Volume 609 Week 26 - Thursday 12 June 2003 
Volume 609 Week 26 - Thursday 12 June 2003 
[Volume:609;Page:6197] 
Thursday 12 June 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the main items of business for the House will be the Committee stage and third reading of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill the second reading of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill the second reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) and the supplementary estimates including the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will not be any urgency next week given the list of bills he has read out because it seems a fairly ambitious list? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No I think that if the member goes through it again he will find that all of those are time-limited debates except the Committee stage of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there urgency? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said “No” right at the start. 
Questions to Ministers 
Te Mangai Paho—Maori Sportscasting International 
1. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: On what date and how did he learn that his reply to question for written answer No. 257 lodged on 13 February 2003 that “I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Maori Sportscasting International (MSCI) to any employees of Te Mangai Paho.” was incorrect? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 On 9 June 2003 I received a report from Te Puni Kokiri that the answer was incorrect. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Minister read the Treasury-led review team’s report that he received on 28 May and did he realise that the review team found that Mr Tame Te Rangi had been paid cash by Maori Sportscasting International? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: When I received the external report on 28 May I asked my department to review all the questions and my responses relating to Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy. My officials provided me with a report on 9 June. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the difficulty that we have. My question was clear: did he read the report? He told us he received it. He never said whether he read it. 
As far as we know he received the report sent it off to his officials to read and he himself did not open it. How do we proceed when he can answer a question like that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question. The Minister addressed the question by way of an answer. There can continue to be supplementary questions. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister give any serious consideration to reading the report himself rather than asking his officials to read it and report to him; and with the benefit of hindsight does the Minister now agree that it might have been better if he had read the Treasury report himself to test the veracity of his answers? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Certainly I want to repeat that when I received the external report on 28 May I asked my department to review all the questions so that I could give correct information and my responses related to Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy. My officials provided me with a report on 9 June. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Has the answer to parliamentary written question No. 257 been corrected? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. A corrected reply was lodged yesterday. When I received the external report I asked my department to review all 200 questions and responses regarding Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy. Consequently I have corrected answers to 13 questions and lodged them yesterday. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did he read the newspapers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is the one and only warning and the member is very lucky—very lucky indeed. I want to tell Mr Shirley seeing I disciplined him yesterday that he can consider himself very lucky. Please start the question again. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On that basis was I very unlucky yesterday? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I thought so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What comes around goes around. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did the Minister read the newspapers listen to the radio or watch television news about the Treasury-led review team’s report that Mr Tame Te Rangi had received cash; if so was he totally unconscious of the fact that he had told Parliament that Mr Tame Te Rangi had not received cash? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Sometimes I watch the television and listen to the radio and sometimes when one is under siege one does not. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister now care to answer the primary question and tell the House on what date he learnt that Mr Tame Te Rangi had been paid cash by Maori Sportscasting International Ltd; and having regard to that answer when did he realise that his replies to Parliament were false? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: When I received the external report on 28 May I asked my department to review all the questions and my responses related to Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy so that I could give accurate information to people like Mr Hide. Certainly the email was directly given to him rather than through the normal process. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: When the Minister received the Treasury report did he actually read its contents; if so did it occur to him that at least some of the information in the document was at variance with answers to parliamentary questions he furnished and that he therefore had an obligation to tell this Parliament that some of that information was wrong? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is important to understand that accuracy is accurate and that I asked my department to labour over the 200 questions and those parts in that report. I have repeated the answer to that question three times. I am more than happy to repeat it a fourth time. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On several occasions today the Minister has been asked two questions: one about a date and it appears impossible to get the answer to that from the Minister; and secondly whether he read the report. The question that my colleague asked started with: “Did the Minister read the report?”. We are simply not getting an answer. The Minister cannot be ruled to be addressing the question when he talks about the report. The question is very narrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the question and I listened to the answer. I took from the Minister’s reply that when he had received the report and had observed what was in it he sent it off to a department. That was what I took out of the answer and I thought that addressed the question. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To the question: “Did the Minister read the report?” one assumes that part of the answer will be either “Yes” or “No”. The fact that you took from it that the Minister received the report and sent it to the department—we all know that. We did not ask him whether he sent it to the department. It arrived in his office and he sent it to the department. We just want to know whether he opened it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is irrelevant to me. I have to adjudge whether he addressed the question. He did. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: From the Minister’s previous response is he saying that he has no confidence in the accuracy of Treasury reports; if so what does that say about the Minister responsible for Treasury? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If that member would labour over the part that I directed the ministry to read the report I have the utmost confidence in the ability of Treasury. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Confidence in Advice 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is he satisfied with the quality of advice that he receives from his officials? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: The Minister for Social Development and Employment receives a wide range of advice on a wide range of issues and overall he is very satisfied with that advice. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer to my oral question on 1 April 2003 regarding sickness benefits that: “There has been no migration at all from the unemployment benefit to those forms of benefits.” when figures supplied by his own department show there were 13000 transfers from the dole to the sickness benefit last year which is a 13 percent increase in this type of transfer since 2000? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In relation to the member’s question from 1 April that lifestyle beneficiaries are seeking the sickness benefit as an easier option to the unemployment benefit I repeat the answer to the question on that day and stand by that: people who are on a sickness or an invalids benefit are there because they are sick or have an impairment. They do not migrate on to the sickness or invalids benefit as an easier option. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister identify particular advice with which he was satisfied? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes he can. He was particularly pleased with the thoroughness and quality of the advice its timeliness and the cooperative approach his officials adopted in the work on the Families Commission proposal a proposal in which the views of United Future as well as of the Government needed to be taken into account. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister now accept that there has been a significant migration from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: People who are entitled to receive either the sickness or the invalids benefit because of their illness or impairment may well have developed to that condition and therefore entitlement while on the unemployment benefit. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware that there is a difference in the level of payment between the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit and that there has traditionally been a migration of a small number of people moving to that benefit because of the higher rate of pay; and has that been incorporated into work the department is doing around getting a much more even entitlement to benefits across the board? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am aware of the difference in both the level of income and also the work-testing requirement between the three benefits. I want to repeat that a person is entitled to receive the sickness and the invalids benefit only if he or she meets the criterion of being ill or having an impairment. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to officials’ advice on drafting the Care of Children Bill does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that declaring a lesbian mother’s partner a child’s father is a trivial issue; and how does he think that all the biological fathers of New Zealand feel knowing that according to this Government a father is now just a drafting technique? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not only do I agree with the Prime Minister’s answer in response to the question yesterday but I also want to reflect on the trivialisation that that member makes of a number of very fine parenting contributions by New Zealand citizens regardless of their gender. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the member used that question to put a slur on a member of Parliament and you should ask her to withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no comments during points of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It was a very political question which invited a political answer. What goes around does comes around in this place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the member take personal offence? 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Speaker. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we have had that point of order and the member has made the withdrawal. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister been made aware of the fact that the growth of the number of people on the sickness benefit in the last 3 years is primarily driven by an increase in just a few categories of incapacity such as depression which has increased by 17 percent; and other psychological problems which have increased by 58 percent; and that the number of people claiming the benefit due to stress has soared by 56 percent? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. 
Judy Turner 
: In the light of the increasing number of people on sickness benefit with some sort of psychological condition such as stress has the Minister asked officials to change the rules to require applicants to seek verification from a specialist in this area rather than a general practitioner who can write out a prescription for antidepressants without a clinical reference? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I regret that I am not aware of that particular provision being considered by the officials but I would be happy to provide further information to that member as it becomes available. 
Judy Turner 
: If the Minister stands by what is said and his officials are so certain that the increase of those on the sickness benefit is not caused by transfers from the dole why has he announced that $400000 of the $8 million to be spent on social research will be allocated to investigate why the numbers on the sickness benefit are increasing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Can I suggest that the member initially reflects on the specificity of my answer to her primary question—which I now repeat because she has misinterpreted it: I do not support the view that she asserted in the House on 1 April that lifestyle beneficiaries are seeing the sickness benefit as an easier option to the unemployment benefit. 
Police—Staffing 
3.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he confident that police numbers at present are sufficient to ensure police are fully aware of street activity in their areas? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: Yes; however the police also rely on the community to report any suspicious or unlawful behaviour. 
Ron Mark 
: If that is the case and the Minister is confident he has control over the situation why were police able to locate some 2000 under-17-year-olds over just 4 nights last week in a special operation which resulted in some 300 youths being identified as “at risk” requiring the police to return them to their homes? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It shows that the police are doing a thoroughly good job. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister outline the current staff resources in the New Zealand Police? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Police numbers have risen steadily during the term of the Labour-led Government to around 9559 personnel including 7400 sworn and 2159 non-sworn staff—the highest numbers ever. That contrasts with the National Party’s Martin report which was going to cut staff by 540. 
Richard Worth 
: Does the Minister stand by his reported comments in the  
Dominion Post  
that police are not understaffed and that they have been given all the resources they asked for; if so is he trying to tell the House that the police did not actually ask for 169 police officers in Auckland over a 3-year period? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I can confirm that the commissioner asked for that but that is what commissioners must do and that is what all chief executives do. The important point is that police numbers are the highest ever and the police budget is the largest it has ever been. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is it correct that in Opposition the Minister was a lion roaring for more police funding but is now a Cabinet lamb and has seen his share of total Government spending on police fall every single year he has been Minister? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not understand that having police out walking the streets in our communities 24 hours a day 7 days a week dealing with young people in the streets and truants is bread-and-butter policing which reduces entry-level crime and that that can never be substituted for by special operations that come along once in a blue moon only when the situation has got totally out of hand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I do understand that and that is why we increased police numbers. 
Ron Mark 
: How can community policing ever be catered for when we have these headlines: “Truancy swoops catch 900 in a week”; “Tax alcohol fails to hit streetwise kids”; “1753 youths picked up in second phase of special operation”; “2000 children— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the point please. 
Ron Mark 
: —and how can those police numbers ever cope with that sort of lawlessness on the streets; and does the Minister seriously believe that the country is going to pick up the tab by sitting out there itself policing the streets in the manner that he suggested in his first answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was too long. The Minister may comment on two of the questions. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Every question that that member asked demonstrates what a fabulous job the New Zealand Police are doing. 
Maori Affairs Minister—Answers to Written Questions 
4.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: On what date or dates did Mr Leith Comer apologise to him for embarrassing him with incorrect answers to parliamentary questions as reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 31 May and what were the specific questions that Mr Comer apologised for on each occasion? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I received an apology in writing from Mr Leith Comer on 10 April 2003 for an incorrect answer to question No. 2261 which was about training wananga. I am advised by Mr Comer that this was the apology he referred to when being interviewed by the  
Dominion Post. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters have now been the subject of a report by Treasury dated 30 May has the Minister read that report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Could the member repeat the question please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes please repeat the question. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister or anyone is perfectly at liberty to ask for a question to be repeated. I ask the member to repeat the question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters were the subject of a report by Treasury dated 30 May has the Minister read that report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The report was a totally different issue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to advise me whether you regard that as a satisfactory answer in terms of addressing the question. I asked a very specific question to which I believe it would be quite difficult to provide an answer that did not include either the word “Yes” or the word “No”. I put it to you that the Minister did not refer to the question I asked in terms of giving an adequate answer under the Standing Order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Not only did the Minister seek to address the question he actually answered it absolutely precisely. If the member had cared to listen to the Minister’s first answer instead of reading out his pre-prepared supplementary question he would not have asked that supplementary question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I refer to Speaker’s ruling 129/6 which states quite clearly: “A Minister must attempt to give a reasonable answer …”. The Speaker’s ruling does go on to state that one may not be satisfied with the answer but the test here is whether that was a reasonable answer. I do not believe that anyone in the Opposition and most people who would answer honestly on the Government benches could possibly say that that was a reasonable answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further comment on that. The Minister was asked a question and he most certainly did address it in his answer. 
Lynne Pillay 
: When was the corrected reply to question for written answer No. 2261 lodged? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The corrected answer was lodged on 1 May 2003. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister read the report into Te Mangai Paho prepared by Treasury dated 30 May of this year? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This supplementary question does not relate to the original question and answer. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It does. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh no it does not; the members have not listened to the original answer. The original answer related to question for written answer No. 2261 the report of 30 May. It does not relate to those but to other matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes that is perfectly correct. This question relates to another issue. However I will allow the member to restate his question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the matters that caused Mr Comer to feel a need to apologise to the Minister were the subject of a report prepared by Treasury on 30 May did the Minister read that report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said quite specifically that they were not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member now will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will leave the Chamber. I am not having anyone comment on the issue of this Chair. 
Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now I am happy to hear a point of order from the Hon Murray McCully. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It is well accepted now and the Minister has confirmed that the chief executive of his department felt a need to apologise to him over some matters. The Minister today wants to assert that that apology was in relation to one question. That question was amongst those covered by a report of Treasury. I want to know and I think the House is entitled to an answer on this whether the Minister took the step of reading the report to ascertain whether the matter that Mr Comer apologised for was referred to in that report. That is a perfectly legitimate question for a member to ask in relation to the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask the Minister one question: was that issue referred to in that Treasury report? [ 
Interruption 
] I will not have any comments like that. I will get advice then I will ask the Minister a question or other people will leave too. Was the question the chief executive apologised over on 10 April in that Treasury report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the broad context yes. But can I note that the apology tabled by the chief executive is here which I am prepared to table in detail. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to ask his question. It is perfectly correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We thank you for your assistance but the situation has become slightly murky. There is considerable confusion on the part of some members in the House because this apology relates to question No. 2261 not one of the specific group referred to and not one of the group that was investigated by Treasury. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I can only rely and I suggest that you can only rely on the Minister’s word in this respect. He has just said to the House that in a broad sense to summarise his words the matter is referred to in the Treasury report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct. The Minister did say that. I would now like him to address the question that was asked by the Hon Murray McCully. I ask the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters were the subject of a report into Te Mangai Paho by Treasury on 30 May did the Minister read that report? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite clear from answers given to the House that these matters were not the subject of that report. The corrected answer had been given to this House before that report was received. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I reiterate and support what my colleague said then. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can assist this House in a way that will help the Government with its point. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: No thanks! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber. I said there were to be no comments during points of order. 
Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: If I may just get the dates right this point is actually in support of Dr Cullen and the Hon Trevor Mallard. The report came out on 28 May. Mr McCully and I presented a report showing that incorrect answers were given on 29 May. On 30 May the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri held a press conference where he explained in response to the Hon Murray McCully and my report that he had apologised for providing incorrect information to the Minister of Maori Affairs. The natural conclusion of the journalists who were receiving Mr Comer’s report was that the apology was for the questions that formed the basis of the Treasury report. It is also a confusion that up until today I have been labouring under and probably members of this House have also been labouring under. The difficulty that the Minister of Maori Affairs has is that he does not realise that the report does not actually cover question No. 2261 because he has not read it. Therefore the Hon Trevor Mallard’s point is right. Mr McCully cannot ask his question because the report has nothing whatsoever to do with what the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri was apologising for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I think on this occasion I am going to agree completely with what Mr Hide said. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We now have a further difficulty because the Minister actually in answer to the question put to him by you made the statement that in broad terms it did refer to written question No. 2261. One of the members is now incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps we can solve this matter. The member will ask his question without the word “given” at the start. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister read the Treasury report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Several times. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister expect his chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri Mr Comer to advise him immediately that he Mr Comer discovered he had incorrectly advised the Minister who as a consequence of that advice had misled Parliament; if that is so how come he did not receive that advice until 9 June? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the first instance yes. Can I say that in relation to parliamentary question No. 2261 on 10 April I received a letter from Mr Leith Comer apologising specifically for that matter. The corrected reply was lodged on 1 May and that member may recall that the adjournment was between 14 and 25 April. I returned to the office on 28 April and I want—hopefully for the last time—to repeat this: when I received the external report on 28 May I asked my department to review all the questions and my responses relating to Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy. My officials provided me with a report on 9 June and I lodged the 13 corrected answers yesterday. 
Schools—Innovative Programmes 
5.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What announcements has he made today to support innovative programmes in schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Two groups have received funding from the Government’s collaborative innovation fund. Our early childhood services primary and secondary schools in the Napier area have received just over $100000 and I am told that is supported by the Minister of Finance. This group is working together to ensure smooth transitions for students as they move through each stage of their education. The amount of $315000 has gone to three high schools in Invercargill. These schools are collaborating to provide an education and intervention programme for students at risk of suspension. 
Helen Duncan 
: What is the overall purpose of the fund? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The overall purpose of the fund is to support collaborative projects that aim to do new and innovative things especially regarding teaching and learning between schools. For too long schools and early childhood services have been encouraged to go it alone. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Minister told the Prime Minister that while he has been busily creating these new innovations he has not bothered to do anything about anachronistic regulations—such as the attendance regulations—which still refer to the principal as the “headmaster” and use terminology such as “his school” indicating that only males are worthy of the role; or is it the case that if women can be fathers then female principals can be headmasters? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I thank the member for pointing that out to me at the select committee yesterday. Yesterday the select committee provided quite a lot of interesting information and the issue of suspension was canvassed pretty substantially—unfortunately for poor old Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why in the select committee did the Minister take so much issue with my use of a particular word that he had used in this Parliament on three occasions; is he that precious? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think that I am particularly precious. However I do not like being called a liar by someone who has no attachment to facts. 
Economy—Reserve Bank Forecasts 
6.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank’s judgment that the New Zealand economy may contract this quarter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes these days I find myself increasingly in agreement with the Reserve Bank’s judgments even when I do not like them. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that a comparison between Australian Treasury forecasts on the one hand and forecasts by the New Zealand Reserve Bank and the New Zealand Treasury on the other hand suggests that the gap between New Zealand and Australian living standards will widen over the next 3 years; if so when does he expect the New Zealand public to see evidence that the current gap of some $200 per week between the average New Zealand weekly income and that in Australia is beginning to narrow? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly at market exchange rates that gap has narrowed substantially over the last year but widened out slightly again over the last few months. The member will also be noting that the Australians keep winding back their forward forecast very substantially even over recent days. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is driving the bank’s assessment that the economy may contract and how long does it think such a contraction would last? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The bank expects that if there is a contraction it will be temporary due to timing issues all being concentrated in the June quarter—specifically the negative effects of the drought power price rises and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Both the bank and Treasury are forecasting a solid rebound in the later part of this year and also into 2004-05. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister aware that Treasury’s latest Budget forecasts show that average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita growth both over the 5-year forecast period and the 10-year projection period will be lower than average GDP per capita growth during the last decade; if so does that not suggest that his Government has totally failed to lift New Zealand’s average GDP per capita growth rate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Despite the fact that over the last couple of years we have been going through the longest bear market since the 1930s New Zealand has maintained higher growth than most other OECD countries. The 1990s were the longest bull market in modern history. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister answered the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do. I think the Minister addressed the question. 
Biosecurity—Post-border Control 
7.  
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: How many biosecurity incursions requiring post-border eradication and control have there been in the last 5 years and what is the estimated cost to New Zealand of these events? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: Approximately 30 significant biosecurity incursions over the past 5 years have cost New Zealand in the order of $100 million. Those are rough estimates and I suggest that to get the precise number the member puts down a question for written answer. This is the best that can be done in the time available. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why has the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s budget been cut for essential research such as the development of mechanical sniffers for sea containers and for education programmes for travellers and importers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One million dollars has been spent on an operation in relation to investigating further work on sea containers and the Government is expecting to make an announcement soon in relation to more effective inspection of sea containers. 
David Parker 
: What evidence can the Minister point to to show that the Government takes biodiversity seriously? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Auditor-General’s report on biosecurity shows that the Government is spending more than $50 million a year above the baseline biosecurity funding that we inherited. We continue to look for ways to tighten our biosecurity measures. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Associate Minister for Biosecurity’s answer to the House a couple of weeks ago when she said: “I think that finding only six incursions in the last fortnight shows that we are very good at surveillance.” is the Government now prepared to accept that more money needs to be spent on surveillance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister for Biosecurity will continue to urge upon the Minister of Finance the need for increased spending in these areas. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Will the Minister accept that the biosecurity database of pests that are potentially damaging to New Zealand’s agriculture and economy is inadequate and will he now take steps to upgrade the database to include all the pests of our trading partners so that they will be swiftly identified on arrival and promptly eradicated thereafter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government continues to expand its operations in these areas. We accept the need for increased activity and surveillance but it is unlikely that we will ever be 100 percent proof against biosecurity incursions. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Why does the Government think that New Zealand’s economy and ecosystems are worth less than the $190 per container it would cost to inspect 100 percent of all containers arriving at our ports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has to be some consideration of the total economic benefits here—the cost of inspection versus the cost of eradication versus the cost of control versus the cost of damage in some instances. For example in the case of the painted apple moth the total cost to date of the eradication programme is now approaching the bottom end of the estimated cost of simply allowing the moth to spread. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Given that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry set traps in a 1-kilometre radius round the infestation of the gum leaf skeletoniser moth even though the female moth is known to fly more than 2 kilometres can the Minister explain why the ministry lacks even a basic understanding of the ecology of this moth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have to confess that I am not in a position to advise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the basic ecology of gum leaf skeletonitis. 
Shane Ardern 
: Can neither the Minister for Biosecurity nor the Minister of Finance concede that as we have budgeted up to $90 million for the eradication of the painted apple moth spending a little bit more on surveillance—given that we spend about $25 million on that at the moment—would be a sound investment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said we are spending an extra $50 million a year on baseline spending over and above that we inherited. I repeat that however much we spend on biosecurity it is unlikely we will prevent all incursions—some things swim here and some things come through the air from Australia. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How many biosecurity incursions have there been over the last 5 years that his ministry has abandoned all attempts to eradicate and what is the cost of that abandonment to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information to answer that question. I would have to have another question put down to answer it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How many more times does the Minister envisage that entire urban communities will have to be blanket-sprayed with the pesticide Foray 48B because the Government refuses to put proper biosecurity measures in place at the border? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that even with the best biosecurity measures—and we have some of the very best in the world—one cannot give a 100 percent guarantee that there will never be another incursion by a species such as the painted apple moth. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is it still true that couriered mail is not included in the claimed “100 percent inspection of incoming international mail”; if so does the Minister believe that those people who seek to deliberately bring biosecurity-risk goods into New Zealand do not know about that defect in our system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot answer that question. I would have to have another question put down to answer it. 
Methamphetamines—Production 
8.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: Has he received any reports on trends in the importation of substances intended for the production of methamphetamine? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The Customs Service has reported that in the first half of this year it has already seized 315000 ephedrine and pseudoephedrine-based tablets compared with 254000 in 2002 and just 32600 in 2001. This methamphetamine would have a street value of approximately $1 million. 
Dave Hereora 
: To what factors has the Customs Service attributed this sharp rise in its seizure figures of those substances? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The service believes that the sharp rise in the supply of illicit precursor substances from overseas is because the domestic supply of these products is being tightened up by the police working with pharmacists. Local methamphetamine producers have turned elsewhere to secure the necessary precursor supplies to continue this extremely profitable but highly illegal criminal enterprise. 
Cardiac Surgery—Waiting Times 
9.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why will heart patients needing a bypass operation be able to access that surgery more easily in Auckland and Waikato needing only 35 points to qualify than in Wellington Christchurch or Dunedin where they need at least 50 points? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the treatment of patients requiring cardiac bypass surgery is being performed at the same level of acuity throughout New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How can she justify returning to a health structure that allows district health boards to set up different criteria—regardless of her comments about acuity—for access to surgery which means that if one lives in the lower North Island or in the South Island one is more at risk of dying from heart disease due to inability to access bypass surgery than if one lives in the upper North Island? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can justify putting in place a system that implements clinical assessment criteria. It was promised by Jenny Shipley in 1996. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Thirty-five points. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it was never ever implemented under a National Government. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Yes it was. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it was not ever implemented. The first time the clinical priority assessment criteria were implemented in New Zealand was in the year 2000. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Has the Minister been advised of any possible anomalies between regions in the use of clinical assessment tools for cardiac procedures? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes the Ministry of Health has advised me that it believes the clinical conditions of patients requiring cardiac surgery within 6 months are the same but the points system as utilised by clinicians may not be being used uniformly. I am having that investigated. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does she agree with the statement made by Christchurch surgeon Phil Bagshaw on 29 May 2003 that the points system adopted by Christchurch Hospital is bureaucratic and that people in genuine need of operations are missing out; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree with Phil Bagshaw. The booking system started to be implemented in 1996 and the aim of it was to give patients certainty that they would receive an operation. This Government has ensured that they receive certainty that they will get an operation within 6 months. Christchurch was the last district health board in New Zealand to implement such a programme. 
Heather Roy 
: How does the Minister explain the fact that heart patients are being discharged from hospital without the treatment they need when the reason for that is that the Auckland District Health Board receives funding of $2261 per person compared with the Southland District Health Board receiving $993 per person because the health funding is based on race? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I totally reject the assumption that that member has made. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Minister not simply step in and require all district health boards to operate the same points system for eligibility for heart surgery given that she is explicitly required under section 9 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act to ensure there are nationally consistent standards and nationally consistent performance monitoring in place for all health services including heart surgery? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all there are not nationally consistent criteria throughout New Zealand. Since 2000 we have been trying to implement them. The member takes a very simplistic approach if she thinks that I can order clinicians to do exactly the same thing in every hospital. All that we can do is to provide the assessment tools and to ask the boards and clinicians to work with them. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How can the Minister expect this House and New Zealanders to believe that heart patients’ clinical conditions are the same but their points are different; and can she explain exactly how she intends to ensure national consistency of health care across New Zealand when 5 years ago Labour was describing the cardiac points difference as “scandalous” and when in 1998 she severely criticised it by saying it was “unacceptable that accidents of geography can determine who lives and who dies”—which is exactly the system that she set up and that the country has gone back to? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The former Minister of Health who put in place the booking system under a National Government led New Zealanders to believe that a clinical assessment criteria system had been put in place. That was not true; in fact there were no clinical assessment criteria. There were no points being used—although that Government said there were. They did not even start to be used until the year 2000 so the people of New Zealand were duped by the previous Government. Let me read this to the House: “Bill English said the booking system was working very well in 1998”. That was the year that 28 people died on the cardiac waiting list. 
Heather Roy 
: What does the Minister say to the families of heart patients who are denied treatment because the health dollars for their heart operations have been diverted to race-based funding irrespective of need simply in order to buy this Government votes? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would say to the people who said that that they were plain wrong. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I note that the Hon Damien O’Connor has resumed his seat and I seek the leave of the House to ask the questions again that Dr Cullen was unable to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave for anything. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Sentencing Act—Reparations 
10.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he intend to review the Sentencing Act 2002 in light of the halving of the sentence of Ding Yan Zhao; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. The Sentencing Act maintains longstanding requirements for the courts in determining a sentence to ensure consistency with sentences in comparable cases which was a factor in Justice Randerson’s decision. It also requires the judge to weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the offender’s actions and to take account of the views of victims. The expression of remorse has always been regarded as a relevant mitigating factor. When that remorse leads to the making of amends to a victim the victim’s response must be taken into account. That is set out clearly in section 10 of the Act and requires no further clarification. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister certain that the victims in the Zhao case defined by section 4(1) of the Sentencing Act as “every member of the immediate family … ” in the case of a deceased person were party to any offer or agreement to make amends as referred to in section 10 of the Act; and as it appears that the father and mother of the deceased child were not consulted in that way surely that is a ground on which to encourage the Solicitor-General to lodge an appeal in this case—an encouragement that I hope would have the overwhelming support of this House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: First with regard to the latter point it is not appropriate for me to involve myself as Minister of Justice in matters before the court. I do however have a concern as to whether the court was aware that the payment of money to a kindergarten did meet the requirements of section 10 and whether that was regarded by the victims as a mitigating factor. It is not clear at all to me whether the court was aware of that but only the judge can answer that question. 
Tim Barnett 
: Does the Sentencing Act require the court to take into account an offer by the offender to make amends to the victim? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes section 10 of the Sentencing Act does that. It is very much the same provision as was in section 12 of the previous Act the Criminal Justice Act. Making amends—and remorse—is one of the factors that the judge must take into account. Equally that section requires the court to consider the genuineness of the offer and also whether the victim accepts that offer as making amends—that is mitigating the wrong. That the judge must take the making of amends into account means that he or she must bear that in mind in determining the appropriate sentence. It does not necessarily mean that the judge has to use it as a factor in reducing the sentence. 
Richard Worth 
: In the light of a widespread public perception that those with money may by making reparation payments secure a lesser sentence why will he not review the Sentencing Act so that rich and poor people are punished equally and the rich do not secure an advantage? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is of course absolutely fundamental that the financial means of the offender do not influence the sentence given but I would not want as I have seen the impression to be left in the House that the court was other than in agreement with that sentiment. As the judge in the High Court when talking about the District Court judge correctly pointed out in paragraph 19 of the sentencing notes: “Offenders and their families should not have any grounds to believe that they may be able effectively to buy themselves out of prison by making an offer of reparation or amends under section 10. ... However I entirely agree with the sentencing judge that the courts will not tolerate some form of chequebook justice.” Both the District Court judge and the High Court judge emphatically stood behind the principle that the ability to pay money ought not to influence the outcome of the case. 
Marc Alexander 
: What action if any can the Minister take to ensure that the victim’s view on reparation and whether that makes amends to the victim is conveyed to the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have discussed that matter with the Ministry of Justice. The ministry has been in direct contact with the police prosecutions division. As a result of that discussion the police will remind all police prosecutors that in cases where the defence is making a submission that amends have been made or offered the prosecutor must firstly find out whether the amends have actually been made and secondly find out the victim’s response to that offer and whether he or she sees that as mitigating the wrong done to him or her. It is most important that the court through the Crown or the police is made aware of the victim’s views in that regard—and accurately. 
Dail Jones 
: Was the Minister correctly reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today on page A3 in referring to what he said on  
Holmes 
 last night when it stated: “Phil Goff said it was unacceptable and contrary to the Victims Rights Act for victims not be informed.”; what steps will he take to make sure that this type of dreadful situation will not recur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was absolutely correctly interpreted in that article. It is unacceptable—it is intolerable—that the victim was not advised of the hearing date for the appeal case. That is a statutory obligation of the agencies. I have made inquiries of my colleague the Minister for Courts. The courts state that a junior staff member failed to do that notwithstanding the fact that that person was reminded by a supervisor. Disciplinary action will be decided upon by the department. Most important the department will put in place from this point on a check to ensure that that advice is given to a victim before a matter goes to court. 
Child Youth and Family Services—Child Caregiver 
11.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: When was Child Youth and Family Services notified that an 11-year-old boy was not attending school because successive State-funded carers refused to look after his tetraplegic grandfather and what action was taken at the time to ensure he could attend school? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am advised that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was notified of the case on 1 May. It then contacted the Accident Compensation Corporation which had already been in contact with the family’s general practitioner. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services then contacted the school which contacted the boy’s father who advised he was not available to discuss the issue for a further fortnight. In the meantime the school initiated a truancy prosecution. The department also contacted the Care and Protection Resource Panel visited the boy at home and today attended a further meeting with other Government agencies to determine continuing action to resolve the issues. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it not a damning comment on the service when a case of an 11-year-old boy who is not attending school because he is caring for a severely disabled grandparent is not seen as critical but as the third-lowest level of urgency to be dealt with in 7 days and that after 6 weeks the child is still not in an environment where school attendance is ensured? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: What I would say is a damning indictment not on the department but on our society is the fact that we have many more children who are more critically in need of support than that boy. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are Government agencies doing now to ensure the boy’s well-being? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A number of Government agencies are actively involved in this case. They are continuing to work together to provide a coordinated response to ensure that the boy does attend school and that the boy’s and the grandfather’s needs are met. 
Youth—Development Programmes 
12.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What evidence is there of positive education training and employment outcomes for participants in the youth development programmes funded by the Ministry of Youth Affairs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Excellent outcomes were achieved for a range of young people participating in Youth Affairs youth development programmes. Sixty percent of participants in such programmes go on to further education training or employment. 
Darren Hughes 
: What proportion of young people on those programmes actually find their way into real jobs rather than further education and training? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Well over one-third of participants end up in employment based on the 6-monthly outcome indicators for the period to June 2002. For Conservation Corps participants 39 percent ended up in employment 11 percent in training and 7 percent in education. For Youth Service Corps participants 35 percent ended up in employment 14 percent in training and 11 percent in education. 
Paul Adams 
: In the light of the fact that even the last National Government spent more on youth development programmes—20 percent more in fact—than this present one how does the Minister justify spending an extra $1 million this year on policy advice whilst valuable youth development programmes are left starving for cash? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The figures read out by that member do not square with the knowledge that I have. I would more than welcome the opportunity to engage with him at a later date with regard to the true dollar values being spent in the youth sector. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Debate resumed from 10 June. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As I finished my speech last night I was talking about the fantastic performance of an entity called Landcorp. It is an illustration of what a State-owned enterprise can do if it is given a consistent direction and has certainty about the longevity of its operations. This Government is committed to a State-owned enterprise model as a long-term shareholder and opposed to the sort of hold-for-sale stance of its predecessor Government the National Party. 
Landcorp made a profit of $38 million and when we came into Government the Primary Production Committee was advised by board members that under us—a Labour-led Government—they could at last put in place long-term business strategies and grow the business. The problem they had under the previous National administration was that Landcorp was always classed as an asset that was to be put on the block for sale. If one is running a business—as I have and other members have—one knows that without certainty one cannot put in place decent long-term business strategies and plans from which to grow that business and its profits. So what Landcorp—one of our leading agricultural entities and an asset of which the Crown is the custodian—has been able to do is provide the taxpayer with a $38 million profit. That is the difference I suppose between members opposite and us. As I said last night we are doers and builders; we are not wreckers and vandals. We do not sell off the family silver as they do. 
An illustration of that as I pointed out last night is the National Party’s position on State-owned enterprises in respect of Tranz Rail. As members know this Government is in the process of purchasing back the track and when Mr Sowry the Opposition spokesperson was asked by a Minister of Transport what he would he would do if he inherited that track as purchased by us he said: “We will wait and see.” That tells the people of New Zealand that the National Party has for the first time announced a policy. That policy is a recycling of a State-owned enterprise policy that was rejected in not one but two elections. The New Zealand people now know that if National got back—heaven forbid and it will not happen for a very long time—it would again embark on an asset sales programme that would involve the sale of the Accident Compensation Corporation which we took back into ownership to fulfil a promise. It would involve the sale of the Tranz Rail track; the sale—even though it is not classed as an State-owned enterprise—of the existing shares in Air New Zealand; the sale of hospitals schools and the like. 
I am glad that policy is out in the open. I know that Simon Power an up and coming leader of the National Party is not glad it is out in the open. We can now go to the stump at the next election and tell the New Zealand people what we truly know and it is that the National Party is a sell sell sell party. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Member’s withdrawal from Chamber  
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During question No. 4 in the name of the Hon. Murray McCully Rodney Hide called a point of order and you asked me to leave the House. I do not challenge that but I am seeking clarification from you of the process when a member calls a point of order and prefaces it with an offer to help the Government. He prefaced his point of order with that statement which suggested that he was asking whether he could help the Government and I think  
Hansard 
 will clearly show that. My reply was “No thanks”. I am asking the Speaker to consider the ruling in terms of the seriousness of my offence and to perhaps consider whether it was worthwhile evicting me from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it was because the member interjected on a point of order. When a person offers to help the Government I usually think that that is an unusual request particularly coming from the quarter it did. 
Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises 
Debate resumed. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 One of the Crown entities reviewed by the Maori Affairs Committee was Te Mangai Paho. That Crown entity was established under the Broadcasting Act to promote Maori language and Maori culture by making funds available for Maori broadcasting and the production of Maori programmes. The Greens want to make clear their support for the purpose of Te Mangai Paho—that is to fund Maori programmes and broadcasting—and to say that we are very pleased with for example its mission statement which is: “Tuhia te ha o te reo Maori ki te rangi e kaha ai te mapu o te manawa ora kia rekareka ai te taringa whakarongo kia waiwai ai nga karu matakitaki.” That is translated as: “Let the language be heard on the airwaves thereby causing the heart to leap with joy the ear to appreciate its eloquence and the eyes to moisten at its impact.” Te Mangai Paho’s vision is: “Ahakoa ki whea ahakoa awhea ahakoa pewhea korero Maori.” That is translated as: “Speak Maori every day every way and everywhere.” Who could possibly disagree with that? 
It is true that the organisation has had some troubles recently. The recent report concerning Tame Te Rangi highlighted very serious problems in the management of conflicts of interest and monitoring of contracts. The report found that in general the systems in place were sound but that individuals with specific responsibilities failed to act appropriately. It is clear that governance structures were lacking and that management systems failed to deal with the problems effectively and efficiently. It is also clear that the responsible Minister did not have sufficient oversight of Te Mangai Paho and its management. Both the Minister and Te Mangai Paho are being held to account for those failures. Te Mangai Paho has already lost its chairman as a result and the Minister is certainly undergoing extensive criticism for his role. We do not doubt that the organisation will act swiftly to put in measures to identify conflicts and deal with them expeditiously. 
But I repeat that the Greens are supportive of the purpose of the organisation. Hence we entirely oppose any suggestion that Te Mangai Paho be absorbed into New Zealand On Air. We consider the current debate on the integration of Te Mangai Paho to be little more than an exercise in colonial assimilationist gutter politics. Nothing in the report or subsequently has called into question the purpose of Te Mangai Paho as an independent funder of Maori broadcasting. The necessity for this organisation is highlighted even more by the introduction of a Maori Television Service on New Zealand’s airwaves and we are very concerned that the success of that station is not undermined by an entirely unnecessary reform of the Maori broadcasting funder. There is no case for its assimilation into New Zealand On Air. Kia ora. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I would like to begin by saying that the Government is committed to ensuring that Crown entities and State-owned enterprises are working together with communities for the benefit of New Zealand. In that regard the Housing New Zealand Corporation provides access to decent homes helping New Zealanders to manage their own circumstances and contribute to community life. 
The 2003 Budget contains nearly $260 million in extra funding for housing low-income people and those at risk. Minister Steve Maharey who is very good at securing that kind of funding says it covers a 4-year period and that it consists of nearly $100 million to be spent on providing another 318 State homes as well as extending 80 houses to better suit larger families. That is on top of the State houses that were already planned. There is about $60 million to accelerate the modernisation programme for State houses on top of $30.5 million already planned over the next 3 years; $63 million to encourage greater involvement in housing by local government and third sector groups such as churches non-governmental organisations and Maori; about $26 million to provide an extra 77 community houses to be used by a range of community groups offering residential services such as Women’s Refuge and community health services; $5.3 million for a 2-year pilot home ownership mortgage insurance scheme. That scheme is scheduled to begin later this year but the details are still being developed. A million dollars is also to be spent on expanding Ministry of Housing tenancy information and education services with the focus particularly on at-risk groups. 
Housing New Zealand has had numerous achievements and I would like to highlight some more of them. At the second anniversary of the implementation of income-related rents nearly 53200 low-income State house tenants were paying an income-related rent saving on average about $35 every week—and in some areas of Auckland between $50 and $60 a week. Those kinds of savings have got to be a plus for low-income people and hopefully they will give those families extra money to spend in other areas of their budgets. Housing New Zealand Corporation has established new community renewal projects in five regions. Those regions are Fordlands in Rotorua Clendon in south Auckland Talbot Park in Glen Innes eastern Porirua and Aranui in Christchurch. That programme is designed to rejuvenate specific communities and address social issues affecting residents in areas where there is a high concentration of State housing. 
We are building up our State housing stock and have already added an extra 3200 homes since becoming the Government in December 1999. The National Government sold 11500 State houses during the 1990s—and I might just digress from my notes and remind that National Party that the Wairarapa electorate is virtually devoid of State housing. The stock of about 300 in that area was completely sold off and if my memory serves me correctly at an average price of about $18000. That was a fire sale and unfortunately at this stage we are unable to provide State housing for people on low incomes in the Wairarapa area. I am hoping that we will be able to address those issues when the housing needs of other areas of the country which are severe have been met. Finally there was the launch of the Healthy Housing project in March 2001 to improve the living conditions of hundreds of State house tenants. That project focuses on reducing diseases associated with overcrowding—such as meningococcal disease rheumatic fever and tuberculosis—and on generally improving conditions for Housing New Zealand properties. The project began as a pilot in Otara Mangere and Onehunga and this year it will expand to Glen Innes Whangarei Clendon Manurewa and Fordlands in Rotorua. 
Housing New Zealand and housing for low-income people is within the ambit of the Social Services Committee and that is why I chose to concentrate on that particular area today. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 In rising to speak in this debate on State-owned enterprises Crown-owned companies and Crown entities I would like to speak today about a former State-owned enterprise very dear to New Zealanders that is now a Crown-owned company also known as a “CROC”. I refer of course to Television New Zealand. I suppose that because many people or most New Zealanders have a television sitting in their lounges they feel they have a greater sense of a relationship with that organisation than perhaps with a large number of other organisations that the Government has an involvement with. 
I have read Bill Ralston’s article this week and he made the comment that one of the major report-card comments that no Minister wants to get is an “FTD”—a failed to deliver comment. I think that is a fair comment aimed first at the previous Minister Marian Hobbs but now at the present Minister Steve Maharey. If one looks at some of the changes that have been imposed on TVNZ over the last 3 years one sees they have been very much driven by the Ministers involved and not driven by the organisation itself or by officials. In fact the changes made to TVNZ do not make sense. I recall having Treasury officials in front of our select committee to talk about some of the changes being made to TVNZ and they pointed out quite reasonably that the structural changes being imposed on TVNZ were unique. Rather euphemistically the officials said the changes were quite unlike any changes that had been made anywhere else not only in the State sector but in the private sector. But the changes were made and while initially the Government was looking at an unusual three-board structure which would have been both administratively cumbersome as well as expensive it was finally decided to split BCL from TVNZ. 
Rather optimistically I had thought that the work would have been done on that particular restructuring but we found out at the eleventh hour that the Minister had not taken into account the fact that there would be implications for the Australian business. I wonder what the Minister was thinking or what advice he had been given particularly when one considers the Arthur Andersen report which members will recall cost the taxpayer $400000 and dealt with the wide range of issues to do with splitting BCL from TVNZ. One wonders how the Minister could have overlooked something as fundamental as the tax implications of that in Australia. If one looks at the Television New Zealand Act itself one sees it is a bit like a panzer tank—it rolls on until December 31. Unless the Minister wants to change that legislation there is provision for the split to take place between BCL and TVNZ. If that split is not to take place the Minister has to bring that back to the House because as I have said there is provision for the split to take place. 
An estimate has been made that the potential cost to the taxpayer could be— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the member. I wonder whether it might be possible to check the sound system. Members on the Government side of the House are having some difficulty in hearing the member’s wise words. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. The engineer will have heard that point of order. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: We have seen of course a great divide between the rhetoric that the Government has used to describe what it has done to TVNZ and what has actually occurred. This was supposed to be a sea change in the approach to broadcasting and yet the Government has stumped up with a mere $12 million to pay for additional programming. That is hardly enough to pay for one drama with a few documentaries thrown in for good measure. That is not even one-third of what the Government has offered for an America’s Cup challenge. 
The next point that the Government made was that there would be a huge increase in local content. If one looks at the celebration that this Government made of the announcement of local-content increases one sees there too an overstatement of what has actually occurred. Pretty much all the increase in local content in the last year can be attributed to coverage of the America’s Cup. If one actually looks in the figures and looks particularly at the genres that we thought we would see more of as a result of the TVNZ charter one sees there has been a reduction in first-run documentaries and current affairs. So once again the rhetoric does not match was has actually occurred with regard to TVNZ. 
We need to remember that when this Government took over TVNZ it was a jewel in the Government’s crown. TVNZ was one of the most valuable organisations that the New Zealand taxpayer owned. One valuation had been set at a level of $1.2 billion. Now we have an organisation that would be lucky to be valued at half that as a result of the changes the Government has made to what was once a valuable organisation. It is aptly named a “CROC” which most members would argue is a pretty unfortunate abbreviation. 
We need to look at where TVNZ is to go to from here. If it is to have any relevance as a public broadcaster within New Zealander then it needs to be able to be a successful one. At the moment it has been pretty much hamstrung by the changes the Government has made not the least being the uncertainty created as a result of this latest stuff-up of monumental proportions. I am referring to the failure to see the tax implications of the split wanted by the Minister. Once again taxpayers are to be asked to put their hands into their pockets to pay for a mistake that has been made. Can members imagine what would have happened if that $20 million had been put straight into local content? We could have funded a large number of documentaries with $20 million. 
If we look at all the reports that have been done by officials about the split we cannot find any comments that support the split or any comments that show that there are to be some long-term benefits for the company as a result of those changes being made. Quite clearly the Minister is driving those changes for the sake of wanting to look as though he is doing something that will make a difference. Let us remember that the Minister said that the legislation was required because none of the charter could be implemented under the previous legislation. That turned out to be absolute rubbish because when delay followed delay when it came to the implementation of the charter we saw that TVNZ was able to conduct its business as a State-owned enterprise plus achieve a number of socially responsible objectives at the same time. 
What has happened to TVNZ is a national scandal and a monumental stuff-up of huge proportions. All New Zealanders should be concerned that what was once a very fine and successful organisation that screened a huge amount of local content is now in the position of having been severely weakened to the point that if it is weakened any further it become irrelevant within the broadcasting environment. We need to get Steve Maharey down here into the House to explain to the New Zealand public how something as fundamental as a $20 million tax implication could have been overlooked. He has glossed over a huge mistake. We will watch very carefully to see what happens with the legislation. At the moment there is no provision for a split not to take place. If Mr Maharey does not go ahead and do that then he has to explain to the New Zealand public the reasons for those mistakes. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 There is nothing more important to the tangata whenua of this land than the survival and flourishing of our reo. There are two Crown entities charged with responsibility for protecting and promoting te reo Maori. They are the Maori Language Commission Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maoriand Te Mangai Paho. 
The furore in this House over Te Mangai Paho has reached fever speech. It began with conflicts of interest that involved an employee with a past conviction for fraud. I would have thought that that was a management matter. It became an investigation of who did or did not know certain things and who did or did not act. It has now become an issue of when things were known and who did or did not tell. That is nothing to do with te reo Maori which is the important issue for tangata whenua. The chairman of Te Mangai Paho has taken responsibility for the issues raised and he has resigned. The chief executive officer is still under investigation and my colleague the Minister is facing calls to sack him as well. The outrage of the Opposition is way out of proportion to the issues. However those members are baying for blood. Their noses are so close to the ground that they cannot see the bigger picture—that is the performance of Te Mangai Paho. 
Te Mangai Paho was set up to promote Maori language by funding the production and broadcasting of radio and television programmes. For this financial year Te Mangai Paho paid $29 million for 640 hours of television programmes. They include  
Pukana 
 the top children’s programme at the Qantas Media Awards  
Gang Girls 
 the top documentary and  
Marae 
 a 
finalist in the current affairs section. Top quality programmes cost Te Mangai Paho on average just half per episode what mainstream programmes cost. Over 3 years Te Mangai Paho has awarded 229 programme-making contracts of which three defaulted. Over that time it has received excellent audit reports from Audit New Zealand. 
Rodney Hide 
: So what Tame Te Rangi did was OK? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Is Mr Hide listening? Te Mangai Paho also funds a network of 21 iwi radio stations. Around half the Maori population regularly listens to the iwi radio. Together the stations receive $6 million per year compared with $22 million for National Radio. By those measures Te Mangai Paho is a very successful Crown entity. 
Both Te Mangai Paho and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori were born out of litigation and conflict. They are widely seen as giving Maori control over te reo Maori but in reality they are agents of the Crown and are accountable only to the Crown. Tangata whenua warned that those vehicles were not adequate but their warnings were not heeded. So there is tension built into the very structure of those organisations. It is not easy for them to maintain faith with Maori broadcasters and communities while they operate under the constraints of Crown agencies. 
Despite that people of great integrity and commitment venture into that minefield in order to secure some benefit for our people. They put their careers at risk and they deserve our thanks. If there is a scandal in Maori broadcasting it is the endless attacks on the work and integrity of Maori broadcasters and on the staff of Te Mangai Paho who are helping to keep te reo Maori alive for our future generations. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity to talk in this debate because there are some things that do need to be discussed— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: So much for researching your speech. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I have probably done as much research on it as the Minister of Maori Affairs has done on some of the questions he has got wrong. In fact I have probably done more research on this speech than he supposedly did on reading the report he said he had read several times. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs is a Crown entity. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am not sure whether one could regard him as a Crown entity. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to get this right. This is a fixed-time debate and no one else rose for the call. National is set down to have two calls but I do not want our second call to go to me because we are scheduled to have the last speaking slot on the list. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure it will not. The member has the call. 
Dail Jones 
: Mr Speaker can you confirm for me that we are now up to the fifteenth speaker in the debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I could probably confirm that for you but it is not relevant. 
Dail Jones 
: It may not be relevant to you Mr Speaker but it is to us. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are on the fifteenth call. 
Dail Jones 
: New Zealand First has the seventeenth call. Hopefully I have been able to assist Mr Carter in the meantime. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would also like some clarification of the point that Mr Carter has raised if I may. His assessment in my view was quite correct. Ms Turia’s call was call 14. She spoke for a short time and sat down. Mr Carter took the call and I would assume given that there is an agreed roster that reflects the proportionality of the House that that is the equivalent of call 19—the one that the party would otherwise have had. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I actually thought the debate had come to an end because no one wanted to take the call. Mr Carter took the initiative. The next call would have been an ACT call. Its members were unable to take it. The following one was to be a Labour call. Mr Carter was the member who was alert. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I raise a further point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to have some clarification. I understand that Mr Hide has already taken a call but there was a 5-minute slot. So basically there is a bit of spare time and I just want clarification that that is the time I am filling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is the slot the member is filling. 
JOHN CARTER 
: So the next speaker who follows me is likely to be a Labour speaker. I will get back to the debate. I want to take just 2 or 3 short minutes to take up the spare time that has been allocated in this debate to talk about some of the events that have happened in respect of State-owned enterprises. 
One of the things that worries me about this debate is the standards that are being set. We have seen issues around incorrect information being given when questions have been asked of State-owned enterprises. Indeed we have had to bring State-owned enterprises before the Privileges Committee for example. That worries me when we tie that in with some of the answers we now see being incorrectly given by Ministers in this House who then have to come back to correct them. I must say that the standards that are being set by this Government are not to be accepted. 
I would have thought that David Benson-Pope the senior Government whip who certainly does a good job would want his colleagues to set a good standard. I imagine that quite often he goes home disappointed with what he sees; in fact he probably does so every day. I know he will be out there insisting that they get on and do the job— 
Rodney Hide 
: No. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well maybe he is not but I would like to think he would be. I would like to think David Benson-Pope is out there saying the standards the Government is setting are not good enough that the Government expects its Ministers and its State-owned enterprises to perform much better than they are that the Government expects Ministers to give the correct answers when they are asked questions and that Government members are not prepared to be made fools of like they have been. I wonder whether the senior Government whip is giving that message to his Ministers and to his caucus. If he is not then he is not doing his job properly because that message certainly needs to be given to the Government. 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I was absolutely overawed by that presentation. It sort of added to my literary knowledge of how to say nothing in 3 or 4 minutes. 
A e te iwi kua whakarongo mai i nga rarurarutanga o roto i tenei Whare Paremata mai ra ano kua mohio koutou i nga tangata e whakararuraru i a matau te iwi Maori. Engari e te iwi ka tu tonu matau nei ki te hapai tika i te kaupapa o tatau katoa. Nga kaupapa e whakatiaki mai i te reo me nga mahi o te pouaka tango whakaahua me era atu o nga taonga o o koro a kui ma. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Those of you listening in to the problems in this House of Parliament are aware that people have always found faults with us the Maori. But let me remind you we have always continued to take up matters that concern us all in a proper manner—matters relating to the protection of the language and to Maori television and those relating to the old people 
.] 
 The recent debate surrounding the issues of Te Mangai Paho and to some extent Te Puni Kokiri gives light to the total preoccupation of some members of this House in scoring brownie points. For example I remind the Hon Murray McCully who is loudly declaring that separate funding for Maori broadcasting should stop that not only was he part of the National Government that established Te Mangai Paho in 1994 he was also a member of the Cabinet that agreed in 1997 that Te Mangai Paho should be strengthened in its present form rather than abolished or merged with another organisation. 
I do not credit that honourable member with having the gift of prophecy. However the issue for me is that for some politics is about being a chameleon. We all understand the ability of the chameleon to change its colours to suit its environment. Because those members are now sitting in the Opposition benches another world view is being promoted. The motivation for that is entirely about gathering votes at the expense of Maori who as the Hon Tariana Turia has said have dedicated their total lives to filling the gaps left by the assimilation policies of previous Governments. That is an absolutely honest attempt. As a Government we are committed to increasing the capacities of our people and a failure at a managerial level should in no way encourage the kind of deluge that our people have been submitted to—both outside and inside this House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I’m not attacking your people. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: That is a matter of perception. Mr Rodney Hide would appear to be totally intoxicated with getting political brownie points—cheap brownie points. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take grave exception— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I know what was said. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It was a figure of speech and in no way related to the member’s sobriety. 
Rodney Hide 
: You might rule that it was a figure of speech— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has taken it the other way. He takes exception. Would the member please withdraw it. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I withdraw that statement. Speaking to the point of order the comment was not meant in the sense that the member probably interpreted it. 
The Minister made an attempt to clarify the issue and give a personal statement to the House. Of course the Opposition denied him leave to do so. We have acted—a Treasury report has taken place and an interim chair is currently working through the concerns raised by that report. 
Rodney Hide 
: Getting out the crooks! 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: I hope the member does a good job of that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I’ve done all right so far. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Let us forget about Tuku’s undies. An excellent article by John Tamihere states: “Maori broadcasting fronting agency Te Mangai Paho is audited by the Audit Office as with any other taxpayer-funded organisation yet it does not appear to be widely known that in its last audit the Audit Office rated Te Mangai Paho’s performance as ‘excellent’ in four of the five financial and service performance measures and ‘very good’ in the fifth. Te Mangai Paho is subject to the financial review process of the Maori Affairs select committee.” He also writes: “Suggestions that Maori are getting special treatment while not being required to meet the same standards and scrutiny as the rest of the population can be easily flung by politicians with an eye for easy point-scoring whatever the reality may be.” Maori normally endure double the scrutiny. 
If we want to be critical and raise issues of the same nature as those being raised by members of the ACT party we need to ask ourselves why ACT is happy for Donna Awatere-Huata to be still a member and for taxpayers to pay her $90000 a year plus allowances yet it denies her the vote. As to the cost of principles should ACT expel Donna Awatere-Huata she would be free to cast her own vote but ACT would lose $111000 in parliamentary funding for the year. That is real principle! 
Rodney Hide 
: I know how Parekura feels now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In any reference to members please use the proper form of address. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Our Government has a long-term commitment to working in partnership with whanau hapu and iwi Maori communities so that they reach their full potential. Budget 2003 demonstrated that the Government is committed to managing the country’s finances responsibly and lifting New Zealand’s economic performance. We have a strong stable Government and a responsible and cautious fiscal manager. Budget 2003 is about fiscal certainty and stability in an uncertain environment and balanced policies. Surpluses will be used to ensure long-term stability. 
I commend the Minister of Maori Affairs on the speed with which he has moved to address outstanding issues related to Te Mangai Paho. Maori are a small community in which kinship ties are tribally very close—for example when the previous chair resigned—and there are a whole set of issues surrounding that. It took courage and the Minister should be acknowledged for that. I am not standing here defending Mr Te Rangi in whatever form—not at all. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about Hemana Waaka? 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Who is he? 
Rodney Hide 
: He’s the guy who was paying them off. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Is that member giving the speech or am I? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the floor is yours. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: In that regard the Minister said Mr Te Rangi’s resignation came far too late and that the management and board of Te Mangai Paho must therefore take a share of the responsibility. That is absolutely about accountability. Although I consider the resignation of Mr Curtis to be the appropriate action I want to acknowledge the tremendous contribution Toby has made to Te Mangai Paho over the last 8 years. He is another Maori person who has committed himself to bringing reality to Maori needs in respect of our care for our language and how we want to determine what broadcasting and television can do for us. 
In conclusion I will quote once more from John Tamihere: “There is a growing demand from both Maori and non-Maori for Maori-orientated programmes that are relevant and accessible. The international success of the film  
Whale Rider 
 demonstrates how taking themes and ideas that are undeniably Maori and making them accessible to all has huge potential benefits—not only for Maori but for New Zealand as a whole.” Let me broaden that from the perspective of our national interest to that of our international interest. That film has promoted Maori cosmology beliefs and mythology to the world. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
A tena koe e te Kaiwhakawa engari i mua i te haere tonu i waku korero i te ahiahi nei he mihi tenei ki a koutou. Ahau nei horekau i whakahe wo korero e te mema mai i Te Tai Tonga. Engari maku e mea atu ki a koe te nuinga o nga taumahatanga i taka mai kei runga i to tatou whanaunga a Parekura ehara i taka ana kei runga ki a ia anahe engari aua taumahatanga i taka mai kei runga i a tatou nga mema Maori katoa. Na reira maku e meatia ki a koutou kia maumahara ki nga korero o o tatou matoa o o tatou tupuna kia tika kia pono. Mehemea i whakarere ke i a matau ena kupu korero na ka puta mai nga hua ote ra nei mo tonu atu.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and before continuing with my address this afternoon may I extend a greeting to you people. I personally did not find fault with what you the member for Te Tai Tonga said but let me say this to you: the majority of the burdens on our relative Parekura are not just with him but are on all of us as Maori members. Therefore let me say to you remember what our parents and our ancestors used to say: be truthful be honest. If we were to change those statements then the results of today will continue. 
] 
That is not the tenor of the speech I will make in the brief time given to me. I want to add my contribution to this debate on the operations of Crown entities public organisations and State-owned enterprises. In that regard I will make reference to the Housing New Zealand Corporation and I do so only because in terms of the community in which I was born and raised the issue of poor housing is certainly not being addressed in the way we would expect it to be in New Zealand. Given the poor housing conditions that are evident in the far North I think it only proper that I comment on that particular enterprise. 
I will touch on a number of areas where the operations of that entity are probably to be found wanting. For instance I am talking about what is commonly known as the State rental. I am sure the Rt Hon Michael Savage is probably turning in his grave given that he was responsible for the initial State housing programme that was introduced into this country. I am sure he would be very disappointed that there are a number of New Zealanders whose housing standards would certainly match those of Third World countries. Why do we continue to have waiting lists? Why do we continue to have people living in conditions that some Third World countries would even be embarrassed by? 
In that regard I will make reference to the condition of some of the current State rental housing that Housing New Zealand is responsible for. Why has the maintenance of such stock been ignored? As a consequence there is a need to introduce what is called the Healthy Housing project. Although Housing New Zealand should be commended for introducing that project I note that it is being limited to State housing. I heard the chairman of the select committee make reference to Whangarei and Mangere but when will that project be extended to other parts of Auckland? 
 When will it be extended to other parts of New Zealand and more important when will it be extended to other housing outside the State rental sector? I can confirm that there are a number of people living in accommodation that would certainly require the benefits of that scheme. I want to ask this House—when? 
Another issue I want to raise is the poor insulation in some of the present housing stock. Again that is an indication of how the level of maintenance has been allowed to drop to the state it is in now. Unfortunately a lot of my relatives are living in those conditions. Although people might think that the energy crisis has been averted it still hangs over us. But there is a need to keep our people in warm conditions so why has this issue of insulation not been extended? I want to ask the House that. 
The other thing is the question of home ownership. The one dream that most New Zealanders aspire to—apart from full employment—is home ownership. We have heard often during this parliamentary term about how the employment rate has dropped but why is the home ownership rate not commensurate with that drop in unemployment? If I and a number of members of this House am able to enjoy home ownership why cannot the rest of New Zealand enjoy it also? A number of people currently living in State rental housing have been there for quite a long time—some of them in excess of 20 years. I am asking the Government to consider selling those assets to the present tenants and from the proceeds build more available stock. But no that seems too logical and too simple. 
I note that there is a proposal to introduce what is called a mortgage insurance scheme. The scheme aims to facilitate access to home ownership for segments of the population that are potentially able to afford home ownership but face difficulty in accessing finance. I want to ask some pretty simple questions: how many mortgage-holders are likely to be provided with the benefits of that scheme during the forthcoming year? Will the mortgage insurance scheme apply only to new lending or will existing mortgage-holders be eligible also? Will the mortgage insurance scheme offer low-deposit mortgages? And while I am talking about that a number of courses are being conducted around the country to identify the conditions people need to fulfil to qualify for home ownership. That is fine but once those people know what they need to qualify how many will actually acquire their own homes? 
In the far North there is a group called Kia Ora Ngapuhi Housing that has a target of identifying 90 families who are possible homeowners. That is fine but although they might be identified will those people actually acquire their own homes through this entity? I would like to leave those questions with the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the state of health in this country. I am seriously worried about it. The other day I was reading in one of the community papers in Auckland about the mental health services in this country provided through the district health boards. The psychiatric nurses who were also Public Service Association delegates described the conditions they worked in as “beyond crisis”. I have frequently said that parts of our health system are in crisis and in particular the mental health system but they described it as “beyond crisis” and this is why. They are seriously understaffed. In the past year 33 staff members have left of whom only 13 have been replaced. Yet they are expected by the Minister of Health to provide top-notch services. They do not have enough acute mental health beds and they are frequently confronted with visiting their patients in prison cells. This is unacceptable because prison and police cells are no place for the mentally ill yet every weekend somewhere in this country mental health patients are detained in prison cells while they await a bed in an acute mental health facility. This is shameful. 
These union delegates and psychiatric nurses described how patients were frequently in tears because they did not know which way to turn. They have no beds and they are understaffed yet the pressure is on them. They know that if something goes wrong they will be the ones who will be held accountable. We have a mental health system that is failing the truly vulnerable in our society. It is a fragmented system that provides no continuity of care and it does not flow. The patients are not able to enter and exit the system where they need to and it is failing the truly vulnerable. This Government should be truly ashamed of that system. 
That is just a part of the district health board system that I have great concerns about. District health boards are now responsible for everything. The Minister has devolved just about every single thing that is possible to be devolved on to them except for disability support services’ health for the elderly funding which is set to be devolved to the district health boards. They are now these huge umbrellas that are expected to cope with everything and the Minister has devolved responsibility for everything to everybody. Why has she done that? So that she is not accountable for anything—not one single thing about this issue. 
So we have a health system in which some parts are beyond crisis and other parts are in crisis. We have the primary health strategy which was discussed in question time today and which we discovered was based on race-based funding. We have an access formula for primary health organisations by which 50 percent of the population covered is Maori or Pacific Island. We have access funding that is much more generous in funding for other primary health organisations but the problem with that funding is that it is not needs-based. It is based entirely on where one lives or whether one is a Maori or Pacific Island patient. It is not based on the needs of the population. Other primary health organisations are expected to get by on interim funding which is no better than what they currently have. However we have general practitioners who have elected not to go into primary health organisations yet or who are trying to get into them who are severely disadvantaged in terms of funding and the patients are leaving in droves to go to where they can get the cheaper care—whether they have the need for that or not. 
Hospitals too should be looked at. Much of the money at the moment is poured into the primary sector in health leaving the secondary sector in dire straits. It is all very well and we all agree that money needs to be spent more at the primary edge and on prevention but just because we are doing that today does not mean that the need suddenly goes from the hospital system. We still have patients with heart attacks. We could get on to the subject of waiting lists in that regard and go on and on about those for ever. But when money is being taken from hospitals and being poured into primary care we are seeing crises happening now in our hospitals. 
With regard to waiting lists every area now is participating in the booking system including Christchurch which did not want to because the system was felt to be unfair and that is quite right too. This new booking system has the effect of hiding patients who were there previously on waiting lists. The system was not perfect but now if people are not eligible for treatment in 6 months they are bumped into a position of active review so that they are being hidden by the system. Worse still—and I have asked parliamentary questions about this matter—is the case of patients who are transferred to general practitioner care because those patients are not counted at all. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am proud to speak in this State-owned enterprise debate because this is a chance to demonstrate that this Government is committed to ensuring that Crown entities and State-owned enterprises are now working together with their communities for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I cannot believe the old hoary chestnuts being brought up by the Opposition. 
I will cover today the issue of district health boards. They are complex but I endorse that these entities are coming into their stride. They are getting into step now with leadership from the Minister of Health and the ministry on national standards such as the booking system and we need to educate clinicians about how to use that system consistently. They have consistency of service delivery and strategic direction—which they have not had for the last decade—and now they are also moving into funding certainty. 
I want to mention the national booking system which seems to be confusing some in the Opposition. It is a nationally consistent guideline and clinicians and hospitals need to understand how to interpret and allocate its points. Labour is committed to a vision for primary healthcare. Even the Opposition is not arguing with that. National is actually saying in the latest general practitioner journal that it supports putting more money into primary healthcare and we all know that we have to front-end fund to keep people well. That is what we are committed to; we are not obsessing about the other end because we are confident that district health boards are doing a good job. We are about keeping people well and keeping them in their communities because prevention is better than cure. We are about reducing inequalities in health services. That is what it is about but a model based on need not on race. We are prepared to meet that need head-on and target it. 
I cannot believe the arguments used about population-based funding formulae. Ethnicity is only one criterion in this standard. We have rurality and deprivation in the formula and as the member knows it is not race-based. This funding is going where it needs to be spent to make the difference to the health status of all New Zealanders. The Opposition fails to understand that the indices of health are about poverty and its elimination the treatment of poor housing unemployment and also the state of the environment. We are pouring money into those indices. They all impact on health services particularly mental health status. It is not about more beds in hospitals; it is about keeping people well and out of hospital. On Tuesday there was a UMR Insight poll in New Zealand about whether New Zealanders really believe there is an improvement in health. It was not about the number of treatments in a hospital. Fifty-two percent of New Zealanders feel that the health status of New Zealanders is being improved. 
I want to go on to discuss National’s policy—the Opposition’s policy. I ask whether there is any; we are seeking to find it. Will they sell hospitals? We are starting to hear flickers about that. Will they flick off the easy bits like the cherry-picking bits? Will they give surgery—especially heart surgery—to private hospitals but still depend on secondary public hospitals and their purse for intensive care unit and critical care unit follow-up when things go wrong? There was a very very weak attack by Lynda Scott in question time this week on the Capital and Coast District Health Board and its decision on heart surgery. I applaud that board for sticking to that approach to surgery. We need a robustly funded public health service. 
 Will they revert primary health organisations back to independent practitioner associations for their supporters? Here is a letter from Dr Lynda Scott on 6 May stating: “I say to GPs retain your independent practitioner associations.” I say to Dr Scott that she will not be able to incite them for ever and I want to let her know that we are moving on to more and more New Zealanders enrolling in primary health organisations. There are now 34 formed with over a million New Zealanders enrolled and everybody is starting to see that primary health organisations are not about medicine managed by independent practitioners associations only. They are about opportunities for pharmacists and other health practitioners to manage health out in that community and they are starting to understand it and take that opportunity. 
Will they cut benefits for parents who do not vaccinate? Yes we have heard that already. I cannot believe how punitive that would be. Will the Opposition take away the democracy now being enjoyed by district health boards? Oh yes I am sure we will go back to the appointment of old mates on to district health boards. When will Opposition members realise and stop carping on about secondary outputs instead of outcomes and when will they realise that the market model failed? The performance of those district health boards and the focus on health gain is starting to build community confidence. 
Let us look at that district health board sector of which a large part is hospital-based. We have just completed six out of 21 financial audits of district health boards and even though they received $137 million funding for smoothing the way towards a population-based funding formula most boards will eliminate deficits by 2003-04 and that is a wonderful result. Most are tracking ahead of planned deficits. The net deficits at March of this year were $124 million already a $5 million improvement and 13 out of 21 district health boards are showing improvements in their deficit-tracking. That is something about which even the ministry has gone out and said that they are doing well and that it will be working with them to make boards debt-free. 
How can the Opposition keep carping on about the deplorable financial state of the operating arm of district health boards? Four were picked out as achievers by John Hazeldine of the ministry alone this month and he said that there is more work to be done. This is a 10-year pathway from the last decade of privatisation of health. We are in year 3 and yes we have a long long way to go. 
There are sensitivities in the operating arms of district health boards. Sometimes acute workload gets in the way of cardiac surgery. Staffing is a problem especially in mental health. We have to do a lot more about that. There is the potential of risk in the winter months of things like severe acute respiratory syndrome and there are industrial challenges. The funding in that sector is so finely tuned that some of those impacts can really disrupt their ability to work towards becoming debt-free. 
I want to talk about a previous 10 years of no workforce planning and poisonous staff relationships—staff who were dissatisfied and undervalued. Just this last week one of New Zealand’s areas with five district health boards withdrew notice to strike. That is a working-group that is starting to say that it is on the pathway to recovery and being valued. That was huge for New Zealanders. It causes major damage when we go out on strike in the health sector. I congratulate those boards in the central North Island and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation on working together to find a solution. We are on the pathway to recovery and the pathology that the Opposition keeps carping on about in the health service certainly is not half as bad as it is making it out to be. 
We have different formulae for those primary health organisations at the moment and we are moving towards one formula for primary health organisations but we will not get there until we have addressed the inequities that now exist in health and until we are prepared to face those and keep targeting the funding for low access to general practitioners interim access and care plus. I am glad we have the flexibility of those different funding formulae to reflect the needs of all New Zealanders. We have 28 primary health organisations now where patients pay no more than $20 per visit and they are loving it. They are going to their doctors and that is about keeping well and not needing mental health beds or cardiac surgery. We are starting to work on the indices that keep people well and I applaud the district health boards for the work they are doing. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 This debate in the House this afternoon on Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises gives us the welcome opportunity to review recent events in Te Mangai Paho. We have already seen one victim in the form of the chairperson leaving his post. In a matter of days we will see the next victim in the form of the chief executive Mr Trevor Moeke and we have seen in the House this week the quite amazing spectacle of the Minister of Maori Affairs who is completely out of control and unable to account for the goings on in his portfolio. 
Today due to events at question time we now have another victim lining up for the chop in the form of the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri Mr Leith Comer. I can tell the House this afternoon that as a consequence of the statements made in the Chamber today by Ministers Horomia Cullen and Mallard if those statements are true—and we must accept them as such—the chief executive of the Ministry of Maori Affairs must be sacked. Mr Rodney Hide MP and I have written to the State Services Commissioner this afternoon asking him to formally inquire into those matters. If the statements made by those ministers at question time today are correct Mr Leith Comer must be sacked. 
It is a matter of record that the matters that Mr Hide requested answers for by parliamentary questions over a period of months were proven to be most serious. In the Treasury report dated 28 May we saw a lengthy litany of inconsistencies exposed—and I use that term to get into a parliamentary format the document that Mr Hide and I released to the media the following day 29 May—a very substantial litany of inconsistencies—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Horomia said “lies” yesterday but I say “inconsistencies” because I was well brought up. What we then saw in response to this document and in response to the Treasury report was a media briefing conducted by the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri the following day 30 May. That was reported widely on 31 May. I have here the  
Dominion Post— 
I am told this is an award winning newspaper—where the headline reads “Te Puni Kokiri boss apologises”. The  
New Zealand Herald  
also covered this event: “Maori ministry chief apologises to Horomia”.  
When we read these two articles it is quite clear what Mr Comer told the assembled media. He told them that the events detailed in the Treasury report exposed some inconsistencies with the answers that had been provided over the previous few weeks by his Minister. He said: “I am responsible and we are responsible for these answers being incorrect for them being wrong. I have apologised to the Minister and I take full responsibility.” If members read the  
Dominion Post  
it is absolutely clear from the reference to the detail in the report that that is the impression he gave to the nation’s media. 
What we have been told by Mr Horomia Dr Cullen and Mr Mallard at question time today is that indeed there was no such apology. They have said that oh no the apology was only about one question and it was not around or on 30 May it was way back on 10 April. It was about something completely different. 
Rodney Hide 
: Are you allowed to say that he lied? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: No I am allowed to say that it exposed a terrible inconsistency. What is clear is that Mr Comer for reasons that only he can explain decided to call the nation’s media together and give them the impression that he was taking full responsibility for the report and for the inconsistencies that it exposed. He said this of the Minister: “He has asked for an explanation and I have been in front of him and accepted the fact that some of the information that we have given him was not correct.” What the Minister has said is that the only apology he has had was about one question way back on 10 April. 
If that is correct then Mr Comer cannot hold office as a senior public servant in this country. Any public servant who will call together the nation’s media for a briefing and tell them that there is a document that exposes inconsistencies—he has apologised for those inconsistencies to the Minister and taken full responsibility in an attempt to get the heat from the public and the media off his Minister—such a public servant is engaging in a rather large enterprise in deceit. I question whether such a person if those facts are true can hold office in this country. 
I say to the Minister who answered the question this afternoon that he had better come down to this Chamber and explain because that is the only reasonable inference he has left in relation to his chief executive this afternoon. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. And the chief Government whip who has presided over this façade of stupidity on the other side knows that either the Minister has to go or the chief executive has to go because they cannot both be right and they cannot call together the nation’s media in this country and tell them one thing knowing it to be totally untrue and expect to live to tell the tale. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 41 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Minimum Wage Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 22 May. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill. This bill provides protection now for training employees of all ages who are currently exempt from minimum wage protection. In that current state they can invariably be paid very little while they are training or nothing. This bill proposes protections for them that are long overdue. I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It has been a somewhat protracted period since the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill first saw the light of day in June 2001 and the Green Party will certainly be giving our support to this bill at the end of the final stage of this third reading debate. It is a pity that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dealing with the bill could not find any agreement on whether it should be passed given that all this bill does is apply a minimum wage for a category of trainees who up until now have been exempted from even the low level of security provided by the Minimum Wage Act. The Green Party believes that it is only fair that people who are undertaking at least 60 credits of training a year under the national qualifications framework should have the dignity of being paid at a rate at least equivalent to the youth minimum wage. At $6.80 an hour it is hardly a fortune given the cost of food work clothes transport and accommodation these days. 
We also think it is sensible that the bill allows for the criteria for application of the training wage and the rate itself to be set by regulation so that these can be adjusted by the Government on a regular basis rather than having to go through the whole lengthy and difficult business of amending the Act each time. Flexibility alongside principles of equity are going to be critical factors in making this bill work. Historically trainees in areas like hairdressing panel beating and parts of horticulture have been the most hard done by often paid at shockingly low rates and it is high time apprentices in these industries were brought into the 21st century. Contrary to what some business representatives and some Opposition MPs say I do not believe that raising rates to the princely sum of $6.80 an hour is actually going to break the banks of employers most of whom are in fact quite conscious of the tremendous value that apprentices offer in all sorts of ways in the workplace otherwise they would not take them on in the first place. 
The Green Party commends this bill as part of an overall labour strategy of moving towards higher minimum standards for all workers. However we do wish the Government could move a little faster on other minimum-wage issues. The current adult minimum wage of $8.50 an hour brings in only $340 a week gross. With average household spending standing at present at around $758 a week or more this means that the minimum after-tax take-home pay is well under 50 percent of what is needed to sustain life for the average family. 
We totally support the Council of Trade Unions and others who are calling on the Government to raise the minimum wage immediately to $10 an hour. Even at this rate the gross wage for 40 hours’ work is $400 a week which is equivalent to 52.5 percent of the 2002 average hourly rate. At a time when we live in a contradictory situation whereby we still have mass unemployment at the same time as workforce shortages in some areas we believe that workers employers and labour productivity as a whole will all benefit if there is a rise in the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour. 
Higher wages mean more spending on goods and services which in turn mean greater income for employers; increasing their capacity to cope with the wage rise itself and also raising their potential to take on more staff in the long run. 
We believe that the Government should also be moving as quickly as possible towards phasing out the discriminatory youth rates that still exist for 16 and 17-year-olds. We cannot see any ethical or practical reason that a fit young 16-year-old pumping gas at the local service station for 20 hours a week should earn less per hour than a fit young 18-year-old or than an even less fit 50-year-old. 
For those who continue to scoff both at the prospect of rises in youth wages or at proposals to lift the minimum wage overall by $1.50 an hour I remind them that New Zealand wages are still something like 26 percent behind those of Australians. The Green Party will always and consistently back any moves to raise minimum wages and conditions for New Zealand workers and we commend this bill as being of particular significance in terms of improving conditions for some of the most exploited and underpaid young workers in New Zealand. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am happy to be here to support the third reading of this bill. It represents a strong agreement between particularly the Labour Party the Progressive party and the Green Party— 
Dail Jones 
: And New Zealand First. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —and New Zealand First. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 This is an interesting bill because it will pass through the House with support from the other de facto coalition grouping here in this Parliament which sometimes stands up and decides it wants— 
Dail Jones 
: New Zealand First too. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh New Zealand First is pointing out that it supports the bill as well. Is that not amazing? I really thought New Zealand First might have done better than that. This bill is another case of the Greens arguing as they did about hairdressers and panel beaters being paid “shocking wages” to quote Sue Bradford and of not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good headline. 
It is interesting that National supported this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee where we said we should look to see whether there was any substance to the sorts of horror stories about trainees being paid “shocking wages” and where there was also the opportunity to find out before the select committee what the impact of the legislation would really be both on the interface with welfare and on the fiscal cost to the overall Budget. Now that the bill has come back from the select committee National is in the position where it is not prepared to support it because significantly all the sorts of stories that were said to exist around this legislation simply evaporated when the select committee examined it. 
There were no cases presented of people being exploited by being paid “shocking wages” or no wages as Sue Bradford alleged and furthermore the Department of Labour officials were unable to give any indication at all as to the overall effects of passing this legislation. I say that given the Government’s talk about the need to facilitate businesses’ ability to do business one would have thought it would make some attempt to find out whether legislation like this would make it easier or harder to do business. It is of concern to me that today we find out yet again that we are being asked to support legislation proposed by the Government and supported by the Greens—and now by New Zealand First—to solve a problem that does not exist. 
That is the problem we have when people like Mr Robson who is trying to interject and who has never worked in the real world are members of the Government. Union delegates teachers—the highly unionised profession of teaching—and those types of people come into Parliament and become very concerned about whether there is a problem—[ 
Interruption 
] Well New Zealand First at this stage is supporting the bill but I certainly hope that after it listens to the good arguments being advanced here it will change its mind. This is a case where people who are unfamiliar with the real world— 
David Benson-Pope 
: There are no good arguments so far. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well we will have to go over them again. It takes a long time to get through to David Benson-Pope but I will attempt to do so. 
I will give the member one good argument. What economic analysis was presented to the select committee as to the effect of this legislation on the employment chances of young New Zealanders? I will give David Benson-Pope the answer before he picks up the phone because now he is totally embarrassed. The Leader of the House has turned round to him and told him to stop interjecting because he is not helping the cause. The answer for the benefit of David Benson-Pope is that no analysis was done. 
Only in the last couple of weeks have we had the superb discussion document produced by a colleague of ours Katherine Rich. 
Simon Power 
: A fine document. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is one of the best pieces of work to have come out of an Opposition in decades. That paper talks about the very difficult interface of getting young New Zealanders out of welfare dependency. It makes the point strongly that the big step is to get the young people without skills into their first job. Sue Bradford is nodding her head now; she agrees with that. The big challenge that parliamentarians on both sides of the fence face is to try to get people out of the comfort zone where the unemployment benefit looks like an attractive option and to get them into a job. 
I tell Sue Bradford that invariably those people have negligible skills. If they can get into a job and work with an employer who is prepared to help them to acquire skills they become very very employable people who can make a contribution. From my point of view they then become people who will not get stranded in welfare dependency. Sue Bradford is nodding her head saying that that sounds pretty good. So why should we enact legislation that will make that just that much harder? The Government is now insisting that those young people—[ 
Interruption 
] Michael Cullen is to make another contribution. He took about 1 minute to get his last contribution out but he now wants to do it— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If you pay people it’s much harder to employ them is it not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: If you pay people it is much harder to employ them? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s right; that’s National’s policy. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well it is true. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh it’s true? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Let me explain that; the trouble with academics who have never been in the real world is that they do not understand that. 
In a situation where an employer could take on a young New Zealander and that person requires a lot of training that employer will look at this legislation and say if he or she takes that person on that employer will have to pay the minimum wage. Therefore that person will not get the job because the employer is better advised to employ somebody who already has some training. I tell Dr Cullen that that young person who would have had the opportunity of getting out of the welfare trap will not have that opportunity and— 
Heather Roy 
: They get stuck. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They get stuck in the welfare trap. Now that suits the Labour Party because it works on the very selfish attitude that someone who is confined to welfare and stuck in it will vote for Labour. That is about how cynical David Benson-Pope and Michael Cullen are about this issue. 
Heather Roy 
: People will vote for Labour because they are trapped in welfare. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That says a lot about the future of this country. 
David Benson-Pope 
: You should be paid for the privilege of working. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is about the silliest comment that we have heard from David Benson-Pope. We should have a register of the stupid comments that David Benson-Pope makes. He says one should be paid for the privilege of working. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well what is he saying? 
Hon Member 
: He is privileged to be here! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He is paid for the privilege of being here; people pay him $100000 to make inane comments like that here. So he is paid for the privilege of being here. But David Benson-Pope should go down to Dunedin and represent some of the people we are talking about who want to work but do not have skills. Here was a chance to give them skills and the Government is making sure that they do not get that chance. That is what this legislation does. 
I say to the Government in my closing minutes that it talks about wanting to support business and talks about wanting to lift the growth rate of New Zealand and today in question time Dr Cullen fudged an answer about New Zealand’s progress on growth and lifting ourselves up the ladder towards the top half of the OECD. That was very embarrassing for Dr Cullen because he knows that in actual fact we are going backwards. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: We are going backwards I tell Dr Cullen. If one is going from 4 percent to 2 percent one is going backwards. Even the Speaker knows that. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Getting the rail back is backwards? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well I ask members! I reckon the Government members will ask that member to stop interjecting pretty quickly. But quite seriously I say that this legislation will do nothing to help the chances of those young New Zealanders. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Let’s talk about the euthanasia legislation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is how that member wants to treat those young New Zealanders whom I came here to represent. I care about them even if David Benson-Pope does not. 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to stand to support this bill and to belong to a party that believes that people should be paid a fair wage for a fair day’s work. The Labour Party believes that people should be paid for working. Clearly after listening to the last speaker we know that the National Party thinks that people should work for nothing. In my day that was actually called slavery but let us not mind about that. We believe that people should be paid for working; the National Party thinks they should not. Clearly that is why we are on the Government side of the House and those members are on the Opposition side. If they do not change their policies they will be there for a very very long time. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the House for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this bill. Hitherto the good business people around New Zealand and the folk in Rakaia have been only too willing to take on young people who are generally unskilled people set them on the road to a career and give them an opportunity. However we now have to ask the question: why would they take the chance? As business people we understand—and we are the business people of this House along with the ACT folk who understand—that working is reciprocal. We pay for what we get in return. The young folk who will be jeopardised by this legislation understand that as well. That is the crime of this legislation. The Government has not thought it through. 
We had 4 percent growth when we had the best of times—I know that 4 percent is good but although I do not think it is bad it is not as good as we could do—and one of the factors that restricted our growth was the lack of skilled people in sufficient numbers across regional New Zealand to drive our economy once we had the opportunity. This bill will undermine that. Why would employers take the chance of employing people when they will be exposed to the whole 9 yards of the Government’s anti-business employer relations legislation? Why would they take the chance? Members should ask most employers and they will tell them that when it comes to arguing in the Labour Court they just give up. They say that it is cheaper to get the cheque-book out rather than fight through an institution that is biased towards them and it is a total sham. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: This guy makes up all sorts of things. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I heard George Hawkins call out. 
Simon Power 
: I didn’t understand him. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I did not understand him either but I really do think that that man is depriving a village somewhere of its idiot. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is going too far. The member will withdraw that comment. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. I was just thinking out loud. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make any comment. He will withdraw or his speech will be finished. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. The other thing that concerns me and other business people around this country is that this legislation will drive up the costs of compliance and red tape. I refer to a commentary in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 where Business New Zealand described the bill as anti-growth. It stated: “It would discourage apprentice training and mean increased payroll costs for employers.’’ The question that I ask—and I believe that it has been asked before and not answered—is how many people this will affect. The article went on to say: “It would also override existing employment agreements.”—agreements where the vast majority of people are entirely happy with their lot. 
What escapes people who are so purist about the bill is that most employers pay more than the minimum wage now. It is logical when one thinks about it. Why would people continue to stay in employment if they did not think they were getting a fair shake? They would just vote with their feet. 
The other thing that concerns me is that in a report that I picked up from a select committee I read that two parties—and I will name them National and ACT—were concerned that the Labour Department had been unable to estimate compliance costs to employees the effect on the labour market or the positive impact on trainees. We went to the office of the Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson but she was unavailable for comment. Do members know why she was unavailable for comment? It was because she did not have the answers. In fact I do not think she had even thought about it. 
Why do we not accept a sensible pragmatic solution to this problem if in fact one exists? My National colleagues suggested this leading up to the last election. Why not have a trial period where people can engage in an employment relationship where both parties can have a look at one another to see whether they want to stay in the employment relationship? The employer does not get stuck with a dud and let us be honest there will be some. I hope it does not happen very often. Employees may find that they have engaged in a job that is just not for them and they will not leave that with a black mark against their name. Each party will walk away shaking hands and saying: “It just wasn’t for us.” 
My colleague David Carter raised an issue that is worth dealing with. But just as an aside before I go there I talked about compliance costs and exemptions. I wonder how long it will be before Maori trusts are exempt from employing people at the minimum wage on the basis that they are too poor? I will just hang that question out there and let people dwell on that for a while. 
David Carter raised the issue of the interface between minimum wage work and welfare dependency. What has been suggested here will drive people into welfare and that will guarantee them a life of poverty and dependency. I do not know about members of this House but do we not have greater aspirations for our kids than a life of welfare dependency and poverty? I see the Green member shaking her head in acknowledgment. Why is that member supporting the Government in this type of legislation? Our population has not even doubled in the last 30 years but we have seen a 12-fold increase in welfare dependency. There is such a significant number of working-age people in this country on welfare that we could not even shoehorn them into the city of Christchurch. That is an indictment on this country. It is one of the greatest social failures in our history. 
Let us have a look at the forestry industry and the impact this might have on it. The headline here states: “The forestry has trees but no trainees. The forestry sector needs 30000 more workers by the year 2025”. [ 
Interruption 
]Does that member want the floor? She should take the call. 
Jill Pettis 
: Will the member yield? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: If the member takes 10 minutes I will yield. 
Jill Pettis 
: I’ve already had a call. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It must have been very brief because it was very memorable! The key was to break down stereotypes and show young people who were keen to work outdoors that they would not be locked into semi-skilled repetitive jobs. That was the key. The industry was trying to attract young people. The question I now raise is: why will it bother? Have we actually now closed the door on 30000 young people getting into the forestry industry? That is the number of jobs it says it is looking for. The question is very very relevant because at the moment the forestry industry is quite marginal. By increasing the wage bill compliance costs will overnight with the stroke of a pen damage that industry beyond repair. 
I leave members with this thought—one that I think the Government should dwell on: if we want to share wealth then we have to create it first. The Government by doing what it is is doing that concept immense harm. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 256 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Business Law Reform Bill to amend: the Building Societies Act 1965 the Commerce Act 1986 the Companies Act 1993 the Co-operative Companies Act 1996 the Distress and Replevin Act 1908 the Financial Reporting Act 1993 the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 the Life Insurance Act 1908 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 the Securities Act 1978 the Securities Markets Act 1988 the Superannuation Schemes Act 1989 and the Unit Trusts Act 1960. 
 The purpose of this motion is quite simple. It is to allow the introduction of a Business Law Reform Bill covering a range of technical amendments to legislation. The reason it is required is that under the Standing Orders an omnibus bill of this sort can be introduced with the consent of the Business Committee but the consent of the Business Committee is according to near unanimity and that is interpreted to mean in effect all parties. Any one party has an effective veto power within the Business Committee. Although this bill is supported in its present form by all parties except one—that being New Zealand First—it could not be introduced— 
Simon Power 
: France exercising the veto. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the Soviet Union has exercised the most vetoes in the history of the United Nations. I would not want to compare New Zealand First with the Soviet Union. For example New Zealand First is open all hours which is more than one could ever say about the Soviet Union. So all parties other than New Zealand First were in favour of the introduction of this bill. I believe that it was reasonable therefore to seek parliamentary support via a motion to allow the bill to proceed to introduction and first reading because it is very widely supported in terms of its removal of compliance costs its clarification of various statutory provisions and its consistency between different legislative requirements. 
It is supported by the Institute of Directors the New Zealand Law Society Business New Zealand the Investment Savings and Insurance Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Society of Actuaries the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions Trustee Corporations Association of New Zealand the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and others. It is seen very much as a business-friendly measure. Indeed business groups themselves in response to demands from within the business community suggested a great number of the measures. Assuming the motion is passed we will probably deal with the first reading in the fourth week of this sittingor perhaps a little earlier. I think that is all I need to say at this point. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take a call on this matter and bring the attention of the House to an issue that worries me. Firstly let me make it very clear that National supports this motion and will be voting for it. But I am concerned that we are taking up the House’s time in having to debate this motion at all. That worries me. Normally convention has it that when the Government puts up an uncontentious omnibus bill the parties agree to it and if it contains issues that maybe there is some objection to then they are taken out. That has happened for I imagine as long as you have been here Mr Speaker and probably for longer. It worries me that we have now got into a position of having to spend maybe an hour or so of the Government’s time which is precious enough under MMP to have this debate so that the Government can do what convention has set down for many many years. 
I want to talk just a little about that aspect and to do so in the context of the Standing Orders. Quite honestly I can see the time coming when if it becomes the norm for the Government to have to put through a non-contentious omnibus bill by way of a motion then it is likely that a suggestion or a recommendation will be made to the Standing Orders Committee to change the Standing Orders. So rather than the Business Committee operating by total consensus as it basically is or near unanimity in fact maybe we will have to set a figure of a 90 percent majority or something of that nature. I say that that is bad. If we have to go down that line and get to the stage where the Government finds that we have to address the issue of the Standing Orders and to change convention because one of the smaller parties is holding up something that has worked well for many years then I think that is unfortunate. 
It worries me in the context of in the main—although I am not a supporter of MMP—the way in which we have set up systems that basically have worked well enough. I know there are some issues we are going through in the Standing Orders now as a consequence of MMP—the number of House sitting hours etc.—which we will debate at some stage but it worries me that we have got ourselves into a situation now of having to spend some time debating this matter. I will be very interested to listen to New Zealand First’s contribution. I am sure that Mr Jones will be taking a call to tell the Parliament why New Zealand First cannot agree to this and why it has gone outside what is the norm to get the Government to the stage where it has had to introduce a notice of motion. 
As I have said normally those bills are not contentious; they are done for a very good reason. Normally they are put through without much debate at all. Normally they are agreed to and they go to a select committee for a quick once-over come back and away they go. They are technical bills. There is nothing contentious or political about them. I cannot understand why we have had to go through this procedure. It disappoints me. 
One of the things I will say to other parties in this House is that they need to realise that it is these sorts of things that may well one day upset—it is only a little thing and by itself it will not upset our MMP system but it is one of the reasons that people start saying: “If you can’t get the Government’s legislation through the Parliament because we have to take into account every whim and wish of small parties then maybe we will have to go back to address the whole system under which we elect members of Parliament.” 
I wanted to make this contribution because I think that members of the House need to consider that as we do things particularly where we get to a stage where a Government is forced to bring a notice of motion to put through this sort of legislation that may have a downstream impact. New Zealand First and also other parties that may for some reason or another want to try to move outside what has been the norm need to think very seriously about what they are doing before they take a step that breaks convention. Convention has been set by this Parliament for many good reasons. We need to be very careful about convention before we go through the system of changing it. I do not want us to have to get to the stage where the Standing Orders are changed so that the Government can force something on us. The Business Committee has worked extremely well under the Speaker’s guidance. Indeed in my view it has worked particularly well since its inception. It will seem a great shame if this becomes the norm and we may well have to go back and change the Standing Orders so that we have to operate in a different way. 
I say to the Parliament particularly New Zealand First but to all parties that where they think something is not working and they want to frustrate the system they should be careful. I am not trying to be critical because there may well be a particularly good reason for New Zealand First’s action in this case; I want to take us outside this particular issue and just think more of the general basis and wider ramifications of what we are doing here and what the impact of it may be downstream. Often as the old saying goes one does something here and there are downstream consequences later. Maybe one day these things will come back to bite us. I leave that thought with the Parliament as we debate this issue. It is an important issue and one that we will be supporting. However it is more the principle I wanted to put on the floor of the Parliament today for debate. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I regret to have to tell the senior National Party Opposition whip and the Leader of the House that times have changed under MMP. The days of the National Party and the Labour Party running this House as they want to run it no longer exist. We are now under MMP and minority parties are entitled to have a say. New Zealand First is exercising the right given to members of the House under MMP to do so. Of course what we are doing here indicates that Mr John Carter has not read the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee and has forgotten the progress of the previous Business Law Reform Bill entirely—a bill of course that was introduced by the National Party under the good old National Party - Labour Party way of doing things when National was in power although it was under MMP. However National as usual put it through with the cooperation of the Labour Party because that was the old boys’ and the old girls’ network. Well things have changed and New Zealand First is entitled to express its view under MMP and rely on the report of the Standing Orders Committee of 1995. 
That Standing Orders Committee looked at things like—and this bill really is a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Members can call it what they like; chalk is chalk cheese is cheese and a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill even if one wants to call it something else. Page 49 of the Standing Orders Committee review has a provision about legislative procedures and the Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and I quote: “The committee received strong submissions suggesting such bills should be allowed only for technical amendments or amendments for cognate legislation. ... The Committee agrees that the practice of using a miscellaneous provisions bill (apart from a Statutes Amendment Bill)”—New Zealand First supports the Statutes Amendment Bill—“should not continue ...”. What we are seeing here is the continuation of that process in contravention of a Standing Orders Committee report. It “should not continue and ... the form of any other type of omnibus bill should be closely defined. ... The committee proposes”—on page 49—“that the acceptable practices with regard to omnibus legislation be codified (they are not dealt with in Standing Orders at the moment) and that steps be taken to prohibit some of the less desirable practices that have arisen in recent years.” 
I tell Mr John Carter and the Leader of the House that what New Zealand First is doing is totally consistent with the proposals of the Standing Orders Committee. Neither of those gentlemen appears to have read them. I apologise; I am sure they may have read them but they appear to have forgotten them. They do not want to remember them. We in New Zealand First are here to do our job. We have done our research and it is very clear that this type of legislation should not be permitted according to the report of Parliament. 
Page 50 refers to the scrutiny of bills and page 51 has the point about law reform or omnibus bills in paragraph (f): “More than one Act may be amended in a law reform or omnibus bill where those Acts deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy or where the amendments being effected to the different Acts are of a similar nature in each case. Further a law reform or an omnibus bill could also be introduced if the Business Committee agrees to its introduction.” 
We did not agree to it—the Standing Orders Committee report made that clear. Those provisions are intended to permit the present practice of introducing customs legislation amendment bills taxation reform bills and to allow for the companies reform legislation for example to continue. They would not permit Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills and some of the contents of recent finance bills. New Zealand First believes that it is acting in total accordance with the Standing Orders Committee report. 
We have the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill before the House which is an omnibus bill. It has nine pieces of legislation in it and New Zealand First has no opposition to its coming in in that form. As the first two lines state: “This Bill aims to improve the effectiveness of the Department for Courts’ fines and civil enforcement activities.” It has a single motive going through nine bills and we support it. We do not have a bill before us at the moment; I do not even know whether the Government has drafted it. The quotes Michael Cullen was giving were from May to June 2001. The Government has had at least 2 years to do something and it has done nothing. We are now into 2003—another 6 months has gone by since we raised this issue in November last year. The Government has had 2½ years to get something drawn up and as yet we have not seen a bill to back up what is proposed. 
This House is giving the Government carte blanche to put anything into 13 pieces of legislation. Is that the way this House should work? Is that the way that parties in this House should allow the Government to run the business of this House? It is great for National and the Labour Party but New Zealand First takes the view that we are here to play a role in this House and we intend to do so. 
If we look at the previous business law reform legislation introduced in 1999 we will see that it was not here for a few months—it did not go down to a select committee and come back a few months later as suggested by Mr Carter. That bill was introduced and had its first reading on 27 July 1999. The second reading was on 5 October 1999. The select committee issued its report on 2 October 2000—a year later. The date of consideration was 7 November 2000. The date of the Committee stage was 4 April 2001. The date of royal assent was 2 May 2001. That bill took almost 2 years to pass. I am saying that the legislation we have before us could quite easily be introduced on an individual basis. New Zealand First has had an opportunity to read what it believes is likely to be in the legislation and it does not look too difficult. I have suggested that five items within it should be in the statutes amendment legislation but that offer has not been taken up. 
Of course what we are also doing is suspending Standing Orders which must be one of the most crucial constitutional steps for this House to take. One member said once: “The suspension of Standing Orders when it is a contested matter is a very very serious matter indeed.” He referred for example to the Marsden Point Refinery Bill. Who was the member who said it was “a very very serious matter indeed” on 22 June 1994? It was none other than Dr Michael Cullen and what is he doing today? He is suspending the Standing Orders to introduce an amendment to the Distress and Replevin Actof 1908. Does anybody know what that is? That is what members of this House are supporting today. This bill should not just be amended but repealed. I have read the submissions from the Law Society that have been put up on every one of these bills and I have written to the Minister giving him my views on it as well. We are not taking this lightly; we are taking it seriously. 
The Distress and Replevin Act was based on an 1868 Act and we are suspending the Standing Orders so that we can amend it. Why does it need an amendment? Because when the Personal Property Securities Act was passed in 1999 the Distress and Replevin Act was forgotten about. I have acted on the Distress and Replevin Act so I know what it is all about—it is dreadful legislation but it is ancient legislation. It is as if we had a 1908 house which was a run-down sort of a place with scrim an outdoor toilet and all we are doing with this legislation is putting in a new window—we are not doing terribly much. This is a serious objection. It is supported by the Standing Orders Committee report and we will be opposing the motion. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I note that you found the New Zealand First member’s arguments as compelling as I did Mr Speaker. I do defend his right to object to the introduction of the Business Law Reform Bill notwithstanding the fact that I found the arguments for objecting to it rather specious. Firstly I would say that it is vital for the Business Committee to maintain a policy of unanimity or near unanimity in making decisions. Therefore if one party of significance is not happy with the decision that the rest of us agree with then it is entitled to have its objection heard. Having said that I line up with the Labour Party the National Party and every other party in this House in saying that this bill is a good bill and that it should be allowed to proceed to select committee in the form in which the Government wants to introduce it. 
I ask New Zealand First why it is objecting to the bill now when it is substantially the same as the bill that was put before the Business Committee in May 2002 when the committee agreed to the bill being introduced under Standing Order 259. I wonder why it has subsequently changed its position on the bill. 
I also ask New Zealand First to explain to all the small-business people out there listening to Parliament today why it is slowing down the process of this Parliament reducing the compliance cost to business that a number of the amendments in this bill will achieve because that is really the point of an omnibus bill in the business law area. It is designed to bring together a number of small and often technical changes to a variety of pieces of legislation and to package them together so that they can move through the House swiftly without having to have several separate pieces of legislation involving a lot more time of Parliament and the select committees. 
 Another question to New Zealand First is why is it trying to discourage employees being able to— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mind a series of questions but I presume I will be given a call to answer them otherwise it is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot presume anything. He has had his call. 
Dail Jones 
: But he cannot keep asking me questions all the time knowing I cannot answer them. That is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. He is not addressing the questions to the member. He is addressing them to the party. 
ROD DONALD 
: In that case I will invite New Zealand First to reflect on the fact that opposing the passage of this bill puts off removing significant impediments to people saving for their retirement because there is some very good content in this bill which removes or reduces compliance costs for employer superannuation schemes. A party that I thought was keen on people saving should reflect on why it is stopping people from saving. 
As far as the detail of the bill goes I am looking forward to the introduction of the bill when I can talk in a more fulsome fashion about the contents of the bill. I would just like to note before the House that many of the amendments contained in the bill have been at the initiative of the organisations directly affected. The friendly societies credit unions building societies and the Investment Savings and Insurance Association are all seeking improvements to their legislation and I am pleased that Parliament will be able to get on with helping them do a better job for their constituencies and for the country at large. I would like to confirm again that the Green Party will be voting in support of this motion. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to change the Green Party’s vote on the previous matter—the performance of Crown entities. I gather that by mistake we voted against the receiving of those reports and I seek leave for nine votes against to be changed to nine votes in favour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there anybody opposed to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none so the records will be altered. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to. 
Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) 
Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Law and Order Committee on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6). 
 The progress of this bill is very important. The decision was taken to divide the bill. I think that the faster this bill progresses through the House the better. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I understand that this is a commentary on the report of the Law and Order Committee on this legislation so I thought I might just set the scene by walking members through some of the issues it addresses to begin with. I understand that Supplementary Order Paper 84 endeavours to strike an appropriate balance between individual privacy and the interests of the State in detecting crime and ensuring security. Of course that is always the most perplexing issue when we are trying to strike a balance between individual rights and the greater public interest. 
In particular I want to draw members’ attention to the main amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper: those to clause 19 that introduce the new computer offences of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation commonly known as hacking. I want to dwell for some time on that issue because I think it has extreme significance for us in our everyday lives. I do not think I need to remind members of the House of the importance of computers in everyday life. They regulate if not everything then a significant number of things that we take for granted. They probably regulate most buildings—they certainly regulate the electricity system. They regulate credit cards and they regulate security—in fact the security and regulation of the very building that we are in at the moment is probably very reliant on our computer systems. If anybody or anything got involved in hacking into those systems it could be quite disastrous. 
The other areas I want to dwell on in terms of hacking are the concerns I have that fit roughly into the categories of terrorism and theft and particularly credit card theft. The ability for someone to get into other people’s systems whether they are personal computers State systems nationally or for example airline systems could be quite disastrous. We can look at the terrible tragedy that has befallen the good folk of Christchurch and Lincoln with the plane that crashed coming into Christchurch last Friday evening and we can just imagine—and I draw no connection between that crash and this issue by the way—the consequences if it came to pass that that crash was the result of someone hacking into on-board systems. That type of exposure could run through our airline industry more broadly to the point where people felt totally unsafe to fly. 
I see by reading the commentary on the bill that the legislation was first introduced in September 1999 and I think it is incumbent on members of this House to now work towards trying to expedite its passage through the House because of the significance of this legislation. I want to make it very clear that National’s position is that we support this legislation. 
I have already dwelt on the fact that terrorism is something that can be related to computer hacking. The other thing that concerns me is theft. Members can imagine the state of our commerce if people could hack into our systems at will and pick up our credit card numbers for example. I do not have a high credit limit so I would not risk a lot of exposure but I am sure that someone like Rodney Hide or David Carter who are very wealthy individuals would feel very exposed. 
The importance of computer systems to the New Zealand economy is something that we cannot understate. In fact I do not think that we can overstate it either. It is of high importance—even extreme importance—and it is a growth area. Electronics and particularly e-commerce are critical if we are to develop and flourish as a nation. I say to members of this House that unless we put some sort of punitive measures in place to deal with people who think they can hack into computer systems at will then we will have high exposure. If we are to develop e-commerce in this country people need to feel that it is as secure as real commerce. If we cannot guarantee and demonstrate that to people who are thinking of investing in this country—companies like EDS for example—then I think we will have great difficulty in attracting those types of people to our businesses and in retaining them. I believe we need to be very cognisant of that type of foreign investment. 
The other issue I would like to raise in particular is that I notice clause 16A on Supplementary Order Paper 85 amends the definition of private communications by extending it to emails and faxes. We rely heavily now—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of most people in this House—on emails faxes and pagers etc. in order to be able to conduct our daily business and probably our daily lives. There is a term in the industry called “freeking”—not spelt the way it might sound—which describes the ability to hack into our telephone systems and seize control. In fact it has the ability to alter control systems listen into conversations and gather data at will. Unless we make it very clear that those types of actions will not be tolerated and as I have said put some punitive penalties in place then I do not think that we will be able to conduct our business in the full knowledge that what we are doing is secure. The ability to alter telephone accounts and the ability to gather information at best could be a disturbance and at worst could be anti-competitive. Members can imagine what would occur if there is the ability to hack into a competitor’s business lines and communications systems. The damage that that would do to this country would be immense. 
So I support and recognise the good work that the people on the select committee have done. I understand that Richard Worth in particular is to be recognised as having made a very significant contribution to this select committee. I would like to think that the members of this House will work collectively in order to try to ease the passage—in fact to progress the passage—of this legislation through the House. 
One of the things that also disturbs me is an incident that happened overseas last year. Some members in the House might remember that an American spy plane went down over Chinese territory. One of the consequences of that was that emotions ran very high and it was reported that the Americans became so concerned with that occurrence that people—Americans primarily—were hacking into Chinese computer systems changing data and actually bringing down systems. 
John Carter 
: Yes? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes they were doing that. That type of action cannot be tolerated. Hacking into one another’s computer systems and sites could do immense damage. It would undermine the international confidence in computer systems and networks and that would do immense harm to the industry. 
I have touched on the dangers that hacking into on-board flight systems on aeroplanes could do. Which members would get on an aeroplane and fly if they did not have some confidence that those systems were secure? Which members would get on an aeroplane if they felt that they would fail to arrive safely at their destinations because this Parliament had not taken the opportunity to deal with those types of hackers put penalties in place and send out very clear messages that that type of activity would not be tolerated? 
I raised the fact that this bill was first introduced in 1999. The world has moved on quickly since then and moreover it moves on more quickly in the area of e-commerce and the computer world than in other areas. As a parting thought I say that this legislation which I wholeheartedly support needs to be frequently reviewed in order to keep pace with the changing nature of the industry. There is no point in dusting this legislation off and thinking that we have done our job as a Parliament if we do not continually look at it on a regular basis. My experience in the industry suggests that every 2 or 3 years it would be appropriate to do that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for its consideration of and its improvements to this bill. This is an important bill. It amends Part 10 of the Crimes Act which deals with offences against rights of property and it includes the addition of some new computer offences. It also amends Parts 9A and 11A of the Crimes Act to deal with the interception of offences and provisions relating to police interception warrants respectively. 
The bill is intended to modernise and update the property offences and particularly to ensure that they cover property crime involving computer technology adequately. That as the previous speaker said is a quickly changing area. Part 10 of the Crimes Act currently contains over 90 different property offences. Many of those offences have not been updated since the Act was passed in 1961—42 years ago. That part now has gaps and areas of uncertainty in its application to computer-related crime. Last year the Council of Europe approved a convention on cyber-crime which is the first international agreement on computer crime. Once this bill is enacted New Zealand will have comparable offences to those set out in the convention. 
The amendments relating to police interception warrants will help the police to deal with organised crime and at this time when the problem of drug trafficking is rife it is essential that we have those extra powers. Currently the police when acting under an interception warrant can only intercept oral communication and cannot intercept text messages emails or faxes. 
Many of the submissions to the Law and Order Committee raised privacy concerns. The committee carefully considered those concerns and concluded that the safeguards provided in the bill together with the existing statutory safeguards are adequate to ensure that personal privacy is balanced appropriately with the right of the State to protect its citizens. I believe that this bill will strengthen privacy interests by criminalising some activity that is not currently criminal such as intercepting non-oral private communications and accessing computers without authorisation. While it exempts certain State agencies from criminal liability in some circumstances those exemptions relate either to existing powers or to activities that those agencies could presently undertake without specific authorisation. Moreover the exemptions are placed on a clear statutory footing and are hedged with appropriate safeguards. 
I look now at the main changes that the bill makes firstly in relation to property offences. The bill creates a number of new computer offences relating to theft and fraud committed by use of a computer damaging the data and software in the computer system or denying service to an authorised user of the system and selling distributing or possessing computer hacking programs. It also creates the offence of accessing a computer system without authorisation. The bill contains another new offence that of taking obtaining or copying trade secrets. The essence of that offence is wrongly acquiring something such as a document plan model or diagram that is of commercial value with the intention of obtaining financial gain. 
A number of changes are being made to existing property offences. In the offence of burglary the phrase that is well known in the courts of “breaking and entering” is replaced with “entering without authority”. That will remove technical arguments as to what constitutes a “break”. Removing it also means a separate unlawful entry offence will no longer be needed. The offence of blackmail broadens the current offence of extortion by certain threats. The new offence will apply to any threat of disclosure. At present the threatened disclosure must relate to sexual or criminal conduct. The scope of the threat has also been widened to cover a threat to cause serious damage to property or to endanger the safety of any person. That addition will capture certain types of industrial blackmail such as a threat to contaminate a product unless a company does what the blackmailer wants. Regrettably there has been a trend towards that form of criminal activity across the world. 
The offence of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception replaces the current offence of false pretences. That will cover a broader range of financial benefits than the current offence and the element of causing loss is also new. A number of offences have also been broadened so as to include liability for reckless as well as intentional conduct—for example obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception a false statement by a promoter receiving and money laundering. 
There have been a number of changes to the interception offences and police interception warrants. Currently it is an offence to intentionally intercept any private communication by means of a listening device. The definition of “private communication” however limits that offence to oral communication. The main amendment the bill makes is to extend that definition to any form of private communication. The offence will then cover for example unlawfully intercepting emails and faxes. The police’s interception warrant provisions are similarly amended so that the police will be able to intercept emails and faxes as well as oral communications when acting under an interception warrant. 
I would like to emphasise that all the existing conditions of obtaining an interception warrant must still be complied with. In fact the committee added further safeguards to police interception warrants. A definition of “facility” to allay concerns that that word would have allowed the police to intercept an entire Internet service provider’s communications is the first example of those safeguards. That was never the intention but the amendment makes it clear that the definition of “facility” is to allow the police to specify an email address or mobile phone number for example. 
Two additional requirements are added to the information that the police must include in their annual report to Parliament concerning interception. The first is any use of their emergency powers to intercept communication and the second is the number of interception warrants that do not result in any charges being laid within 90 days following expiry of the warrant. 
The select committee has also added further safeguards to the exemption from the interception offence for telecommunications operators and Internet service providers. An offence of unlawful disclosure has been added to back up those safeguards. The recently enacted Government Communications Security Bureau Act included an exemption from the interception offence for a bureau employee acting under the authority of and in accordance with the Act. That Act also revoked the previous exemption which was by regulation. The passage of that Act means that a number of provisions in this bill can now be omitted. 
I refer the House to Supplementary Order Paper 193 and its replacement Supplementary Order Paper 84. Supplementary Order Paper 193 was issued on 2 October 2001 to make some refinements to the definitions of “intercept” and “deception” and to the requirements that communication providers must meet regarding interception. That Supplementary Order Paper was replaced on 6 May this year by Supplementary Order Paper 84. Many of the amendments on that Supplementary Order Paper are stylistic or are needed to take into account the passage of other legislation. I could use as examples the Telecommunications Act the Sentencing Act the Crimes Amendment Act 2002 and the Government Communications Security Bureau Act. There are however a few amendments of substance and I will finish by mentioning them briefly. 
With regard to the interception offences the definition of “intercept” has been refined. Some words about the parties to the communication have been omitted. They are not necessary as they are already covered in the principal Act. Some rationalisation has been made to the exemptions from the interception offences. Currently the bill has exemptions for telecommunications network operators and for Internet and other communications providers. The latter exemption is broad enough to cover telecommunications providers so there is no need to retain two separate exemptions. The select committee inserted a new offence prohibiting the disclosure of the existence of an interception warrant. As a result of concerns expressed that that offence was too broad the Supplementary Order Paper narrows it. 
Finally amendments have been made to three property offences. As a result of further consideration some rationalisation has occurred in the fraud offence of obtaining or causing loss by deception. As a result of public concerns amendments have been made to two computer offences in order to clarify the criminal intent required. Those are the offence of damaging or interfering with a computer system and the offence of making selling distributing or possessing software for committing crime. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This bill does contain some good updating of the criminal law but the exemptions from the interception offences—the exemptions for the police and intelligence agencies—do authorise a huge State intrusion into our privacy. Privacy is not something that is abstract. We rightly feel violated when someone intrudes into our private life whether it be by peering into our home going through our personal things or in this case reading our private emails or hacking into what we might have on our computers. Catching criminals does involve some intrusions on our privacy but any extension of police powers in this area must be governed by the proportionality principle: that any new intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the additional community benefit derived from it. We should generally favour the alternative least intrusive means of catching criminals. I sat on the Law and Order Committee when it was discussing the bill and there was simply no data statistical or anecdotal provided to the committee on how many additional criminals might be caught by giving these extra powers to the police and the intelligence services. 
This new power is much more dangerous than the interception powers previously granted to the police and the intelligence agencies to intercept mail or telephone calls because we use email and computers so much now. The volume of the communications that we send and receive has multiplied tremendously. The technology of email interception is so cost-efficient compared with opening mail for example that it can be done in a massive way particularly when less tolerant and less democratic-minded Governments are in power. It also catches many third parties other than the people who were specifically targeted. Every month there are hundreds or thousands of people who send emails to each of us and whose privacy would be compromised if we were targeted. 
That combines with another problem identified by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada George Radwanski that “The more information Government compiles on us the more of it will be wrong. That is simply a fact of life.” There are many ways that information can be mistaken or wrongly interpreted. It can simply be the result of errors loose language or the way in which we might use irony in our emails. It may be that as the Canadian privacy commissioner states: “You are passing time browsing on the Internet and you are idly curious about what kind of propaganda in favour of al-Qaeda various extremists might be putting out. But could visiting such websites get you identified as a potential terrorist yourself?” Anyone can accidentally get caught up in the surveillance net. As the Canadian privacy commissioner also states: “The bottom line is this. If we have to live our lives weighing every action every communication every human contact wondering what agents of the state might find out about it analyse it judge it possibly misconstrue it and somehow use it to our detriment we are not truly free.” 
We should also knock on the head the silly argument we often hear that if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear. The Canadian commissioner correctly states: “The truth is that we all do have something to hide not because it is criminal or even shameful but simply because it is private.” He goes on to state that “the right not to be known against our will indeed the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves is at the very core of human dignity autonomy and freedom.” 
So using the proportionality principle I say there is a huge downside to granting these extra powers to the police the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau. What is the upside? Yes we may catch some extra criminals. There may be a few; we just do not know how many. But we do know that the really big fish will generally avoid email detection through sophisticated means such as using anonymisers cyber-cafes hotmail addresses code words impossible to break encryption or throwaway cellphones. 
 We could even say that in some respects the new concentration on electronic surveillance could weaken policing. What seems to be happening in places like the United States is that the spook agencies are increasingly relying on electronic intelligence to the detriment of real work on the ground. The United States National Security Agency has a huge budget but it does not seem to know very much about what is going on in the United States or in other countries. In places like Iraq it seemed to be pretty poor in its intelligence concerning the war. 
Also when I was on the Law and Order Committee I offered some suggestions about constraints on the powers of the intelligence agencies and the police. For instance I said they should adopt some of the best-practice constraints from overseas. But the committee threw out for example a suggestion for auditing email interception warrants based on the procedures of the Commonwealth Ombudsmen’s office in Australia. At least we could have had those constraints. The committee also turned down my amendment to inform those suspects against whom no charges were later laid that their communications had been intercepted in case those interceptions had some subsequent impact on their lives and they could track back where that impact came from. The FBI in the United States does have such a notification procedure. 
The committee also tossed out the Privacy Commissioner’s suggestion which I supported that the police do not need the power to hack into people’s computers—the remote-access power—because they already have the power to search properties under warrants and to look at computers and have done so frequently in the past. So the police do not need this new power. It is quite spooky to think that an agency could access a person’s computer remotely under this exemption for the police and intelligence agencies without the person even knowing it. Indeed Australia has a provision for its intelligence service to change people’s files so as to hide its entry. The problem is that the committee said these provisions would allow us to catch more criminals and that we should simply trust the intelligence agencies. We just need to look at the history of intelligence agencies to know they do make mistakes including some in New Zealand which had the David Small and Aziz Choudry cases. The agencies did make mistakes and both those gentlemen won awards from the courts against the police and the SIS respectively. 
What is happening here through the granting of these powers is an additional move down the road towards what many people are worried about: the move towards creating more of a surveillance State. We see that in other forms too. A lot of these measures are generated out of the United States and the track it is going down with its Department of Homeland Security. We are having imposed upon us other privacy intrusions such as those reported in the paper recently—that is when we visit the United States next year we will need to have fingerprint data on our passports to enter that country and possibly other biometric information provided on our passports. Facial recognition systems are being developed for our airports and for American airports and there is increasing use of surveillance cameras throughout society. When those things are added to the provisions of this bill they represent substantial intrusions on our privacy—intrusions that we should not grant to the State. 
Such intrusions are becoming more prevalent in society because of the advance of technology. We read that cellphones that can take pictures are creating a great privacy problem —they can be left around to take pictures and transmit them by email. People have raised concerns that those sorts of intrusions can occur in public places and in workplaces and we do not want to give those powers legally to the police and the intelligence agencies. So it is very good that the bill contains general provisions against such powers. 
The Green Party supports many things in this bill but because of the intrusive provisions we will not vote for the second reading. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is a law and order bill and in terms of our three policies at the last election we are strongly in favour of law and order matters. It is wonderful to follow the Green speaker—it makes life seem normal once again. Mr Locke is very consistent and I suppose I very consistently oppose him in his views when it comes to things like interception warrants and suchlike. Obviously from his past he knows a lot more than me about those things—interception warrants and the sorts of ways that someone can look at things. If people have been involved in— 
Ron Mark 
: Very left-wing party. 
DAIL JONES 
: Very left-wing parties will know what is involved because those parties have the opportunity to and the knowledge of how to use those things. As my friend and colleague Ron Marks says following Mr Locke is like shooting a duck on the water but sometimes one has to if one is to eat. I really will not say much more than that. We disagree entirely with the Greens on law and order issues time and time again and it is great to feel normal once again. 
This is fairly straightforward legislation. I was interested not having seen this legislation before to realise that it came into the House in September 1999—just before an election. I looked at the interpretation clause and saw it talked about home invasion. That was a big issue in 1999. It is surprising how some issues like that are not quite as big after the passing of time. I am disappointed that the Labour Government did not keep moving this legislation along because home invasion was a very very big issue and I am sure in 1999 people made big promises about it. Labour has failed to keep its promises on the home invasion amendments and here we are in 2003 4 years later looking at this bill which was reported back to the House on 20 July 2001. This bill was reported back to this House 2 years ago and has sat on the Order Paper since then. That is how much the Labour Government really cares about law and order and about being tough on things like home invasion. 
I really have only one point to make on this legislation and that is that people practising in criminal law ought to get themselves a copy of this legislation because of the virtual repeal of Part 10 of the Crimes Act and the introduction of a new Part 10 dealing with crimes against rights of property. It covers the entire ambit of that part so duty solicitors and people doing legal aid work at the District Court level and suchlike should really bring themselves up to date with this legislation because it is the day-to-day stuff of anyone who is a duty solicitor or who is trying to conduct a defence in the District Court. 
I would like the Minister to tell the House when he expects this legislation to come into force. We have seen the bill take 2 years at the select committee and sit for 2 years on the Order Paper. Should people start to worry about it or will it be another 2 years before it becomes law—another 2 years before the Labour Party shows any regard for home invasion? 
Ron Mark 
: There will be an election before then! 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes there will be an election before then and New Zealand First in Government will have the opportunity to make sure that this bill is brought into effect. 
This is fairly straightforward legislation as I have said. I notice that in schedule 2 there are amendments to the Criminal Investigations (Blood Samples) Act. I seem to recall that there is a discussion on the blood sample legislation at the moment and I would have liked the Minister to comment on that and on the way that aggravated burglary robbery aggravated robbery assault with intent to rob and suchlike are now to be dealt with as a result of that legislation with regard to blood samples. That will be a very interesting point. 
I see a reference to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act is still there in schedule 2. Has that Act not been repealed? I thought we repealed that Act a little while ago. The Minister said that he would make a number of consequential amendments and of course they will be on Supplementary Order Paper 84. Any lawyer who is looking at the bill should also look at that Supplementary Order Paper because there will be consequential amendments as a result of it. 
I really do not want to take up the time of the House any further. New Zealand First wants to make sure that legislation proceeds promptly and I will now resume my seat. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill and I want to speak to two aspects of it. The first is hacking and trade secrets in particular. Until this legislation is passed there is a lacuna in our law relating to various computer hacking crimes including those relating to trade secrets. A little personal anecdote will show the increasing relevance of that in an age where proprietary information is of increasing value and is normally held in electronic form. One of the biotechnology companies I was involved in prior to election stored its information on computer as most organisations do. That organisation was lucky that a relation of one of the major shareholders and directors was a computer guru and had installed anti-hacking software. That anti-hacking software recorded attacks on the firewall between it and the Internet connection through which other people were trying to access information on the computer. The software also sent back a “worm”—as they call it—to track the source of the attempts at industrial espionage. It tracked them to a university in a country in the East and as a consequence of that we made complaints through the various police authorities in New Zealand. It became apparent that even if we were eventually able to pin anything with any degree of proof on the people attempting to steal the information there was no effective remedy available to the New Zealand authorities because of a lacuna in the legislation which would mean that nothing was being stolen. This legislation remedies that by introducing provisions that say that trade secrets stored in electronic form can be property for the purposes of theft. It also prohibits the hacking that would be used to get at that property. Those are good reforms. 
The other thing I would like to mention briefly is penalties. One of the submitters to the Law and Order Committee—and this is recorded in the select committee commentary—suggested that penalties for causing intentional damage to computer systems should be increased from a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment to 14 years. I think the select committee reacted quite appropriately to that. It noted that when it comes to penalties for damage to property there should be consistency between computers and other private property. It then noted that a maximum of 14 years would be inappropriate because penalties of that magnitude should be reserved for serious offences against the person rather than against property. The committee amended the penalty provisions in the Act so that the maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment is applicable where the person who does the damage knows that it will endanger life. In respect of all other property damage—be it to computers or other property—the maximum penalty is 7 years’ imprisonment. Those are the two pointsI would like to make and I recommend the legislation to the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Was it not great hearing from Keith Locke who spent his entire adult life supporting and giving comfort to the KGB Soviet expansionism— 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Besides being totally false and not a debating point it does not help to maintain good order in this House to say that a member has spent his or her entire adult life supporting the KGB. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I’m sorry the time has come to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.