Volume 653 Week 7 - Thursday 26 March 2009 
Volume 653 Week 7 - Thursday 26 March 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2133] 
Thursday 26 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 31 March it is the Government’s intention to progress the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and first readings of bills on the Order Paper. It is not our intention that the House should be in urgency during that week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Could I follow up on a previous inquiry. When is it the intention of the Government to table the list of delegated responsibilities of Associate Ministers? I have a whole host of colleagues who are waiting eagerly to find out which Ministers they should be asking certain questions of. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My best information is that it will be available very very soon. 
Questions to Ministers 
Roading and Public Transport Funding—Auckland Projects 
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What Auckland public transport projects will be delayed as a result of the Government’s transport funding announcements last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The electrification of Auckland’s commuter rail network which is far and away the largest public transport project in that city remains on track for 2013. In regard to the smaller projects I and my officials are working hard with Auckland officials to ensure that momentum is not lost on the important public transport initiatives in Auckland. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he realise that by cutting the guaranteed funding for Auckland’s public transport upgrades he has thrown into jeopardy integrated ticketing new and upgraded train and bus stations ferry wharf upgrades and real-time information for buses trains and ferries—all of which are essential to make the network operate successfully? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I do not believe that I have placed those in jeopardy. Officials are walking through a process with the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Auckland Regional Council has a total of $80 million of its own funds committed to those projects. We look forward to working constructively with them in the coming weeks. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What commitments has the Government made to Auckland public transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has committed to public transport infrastructure upgrades in Auckland including the double tracking currently under way in Auckland costing $600 million and signal track and electricity upgrades through ONTRACK worth $500 million as well as the purchase of electric rolling stock worth another $500 million. Those projects represent a very sizable commitment as the Minister of Finance confirms to passenger transport users in Auckland. 
Keith Locke 
: How does the Minister answer the article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that states that there will be delays in integrated ticketing and how will Aucklanders who want to escape traffic gridlock and get to work quickly do so if they cannot easily transfer between buses trains and ferries on a single ticket due to the Government’s half-plan that was announced for Auckland last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not expect they will want to ride on an integrated ticket. Integrated ticketing is currently subject to a funding decision from the New Zealand Transport Agency. The only comment I would add is that while integrated ticketing is important some rather painfully expensive international experience shows that it needs to be done at the right time and it is important that fare structures and services are simplified before we start paying the hourly rates of the information technology guys. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister know when the successful tender for integrated ticketing for Auckland’s public transport will be announced and when do tenders which were called last year lapse? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I do not know; that is subject to a decision by the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How will an Aucklander who wants to escape gridlock get to work when new and upgraded train and bus stations at Newmarket New Lynn Parnell Morningside and Onehunga now hang in the balance due to the Government’s half-plan for Auckland public transport that was announced last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is well ahead of himself. The officials of the New Zealand Transport Agency the Ministry of Transport the senior staff of KiwiRail the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council are all working together pretty much as we speak to ensure that the projects that are under way continue. 
Keith Locke 
: Surely the fact that the Minister is talking with these agencies does not override the fact that delays are taking place. To repeat the question of my co-leader how will an Aucklander who wants to escape traffic gridlock and get to work easily be inspired to do so if there are hold-ups in the revamping of 10 ferries and the provision of better real-time information for buses ferries and trains now hanging in the balance due to the Government’s half-plan for Auckland public transport that was announced last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the previous one: the officials involved are working together to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree with former Minister of Transport the Hon Maurice Williamson who said “. . . it’s also important to realise that throwing dollars at the problem of roads is not the answer. Experience in the United Kingdom the United States and … Auckland shows us this. Building more and more roads in congested areas on many occasions results in more congestion—more traffic jams more time and money wasted and more pollution.” If he does not agree with Mr Williamson where is the evidence he has to show that Mr Williamson was wrong? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member does not seem to understand that there is no argument at all on this side of the House that a multimodal passenger solution for Auckland is what is required. There is a need for roads because at the end of the day 84 percent of New Zealanders travel to and from work each day via the road but there is also a need for public transport particularly in our larger cities. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister not seen the numbers with regard to the ways that people travel to work including the dramatic increase in the number of Aucklanders catching the train which was up by 18 percent in 2008 and the number of Aucklanders catching the bus which was up by 7 percent in 2008—proving that Aucklanders would choose to use public transport if this Government which will become a Government of gridlock if the Minister does not take action would allow the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get on and build the public transport we need? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said before we do support passenger transport in Auckland but we need to keep some sense of perspective. The number of passengers travelling to and from work by public transport in Auckland has been around 6 percent and it is moving steadily towards 8 percent. Therefore we have to still invest in other modes to get people to and from work safely. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that shows that three short-listed tenders prepared for more than $1 million each are due to expire this Tuesday— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table an article out of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 25 February 2009 entitled “Buses lead the way as commuters leave cars at home”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am about to seek leave for that but I remind the Green members that the Standing Orders Committee has recommended that articles out of daily newspapers should not be tabled in the House. Having said that leave is sought to table that article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; because they are all talented and are working hard for New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for ACC when over 400 briefing papers are currently stacked up in his office requiring attention and is this not a sign of a Minister out of his depth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Prime Minister does have confidence in the Minister for ACC. He is dealing with the legacy of Labour overseeing the accident compensation scheme with much more focus on politics than on the effectiveness of the scheme. The Minister for ACC now has to set about the difficult job of saving the scheme’s entitlements from that party’s mismanagement of the scheme. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for the Environment when senior executives from the Ministry for the Environment have gone to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to his office to say that they cannot work with Dr Smith because he has not read any advice provided to him and is this not an indication of a Minister out of control? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If there was any Minister who could be guaranteed to read every word of all advice then it would be the Minister for the Environment. The Labour Party of course has nothing to do except pay attention to rumour and gossip. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why if the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister for ACC has he taken to writing answers to parliamentary question for the Minister as was demonstrated in the answer provided to the Opposition on 19 March which stated: “PM’s advocated answer”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It was left over from Labour. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that was my point actually. Following the practice of the previous Labour Government we take a whole-of-Government approach although I would have to say that we have yet to develop the stern disciplinary methods used by the ninth floor previously. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Prime Minister instruct the Hon Steven Joyce to give the Minister for ACC a bollocking in the parliamentary lobby recently for his poor performance in the House or does the Minister for Communications and Information Technology see that as being part of his daily duties? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those who are familiar with working with the Prime Minister know that he is quite capable of doing his own bollocking in his own charming way. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who was the Prime Minister referring to when he said there was no room for phone-throwers or temper tantrums at the top; and can he confirm his colleagues’ belief that in fact he was talking about Nick Smith? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No he was talking about the previous occupants of the ninth floor of the Beehive and not only has he decided there is no room for them but the New Zealand public has decided there is no room for them. 
Government Debt—Current Account Deficit 
3.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic and financial performance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 This morning I received a report from Statistics New Zealand that the current account deficit for the year ended December 2008 has increased to over $16 billion or 8.9 percent of GDP. The deficit has now been above 8 percent of GDP for 4 successive years. The cumulative increase in New Zealand’s net foreign liabilities during this period is in excess of $57 billion. 
Chris Tremain 
: How does this report compare with the position 10 years ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ten years ago the previous Minister of Finance Dr Cullen made a huge deal about how the current account deficit proved that all the economic policy for the preceding 15 years had been a failure. At that stage it was just $4 billion or 4 percent of GDP. That was before Labour embarked on a strategy of import-led growth which has led to a doubling of the current account deficit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain why given the growing current account deficit the Government has cut KiwiSaver which encourages savings deepens capital markets and reduces the gap in the current account and would that not make just about as much sense as—I do not know—appointing Rodney Hide to oversee the Commerce Commission? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is committing somewhere around a billion dollars to KiwiSaver as incentives. But New Zealanders are changing their savings habits now. They are pulling back on consumption and increasing their savings in a way that is nothing to do with KiwiSaver but all to do with an adjustment that needs to occur in this economy. 
Chris Tremain 
: What are the consequences of the deterioration in the external accounts over the past 10 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: First there should be an adjustment so that those export sectors where New Zealand is genuinely competitive can prosper. Second we need to be mindful of debt levels and the ratings agencies are reminding us of that. The net result of this blowout in the current account deficit is that now almost one-twelfth of New Zealand’s output accrues to foreigners. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that innovation increases productivity and reduces the current account deficit why has the Minister cut the Fast Forward fund and the research and development tax credits; and why has the Government dismissed the findings of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s monetary policy review when manufacturers and exporters have been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Bill English. 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh let him finish his question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well as a matter of fact if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interested I tell her that he did not actually start to ask a question. I thought the speech had gone on long enough. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is meant to start a question with a question word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was going to allow the Minister to answer anyhow because the member did get on to a question eventually. But maybe we had better have a question. Could the member ask a question please. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I would be happy to rephrase the question Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—if the member would just ask one. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why has the Minister cut the Fast Forward fund and the research and development tax credit and why has the Government dismissed the findings of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s monetary policy review when manufacturers and exporters are being killed by exchange rates that bounce around like yo-yos? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason the Government has got rid of the Fast Forward fund is that the fund amounted to the Government borrowing money to put into the fund to go and invest in the Government bonds that it had borrowed in the first place. It was a nonsensical money-go-round of $700 million set up simply for branding purposes in election year. 
John Boscawen 
: What plans does he have to act on the advice of the Inland Revenue Department which in its briefing to him as incoming Minister reaffirmed that a broad based - low rate tax system as provided for in National and ACT’s confidence and supply agreement is “fundamentally sound”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has acted on those principles probably prior to the advice from the Inland Revenue Department. Tax cuts will come into effect on 1 April and they will move us further in the direction of a broad based - low rate system. We announced a small to medium sized enterprise package just a few weeks ago which has made a number of changes again in line with the principle of a broad based - low rate system. Over the next 4 or 5 years when revenue is going to be very tight it is important—in fact it is vital—that our tax system is as efficient as possible. 
Primary Health Services—Access 
4.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is access to primary health services a priority for him as Minister; if so why was it not listed as such in his letter of expectations? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes access to primary health care services is important. It is clear from the general election that the public expects better services from our public hospitals. We have inherited a lot of pressing problems in that area and that is why the Government has elevated immediate emphasis on improving hospital services reducing waiting lists and improving workforce retention. Having said that I made it clear in my letter of expectations that commitment to the Primary Health Care Strategy is bipartisan and remains important and if the member had read past the third paragraph of my letter she would have seen that. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What part of “Better sooner more convenient care” did a young Nelson woman with autism receive when she was locked in a police cell last week and is that what we can expect to see more of under a Minister of Health whose priority is hospital-based services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That young woman did not receive acceptable service from the New Zealand health service. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What were the priorities set out in the Minister’s letter of expectations? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: For many New Zealanders confidence in the New Zealand public health system over recent years has been damaged because of excessive waiting-times and delays. The new Government has elevated dealing with this crisis. The new Government expects district health boards to improve elective surgery volumes to improve emergency department waiting-times and to improve cancer treatment waiting-times. We also expect them to help us deal with the workforce crisis by improving staff retention and fostering clinical leadership. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Was a spell in a police cell what he had in mind when he said “We want to streamline service delivery for people with disabilities.”; if not what is he going to do for that young woman? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Both the Prime Minister and I have said that that level of service was unacceptable. The Ministry of Health is working with that district health board to ensure that the situation does not happen again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will this Minister be answering any primary health questions this term including the one I asked him yesterday about cash-strapped patients putting off having cancer check-ups by their general practitioner or is he still happy to let the market decide general practice fees? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It does concern me that people who may have skin cancer would not go to their general practitioner clinic to have it checked. I expect the district health boards to work with their primary health organisations to address this issue. I can advise the member that general practitioner subsidies will increase this year by more than they did last year under her Government. 
Self-defence Legislation—Need for Review 
5.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree that the law on self-defence needs thorough review following the throwing out of the case against Virender Singh and ongoing violence in our community particularly against small-shop owners? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Not quite yet. I recognise that there is considerable public anxiety about whether Mr Singh should have been charged in the first place. Although I do not want to comment on the specifics of the case I have asked officials for advice on how section 48 of the Crimes Act is applied in terms of both how police exercise their discretion to charge and how broadly the courts have dealt with such issues. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle a person’s home is his or her castle and that someone invading it does so at his or her peril; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Section 48 of the Crimes Act as the member will know states: “Every one is justified in using in the defence of himself or another such force as in the circumstances as he believes them to be it is reasonable to use”. Also section 55 of the Crimes Act permits “such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering” of a person’s home. It is those matters and the application of them that I have asked my officials to look at. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What sentence would be imposed on a hypothetical shop keeper who was successfully prosecuted for defending himself if he had twice previously been robbed and had defended himself and if the Government’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill promoted by the member who asked the primary question was operating; and is it possible that a hypothetical person who overreacted to being repeatedly robbed could get a harsher sentence under that proposed law than the robber himself? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The member will have to wait to see whether that bill becomes law. 
Public Safety—Government Focus 
6.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her comment that “the focus of this Government is on public safety.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does her promise to New Zealanders that the Government focus is on public safety have any credibility when Lower Hutt police admitted leaving in the hands of Mongrel Mob members a sensitive police manual that contained confidential call signs the names and ranks of police officers and details of a woman who was later forced to flee her home? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The New Zealand Police has acknowledged that that action was completely unacceptable. The police have changed their procedures accordingly. I remind that member that the only people cheering his constant attacks on the police are criminals. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. I asked a specific question which was how her promise can have any credibility when this example of failure has happened. She never went anywhere near addressing the credibility of her statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister replied that the situation that the member had described was totally unacceptable to the Government. So she was acknowledging that it was totally unacceptable. I invite the member to ask further supplementary questions. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does her promise to New Zealanders that the Government’s focus is on public safety have any credibility when the police left a digital camera containing crime scene images at a crime scene following a drug raid in Lower Hutt and among those images were photos of dead and decaying bodies and domestic violence victims? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Again that was a completely unacceptable situation and the police have changed their procedures. They are now making sure that all photographs are deleted from digital cameras so that that situation does not happen again. The Commissioner of Police is taking this very seriously as am I. 
Melissa Lee 
: What is the Government doing to demonstrate its commitment to public safety? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This Government is committed to significant increases in front-line police numbers as promised before the election. Those increases are well on the way to being implemented under this Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does the Minister’s promise to New Zealanders that the Government’s focus is on public safety have any credibility when an alleged rapist was initially bailed to a location just 300 metres from the alleged 15-year-old victim following police failure to properly check the appropriateness of the bail address and further a failure to convey that information to the judge; and why did it take a  
Dominion Post 
 story and a question from the Opposition to generate any sort of action from that Minister? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No action was taken as a result of the letter from the Opposition. Rather the New Zealand Police has said that the incident is deeply regrettable. I would like to read to the member a comment that was sent to me—and I read it with permission—by the mother of the complainant: “I have absolutely no desire to criticise our police who all in all do a fantastic job often in difficult circumstances and acted quickly and effectively to remedy the problem when they realised a mistake had been made.” I suggest to that member of the House that he take a little bit from that lady and try to accept that the police do the very best job they can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Always attacking the police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I back the victims. When is the Minister herself going to do something practical to deal with failures like these which discredit every day the good work of our police rather than simply having a do-nothing attitude and responding with “I will have a chat with the commissioner.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have made sure that the commissioner has changed policies and procedures to get things fixed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh you directed him? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes actually. That is significantly more than what that member has ever done. The commissioner has taken action accordingly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You directed the commissioner? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No no the commissioner has made sure that things have been done because I have spoken to him about it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a difficulty. In response to my first interjection which asked whether the Minister had directed the commissioner she answered— 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Point of order— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Excuse me I am— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister must resume her seat but I do want to hear a point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. In response to my interjection in the middle of that question when I asked whether the Minister had directed the commissioner or words to that effect—and if one does not believe me one can look at the  
Hansard 
—the response I believe was “Yes”. Then towards the end of that question when I interjected— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please make clear the issue of order he is seeking remedy for. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am if I could just finish the sentence— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear no issue of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In response to a second interjection the Minister contradicted herself and said she— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will take his seat. He knows that is not a point of order. It has nothing to do with the order of the House. If he interjects he can expect to get all sorts of responses. That is not a point of order; let us be very clear about that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the Minister wants to raise a point of order I will hear it. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard the member saying: “Did you speak to the commissioner?”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members must not use the point of order process for matters that have nothing to do with the procedures of this House. If the Hon Clayton Cosgrove wishes to raise another point of order I will listen to him but I have ruled on the matter and I am very clear on it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice as to what the procedure is if a Minister or a member in the course of answering a question gives a contradictory answer and therefore inadvertently or deliberately misleads the House. I seek your advice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not to need to hear any more on this. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has been a member of this Parliament for a long time. He knows that the point of order process is not how that matter is dealt with. There are other proper procedures for dealing with it. If he is concerned that a member has deliberately misled the House there are proper procedures for dealing with that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think there was any suggestion from Mr Cosgrove that the Minister had deliberately misled the House. I think the problem was almost certainly that she did so inadvertently. It was my experience that when Ministers did that it invited disorder and sometimes inviting people to clarify their answers is a good way of stopping that from happening. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that there is no such procedure for that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speakers have done that for years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suggest the member reads the Standing Orders. 
Schools—Wellington 
7.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about schooling provision in the Wellington area? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Last week I announced that a new primary school will be built in Churton Park in Wellington at the Amesbury Drive site. The population growth in Churton Park has caused school rolls in the area to swell and projections show that there will be 600 additional primary-age student places by 2021. The new Churton Park school is one of 11 schools to be built over the next 3 years six of which have been brought forward by this Government as part of our fast tracking of school building projects. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Did she consider any other options for schooling provision in Churton Park? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I did consider whether the current Churton Park School should be relocated to this new site in order to create a single primary school for the whole Churton Park area. This proposal would have created a very large primary school with a roll of more than a thousand students and I believe that the interests of this community are better served by having two primary schools. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How do the educational gains of using recycled property money for pet projects compare with the educational loss of the freezing or canning of a huge number of literacy truancy and teacher professional development initiatives that she has carried out since gaining office? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I know that the former Labour Minister of Education Steve Maharey stated in July 2007 that the Labour— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Just answer the question. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member should be patient; I am getting there. The member should just listen for another couple of words. He said “The Labour-led Government has prioritised funding to build a new full primary school … in Churton Park.” Contrary to those sorts of expectations no prioritisation of those funds ever occurred under the previous Government. I am advised now that this new school will have to be funded from the Government’s $500 million commitment to school property over the next 3 years. It was all words from that previous Government and no deeds. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do accept that my question was quite long—we all know in this House that Mrs Tolley’s attention span is not long—but she did nothing to address— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not use the point of order procedure in that way. The member is concerned about the answer to his question but when he puts into a question an accusation that a Minister was playing political games he will not get a very straight answer. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: A further point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still on my feet. I will sit down now if the member wants to make a further point of order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about literacy numeracy and professional development programmes that are being— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just wish the Hon Chris Carter would actually reflect on the questions as he is asking them. The way he started the question made it very clear it was not a particularly serious straight question because he built the issue of playing political games into his question. A member cannot expect a Minister to give a clear answer when that is built into the question. I have ruled on the matter. I have warned the honourable member. We will go to the next question. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take objection. You have just said that my question was not a serious question. My question was about cuts to existing programmes in literacy numeracy and truancy. They are very serious issues it was a serious question and the Minister did not address it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If he had asked a straight question he would have received a straight answer. I just wish the member would think about the questions he asks before he wastes the time of the House on such points of order. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was exactly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not called the member. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member that I view wasting the time of the House on spurious points of order very seriously. I warn the member of that. To me that is one of the most serious offences because this Parliament funded by taxpayers is a place where Ministers are held to account. That is an important process and I warn the member that I will not accept spurious points of order. If the member checks his  
Hansard 
 and I invite him to do so he will see what he actually asked the Minister—and I guarantee the member I am not wrong. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would therefore like to have a commitment from you that if the  
Hansard  
reveals that that is exactly the question I asked then you will apologise to me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will indeed. If the  
Hansard  
reveals that I will apologise to the member in this House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. I seek your clarification about whether rules about the length of questions and answers will be even-handed between the two. The reason I am asking this now—and it is relevant to this situation—is that you indicated that a supplementary question I asked earlier today in question No. 3 was too long and I stopped. It is my judgment—and I stand to be corrected by the  
Hansard 
—that it was considerably shorter than the answer the Minister gave to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member actually checks back on his  
Hansard 
 he will find that the question that he asked was not a question. He started the question with “Given”. If he checks his  
Hansard 
 he will find that I am absolutely correct. That is what led to the disorder in the House and led to the difficulty with his question. In terms of the general principle answers will inevitably be a little longer than questions are because questions ask for information and in order to allow information to be given answers will take a little longer. I have been concerned about the excessive length of some answers and I felt that Ministers were improving somewhat on not taking too long to answer questions. But if the member checks back on his  
Hansard 
 he will find that his supplementary question that led to difficulty did not in fact start as a question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the Churton Park Community Association and other local groups will be fully consulted by her ministry with regard to the construction of the new school in Amesbury Drive as well as any consequential changes that are required to the existing school on Churton Drive further to my requests to her in letters dated 9 December 2008 and 17 February 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I can assure that member that a prescribed process of consultation is now under way with the community. That is part of what one has to do to establish a new school. As he will see from the correspondence that he has received from me I am happy to keep him informed. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table my letters to the Minister that sought assurances as to consultation dated 9 December 2008 and 17 February 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order! Leave is sought to table those letters. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter that I raised before and I now have the required Speaker’s ruling for you. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 129/3 requiring Ministers to correct answers at the earliest opportunity. Thank you. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 You have ruled on this matter. For goodness’ sake this was an interjection exchange across the House. Clearly Mr Cosgrove believes he heard something that was interjected. The Minister replied to one part of it. It is utterly ridiculous to waste the House’s time on this sort of stuff. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I think this raises the issue again of the speed of intervention because in fact my recollection is that the Minister rose to explain that she heard something different from what Mr Cosgrove thought he said in which case the whole issue actually could have been dealt with quite easily at that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fact honourable members the easiest way the issue could have been dealt with was by the member asking a further supplementary to clarify the answer the Minister had given. That is the normal way to handle this kind of issue in the House. 
Roading—Alternatives 
8.  
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he support measures that are alternatives to roading? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes I support transport infrastructure investments that make at least some sort of economic sense—which I appreciate might be too narrow a range of possibilities for the member opposite. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I saw you thinking slightly there and I think I know what you were thinking. The question was actually very simple and straightforward and we got a slightly spinny answer back. It was a political whack and you are taking rather a hard line on political whacks where there is not an invitation for one in the first place. I totally agree that when a member leads with a political nose he or she can expect one to come straight back. In this case the question did not seek that kind of response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to offer the House an answer to the question that the member asked. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said I support transport infrastructure investments that make at least some sort of economic sense. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did the Minister consult John Key when he cut 90 percent of projected spending on coastal shipping recently given that Mr Key had said that an integrated structure for moving freight around the country consisting of roading and rail as well as coastal shipping was something he supported; if so how does he reconcile that broken promise? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There were a number of questions there. The Government policy statement was consulted on with Cabinet. 
Todd McClay 
: Who has been the most critical of last week’s transport announcements? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have seen numerous reports from one individual last week whose criticisms could be summed up as saying variously that our announcements were too little then too much too little again then too much again too early then too little then too much and then too late. The Hon Darren Hughes seems to be of the view that a new Government should be bound to continue with all the policies of the previous Government which was thrown out of office. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister agree that as a matter of principle it would be unacceptable for a public transport provider to be chosen as the provider of integrated ticketing in Auckland given that such a contract could allow the provider access to commercial information properly belonging to commercial competitors? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Integrated ticketing is currently subject to a tender and funding decision from the New Zealand Transport Agency. I do not think it would be appropriate for me as Minister to comment further. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What issues were raised with the Minister on the two occasions he met with Infratil and NZ Bus since taking office and while it was tendering for the Auckland contract in relation to integrated ticketing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The representatives of NZ Bus and a number of other bus companies I have spoken to have raised a number of issues around the operation of the public transport system. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Aquaculture 
9.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he satisfied with the way aquaculture is managed under the Resource Management Act; if not what changes is the Government proposing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No; this has been an area of huge lost opportunities since the ill-conceived moratorium in 2000 and the subsequent botched legislation that has frozen the growth of the aquaculture industry. The Government is proposing significant changes to the Resource Management Act so we can put this industry back on a growth path. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is the Minister aware of the opportunities in Northland for finfish and oyster farming; if so what is the Government doing to assist? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes; I believe there are real opportunities in Northland and these have been strongly advocated by Maori Aquaculture New Zealand and the Minister of Fisheries Phil Heatley. Today I jointly announced with the Minister of Fisheries a Government-funded programme to explore the feasibility of 19 possible aquaculture management areas in Northland. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What further reforms is the Government advancing to assist the development of aquaculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has commissioned a major piece of work with Aquaculture New Zealand on further Resource Management Act reforms. These will be included as one of the important and first work streams as part of phase two of the Government’s Resource Management Act reform programme. 
NZAID—Structural Changes and Focus 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Has he had discussions with other international development donors about his planned structural changes to NZAID and his plans to switch its focus from poverty elimination to economic growth? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: When he met Mr Eckhard Deutscher of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee last month did he brief Mr Deutscher one of the world’s leading aid officials on his plans for NZAID? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: In the course of that meeting I would have generally discussed a number of matters but I cannot recall specifically briefing him on any detail of the review that is under way. The response that I gave to the primary question was motivated by the fact that I have in the course of meetings with Ministers in major donor nations—such as Australia the UK and France amongst others—outlined the process by which the Government is engaged in a refocusing of New Zealand’s overseas development aid approach in its efforts to improve efficiency. I have found the responses to the Government’s plans most encouraging. 
John Hayes 
: Why has the Minister asked for a review of NZAID? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Prior to the 2008 election the National Party expressed a number of concerns about the operation of NZAID especially in the light of two highly critical reports by the Auditor-General. As a result a commitment was made in the election policy that and I quote: “A National Government will review the operation of agencies that deliver aid to ensure that aid expenditure is effective and efficiently delivered.” It is my recollection that rather more people voted for the National Party and that policy than for the proponents of the policies that we criticised. The National Government is now keeping faith with the voters by conducting the review it promised. 
Phil Twyford 
: Can the Minister explain why Mr Deutscher reported to other OECD nations after meeting Mr McCully last month that the Minister told him the Government intended to pursue a stable bipartisan approach to foreign affairs including development cooperation that built on continuity and should not lead to major changes when the reality is that he is looking at entirely changing the structure and policy of NZAID? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Of course I have no ministerial responsibility for a report that an OECD official might have filed and I am not going to comment in the Chamber on its accuracy. I will say to the member that this Government unlike its predecessor is intent on doing after the election precisely what it promised in its election policies before the election. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is the reason the Minister failed to properly brief Mr Deutscher on his plans for NZAID that his plans fly in the face of international best practice contradict the last two reviews of our aid programme by the OECD and would put New Zealand out of step with most other Western nations? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have made it very clear to the member that the reason the Government has embarked on this review is that before the election the National Party stated as a matter of policy that a review would be conducted. It does not matter to me what any international organisation might say or what reports it might write. If the National Party has made a commitment in its election policy to conduct a review then the Government will conduct a review. The member like everyone else should be patient and find out the results of that review in due course. 
Phil Twyford 
: I seek leave to table a report from the chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD to other countries of the OECD dated 5 March in which he reports on his meeting with the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fisheries Sector—Enhancement 
11.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What reports has he received regarding the enhancement of the fisheries sector to boost its economic potential? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I have recently received an independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled  
Fisheries 2030—Vision result areas and action plan 
. The next steps in this process will see the Ministry of Fisheries working with stakeholders to consider the best suggestions from the report and then we will action those ideas. 
Colin King 
: Are any general outcomes expected from this consultation? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Of course specifics have to flow from the consultation but I hope that we will see a more coordinated and fruitful approach by all stakeholders—customary recreational commercial aquacultural and environmental non-governmental organisations. This is about maximising the economic potential. For example the National Government is committed to ensuring that our aquaculture industry gets going instead of languishing under the current law. We expect this approach to support that. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—Review 
12.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice if any has he received from his officials at Te Puni Kokiri on comments made by the Hon Pita Sharples Co-leader of the Maori Party that if the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act found no changes were needed “we’ll probably sack them and put another group in”; and did such advice go to the issue of whether the co-leader of a political party has authority to sack the review board? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. None as I have said before in the House. Te Puni Kokiri did not provide me with any advice on what should be done if the review panel recommended that no changes were needed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister accept in his ministerial role that the only people who could possibly sack a review board were Ministers; if so does he accept that when he made that statement he must have said it in his ministerial role and that if he was not acting in his ministerial role he was simply uttering empty words with no meaning? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I accept that if anyone was to sack a panel it would be the Minister. But it was said as a joke and everybody there laughed. I am amazed that the member cannot see the humour in it. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: What involvement has the Minister had in the Foreshore and Seabed Act review and how has he enjoyed working with the Attorney-General? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following on from the previous answer I take it that the last part of that question was a joke. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: My answer is not a joke. As Minister I have had input into the development of the terms of reference of the review and into the selection of the review panel and my ministry is involved in providing support for the panel’s secretariat. I look forward to working with my ministerial colleagues to respond to the report of the independent review panel in due course. It is my hope that following the review iwi and hapu mana whenua of the foreshore and seabed will be appropriately recognised. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In his close and intimate working relationship with the Attorney-General has he raised the question of maintaining statutory protection of public rights of access and navigation and statutory protection of the codification of common law rules around customary rights? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: In all my dealings with and conversations about the Act the protection of public access to the foreshore and seabed has been paramount. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Will the Minister support the review panel’s report? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I support the process established for the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and the independent panel that has been appointed to conduct the review. The independent panel will consult widely with Maori as part of its review process. The findings and the recommendations of the review will be fully considered by the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received an assurance from the Attorney-General that the Government will support the outcome of the review whatever it may be just as he has stated that he will support the outcome of the review whatever it may be? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I repeat what I said. When the review is over the Government will consider its findings. Kia ora. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister been advised of any statements made by members of Parliament about what should happen if the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act finds that the Act should be repealed? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have received advice that the Green Party has called the review “a step in the right direction as hopefully it will come to the sensible conclusion that this Act needs to be repealed and Maori access to the courts restored”. Its Maori affairs spokesperson Metiria Turei has gone further in calling for the National Government to respect its findings. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of that last answer is the Minister aware that the Act provides for access to the courts in terms of both territorial customary rights and specific usage rights? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am aware of that. But territorial customary rights are nothing compared with the customary rights that had been handed down generation after generation after generation that that member cut off. 
Questions to Members 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he request that John Judge appear at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007/08 ACC financial review; if so when? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 If the member is referring to the select committee meeting of 12 March then the answer is no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was he under the impression that Mr Judge had been properly appointed at the time he was asked to go to the committee? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I was aware that there was a reconfiguration of the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation and that member will be pleased to note that Mr Judge will be appearing before the committee next week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question. It went to whether Mr Judge had been properly appointed not whether there had been a reconfiguration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was troubled by the member’s question because it is not a matter of the process of the select committee; the chair of the select committee has no responsibility for whether a chair is properly appointed and that is why I had difficulty with the member’s question. The chair of the committee responded to the question. I believe that that was reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point which I think you probably understand and I think the member understands is that subsequently it became clear that the person had not been properly appointed. The point that we are trying to get to is when that member became aware of the fact that the chair was in fact Ross Wilson and not John Judge at the time the invitation— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That should not have been part of the point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That was my point—it is not a point of order. It is irrelevant because in Parliament the chair of a select committee is responsible for the procedure for matters before a select committee not for what he or she knew about the Government’s plans. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point. I will not hear— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has used his supplementary questions on question No. 1. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would remind you of the fact that Speakers’ rulings do indicate a flexibility on this and of course it is at your discretion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just advise the honourable member that the reason why I did not allow a further supplementary question was that the first one was very marginal in terms of being allowed because as the Hon Gerry Brownlee pointed out it is not a matter of responsibility for the chair of the committee. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: When and how did he become aware that John Judge was unable to appear at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I had not asked Mr Judge to appear but he will be appearing next week for that member’s information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was asked when he became aware that John Judge was unable to appear. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to think about that because that assumes that the member has made a request for Mr Judge to appear. The member has made it very clear that he has not asked him to appear. So why would he in any circumstances in his role as chair from that point be worried about whether Mr Judge was available? He did not ask him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That might be fine other than the fact that the Minister for ACC told reporters that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Points of order must relate to procedures and order. The interesting issue that has been raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is whether the chair of the board’s coming to such a meeting is something that is done specifically at the invitation of the chair of the committee or whether it is a normal process that is followed for the chair of the board to come to a meeting. It may be that the chair of the committee would be advised whether that normal process was not being followed in this case. I simply invite the member to give a further answer if he can to the primary question from the Hon Trevor Mallard as to when he became aware that the chair of the board would not be attending the meeting. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are putting the chairman of the select committee in a very difficult position. The Government made the decision early in the week to remove the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board from the board. At that point it would have been abundantly clear that the chair of the board was not attending the meeting. The question is whether Mr Judge was invited. The member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is digressing as far as the Hon Trevor Mallard did. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that is the case then the member can easily say that he became aware of that when the Government made its announcement. It is not very difficult. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On that last point I think one should be mindful of course that it all depends on who was actually the chair at the time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —but that is not the point I am trying to make. I think you actually raised by inference a very important issue which I think you should think about as the defender of this House and of the proceedings of Parliament. When a State-owned enterprise or a major Government entity is called to appear before a select committee I believe that it should be the assumption that the chair of that organisation will attend unless the committee has been notified why for good reason the chair cannot attend. Otherwise I believe that such people would be treating the select committees of this Parliament with some degree of contempt. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear more on the general issue. The member has raised I think an interesting general point of order that maybe the Business Committee or the Standing Orders Committee of the House could reflect on. I do not think that it is for my consideration right now but the member has raised what is certainly a genuine point of order. I invite the honourable member to reply. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask Mr Judge to appear; therefore I was unable to know when he was able to appear—as Mr Brownlee pointed out in his point of order on that question just before. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did on the night before the meeting Mr Bennett become aware that Mr Judge was cycling in the South Island; if so did he become aware of that from the Minister? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I am not aware of what Mr Judge was up to at that time. But we had the Minister appear before the committee and I should imagine that Labour members would have been very happy to have the Minister come and answer the questions about the accident compensation portfolio. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he invite the Minister for ACC to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007/08 ACC financial review; if so when? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed that the Minister should attend the committee meeting and Labour members would have got much value out of his attendance. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need to be able to hear the member’s question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The key part of the question was “when” and it was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in reasonableness the member has a supplementary to pursue that matter if he wants to pursue it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a primary question. It has been submitted through the Clerk’s Office and it has been approved. It asks the question in two parts: was the Minister invited and if so when? These are the standard questions that are asked all the time so to have only half the question answered and for you to say that that is all right means there is no point lodging questions in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As Speaker I have to be seen to be reasonable and fair. I allowed two supplementaries from the member asking questions that strictly did not comply. I allowed them in the interests of enabling the Opposition to pursue the issue of accountability of the chair of the select committee. On this one I think there is the opportunity to pursue the issue further with a supplementary and I invite the member to do so. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are on question to member No. 3 now; the decisions you made about question to member No. 2 should not impact on question to member No. 3 in any way whatsoever. Mr Mallard has lodged question No. 3— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is questioning my ruling. Look if I applied the Standing Orders rigidly during question time we would not get very far. I allow latitude to try to keep it flowing. As I say on the previous two questions to the member I could have ruled out both supplementaries. The answer I heard from David Bennett I thought was reasonable. The member if he was not happy with that answer has the chance to pursue it; he has a further supplementary. I invite the member to ask it so that he can pursue the issues concerning him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It goes back to the point before the one that my colleague was making and it goes to the responsibility of the select committee chair. You made it clear Mr Speaker that the process around the select committee is the responsibility of the select committee chair. Part of that process is ensuring that the proper person is invited to the committee and that when a response comes it is properly made available to the committee. Mr Speaker you have indicated your prejudice around this third— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now and if the member wishes to pursue this issue—I see that he has a real keen interest in it; that is fair enough—he will now ask his supplementary. He can make it as tight and sharp as he likes and I will listen carefully to the answer. But if he wishes to ask it he should ask it now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is going to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just warn the member that if he is going to relitigate my ruling he will be leaving the Chamber and will not be asking a supplementary. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well Mr Speaker I want to make it clear that you indicated that you had taken into account responses to questions to member No. 1 and No. 2— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat now! I indicated that I had taken into account the fact that the member’s questions did not strictly comply with the Standing Orders. That is what I took into account. I allowed them because I wanted the flow and I wanted the member to have the chance to question the chair of the committee. I have invited the member to ask his question. If he does not ask his question he will be leaving the Chamber and will not be back for the rest of the day. Either he asks his question or that is it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a close call Mr Speaker and I will; the whips do not quite agree with you Mr Speaker. Going back to the member’s original answer I ask how he reconciles that answer with the comments that Dr Smith made which were reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and the  
Press 
 and on Radio New Zealand that he was invited to that—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the chairman of the committee allowed to get advice from the whip while I am asking the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Look I invited the member to ask his question; I believe that he is trifling with the procedures. Of course the chair can talk to whomever he likes in this Chamber and that is not a matter of order. I am very tempted to say that the member has lost his chance to ask this question because I consider it is trifling. I am very serious; I say to the honourable member that he has tested me as absolutely far as it is possible to go. He will ask his question now clearly with no preface—dead simple dead clear—or he is going. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How does the chair reconcile his answer with the comments of Dr Smith reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and the  
Press 
 and on Radio New Zealand that he Mr Bennett invited Dr Smith to the meeting? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It was agreed that the Minister should attend the meeting and I think that the Labour members got a lot of value out of his attendance at that meeting especially with the accident compensation scheme being such a political issue at the time. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
New Zealand Balance of Payments—Deficit 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas seeking to debate under Standing 380 the state of New Zealand’s balance of payments deficit. The state of the balance of payments deficit is an ongoing situation. A proposal to discuss an ongoing problem does not constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that may or may not occur in the future. There will be other parliamentary opportunities to consider the state of the balance of payments deficit. The application is therefore declined. 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced under urgency a few weeks ago as part of the $480 million package of tax assistance measures to help small and medium sized businesses weather the current recessionary climate. As such the bill covers a range of provisions that will allow businesses to hold tax moneys for longer and lower the costs of doing business by reducing the amount of form-filling the calculations and the payments they have to make. 
Let me briefly recap the main measures in the bill. The first change is the removal of what is known as the 5 percent standard uplift in the calculation and payment of provisional tax. This is the amount that is added to the previous year’s residual income tax and is based on the assumption that in a normal business cycle a business’s income will increase over the year. Unfortunately we know these are not normal times. To help relieve some of the pressures that small businesses are facing the bill allows the uplift of the provisional tax calculation to be reduced in the current and next income years. The aim behind that is to reduce the amount of provisional tax businesses must pay and free up much needed cash flow. A further change in this bill will allow a greater number of individual taxpayers to reduce their exposure to use-of-money interest. This particular measure was previously part of the omnibus taxation bill I introduced last July but it has been included in this bill to ensure more speedy enactment. Other changes from that previous tax bill have been significantly enhanced in this bill which also introduces some important new measures. 
Overall the aim of these measures is to make lower costs for many businesses by reducing the number of calculations and tax payments they have to make. For example certain GST thresholds are being raised giving more businesses greater freedom from the compliance costs currently associated with accounting for GST. Similarly the PAYE once-a-month filing threshold is being raised to allow more employers to file and pay their PAYE once rather than twice a month. The threshold under which businesses may file fringe benefit returns annually will also rise as will the value of minor fringe benefits that employers can give their employees without attracting fringe benefit tax. Finally a new threshold for business-related legal expenditure is being introduced so that businesses will no longer have to identify which amounts relate to non-deductible capital expenditure and which are deductible revenue expenditure. 
When these measures are all taken together they form a package of assistance that will help smaller businesses to save time and money so that they can spend more time doing their business and dealing with the challenges of the recession. In recognising the importance of smaller businesses to New Zealand’s economic well-being I am heartened by the spirit of cooperation that has been shown in bringing this bill to its third reading. I especially want to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its very constructive and cooperative approach to the consideration of the bill. As the bill stands it provides some very practical assistance to the small-business sector at a time when it needs it most. I also want to record my thanks to the officials who worked on the policy matters contained in the bill and the drafters who worked on the legal detail both of which occurred against very tight time constraints. 
Finally I acknowledge the Committee of the whole House for the very constructive and positive way in which it dealt with the bill a couple of days ago. There were a number of useful contributions in that debate that demonstrated a willingness to see progress being made and recognised that there were positive measures contained in this bill. It is with great pleasure that I now commend this bill to the attention of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill provides a welcome opportunity to sum up the various arguments that have been proposed and discussed around the Chamber. The first point that must be made is that this bill is a useful bill. It deserves and will receive the support of the whole House and it does so in recognition of the very real pain that exists in the small and medium sized business sector. Many workers formerly employed in larger businesses have as we know been outsourced and now contract back as small-business owners. That can offer them opportunities which they have taken but it also means that they personally are bearing much of the risk and the pain of this unprecedented recession. 
To that end it is worth recalling that a majority of the measures incorporated into this tax bill have been around for some time. Indeed they were the work of the previous Labour Government either embedded in the broader international tax bill currently under consideration by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the Inland Revenue Department’s work plan or proposed through the Labour Party’s pre-election manifesto. 
The key issue is that time has moved on. Every week we hear further statistics as we have again today from the Minister of Finance that show that our current account deficit is widening. We also hear from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that unemployment is increasing and that the situation facing New Zealand’s small businesses is getting ever more serious. 
 Once again the question of what the Government has been doing since it took office in November last year must be reflected on and where the additional impetus is that should have been included in this bill. Where is the plan to drive further and faster to reduce the complexities of tax compliance for small businesses which my colleague the outgoing Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel was busily working on pre-election? Where is the plan to recognise that in times of recession providing for and estimating provisional tax is probably the No. 1 problem that many small businesses face? 
There are some moves to address those questions in this bill and we welcome them. But they do not go far enough. Let us take as one example the reduction in the use-of-money interest rate for underpayments. It has been reduced from 10.5 percent to 9.7 percent. That is done as a one-off measure rather than as a rolling change but at the same time the official cash rate has been reduced by a full 5 percent. The premium the Inland Revenue Department is taking has actually increased during the time since this policy was first mooted. 
That is why the Labour Opposition has taken it upon itself to propose that the Government consider further change. For a start it should adopt the 90-day bill rate from the Reserve Bank as an ongoing benchmark for the use-of-money debit rate. We further propose that the Minister consider reducing the 105 percent uplift basis for a 2-year previous income to a straight 100 percent. This would acknowledge that it is difficult to accurately forecast income and that if one is using historical income in these circumstances then no penalty should be attached. 
We further argue that the Minister should consider—and I understand that the Minister and his officials have agreed to this measure and we welcome that—the deductibility of patents from their 20-year life to a much shorter period reflecting the fact that New Zealand is an outlier in that regard. Above all we have asked that the Government continue to strengthen its drive to reduce the red tape on tax compliance for small businesses in areas where the results really are de minimis. 
This does bear upon a larger question that is now much on the minds of New Zealanders. Regrettably there is no apparent broad-based plan that gives the public of New Zealand confidence that this Government understands the gravity of the crisis facing New Zealand and indeed the whole world. Examples of this crisis are that Taiwanese exports have been cut by half Japanese exports have been cut by 45 percent and world growth estimates are down from 1.5 percent positive to something like 3 percent negative. This is an absolutely unprecedented cut in 6 months. And why does that matter to New Zealand small businesses? It matters for two reasons. Firstly when we cannot sell our products and services as easily overseas our exporters suffer and many of them are small and medium sized enterprises. Secondly those very same businesses will find it harder and harder to get the credit they need to carry them through this recession because lending from banks has tightened as a result of global economic conditions. 
 So there is a double whammy and this bill is unfortunately a little too late and a little too small to make the kind of difference that small businesses need. What has become apparent in recent weeks particularly is that not only does the Government not have a comprehensive plan for dealing with this situation but that it has described itself as a global outlier. I think the  
Wall Street Journal 
 thought it was doing Mr Key a favour when it praised him for being the only leader in the Western World who is trying to deregulate and cut his way out of this recession. But there is a real problem with that approach which is that this recession has occurred largely because of the problems of deregulation itself. 
An under-regulated American real estate market and a woefully under-regulated American financial system—under the Bush administration—have resulted in a terrific bubble that has now burst and we are all around the world paying the price for that lack of regulatory oversight. Against that background Mr Key thinks it is appropriate to take a deregulatory stance to solve the problem. One wonders why. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You want more regulation just like America? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member should confine himself to areas where he has some expertise—a fairly short list. National in Government is in the unique position in the Western World of taking a conservative approach to recession management. As the debate on the Budget Policy Statement in the last couple of days has made clear the code that is being used by the Government—that it will take the sharpest edges off the recession—simply means that National is not ambitious as a Government about the degree to which it can protect New Zealand workers and small businesses from that pain. 
The second part of the code—that the Government will make New Zealand more lean and competitive for the rebound—simply disguises a classic neo-conservative agenda of deregulation and privatisation which is something that New Zealanders have considered and thrown out in successive Governments from Roger Douglas to Ruth Richardson and to the present day. 
This bill—as good as the measures are and as much as we and all parties will support it at the third reading vote—does not go far enough. It incorporates around two-thirds of its content that had its origins in Labour Party policy and work streams. It has not been significantly extended since the National Government took office and in that time the world has changed. 
In summary I emphasise to the House the contention that this Government clearly must have a different approach in mind. It either has no plan or a plan that New Zealanders have previous tried and once they got the taste of it decisively rejected. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill. If one looks at the record one will find that in every speech I have made on this bill I have registered thanks and I will continue to do so here. I wish to record in  
Hansard 
 my thanks to the Minister of Revenue for helping to push this bill through with speed to fellow members and colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to the officials who assisted us with getting the bill to this point and to those who sat in the background drafting—thanks very much. I would also like to thank the submitters who participated in the thought process in and around this bill. 
The previous speaker Hon David Cunliffe said that he thought this bill was too late and I think he is quite right. It is 9 years to late. After 4 months this National Government has progressed to the third reading of a bill that should have been put in place in good economic times when there were strong surpluses and the books were looking somewhat rosier than they are at the moment. A natural progression—to make our economy more efficient more productive and more focused on the things that matter—would have been to put these measures in place quite some time ago. On that note I agree with the Labour Party finance spokesman that these measures are much too late but it is not too bad for a National Government after 4-odd months in power having been elected by New Zealand as opposed to the 9 years it took the previous administration to even get a few discussion papers around these matters. 
I also note—and I am quite proud of the fact—that this is the first bill from the new National Government that has been introduced to the House has gone through the select committee process and now arrives here for its third reading. It is notable that this first bill is a tax-reducing bill. It is a compliance-reducing bill and it is a cost-reducing bill. It sits with a suite of measures that the National Party announced prior to the election that it intended to do and it is continuing to do so post-election with the 100-day plan. 
The previous speaker noted that these measures were too late. Then he went on to talk about compliance measures and to say how tough compliance is on small businesses. He is quite right. Compliance is very tough on and awkward for small businesses. But the time spent on compliance and red tape has grown exponentially and compounded in the duration of the previous administration. On the one hand under Labour there were more and more rules and regulations that made it harder to get on with making widgets or whatever the businesses were doing. On the other hand small business policy groups and so on would come out with papers but Labour never actually put things into place. It would talk about them forever but never put them into place. Not one part was put into place. 
As I noted this is part of a suite of solutions. I acknowledge other speakers and the parts of the original taxation bill that have been brought forward. In these trying economic times we have now expanded many of the parameters and changed the various thresholds to the benefit of the taxpayer. 
 But it does go with a suite of solutions. I have noted the 100-day plan. The ongoing personal tax reductions that were put before the electorate were roundly endorsed by the electorate and placed before the House and voted on—and for—prior to Christmas alongside issues such as Resource Management Act reforms and improvement to the commerce legislation that has recently been announced by the Hon Simon Power. 
Many New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses will benefit from these measures. This financial year the quantum of assistance or freeing up of cash flow for those core New Zealand businesses is along the lines of $450 million to $500 million. I would like to touch on some estimates of how many New Zealanders will enjoy the benefits of this bill. It has been estimated that an additional 19000 New Zealand employers will benefit from the changes to the PAYE monthly threshold which makes 98 percent of all employers in New Zealand eligible. It is estimated in regard to the increased fringe benefit tax (FBT) filing thresholds that an additional 4800 employers will benefit. This again means that 98 percent of all employers across New Zealand will be eligible to benefit from the measures in this bill. An additional 47000 GST-registered entities will be able to deregister if they wish to do so because of the changes in the GST registration threshold. That is huge. That change in the compliance rules will free up the time and resources of New Zealand businesses and enable them to focus on what matters and hopefully to grow their productivity to help keep people employed. Also 223000 individuals and 45000 companies will benefit from the reduction in the provisional tax uplift. That is huge and it is of massive benefit to New Zealand particularly as we go through this recessionary trough. As I noted in my own little way that is my favourite part of this bill. An additional 5700 entities will benefit from the increase in the GST payment threshold which means that about 96 percent of all registered entities will now be eligible to choose to use the payment basis. All in all these are very beneficial measures not only to the cash flow itself but also to the time taken to comply with various rules around taxation and Government compliance requirements. 
After only 4 months this National Government with I freely admit the cooperation of parties across the House has voted to bring this bill to this point today. Hopefully after a few more speakers on this third reading it will move from this House. I will not go over the detail of the various parts as other speakers have already done so and others probably will. I again note that I am proud to have helped to get this bill to this point and I am very proud that after only 4 months a National-led Government in cooperation with its coalition partners has been able to get the bill to this point to benefit so many New Zealand businesses. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has said Labour of course will support this bill because we authored much of it—three-quarters of it in fact. But I do also acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne who was also the Minister of Revenue then despite the criticism from Mr Foss about delays. I do not believe that either the previous Government or Mr Dunne in his capacity as the then Minister of Revenue did anything to delay this bill. I think we wanted to get it right as we all did so Mr Foss’s uncharitable comments about Mr Dunne and the previous Government can stand as they do for people to scrutinise. 
This is good legislation. I acknowledge it will help a whole host of small businesses that Mr Dunne and others have been passionate about for many many years. I also note though that Labour has urged the Government to go further and undertake additional work as we mentioned in respect of a further reduction in the use-of-money interest the tax deductibility of patent costs and the uplift basis. But I also make the point that although this is good legislation it does not acknowledge as part of the Government’s so-called overall programme the seriousness of the recession that we face. Therese Arseneau summed it up I think when she said on  
Q+A 
: “We need to hear very clearly that National has a plan.” She also said: “This is not just any ordinary recession.” I offer members opposite the opportunity to note that. This is probably the biggest recession or economic crisis globally and for New Zealand that we will see certainly in our lifetime. Ms Arseneau went on to say: “I hear no action plan in terms of what he”—I presume that is the Prime Minister—”is going to do to maximise our competitive advantage.” 
The problem we have here is that this is piecemeal. This is good legislation—Labour has supported it and we will support it—but if one looks at it in the overall fabric or the overall jigsaw that is supposed to be a plan that the Government is charged with implementing to get New Zealand out of minimise and contract the recession and make the landing softer and save as many jobs as possible then we see that this is only a very very small component. When we look at what the plan is we see that the problem is that we have not heard one we do not know whether one exists nor do the New Zealand people. The only thing we have really heard is a couple of absurd examples that were mentioned in speeches as we went through this bill in the second reading debate and the Committee stage where the biggest thing to come out of the Job Summit and the most spectacular answer to the biggest global economic crisis in our history is a cycleway. The Prime Minister told us that the cycleway costings would be around $50 million although we now know from experts that it will be close to if not exceeding $300 million and it will create—the Prime Minister tells us—4000 jobs. It will create 4000 jobs when we are losing 1000 jobs per week! Treasury the Government’s own adviser tells us that in the last 3 months we have lost 30000 jobs. Apparently the major plank to come out of the Job Summit was a cycleway. 
The other point that has been trumpeted in conjunction with this bill as part of the economic plan has been the 9-day working fortnight. The problem there as part of the so-called plan that the Government has is that it is underfunded it targets the wrong areas and critically it lacks the training component. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Everybody supports it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says everybody supports it. I think it is great that at Fisher and Paykel Appliances for instance 60 jobs have been preserved. I think that is fantastic. But that is 4000 jobs if we throw in the cycleway and 60 jobs if we throw in Fisher and Paykel Appliances and we are losing— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And 80 press secretaries. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There is the National Government’s equivalent of the “jobs machine”. 
 Jim Anderton’s “jobs machine” created 360000-plus jobs. My colleague says 85 jobs will be created through the Steven Joyce spin doctor machine of press secretaries. I suppose 85 new jobs is a good thing—huge salaries. That is a fiscally prudent Government doing its thing as the battlers battle away to save their jobs. But the problem is that if we add 4000 jobs for the cycleway take 60 jobs out of Fisher and Paykel Appliances and lose 1000 jobs a week—and we have lost 30000-plus in the last 3 months—and then the Prime Minister makes a commitment to having 100000 jobs created and preserved then we will fall well short. 
I repeat the comments of Therese Arseneau who said: “We need to hear a very clear plan from National. This is not just an ordinary recession.” I think National either thinks this is an ordinary recession or as I said in a previous speech on this bill it has put politics before really delving in and trying to save and preserve New Zealanders’ jobs. The announcements that National has made are a drop in the ocean when compared to what is happening out there in terms of job losses. I do not have any feeling of celebration about that; I have a feeling of tragedy as 1000 New Zealanders a week lose their jobs. Ms Wagner says that everybody supports the 9-day working fortnight. Well we will see. We will see whether 100000 jobs are created out of it as the Prime Minister said. We will see as we lose 1000 jobs a week whether those 1000 people each week support what Ms Wagner says they will support. We will see as ordinary Kiwis on the 9-day working fortnight effectively lose 10 percent of their wages whether they will support that. 
We will come back to Ms Wagner’s comment at a different time but in the same place and we will ask her whether she stands by her comments to the 1000 people a week who are losing their jobs. I think New Zealanders will look back and say that the National Government did not take this recession seriously when every other economy in the world is hitting it as hard as it can upfront with expenditure and commitments on infrastructure. We are talking about real commitments not re-announcing policies like the scrapping of the State housing bill and then Phil Heatley has announced that 69 State houses will be built. Well whoopee we are losing 1000 jobs a week. Members can imagine if President Obama Kevin Rudd or Prime Minister Brown had risen in the House of Commons in the Australian Parliament or in an address to the Joint Houses of Congress and said that their big hit to solve the recession was to build a cycleway. 
 Members can imagine what the media there would have done. When we throw all these measures in together they are a pebble on the beach compared with the multitude of grains of sand and rubble that is being created through this global economic recession. National’s only other answer of course is to cut programmes that work so it guts KiwiSaver and it guts research and development tax expenditure. 
This bill has been introduced to legitimately assist small business but on the other hand people should not forget that one of the biggest measures to create new and real jobs through research and development tax credits was Labour’s research and development tax credit especially for the manufacturing sector and others which this Government gutted. Members know what that will mean. If one can gain the research and development tax credit in Australia as business people are telling me and it is actually happening now the next step and the next jump is to ask why they do not just relocate and do the whole job in Australia—the jobs; the lot—because they cannot get the tax credit here. If there was ever a time we needed businesses researching and developing new products and new services and therefore creating new and sustainable jobs for the future it is now yet National has cut the tax credit. It throws a few pebbles on the beach and then it cuts substantive programmes. Then it cuts safeguards like KiwiSaver and accident compensation. 
I suspect that what it is proposing to do with the accident compensation scheme will become a defining issue in the next 3 years as people who are down on their luck because they have lost their jobs get injuries and then have the rug pulled out from under them by this crew—as they did in the last election. I remember getting up on the stump and being called a liar by National candidates when I talked about what they would do to superannuation which they have started on already; about what they would do to accident compensation which they have started on already; and about what they would do to the research and development tax credits which they have started on already. I remember candidates on my patch calling me a liar and saying that this would never happen. I just asked them what they did last time and they said they would not do it again. Well they have started on this. 
I say to members opposite that this is the biggest global recession we have had in our lifetime. The people demand a plan. Those members were elected to deliver a plan; they have no plan. They go around New Zealand asking people what the plan should be and then they do not listen to them. I commend this bill but I say that it is time for the Government to get serious and truly help people. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It has been interesting to listen in this debate to the to-ing and fro-ing between the National Party and the Labour Party. The Labour Party members say that a lot of the work on the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill was their own work—and good on them. Clearly they believe that and it is the case. I sat in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I heard that argument being raised constantly. We have just heard from the Labour Party that the National Government is not doing enough. National’s point of view is that this is the first bill that it has introduced and taken through the select committee process that it provides for a reduction in tax rates and a reduction in red tape and that those are good things to achieve. I do not want to take a particularly partisan approach—I do not want to make it a them-and-us situation—because I would like to try to put a positive spin on my part of the debate. What I am trying to achieve requires the support of both of the major parties in this Parliament. It requires that support. The reality is that I could look to the support of just one of those parties but I am trying to get the support of both of them. 
As I said this bill is designed to reduce rates on use-of-money interest to take away the red tape and to make it easier for small to medium sized businesses to comply with the law and meet their obligations. As members have heard this legislation is one of the consequences of the recession. The Government is looking to make this change to the law as a consequence of the recession. We are all very aware of the reasons that have led up to the recession but many things relate to and contribute to it. I have said before that I believe that one of the issues that are resulting in the poor forecast for growth in retail sales in our country is the massive loss that has been incurred through finance companies in the last 2 to 3 years. It is massive. What is worse is that it particularly affects the retired and the elderly—the people who have lost some or all of their savings in finance company collapses. Without a doubt that is one of the things that have contributed to the recession contributed to the state this country finds itself in right now and contributed to the need for this bill. 
I talked about bipartisan support. I stood to speak on the second reading of this bill just 2 weeks ago. At that time I made a call for an inquiry at the Commerce Committee on the failure of finance companies and the reasons leading up to the failure of those companies. I was able to say to the House that earlier that day I had received tentative support from the Hon Lianne Dalziel the previous Minister of Commerce and now the chair of the Commerce Committee. She said that subject to agreeing the terms of reference it was something that she could recommend that the Labour members on that committee support. I was very very pleased to hear last night from Simon Power that earlier in the day he had issued his own press release and made his own announcement that he as Minister of Commerce would also welcome an inquiry into the collapse of finance companies and the reasons that led to that. I should stress that it is not Mr Simon Power’s decision as to whether the Commerce Committee has an inquiry but nevertheless from my point of view it is still very welcome that he is prepared to say that if the Commerce Committee members decide to vote for an inquiry he would support it. 
I would be very keen to have the support of both the Labour and National members on that committee because if we have a unanimous vote we will be looking at the issues that have contributed in part to this recession but more important have affected significantly—in some cases very very significantly—the lives of some of our elderly citizens. I say that because in the intervening 2 weeks the Commerce Committee has released publicly a report that it received from Mr Harris the Registrar of Companies as an attachment to its report on the annual review of the Ministry of Economic Development. Mr Harris’ report is a 4-page report that looks at the supervisory framework that currently applies in respect of our finance companies and it makes damning reading. As I stand here and think about it I may decide to send a copy of that report to every one of the other 121 MPs in this House because I think that everyone should read it. I see Mr Hughes nodding and I thank him for that support because the report is damning reading. I am very grateful for the support I believe I had from Lianne Dalziel a fortnight ago when she said that the Labour members would consider supporting an inquiry. 
 I will touch on some of the issues that Mr Harris raised in his report. He talked about the level of corporate governance and said the quality of corporate governance is a key factor to be considered in our attempt to understand the reasons for the failure of finance companies. He detailed a number of issues one of which was the calibre of the directors and how the directors of some of those companies operated. He said for example that too often directors were not adequately informed. They were misled or failed to take sufficient interest in the affairs of the company. Members should think about that. Directors were misled ill-informed and failed to take sufficient interest in the affairs of the company to the extent that directors have contributed to the failure of finance companies through their actions. There are many thousands upon thousands of elderly people who have lost their money in those collapses over the last 2 years. The report is a damning indictment. 
Mr Harris then went on to mention some directors who have previously been involved in collapses over the last 20 years. He looked also at the treatment of non-performing loans. A non-performing loan is a loan where a company has lent some money to a client and that client has not been able to pay that money back. Normally there is a disclosure requirement so that the finance company has to disclose to its potential investors that it has some outstanding loans and have not been paid back. Mr Harris referred to the practice where a finance company rather than disclose the fact that a loan was outstanding and was delinquent issued a new loan. They would issue the borrower a new loan to repay the old loan so they could say “Well whoop-de-do! There is no outstanding loan. This new loan is current and we do not have to disclose that.” The way that some of the finance companies treated non-performing loans gave the impression that the finance company in particular—the company that was soliciting funds from the public—was more solvent and stronger than it really was. 
Mr Harris also talked about the lending practices of finance companies. He talked about the fact that in a lot of cases a lot of money was lent on individual projects. I am personally aware of half a dozen projects where in excess of $50 million was lent against in some cases just bare land—albeit bare land that was proposed for subdivision. He talked about the lending practices of concentrating a lot of money into a very few small projects in the case of some finance companies and in some cases of money being lent to projects that the directors of those finance companies were involved in themselves. The directors were borrowing money from companies that they were directing and Mr Harris said that in some cases those projects would not otherwise have got funding. 
Mr Harris also went on to look at the trustee supervisory model and pointed out a number of defects in terms of the way finance companies are currently supervised and in the management for looking after the supervisory model. I note also in Mr Simon Power’s press release yesterday that he says that is something he wants the Securities Commission to give urgent attention to and to review. I congratulate Mr Power again on that. 
Mr Harris then looked at the question of the auditors and quoted a particular auditor who has appeared before the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants and been ordered to pay $130000. He was presumably found guilty and ordered to pay $130000 for the cost of the hearing. When I read that I asked myself what other action has been taken. Does the receiver have the money to bring a civil action against that auditor? Clearly that auditor is being fined $130000 for the cost of the hearing by the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. Is there the ability to recover some further funds from the auditor or the auditor’s professional indemnity insurance company? I have no idea what the particular finance firm that the auditor was auditing actually lost. 
There are a number of issues here. This is not a simple issue; it is an extremely complex issue. I stress again that a number of finance companies fail simply because of market forces. Directors may have lent money against projects they thought would be successful and a good business proposition and through no fault of the people borrowing the money or of the directors of the finance companies we have had a change in the market and gone into recession and those loans cannot be paid back. 
I am very grateful for the support of both Mr Power and Lianne Dalziel and of the members of the Labour Party. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou i te Whare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tena koe. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe Mr Henare. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No one talks to him. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Hardly anybody from Labour! Back in January the Minister of Maori Affairs put together some of Maoridom’s movers and shakers to figure out how Maori can avoid the worst impacts of the recession including action from within the Maori community as well as support from Government on how to strengthen the Maori economy. From that we gained some very clear lines. One was the possibility of public-private partnerships between iwi and the Crown including the ring-fencing of Government moneys for such projects. Tainui chairman Tukoroirangi Morgan summed up clearly the thinking within iwi when he said: “We are poised and ready to go. We just need the gateway of opportunity to be opened by the Crown.” Erima Henare added that Maori do not want to be just bit players and bulldozer drivers; they also want to have a viable partnership with the Crown and with private enterprise in their development. Mr Henare also suggested that if Nga Puhi Tainui Ngai Tahu and Te Arawa came up with $100 million they might consider tendering for the $360 million motorway extension north of Auckland although no doubt if the people of Tai Tokerau found out there was a spare $100 million floating around I would hazard a guess that they would prefer to see that the money was spent on housing rather than on roads. But members will get the drift: Maori are ready and willing to move on many levels. 
Other areas the Maori economic summit conference gave serious consideration to were how best to support small and medium Maori businesses during the recession and how to provide long-term assistance for businesses including ways to help them take advantage of opportunities presented by future economic trends. This Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill goes some way to helping small business enterprises by introducing support mechanisms like business helplines business heath checks business seminars mentoring services quicker responses and payment schedules from Crown agencies tax relief changes to tax laws to reduce business compliance costs simplification of tax regulations raising of tax thresholds and reduction of tax liabilities. 
 These are all themes that will have been very well received by many of those who attended the Maori economic summit. 
To coordinate the Minister’s efforts a Maori economic task force—including business leaders like Mark Solomon Ngahiwi Tomoana Bentham Ohia Daphne Luke John Tamihere June McCabe and Rob McLeod—has been charged with considering the impact of the recession on Maori and with how best to use the wealth of talent around us to promote positive Maori development built upon strong tribal asset-based growth in the primary sector successful small to medium-sized businesses and positive social and community development investment and enterprise. The Maori Party will therefore be supporting this bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill. I start by congratulating the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Craig Foss—my colleague from the Hawke’s Bay—and acknowledging the rest of the select committee who took part in the process. I also acknowledge the officials for the work that has gone on in bringing this bill to fruition in such short order. I thank them all very much. 
The National Government has a plan to blunt the edges of this recession and to enable New Zealand New Zealand businesses and hard-working Kiwis to prosper once we have come out of the bottom of the current recession. This small-business bill which is being implemented today in the House and which is effective from 1 April 2009—just 6 short days away—is a key part of that plan. It will deliver $450 million of additional stimulus and compliance-saving measures to the small-business sector. Let us not forget how important that sector is to the New Zealand economy. Small businesses make up 97 percent of all businesses that employ 19 or fewer people. That sector employs 31 percent of our workforce and importantly the sector contributes 38 percent of New Zealand’s output. Make no mistake: those people are a big contributor to our economy yet so often they are overlooked. But not today! 
I want the House to understand that the people behind small businesses in my opinion are the real drivers of this economy. It is not the Government not the big corporates; small businesses risk everything to provide jobs create products provide services and to grow their businesses. The health of the small-business sector plays a significant role in the health of the corporate sector. The entrepreneurs who start small—the Sam Morgans the Bill Days the Rob Darrochs the Rod Drurys the Jan Camerons and the Sally Synnotts of this world—are the entrepreneurs who risk everything and ultimately provide the renewal of our corporate sector. The big corporates play a part too but the difference is that the chief executive officers of those businesses risk only their reputation when things go wrong. They do not risk the shirt off their own back or the house where they live. 
That is why I become so angry when I hear Opposition members talk about the owners of small businesses with such disdain. They cry that those people are out to rip off employees to fire them at will in 89 days— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What disdain? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: That is right and particularly Mr Cosgrove. Every time he gets the chance he gets on his high horse about small businesses firing employees after 89 days. The fact of the matter is so different. Small-business owners enter employment relationships wanting the relationships to work not to fail. They want the relationships to be successful because those employees will help grow the business take on responsibilities and perhaps even invest in them down the track. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last time I looked we were supposed to be discussing the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill not the 90-day “hire and fire at will” bill. It would be helpful if the member were to contain himself to the bill in question; most particularly because he is also misrepresenting the views of the Labour Party which supports small business. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is enough. We can become overly pedantic about these things. The member is making reference to that issue. If it continues for a long time then yes I think the point is made but a passing reference is neither here nor there. Let the debate flow. It is a third reading so generalisations are pretty acceptable. I invite the member to continue. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The fact of the matter is that many small-business owners become pseudo-mothers and pseudo-fathers to their employees—the psychologist the banker the adviser the social worker—because they want those employment relationships to work. They do that often at huge personal cost. I want the House to know how important the small-business sector is and I take this opportunity to thank them. They are the engine room of our economy they are the champions and they will be the ones who get us through this recession and out the other side. 
The Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill is part of the National Government’s plan to support small businesses through this recession. The bill aims to improve the business environment by easing the pressure of taxes on the cash flow of businesses and reduce business tax compliance costs. To achieve that aim a number of measures are proposed in the bill. For example various thresholds for PAYE fringe benefit tax and GST will be raised; the provisional tax uplift rate will be reduced; and the rules for deducting legal expenditure will be simplified. Those are all excellent measures. It is acknowledged that a number of the initiatives in the bill reflect proposed changes in previous legislation or in Inland Revenue Department work streams and discussion documents including the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
However it is important to note the well-known saying that between the idea and the action lies the shadow. Although the Opposition had a plethora of ideas and action plans for making life easier for hard-working Kiwis the shadow between those ideas and the action of implementing them became progressively longer as it faded into the sunset of the previous Labour Government’s recent demise. The top idea that came from its much-vaunted Small Business Advisory Group was the 90-day probationary period. Did the previous Government take one step towards implementing that idea? Not one! 
This Government unlike the previous Labour Government— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House. You have ruled that a passing reference to another matter is within the scope of this debate. The reference is being repeated and drawn out as a central theme of the member’s debate and I submit to you that that it is within your previous ruling to now take steps to draw the member back to the bill in question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The bill is as much about small business as it is about taxation. I give the member some more latitude. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Unlike the previous Labour Government the shadow between the ideas and the actions of this Government is nil. Within 4 months we have delivered action to the floor of the House with a $450 million initiative. This package is about playing our part to help small businesses to get this economy going. The measures in this bill are part of a whole series of initiatives a wider plan designed to get this economy going. These include personal tax cuts coming into effect on 1 April. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why doesn’t the Minister announce it? Where is the plan? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is part of one of the largest fiscal stimulus packages in the Western World I say to Mr Cunliffe. In fact it is in the top five which Mr Cunliffe has heard on a number of occasions. For him to stand and say that there is no strong stimulus package is absolute rubbish. The initiatives also include infrastructure spending on housing schools and roads which we have brought forward; the commitment to invest in rail; the introduction of amendments to the Resource Management Act to reduce compliance costs and speed up the processes of development; introducing the ReStart package to assist those who lose their jobs through redundancy; and the introduction of the 9-day fortnight to help workers retain jobs. These are all part of the wider plan. As I have previously mentioned the specific measures in this bill include the 5 percent uplift rate on provisional tax; the raising of GST thresholds from $1.3 million to $2 million; the lifting of the GST registration threshold; the increase of legal expenditure to $10000; and changes to PAYE fringe benefit tax (FBT) and some other minor FBT adjustments. Those are a significant series of initiatives that will help small businesses. 
This relief package is just one part of the Government’s jobs and growth plan. It is about keeping the economy running as strongly as possible easing the sharpest impacts of the recession and preparing our economy for future growth. Further parts of this plan will be announced and rolled out over the coming months. National is committed to making it easier for small and medium sized companies to do business. We all face the reality of a slowing global and local economy and it is certainly putting extra pressure on families throughout our country. We understand the importance of small business in helping to get us out of this economic mire that we are currently in. We respect small businesses we thank them for the work they are doing and we know that this bill in the House today—which will be implemented in 6 short days—will help take this country out of recession. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill— 
Hon Members 
: Hear hear! 
STUART NASH 
: —I thank members very much—because it is important legislation that fights against the economic evil of the global recession and the resulting environment of economic uncertainty. 
I quote from  
The Economist 
 magazine of 24 March 2009 to show the extent of this recession on a country like New Zealand which is highly dependent on international trade not only for our economic health and well-being but also for our growth and prosperity. I do not think anyone will doubt that: “World trade the engine of growth is sinking at a pace not seen since the second world war. In projections released on Monday March 23rd the WTO predicts that the volume of global trade which grew by 6% in 2007 and 2% last year will fall by a dramatic 9% this year.” I repeat that the volume of global trade will fall by 9% this year. “The drop will be worst for rich countries whose exports will contract by 10% but even emerging and developing ones whose exports grew by an average of 15% each year between 2000 and 2008 will see export volumes shrink by 2-3% this year. Before the release of these latest predictions economists had already expected global trade to fall by more than it did in 1982 the last time that it contracted albeit slightly. Now matters look much worse than they did just a few months ago.” 
The Economist 
 goes on to say: “The contrast with the recent past could not be sharper. In the boom years between 1998 and 2008”—which coincide with the boom years in the last Labour Government—”trade volumes grew at 5.7% per year” thanks to Dr Cullen and Prime Minister Clark. They are “easily outstripping the growth rate of world output which was around 3% over the same period. Now the world is seeing falls in exports that are dizzying and close to universal and which exceed declines in output.” This is a real concern. “Among the 45 countries for which the World Bank has January trade data the average fall in exports from a year ago was a staggering 32% and 37 countries saw exports decline by more than a quarter. The drops cut a wide swathe across the world with exports plummeting in rich and poor countries alike. Exports from Argentina”—for example—”… were 36% lower than a year before. The corresponding drop for Canada was 35%. Chile’s exports fell by 41% Japan’s fell by 35%. 
The immediate reasons are clear enough. The worst recession in living memory means a dramatic collapse in demand for goods everywhere. An estimated shortfall of $100 billion”—that is $100 billion—”in trade finance which is behind roughly 90% of world trade is also making matters worse. Yet the synchronisation and speed with which exports from countries across the world have plummeted is striking.” 
This a bit of background for this bill and it is very important: “More troubling protectionism is rising and risks making an already severe slump even more catastrophic. When leaders of the G20 countries meet in London on April 2nd they are likely to reiterate a pledge made in November to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s. They are expected to promise to restrain themselves from raising the trade barriers that have been whittled away over decades of tortuous multilateral negotiations.” in which former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore played an integral part. “But almost none have kept the promise they made at that last meeting. The World Bank has counted 47 trade-restricting steps taken by 17 of the G20 members. Tariffs have risen in several developing countries including India”—and we are in the developing stage of a free-trade agreement with India—”Russia and Ecuador. European ones and America have resorted increasingly to subsidies for failing industries with implicit pressure on firms to create jobs ‘at home’ possibly at the cost of shutting down more efficient facilities abroad.” 
 Why is this bad for New Zealand? I will tell members why. We managed to trade our way out of the last major recession this country faced in the 1990s. The reason was that our export volumes into markets were not affected to a huge extent because our major markets did not suffer or contract in the way they are doing at the moment. If we remember back to the early 1990s we recall that unemployment for Maori and Pasifika people reached close to 26 percent during those times. Of course that was not helped by the Draconian and socially destructive policies of the then National Government. 
Our ability now to trade our way out of this hole is hugely diminished because our trading partners’ economies have also collapsed. As mentioned Japan’s exports have fallen by 35 percent from what they were a year ago. I remember when the cries from members opposite were for New Zealand to emulate Ireland and its so-called economic miracle and to slash taxes. Luckily Dr Cullen resisted. Where is Ireland now? It is looking for a miracle because nothing else will save it. And where is New Zealand? It has one of the soundest balance sheets of any country in the OECD thanks to the man who resisted the call to cut taxes during the boom times. He at least knew that stimulating an economy that is already over-stimulated is no way to fiscally manage a country. 
That brings me to my next point: economic philosophy. What is going on at the moment with the National Government? My favourite quote is: “The first thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.” and how apt that quote is! During the last mini-recession this country went through at the end of last century Mr English was the Minister of Finance and it took the restoration of a Labour Government to repair the enormous damage done by the Bolger-Shipley Government. This time the Clark-Cullen Government has left this National Government with full employment and money in the bank. But who is the Minister of Finance? It is Mr English again. It is like a bad dream—déjà vu. Heaven help us! Mr English is still following the economic philosophies of the 1980s. 
The Reagan doctrines of trickle-down or supply-side economics—or whatever one wants to call it—have been discredited and proven to be wrong. The theory asserts that we give tax cuts to the rich under the assumption that the wealthy will spend extra money and therefore will create demand for jobs and services. This theory has been disproved because in times of recession the wealthy tend to pay down debt. Therefore they do not create any wealth in the economy at all. I know that Mr Bennett agrees with this; he must have done fifth form economics. 
Hon Member 
: Um? 
STUART NASH 
: Well maybe not. Sorry; I do not want to make assumptions. 
Keynesian economic theory which is the predominant economic philosophy of the social democrat centre-left parties asserts that we should give tax cuts to those who really need the money in order to meet the basic necessities of life. The tax cuts allow them to buy food clothes books and shelter—all those necessities that the wealthy who are getting the tax cuts take for granted. Mr Obama has filled his Cabinet with Keynesians yet the Key-English team are still tied to trickle-down economics. What a shame for all New Zealanders that is! 
Mr Robert Reich is a former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton. He wrote a book that Mr Peachey is actually reading at the moment; he is going around the place telling everybody what a wonderful book it is. Mr Reich commented on Obama’s Budget. He stated: “It is the boldest budget we have seen since the Reagan administration and drives a nail in the coffin of Reaganomics. We can basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.” Reich also stated that Obama’s Budget is “the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and the poor this nation has seen in 40 years”. If only we could stand up here and say the same thing at the moment. But hold on a second—has not Mr Key compared himself with Mr Obama? In fact sometimes I look across the House and I could swear that I am seeing the new President but then I realise that it is just Mr Key. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who’s your choice for Dick Cheney over there? 
STUART NASH 
: Well it is hard to know is it not? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: There are two Dick Cheneys over there. 
STUART NASH 
: No they are just a pale imitation but unfortunately not in the area of economic philosophy. At a time when the situation has demanded great leadership and leaders New Zealand has missed out. 
I support this bill. It takes fundamentally a bipartisan approach because it of course is a Labour bill—it is in essence a Labour bill. But I must give credit to Mr Foss whose chairmanship of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been responsible for the review of this bill and for allowing all parties to come up with the substance of the bill which we agree is the first step towards helping out those for whom this recession is real and is beginning to bite. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 According to the previous speaker Stuart Nash this Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill is a Labour bill. Any bill that has taxation in it must be a Labour bill is that not right? That is what the small-business community has learnt about Labour over the past 9 years—Labour was not there to help them but was there only to take money from them and spend it on Labour’s promises. That is what Labour did. 
We have had a new member come to this House and in such a bright-eyed fashion—I do not know whether he really fits into that party at the moment; he is saying the wrong things about what the Labour Party talks about—he has given us a history lesson. It was a history lesson that Michael Cullen would have been proud to give I am sure. Dr Cullen is one of the great historians in this House but he was not a great Minister of Finance. In this case we have a new history teacher coming along to show us the history of finance—it is “Nashonomics”. Mr Nash told us about the way the world operates and about the great things Labour could do for small business. But I think it is important that we look at the words “could do” because Labour had 9 years in office and I ask what it did for small business. 
If we want to talk about history I say that Labour has a history of hurting and of not helping small business. But it is now saying in this House after it has lost an election that it would have done all of these things anyway. It is saying that the Labour members had these plans they had these agendas but they just had not got around to it. Is that the problem? Did those members not get around to it? Or is it as Mr Nash said: they had the money in the bank? They just put the money in the bank for a rainy day. 
 It is very hard to find that money in the bank now is it not? I do not know what bank he is talking about. Maybe it is the “Labour Bank”. But there is no money in the bank because that previous Government gave us a decade of deficits. That is what it left New Zealand with—a decade of deficits. 
Labour left us with some of the worst balance of payments figures in the OECD and with year on year of deficit after deficit projected for this economy. That is what that Labour Government left small business. That is what it actually did for small business. It did not pass any business tax measures bills as the National Government is doing. Bills like one that we are debating are not rocket science. They are basically about threshold changes the use of money interest and other initiatives but they are not rocket science. It does not take a Government 9 years to work out how to do these things. It took National only a couple of months. In fact but for Christmas the country would have got these bills before then under our Government. 
The Labour Government had talked long and hard about what it wanted to do for small businesses but it could not actually deliver for them. It could not go out there and deliver for small business. There is a reason behind that which is that Labour will not support people who go out and make the most of their opportunities. National is quite different. National wants to send the right signals and incentives for people to go out there. We want to create an environment that will grow this economy. We want to create an environment that keeps people in jobs. National is worried about keeping people in jobs; we are not thinking about what could have been what we could have done or merely what is possible. We are looking at the realities of action and delivery—[ 
Interruption 
]—and that is the difference between the two political parties if Mr Nash wants to know what the difference is. National is the party of action of delivery of ideas and of vision; Labour is the party of looking across the fence and saying: “We wish we could do that.” The whole political mantra of Labour members is based on jealousy. They look across and say: “These people have got too much. They have done too well. Let’s take it off them.” It is the same in their policy. Labour members do not actually have any policy; they look at our policy and want to take it off us. That is what Labour is about. It does not have initiative it does not have direction and it does not have delivery. Labour is all about what somebody else has done and about what it can do to make it look as if that were Labour’s idea. That is Labour. 
Then we look at this bill. It is about delivery for New Zealanders so that we can help keep people in jobs. This bill is part of that stimulus package to help New Zealand get through this terrible terrible time. We need a recessionary package that is practical simple effective and that we can action quite quickly. These are actions that we can do now. Measures like the GST registration threshold will make a huge difference. The increase from $40000 to $60000 is a big thing for small businesses especially when small businesses are struggling now to get a lot of sales. That $60000 is worth more than it would have been worth a year ago essentially in real terms because to get $60000 in sales now is a lot harder than it was a year ago. These measures that we have put forward are actually more than what the market demands in a sense. We are going out there to deliver the best possible circumstances for New Zealanders in order to keep our small-business community strong and viable and to provide those crucial jobs for our communities throughout this country. 
I think we need to take great pride in a Government that makes those decisions and makes those actions a reality. We can take great pride in a Government that is not afraid to do things. We do not wait for elections to do something. We do not wait for policy groups to tell us what we need to do; we go out there and do what is the best thing for our country at the right time. That is the big difference between the two main political parties. Our motivation comes from what is best for New Zealand and best for our people. National is not motivated by what is best for our political party which is what motivates Labour. Labour members have not talked about this bill. If anything those members have tried to say that these ideas were their own and that this was their bill and they were going to do these things anyway—that does not count in the real world. 
People want to see action and they want to see delivery and they are able to see those things now under the National Government. They will get more because this will not be the end of it. No we will work hard to look at what the next level of reforms could be and to deliver more for our small-business community and for those people who rely on that community for their jobs. We will deliver more for those who rely on that community of business people to keep this country ticking over. That is how a strong country is built. We have to look at what is going on out there and time and time again try to deliver what will refine it and make it better. National is not afraid to do that. We are not afraid to go out and deliver the best possible environment in which small business can progress. That is something that defines us and makes us different from Labour—an Opposition that is jealous and that looks across from the other side of the House to try to steal ideas. Over its 9 years in Government Labour never had the guts to go out there and do what it could have done to set up New Zealand for a better situation. But the National Government will deliver that vision. We will deliver those concrete changes. We are doing it now and there is more to come. We commend this bill to this House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The previous speaker made much of a focus on the deficit; he is the one with the deficit. He may have done fifth-form maths but he cannot recall much of it. He should remember—because he was a member of this House at the time—that National voted against the previous Labour Government’s move to cut business tax rates to 30 percent. Does he remember that? Does he remember that National was in favour of cutting the research and development tax incentives that the past Government had put in place and has in fact cut them? Does he remember that this National Government has made cuts to KiwiSaver and that it is axing three-quarters of a billion dollars of tax cuts that would have favoured those most in need of that sort of assistance during this very difficult economic time? 
 [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. Give it to the rich. Let them pay it back to the poor by way of a charity if they are lucky. That is the philosophy of members opposite. 
We are on the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill and I note that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Craig Foss did a good job of taking the bill through the select committee. But he also said before that this is the first piece of legislation that has been passed through all its stages in this Parliament without urgency and by going through the select committee process. Although it is an important bill it is nevertheless a very small bill and a very small part of what needs to happen in this nation in order to meet the demands of the international situation. Speakers opposite have been making much of the fact that this bill is part of the Government’s rolling maul of measures to deal with this one-in-100-year turn round in economic circumstances. Although this bill is an important step forward to assist New Zealand businesses it still remains a relatively small step. 
Rather than this bill being something that this Government can trumpet as having done in response to the world’s worst economic outlook in living memory I say this bill was originated by the previous Government. The Minister yesterday suggested that a lot of new measures are now included in the bill that the Government inherited. That is true but the Inland Revenue Department provided the Finance and Expenditure Committee with a 1-page summary of the bill’s new measures the enhancements of measures inherited from Labour and the inherited measures that remain unchanged in the bill. There are four new measures three enhanced measures and five original measures remain unchanged. So there are four new measures within the bill and eight enhanced or existing measures inherited from the previous Labour Government. The House can see the substantial contribution that Labour made to this bill from the previous Government’s measures. 
The new administration can barely claim the credit for this legislation being part of the rolling maul as some members opposite continue to suggest. It is barely another pair of boots added to a rolling maul. But whatever the bill does provide it is not and cannot be described as a deliberate focused planned and prioritised response to the global meltdown. Not only has Labour provided the basis of the bill but we also saw some amendments in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to further improve this Labour-initiated bill. 
Let us go through the bill as it was inherited by National and the enhanced or new measures it now includes. The new measures include a reduction in the provisional tax uplift rate from 105 and 110 percent to 100 and 105 percent to apply from 1 April this year. The increase in the GST payments basis threshold from $1.3 million to $2 million is also to apply from 1 April. The introduction of a new threshold of $10000 below which all business-related legal expenditure is fully deductible is also to apply in the next income year. There is an increase in the thresholds under which the fringe benefit tax is not required to be accounted for regarding minor benefits provided to employees. Those are the new measures within this legislation. 
The existing measures with some enhancement include the increased pay-as-you-earn once a month filing and payment threshold. That has gone up considerably as from 1 April of this year. There is an increase in the fringe benefit annual filing threshold from $100000 to $500000 and that also applies from next month. There is an increase in the GST registration threshold. 
The existing measures that were kept in toto from the Labour Government’s legislation include the increase in the low-value trading stock threshold an existing measure relating to accounting financial arrangements the extension to the fringe benefit tax annual filing the increase in the provisional tax use of money the use-of-money interest safe harbour threshold and the increase in the GST 6-monthly filing threshold. 
Labour of course is also urging that we make some further changes to the bill around further reductions in the use-of-money interest rates and in the tax deductibility of patent costs—a good submission in that respect came from the Manufacturers and Exporters Association—and around reducing the uplift basis for provisional tax. Even if those measures were included this bill would still effectively represent business as usual. It is a good bill but it does present a missed opportunity in the face of the global meltdown. The economic conditions have deteriorated rapidly. Most commentators are predicting considerable drops in GDP and we have to ask why the Prime Minister remains the only person who has a sunny day forecast in the face of what really needs a considerable response and plan. The plan that we have seen so far includes the cycleway to nowhere. It started with a costing of $50 million and now looks more likely to cost $300 million if it proceeds. The 9-day fortnight which is now going to assist employers is welcome assistance but 60 jobs at Fisher and Paykel Appliances are a long way short of the 100000 jobs that were suggested. 
The Government has some other byplays going on. On the new  
Q+A 
 programme on Television New Zealand on Sunday Therese Arseneau a fine political scientist from Christchurch said that very clearly there was not much of a plan—that this is not an ordinary recession and there is no action plan to maximise our competitive advantage. Of course the  
Q+A 
 programme itself may not survive much longer now that the Government is axing the Television New Zealand charter. The National Government of course has also scrapped the research and development tax credit gutted KiwiSaver and discarded the Fast Forward fund and in the meantime we are getting this modest tax-amending bill. 
We as a party urge the Government to give some serious reconsideration in the face of the economic crisis that we are facing—and those words are not too strong—to retargeting the tax cuts. They simply are not the best way to stimulate our faltering economy. We must make the very best of tax cuts that are focused on those truly in need. People at the bottom end of the spectrum are the ones who spend every dollar they get. People who have discretionary income have a choice: they may save they may spend off debt they may take a holiday and they may purchase goods. Those at the bottom end of the spectrum have no such choice. It was shameful to see that the tax cuts provided under the Labour Government’s programme where three-quarters of a billion dollars were to have gone to the New Zealanders who are most in need have been forgone in the interests of providing tax cuts which the Prime Minister now suggests may be given back in charity payments to the poor of this country. This is going back to Dickensian times in the thinking of the Prime Minister. 
National in its approach to the economic recession is uniquely seen on the international environment as tinkering with our economy while the rest of the world does some real things. 
 The International Monetary Fund is in town at the moment and it is telling the Government not to take a knife to spending at this time. It is counter-cyclical to what the Government needs to achieve. Any New Zealander who looks across the Tasman to Australia can see that there is a NZ$67 billion stimulus package in Australia. So where is the National Government’s package for New Zealand? We have this bill progressing through Parliament. 
This is a small important and modest piece of legislation and it is welcome. It will provide a small measure of relief to small to medium sized enterprises which provide 90 percent of the jobs in our nation. Labour supports the passage of this bill but we do so while suggesting the bill needs some amendments and we have indicated those amendments to the House. We would like to see reductions in the use-of-money interest rate. We would like to see further work done around the issue of patent costs. We would like to see reductions in the uplift basis. If this bill had the Labour amendments added it would be more useful. But it remains a modest bill. It is no answer to the scale of the recession that this nation and this world face. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am rising to take what I believe is the final call in the third reading of the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill. As a relatively new member of the House I imagine that speaking last on the third reading of a bill particularly one that has passed through the House in reasonably quick time as this one has might not be an enviable task on the grounds that a lot of what one could say about the bill has been said. A lot of it has been said by me I must admit in previous speeches. But far from being put off I am in fact delighted and proud to be speaking on this bill. 
I am delighted to see that we will pass this bill through its third reading today because this bill despite the bleating from the other side of the House will look after the engine room of our economy. When we talk about business we need to remember that far and away the vast majority of business in this country is not carried out by the big top-end-of-town companies. It is carried out by the mum selling clothes from home over the Internet and by the guys working in the garage fixing cars. It is carried out by the businesses struggling to stay alive and keep going employing few staff putting everything they have into the business and working 60 70 or 80 hours a week. Those are the businesses we need to be supporting. Those are the businesses that will get us through the recession and those are the sorts of businesses that this bill targets. 
This bill cuts right to where the National Government needs to be focusing when we talk about looking after our economy. The National Government is looking at the whole of the economy. This bill though goes straight to those small enterprises. As I have said before as the representative from Selwyn where most of our businesses are in that category I am absolutely delighted to play a part in getting this bill through the House. 
I do want to acknowledge and I think it is fair to do so the whakapapa of the bill and its genesis under the previous Government—well certainly many parts of the bill had their genesis under the previous Government. I do think it is fair to acknowledge that and I know the point has been made before. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Well done! 
AMY ADAMS 
: It is fair; the bill did have its origins under the previous Government. But—and there is a but as is often the case—we need to emphasise that this bill as drafted introduced and delivered by the National-led Government goes a lot further. It goes a lot further than the provisions that were taken out of the Labour bill. Mr Burns can keep his scorecard if he thinks that is appropriate. If he wants to tote up the number of initiatives for and against that is up to him. Frankly the quantum is of more interest to me. 
 It is not about how many points are on his side and how many are on ours; it is about the quantum and how much this measure will put into the economy. It is about how much stimulus we will get and how many businesses will make the decision to keep their doors open because they are not having the lifeblood sucked out of them by unnecessary cash-flow costs and compliance time. That is where the National-led Government has taken this bill ahead in leaps and bounds from what we previously saw. This bill goes considerably further. 
Mr Burns talks about this bill as representing a missed opportunity. Well if the bill is a missed opportunity the way it is what would it have been many many times smaller under the Labour Government? We have taken what was begun and we have made it better. 
Nathan Guy 
: Where are the Supplementary Order Papers? 
AMY ADAMS 
: That is right. Furthermore the other point we need to recognise is that the bill may have originated under the previous Government but the National-led Government will deliver it. 
We have heard this point made before on this side of the House but it bears repeating. Who cares who dreamt up the bill? Does anyone really think the public of New Zealand are interested in knowing who introduced the bill? No. They want to know who is delivering it to them. And who is delivering it to them? The National-led Government is delivering it. How long has it taken us? It has not taken us years; it has taken us a very small number of months right at the beginning of our term. 
Let us just reflect as we talk about that on the fact that this bill reduces the tax burden on business. We know that the Labour Government took mere days to raise taxes and 9 years to even start talking about cutting them. That is how much that Government cared about supporting business and simplifying the tax system—that is the truth. Let us get real about this. This Government the National-led Government is delivering the bill and it is the National-led Government that small business is thanking right now for getting on and doing it. 
When the speakers on the other side of the House keep going on and on and asking whether this bill is the big idea perhaps they could pause the histrionics hand-wringing and arm-waving for a while and open their eyes and ears. If they did they would see that it is going on all around them. This is not it—this is not it. I do not know how much clearer I can make it. This bill is one part of a large-scale response that this Government is delivering to the people of New Zealand. Members have heard about the rolling maul but it does not seem to have sunk in. We are not telling those members that this is our response to the recession; we are telling them that this is necessary it is being delivered it will make a difference and most important it is part of a huge range of initiatives that this Government is delivering. 
The stimulus package that we are delivering to this economy is we know in the top five in the OECD—the top five. That is not insignificant by any measure. 
 What we are doing though is bringing it about in a number of small steps and we are working on more initiatives all the time—and we need to remember that. 
The bill is a business bill that addresses business tax issues focusing on the small sector. As I have said before I have been a small-business owner. I have owned many small businesses and I have advised many hundreds of small businesses. I know what the reality of life is for those businesses; I know how difficult they find the environment they are currently operating in; and I know from my hours days weeks and months spent campaigning how many businesses have said to me leading up to the election that if Labour got back in they would shut down or move to Australia. Every member on this side of the House will have had the same experience because the system those businesses were operating under was killing them. It was sucking the lifeblood out of those businesses. There was too much red tape and too much compliance. They spent more time filling in forms paying taxes jumping through hoops answering surveys and complying with the bureaucracy to get any business done. That is why they could not cope and why they were going to leave. That was nothing to do with the recession. If these businesses were finding it hard to stay alive before imagine how hard they are finding it now with all that compliance and the recession hitting them full in the face. What we are doing—and doing urgently as a matter of priority—is starting to address that bureaucracy the red tape the compliance and the unnecessary hurdles. In this bill the focus is on doing that through adjustments to the tax system. 
The House heard my colleague David Bennett in his excellent speech talk about the fact that this bill delivers incentives. That is not a word we hear very often from the other side of the House. This bill is setting up incentives. We are incentivising businesses to get on and be productive. We are not punishing people who try to get ahead. We are incentivising them and that is something that we need to hear more about if we are going to grow productivity in this country. That is essential if we are going to keep jobs keep our businesses here and keep our businesses strong prospering growing and employing New Zealanders. That is what we have to do and what this bill does. 
The bill does it through a number of initiatives as we have heard detailed. We have heard Craig Foss talk about the uplift provisions and the fact that that will pump an extra half a billion dollars alone into the economy—that is half a billion dollars worth of stimulus just through the uplift provision. We have heard about the changes to the GST system which will mean that a business will not have to comply with GST on under $60000 of turnover unless that business wants to. More important businesses that are registered can now take the choice to deregister if that would be easier for them. In addition to that they have more option to send in their returns 6-monthly and as we have heard—and I have talked about it before because it is important—businesses will not have to switch to the invoice basis for registration until they hit $2 million worth of turnover. That threshold has gone up from $1.3 million and that alone makes a huge difference. When one hits that threshold—and I have been in this position—it hurts and it is a serious cash-flow hurdle for businesses to get over. One is paying tax on money one does not even have. That hurts and it can be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
The other thing the bill does is try to introduce some more simplicity into the tax system which I will always encourage and support. Our tax system should be as simple as possible. One of the areas that the bill does this in is clearing up the rules around legal deductibility for small businesses. They will not have to sit there and go through long-winded processes to work out which of their legal expenses are deductible. If a business spends under $10000 on lawyers within a year it can be deducted. It is simple it is easy it involves less time it makes it clear-cut and it means less time for the Inland Revenue Department having to go through and check it. It works all round and is exactly the sort of silly hurdle that we need to be removing. 
Bill read a third time. 
Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Referral of S.O.P. 10 to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its consideration of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) have the power to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 despite Standing Order 283(1) 
. The Supplementary Order Paper preserves those provisions in the Land Transport Act 1998 the Transport Act 1962 and associated regulations and the Land Transport Amendment Act (No 2) 2006 that are due to expire on 1 July 2009. Cabinet approval has already been obtained to transfer into or preserve in the Land Transport Act most of the provisions affected by an expiry date. The transfer will not be able to be effected before 1 July and therefore an amendment to the expiry dates needs to be enacted before that date. 
The amendments are minor but the consequences of not making them are significant. In summary the main changes are: preserving the Transport Act—this Act contains in particular provisions relating to local authority traffic enforcement powers; preserving some transitional provisions; preserving regulations and notices having effect under the Land Transport Act but made under other legislation; preserving the powers of local authorities in respect of the enforcement of special vehicle lane offences; and continuing the obligation of a court to have regard to the New Zealand Truck Loading Code for offences relating to insecure loads until the provision can be widened to include other relevant industry codes. I look forward to support for this motion from all other parties in the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce the Minister of Transport which is an amendment to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I have had a discussion with the Minister to make sure that there is nothing sneaky in the Supplementary Order Paper. The briefing information we have received about him says that it was a good decision to seek that assurance but he did say that it was of a technical nature only and his speech has outlined why. Obviously the Opposition will be in support of this Supplementary Order Paper being referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
 It is not in the interest of any member for the provisions to lapse on 1 July. The consequences of that other than being annoying would be very disruptive to the transport sector to ordinary motorists and to everybody who would be affected. 
The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is before the select committee at the moment. It was introduced by my colleague the Hon Annette King when she was Minister of Transport. It covers a number of areas that the House has long wanted to give consideration to so I am very pleased that the Minister is not seeking to have this Supplementary Order Paper considered in such a rushed fashion that the bill itself does not get proper consideration. I think the issue in the bill that the Supplementary Order Paper refers to—drug testing of drivers—is something that Parliament needs to consider very carefully and I know that the select committee is doing that. 
Although we could have a major procedural battle about whether the Supplementary Order Paper is within the scope of the bill and we could be difficult and raise things like that that is not the nature of this Opposition. The nature of this Opposition as our leader the Hon Phil Goff said is that where the Government comes up with a good idea we want to support it. We want to see that action is taken on such a measure. 
But where the Government makes terrible mistakes of course we want to point them out as vigorously as we can. In fact in the very portfolio we are debating with regard to this Supplementary Order Paper the transport portfolio we have seen some big disasters. We have parted company with the Minister and his decision to rip off the people of Auckland with only half a plan for transport and then to rip off all the people of New Zealand by charging them 6c a litre of petrol to pay for it. Those are areas of difference that we have with the Minister and we will have to argue those quite strongly. 
But it is good to have an example where we can unite with the Minister even if it is only on an administrative matter. So far his ability to reach out across the political divide extends only to matters of administration but I believe that the bridge that the Minister has tried to build will have much more substance as time goes on. 
One of the effects of the substantive bill before the committee is a walk-the-line test with regard to drug testing and those safety issues are covered by the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has referred to. We in the Labour Opposition would like to know whether that test would be extended to people who use the bicycle lane that is now to be the saviour of the New Zealand economy. We want to make sure that this Supplementary Order Paper is not focused on just a narrow transport area. We have heard from the Minister that he seeks to be a visionary in this portfolio. I hope the bicycle lane can be counted among the matters referred to by the House this afternoon. I think it would be a missed opportunity for our country if that was not able to happen knowing how transformative that project is going to be for the country. 
Obviously most of these matters are very technical. They should not be matters of division and it is important that the House acts on them before 1 July. So Labour will be supporting the referral of this Supplementary Order Paper to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we hope that it can report it back with the substantive matters raised in the bill itself so that the legislation can be passed in due time. 
I say to the Minister that while we are in a facilitative mode it might be useful if he briefed the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Although the Minister himself has worked very diligently in order to put forward this Supplementary Order Paper and he has found a way to give effect to the policy it would be such a tragedy if he gave up his interest in it after the vote today and thought his work was done. If he relies on the Leader of the House to get the bill back in time before 30 June it could be that some more substantial action would be required by Parliament. Although on one occasion we are prepared to cooperate I think two occasions would be pushing the bipartisan hand of friendship just a little too far with regard to Mr Brownlee. I say to the Minister that I hope he will take the opportunity to make sure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed on this particular matter. 
We will support this motion. I know that one of my colleagues wants to explore some of the other areas in the Supplementary Order Paper a little further than I have had the chance to do. It is certainly something we want to see progress through the House this afternoon so that it can go off to the select committee to make sure that the consequential effects of our not doing that are not brought to bear on the good people of this country. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was quite an interesting speech from the Labour member Darren Hughes. There was a lot of love in his speech about transport. Unfortunately that love extended to the cycleway issue but if he had been at the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand he would have seen that it was noted that the cycleway would be related to the tourism portfolio not the portfolio of the Minister of Transport. So unfortunately the Minister of Transport will not get the glory for the cycleway and we will miss out on that bipartisan aspect of what has just been going on in the House. 
Supplementary Order Paper 10 relates to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). This bill is progressing through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as the member opposite Darren Hughes just noted. This bill has two main provisions. One is in respect of drug testing and the other is in respect of the motor vehicles register and the bill is progressing at a good pace. The member raised some questions around the issue of drug testing. Those questions will be for us to debate at another time and we will be going fully through those aspects. There are some quite interesting proposals around drug testing and the nature of the motor vehicles register can be quite complex so there will be a lot of debate on those issues. But Supplementary Order Paper 10 which we are looking at today is really just a timing issue in the sense that it sets up the dates so that a lot of the more significant rules and regulations that are needed in the transport area can still progress and be in force. 
The amendments of the Supplementary Order Paper may seem minor but their consequences are far from that. They are significant in some areas; for example they preserve the provisions of the Land Transport Act. That Act has provisions relating to local authority traffic enforcement powers so preserving that Act is vital to achieving the continuation of those enforcement powers. The Supplementary Order Paper also preserves some traditional portions of the Act by preserving regulations and notices that have effect under the Land Transport Act but made under other legislation. So there is very much a wide effect in the sense that the Supplementary Order Paper goes beyond the Land Transport Act into other legislation that may have a transfer aspect to it. 
 It also preserves the powers local authorities have in respect of enforcement of special vehicle land offences. That is another area that often does not get a lot of coverage but it is something that this bill maintains; the change in dates in this bill makes the retention of those powers possible. The last main change is the continuing of the obligation of a court to have regard to the Truck Loading Code for offences in regard to insecure loads and that is basically a temporary piece of legislation until it can be widened to include other industry codes. 
Although the Supplementary Order Paper itself is not grunty in the sense of having any of the major tests or policy in it that one would expect in legislation it has a very important role aligned with a bill that is coming up that focuses on some bigger areas and some bigger issues—namely around drug testing and the motor vehicles register. The timing issue incorporated into this Supplementary Order Paper means that we can continue that process and be able to have the rules and regulations that are vital for the transport sector to fulfil its role in providing growth and support for our economy. 
We look forward to Labour’s support of this Supplementary Order Paper. We are thankful that Labour members found it in themselves to be supportive on this measure. We also look forward to the way that they will work with us on the wider issues in the bill around drug testing and the motor vehicles register. Those are more prominent issues in the public eye and getting a lot of cross-party support on those issues will be vital to making the passage of that legislation through this House a lot quicker. I do not think there is much disagreement in the public about this legislation; the public see the need for some legislation there and if we can get cross-party support for it in the way this Supplementary Order Paper has had then that will actually make the job of this Parliament a lot easier and will mean that the legislation will have a lot more validity in the public eye when it goes to the community later this year—or hopefully even a lot earlier than that if we can get through the bill quite quickly in the select committee. 
In summary this Supplementary Order Paper does not include the major structural changes or policy changes that the bill will incorporate but through its minor change of dates it preserves significant laws and regulations that are vital in transport enforcement and the transport industry. We are thankful for the support of the other parties on this bill and we commend it to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague Darren Hughes indicated we will be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. It relates to some important issues that although of a technical nature none of us would like to see expire due to time constraints. 
As Mr Bennett started to mention Supplementary Order Paper 10 relates to a very important bill that explores important issues like drug-driving and the protection of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. Just to be clear though the Supplementary Order Paper itself proposes measures of a technical nature. We have been through what some of them are; some of them are very important matters like truck loading local authority traffic enforcement and enforcement of special vehicle land offences. 
Those matters will join the matters being considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on drug-driving and the protection of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. I thought it was worth taking time to mention a bit of information about those two areas because they are both very significant and are ones that people in this House should think about. The issues are quite complex and we are working very hard on them in the select committee; perhaps people might like to think about some guidance to members on these matters. First of all in the drug-driving area this bill will make it an offence to drive while impaired by illegal drugs. It will in fact create a compulsory roadside impairment test. That impairment test has been demonstrated in the select committee and I can tell members that it is quite hard to imagine getting through it sober let alone under the influence of illegal drugs. 
But seriously the pros of this bill are very important in relation to drug testing. The bill will improve road safety outcomes for all road users by deterring and sanctioning drug-impaired drivers. It is in line with international trends. It will raise awareness among the public about the risks of taking psychoactive drugs before or while driving. It will also reinforce community expectations about the responsibility of drivers not to drive when they are impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. In fact one of the things the select committee has had evidence on is how the combination of alcohol and drugs leads to far more significant road accidents than either one by itself. Of course if the matters before the select committee are not put in place some significant negatives will occur and that is that we will have to rely on the current provision of “incapable of proper control of vehicle“. That offence has a very high threshold in terms of what is meant by impairment. Many drug-drivers who are unsafe to drive will be able to continue to avoid prosecution as they are not at the extreme level of impairment that is required for the offence of “incapable”. In that case the status quo would have a very negative impact on road safety. 
That is the first part of the bill before the select committee that this Supplementary Order Paper will be joining. The second is in relation to the motor vehicles register. The motor vehicles register is important in relation to improving protection of personal information held on that register. The register is publicly available and under law any person may obtain the names and addresses of the present and previous owners of a motor vehicle simply by quoting its registration plate number. That information is available over the counter at post shops and other registration agencies and is of course open to abuse. There have been instances of people who feel angry about the behaviour of somebody else on the road getting that information and harassing that person and of professional car thieves who target high-value vehicles and use the register to find out where that car is kept. So it is a very significant matter as well. 
 I am sure that members on both sides of this House will support the general principles of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). We will be working very hard to deal with those very complex areas particularly with the drug-testing part. 
I will go back to the amendments that were put up today. They are of a technical nature and we have had assurances of that as Mr Hughes has already said. They seek to maintain the status quo effectively. We are supporting this Supplementary Order Paper but as an Auckland-based MP it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity as we are talking about transport to express my opposition to the change in direction in transport policy announced by the National Government. 
We have gone from a situation where there is an agreed plan for Auckland transport with funding secured for all aspects of that plan via a regional fuel tax to a situation that means that certain key changes to public transport are now under threat such as new railway stations including the railway station in Onehunga where I am based; integrated ticketing; and new ferry terminals. The Minister provides no reassurance to those who are waiting for those changes—and people are certainly waiting I can tell members. The people of Onehunga are definitely waiting for their railway station. It is disingenuous and disrespectful to those Aucklanders to say their railway station may be funded by the Auckland Regional Council. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the financial position that that council is in at the moment. The railway station may be funded by the Auckland Regional Council or by the New Zealand Transport Agency. The MP for Maungakiekie Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga indicates that the funding is not secure and that projects like the Onehunga railway station will have to bid for that funding. I am not just making this up; I have had that acknowledged by the member. 
Onehunga is a very important area. It is seen as an area of Auckland that is a growth node and an area where perhaps there can be some intensification of housing and further development. It is important that part of that development includes the reopening of the Onehunga branch line. That is well under way but the problem is that one cannot use a railway line without a station. We need to make sure that this matter is resolved. I can certainly assure this House that there will be very very many angry residents if this important part of transport infrastructure for the people of Onehunga falls over because of the actions of this National Government. 
Although members on this side of the House will support this Supplementary Order Paper and will work hard in the select committee on the main bill I tell members that in relation to other directions of transport policy we will be trying to make sure that the Government does fund those things that the people of Auckland have long been waiting for and that it is pressured by the people of Auckland to do so. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I had not been planning to take a call in this debate on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of Steven Joyce which is an amendment to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I can tell members that the ACT Party will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper but I take this opportunity to comment on the previous speech by Carol Beaumont the Labour member. 
She used her opportunity to speak on this particular Supplementary Order Paper to talk about National’s plans for public transport in Auckland. She said that the Government had gone away from an agreed plan for regional funding. She seemed to be criticising the announcements that Minister Joyce made last week. I say that I totally support—as does the ACT Party—the statements of Mr Joyce. Mr Joyce has given this country categorical assurance that National has identified seven major roads of national significance and is looking to provide funding on a national basis to put those roads through. 
Let us look at public transport. In my speech on this issue just 2 days ago I gave credit to Labour for the money that had been spent on roading in recent years—in the last 3 or 4 years. The Labour Government was a bit slow to get going in 2000 and 2001 but it certainly spent up big time in the last 3 or 4 years. One of the roads it spent up on was the public busway on the North Shore. It is a dedicated two-lane road for buses to run from Albany to Northcote and then to merge with the Northern Motorway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The road was originally designed to take high-occupancy vehicles—two or three people travelling in a car—thereby encouraging people to car pool but it is not being used to its full purpose. Why is that? The reason is that there is a bottleneck. The road is used only by buses which come along every 2 or 3 minutes on a dedicated two-lane road that is designed to be used by two or three people travelling in a car. The reason it is not being used to its full potential is that there is a bottleneck at Victoria Park where the road narrows from eight lanes down to four. One of the roads that Mr Joyce has committed to funding is that viaduct over—or tunnel under as it may be—Victoria Park. One of the things he has done is say that this road is of national significance. We will build that road and it will enable the bus lane—the high-occupancy lane the previous Labour Government spent $350 million building—to be used to its full potential. 
I take this opportunity to point out to the member Carol Beaumont that this National Government is proposing many things. It is carrying on and extending the spending on national roads. I remind the member once again that only 8 percent of the New Zealand public use public transport. An overwhelming number of people use the roads and we need to provide more roads and make greater use of buses in order to maximise the use of our public transport system. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Government’s motion relating to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is quite surprising how wide ranging some of these debates have become on what started as a rather technical and minor amendment. 
 Nevertheless the amendment is very important as it preserves some aspects of the Land Transport Act and the Transport Act so I very strongly support it. 
The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) has been my first opportunity as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and as a new MP to participate in the very important democratic process of the consideration of submissions. Although this bill was introduced in I believe 2007 and certainly the submissions process was closed well before the election it is taxing the committee to some degree. Over the last fortnight the select committee has not always seen eye to eye on one or two particular issues but I think fellow members and particularly new members of the committee will agree that at least in relation to this bill there has been very strong positive and robust consideration of what on the face of it is pretty straightforward legislation. This will ensure and enhance the safety of road users and also the privacy of the information held by Land Transport New Zealand. 
As we dive into the detail—and as we know the devil is in the detail—some of the issues have become quite a bit more complex particularly around the legal issue of driving while impaired by illegal substances. It is not for me to reveal the select committee consideration because it is not completed so I will not. I assure the House that when the committee reports back it will be with a very considered opinion and the appropriate amendments. I can share with the House that I was the first and I hope the only member to undergo the drug impairment test—unlike the evidential alcohol test that some of my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber have historically gone through. I am pleased to report that I passed the test and I am very confident that anybody who has been under the influence of illegal substances would have a great deal of difficulty in doing so. In fact the odd tired and stressed MP might have difficulty passing the test even if he or she were not under the influence of narcotic substances. 
However the breadth of the debate now extends to this Government’s policies in respect of Auckland transport issues and it behoves me to make a few comments about them. I assure members that this Government is very concerned about and has a robust plan to improve Auckland’s transport including the transport hub. If anybody had cause for grievance it might—I repeat might—be the people who do not live in Auckland thanks to the headless chook approach of the member for Dunedin South Clare Curran. In a recent press release she certainly scared the horses in relation to regional transport impacts as a consequence of this Government’s response to the Auckland issue. I assure both that member and the good people of Dunedin that they need not worry one bit. They are very reasonable people— 
Grant Robertson 
: They elect Labour members. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Not for long. 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh no! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Always the optimist. Those people understand that the regional transport plan will enhance the road transport infrastructure not only of Auckland but also of the rest of the country including the great city of Dunedin. 
I support this amendment. I look forward to it being included in the bill so the select committee can robustly consider it and report back to the House. 
Motion agreed to. 
Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 March. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to recap what I said previously about this bill when I had 1 minute to speak on it the other night. Labour opposes the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill aka “The Privatisation of Our Prisons Bill”. We oppose this bill because we fundamentally oppose the idea of the private sector making a profit out of our core Public Service. I remind the House of the wise explanation that our Labour leader the Hon Phil Goff provided the House with for the National Government’s move to privatise our prisons. The Hon Phil Goff explained the National Government’s move as “blind ideology”. The National Government has the misguided belief that private prisons will be cheaper to run and that privately run prisons will be better-performing prisons. In the minds of New Zealanders those measures would mean a number of things with the top priority surely being the public safety of New Zealanders. 
I wonder whether the average New Zealander would buy into the idea that firstly cheaper prisons will result in a higher level of public safety; and secondly making our prisons the responsibility of private managers and subsequently decreasing the Government’s accountability for the things that go wrong will result in more effective prisons resulting in higher levels of public safety. I very much doubt that the New Zealand public will buy into the National Government’s blind ideology. We have to ask why the National Government is so determined to shirk the very serious responsibilities associated with this core public service—the prisons. Could it have something to do with the long list of prison escapes assaults and deaths that have occurred under the watch of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins? I think it would be fair to say that if our prisons had already been privatised then the recent spate of events that have plagued our prisons and placed lives at risk under the National Government would have conveniently distanced the responsibility from the Department of Corrections and subsequently the National Government. Perhaps that is the underlying rationale for the move to privatise prisons. 
What is of concern to Labour—and also I am sure to the New Zealand public—is the potential for detrimental consequences if our prisons are to be privatised. There are many detrimental consequences. There is a risk that the pressure to show profit for a private company may lead to compromised service quality such as a lower staff to inmate ratio fewer rehabilitative services reduced range of services cuts to staff pay and conditions cuts in staff quality or perhaps all of the above. 
 There is also no incentive for a private company to report any failings of prisons because it is then less likely to be awarded contracts. It is going to be difficult to achieve the same level of accountability from a private company as one can demand from a Government department. 
Fortunately in 2004 the previous Labour Government passed legislation—the Corrections Act—that makes the management of jails solely the job of the Crown. Why did Labour do that? It did that because of one word “evidence”—that is a foreign word to the National Government. Let us look at the evidence or lack thereof. Overseas experience in Australia the United Kingdom and the United States has shown huge flaws in private prison systems ranging from bribery corruption increased violence and increased drug abuse to avoidable suicides. That is the evidence for not privatising prisons. There is no evidence in New Zealand to suggest private prisons can be run any more cheaply. The last time there was such an experiment at the Auckland Central Remand Prison the cost per inmate was less than for the average inmate in a State-run prison. But that was simply because the average cost of a State-run prison included the large extra costs associated with maximum security. I wonder whether the National Government wishes to exclude the costs associated with maximum security—I am sure that would be an issue for the New Zealand public. 
The Auckland Central Remand Prison employed fewer officers per inmate and paid them less than staff employed by the Department of Corrections at all the other prisons across the country. The Auckland Central Remand Prison also provided a reduced service when it was run by a private company. It reportedly refused to admit prisoners after 6.30 p.m. when its day-shift staff went home. What would we do with our prisoners then—let them go home to their houses and bring them in again in the morning when the prison is open? Now that the Department of Corrections is running the prison again prisoners are admitted at night to accommodate those who arrive late from court or are being transported from another prison. 
The questions have to be asked: “Why are we debating law and order legislation again—by the way ineffective law and order legislation? Where is National’s plan for the economy?”. I tell members that law and order in this country is going to become a real issue if the National Government does not come up with an effective plan to look after New Zealand during this recession. But having said that I point out that the private managers of prisons would appreciate that given that they will be the ones making a profit if there is an increase in the number of prisoners. Labour opposes the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill aka “The Privatisation of Our Prisons Bill”. We cannot support this bill because this bill will be ineffective. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 For the last 10 years there has been a clamour for Maori to intervene and lead the crusade against the ever-increasing number of Maori incarcerated in Her Majesty’s prisons. The clamour and loud noises of those in our society who are of the centre-left or of the left persuasion are deafening. Also the likes of Michael Laws and all the other bigots—I suppose one could call them—continue to tell Maori to get off their backsides. 
Grant Robertson 
: You were voting for his bill last night. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely because the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill is a good one and I am not a bigot. 
They continue to tell Maori to get off their backsides and say that they must show some leadership and do something about the ever-increasing crime and prison statistics. The likes of Tapu Misa and her ilk tell us that we cannot run prisons—or anything else for that matter. The inherent hypocrisy in all of these arguments is that if we want Maori in a community to show some leadership to show some way out of the mêlée that we are faced with then we should let those organisations that are equipped to do the job at least try to do it. In my mind it is undoubtedly clear that Labour continues to want to stymie Maori leadership. In doing so the onus of all these bad statistics is kept on Maori and not on the managers of those statistics. 
I hear about corruption and greed in the private system. Corruption and greed are not the sole domain of private prisons as we have seen in our own prisons over the last 24 months. Labour came up with the lame idea that inmates who have a whakapapa or a genealogical tie to a certain area should be moved up to that area. But Labour forgot about all of those who were born and bred in places like Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. The whole argument about private prisons smacks of a double standard. In a time of recession—and if I might be so bold a time of depression—surely it is time for us to look at innovation rather than ideology. Surely it is time for us to be courageous instead of fearful with a will to try new ways of solving old problems. 
If the public Government-run prisons are so good then why are there so many problems in those prisons? People like Ngati Hine and Ngati Whatua o Orakei are not asking to run the world; they are asking to be part of a regime that may in fact help bring down the statistics that so many of us get up and talk about. 
 I will buy into the argument that the State should be the one and only agency to run the prisons on this proviso: that the State does a good job. But I ask whether it really matters who runs prisons as long as they are run properly as long as there is rehabilitation and on the other side of the coin as long as those inmates come out with a sense of remorse and of knowing that they have done something wrong and will not reoffend. I say to Labour that that must be a good thing for the inmates and also for the community. 
If everything has been tried in terms of those statistics then we should try something new. We are talking about statistics that go back quite some time. We are not talking about the numbers of Maori prisoners in just the last 12 months; we are talking about a very very long time. Increasingly the number has been on the upward rather than on the downward scale. I ask the opponents of this bill please to at least give it a chance and give it a try. From 2000 to 2005 we had private management of a prison—a remand centre in Auckland—and it showed that some arrangements could be made with local iwi authorities just as they can under our present system. This bill is not about the holus-bolus privatisation of the whole prison service. This is about letting it out for tender in a case by case scenario to those who think they can do the job. 
This bill is all about allowing people with ideas and innovation to try something new and different. We should not be slaves to old tired worn-out ideology. Those battles between Marx Engels and whomever else were fought and won a long time ago. The time now is for action innovation and new ideas. If we become slaves to ideology then the poor old people in our community who are scared about reoffending and the poor old inmates who never get a chance at rehabilitation will remain in those same little scared corridors. We will have failed them because we were too scared to cotton on to some new ideas. 
That is all this bill does: it allows people to have a shot at prison management. It does not say that it is the be-all and end-all; it says that it allows people to tender if they believe that they can do the job. I am sure that my own iwi affiliations in the north and in Auckland would jump at the chance to have a shot at bringing down the appalling prison statistics for our people. 
All I can say in conclusion is that this bill is about giving an opportunity. We should give those people a chance. That is all this bill does. It does not privatise every prison in New Zealand; it says to people out there that if they think they can do the job and make an impact then we will allow them to be part of that process. I say “Well done.” to the Minister of Corrections for bringing this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections (Contract Management of Prisons) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I need the Minister to direct that the bill goes to a select committee. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is of deep concern to the House that we are here moving along and we are ready to debate the next bill but the Government is obviously in disarray and not prepared for what has been on the Order Paper for the whole week. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that there has been a little slip-up here. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the time of day I wonder whether it is best for us to just call the business to a close and give the Government an opportunity— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. If the member wishes to seek leave then that is a point of order. 
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee 
Points of Order 
Sittings of the House—Leave to Rise Early 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to be adjourned. At this point in time there seems to be some confusion and I think that it would be good— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We do not need an explanation. The member is seeking leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of State Services 
: I move  
That the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is designed to build on the current purpose of the principal Act to promote the public interest in two ways: first by facilitating the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation; and second by protecting employees who in accordance with the Act make such disclosures. The bill has two parts. Part 1 contains amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Part 2 contains a transitional provision. 
In December 2003 Trevor Mallard the then Minister of State Services tabled a report in the House on the Act’s first few years. The report which was prepared by Mary Scholtens QC concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal and that it had not always been used well. Without a central coordinator the range of appropriate authorities to which employees disclosed was confusing. Some disclosures fell between the gaps in the jurisdiction of those authorities. Ms Scholtens also referred to a strong perception amongst some of those consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistle-blowing employee will not be protected. She concluded that the Ombudsmen could assist whistleblowers coordinate referrals between appropriate authorities and guide and review the Act’s operation. The bill gives the Ombudsmen that enhanced role. It also picks up on a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protections and processes. 
The bill has been considered by the Government Administration Committee which recommended two minor changes. The first is the insertion in clause 8 of new section 6C(2): “An organisation is not required to comply with a request made under subsection (1) if it is not a public sector organisation.” 
The amendment is designed to make it clear that a private sector organisation is not obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about the organisation’s internal procedures. 
The second change is that new section 15E(3) in clause 8 be amended to include section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act. Including a reference to section 30 makes it an offence to refuse to provide to an Ombudsman the information specified in new section 15E. It applies only to public sector organisations and the change is designed to enhance the workability of the section by providing a deterrent to a person who without lawful justification or excuse fails to comply with the lawful requirement of an Ombudsman. 
The Ombudsmen will be authorised to provide information and guidance to public or private sector employees on using the Act at any time not just on request. For example the Ombudsmen will advise on what is serious wrongdoing and on whom to complain to. This should provide a filter for misguided disclosures as well as encourage whistleblowers to throw light on serious wrongdoing. 
Public sector organisations are required to have internal procedures on how disclosures must be made to them and how such disclosures will be investigated. The Act requires that whistleblowers must first disclose in accordance with their employing organisation’s internal procedures but complying with internal procedures can be difficult if there are none. Section 6C empowers the Ombudsmen to request the internal procedures and related information from the organisation concerned. As a result organisations may be encouraged to have in place a good effective protected disclosures policy. Employees’ confidence should also increase if they know what the employing organisation’s internal procedures are. 
The Ombudsmen will have new powers to review and guide public sector organisations’ investigations of whistle-blowing under section 15B in clause 8. The power to guide investigations is facilitative rather than directive and the power will be activated either on the organisation’s request or at the Ombudsmen’s discretion. This should help prevent disclosures of serious wrongdoing from circulating around various agencies without resolution. 
Currently the Ombudsmen may make reports to Parliament under section 29 of the Ombudsmen Act. Section 15C in clause 8 specifies a number of matters on which the Ombudsmen may report about the exercise of their powers under the Protected Disclosures Act. The list includes the number and types of inquiries made to the Ombudsmen under the Act. This list is designed to provide Parliament with more information on how the Act is operating and on how the Ombudsmen are carrying out their powers. 
The new sections that I have just described come with information-requiring powers conferred by section 15E(3). The Ombudsmen will be able to acquire information from public sector organisations in keeping with current limits on their investigative jurisdiction. Private sector organisations will not be required to comply but will be encouraged to do so. There are inbuilt protections from misuse of such powers already in the Ombudsmen Act and in the bill. 
Under section 15A the Ombudsmen will be able to take over a public sector organisation’s investigation of serious wrongdoing alleged against it. The trigger is that the Ombudsmen consider that insufficient progress has been made by the organisation and that the whistleblower consents to the takeover. The Ombudsmen may also investigate in conjunction with that organisation. In addition the Ombudsmen will take on a coordinating role under section 15 in relation to protected disclosures that have already been made to another person or body. 
 This again applies only with the whistleblower’s consent. In exceptional circumstances such as an emergency an Ombudsman may refer the disclosure on to an appropriate authority or to a Minister to investigate. Alternatively she or he may investigate when the matter relates to a public sector organisation. 
On the topic of extending the Act’s processes and protections this bill extends the Act to a wider range of people and bolsters the Act’s protections. The term “employee” will include volunteers who work for no reward. Board members and members of local authorities will be able to whistle-blow under the Act. Both groups will be employees for the purposes of confidentiality of identity immunity from liability and the anti-victimisation protections in the Human Rights Act. Contractors are already covered by the Act. 
Even with the Act’s protections whistle-blowing carries some personal risk to the employee but silence is not in the public interest. Measures in the bill designed to give more substance to the Act’s protections include the Ombudsmen assisting organisations to keep the confidentiality of disclosers expanding the Act to protect volunteers of information in support of an existing disclosure of serious wrongdoing expanding protection to people who reasonably but mistakenly believe they are disclosing serious wrongdoing declaring agreements unlawful that seek to contract out of the Act and clarifying that disclosers are not excluded from the Act merely because they did not refer to the Act by name when disclosing. 
Further technical non-compliance with the Act’s processes for whistle-blowing will no longer prevent an employee from coming within its protections. According to section 6A in clause 6 provided that the whistleblower has substantially complied with the Act the technical breach will not disqualify him or her. Here is an example of the effect of this change. An employee in a Wanganui Crown research institute blows the whistle on two staff who are burying toxic waste in riverbed shingle. Under the internal procedures the employee should first disclose to the human resources manager but instead she discloses to the general manager. She still comes within the Act’s protections despite technical non-compliance with one of the process steps in section 7. 
In summary this bill is designed to improve aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It gives the Ombudsmen an enhanced coordinating and helping role. As a result it should be easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoings to light and it should be easier for organisations to investigate effectively. I think this is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Dr Worth after he read his speech. Personally I preferred it when Annette King read it out as a first reading speech. We each have our personal preferences about that speech— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s the same bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: But this is the second reading. It was excellently done and I say “Well done.” to Dr Worth. 
I am very glad that the National Government has picked up this excellent Labour bill—the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Perhaps Government members were not quite ready for it because the bill on the Table is still in David Parker’s name. But at least they are honouring David Parker and the previous Labour Government for having brought this excellent bill to the House. They have not quite gotten around to getting their own Minister’s name on the bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or their own speech. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right—or even getting their own speech. 
Although it is a very good bill I have to question the Government’s priority: it is saving us from the recession via the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This bill goes along with the reinstatement of knighthoods—that was also going to save us from the recession as was the bike lane. But it is a good bill and therefore it is good that we are debating it. 
This bill will make it easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoing to light particularly in Public Service organisations. There are a few potential whistleblowers out there in the Public Service now that National has taken office. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They’re flooding in. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Plenty of them are flooding in I can tell members because there is a great deal of concern in the public sector at the moment about the National Government’s agenda for the Public Service. We can understand why whistleblowers would be concerned when today Tony Ryall made his long-awaited announcement about the cap on Public Service numbers. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We felt it coming. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes there have been a lot of requests for a definition of the cap and we heard it today. National has moved a few departments out and put a few agencies in and has come up with a number. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Contracts. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes contracts are in. But in the end it is all just spin because the Public Service will be cut under the National Government. We have already seen those announcements and people from those agencies are already deeply concerned about the future of their jobs. They will be welcoming the fact that this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is before us now. 
 Jobs are being cut— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Nonsense! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Jacqui Dean says it is nonsense but jobs are being cut at the State Services Commission the Tertiary Education Commission the Ministry for the Environment and the National Library. Jobs are being cut in all those organisations. National paraded around New Zealand during the election campaign saying that it would cap the Public Service—cap but not cut. Sue Kedgley who is in the House today was with me in the Wellington Central campaign. The National candidate for Wellington Central constantly berated me when I said that there would be job cuts in the Public Service. But that is what we have seen. This is not a cap; this is a cut. 
Hon Member 
: Focus on the bill! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am focusing on the bill. It is public servants who will be protected under the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. They are the people who will be protected and they are the people who are concerned about National’s agenda of cutting the Public Service—not capping it; cutting it. Mr Ryall made that announcement today. 
This bill gives an enhanced role for the Ombudsman. I think that is extremely important because the Office of the Ombudsman is a position in our system that is regarded by everybody as a neutral party that can be relied upon to involve itself in disputes and make progress on them. Under this bill the Ombudsman can review an employer’s protected disclosures procedures. That is extremely important because at the moment the Protected Disclosures Act states that people’s first point of call has to be those procedures. But what if those procedures do not exist? We already know that a number of organisations do not have those procedures. This Act allows the Ombudsman to get into those organisations review them and make sure that those procedures are in place. 
The Ombudsman can also give guidance to employees about how the Act works. That is important too because not everybody knows the detail of what they are supposed to do if they have a complaint. If something is going on that deserves this kind of complaint we need to ensure that people can complain even if they are not aware of the detail of the Act or of this new provision. The Ombudsman now has the power to get in there and give guidance. That power has two good results. The first is that it will be able to filter any misguided complaints which occasionally from time to time can be made. That will be an outcome of this bill. The power will also support and encourage people who want to bring to light genuine examples of wrongdoing. 
The bill also gives the Ombudsman the power to take over investigations into wrongdoing if progress slows particularly in the public sector. That is important because sometimes things can be swept under the carpet. We have seen an example of this again today with Tony Ryall and his announcement around the cap on the Public Service; he was spinning his way through it and not wanting to give us the full story. 
 Things can be swept under the carpet in the Public Service from time to time. Inquiries will be called by this Government and progress can slow in those inquires. It is no different when someone makes an application under the Protected Disclosures Act. The Ombudsman now has the ability to take over those investigations into serious wrongdoing and I think that will mean that those investigations will come through far more quickly. 
Another important extension in this legislation is the extension of the definition of “employee”. Up until now the term “employee” has been strictly defined as paid employees but quite often in some of the public sector organisations that we are talking about employees are actually board members or members of local authorities who might have things to bring to light. I know that when the Government Administration Committee heard submissions on this bill it heard from somebody who had been employed at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. In this case the person was a paid employee but given some of the things that were happening at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board it could have been a board member who felt the need to use Protected Disclosures Act. Up until now that person would not have been able to do that but this bill extends the definition of the term “employee” and I think that is a very good thing. 
The Ombudsman will also have the ability to report on how many disclosures come in under the Act how they are processed and how they are dealt with. Again that is very important because if we did not do that we would not know whether the Act was working well. The review that was done in 2003 which my learned colleague Mr Worth referred to did indeed show that the Act was not actually being used a great deal and had not been used well when it was used. That is not good because the protection for people to blow the whistle when they see corruption and wrongdoing is a vital protection to have in our law. If the law was not being used well that meant there was something wrong with the law—the review showed that. Partly it was due to the absence of a central coordinator: someone who was trying to bring together what was happening in this area and who was trying to give guidance both to organisations and to employees about what their rights were. That is the role that the Ombudsman has now been given and I think that will see a great deal more use of the Act. 
 As I have said I also think we will see a great deal more use of the Act because National is in office and public sector organisations are running scared. The huge amount of uncertainty that is going on in the Public Service at the moment driven by National’s policy— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s not true. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Jacqui Dean that I am sorry but it is exactly true. There is unbelievable uncertainty in Wellington at the moment because the National Government is not being clear about its policy. Today Tony Ryall tried to come clean and explain what his cap was but he actually left more questions unanswered. We do not know what the floor is at the moment. Tony Ryall has put forward a policy today to say what the maximum number of public servants will be. There is no minimum number—no minimum number at all—so the floor can fall out and National can return to its policies of the 1990s gutting the Public Service and bringing in consultants and contractors. 
To return to the bill it is an important kind of bill because it gives Public Service organisations confidence that their procedures will work and that the Ombudsman will be there to assist them and ensure that the legislation will work into the future. I commend this bill as an excellent bill brought forward by the Labour Government. It is still in the name of David Parker which is an excellent testament to him and is perhaps a testament to the shambolic scenes we saw earlier on the other side of the House. It will protect those who wish to blow the whistle on wrongdoing which is an important right in our society. I am glad to see that the National Government has picked up this bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Unlike the previous speaker and new member Grant Robertson I intend to treat the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill with the seriousness it deserves. 
Firstly I note that that the previous speaker was extolling the virtues of the previous Minister of State Services for bringing in this bill. It is interesting that the Labour Government had 9 years to bring in these provisions. It took it 8 of those years to bring this bill before the House and then it went to a select committee. How long has it taken the National Government to bring this excellent bill to the House? It has taken 6 months. Now that is what I call commitment that is what I call progress and that is what I call looking after people. 
This bill gives effect to the recommendations of a 2003 review. So in other words the Labour Government had a review in 2003 and did not introduce this bill until 2007. 
 What kind of efficiency is that? As far as I am concerned it is not very fantastic. The Labour Government showed a distinct lack of commitment to this issue but luckily the National Government has brought this bill to the House within 6 months of becoming the Government. That by the way was after an extremely busy first 100 days of the National Government; it brought through a number of very important and critical bills that will be to the benefit of the people of New Zealand. The 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 found many delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedure of the Act. It also found that there was a lot of confusion about some definitions and a general lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. I believe that when a whistleblower feels so strongly that he or she needs to make a complaint then that person needs the protection of the law. 
The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill went to the Government Administration Committee that at that time was chaired by my excellent colleague Shane Ardern. Four written submissions were received on the bill from groups and individuals and one submission was heard. I hope that in the course of the second reading we will hear from one of the members of the select committee who considered the bill at that time. I am sure that one of those members will be able to provide us with some insight into the bill. Although the 2003 review found that there are no fundamental problems with the substance of the Act it found that roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people who are proposing to make disclosures. 
The bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances— 
Grant Robertson 
: Nearly there! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: In Parliament it is all about the timing and I feel so passionately about this bill that I want to use all of the time I have. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.