybe I will ask his officials. But this is a very important part of the bill. The directors of TVNZ will effectively be in charge of the shaping of a new State-owned enterprise which is to be confirmed by way of an Order in Council as provided for in clause 10. The Minister owes it to the Committee to tell us who will be playing that important role. Television New Zealand today has an acting chairman. After the demise of the late unlamented Dr Ross Armstrong Helen Clark’s close friend— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Could be the member’s close mate! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the Minister wants to take a call that would be refreshing because the Minister in the chair will not. The Minister owes it to us to say whether Mr Boyce who we put in the chair as the acting chairman is to be the chairman who will do the important things that are described particularly in clause 8. I understand that Cabinet and the Cabinet Appointments And Honours Committee have been focused on that issue over the last few days. Is that right Minister? The Minister does not know. Would the Minister like to tell the Committee whether the Government will appoint a permanent chairman to oversee the important task that is contained in clause 8 or will it not? To discharge the functions outlined in clause 8 will the Government appoint the two additional board directors for whom there are vacancies at the moment or will it not?  
The Minister will know that there is widespread discontent within Television New Zealand that the board is a bit light in terms of some of its commercial aspects. There has been a desire to see a strong commercial board put in place to do the important things that follow the passage of this legislation including the bits that are contained in clause 8. The Minister would give us comfort tonight if he could tell us whether Mr Boyce will be the permanent chairman to do the things that are in clause 8 and which directors will be appointed to participate in the important functions contained in clauses 8 and 10.  
I also want him to assure the Committee that there is no substance to the rumours that I have picked up in United Future circles that the reason its members are supporting this bill is that they have done a deal with the Minister over some of the board appointments. I ask the members of United Future whether they can give an assurance that they have not done a deal over the appointment of directors for TVNZ or for the new BCL. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not believe that because I have heard it widely mooted in United Future circles that they have been promoting candidates for those boards. Will the Minister give an assurance? The Minister will not. The Minister by his silence speaks volumes. The Minister is effectively confirming that there has been a dirty grubby deal done in relation to this bill which sees United Future get some of their boys or girls on to the boards of either the transmission company or Television New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Well why will the Minister not stand up to take a call? Why will the Minister not even move his head to deny it? 
Hon David Carter 
: Because he’s asleep! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The Minister might be asleep. That Minister knows that if he were to give such an assurance in the Chamber he might be accountable in a privileges case later on. I think he should take that responsibility seriously. If the Minister wants to deny that important assertion this is his chance to do it. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have three amendments that I would like to introduce so I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to do so. 
Just before I introduce them I would like to reiterate my question to the Minister of Broadcasting which he has yet to answer: why would he split off the profitable transmission arm of Television New Zealand? This is the part of the company that the previous Minister of Broadcasting said was the wonderful golden goose that was providing the funding to enable Television New Zealand to make New Zealand programmes and to have a successful television service. Why would he split that off? What is he going to do what is his game plan when advertising revenues slump and a future National Government—if we assume there will ever be such a thing—comes in and says it will not subsidise Television New Zealand to the tune of $10 million or $12 million a year? What is the game plan for Television New Zealand then? Where is the money going to come from? By trying to cripple the independent industry? I am astonished that the Labour Party is undertaking a split of Television New Zealand such that will make it vulnerable weaken it take off its revenue-producing arm and make it vulnerable to Government handouts—which may not come of course—and dependent on advertising revenue. I would appreciate an answer because I cannot see the logic behind it. 
I turn to a number of amendments that the Green Party has. The first one is on the question of violence. It is extraordinary that we had a charter that discusses all sorts of issues but is silent on the issue of violence. According to research undertaken by the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal not only adults but New Zealand children themselves said that their No. 1 concern about television was the violence on it. They not only rated television violence as their No. 1 concern—that is 55 percent of them—but said they saw it as disturbing distasteful and potentially harmful. Why would we not address this issue in a charter that is supposed to be all about improving the quality of New Zealand television? We hear a great deal of talk in this Chamber about violence in New Zealand and about the violent culture in New Zealand. Why would we not address the issue? 
More than 3000 pieces of research have concluded that children who watch a lot of violence on television become desensitised to violence are more likely to be violent are less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others and so on and so forth. Even the Broadcasting Standards Tribunal has concluded that parents cannot be solely responsible for regulating and monitoring the content of television viewed by children. A recent study said it is essential that regulators take a leading role in ensuring children are not exposed to potentially harmful television content. This is particularly true when it comes to Television New Zealand—publicly owned television. What on earth would be the point of public service television which is owned by the people of New Zealand exposing the children of New Zealand to potentially harmful television content in the form of gratuitous and excessive violence? 
Our amendment asks TVNZ to play a leading role in complying with free-to-air codes of broadcasting practice and in particular any code with provisions on violence. There are some very excellent codes with provisions on violence; it is just that they are completely ignored by broadcasters in New Zealand. This amendment puts a specific obligation on TVNZ to comply with the code on violence and with other ones to take a leading role and to account for that. 
I have already talked about the second amendment which is to add the word “independent” to the film and television industry. The final amendment is with regard to the rather waffly charter provision that states: “maintain and observe a code of ethics that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed;”. As it reads it is completely meaningless. What we would like to do is just take the intent of that provision as we read it and clarify it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to omit clause 7 and substitute new clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
New clause 7 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment in the name of Katherine Rich is to omit new clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57. I rule that amendment out of order. It is inconsistent with the previous decision of this Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iv) from subclause (2)(a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (v) from subclause (2)(a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (vii) from subclause (2)(a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 58 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to add words to the Minister’s new clause 10(2)(a)(ix) is out of order because it is inconsistent with the one the Committee has just agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to insert in subparagraph (x) of subclause (2)(a) before the words “New Zealand film and television industry” the word “independent”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: A further amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 10(2)(a)(x) is out of order. It is the same in substance as one that the Committee has already agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:  
to omit subparagraph (ii) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iii) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (v) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (viii) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (ix) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (xi) of subclause (2)(b) the word “addresses” and substitute the words “ensures that children are not adversely affected by”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 67 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (xi) of subclause (2)(b) the words “that addresses the level and nature of advertising to which children are exposed” and substitute the words “that ensures the protection of children from advertising of an exploitative nature”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 59 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 94 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (xiv) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2)(b) the following new paragraph: 
(xv) feature programming of a family nature that supports the family and the development of family life in New Zealand.  
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley tonew clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (c) of subclause (3) after the word “social” the words “and environmental”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the words “at least every 5 years” and substitute the word “annually”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 67 
Labour 52; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to omit clause 10 and substitute new clause 10 be agreed to.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
New clause 10 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of subclause (1) after the word “name” the words “other than by the authority of an Order in Council expressly providing for such sale”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:  
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “Minister” the words “other than by the authority of an Order in Council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to:  
to omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon. Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iv) from subclause (2)(a). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iii) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (v) from subclause (2)(b). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party; 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(d) to enhance shareholder value and maintain ownership options for shareholders. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the expression “5” and substitute the expression “1”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new clause 21. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3Reporting  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 3 is a very important part because it deals with the issue of reporting and the issue of measurement. 
Reporting has elicited some very interesting information after the last 3 years when we have seen a steady decline in the financial capability of Television New Zealand. The reports of the last couple of years have shown a decline in the dividend. When this Government took over Television New Zealand it was returning a dividend of around $60 million per year and we have seen that deteriorate to the point that I believe it was just over $10 million in the last set of annual accounts. Deborah Coddington made a very important point before. She said that if that dividend had been handed back to Television New Zealand it could have bought a significant amount of programming. 
Labour in its 1999 pre-election policies stated quite explicitly that one of its policies was to ensure that TVNZ kept a significant part of its dividend. It has not managed to do that. In fact it has not even looked as if it is even going to consider doing it. What it has done I suppose is reduce that dividend but through other means—through losses and the financial deterioration of the company. 
Measurement of the charter is a very important part of the success of this bill. One of the things that concerned me as I sat on the Commerce Committee hearing a number of submissions was that nobody really has any idea about how this charter will be measured. I said to each and every submitter who came before the committee that he or she had some quite large expectations and I asked how the submitter thought any Government body would measure it. In fact I also asked the Minister of Broadcasting at the time as well. Nobody could come up with any ideas about how it would be measured. 
I think it shocked a number of the members of the select committee when it finally dawned on us that the measurement mechanism will be put in place by Television New Zealand itself. It will decide how it will implement this charter then it will decide how it will measure itself in relation to that charter. If Television New Zealand decides that to meet its charter obligations it will show three dramas and it delivers those three dramas it can tick that box and measure itself as having completed the charter. So much for public involvement! So much for the expectation of the viewers at home! So much for the expectation that we will actually see some marked improvement in the quality of the programming on television and will see different sorts of programmes screened! 
We all know that we will see very little difference whatsoever mainly because Television New Zealand simply does not have the money to do it. The $12 million which is GST inclusive will not buy much programming at all. I argue that we will see just a creative relabelling of a lot of shows that would probably have been shown on television in any case. 
As I said this whole part deals with the issue of measuring the charter. If we actually step back to the charter and have a look at a few of the clauses we find it is quite clear why measurement will be difficult. Apparently the charter will provide shared experiences. It will serve varied tastes and interests. It will provide a balance of programming. It will somehow encourage—and this is my personal favourite—“creative risk-taking and experiment”. That does not sound like a charter at all. It sounds very much like a form 6 the birds and the bees lecture. Quite clearly it will be very difficult to be able to measure this part of the charter. 
This part also states that the measurement will be done through qualitative and quantitative surveys. One can only hope that those surveys have more information in them than some of the reports we have recently seen coming out of Television New Zealand which has sat on a lot of information and will not show us exactly what its viewership is. One of the concerns I have about this charter is that we may see a deterioration in viewership. The previous Minister accepted the point that if we increase the amount of programming directed to minority interests there may be a certain trade-off when it comes to viewers. So getting back to the issue of reporting that is why this is a very important part. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Like my colleague Katherine Rich I have some questions for the Minister in relation to Part 3 and I say at the outset that I take offence that this Minister in taking this measure through the Committee tonight is sitting in his chair like a stuffed dummy. In fact I would like your assurance— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We do not need to hear language like that. Whether that is a personal reflection or not does not matter. The member will withdraw that please. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Can I simply say that I would be pleased to have some reassurance that the Minister in the chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I asked the member to withdraw. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I withdraw. Can I seek some reassurance though from members who are better placed than I am in the Chamber that the Minister is indeed with us tonight because his inability to answer important questions in relation to previous clauses of this bill is a gross offence to this Committee. If the Minister does not want to get on his feet and answer questions he will find that we will keep on asking them. As a presiding officer Mr Chairman you know that when Ministers decide to show a flagrant disregard for the questions of the Committee the Chair has the remedy of simply letting the questions continue. I urge the Chair to consider that course at this early stage unless the Minister changes his attitude.  
I say in relation to clause 25 that the Minister is indeed lucky that the Committee has adopted the amendments proposed by him in respect of Part 2 because were it not for those changes the disclosures of directors’ fees that are required under clause 25 would be a matter of humongous embarrassment for him and for others. As Part 2 was originally cast of course there would have been a requirement as a result of clause 25 to disclose the directors’ fees being paid to Dr Armstrong as chairman of the parent company of the transmission company and of the television company. But as a result of the changes in Part 2 that will not be required. Dr Cullen of course had the foresight to see Dr Armstrong off the scene while the Prime Minister was out of the country—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Maharey also wants the credit for that himself. If he wants to stand and give us an explanation of that I would be very happy to shower compliments upon him as a consequence. I simply say that the Government is fortunate that those disclosures will not be required as a result of clause 25 on top of the disclosures of Dr Armstrong’s other emoluments in relation to Industrial Research New Zealand Post Kiwibank and everything else that he was serving on without mentioning the public-private partnerships that he was in the process of setting up when he was seen off the public purse by Dr Cullen—and Mr Maharey says by him as well.  
Clause 26 as Katherine Rich has told the Committee deals with the requirement for qualitative and quantitative research. This Minister in the chair is also the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand. He will know that in relation to the qualitative and quantitative research required of that organisation it will not release that. That organisation will not do that.  
I then look at clause 29 which talks about sensitive information being protected from disclosure and see it states that the test is that if one would not have to release information like that under the Official Information Act then these entities will not have to release it either. I have not seen a provision like that in the law before and maybe the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Hughes is trying to interject. Does he know whether there is such a provision? Has he seen a provision like clause 27 in the law anywhere else? I doubt whether he has ever read a statute book so I do not know whether he can give the Committee a very informative answer. But maybe the Minister in the chair knows about that because that is a most unusual provision. It states that as long as TVNZ or BCL in its new guise forms the view that the Ombudsman would not require release of information under the Official Information Act then it does not have to disclose it. That is a remarkable secrecy provision in this bill. The Minister in the chair as the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand knows that that organisation refuses to divulge to members of Parliament its qualitative and quantitative research. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I was going to rise to answer some questions that Mr McCully asked of me but as he did not ask any questions I am afraid I cannot speak for very long. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 As I look through Part 3 and as I look to the Minister in the chair Steve Maharey I wonder what John Tamihere is thinking as he sits in his office in Bowen House or wherever his office is. I wonder what John Tamihere thinks of this bill. I wonder what the member for Tamaki Makaurau thinks about the bill in its entirety but as we are specifically talking about Part 3 I will say about Part 3. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m. 
"