Volume 620 Week 67 - Wednesday 8 September 2004 
Volume 620 Week 67 - Wednesday 8 September 2004 
[Volume:620;Page:15443] 
Wednesday 8 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Japan—Parliamentary Delegation House of Councillors 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the House of Councillors Japan led by Mr Takao Jinnouchi is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that they be welcomed. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Last week I was asked to look at the issue of Ministers’ replies to questions. I do not intend to go over the rules on answering questions in detail again. There are many rulings on this given by me and my predecessors. These are set out on pages 144 145 146 and 147 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Basically it is not the province of the Speaker to decide whether a Minister’s answer is correct or even whether it is adequate. The Speaker is not a quizmaster who decides whether the right answer has been given to a question. Many of the appeals that have been made to me on that subject treat the Speaker as if he is conducting some kind of quiz rather than a parliamentary question time. I remind members that question time is a political exchange. The adequacy of the performance of members whether in Government or in Opposition is judged on a political basis. The Speaker does not give them marks for performance as to the quality of their questions or their answers. Members cannot appeal to the Speaker every time they get an answer they do not like or are not satisfied with. 
On the other hand Ministers have a responsibility in the House and through the House to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked. 
Finally I want to add that I entirely reject the criticism that is made from time to time that our question process is inferior to that of other comparable Parliaments. That is simply not the case and it is an unfair denigration of this Parliament to say so. I have often commented on Australia but in the United Kingdom a question is not even accepted on a subject a Minister has refused to answer. Ministers in this Parliament are not so protected. Questions can be constantly addressed to Ministers regardless of how they have responded in the past. Our question time allows for a vigorous up-to-the-minute and relatively informative exchange between members and Ministers each day on which the House sits. That does not mean that a Minister’s answer will satisfy members in every case but there is nothing new in that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday we had 51 points of order during question time. I hope we do not have the same number today but we have not started question time yet. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I make the comment that points of order will come from members if they feel the need to raise them. I thank you very much for coming back to the House with that ruling. It is very useful for us. However I wonder whether you might elaborate just slightly on Standing Order 370(1) which suggests that an answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. That raises the point particularly where it states “if it can be given consistently with the public interest” of who is the subjective judge of that. It sometimes seems that answers are given in a way that certainly makes them appear to be inconsistent with an answer that is in the public good. So is it the Minister who makes that subjective judgment or is it in fact on behalf of Parliament and as an interpreter of the Standing Orders the Speaker? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the member raises a very interesting question. It is an important one and one that I have commented about on a number of occasions when that issue has been raised in the House. It does seem to me at the end of the day that the Minister has to be the person who decides whether giving an answer is consistent with the public interest because only the Minister at the end of the day is privy to the information that may be relevant to that decision. A member may ask a question that involves matters that are not appropriate to be in the public domain for privacy reasons or other reasons and by the very nature of that fact only the Minister can determine that because should it then become a matter for discussion via the point of order procedure that then negates the very reason for not giving the answer in the first place. The Speaker at the end of the day its seems to me cannot really be in a position to be able to determine the factors that the Minister has taken into account in that respect. On the other hand I would say that there would come a point where a Minister’s refusal to answer a question on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to give an answer would be so patently absurd and in contradiction with the facts which would be obvious to all members that the Speaker would be justified perhaps in making some comment in respect of that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have heard your report to Parliament but if one looks at Standing Orders 370(1) and (2) then one sees that all that is required is that it be an issue complied with by Ministers consistently with the public interest and that answers be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question asked. That is all that is required. If I could use an analogy the communist countries all have magnificent constitutions—of course those constitutions have nothing to do with people’s good order and harmony and compliance with human rights is often not an issue that concerns the Governments of those countries. But I am concerned in this case having heard your ruling that it may sound fine except that at this present time we are not getting at the truth of these matters. We are hearing every obfuscatory form of delay and often 4 days later we get an answer. 
We had classic examples last week and even yesterday when the Prime Minister said that if the member put a particular question down in writing he or she would get an answer. Until then we were led to believe by the Government and the Speaker that it was not in the public interest at all to answer. So extraordinary was it last week that the Minister of Police said this in answer to a question: “I do not have that information. I do not want that information …”. He got away with that in this House. He literally told this House that although the question was legitimately in the public and national interest he would not even move a muscle to find out the truth. Your ruling allows him to get away with that and in that sense I would put that on all fours with the analogy of the communist countries’ constitutions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think there are a couple of separate issues there. One is the issue of a member asking a question that the Minister does not have complete information on at the time that the question is asked. That is particularly likely to be so where questions to the Prime Minister cover an extraordinary broad range of matters and require a level of detail that the Prime Minister would need specific briefing on before being able to give an answer. But even within specific portfolios it is not an uncommon feature for many members—and the member who has just spoken I think is probably the best at doing this—to ask a broad question and it is not quite clear where the supplementary questions are coming from. Although the Minister may make every best effort to investigate 235 different programmes or 451 different cases that may come to mind the chances are that it is the 452nd case that a supplementary question is on and the Minister would not in fact have the information to answer that question at the time. It is a perfectly legitimate answer to indicate that the information will be made available as soon as possible. Otherwise Ministers would spend their entire time on preparing for question time instead of the considerable amount of time that does go into it in the New Zealand Parliament. 
 Underlying what the Speaker said the New Zealand Parliament has a more robust question time than that in many other democracies. For example in Australia members are often lucky to get one supplementary question in on a principal question and the Minister has 3 minutes or even up to 5 minutes to answer one short question. So the Minister gets a speech in reply to one question and there is often just one supplementary question following that. 
On the other matter on a number of questions last week we got into all sorts of detail and I do not want to get into some of that. One of the key points is that there are areas where a Minister should not be involved either because it is legally improper—in some cases illegal—or because it is inappropriate. For example a member may ask me as many questions as he or she likes about an individual tax case but he or she will not get an answer out of me in terms of specifics for a very simple reason: the Tax Administration Act provides that the Inland Revenue Department is not allowed to tell me about the details of an individual case. There is no point in asking me about it because I am not allowed to know what in fact those details are. Sometimes I may know that through my hat as Minister of Finance but that is a quite different matter indeed. So there are those circumstances in which Ministers will indicate that it is not appropriate for them to be involved in providing an answer because that in itself would be to get involved in an area that is not appropriate for the Minister to be involved in. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 If Ministers felt that consistent with the public interest they could not give an answer it would be helpful if they could actually say that rather than give half an answer. If they said they could not answer a question because under Standing Order 370(1) that would be inconsistent with the public interest then we would know where we stood. That is the first point. 
The second point is that it does seem to me Mr Speaker that you are required to judge the answers given at least in one respect. Standing Order 370(1) requires that Ministers must answer the question subject to being—Michael Cullen can shake his head but that Standing Orders states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given …”. Mr Speaker you are at least required to rule that when a Minister gives an answer he or she has sought to answer the question. The concern that members on the Opposition side of the House have is that Ministers are not seeking to answer questions; in fact they are seeking every device known to mankind not to answer them. I accept that to give an answer could be as in the example given by Dr Cullen inconsistent with the public interest. A Minister should be upfront and say he or she cannot answer that question because of the public interest. However if that test does not apply then the requirement under the Standing Orders is that each and every Minister should seek to answer the question. That is the rule and that is what we expect the Speaker to uphold. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think Mr Hide raised some very very good points that should be considered. Perhaps one of the difficulties the House has at the moment is that in your efforts to try to be fair to all parties it now appears that parties have a fairly strict limit on the number of supplementary questions that can be asked. Opposition members expect that for every question they ask they will be able to ask two supplementary questions and one supplementary question for each other question of the day and they can choose when to use that limited number. This provides an opportunity for a Minister to engage in the frustrating exercise of giving parts of an answer bits of an answer or perhaps even red herrings as an answer to burn up some of those supplementary questions and ultimately avoid some of the scrutiny. Frustration levels rise when members know that they are not getting the information that they themselves are quite often aware of and they simply want the Minister to state that fact publicly. They are finding that the number of their supplementary questions is beginning to run out and therefore they are resorting to appealing to the Speaker to protect their interests. 
 It might be worth considering when a Minister appears to be obfuscating the questions that are being put to him or her that the number of supplementary questions may continue for some time until answers are forthcoming or a statement is made such as: “According to this part of my Act that I administer I can’t answer you” or: “In my judgment in the public interest it’s best I don’t answer you.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Richard Prebble as an experienced member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I think the House is sympathetic to the point made by you and other Speakers that it is not the job of the Speaker to judge the quality of answers. In the end I guess it is the task of the electorate to judge whether Ministers are carrying out their tasks correctly. But we do have a dilemma. On occasions there are parts of questions that do not require a quality decision—it is obvious that the question has not been answered. I will give a hypothetical example which I think we heard in the House. A member asks: “What is the revenue from speed cameras in the last year?” and the Minister gets up and says that the revenue from the hours of eight in the morning to eight in the evening was X. That is not answering the question but picking out a part of it. We had that question from Mr John Key the other day. He asked what was the total growth in Government revenue since the Labour Party came to office. Mr Mallard picked a date later than that and said—presumably perfectly accurately—that from 2000 or whatever date he picked it was so much. 
Mr Speaker that does not require you to judge the quality of the answer. You can see that the question asked what was the growth of revenue from the time Labour came to office and that the Minister chose to say that the growth of revenue from yesterday was X. I know those circumstances require a bit of judgment by the Speaker but you are a senior member and I think you are capable of realising that the Minister did not address the question. He addressed a different question. That is the point I put to you. The Minister is required to address the question—not any old question or a redrafted question. Most of the disputes between the Opposition and the Government occur because the Minister has given a perfectly adequate answer to a question that was not actually asked. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I was going to raise this as a separate point of order but I think the ground Mr Prebble has covered leads neatly into the point I was going to address. Your ruling really restates what we have known for some considerable time and that is as it should be. But it would useful to know how you now intend to enforce that ruling in terms of the way questions are asked. That picks up on Mr Prebble’s point about answers that are part-answers or answers to a different question from the one that was asked. 
It seems to me that there can be no real objection to the notion that the Minister is the one responsible for the quality of the answer not the Speaker but because we have the provision in the Standing Orders about the question being addressed that is where the conflict emerges. I think it would be quite useful in terms of this particular discussion if you were able to give the House a ruling either now or separately on how you intend to enforce the ruling you have just brought down because I believe that is really what people are seeking. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take a final comment from Dr Cullen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would seem to be difficult for you to indicate how you will interpret that last point because it will be a matter for judgment in relation to specific questions and specific answers and any objections thereto. 
I might say that in my experience over the last year or two we have seen many many more points of order in question time than we have ever seen previously and that has nothing to do with any changes in the nature of the answers being given. I suggest to you that in fact members might like to think a bit more carefully about some of the issues raised today. If we are to get into trying to judge answers too finely we might as well also start judging some of the questions being asked. Many of the questions being asked are so poorly framed that they are capable of interpretation in any number of different ways. For example a question last week about the growth in tax revenue was capable of being interpreted in a number of different ways. Strictly speaking the question was asking to provide a cumulative amount since the Government came into office. It would be impossible to provide that answer because the Government did not come into office at the end of a month which is the most minute form into which we break tax revenue down. We do not break it down into weeks or days. I make that point quite seriously because members opposite often ask very poorly framed questions and are then surprised that they do not get the answer they are looking for. 
I might also note that the public is probably somewhat bemused to discover that we have had an admission from the Opposition spokesperson that Opposition members ask questions that they already know the answer to. The public might wonder why these questions are therefore being asked. 
Secondly I have noticed a great increase in the asking of multiple questions—one two three four five even six questions are part of one question. If members care to read  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 they will find that the rule is that a Minister has to answer only one of those questions. So when the members claim they are only getting a partial answer they are often getting an answer to one or two parts of a multi-part question. There is no requirement upon Ministers to answer more than one part of a multi-part question. I remind members if they care to read Standing Order 370(1) again that the ruling does not stop after “must be given” as Mr Hide seemed to assume; he missed out “… if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” A reply “seeks to address the question asked”. It is quite a low-level test although it is one that incorporates a certain level of the Speaker’s interpretation of the mensrea involved in the Minister’s actions. 
Finally I might note that the time involved in question time has increased significantly. When I was first a member of Parliament 45 minutes was allowed for question time. If questions were not reached in that time it was hard luck and they were pushed to the next day. There was sometimes 4 or 5 days’ notice before they were reached. Therefore the art of Government was to try to ensure as few questions as possible were answered in a day. I think the record we got down to at one point was three questions being answered in a 45-minute period. That is why we changed the Standing Orders to provide for a specified number of questions. It does seem to be incumbent upon the Opposition parties in that situation to ensure that question time takes a reasonable amount of time otherwise the pressure will come back upon the Government to provide a time limit within which question time has to occur. That would not be in the interests of the good running of this Parliament. 
I have two final points. One is that there is nothing new in these points being raised. If members care to look up old Speakers’ rulings—not the most recent—they will find that Speakers’ rulings on some of these matters go back to the 19th century. So they should unburden themselves of the delusion that this is some kind of recent occurrence within Parliament. Finally whatever the rulings are I would argue that it is in the interests of this House for there to be some latitude of interpretation in question time. Mr Speaker you and I remember one question time when a former Speaker decided to engage in a particularly picky interpretation of every question being asked as to whether it was within the Standing Orders. My recollection is that one supplementary question was ruled as being in order on that particular day. This House runs on the basis of some latitude in interpretation otherwise we would spend all our lives on points of order and not on asking or answering questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contributions. I deliberately allowed this debate to go on because I did make quite a substantial ruling at the start of the day. I refer people to their Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. There are very few members of this House who have had much more than a cursory glimpse at the Standing Orders. There are some honourable exceptions to that and I would like to thank the Hon Richard Prebble for his particular comments and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
I refer members first to Speaker’s ruling 144/5 ruled first by Speaker Harrison 24 years ago and then by Speaker Gray: “A Minister is not obliged to seek the call in answer to a question if the Minister does not intend to answer it. In these circumstances the Minister is treated as having refused to answer. There is no obligation to give reasons for a refusal to answer although it is preferable to do so. To avoid a series of supplementary questions it may be preferable to indicate the refusal to answer on a point of order.” Now that is of course the extreme end. I have always tried to make parliamentary question time worthwhile for those who are listening and for those who are participating. But members must remember that the scope of question time has expanded in recent years. Members can now ask opinions and include hypothetical material. Dr Cullen is right; I can remember when Speaker Wall ruled out all but one supplementary question because he was interpreting the rule absolutely to the letter. I do not want to have to do that. 
Questions no longer have to seek just factual material. It is therefore inevitable that there will be greater dissatisfaction with the replies to questions of much greater scope. Ministers have said from time to time that they cannot answer a question. I judge whether an answer seeks to address the question and from time to time I do require Ministers to expand on the answer and to answer the question and that is as I have always thought my job to be. It is up to members to criticise Ministers’ replies. Ministers have always said: “I need notice of that question.” I have heard that phrase used since I first came into this House in 1967 and heard my first debates. It is not the Speaker’s role to judge whether answers are consistent with each other; that provision could only come into play if a Minister flatly refuses to answer. It does not happen very often. A Minister makes a political judgment and of course he or she can be roundly criticised for that. Now I think that has answered most of the points that have been made. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just so that this House does not get carried away with any of Gerry Wall’s decisions I seek leave to table Mr Wall’s comments when he went to the Labour Party caucus to ask them whether he was gaga. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
Visitors 
European Union—Commissioner for Trade 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Pascal Lamy the European Union Commissioner for Trade is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Reports 
1. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 With some trepidation I answer. I have received a number of reports highlighting the strength of the New Zealand economy. Rating agency Standard and Poor’s has today reconfirmed our double AA credit rating which it states is based on this Government’s sturdy financial management. The National Bank’s  
Business Outlook 
 observes: “Good news about our economy seems to be everywhere.” Although the Reserve Bank raised interest rates today it did so because growth is so strong. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the one warning today. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What other reports and analyses has he received in respect of the economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I received a report that New Zealand’s legal system education system and political environment are so strong that they would support the creation of an offshore banking centre in New Zealand. That came from the Opposition spokesperson on finance. As I am sure he is aware there are also considerable reputational risks with regard to offshore banking centres. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm for the House that he has just announced in his answer to the question the interest rate rise that we assumed the Governor of the Reserve Bank would be announcing tomorrow? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am following upon all the background from economists who are all projecting that interest rate tomorrow—[ 
Interruption 
] All I can say is that if there is not one I will be very surprised indeed this time. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister accept that given that 85 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small to medium in size their worrying rate of failure—as depicted by the fact that only 27.4 percent make it beyond 7 years—is a threat to the economy and is he willing to commit the Government to reversing this trend? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member should await a World Bank report that is coming out in the not too distant future that will indicate that this country—without giving the full details—will rank so high in terms of ease of doing business that complaints about compliance costs will look very very foolish indeed. But it is the nature of small businesses that they often have a relatively short lifespan. That is not peculiar to New Zealand; it is true in almost every developed country in the world that I am aware of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any information at all suggesting that the Governor of the Reserve Bank will put up interest rates; if that is so how on earth could the governor be complying with this country’s law? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The governor certainly has not told me what his intentions are in terms of the announcement tomorrow. I have had advice from Treasury that there is 100 percent unanimity amongst bank economists that interest rates are going to rise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: As the Minister has been willing to give us his views on the economy and has told us that he is expecting an interest rate and given that the Australian Finance Minister is quite prepared to publicly indicate prior to a statement by the Reserve Bank whether he considers interest rates should go up will the Minister advise the House whether he believes an interest rate rise is justified tomorrow; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No there is an enormous difference between Australia and New Zealand in that respect. Apart from anything else a senior Australian Treasury official sits on the committee that makes the final decision around Australian interest rates. In New Zealand the decision is made by the governor alone. 
Peter Brown 
: If the economy is so strong can we take it that there will be no need to increase the tax on petrol as the Government proposes to do later this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The increase is due to come into force next year. That is required for increased revenue to be devoted to roading. I note that Standard and Poor’s does give a warning in terms of our fiscal position that it could come under threat from unsustainable spending promises in the run-up to next year’s election. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister clarify whether he has been briefed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank and whether it is possible that he has made a quite serious breach of the protocol he should be following? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Governor of the Reserve Bank always briefs the Government in advance of any announcement but the governor never in my experience—and I am sure the member could refer to somebody who occasionally flits into this place—actually tells the Government what he is going to do. I am relying for the first time in my experience upon a unanimous view of bank economists about not only what will be done but about what should be done. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the Allen Consulting Group’s report that advocates Government investment in four roading projects that would return “a total benefit net of costs to the New Zealand economy in excess of $1.5 billion annually in 2012”; if he is aware can we expect him to implement such a report? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A fairly high proportion of the projects that are contained in that report are either done—and if the member reads the report he will notice a rather strange marginal note at one point which the authors forgot to take out which notes something has been done—or have already been planned to be done over the next few years. 
John Key 
: What is the point of the Governor of the Reserve Bank announcing a rate increase tomorrow when the Minister of Finance has already told the House 24 hours earlier? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of course one could be wrong but I would be very surprised. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that there is no difference between the present Government’s and the National Party’s monetary policies and that there is a belief that if one wants to somehow get on top of consumption and rising house prices one merely chokes the economy with high interest rates paid for by provincial New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The policy targets agreement has been revised twice under myself as Minister of Finance. The previous policy targets agreement that was revised was signed by that member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you advise me on what would be the best process to ask the Minister of Finance whether he would allow his  
Hansard 
 to be made available to the House before the end of question time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You can approach him directly. 
Sovereign Yachts—Contribution to Economy 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Following her reply yesterday that Mr Lloyd “would not give the information” has she now been able to find out how many jobs have been created by Sovereign Yachts and does she stand by her 2001 statement to Parliament that “hundreds more jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of export earnings” were in prospect through this development? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The company today informed the Ministry of Economic Development that it currently has 75 workers and that it estimates another 20 to 25 are employed by subcontractors doing Sovereign Yachts work. It repeated its invitation to Mr Hide to visit. As to the second part of the question while the numbers fall short of the predictions originally made by the Ministry of Economic Development they still amount to more people in work than if the company had not located there at all. Of course since this Government came to office there are 211000 more jobs in New Zealand than previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she consider it a good deal that Bill Lloyd would get to pick up 10 acres of Auckland real estate right on the waterfront for less than half a million dollars and in return generate by her count only 75 jobs out of the 350 jobs and in 3 years finish off only one boat and not generate anywhere near the $600 million in export earnings that she promised in her speech? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is aware that there was a disposal process that was gone through with the Defence land: to sell it back to the original owners who then had an arrangement with Mr Lloyd. There may be all sorts of reasons why businesses do not grow as fast as was predicted. What I am confident of is that this Government has a fantastic record of jobs—211000 more since we came into office. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does she stand by her statement on 4 February 2001 that the Sovereign Yachts development “reflects well on the Government’s commitment to being active in promoting investment exporting business and job growth.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course because there are 75 jobs that were not there previously. 
Rodney Hide 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to Bill Lloyd’s complaint repeated in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 that the reason the project has not delivered as promised is that the Government has broken its commitment to him and refused to sell him more of the surrounding land for a residential development as he said he was promised—or does she think Bill Lloyd is not quite what he was cracked up to be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not believe any such promise was ever made to Mr Lloyd. 
Sea Lion Deaths—Southern Squid Trawl Fishery 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he have any concerns about options proposed by the Ministry of Fisheries to increase the number of rare New Zealand sea lions that are allowed to be killed in the southern squid trawl fishery? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 My advice is that the Ministry of Fisheries’ preference is for a fishing-related mortality limit of 115 sea lions in the 2004-05 fishing season. This is less than the 124 sea lion limit established by the Court of Appeal for the previous fishing season. The Ministry of Fisheries states in its initial position paper that the 598 sea lion limit developed by one particular model is inappropriate—a view shared by my department. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that the catch in the last year to which he refers is the highest for nearly a decade and was only as high as that because the court overturned the original limit of 62 and why does he think the fishing industry will ever adopt best practice to reduce deaths if the number of permitted mortalities goes up every year? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have been dialoguing with the squid fishing industry and I am convinced that it is as committed as the Department of Conservation to see that the by-kill is reduced. We are exploring a population management plan which is being developed by the department at the moment which will be released next year. 
David Parker 
: What is the Government’s objective for the future of the New Zealand sea lion? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government’s objective is to see the sea lion removed from the endangered species list. These magnificent animals are unique to New Zealand and my department is developing as I said earlier a population management plan for them in accordance with the Marine Mammals Protection Act. I am working closely with my good friend the Minister of Fisheries to achieve a sustained reduction in the numbers of marine mammals that are accidentally killed in our fisheries. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Ministry of Fisheries’ preferred option succeed in restoring sea lions to unthreatened status within 20 years as he has been required to do since they were gazetted in 1996 as a threatened species under the Marine Mammals Protection Act and why does he think it is appropriate to leave it to the fishing industry to reduce kill when it has challenged every decision the Minister of Fisheries has made to try to reduce kill? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I do not think it is appropriate just to leave it to the fishing industry to manage the conservation measures that are taking place to protect this species. Setting by-kill limits is one of a comprehensive basket of conservation measures we can take to protect this species. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has he received any advice from his officials that the use of lights in jigging on squid boats could dramatically reduce sea lion mortality and will he urge his colleague the Minister of Fisheries to use his powers to regulate to require those technologies to be used? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Those technologies are certainly much more marine mammal friendly but I do understand from my dialogues with the squid fishing industry that the stormy oceans of the southern seas do put at risk certain technologies that can be used safely elsewhere. 
Internal Affairs Department—Grant Investigations 
4.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What specific Department of Internal Affairs grants have been investigated in the last 12 months and what has been the outcome of those investigations? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 The Department of Internal Affairs administers six separate votes for five separate Ministers. I am advised that over the last year 19 investigations were undertaken into grants made by the lottery distribution committees. Of these 10 cases were found to meet requirements two are in the hands of the police and seven are still under investigation by the Department of Internal Affairs auditors. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has he received the departmental report due last month investigating 32 Auckland groups over a suspected scam to invent community projects and defraud his taxpayer-funded Community Organisations Grants Scheme of $150000; if so what did that report state? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No I expect that it has been sent to the Hon Rick Barker as the portfolio for the community and voluntary sector is his. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the scale of lottery grants investigations? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The 19 cases being investigated comprise only 0.42 percent of the 4533 grants made by lotteries distribution committees last year. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is he aware that his department has been conducting an investigation for the last year into “a whole range of fake projects” that have received grants where according to his own officials the grant recipients “were just making up projects”; if so what has he been doing about it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously these things are being investigated by the Hon Rick Barker because they fall within his portfolio. I do not know whether the member understands how things work. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would he expect as a competent and hard-working Minister to know that his department had a report out uncovering 32 cases of fraud and the attempt to defraud the Government particularly when the Opposition knows all about it—and he just sits there with the ministerial limo the pay and the perks and says: “Oh that’s for Rick Barker to deal with.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is Rick Barker’s to deal with because he is the Minister in charge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A large amount of that question had hypothetical and other comments that were not necessary to the actual sense of the question. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has he read the November 2003 independent report on one of his grant schemes that raises concerns about “the lack of clear and authoritative policies and guidelines within the scheme” and “a lack of clarity in public accountability processes”; and what changes has he made to his grant schemes as a result of that report? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have made a number of inquiries about those that fall within my portfolio—that is the Lotteries Commission and the Lottery Grants Board—and of course two have been referred to the police. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring this matter up now because I think it is relevant to the whole of question time. We have just got out the Schedule of Responsibilities Delegated to Associate Ministers dated August 2004. This question is set down to the Minister of Internal Affairs and was accepted by the Clerk’s Office as being an appropriate question for the Minister of Internal Affairs. Notwithstanding what Mr Cullen said before our primary questions are well looked into. The Minister’s answer to the primary question was a range of things about the Lotteries Commission; it had nothing to do with the community grants stuff that was being requested of him. For him simply to say that it is not his problem but that it is the Hon. Rick Barker who is in charge is unacceptable. 
When we look at the delegations in the schedule we see that the only two Ministers who have associate delegations under internal affairs are the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Mark Burton. Where are we to go now? Is a Minister simply able to say: “Well I don’t know about that. Why don’t you ask X Minister or so and so?”. Surely we are entitled to expect that the Government will have given the House and the country true information about who is running what portfolio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member made the point twice. He needs to make it only once. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The question was properly accepted by the Clerk’s Office because the Minister of Internal Affairs does have responsibility for grants by that department. Another Minister has responsibility for the community grants a subgroup of this from the department. If members opposite had thought carefully before they lodged their questions and had put them down to the appropriate Minister they would have received an answer on those particular grants. The fact is that they did not look carefully at what they should have. They did not consider the delegations and that is quite sad. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That was a very interesting lecture from Mr Mallard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point of order is this: where is the delegation he speaks of and why is it not lying on the floor of the House so we can all act appropriately? We are being led up the garden path by a Government that does not want to answer questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last sentence was irrelevant. The member raised a point of order. As far as I am concerned I will have a look at the issue of the delegations. I do not have them in front of me this moment and those on this schedule may or may not be the most recent ones. I will have a look at the matter and come back to it later. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why was the Minister happy to answer questions about internal affairs grants schemes yesterday but not today and has he just recently had an explanation of what his portfolio responsibilities are? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The reason I was happy to answer yesterday is that that member did not know what she was on about. 
Work and Income New Zealand—Creative Industries Programmes 
5.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on outcomes of Work and Income programmes assisting clients seeking employment in the creative industries? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received a report on the Work and Income Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme or “PACE” as it is known—an employment initiative designed to help job seekers who have skills for employment in creative industries. The programme has now achieved over 2500 placements into employment. Over 1000 of these placements occurred in the last 12 months—confirming the ongoing strength and vitality of New Zealand’s creative industries and our healthy general labour market. It also confirms how wrong Opposition members have been when they have consistently condemned this innovative and successful policy. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What employment opportunities exist in the creative sector and how is the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme assisting job seekers to take up these opportunities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In 2002 the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report estimated the economic contribution of the creative industries at 3.1 percent of total GDP and 3.6 percent of total employment and estimated the jobs growth in the sector at 3.5 percent year on year. The Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme ensures that job seekers are able to take up employment opportunities in the growing creative sector or in general employment. The programme has had significant successes on both measures. It is the kind of programme that the Opposition consistently denies is useful but the rest of the country thinks otherwise. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I move on to question No. 6 I want to say that I have referred to the Clerk and to the Cabinet list and I should inform members who raised the issue that Rick Barker is the full Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector. It is not a delegation at all. He is the full Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] We all make mistakes and the only person who can interject now is one who never makes one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right! I thought it would be Winston; nevertheless Winston apart that applies to everybody else. 
Community and Voluntary Sector—Government Assistance 
6.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: Following a report on the community and voluntary sector showing that “For every one dollar provided to a voluntary agency between $3 and $5 worth of services are delivered to the community.” what will he do to further encourage and support that sector? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 The community and voluntary sector is greatly valued by this Government. The statement of Government intentions for an improved community-Government relationship signed by the Prime Minister in 2001 clearly sets out the Government’s vision for and commitment to the community and voluntary sector. I am sure the member will be familiar with it. We all recognise that our communities are vastly richer and better off for the work of volunteers. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that the first step the Government could take to assist the voluntary sector would be to rethink the Charities Bill which threatens the political autonomy of community groups will overload them with compliance costs and will have a chilling effect on the willingness of volunteers to serve on boards; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Charities Bill is the responsibility of the Minister of Commerce Margaret Wilson and I draw the member’s attention to a press statement made by Margaret Wilson on 18 August which states: “I am open to changes in the bill. In light of submissions I have asked officials to work with the select committee to ensure that we get legislation that is workable and does not impose unnecessary costs on charities.” 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister been briefed on the valuable work done by the volunteers of Age Concern in advocating for older New Zealanders and hence will he listen to and act on Age Concern’s submission on the Charities Bill which states: “We recommend strongly that the Government does not proceed with this bill.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The first point I would make to the member is that the bill is not back before the House. The second point I would make is that the Minister has made a commitment—a public commitment—to ensure that the legislation works for charities as well as for the Government. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise the House what action the Government has taken to date to give effect to the statement of intent with the voluntary sector? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Since coming to office this Government has worked closely with the sectors to understand what they need and to enable them to carry out their work. First we asked the community to set up a task force to tell us how it wanted to interface with the Government and at the same time the Government established the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector. That office takes an across-Government leadership role and works closely with the sector to develop good relationships between Government departments and non-governmental organisations in the community. I welcome a recent report by the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. It will take some time to carefully consider the report and its recommendations. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree that one of the valuable services that is performed by the community and voluntary sector is to keep the Government accountable and how will it assist organisations to perform that role if under the Charities Bill they could be deregistered by the Charities Commission if they engaged in political advocacy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I make the point for the third time that I am not the Minister responsible for the Charities Bill. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Commerce. However I restate the point I made as the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector that the Government has a commitment to work with the community and voluntary sector in a mutually respectful way. I am sure the Government will do everything it can to encourage that sector. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister nevertheless aware of a statement made by the Hon Judith Tizard this morning that: “An organisation whose stated purposes include the attainment of a political purpose cannot be a charity.” and does he not agree that such a statement flies in the face of the capacity of any community group with political goals to register as a charity? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No I was not aware of that until the member read it out but I am pleased to be able to tell the House that as an aside to me the Minister concerned said that she did not say that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Could the Minister clarify the answers that he has just given to the Green MP? Is the House to take it that he does accept the Green Party notion that for every $1 given to the voluntary sector the community receives $5; if he does why not give the voluntary sector the whole of the country’s tax revenue so we can all sit back and be wealthier than the Swiss—or is there something wrong with the Green Party’s Social Credit notions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for the Green Party. He can however address the question in so far as it affects his portfolio. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The figures that the member for the Green Party refers to came out of a briefing—a brief introduction to a report that is under way on the value added by voluntary agencies. The full report will come out on Friday. The second point that I would make is that one of the agreements that the Government has with the voluntary sector is that volunteering is not to be used to replace full-time jobs. So the member’s contention is completely wrong. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is actually the question that we had this morning. That answer does not address the question. I am well aware of where that statement came from. What I actually asked the Minister was whether he believed that the Social Credit notion that giving $1 to the voluntary sector results in benefits of $5 and if so why we did not implement it. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member is wrong when he says it is a Social Credit notion; he is completely wrong on that. Secondly I will wait for the full report to make my own judgment about his contention. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek leave of the House to table a speech given by the Hon Judith Tizard to the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations in Wellington this morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Literacy and Numeracy—Initiatives 
7.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the success of the Government’s initiatives in the areas of literacy and numeracy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report that indicates that United States’ literacy levels are higher than New Zealand’s when in fact Programme for International Student Assessment results show that our 15-year-olds are third in the OECD for literacy and the US is in 16th position. I have also seen a report that concedes that previous Governments did not do enough to address literacy and numeracy issues and that after 20 years of arguing this Government has finally got things on the right track. I welcome that endorsement from Bill English of our work to lift education standards; it contrasts with the comments made by Don Brash running down the New Zealand education system. 
Mark Peck 
: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all our students develop essential literacy and numeracy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As part of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement all students are now required to meet basic literacy and numeracy standards. For the first time we have level 2 literacy requirements for entrance to university. We have raised the standard of education so that all students can develop the skills needed for a modern workforce. However literacy and numeracy do appear to be a problem for some. For example I have found no evidence to support the claim that 25 percent of our school leavers are illiterate. I am glad to see that Bill English does not agree with that. It would be good if Don Brash used one of his occasional visits to the House to stop running down New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of the last sentence is not in order. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the prioritisation of education spending when literacy and numeracy projects play second fiddle to pet projects of his Associate Minister whose successful Budget bid for a new polytechnic slush fund was slammed by Treasury which said it had “no clear funding needs or benefits” would “create risks of double-dipping” and would be “low value for money”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: While I am Associate Minister of Finance and am always very careful to be respectful of the comments of Treasury I think that if the member looked at the money that went into the polytech capitalisation fund and into literacy he would see that an enormous amount more goes into literacy than into the polytech fund. I do not agree with that member or with Bill English who say that our schools are awash with cash. It is just not true. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They’re all losing it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the member is about to lose his place in this House. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister accept the comments made by Kevin Bryant Chief Executive of the Agriculture Industry Training Organisation who told a recent principals’ conference that the school system had failed them because of Government underfunding; and in the light of Mr Bryant’s justification of those comments is he prepared to give priority to the literacy and numeracy needs of secondary and tertiary students given that the Government’s own research shows that 20 percent of agriculture trainees have major literacy problems and 25 percent have significant difficulties with numeracy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member has an important point—that is historically there have been problems in the literacy area. This Government has put an enormous amount of funding into mainly the primary education system but also more recently secondary literacy work. I know that my colleague the Associate Minister who looks after tertiary education is doing a lot of work on foundation courses in order to ensure that people who are in industry training and in our polytechnic system get the literacy work that is necessary. However for some people especially Don Brash it is just too late. 
Murray Smith 
: I seek leave to table an article dated 4 September and headed “Underfunding blamed for failure of school system”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect to the questions that were raised about the actual wording used by the Minister of Finance in answer to question No. 1 we now have a transcript taken from the Sky broadcast tape. In fact the Minister did say: “The National Business Review Outlook observes good news in the economy seems to be everywhere. And although the Reserve Bank raised interest rates today it did so because growth is so strong.” In our view that is quite a breach of the confidentiality that should surround that announcement. We were wondering at what point the Minister might make a ministerial statement. I would suggest that a point of order in a speech that might follow is an inappropriate way to deal with this serious mishap. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I certainly do not need to make a ministerial statement. I regret the fact I appear to have misread my own notes. If I can read my handwritten version—it is not easy to read my handwriting—it states: “The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates and has done so because growth is so strong.” That is factually correct. The Reserve Bank has raised interest rates on a number of occasions this year because growth is so strong. [ 
Interruption 
] Wait little man wait! Goodness me! The member should quit while he is ahead—OK? He should just calm down. The word “today” was inadvertently used by myself. I certainly regret the fact if I might have caused the Governor of the Reserve Bank—[ 
Interruption 
] There was no announcement about interest rates today. No announcement is made until tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no point of order involved. 
Prisoners on Remand—Police Supervision 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What assurances can he give that the personal safety of police officers will not be jeopardised as inmate overcrowding worsens and when does he expect this situation to end in light of the warning from a senior police officer that: “The more we have to put in there the more it turns into a powder keg.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The personal safety of police officers is always a high priority. The police are trained to protect themselves and the public. I am advised that around 120000 people are held in police custody annually. The police are working on a daily basis with Department of Corrections staff to manage prisoner levels. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that yesterday in the overcrowded cells of the Manukau District Court remand prisoners near-rioted smashing their cells and that it took the intervention of police officers to restore order; and could that risk to the safety of our police officers be another reason why the Prime Minister will not reassure him of his ministerial warrant? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the first question can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am not aware of the information the member has but I will immediately get an answer for him. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Could the Minister explain to the House again some of the reasons that inmate numbers have risen in this country? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police are doing a magnificent job of catching criminals. Police resolution rates are the highest they have been in 20 years. As well the Government has toughened up the sentencing parole and bail laws which means more criminals are being locked up. 
Marc Alexander 
: Has the Minister received any assurances from the Minister of Justice that the safety of police officers will not be jeopardised further by the passage of the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) given that all those measures increase custodial sentences and raise the possibility of an even bigger increase in the number of remand and sentenced prisoners being detained in police cells? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have talked with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Corrections over the present problem. I have not discussed whether any of those bills will add to the problem because we think the problem is short term. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Why is it that as at 31 July 2004 the Government’s DNA testing agency had not analysed police samples for 21 alleged homicide cases including two that had been waiting for analysis for over 9 months; and is that delay in investigating those 21 murder-case samples linked in any way at all to the fact that the police know that even if they were to get convictions there may not be any police cells available for the offenders? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right at the end of that question the member became relevant. The first part of the question was very very wide; it was really another question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am pleased to tell the House that this Government has put in a lot more money so we can do DNA tests and palm-print tests—which means that we have found another four rapists whom we would not have found before. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to a previous supplementary question has he seen the Ministry of Justice report that indicates that one of the major causes of the current muster crisis is the length of time it is taking to get criminal cases through the clogged courts system; and does he think he is being blamed for the mismanagement of the Minister for Courts? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That report is being looked after by the Hon Rick Barker who is right on top of it as Government Ministers work together to make sure that this crisis is fixed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Stephen Franks. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Franks had not started his question so I will ignore the interjection but it does lead to riposte. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has the Minister inquired to find out exactly when each of the three new prisons in Northland Auckland and south Auckland will open—which in 1999 were planned to open last year—so that every police officer now tending prisoners can get back to policing; and if he has not asked his seat mate that why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Even when this crisis is over there are police officers who will work at guarding prisoners. It is part of police work. However I must say that I was surprised to read in the  
Waikato Times 
 of 18 July that the National Party was telling people to protest against the building of prisons using wahi tapu as a powerful reason for that. Amongst the MPs who were at that meeting were Dr Paul Hutchison Shane Ardern and Richard Worth. They do not want prisons in their areas. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What responsibility will the Minister take if a police officer is seriously assaulted by a remand prisoner considering the Manukau District Court cell-trashing the recent attack on a west Auckland policewoman by a remand inmate and the potentially tragic placement of an at-risk remand prisoner with dangerous criminals in a police cell; or does the Minister think that in a few weeks this crisis will be someone else’s problem? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Government is always concerned when criminals attack police. Whether it occurs in a cell or out on the street we are concerned about that. We put money in for training and the commissioner makes sure that safety is a major consideration in all police work. I seek leave to table the news report in the  
Waikato Times 
 dated 18 July 2001. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Manukau Courier 
 in which George Hawkins as the local member objected to prisons in his community. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Trade Negotiations—Jakarta Meeting 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What progress was made in trade negotiations from last weekend’s meeting in Jakarta? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Significant progress has been made. ASEAN Ministers along with their Australian and New Zealand counterparts have endorsed a recommendation that their leaders begin negotiations on a trade agreement linking ASEAN and CER. In addition Malaysia and New Zealand have agreed to begin studies to explore whether to have a bilateral trade agreement. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Are these negotiations consistent with New Zealand’s policy of supporting a comprehensive World Trade Organization arrangement? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Certainly. The Government’s top trade priority is the World Trade Organization’s Doha development agenda. However we are also working on plan B—a network of comprehensive regional plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements to ensure that our exporters have the market access they need for New Zealand as a whole to prosper. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that trade sanctions played a vital role in defeating apartheid in South Africa; if so why does his Government want to give priority to negotiating a preferential trade deal with Burma—a country ruled by an oppressive undemocratic regime which according to Amnesty International frequently violates the human rights of ethnic minorities has locked up over 1300 political prisoners and exploits forced labour? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I will answer the first question first. I believe that the sporting boycott of the Springboks which I regret to say was not supported by all members of this House had more effect on the South African authorities at the time. In answer to the second question active engagement between nations and peoples encourages peaceful development democracy and human rights. By refusing to trade with people we only thrust them into deeper poverty. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister explain why following the decision of the ASEAN States to seek a trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand and to complete those negotiations within 3 years and the concurrent decision of the ASEAN States at the weekend to conclude a free-trade agreement with China by 2010 New Zealand now needs separately to conclude a free-trade agreement with China? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The rules of origin which are a feature of every bilateral and plurilateral trade agreement would mean that we cannot simply take advantage of other countries’ bilateral agreements with third parties and thereby escape the need to negotiate trade agreements of our own. 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Treaty Claims Waikato River / West Coast Harbours 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Can he confirm his reported statement that Tainui concerns about whether the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cuts across claims over the Waikato River and west coast harbours will have to be worked through as it goes through the House; if so what action has he taken so far to work through Tainui’s concerns? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I can confirm that Tainui has raised the issue of whether their claim over the Waikato River and west coast harbours will be affected by the foreshore and seabed legislation that is currently progressing through the select committee process. I can confirm that the Crown has met with Tainui representatives on several occasions this year as it has done with other iwi. Assurances were given at these meetings that the foreshore and seabed legislation does not pre-empt any future treaty settlements and negotiations. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If as his colleague the Hon John Tamihere stated yesterday the Minister is part of an “open robust and transparent Government” then why will he not reveal the Government’s intention to negotiate with iwi over the foreshore and seabed rather than striking backroom deals to grant them ownership interests while telling the public that the Crown will own the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This Government is very transparent and we are not doing any backroom deals. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does the foreshore and seabed legislation impact on Tainui’s historical claims? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Tainui’s historical claims are not affected by the proposed foreshore and seabed legislation. The legislation provides for a forward-looking regime for the recognition of existing or surviving customary rights and interests. It also addresses any potential effects on existing customary rights and interests resulting from the vesting of full title in the Crown. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the negotiations that he and his fellow Ministers are having with Tainui now result in seabed and foreshore partial ownership being accorded to Tainui? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As the member will be aware the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 provided for settlement of Waikato Tainui’s raupatu claims. Their claims to the Waikato River and west coast harbours remain unsettled and we are working on it. That member’s party did all the easy bits; we are doing the tough bits. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the negotiations that the Minister and his fellow Ministers are having with Tainui result in some of the seabed and foreshore of this country passing into some form of ownership for Tainui? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That matter is the subject of ongoing discussions and it will be resolved when we resolve it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is the Minister aware of any treaty settlements that have involved the transfer of ownership of the foreshore and seabed to iwi? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought that this Minister might be on top of his portfolio but if he likes to look at the arrangements around Te Waihora in the South Island— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I declare that a vexatious point of order. It was unnecessary and was made just to make a political point. That was not a point of order and the member knows it. 
Police—Offence Report Auckland 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments in the House yesterday at what level was the decision made not to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards for the aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 and why was the decision made at that level? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is not my practice to get involved in specific police investigations. However given inferences that some have tried to draw from this situation I have decided because of public case in this case to advise the rank of the police officer concerned. Police have advised me that the decision not to prosecute was made by a detective senior sergeant because he was the officer in charge of the investigation in accordance with police procedure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who is that person—that is what is his name and in what office does he reside? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Giving out the names of police officers doing their work is something that I do not want to do because it could damage the safety of the individual or lead to unwarranted political pressure on the police not to do their job without fear or favour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that if such a question was put down in writing it would get an answer. Today we are back to the behaviour of last week and every question until the Prime Minister gave that assurance. The Minister began by saying that he would break from what he has established as his own convention—which is not to be found anywhere else under any previous police Ministers—and give out the detective’s rank. The fact is that a number of the officials engaged in this investigation have spoken and are already known. We are entitled to know this person’s name and to know what office he operated in at that time. How long do we have to go on in this House putting up with this sort of obfuscation when the Minister knows that he has had weeks to get ready for this answer and the Prime Minister promised this House that we would get an answer? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this is a classic example of the operation of Standing Order 370. The Minister is perfectly entitled to decline to give the name in the matter of the public interest—that is to protect the police officer because police officers should be protected from inappropriate pressure that might arise by naming them in connection with certain events. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has given his answer. It is over to him how he does so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister what office the decision maker operated in when the decision was made? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that giving those details is not usually very helpful to the safety of police officers and it adds to the political pressure that can go on to police. It is very easy to find out who the detective senior sergeant is because there are not very many of them at individual stations. In fact some stations do not have them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of it but in our law one may not challenge a police officer’s decision to prosecute. Three years ago there was a famous case in the UK in which the decision not to prosecute was challenged successfully. It was ground-breaking law and it would apply in this case as well. There was no case; there was a decision not to prosecute and no one in this case needs to be protected by Parliament other than anyone who happens to be an innocent victim. So I think I am entitled to know what office made this decision. If I am not entitled to know that then the public is being shut out and shut down by a cover-up and this House cannot tolerate that. So I ask again for the Minister to advise this House what office made that decision. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister answered that question in the primary answer. He stated that it was the detective senior sergeant who was the officer in charge of the investigation. That is a complete answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it is not. Point of order! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will rule on this. The Minister has given an answer and he is entitled to do so in the way that he did it and I judge that he did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Cullen’s point of order is totally erroneous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not the member’s point of order. He was speaking to your one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So you are telling me that I am not entitled to an answer now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have given the answer. The answer is that the Minister gave an answer and that is satisfactory as far as I am concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is simply this. What we are seeing here is now collusion in a cover-up. Yesterday that Minister was admonished by his own Prime Minister to the extent that she said: “If that question is put down in writing then the member will get an answer.” Today 24 hours on we are being told the reverse. This House—and any self-respecting democracy—is able to hold any other Minister of the Crown to account. Now we are being shut down completely by a Minister who began by saying it is not his practice but that he would answer the question and who then gave out a snippet of information and denies this possible fact: if the decision making was shifted to another person of equal rank in some other office then that is relevant to this case. I want to know what the answer is. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order was that the Prime Minister said that the question could be put down. It was put down. The Minister gave an answer and he is entitled to give that answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was it not made known to the jury in the McNee case that Edwards was not a stranger to McNee but had known him for at least 3 years—a failure that obviously led the jury to reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter—which elicited the comment last night from Bill Hodge a criminal law specialist at Auckland University that: “The jury must have started with the presumption that Edwards and McNee were strangers and it was a one-off and if the defence were aware of the missing evidence they would have no choice but to go to murder.”; why was that information not known and made known to the jury? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is out of order because this matter is still sub judice. I have taken advice on this and that is the opinion I have been given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The trial is over. It now awaits the matter of the sentence. I am asking about information that was not given to the jury. It is not sub judice because the conviction has already been entered by the jury. The decision went against Mr Edwards. What could possibly be brought to bear now on the jury’s mind as the jury is no longer hearing this case? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Even if that point were correct I suggest that the question is out of order on another ground. The Minister of Police is not responsible for the evidence presented to a court by Crown counsel. Whether that matter was adduced in evidence is a matter for Crown counsel. It is also my understanding that the evidence probably would have been inadmissible in any case. It is not a matter for the Minister of Police to determine whether Crown counsel presents evidence in a quite separate case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Irrespective of that I refer the member to Standing Order 112(2) which is quite specific. It states that the sub judice rule ceases to have effect when the verdict and sentence are given. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the Standing Order I know—as will the Clerk of the House know—that the sub judice rule is to protect any possible bearing on evidence before the court. The case is over so how can you assert the sub judice rule given that there is no longer any trial? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I follow the Standing Orders. If the member reads Standing Order 112(2) he will see that I am bound to follow it. It states that the sub judice rule ceases when the verdict and sentence are given. That is the end of the matter. Supplementary question Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Murray Smith:I 
 raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a supplementary question that United Future has been trying to ask for some time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon I do acknowledge that. I will allow Mr Peters to continue as he has started his question. The member will get the next one. I am sorry about that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the police not make it known to the prosecutor that Edwards’ claim of not knowing Mr McNee was false and that they had been seen together frequently before the night of the killing? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the same point again. I do not see what responsibility the Minister of Police has for evidence adduced by Crown counsel during a trial. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is patently obvious that the prosecutor will rely on the evidence given to him by the police. If the police do not give it to him and he knows nothing about it then he will not elicit it in a court of law. That is so absurdly obvious that I cannot believe anybody would rise to make a point of order. I am asking why a critical piece of information that went to the core of whether it should be a murder conviction or a manslaughter conviction was denied to the prosecutor. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not actually the question the member previously asked. His question was why was evidence not presented to the jury. The question of why it was not presented to the prosecutor is quite a different issue. I invite the member to present evidence that that information was not made available to the prosecutor. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If we look at the  
Hansard 
 we will see that the last comment I made to distinguish the point of order sought to be made by Dr Cullen was that the police had not made that information known to the prosecutor. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Police. Now I am being asked by the Deputy Prime Minister to provide the evidence to the House when the person who holds the warrant and the portfolio responsibility for that is the very person who for weeks has been obfuscating on this issue. On this day—about the 12th day of parliamentary questions on this issue—the Minister has decided that the issue is all sub judice. Why was that not raised from day one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that he is still referring to a case that is pending adjudication and he should see Standing Order 112(2). 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the decision that was made not to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards for the aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue was not subject to interference from himself or from any of his ministerial colleagues; if not then which Minister was it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes I can give that assurance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who gave the assurance to Edwards that his name and the events surrounding this case would never come out in public; who in the police force gave that assurance to Edwards who had 50 convictions already at the time the assurance was given to him? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not read police files. I think it is very wise that Ministers of Police leave the police to get on with the job instead of trying to do it themselves. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one has asked this Minister of Police to get involved in a decision to prosecute or otherwise. I am merely asking this Minister what happened. What is the truth? What went on? For him to give the sort of answer that he did the other day—for which he is giving a different version now—that he does not have the information and does not want the information shows contempt for this Parliament. He should not be allowed to get away with it particularly since someone innocent died. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the member has not raised a valid point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear to you that I know of no Western democracy where a Minister could get away with this and be protected and shielded by rulings from the Speaker in the way that I have witnessed these last few weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is accusing me of bias in this way— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I am not. I am making a comparison— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please sit down when I am on my feet. Do not interject when I am on my feet or you will leave straight away. I say to the member that I have been very tolerant and lenient but he is asking questions to which the Minister has given his answer. The Minister was entitled to give that answer. That is where the matter rests. As I said before I am not here as a quizmaster to adjudicate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No Mr Speaker you are here to ensure that when questions are properly put this Government and this Minister in particular are held to account. If you are not prepared to have someone make a comparison with other Western democracies then in my view you are totally outreaching your authority in this House. I am entitled to make a comparison. I am entitled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had quite enough. The member will sit down. I will not reply to that. That was a direct challenge to me and I will not have it. The member knows that he is out of order and he should desist immediately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This had better be a new point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a new point of order. I do not know that I am out of order at all. I say to you that there is no Western democracy where a Minister would get away with this. If you know in which democracy a Minister would get away with it please tell us. This has come to a disgraceful level. A Minister is involved in a cover-up whereby someone was murdered and the jury never heard the evidence that would have brought that murder conviction. Please tell me where else in the Western World I would witness this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not have to do that at all. I have made my statement. The member is grossly disorderly. If there are any more comments from him today I will name him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I hear that threat one more time it is my intention to leave this House and come back with a motion of no confidence which I am entitled to put. If any members on this side of the House cannot see the point I am trying to make then woe be to them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the member has now made that comment. He is entitled to do what he likes as far as notices of motion are concerned. I am also entitled to name the member. I name the member and ask that he be suspended. 
Question time interrupted. 
Naming and Suspension of Member 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I name the member for grossly disorderly conduct and ask that he be suspended from the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rt Hon Winston Peters be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Question agreed to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you will clarify this for me but can you tell me how the Progressive party can vote one way or the other on an incident that has taken place in the House when its members are not in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please read the new Standing Order which was changed last year. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Voluntary Sector—Government Assistance 
12.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What specific proposals does he intend to implement to ensure that the broader economic contribution of the voluntary sector is both valued and encouraged in light of the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers which estimates that the voluntary sector may be contributing more than a billion dollars to the economy a year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As the member is aware a summary of this report has been released in the last few hours and I am yet to see a final copy of the report. I will be interested to read the full report and see whether it makes any specific proposals. If so they will of course be considered carefully by the Government. 
Murray Smith 
: Is the Government prepared to give consideration to United Future’s policy of substantially increasing the maximum personal tax rebate on donations to charitable organisations over the mere $630 given the fact that voluntary agencies are heavily reliant on such private funding and that private funding is increasingly more difficult to get but that voluntary agencies save the Government so much money; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We already have made one increase and I indicated at the time that we will undertake regular reviews of that limit now for each year and during the Budget process and obviously listen carefully to United Future on these matters. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has the Minister been briefed on the economic contribution of New Zealand’s largest philanthropic organisation the Tindall Foundation and will the Government act on the Tindall Foundation’s submission on the Charities Bill which stated: “We do not support the intent of this bill. It will only add to the burdens carried by the community and voluntary sector while not achieving what the Government and this sector want it to.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have not been briefed on that but yes the Government will be undertaking a full review of the Charities Bill with a view to taking account of the submissions made and some major recasting. Clearly the bill is too heavy on the regulatory side and too heavy in terms of compliance costs. 
Murray Smith 
: Given the Minister’s friendly attitude to United Future proposals is the Government also prepared to give consideration to adopting United Future’s policy of a community volunteer rebate of $5 an hour up to a maximum of 100 hours a year which would strongly encourage the participation in the labour force of those aged over 55 who could otherwise be considered underemployed in economic terms; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Perhaps I could invite the member to approach me formally on this matter in writing and we will get some reports on it. I must say as Minister of Revenue I always tend to be slightly cynical and wonder at the opportunities for tax avoidance that might occur as a result of this. I suspect there would be a massive flowering of volunteers if there were a special tax rebate for them. 
Question Time 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time to raise this issue which relates to your ruling at the beginning of the session. Yesterday I put down a question on notice. I asked the Prime Minister a question that specifically asked how many of 350 jobs had materialised. You will recall that we had some supplementary questions and some points of order. Finally it transpired that the Prime Minister had asked Jim Anderton’s office to ring for the answer but it could not find out. We repeated the question today just to secure an answer. 
This is one of the things that I think frustrates this side somewhat. It may be that circumstances had changed and the Prime Minister was able to get an answer but one would wonder sometimes if one were cynical whether Ministers are being very very economical with their answers and with their efforts to secure an answer. I can understand the Prime Minister not being able to answer a supplementary question that is narrowing in on something but this was a primary question. We wasted our question a great many supplementary questions and a great deal of time. We put down another primary question and we got the answer. I ask you to consider what that means from an Opposition party’s point of view when it cannot get Ministers and particularly the Prime Minister to answer a question—especially a question on notice. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly the Prime Minister did attempt to obtain an answer yesterday which Sovereign Yachts was not prepared to supply. For whatever reason Sovereign Yachts was prepared to supply it today. I suppose Sovereign Yachts like sovereigns may change its mind from day to day. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Earlier in the day you referred us to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and you mentioned Speakers’ ruling 144/5 which starts with Speaker Harrison. That ruling suggests that the remedy for the Speaker might be to allow extra supplementary questions and there are also other indications for that in Speakers’ ruling 145/3 and Speaker’s ruling 146/7. When you are considering the representations you have heard today I wonder whether you would contemplate occasionally granting extra supplementary questions where there have been responses that have trifled with the original question or the supplementary question. It would probably not need to be done very often. It would be a discipline in your hands and it would mean that we did not need to keep coming to you on points of order with these objections. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 You have already indicated that under certain circumstances you would be prepared to do that but I suggest that if it is to be done with any degree of frequency it would need to be balanced on the other side: where members were asking questions that were trivial inappropriately phrased or not taking the House seriously then future supplementary questions would be deducted from the party asking those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a nice thought but I do not intend to do that. What I do intend however is to agree with the original point that was raised by Mr Hide and Mr Franks. I will allow extra supplementary questions if I think I have to and I actually have done that a few times this year. 
General Debate 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Government recently announced that we have a new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector the Hon Rick Barker who has started or is about to start work on this portfolio. I think it is a pity that Mr Barker missed the launch this morning of the new report  
Counting for Something 
:  
Value Added By Voluntary Agencies 
. He would have learnt some new and interesting facts relevant to the portfolio for which he is now taking responsibility. For example one of the report writers Suzanne Snively from PricewaterhouseCoopers told us that this study shows that just for the 10 organisations surveyed alone 7.63 million voluntary hours were worked in one year and that is probably an underestimate. These 7 million - plus hours are equivalent to over 4000 full-time equivalent workers who if part of the regular paid workforce would be the equivalent of all New Zealand’s dairy industry employees or two-thirds of the staff of the Ministry of Social Development our largest employer. 
The value of the work being done by the 10 groups surveyed has been calculated at a conservative estimate at $126 million in 2002 but Ms Snively believes that if a comparable study were done of the whole voluntary sector in this country the likely contribution to the economy would be in the region of $5 billion to $6 billion. 
The reason I have brought this study to the attention of the House today is that at the same time as the fruit of this research is appearing and at the same time as we have a new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector we also have before the House a Government bill that establishes a Charities Commission. The Charities Bill poses a serious threat to the very community and voluntary sector that Labour avows to support and whose value is so amply demonstrated by the new study. Hundreds of groups from all parts of this sector have made submissions asking the Government either to withdraw the Charities Bill altogether or to completely rewrite it with full input from this sector in a genuine consultation process which never happened the first time around. 
The Green Party supports their call. We believe that many features of the ill-conceived Charities Bill undermine the good work that this latest report so graphically illustrates in its findings. As the bill is written following its strange genesis in Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development it threatens the political autonomy of not-for-profit organisations overloads them with compliance costs and creates a chilling effect on the willingness of volunteers to serve on boards at a time when it is already very difficult for many voluntary groups to get good board members who are willing to take the risk of taking on that onerous task. 
The bill maintains a definition of “charity” that goes back to the beginning of the 17th century in England and does very little in practice to achieve one of the Government’s key original goals I believe of dealing with the problem of corrupt or fake charities. It also establishes a Charities Commission which is to be fully funded by the community sector itself. It is a case of the Government once again soaking those who can least afford it with costs that similar bodies who support private sector endeavours are not expected to pay for themselves. 
 Now while the Government is telling the sector at the moment that it is willing to listen to submitters and make changes to the Charities Bill—and I thank the Hon Dr Cullen for the comments he made just before—I quote again from a speech that the Hon Judith Tizard made this morning to the New Zealand Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. She said: “It goes without saying that charities must not be political organisations. An organisation whose stated purposes include the attainment of a political purpose cannot be a charity because its purposes must all be charitable.” In the light of the Hon Rick Barker’s reply to my question earlier on this afternoon that Judith Tizard did not make such a statement—despite the fact that the speech I have was given to me by a staff member from the Minister’s office—I invite Judith Tizard to make a personal statement to the House about the apparent contradiction between the official version of her speech and the denial by Mr Barker of what she said. 
Community groups are the backbone of our democracy—and I am sure the Labour Party supports that proposition—but the Labour Government attempts to muzzle the voice of the community and voluntary sector at its peril. I call on the new Minister to challenge the rest of his caucus to pay attention to the Counting for Something report and to ditch the current Charities Bill completely in favour of legislation that protects the integrity of the community sector protects its capacity to carry out political advocacy honours all the work done— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 About 21 years ago I became a parliamentary candidate and on the very first day of canvassing for the then Hamilton West seat for which I was a candidate Mike Moore came to the electorate. I think it was when he was about No. 3 in the Opposition and he coined the term “Minogue burger”. A “Minogue burger” was half tongue and half chicken and there were one or two interesting asides at the time. It made the first edition of the  
Waikato Times 
 but the second edition of the  
Waikato Times  
looked like one of those things from wartime. The paper had chipped out the offending paragraph leaving a blank where it had appeared—which said something about the National Party’s relationship with the  
Waikato Times  
at that time. 
Earlier in the year the term “Minogue burger” could have been applied to the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash. I think it would have been an appropriate label. There was a certain amount of hit-and-run about him but I think the tongue has been taken out of the “Minogue burger”. The “Brash burger” has no tongue—he has lost his tongue and he will not come here—and it is just a chicken burger. The “Brash burger” is a chicken burger. He will not come to the House and he will not comment. 
We have now had 2 days this week when there was an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question or even a supplementary question and what happened? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We should be factual about matters in this House and to help the member speaking I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 of Tuesday’s question time when Dr Brash made it very clear to the whole nation that Mr Hawkins was about to get the chop from Cabinet. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is a debating point. 
Simon Power 
: The member sought leave to table the  
Hansard 
. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry the member sought leave to table the  
Hansard 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Jim Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not quite sure what path the Minister is going down but may I assert to you that if the Minister is suggesting that Mike Minogue a past member of this House was guilty of cowardice—because the Minister used the word “chicken”—then that is not appropriate at this time and it should be withdrawn. With regard to this “Minogue burger” to which he applied the word “half chicken” I believe that is an unfortunate and disparaging comment upon an excellent past member of this House and not least for Hamilton. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that is part of robust debate. 
Jim Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention that in any section of the community or society where the word “chicken” is used it implies cowardice. If that term is acceptable in this House I suggest strongly that it is not appropriate— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He means a burger. 
Jim Peters 
: This is a point of order Madam Deputy Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I give a final warning today that when a member is on his or her feet with a point of order there will be silence. That is the one and only warning. 
Jim Peters 
: I suggest that if that is not so and there was no implication that Michael Minogue was in any way lacking in courage then that should be made clear by the Minister; otherwise I ask that he withdraw his comment. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I consider it a matter of debate. It is a matter of taste. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I was coming to is that we are waiting for Dr Brash to come to this House and engage with the Prime Minister. We are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition at least to pretend that he has the backbone to take the battle to the Prime Minister. Will he have the courage of his convictions a view a difference some strength a bit of energy? Is he awake? We are looking for some evidence that we have a live Leader of the Opposition. No evidence of that has been given to the House in recent times. What does he do? He goes around running down New Zealand. He runs down our education system. He says that our literacy is worse than that of the United States when the Programme for International Student Assessment shows that we are third and the United States is 16th. He says that 25 percent of New Zealand school leavers are illiterate when the evidence is quite clear that that is not true. 
What I do want to say is that I welcome the comments made by Bill English a person of integrity a person who was knifed by Dr Brash a person who says that after 20 years on literacy finally a Government has got it right. It takes some courage to make that sort of comment and I am pleased that the previous Leader of the Opposition has the courage to praise the Government in this way. I ask that at some stage he brief the current leader so that he gets a bit of an ounce of the material that has caused Bill English to make those positive comments. 
I also want to comment on ACT and to give its members my condolences. I think it is sad. I think they all know now that they made a mistake in the appointment of Rodney Hide as their leader. In the end it was Mr Eckhoff who was responsible for that. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Rodney who? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a point. He did not even get the dead-cat bounce that Don Brash got for a period of time. I appreciate the problem and I ask Rodney Hide when he is going to put a circular around the Epsom electorate telling it that he would abolish the Auckland Grammar zone. When will he do that? 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 That was a rather sad speech from the almost-departed Minister of Education. Those of us who have been around Parliament any length of time know that the Labour Party announces its reshuffles through the news media. It is the way that the Labour leader softens people up for the fact that they are moving on. It was reported to the  
Dominion Post  
by usually very well-informed sources that the Minister of Education had alienated some in the sector. I have news: he has alienated everybody in the sector. 
Trevor Mallard is a sitting duck for the police portfolio. He is going into the police portfolio because the Prime Minister picked up the phone and we see on the front page of the  
Dominion  
Post that it is “Goodbye George Hawkins!”. As he was mired in the mess of the leaky homes crisis a correspondent wrote in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that Mr Hawkins’ handling had “clearly left the whiff of incompetence wafting around his office”. Well I can report that the stench of political death is seeping from that office. As this Parliament speaks the stench of political death is oozing from the office of the Minister of Police because he is a Minister who in his long parliamentary career has delivered something memorable for the people of his own electorate. 
John Key 
: What’s that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The worst crime rate of any part of this country. This Minister’s administration—maladministration—of the police portfolio together with the incompetent administration of the Minister for Courts and the Minister of Corrections are seeing the unbelievable situation we have today where up and down this country remand prisoners are being held in police and court cells. We heard today that at the Manukau District Court yesterday there was a near-riot by remand inmates who were jam-packed into a cell. Although that in itself might not worry people this Government’s misadministration of the corrections system should worry them. The Government has known about this situation for months. Police officers’ personal safety is at risk. In newspapers around this country senior police officers are warning that violence is a possible consequence of this Government’s handling of the overcrowding in prisons. 
This Minister of Police is on the way out and he deserves to be. It will be sad for him to have to leave what has been a passion for him but his competence is something that this Government will have difficulty in matching. The Prime Minister is trying to delay the inevitable as she seeks to find enough competent Ministers to do the hard jobs. But she still wants to keep Phil Goff in his place because she knows who will replace her when she loses the next general election. 
Police stations up and down this country are losing their frontline officers who have to guard remand inmates who are being held not only in police cells but also in court cells. The prisons are overflowing. Where will the Government put the inmates when all the police cells court cells and prisons are full? This Government is running out of space it is running out of ideas and it is running out of credibility. 
We have the pathetic sight of the soon-to-be-gone Minister of Education—there will be no more school library openings for him—saying: “Why won’t Dr Brash ask the Prime Minister a question?”. Well he asked a question yesterday and the Prime Minister could not answer it. What is more it was one of the leading news items on TV3. The whole country saw Dr Brash wipe the floor of this House with the Prime Minister. He asked her whether she would assure Mr Hawkins of his ministerial warrant as long as she was able to grant one. What did the Prime Minister say? She would not answer at all. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 That was a very rich speech coming from Tony Ryall. He gets up in this House and complains about the numbers of people who are locked up in prisons police cells and court cells and asks where those people will go when those cells are full. Well when the National Party announced its policy of having more prisons the first thing Tony Ryall did was to campaign that they not be in his electorate. That is the truth of it. “Anywhere but here.” says Tony Ryall. The speech he just made was the most shallow speech we have heard from the National Party. But that is not unusual. 
The first point that needs to be made is where is the leadership of the National Party. I want to know why Don Brash is not here taking the lead for the National Party in the Wednesday debate. Why was he not here today asking questions? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he is not allowed to refer to the absence of members. He will desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to clarify your ruling. I think the Minister might have made a mistake when he said that Don Brash was not “here” to take the lead but it is appropriate for him to say that he is not taking the lead in this debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member clearly made a reference to his not being here. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I stand corrected. The point is that Dr Don Brash is not leading the debate this afternoon for the National Party. Neither was he leading question time for the National Party. It is quite obvious that the leadership of the National Party is absent. It seems that the National Party leadership has pressed the mute button not the play button. 
Don Brash is a leader who does not understand leadership. The first point about leadership is loyalty. Every Kiwi understands the nature of loyalty—loyalty to family loyalty to friends loyalty to soccer teams. One thing Kiwis understand is that when we go overseas we are loyal to our country. We are proud Kiwis and to hear Don Brash in Australia bagging New Zealand to Australians is the worst insult of all. Had he gone to Russia or somewhere like that probably we would not have cared quite so much but the Aussies always try to put down their Kiwi cousins and the one place where Kiwis should not bag New Zealand is Australia. Don Brash does not understand about loyalty; that is quite obvious because he is not loyal to New Zealand. But also he does not understand other issues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that as much as the concept appeals to me the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is not loyal to New Zealand should be ruled out of order. Although none of his members will defend him I will. I think that remark should be ruled out of order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I withdraw. The second thing that is causing Mr Brash some concern is the fractious nature and the quality of his members. It was interesting to have a report from a business meeting in Auckland at which Mr Don Brash was speaking. He was asked whether he had any worries or concerns about the quality or the depth of the talent in his team. He said quite candidly “Yes.” but when he was kicked in the shins by his minder Richard Long he suddenly changed his point of view. Of course he has concerns about the quality of his team. Simon Power who was the National Party’s spokesperson on defence and who sometimes asks questions or makes comments in the House to the tune of “Yankee Doodle Dandy” had a glittering career until he said that New Zealand should follow the USA the UK or Australia without hesitation. He got dumped for it. He did not appreciate that New Zealanders support the notion of independence. We are a proud nation. We are a nation of proud independent Kiwis and we will not have our decisions made by other people. 
The person who was most happy about that was John Key—the emerging leader in the jostle. John Key will watch with great interest the demise of Bill English. Bill English is trying to come back again like a soufflé rising twice. He decided to have a go with a Winston Peters’ style of mini - wine box issue. He had all these secrets but unlike Winston Peters he did not hold on to them for as long. Sadly for him he had exactly the same result as Winston Peters did—there was nothing of merit in the box at all. He was completely wrong. It was embarrassing for Bill English and embarrassing for the rat pack but it was very comforting for Don Brash. However it confirms Don Brash’s problem: he does not have any talent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But he read it. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We have this chip from the backseats now from the member for Nelson. In my view he has no credibility. He fronted up to court and what did it find? It did not accept his word. Nobody else in this House has that dubious distinction. 
The key issue here is leadership and Dr Don Brash simply does not have it. The National Party used to have a lot of strong leaders. It had Muldoon who always led from the front. Even Jim Bolger led from the front as did Jenny Shipley—but not Don Brash. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 One of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of nature. It takes care of itself and we can see it in operation any day we look at the animal kingdom. A herd of zebras stays together as a pack and moves together as a pack to protect each other but every so often one of the animals slips due to sickness injury or for whatever reason. It starts to lag to the back of the herd and that is when the hyenas the lions and the jackals start to move. 
Now there is not one member of this House who can counter the laws of nature and sadly we are seeing them unfold before our eyes in this House in the last few days. My colleague Tony Ryall is right. We do not get journalists in the  
Dominion Post 
 or the  
New Zealand Herald 
 speculating on ministerial demise just by chance—“I think today I will go with …”. Of course they do not. 
We all know how it works. In this case the Prime Minister is really good at it: she has the speed dials loaded up she calls the journalists and she says: “Look! I need to start some softening up here. I’ve got to get rid of an incompetent Minister or two and move a couple of people who are alienating— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Me—incompetent! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am not suggesting that Trevor Mallard is incompetent but I am saying that he has hugely alienated his sector and he will have to be moved into some other area. I think that the police portfolio is probably ideal for him. 
But what is absolutely tragic in this House is to sit here day after day listening to George Hawkins answering questions. What is even sadder is to watch his own colleagues their heads in their hands looking at the floor in embarrassment. George Hawkins is actually quite good with his first answer because it is written down. He knows the question. His officials would all get together. I am sure Mr Mallard and Dr Cullen get together before question time and say: “Right Mr Hawkins here’s your answer. Read it out.” 
Simon Power 
: As well as “Swainy”! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes “Swainy” helps him as well. But Mr Hawkins does not even do that very well; on a number of occasions even his reading out of the fixed answer is botched and a mess. But when he gets on to the supplementaries and does not know what the question will be or what people will ask him then it becomes enormously embarrassing. 
A new phrase came into the vocabulary of New Zealand quite recently called a “Parakurism”. That phrase was used by the media to refer to comments that the Minister of Maori Affairs made that were nonsensical and absolute garbage. Well I tell members that his comments have been gazumped by “Hawkisms”. We have no clue what the Minister of Police the Minister of Internal Affairs—or the Minister of whatever other portfolios he either has or does not have—will say because he does not know when he answers questions. He keeps saying: “No that’s another Minister.” but then it turns out that it is not. 
I have been going through the  
Hansard 
 and I have seen that his answers are embarrassing. He says things like: “The member might say that but frankly that won’t be completed until it’s finished.” And then he sits down. We ask what it means but it is a “Hawkism”—that is it will not be completed until it is finished. Is that not great? We see Labour MPs’ heads going into their hands and hear them saying: “Oh no.” 
There is a United Nations charter against cruel and unusual punishment. The Prime Minister has to stop this now. She has been on a track where there are still a few more days on the calendar before she finally brings the axe down. She has got about three more speed-dial calls to make for three more journalists to do a little bit more putting the boot in. Well I say that the Prime Minister should stop it. This country cannot go on with a Minister of Police whose only claim to fame in his whole time is that he plays with toy police cars. He decided what coloured spots the cars would have. He was very proud. The colour was something like ecclesiastic orange that was to be painted— 
Simon Power 
: Angelic orange. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleagues tell me it was angelic orange. That is the Minister’s entire claim to fame. If we read all of the other logs from the media about what this Minister of Police has done we can see that he is just a disaster. Fran Mold wrote in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that he “left the whiff of incompetence wafting around his office.” I think she is wrong. There is no longer a whiff; it is a stench so strong that other people cannot even stay there. The Government cannot have a Minister of Police engendering any confidence in the public who looks like the picture I have here: Mr Hawkins is not even wearing a baseball cap. Trevor Mallard would look good in a baseball cap and I think he would also be able to play with toy cars quite well. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that the member who has just resumed his seat has a lot of friends in this House but none of them are in the National caucus. That member has spent the last 6 months white-anting his own caucus—and he has the temerity to give us a lecture about caucus solidarity! That is why he was dumped to become the lowest-ranked member of his caucus—or maybe it was the fact that he has the habit of leaving his confidential papers on planes and in hotel rooms all around Australia. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was a long time ago. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: My colleague tells me that that was a long time ago. That was about as good as the leader of the National Party shooting a red light to get to the Bledisloe Cup and then rooting for the Wallabies. That is how patriotic that leader is and that is what Kiwis have come to expect of him. Is the soufflé rising twice? Don Brash should be so lucky! The reality is that the National caucus is again in turmoil. National members have been here in the House long enough goodness knows to smell death in the air. We can smell death around Don Brash. Yesterday he said he would not run again if he loses at the next election. Why did he say that? It is because he knows he will be dumped so he thought he may as well clear up the confusion in advance. 
What further news do we have today? In contrast with John Key’s announcement a week ago that if National was in Government he would raise the top tax threshold to give a tax cut to rich people today Standard and Poor’s reaffirmed the Government’s fiscal strategy and our AA+ rating and stated: “It is hard to see New Zealand’s top rating coming under any pressure any time soon. Indeed credit quality could strengthen as long as cross-party support for fiscal restraint is maintained through the coming electoral cycle.” John Key should take note of that. I think something else is going wrong with regard to National’s tax strategy and it reminds me of 1989. Do members remember 1989-90 when Jim Bolger was a kind of new caring conservative? He was to be a new kind of National leader and there were to be no more tax cuts for the rich if he got in. What happened a year later? We had the “mother of all Budgets” with savage cuts to benefits stupid privatisations and the worst policy-induced recession this country has ever known. 
National members are simply wolves in sheeps’ clothing and the sheeps’ clothing is already wearing thin. What could one do with $160 million which is what the change in tax threshold that John Key has suggested would cost? One could cancel all free early childhood education sack nearly 3000 schoolteachers give no increase in school funding until 2009 kick 21000 university students out of tertiary education remove all 6500 Modern Apprentices or all 127000 industry trainees take out special education or school transport scrap primary health care scrap the cheaper doctors’ visits that we have just brought in or scrap the hip and knee operations for 4600 New Zealanders. 
The Opposition has not got the message. New Zealanders do not want to have a cheap heartless Government that reinforces privilege. They want to have the kind of Government that they get from this team which is about all New Zealanders getting access to the health care the education and the basic services that they deserve. What counts for us is not the size of the silver spoon that people were born with. I personally have heard John Key’s story about growing up in a State house just one time too many to believe it. Let us hear about the house that Merrill Lynch built. But that is not the issue; the issue is that all Kiwis deserve a fair thing. They know a fair thing when they see it and they know it is not about Don Brash attacking his own country in the  
Australian Financial Review 
. That is why National has big problems. That is why we do not see a happy caucus when we look across the House. There is Brian Connell facing another 4 years in Opposition and Simon Power thinking that at least he made the right decision not to run for leader last time because it was a temporary thing. Simon Power is the only guy looking relieved as he gets into his new whip duties. He will have a little sojourn on the mid-benches. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The previous speaker always sounds to me as though he has been suffering from the wrath of grapes—hung out like George Hawkins or hung-over. That is an absolute certainty. May I paraphrase just briefly a verse from “Alice in Wonderland”. 
“The time has come Walrus”  
The Prime Minister said 
“To speak of many things 
Like your job George.” 
The Prime Minister has said to George Hawkins that he is on his way out—he is history; it is all over. He should hand in his warrant—his licence. It is all over bar the shouting for that Minister. 
I wanted to speak not about George Hawkins but about something that is actually quite serious to every New Zealander: the attack by this socialist Government on the property rights of every New Zealander in this country—and I emphasise the words “every New Zealander”. It does not matter what one’s race colour or creed is; the Government is determined to attack one’s property rights. It is determined to cast aside the conventions in the laws over things like access to private property and indeed even to cast aside the property rights of Maori which it has been attempting—as have previous Governments of course—to settle. Any one of us can go to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee and witness the debacle and emotion of New Zealanders—not because they are Maori although they do happen to be Maori. I am talking about New Zealanders who front up every time in huge numbers and almost beg the Labour Government for the right to be heard about what they think is important and know is important to them—their property rights. Since 1840 Maori have lost much of their land to successive Governments; I cannot blame any one particular Government for that. At last now there has been some redress for Maori only for them to find that this Labour Government which has been backed in the past by Maori is walking away from its commitments to that concept of property rights. 
Now the Government is attacking the property rights of rural New Zealanders and those who live in peri-urban New Zealand. They will be not immune at all from that attack. Those who live in Mr Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate where a river runs through will be forced to accept public access through their private property once this Government finalises its plans which are due in early December. There will be outrage right throughout the country when everybody understands how significant the abuse will be. Let me just read the Treasury report on the proposal from Minister Jim Sutton and the Government. Treasury states: “We do not agree with the argument that access and ownership are easily separated as indicated. In fact this is not really about either access or ownership per se; it is about property rights.” Treasury goes on to state: “Any proposal regarding the provision of some form of access over private property involves changing rights and as a result has the potential to create winners and losers.” That is exactly what Robert Mugabe is doing and he is doing it with enormous success. I can only assume that Jim Sutton and the Prime Minister are emailing Robert Mugabe on a regular basis and asking him how the process is going. They will want to know how successful he is because they want to do the same thing to their people. They want to steal the property rights of New Zealanders by taking them from the politically weak and giving them to the numerically strong. 
That is exactly the principle behind the change that this Government is trying to drive through to the ordinary New Zealander. The Government has yet to understand the significance and the emotion that that concept will generate right throughout this country. We are seeing it at the select committee meetings where New Zealanders are in tears. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to talk about two issues that are related: inmate numbers and the absurdity of the recent awards of compensation to the so-called mistreated criminals. But before I do that I want to say how disappointed I am in hearing members of the Government Trevor Mallard Rick Barker and David Cunliffe basically express their consternation at National. One knows that there is a shift in the gravitas in the House when those members spend all their time rebuking the Opposition rather than bragging about themselves. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We always do that. We have been bagging them for 5 years! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well at least members should be creative and humorous about it. That was a pathetic attempt. It was a display of stupidity on the part of all three members and it was ridiculous. 
I want to get on to talk about the substance of why I rose. The first issue is about inmate numbers. We have heard a lot of incredible absurdity from this Government with regard to that issue following the allegations against it of mismanaging its prison portfolio. Clearly that is absolutely the case because the substance of the accusation seems to be— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that my honourable friend from the United Future party does not need my assistance on this issue but I am having difficulty in hearing the member’s contribution. He is not known for his light voice but could I just point out to you that the Hon David Cunliffe has shifted from his usual seat and continues to interject on this member while he tries to make a contribution to this House. I ask you to bring that Minister to order. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well there has been a number of— 
Simon Power 
: But he has moved from his seat. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I tell Mr Power that I am speaking and I will be the judge on interjections. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The substance of the accusations against this Government when it comes to mismanaging the prison portfolio relies on prison musters tougher sentencing—so called—and police success. In fact I quote something from Minister Swain who said that there was a prediction of 7000 inmates by the year 2008 and then he said that figure was in fact reached by 2004 because of the Government’s tough law and order stance. That is absolute rubbish. 
In fact as early as 1998 the Department of Corrections briefing anticipated that there would be a large increase in prison numbers. The department also anticipated at that time that Northland prison would be operational by 2002 that a new Auckland women’s prison would supposedly be up and running by last year that a replacement prison in Dunedin would open this year and that in the future an East Coast prison would be open by the year 2009. The reason why the three prisons have not been opened and are not operational is precisely the mismanagement of the Department of Corrections by this Government. The bottom line is that this Government did not anticipate a rise in the prison muster. It mismanaged the prison building programme and is now taking police off the front line to fill the gaps. Where have we heard that one before? The fact is that over 200 inmates a night are now locked in police and court cells as a direct result of the mismanagement by this Government with probably more claims to come of the so-called mistreatment and abuse of prisoners and I will get to that shortly. 
The reply was interesting when I asked a question earlier today about a number of bills that are coming through the pipeline including the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). All those measures will increase custodial sentences and raise the possibility of an even bigger increase in the number of remand and sentenced prisoners who are detained in police cells. The Minister effectively turned around and said that the problems were only short term. The situation could have been anticipated—and was anticipated—but nothing was done about it. It is absolute bollocks for this Government to try to claim that the mismanagement could not have been understood and appreciated beforehand. Considering that the new prison capacity is still a way off that must contradict the assertion that there will be longer and tougher sentencing. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it is anticipating tougher sentencing fail to provide adequate facilities to house the increased number of prisoners and then turn around and say the problem was not anticipated. What a load of rubbish that is! When the fact is put into the mix that 35000 cases have yet to go to court and some of those involve people on remand how could this Government not have known of the increase in the number? 
One thing that really strikes me and I suppose galls a lot of New Zealanders is the fact that earlier this week we found out that a number of prison inmates have made successful claims for compensation for so-called brutality. The fact is that one of those inmates was serving a life sentence for murder and another was serving a total term of imprisonment of 17 years for serious violent offences including aggravated robbery and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The remaining three inmates were serving sentences of between 6 years 3 months and 3 years 9 months for a range of violent and other offences. Two of those inmates had convictions for aggravated assault against staff of the Department of Corrections and the department had no choice but to put them in segregation. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 The case of Phillip Edwards and David McNee gets murkier and murkier. Sadly it smacks of all the signs of incompetence that we have become used to seeing from the Minister of Police and this Government when it comes to enforcing the law. It is time that the full truth of this case is brought out in the open so that the people of New Zealand can learn why certain facts were concealed from the High Court jury and who was responsible for making the decision not to prosecute Mr Edwards in the case of events at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue. McNee and Edwards knew each other before the fatal attack on Mr McNee. Edwards had been seen driving McNee’s car in Kaikohe and they had been seen in Auckland gay bars together. That has been confirmed by sources outside this House. Those facts did not come out in the High Court and we are asking why that was. Who made the decision to keep those very important facts secret from the jury? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that earlier this afternoon the Speaker made a ruling in the House about this matter being sub judice. The Speaker said that because of the word “sentence” in Standing Order 112(2) referring to the case was ruled out of order because the case was sub judice. I wonder whether the member should bear that in mind in his speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He is correct. The Speaker did rule in terms of Standing Order 112(2) which states: “Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence has been announced or judgment given.” The sentence has not yet been given. I would caution the member on that. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you for your guidance Madam Speaker. I was not here this afternoon during question time in the House. Is it not interesting that that Minister of Police made a highly charged political speech to senior officers in the Christchurch police station and criticised myself and the New Zealand First Party for not having the facts right? One member of this House went on in that same meeting to say that the only source that Ron Mark had was Worcester sauce. Well this Worcester sauce is a little too hot for him right now. That is why this Government wants to hide behind such points of order but the facts will come out in time. 
Right now I will talk about Mr Shaw. The question is why Mr Edwards was not prosecuted for what the police have now confirmed was a violent attack on Mr Shaw in his home. People are saying that had the charge for that attack been laid Mr Edwards would probably be in jail and would not have gone on to commit the further crime for which he has just been convicted. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is running a fine line here. He is continuing to refer to the case. I was listening carefully then. The member needs to be careful. I have ruled on it. He must not refer to the case that has been in court. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Firstly I am getting a little concerned that points of order may be taken just to interject on my speech on issues that the Government is very sensitive about. However I am talking about the case that never ever got to court. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. The point is this: why did that case not get to court? We now know—the police have now conceded this—that a violent crime took place at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue which is in the Prime Minister’s own electorate. She said so in this House. This Government has been very big on the issue of clamping down on domestic violence on crimes of violence and on physical assaults. It has proudly boasted that it has been able to secure convictions on DNA evidence alone. Yet in this case where there was a DNA strike and the police had identified the man who had committed the crime no charge was laid. 
My questions are these: why was Edwards not charged with assaulting Mr Shaw and why was the file relating to the Shaw-Edwards incident stamped “Confidential. Not for Unauthorised Eyes”? Who made that decision at what level was it made and why was the decision as to whether to prosecute not left where it rightly belonged which was in Avondale in Auckland? Why did people at national headquarters level get involved in that? Who did get involved in it and why? People argue that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice and a serious undermining of the law and order process and of the judiciary. My next question is this: why did a police officer threaten a journalist from  
20/20 
? Some would say that that is the very sort of thing Robert Mugabe may do. The Minister himself stood in the House and said that he did not do that sort of thing—namely get into files—which is the sort of thing that Robert Mugabe does. On the other hand we have written evidence tabled in this House that a police officer threatened a journalist and a programme. Why? Why does this Government ignore all that and say nothing? 
I shall pose a suggestion. There is a very serious fear in the community that the defence of homophobic panic will become an issue that people may play on. It seems to me that if the police do not prosecute cases that come before them to the fullest extent of the law and if they do not investigate them to the fullest extent of their capability where they involve homosexuals per se it may suggest that those people will be given a second-rate dose of the law and that they are not as important as other people. That is of concern is it not? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Anybody unfortunate enough to listen to the Opposition speeches in this debate today would be wondering whether there is an Opposition in New Zealand. That is a very sad indictment. As we have heard today opposition is a vital part of the democratic system of this country and many other democracies throughout the world. 
Instead we have the National Opposition members wailing and gnashing their teeth because the Government is locking up too many people. That is something that they pretend is a policy of theirs and something that their leader Dr Don Brash made speeches about—but he has been strangely silent on it since—but the next word we get from National Opposition members is that the Government has had the audacity to lock up too many criminals for their taste! 
I suppose that goes hand in hand with all the other contradictory statements. On the one hand Dr Brash says one thing about tax and on the other his spokesperson on finance who is languishing somewhere on the mid-to-back benches is saying he would like to see the top tax rate bracket increased. 
Then there is the National spokesperson on health. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 did a poll asking people who was on the Auckland Regional Council. If one asked them who was in the National Party and what was the name of its spokesperson on health one would get the same result: they would say they did not know. Who is the spokesperson on health for National? I inform anybody who is listening that it is Judith Collins. Judith Collins wants to revisit Dr Brash’s pledge to scrap primary health organisations which are a very very successful new initiative by this Government to allow New Zealanders to have better access to health care and in the longer term to cut back the costs of the more expensive public hospital system. So Dr Brash is saying he will scrap them and Judith Collins—whoever she may be—says maybe not. 
Then of course there is Mr Bill English who got it all wrong in his literacy policy. At least he recognises the fact that we have a literacy policy that is working and that has put New Zealand up there at No. 3. Dr Brash thinks we are down below No. 16. 
What utter confusion there would be if one was trying to establish what that Opposition party’s policies were on anything! It reshuffles from time to time—probably every few weeks—and the poor members opposite end up in a job they do not want. Yesterday Dr Wayne Mapp paraded in the House his absolute lack of knowledge of industrial relations by saying that workers should not get days in lieu when they work on a public holiday and that that was outrageous. The fact that it had been the law for 9 years of a National Government which did not seek to change it and did not say it was wrong shows us that Dr Mapp does not really have his heart in the job. And Simon Power who was quoted in the paper the other day as saying: “I really do want to work on industrial relations. That’s my love.” is the whip! What a shambles! It is an absolute shambles of an Opposition. Any democracy— 
Simon Power 
: Is that the best the member can do? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: It is so uninspiring over there. One likes to come to these debates and feel that there is somebody on the other side whose pulse one could take to prove that he or she was alive but no. Even the ACT party which is running around Auckland wanting to take its own pulse to see whether it is still alive occasionally comes up with a decent debate in the House. New Zealand First scratches around a bit and occasionally hits the mark. But not the National Party. 
Dr Brash is best at the art of opposition when he is in Australia bad-mouthing New Zealand because there is nobody there to question him. The Aussies always like to knock us and Dr Brash likes to join their national sport of knocking Kiwis so he goes over there to practice the art of opposition. When he comes back he sits looking completely bemused and cannot figure out why New Zealanders are insulted by a Opposition leader heading off shore to bag his own country. That is where he does it best. 
There is certainly no evidence that he knows what he is doing in this House. He should take a lead from the Labour Party which has introduced Modern Apprenticeships where people learn on the job. People are taken on and told: “This is how you do it.” Mr McCully should have Dr Brash on a Modern Apprenticeship. He should say to him: “This is how Parliament works Dr Brash.” Then he might actually be confused with a member of the Opposition and a leader. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek some clarification on the ruling you just gave. I point out that in the last 2 weeks the McNee case—for which a conviction has already been given with only deliberation on the sentence to be made—has been discussed on and off throughout the House quite extensively. The Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt has not ruled out questions on that case. We have just had discussions on that to confirm it. Yesterday Mr Hunt did not rule out questions from Mr Peters about Mr McNee having known Mr Edwards for 3 years. He did not rule out the question about the fact that Mr McNee’s car had been stolen by Mr Edwards some 3 years prior to the offence. What that suggests is that my speech was curtailed shortened and truncated deliberately. I would like to see from the Chair if I may the exact ruling of Mr Speaker Hunt today—his exact words—because what I have been subjected to does not reflect what has been happening in the House for the last 2 weeks as far as I can see. Do we have one standard for Ron Mark and another standard for other members of Parliament? Am I to be treated as a lesser MP by the Chair itself? Or is it just another case of an attempt to cover up this case because the Government has made such a hash of it? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I assure Mr Mark that his speech certainly was not curtailed deliberately. The point is that the Speaker this afternoon ruled that any discussion on this particular case did contravene Standing Order 112(2) because of the reference to the sentence. That was ruled this afternoon. What I was trying to do with the member’s speech was to watch where that impinged because the member was speaking about both cases. I also say to Mr Mark that we are relitigating it now. But I assure him that his speech was not in any way deliberately curtailed. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: This is a new point of order. At the risk of prolonging the issue around interpretation of Standing Order 111 it is of some concern—or at least equivocation—that that Standing Order starts with the phrase “Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker” which lends some uncertainty to the way in which that particular Standing Order is applied in each factual situation that presents itself. That may go some way towards answering Mr Mark’s concern over the fact that questions about this issue had been allowed in question time—it seems that today in question time the Speaker exercised his discretion under Standing Order 111. What we would like to see is a clear ruling on that discretion and what it means for this ongoing issue before the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The Speaker did not use discretion this afternoon. He specifically referred to Standing Order 112(2) and specifically referred to the matter of sentence because members had raised the point that this case was not now sub judice in that a decision had been given. However the Speaker then ruled that Standing Order 112(2) does refer to the matter of sentence. Certainly that is how the Speaker ruled this afternoon. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is quite right but Standing Order 112 relates to the effect of Standing Order 111. In other words if discretion is or is not exercised in respect of Standing Order 111 is when the ruling that Mr Speaker Hunt made today about whether Standing Order 112 applies comes into effect. But the question that I think Mr Mark was asking was whether the discretion under Standing Order 111 was exercised thereby allowing Standing Order 112 to be applied if you follow my logic. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the question is fair but the answer is clear. By definition of his ruling clearly the Speaker did exercise his judgment and his discretion and therefore Standing Order 112 does apply. But the member is quite correct in that Standing Order 111 is applicable and it is subject to the discretion of the Speaker. But by definition the Speaker did exercise his discretion. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Power and Mr Burton. The purpose of the Standing Order is to avoid the House influencing court proceedings as I am sure every member in this House knows. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 If ever we wanted a better example of what a bunch of wallies the members opposite are David Cunliffe gave it to us this afternoon. He got up and took a crack at my colleague Maurice Williamson asserting that he left papers on an aeroplane when he was the Minister of Transport. I have done some research and the person who did that was Bill Jeffries the Labour Minister of Transport. That member came down to the House and apologised. Mr Cunliffe got it wrong. I can only explain it thus. I think that when he put his head in an oven and turned his hair blonde his brain was curdled. The man is absolutely stupid. 
 Talking of stupid let us talk about George Hawkins. There is nothing sadder than seeing a Minister stabbed in the back by his own colleagues or left to hang by his own devices as the members around him desert him like rats from a ship. How cruel and heartless Helen Clark is! It is apparent to everybody in this House that George Hawkins is the village idiot of the Labour Party but is it not— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is the matter of some decorum in this House. I have ignored the first three references made by that member and I will not put them on the record. His opening sentence used a word—and you may have been distracted at the time—that was utterly inappropriate. That sort of language is just inappropriate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is a debating issue Madam Speaker. You already ruled on this when Mr Mallard was on his feet insulting people left right and centre. You said that was robust debate. The member may not like it but I ask you to at least be consistent. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. Please continue. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That member might want to come down to the House a bit sooner and listen to what is being said. It is clear that George Hawkins is not on top of his portfolios and that fact was ruthlessly exposed yesterday by Katherine Rich. Katherine Rich exposed him because he did not know what he was responsible for. How humiliating it must be for George Hawkins to read in the paper that he will be fired. Even this Minister I assume has the intellect and the feelings to understand the impact of what he reads in the newspaper. It is a cold and black heart that can treat any member like that let alone a colleague. I say to members in this House that if George Hawkins were a dog then the SPCA would be banging on the Prime Minister’s door and charging her with cruelty to dumb animals. That is how bad it is. I would not treat my dog the way that George Hawkins is being treated by our Prime Minister at the moment. Yes he should be fired because he is incompetent but he deserves to be treated with some dignity and he needs to be put out of his misery as soon as possible. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister all but confirmed that Mr Hawkins is about to get the chop. Members will remember these words: “He is a conscientious and hard-working Minister.” They were the very words that the Prime Minister said about Lianne Dalziel just before she got the chop. 
Ron Mark 
: And he’s loyal. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is the real reason that he will get the chop. That is how a loyal member is treated. Mr Hawkins came to the Law and Order Committee—Mr Mark will recall this—and he said: “I understand there is a problem in the Southern Communications Centre. The people down there are stressed and understaffed and critical response times will be missed.” When he was quizzed as to whether he would do anything about it he said yes. I asked whether he had budgeted for any more staff and he said: “Ah ah—no.” How many times do Dr Cullen and Trevor Mallard have to get up and try to protect this member? It is a hard job. Can they really see themselves supporting a member who is prepared to get dressed up and put a police cap on and be seen on national television playing with his toy police cars? And the Labour Party wants us to take him seriously! Not even the members opposite are trying to defend the guy because they know that the whiff and smell of death for George Hawkins is all but nigh. But of course the problem for the Prime Minister relates to who she can replace him with. Who else is operating at such a low level? Trevor Mallard is one candidate. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I do not think we all need to shout to get the message through. The right wing is in absolute turmoil yet again. It has no leadership no policy and definitely no commitment whereas we are providing strong and stable leadership and building a strong and confident nation. The Leader of the Opposition is intent on pulling this country down here and overseas. He is already giving up and so he should. It is a sign of absolute desperation when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Australia to bad-mouth New Zealand and New Zealanders hate it. That will bounce back woefully on the Opposition in the election. The country feels it. 
Not only does that leader lack leadership but his own members get things wrong. We have had Dr Brash saying he would abolish New Zealand’s nuclear-free status Bill English getting it wrong on literacy and Sandra Goudie saying there was conflict between the Kiwi Income Property Trust and Maori over the Resource Management Act up in Coromandel. I was in Coromandel on Friday. The people there loathed that the member for Coromandel had discredited Hauraki Plains College. They loathed that. Sandra Goudie has caused irreparable damage up there. It has ripped the National caucus apart. Dragging that college through the mud was an appalling thing to do. It really was. 
There is not even a “Brash attack” going on now. He has puttered out completely. He creeps around this House like the phantom of politics—the “ghost who walks” or slinks. Outside the House he fronts up quite a bit but it is always to his own little colonial tea-party club. He cannot front up in the House. We all cringe when the Leader of the Opposition comes into the House. Even the  
Sunday Star-Times  
has noticed it. That newspaper has reported that he is in real trouble. It gave his performance on Tuesday two out of 10 and said that he was inert to the point of barely showing a pulse. The newspaper gave him seven out of 10 for Wednesday’s performance. That was quite good but it reported that our Dr Cullen was overseas on that day so Dr Brash had a bit of a crack at it. The next day he got four out of 10. It said he fails to make inroads and that Mr Prebble is better at making inroads in the House. I say he is absolutely hopeless at that. 
I want to explore Dr Brash’s leadership on health and his attitude towards Dr Lynda Scott. The health sector cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition got rid of Lynda Scott in his reshuffle. Dr Brash cannot explain his own reshuffle. He is totally confused and cannot even work out how to make sense of the ranking of the people on the front bench. Lynda Scott knows about health. The health sector knows that he dumped Lynda Scott because she could not get health made a high priority for National when it goes into the elections next year. That was an appalling decision. It shows us that behind his benign chipmunk smile is a set of vicious teeth. It is a set of teeth that Dr Brash will sink into anybody in his own party when he feels he needs to. He lost confidence in Dr Lynda Scott. He did not like her challenge—I admire her; of course health should be a high priority—so he replaced her with Judith Collins who knows nothing about the health sector. The health sector knows that. Managers and clinicians know that fact already. They know he did not consider it a high priority. They know he has put Judith Collins in and they are most embarrassed about it. 
All the Nats I know in health say that was an appalling decision. Why would he get rid of two doctors and put a lawyer in as the health spokesperson? Even the two doctors are fighting. Dr Paul Hutchison went to Queenstown and made up what he would do in regionalising district health boards. Judith Collins has already said that she refutes this as it is not National Party policy. They are fighting—where is the leadership? 
The National Party has no understanding of how the health sector works but the health sector remembers the horrible reforms of the 1990s. All it is asking for is that the sector be consolidated. This will be a technical blunder of the highest order in the elections next year. The sector does not want to go back to being driven by economics. It remembers that well and the National Party will fall flat on its face. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is with great pleasure and considerable pride that I present to this House the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill. This is a short and simple bill but its impact is far-reaching. By making a small amendment to the Education Act 1989 it gives school boards of trustees the option of adopting the single transferable vote (STV) system for their elections. It is nothing more nothing less and nothing radical or compulsory. It merely gives schools and their boards greater discretion and sovereignty over how they go about ensuring that the wishes of parents are fairly reflected in the election results and that the boards are truly representative of the diverse school communities they represent. 
This bill follows in the footsteps of my previously successful STV option bill for local bodies which has been incorporated into the Local Electoral Act. That bill was also about increasing sovereignty making elections fairer and ensuring better more representative outcomes. I cannot tell members how delighted I am that every enrolled voter will have the opportunity to use STV in the forthcoming local body elections as a result of my previous bill. Not only will 10 mayors and councils be elected by STV but also all 21 district health boards will be elected by the sophisticated system provided for under the Local Electoral Act. 
The October local body elections represent a massive step forward for local democracy in New Zealand. No longer will there be minority mayors elected with as little as 24 percent of the vote as happened in Napier in 1998 at least in the forthcoming elections for the 10 councils using STV. No longer will more than half of the votes for councillors be wasted in those council elections where STV will be used. No longer will significant proportions of voters feel unrepresented because none of their choices were elected due to the impact of block voting under first past the post. 
I am told by reliable sources that even more councils will adopt STV for the 2007 local body elections. That is because STV has already proved its worth with dairy farmers who use it to elect the Fonterra board and shareholders council and because many councillors and council returning officers have overcome their initial fear of STV and now recognise that it is a far superior electoral system than first past the post. 
I am therefore obviously disappointed that the Minister of Education has indicated his refusal to support this bill but I am not surprised. After all Trevor Mallard was one of only three Labour MPs who crossed the floor to vote with National to defeat Labour MP Richard Northey’s original STV bill in 1998. Even ACT supported the 34 Labour MPs 12 Alliance MPs and one United MP who voted for that earlier version of the STV option bill because they recognised that STV enhances democracy. I look forward to the support of ACT for this bill. I also look forward to the support of New Zealand First for my bill as I know that Ron Mark was upset that he had to vote against the 1998 bill because of the coalition agreement with the National Party. I also hope United Future will maintain Peter Dunne’s consistent support for STV by voting for this bill. Indeed if the National Party is prepared to allow this bill to go to the select committee with the support of all the other parties in this House then we could override Trevor Mallard’s opposition to fair electoral systems and send this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee for the scrutiny that it deserves. 
By promoting the change to STV for school boards I know I run the risk of being seen as an electoral reform zealot who is trying to fix problems that do not exist but I have not introduced this bill merely for the sake of pushing STV down people’s throats. I believe there are real problems with our current school board elections. To give members a personal example I recall agonising over how to vote two elections ago. There were about 10 candidates for our local primary school board and I could cast up to seven votes. I strongly supported four candidates I was indifferent towards three and I did not support the remaining three. In the end I cast only four votes because I knew that a vote cast for a less preferred candidate could cancel out a vote for one of my most preferred candidates. It was that personal experience that prompted me to introduce this bill. 
I have not introduced this bill just to solve my problems with tactical voting; I have introduced it because I am concerned about the very low turnout in school board elections and the extremely high level of wasted votes at those elections. It has been difficult to get comprehensive information about this year’s school board elections but I have discovered that of the approximately 70000 voting papers that were issued in the South Island only 25000 came back. 
In other words only just over one-third of parents bothered to vote in this year’s elections. While I am certainly not claiming that STV would automatically lift the turn-out it may have a positive impact because more people would feel that it is worth taking the trouble to vote if their votes would be more likely to help. 
The analysis that I have done of results gleaned from newspaper public notices reveals a disturbingly high level of wasted votes in this year’s school board elections. For example at Wellington College 2159 votes were cast. Of those 1123 or 54 percent were for successful candidates. However 318 of those votes merely boosted the majority of the candidates who had already won. Overall only 37 percent of the votes cast in that election were effective. In other words 63 percent of the votes made no difference to the election outcome. In case members think that is an isolated example I can quote for them numerous other cases where there was a high level of wasted votes—for example 46 percent at Auckland Grammar 44 percent at Onslow College and Burnside High School and 43 percent at Shirley Boys High School. When one factors in the boost votes the effective votes at those schools were 50 percent or fewer in all cases. Those outcomes are the hallmark of an electoral system that is very crude and patently unfair. 
I fully concede that STV is most needed where a large number of candidates are standing and where significant groupings in a school community are unrepresented on the board. In other situations it may simply not be necessary. However if the Government is serious about improving school governance it should recognise the benefits of STV for those communities that have a diverse ethnic make-up. Even Ministry of Education officials have acknowledged to the Minister that Pakeha parents are overrepresented on school boards while Maori Pasifika and Asian parents are under-represented. The officials claim that this does not mean voters’ preferences are being ignored. They may be right but in the example that they use they make a presumption that exposes their limited understanding of first past the post. They reason that a low number of elected Maori trustees in a school with a high proportion of Maori students is because most Maori voters wish to elect non-Maori trustees. In fact what happens with first past the post is that a dominant group wins all the seats even when that group is a minority. In other words if a school community is made up of three ethnicities with one being 40 percent and two being 30 percent it is quite conceivable that the 40 percent community could win 100 percent of the seats on the board. 
I am not trying to advocate some sort of party or ethnic ticket for school boards; quite the opposite. I want schools to have the option of using an electoral system that maximises the opportunity for every community in the school to be fairly represented on the board without resorting to separate seats or candidate tickets. STV does that because its proportional nature means that significant minorities are more likely to win their fair share of seats and everyone is more likely to have voted for at least some of those who are elected. STV also means that a successful candidate needs to win a minimum quota of votes whereas with first past the post there is a risk of candidates being elected with low levels of support where a large number of candidates have split the vote. 
I obviously believe that the arguments in favour of STV are compelling but I also acknowledge that adopting this voting method has some practical problems and financial implications. I believe those can be easily overcome at minimal additional cost. The first and most obvious issue is the need for voter education to explain to parents how STV works. As the Government’s own literature in the forthcoming local body elections makes clear: “STV—It’s simple to vote.” In fact as my T-shirt says “it’s as easy as 1 2 3” because that is all one does. 
Hon Member 
: It’s not a T-shirt. 
ROD DONALD 
: Never mind. One ranks as many or as few of the candidates in one’s order of preference. The TV advertisements which will start screening this weekend make very clear not only how straightforward STV is but also how logical and natural the ranking process is. 
The second problem is the counting of STV votes. Obviously it is more complicated than first past the post but it presents no greater difficulty. Already most schools use an outside provider to run their elections. Those organisations use specialist contractors to count the votes right now. Because of the introduction of STV for district health board elections not only do counting companies have access to the sophisticated software that has been developed by the Department of Internal Affairs but they have developed sophisticated optical scanning equipment to count voting papers rapidly. 
Contrary to the advice given to the Minister by his officials I have been assured by the Department of Internal Affairs that its software is suitable for school board elections and I have been assured by the counting companies that counting STV votes for school board elections presents them with little more work than what they have to do now. Yes the cost would be higher because the technology is more expensive but even that cost would come down in time and at the moment it is only 10c to 40c more per ballot paper than first past the post. 
In conclusion while I acknowledge that schools do have limited budgets I must pose the question: what price democracy? That is the challenge facing this Parliament. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I begin my remarks on the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by Mr Donald by saying that he and I share a view about electoral reform. We are both supporters of proportional representation. I would probably say that I am not that much of an enthusiast for MMP as a particular form of proportional representation but because it was the one—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Power that I always know what I say on these core issues because they are issues I have championed and worked a lot on unlike himself. Once we had decided on MMP—it was the system that was clearly going to gain support—and because I support proportional representation that was the system I supported. 
However I say to the member that I respect his points of view on this issue. Like me he has been a long-term supporter of electoral change and I respect his point of view on the particular effort he has put up today. But unfortunately I have to tell him much to the glee of Mr Power that the Government will not support this legislation. Because of that because of our respect for Mr Donald because of his longstanding track record on this issue and because we do not want him to think we are opposing the bill for any other reason than an evidence base that tells us it is not a good idea I will spend a few minutes on saying why the Government will not support this bill. 
First of all the bill is unnecessary. It is not supported by members of the School Trustees Association. That is a test that I think we do have to apply. If those people wanted it then we would want to listen but they do not. 
The bill would clearly add compliance costs. It would not add them so much to the voting process because I think—I will come back to this point in a second—voters would find the process as simple as the member said and as it states on his T-shirt. Everyone knows how to list in order of preference who they want to vote for. The problem of course is the compliance costs that would come out when the vote was counted. That is the big issue and the big problem we face here. 
Frankly I am afraid that I cannot see how the single transferable vote (STV) would improve the democratic running of our 2600 schools. If I could I would urge Government members to think again. 
Let us get the flavour of this bill. School board elections are on the whole pretty low key. They are the responsibility of the school boards that administer them. The last lot of elections cost $5.4 million to run. If we introduced STV we would introduce a large number of administration changes that would fall on schools trustees and the Government. 
Rod Donald 
: How much? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will come back to that because I think the figure is reasonably easy to arrive at in terms of all this. But whatever the system was it would cost more money and if we were to pay more money for it we would want to see some real benefits. 
At the moment there are a whole range of things school boards can do if they want to make things more appropriate. If they want skill levels increased or representation increased they can stagger elections. They can co-opt if they want to. They can request organisations to appoint trustees. They can request a Minister to intervene to make sure things are done in a kosher way. They have all those options at the present time in terms of trying to make their boards work. 
We would have to decide which type of STV system we would use. There is not only one model of STV of course. It would be a nonsense if different boards were allowed to use different forms of STV because that would cause confusion. There is already flexibility in the legislation to allow people to do different things in terms of their voting system. So we would end up with a whole range of added complexities for school boards when really they already have a lot of tools to try in order to make themselves skill-based and representative to make sure things are done in a professional way and to change things if they want to. 
STV is about encouraging proportional representation. I heard the member say that he does not want parties running for board places—thank goodness! He does not want ethnicities running thank goodness. Basically then we should ask ourselves how representative school boards are now. If we flick through the figures we see that it is pretty hard to say that they are not representative. If they are not then we can make them so because the tools already exist to do that in a purposeful kind of way. So why go to a whole new system when as the member said there is no problem now? What are we trying to fix? Right now it is certainly not the core question that proportional representation usually tries to adopt—that is would we get different electoral outcomes from this bill? Not really; I do not think so. I do not think we would end up with a more representative system. 
Rod Donald 
: Give it a try. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think there are a lot of things we want to give a try in life but this bill would affect 2600 schools and a lot of people who volunteer their time. We are talking about taxpayers’ money. I am all for trying things—that is why we pilot things all the time—but I do not think the member is serious when he says just to give this system a whirl. Basically we would want to try it only if we could rack up good positive reasons for doing so. In the end the key question asks whether we would get different electoral outcomes. I really do not think the issues stack up to say: “Yes we would and it would be really worth going through all this.” 
STV is a more costly form of voting. The member himself will know that instead of being able to sit down with a piece of paper which under current arrangements one can and just by hand count up the votes for one’s local school—so that it costs basically a biro some time and a piece of paper—it would be very difficult to do that without computing if we were to use STV. Nobody who uses STV does not also use some computer-based form of counting to get the result in a reasonable period of time. Local governments hospitals and so on that use that kind of voting all have computer-based systems. I have no doubt that we would end up with the same pressure for that if we were to introduce STV for school board elections. 
I do not think that voters would have any difficulty in understanding STV. As I said before it is the complexity of handling their votes that would cause issues for us and in relation to 2600 schools and a computer-based system it would all come down to saying that all that is being loaded in for no real reason. 
I do not want to labour the point today because as I said at the beginning I respect Mr Donald’s commitment to proportional representation issues. He wants to pitch forward that argument into what ought to be the good democratic environment of the running of our schools. That is why Tomorrow’s Schools was introduced in the 1980s and that is why we all stick to it now. We want community involvement. 
But frankly I have to say that we already have good community involvement. The current system is cheap to run and simple to understand. I have not heard people complaining that they want to move to a proportional representation system where in the end we would have greater compliance and regulatory costs without any real gain in terms of what we were doing with the system. So I say to Mr Donald that I am sorry but on this occasion we will have to agree to disagree. The Government will vote against this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party will oppose this bill. Like Mr Maharey I have some sympathies for the campaign that Mr Donald has waged over a long period of time for the single transferable vote (STV). In fact I voted for STV in the referenda when the option was put before the public—I was one of the 14 percent. But I very much have to say from the outset that not one parent from any of the 63 schools in my Rangitikei electorate has walked through one of my three electorate office doors or used email phone or fax to say that he or she really wants to change the electoral system for school boards. I am afraid there is just no interest in the wider school communities for this legislation to proceed. 
I was a little astounded to hear Mr Donald say—and I think I have this right—that if a party chose not to support the bill its opposition was to fair electoral democracy or words to that effect. 
Rod Donald 
: Words to that effect. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I say to Mr Donald that a couple of things trouble me about that comment and through the chair I would like to address those to him. When the Electoral Options Referenda Bill came before this House to give the public another say on the electoral system the Green Party voted against it. I say to Mr Donald that if he is talking about fair electoral democracy then that concept has to apply well beyond school boards of trustees elections and should also apply to the wider electoral system throughout New Zealand. 
 I also have to say that despite the New Zealand public voting overwhelmingly to look at this system again in the case of reducing the number of MPs to 99 the Greens chose to vote against that particular move at the select committee. So all that we in the National Party ask for is a thread of consistency from the Green Party on matters of electoral reform. When the Green Party co-leader stands in the House and says that opposition to this bill is opposition to fair electoral democracy I am afraid I have to say to him that he needs to go back and look at his party’s voting records when it comes to issues of electoral reform. That party has not listened to the public when they have given very clear messages about their expectations on electoral reform. 
I for one truly believe that Mr Donald’s intentions in respect of this legislation are pure. He has never made any secret of the fact that he and his colleagues feel very strongly about the single transferable vote as an electoral option. As I said earlier that is the option I voted for during the referenda. 
However I conclude my very short 5 minutes by saying that there is no demand for change whatsoever in the education sector or amongst parents caregivers and those who wish to run for school boards. I have seen no evidence of it in my electorate at all. National will not be supporting this bill in going to its next stage through Parliament. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to ask whether this bill is about enhancing democracy in schools or as I suspect about promoting an electoral system regardless of the context. I am speaking as a former school principal and I am very much aware of the kinds of scenes I always experienced. When we had a parent teacher association meeting we were lucky to have a quorum and when we desperately tried to form a committee we were lucky if we got enough people to nominate themselves to be on the committee. The same often goes for a board of trustees because this is more about volunteering and social service than about politics. 
There is a difference between local body elections and school board elections. I support the single transferable vote (STV) in local body elections but when we have elections in schools—and it is hard enough to get an election with not enough people standing—we know they are apolitical and we know they are more about service. They are not about policy planks. I do not think I have ever experienced a board of trustees election at which someone has arisen and said: “I think our school needs to spend more money on the maths curriculum.” or: “Our school needs tennis courts and that’s what I’m on the board of trustees for.” I have never ever heard a policy plank put up at a board of trustees election. Instead I have seen people stand up and say: “This is me. I’ve got ‘this sort of’ experience and I’d like to serve.” 
Will STV improve the composition of boards? I want to remind the member Mr Donald that school boards at the moment have a variety of mechanisms to ensure that we have a good representation on them and a good level of skills. There are things like staggered elections. Boards can hold elections every 18 months for 50 percent of the trustees. Most important boards can co-opt up to four trustees. I know that in Christchurch where it was very difficult to get representatives from within small ethnic communities that is exactly what I did. I would go to NgaiTahu or to the Maori parents and sit and work with them—it was the same with the Somalis and with the Chinese—in an effort to get their representation on the board. If I was unfortunate enough to have a board that had no one with treasury skills or financial skills I would also go out to seek those people. It was not just about representation of the kinds of parents; it was also about representation of skills. So I do not think that STV will improve the composition. 
What are the problems with this model? First up is the cost. I heard Mr Donald ask: “What price democracy?”. I think that we do have democracy in our boards of trustees in terms of their composition and representation. Therefore I must make a choice of what I spend my money on. I know I would want it spent on special education more than anything else if I were thinking in my own portfolio as Associate Minister of Education. I would much rather spend any extra small amount of money there than I would on a strange and wonderful voting system—which is good but in its own place. 
We can talk about complexity. God save us! If we have staggered elections and STV that could be highly exciting. We can talk about inappropriateness because STV is about representation of different kinds of parties or policies—but not so inside schools. If we are looking for a good spread then let me tell members what the spread is in our schools now. At the national level school elections elect male and female trustees in equal numbers. In terms of ethnicity the 2001 boards of trustees election figures show that 16 percent of elected trustees were Maori compared to 13 percent of the adult population. On the other hand—and I will accept it—Pasifika and Asia are under-represented but there we have the ability to co-opt. So I do not believe that STV is the way to go. 
If I go back to my original argument I ask whether this bill is because we want a method of election popularised and understood by the community or because we want improved boards of trustees. I have to say that I do not accept either. I want to remind members of something. In 2001 34 percent of schools did not hold elections and another third of schools had only one or two surplus candidates. So if we have no surplus candidates or only a few candidates STV would not be the thing that made the difference. I am sorry but I truly suspect that this bill is more about trying to use boards of trustees elections and schools to educate the public about STV than about ensuring representative boards of trustees. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I personally find it difficult to say on behalf of New Zealand First that this is not a bill that deserves our support. I say that because I was one of those members like others in the House who professed to being an ardent supporter of the single transferable vote (STV). But when I look at the issue that is before us in this bill I find a number of contentions. The first one is in the explanatory note. When I see the words and phrases “superior voting system” “fairer” “tactical voting” “reduces the level of wasted votes” “this encourages positive voting” and “it gives the ability to vote for a more preferred candidate” I see a number of selective comments about any electoral system. They could apply equally well in the minds of those who support first past the post as they do in the minds of those who support MMP and I would say as a supporter of STV apply equally well to the system I support. 
But I look now at the issue before us namely school boards. The first port of call in this issue is the boards of trustees which have a School Trustees Association. So I sought an opinion from them as other members would have as to whether there was any call for it. The answer was no. Had there been any indication from individual schools that STV should be encouraged? The answer was no. If the member who is proposing this bill went to the list published last week and on the Internet as well of the annual statements of all schools in this country he would see the size of rolls in the year 2000 and as at 1 March 2003. The overwhelming impression he would have had if he had done so is that there are hundreds and hundreds of schools in this country that have very small rolls. 
In the district where I come from numerous schools have rolls of 19 23 28 30 35 and so on. When I looked carefully at the  
Northern Advocate 
 and at the local press the  
Northland Age 
 and the  
Northern News 
 in the course of the school boards of trustees elections I saw that the number of voting parents was very very small indeed. We spoke about STV to the directors of Fonterra who budgeted for that for the first vote and for the last vote and the extra cost above normal voting procedures is quite high. To suggest that small schools with a parent roll of 25 to 35 should go to this trouble in order to achieve what the bill sets out to be a more desirable outcome is I believe false and invalid. 
Although within our party there are those who would support STV as a preferred system when we look at the particular and special example of boards of trustees I do not think this is a valid one. It is more costly and in the end who says that if 15 parents are voting for a four or five person board STV will give any better indication of choice? In my book if one votes for the first five one votes for the first five. If one votes for the first four then one votes for the first four. If there is a substantial number on the electoral roll that is a different matter. Therefore the examples of large schools which were used by Mr Donald would pertain mostly to secondary schools. I know there are two or three intermediate schools in this country that have rolls of 1000 pupils. Most primary schools have rolls of fewer than 300 or so even in our large centres but the average primary school with a large roll just would not merit a costly vote of this type and it would not give any better indication of parental support for the school. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am sorry to disappoint Mr Donald but ACT will not be supporting this bill. It is rare that I find myself agreeing with Marian Hobbs but elections for school boards of trustees are not appropriate for single transferable vote (STV). They are not same as local body elections or health board elections. People do not stand for boards of trustees as a political statement. Marian Hobbs is right. She said parents stand up and say: “These are the skills that I think I have to offer.” They do not align themselves with any particular political party or even stand as an independent. Local body and district health board elections are often used as a staging post for people who want to go further on in politics. 
There are a lot of things wrong with school boards of trustees but the voting system is not one of them. One of the biggest problems is apathy. Some boards like to put a positive spin on it as they did when I was on the board of trustees for a very large girls school. We took it that the parents were pretty satisfied with what we were doing. Be that as it may there were 1800 to 2000 girls at that school and when we had a “meet the candidates” meeting just 12 parents turned up. So whether one has a small school or a big school there is still a problem with parents putting their names forward and being involved in the board of trustees. At Epsom Girls Grammar School which was in a very tightly zoned area the only time we had packed halls was when we announced that we might be thinking of changing the uniform or changing the zoning. It was interesting that the people who turned up to the zoning meeting were those whose children went to King’s College St Cuthbert’s or Diocesan School for Girls and were very worried that their property prices might drop if they were suddenly zoned out of the tight zoning area. 
The problem with apathy is often that parents do not feel that they have too much say in what goes on in the school. They think that by being on the board of trustees they will have some say in the governance or the curriculum but increasingly that is not the case. They find that they have to comply with all the regulations and edicts that come out of the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office and with a number of Acts the Occupational Safety and Health Service and the Holidays Act. All of these things keep them away from the reason they decided to stand for the board of trustees in the first place. So they get disillusioned with their role as a parent representative. 
Marian Hobbs also pointed out that boards of trustees have the power to co-opt other parents on to the board if they do not have fair representation. In fact if there is not Maori representation on the board then they are required to have a Maori representative or consultant in the school’s community who can contribute. Boards and schools go out of their way to co-opt other parents and other members of the community who will provide that balance. There will very rarely be enough people standing for a board of trustees for an STV voting system to proceed smoothly. Other members have stood up today and said they support STV. I do not even support MMP. I would vote against it tomorrow even though it would put me out of Parliament. Contrary to what people say it does not increase democracy. All MMP does is increase the number of backroomdeals that are done so people can stay in power or in support of the Government. 
The other big problem with boards of trustees is that they are under threat. The Minister has commissioned research that shows the optimum is one board of trustees for 200 schools—ram all the schools together and have as little parent representation and as little parent involvement as possible. The last thing that this Government ever wants to do is to give power back to parents and give parents the right to choose. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future also opposes this bill. Many of our members also agree that the single transferable vote (STV) system can be good in certain situations but definitely not in this situation. 
The main reason we oppose the bill is that the school trustees themselves do not support it. There are 13500 trustees throughout New Zealand and every 3 years over 2500 new trustees are appointed. According to the School Trustees Association not one school to date has asked that its board be elected by STV rather than first past the post. As Jim Peters has said the School Trustees Association has confirmed that the Green members did not even take the time to consult it to see whether it was open to or even required this type of—[ 
Interruption 
] According to our sources the Green members did not do so; Rod Donald interrupts and says that the Greens did but our sources say that they did not. Our attitude is that if something is not broken we should not try to fix it. Let things that are running well run well. 
STV is lauded as a system that would help to elect minority candidates on to school boards but is there any evidence that the current system does not achieve that? It is not a pure first-past-the-post system in which the focus is on finding one winning candidate and voters have only one vote. The correct description for the current electoral system for boards of trustees is a block vote because multiple officers are elected and electors have the same number of votes as the number of vacancies. Voters give their preferred candidates one vote each and the candidates with the highest number of votes win. Because block voting allows for multiple votes in a way that first past the post for constituency seats in a general election does not it does not discriminate against minority candidates in the same way. In most cases the outcome would be similar to that of an STV election. Once again I say that if it is not broken why fix it? 
The other aspect is that running an STV election is more complicated as we have heard. If it is more complicated it is more time consuming and it is more costly. Therefore why should the school boards have to face extra time constraints and extra costs for their elections? Under this bill those schools choosing to adopt STV would be responsible for educating eligible voters and training returning officers—all extra demands on resources that boards could better spend on our children’s education. 
However I am glad that this bill is being dealt with today. I have noticed that the Greens have kept delaying their members’ bills recently with the result that we get to members’ day and there is very little legislation to debate. I do not know whether that is part of a cunning master plan to hold back all of their bills until election year but the effect has been to bung up the system and to deny members from parties like ours—I have a wonderful member’s bill on the drinking age—the chance to have our bills balloted and debated. Given the Greens’ supposed concern for democratic rights as expressed in their intentions regarding this bill I find those tactics very questionable indeed. United Future will not be supporting this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I endorse the comments that Mr Adams has just made about members’ bills being repeatedly deferred and I am sure the Green Party will take note of that. The more members’ bills we get through the better. 
In regard to this bill I too will not be supporting it and Government members have already indicated our position. I speak from personal experience of having been for many many years a member of parent teacher associations school committees and boards of trustees. In fact I was still a member of a board of trustees when my children were at university and long out of the State school system. I continued to serve on the board because I had a great deal of interest in school governance. That really is the crux of the issue for parents who get involved in their children’s schools or in schools near where they live: they do want to serve. 
But we also have to acknowledge that the number of parents who stand for election and the number of schools that are required to hold an election because there is a contest to fill the positions are decreasing. That can be attributed to the increasingly busy lives that people lead and sometimes to people not feeling confident enough to stand for election to a school board of trustees. One of the aspects that the single transferable vote system could introduce to the equation is to make standing for election even more intimidating and more off-putting for those parents whom we most want to stand for the boards. 
Overarching all of that I think the most important aspect is that the School Trustees Association which is the authority on matters of school governance does not support this bill. I believe that it is incumbent upon the members in the House to take note of that organisation. It represents all the school boards of trustees and we would be wise to follow its advice. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Some members have been putting across that the Greens are trying to force this voting system on schools whereas the bill clearly states that it will be available to schools. Even if the national school trustees body is not at this point pushing for the system there are schools that would enjoy it and benefit from it. 
To me the compliance cost argument does not carry much weight. We live in a computer society and all that is needed is a little bit of software that can run the vote count. An initial cost might be incurred in getting the software into those schools that want to take up this system but once that software is installed the vote counting will be as easy as in any other system. Alternatively an agency may come in under contract to do the vote counting. As my colleague Rod Donald said such agencies have the software in their computers so there is no significant compliance cost there. 
This procedure will give minorities in schools better representation be they ethnic minorities or people with minority views about where their school should go. Some of the other speeches have reinforced that point in some ways. Deborah Coddington commented that only a few parents turn up to meet-the-candidates meetings. Often particularly in big schools parents who are confronted with having to vote for a certain number of candidates know only a couple of them—whom they will vote for—and wonder who else to vote for. They often end up exercising a less-informed vote in that they just tick the names of people who sound good in order to make up the number on their list. It is unfortunately true if we go by the evidence of the Auckland local body results—and I am not saying those elections are entirely identical to school boards of trustees elections—that people with “foreign-sounding” names miss out when that less-informed category of voting is exercised by people who are just filling up their lists. It has been indicated here that there is a lower level of Asian and other minority representation on school boards of trustees. There are fewer people from these groups on them than their presence in the population indicates there should be. So there can be a certain cultural conservatism in the voting that puts candidates of minority nationalities out of the picture. 
Other members have said that people vote just for the person. Well we can see from the situation at Cambridge High School recently that disputes can occur over the direction a school should take. We therefore want different views in terms of the direction the school should take to be represented on the board as well. Once again using the parallel of local body elections STV allows not only for broader representation but also for more positive voting. The reality is that in elections be they local body or school boards of trustees elections a number of similar candidates can be competing for the same spot—for example a number of candidates of a particular ethnicity. In the case of the Auckland mayoralty contest that is going on at the moment—which I am familiar with as an MP from Auckland—the incumbent had two challengers Christine Fletcher and Bruce Hucker then Dick Hubbard came into the ring making three challengers with overlapping constituencies one could say. Bruce Hucker thought it was wise for him to pull out at that point. Under an STV system he could have stayed in the race because even if he lost his preference votes would have tended to go to the dominant challenger to Mr Banks. 
I think an STV system benefits us all. One of the things about STV that has not been talked about enough is that through the preference system one gets to the quota. If there is a multi-member situation the quota can be relatively low so people from a minority ethnic group in a school can get representation and a block of the dominant ethnic group cannot out-vote all the minority candidates. The system is much fairer in that respect. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to this debate and I would have to say that it is one of those times in Parliament when it is quite refreshing to listen to a debate where every contribution is measured and where a considered response is given to what I acknowledge to Mr Donald is a genuine and sincere attempt to introduce a measure that is consistent with what he has long pursued in terms of electoral reform. But I have to say that I and members on this side of the House—and indeed as we have heard members from around the House—are not convinced that this is the right tool for the job in question. In the end with all legislation we have to ask ourselves what the ill is that we are trying to remedy. Frankly as members have systematically said around the House we are not convinced that there is an ill to remedy with this legislation. So I commend the member for his intent and for his attempt. It is always good to have a go and pursue those things that one comes here to pursue but I think on this occasion it is fair to say the Government remains firm in its view that this measure is not required and would not assist the good governance of our schools. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 School boards of trustees elections are the largest democratic event in this country. All 2580 New Zealand schools are involved. More than 13000 people are needed to become trustees. These trustees make important decisions on behalf of the pupils parents and communities they represent. They have overall responsibility for the governance of their school. They are responsible for the school’s vision and the planning required to achieve that vision. They must ensure the school complies with the law and is a responsible employer and they are expected to ensure that students are achieving. 
The Government gives enormous discretion to boards of trustees to choose how they want their schools to develop but this Government will not let boards of trustees choose the electoral system they believe will encourage participation in the election process and will ensure that the make-up of the board reflects the diversity of the school community. This is Mr Mallard’s chance to let schools make one of the most crucial decisions they should be allowed to make—that is how to recruit and elect trustees who have a mix of skills and experience talents and backgrounds to ensure that schools function well. 
Minister Maharey said that this bill is not supported by the School Trustees Association. I have a letter from that association that states: “The association’s view is that the association has no view.” So the Minister’s comment is not true. The Minister asked whether we would get different outcomes. I would say that almost certainly we would and what is more they would be better outcomes. The Minister claimed that schools hand count votes now. I am afraid he is desperately out of touch. The reality is that most schools contract out their elections. They already use the likes of Canterbury Education Services and elections.com to run their elections and count their votes. The latter already runs 19 of the 21 district health board single transferable vote (STV) elections in most of the 10 STV council elections. It has assured me that it can run STV elections for schools just as well as the first-past-the-post elections it already runs for schools and for very little more cost. 
Marian Hobbs and Deborah Coddington implied that STV was inappropriate for schools because it is a political electoral system. That view could not be further from the truth. The fact is that STV is used more by non-political bodies in New Zealand such as Fonterra the Victoria University of Wellington Council the Anglican Church trade unions and even kennel clubs. In Britain and Ireland STV is widely used by a vast range of organisations that simply want to elect their committees by a system that is clearly superior and fairer than first past the post. 
As former associate professor of political studies at Auckland University Graham Bush said: “If there’s one voting system worse than single member first past the post it is multi-member first past the post.” He concluded the article I am quoting from: “There is no better time than now to ground our modernised local government system on a democratised method of voting.” He wrote that article in 1994 and it has taken a decade to bring about the necessary changes to the way we elect our councils. 
I hope that it will not take a decade to make STV an option for school board elections. I hope that the Government will belatedly appreciate the merits of STV and recognise that schools such as Wellington College Auckland Grammar Onslow College Burnside High School and Shirley Boys High School should have the option of using STV if they want to. However after today’s debate I fully appreciate that there is limited understanding of the flaws of first past the post so I will table some of the results from the last election shortly. 
Over the next year or maybe decade in Parliament I will endeavour to encourage members parents and existing trustees of the merits of a change. I hope it will not take as long as it took Sir John Hall to get STV introduced for elections in New Zealand as it may take to get STV an option for school board elections. He first promoted STV for parliamentary elections in 1877 and never succeeded. Meanwhile STV was in use in 1917 when Christchurch City elected Ada Wells its first woman councillor. Unfortunately despite the best efforts of councillor Elizabeth McCombs who later became New Zealand’s first woman member of Parliament STV disappeared from local elections in 1933. 
In conclusion I celebrate STV’s restoration 71 years later for this year’s local body elections and I look forward to my colleagues in this House allowing school boards to be able to choose it for their elections as well. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a sample of results from the 2004 school board elections that highlight the levels of wasted votes and effective votes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Voting 
Correction 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the Maori Party vote recorded in support of the Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The result of that vote is now Ayes 10 Noes 108. 
Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill 
First Reading 
PETER BROWN (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
Doug Woolerton (NZ First) 
: I move  
That the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee and that it be requested to report back to the House before Parliament rises at the end of the year. The reason for doing that is in order to give the bill the best possible chance of becoming enacted by Easter 2005. 
This bill has as its primary thrust—and I want to make this clear—the shifting of responsibility from central government to local government after consultation with their community for determining if and when shops may open on Easter Sunday. That is the primary thrust. It is a fairly innocuous piece of legislation that simply devolves a bit of extra responsibility to the local communities. 
Already a vast array of shops almost everywhere in New Zealand are able to open their doors on Easter Sunday. These include retailing in food drinks personal items auto parts fuel duty-free goods and those shops catering to the needs of the travelling public in passenger terminals selling books magazines newspapers and whatever. We already have trading on days such as Easter Sunday but it is restricted and very limited in scope. Several communities throughout New Zealand have already been granted exemption to open shops on Easter Sunday. They have been given exemption from the existing shop trading hours provisions and provide an excellent and worthwhile service in particular to the thousands of international tourists and local and domestic tourists who gather in places as diverse as Queenstown the Kapiti coast Picton if there is a cruise ship in port Parnell in Auckland Taupo Paihia and Nelson to give but a few examples. Tourist patterns have changed and a good number of other areas are equally deserving of this consideration. This bill simply provides for that to occur. 
Over recent years New Zealand has become more tourist focused—and we have; we have to develop tourism in this country and I do not think any member will disagree with that—especially so towards attracting international tourists but the needs and wants of those travelling have not kept pace with the demands of the market’s customer base. In other words we are not providing what the tourists basically want on this particular day. No longer do we see evidence of the practice we once saw of our cities and towns looking like ghost towns on Easter Sunday. We now see bustling activity and increasingly in places that are largely tourist-oriented such as Tauranga. Tourists are out and about seeking to enjoy their time and to purchase the things that tourists spend so much on whilst on holiday. In Tauranga and in Rotorua—the city next door—shops are closed on Easter Sunday despite market demand and despite people going to those places and wanting to shop and those tourists move on to places such as Taupo. 
This bill provides the opportunity for local communities to determine what is best for them and how they wish to treat their visitors. This bill makes it incumbent upon local councils to seek the views of their community if they believe it is to be in anyone’s best interest to have shops open on Easter Sunday. This bill does not allow shops to open on Easter Sunday per se it simply tells the local council that it has the opportunity to decide whether shops can open. It is totally voluntary. There is nothing forced and nothing is imposed. This bill does not provide any automatic right for a shop owner to open; neither does it give the right to local councils to determine what is to occur with regard to the opening of shops on Easter Sunday. 
The bill can be described as being permissive only. It does not prescribe anything at all other than a very democratic process at a community level for local shop owners to seek exemption from the current centrally imposed restrictions on being open on Easter Sunday. I heard in the previous debate the Greens talk about democracy in terms of their Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill. This is democratic. This bill allows the local people to make the choice for themselves. It stops central government—anybody in this place—from imposing restrictions or imposing the ability for shops to open. It simply says: “Mr and Mrs Mayor you and your council decide whether you want shops to open on Easter Sunday.” It does not seem right and proper to us in New Zealand First to allow that right in places such as Queenstown Taupo the Kapiti coast and Picton when a cruise ship is in yet prohibit that same right in places such as Tauranga and Rotorua. 
I know there will be some counterarguments that say: “What about the workers?” and all that sort of thing— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What about the workers? 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank Mr Benson-Pope for that. I hoped he would have said that before now. Let me talk about the workers. This will be voluntary. Nobody will be compelled to work if they do not want to. This will be totally voluntary. I can tell members now from my experiences in Tauranga in particular and I am certain the member for Rotorua will back this up that there will be thousands of people who will want to work of their own accord. 
To deny this is to deny the local bodies in New Zealand the chance to make their own decisions—to do what is best for their communities. It is not our job to impose restrictions. Equally so it is not our job to make it compulsory—“thou shalt be open”. Our job is to set laws that are fair and square throughout the whole of this land. I say to members and I say it sincerely; if it is good enough for shops in Queenstown to open why is it not good enough for Rotorua shops to open? If it is good enough for the Kapiti coast shops to open why is it not good enough for Tauranga shops to open? This bill will not compel any shop owner as I have said quite a few times now to open if he or she desires not to. This simply gives shop owners the opportunity to open their shops during a long weekend and provide service to their customers and tourists. 
Tourists come from far and wide now to visit this country because of our clean green image and I hasten to say the friendly attitude that New Zealanders display towards people who come to this country. Tourists expect the shops to be open to some reasonable degree. Gone are the days when I think it was a chap called Sir Clement Freud from Britain came here and said: “I visited New Zealand on Easter Sunday”—or some such day—“but it was closed.” Those days are over. We are now in the 21st century and this bill in a very small way brings us further into this century. People expect the shops to open tourists expect the shops to open and international tourists most certainly expect to get some service from shops. 
 For tourists to arrive on a cruise ship at the port of Mount Maunganui and walk down the streets and see all the shops closed on Easter Sunday is rather naive. It is absolutely insulting to the people of Tauranga that tourists would have to get into a minibus or taxi and drive for 2 hours to Taupo to go shopping. How does that make sense? I have to be honest with members. I think that Tauranga shops would open but this bill does not compel them to open. I urge members to think positively and at least send the bill to select committee where it can be more widely discussed and receive submissions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the House would bear with me for a minute. Mr Brown it is normal to set a date in the referral to send this bill to a committee. Your time frame was a bit uncertain. Would you prefer to put a date on it? I will allow you to do it in your right of reply. It needs a date so we can have certainty. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I tell the member who preceded me that I will vote for the bill. I must say that his explanation of what is in the bill is not right. For instance there is no protection for those workers who do not wish to work; neither is there any protection for those leaseholders who do not wish to open on the day to have the protection of not opening. The third thing I want to say to the member before I go on with the issues in the bill is that I do believe he has selected the wrong select committee. The Commerce Committee dealt with the previous shop trading hours legislation and despite my assessment that the majority of the select committee were opposed to the legislation reported back a bill that subsequently was defeated in the House at its second reading but the committee reported it back with significant amendments that tidied up those particular matters. 
I congratulate Doug Woolerton on the work that he has done in putting the bill together because it is a debate that we need to have. I do know that New Zealand First was particularly keen on this matter because it was raised by the New Zealand First member on the Commerce Committee at the time we dealt with the previous legislation. We were unable to include in that bill the possibility that if the House was unhappy with there being a blanket opening of shops on Easter Sunday local authorities could have the say simply because it was not within the scope of the bill to do so. Rodney Hide who was the sponsor of that particular bill knows the debate that we had in some detail. This is a perfect fall-back position to give the House an opportunity to have some further discussion and some say as to whether there should be trading on Easter Sunday. 
Maybe I could highlight what I think is the anomaly and it has been raised with me by the member for Rotorua on many occasions and it is that Taupo shops can open on Easter Sunday and Rotorua shops cannot. If one is a shop owner in Rotorua and one wishes to open then one misses out. That simply defies logic. 
Rodney Hide 
: The member sounds more and more like a libertarian. 
MARK PECK 
: The member cannot assume that I subscribe to that form of politics. However I do accept the inevitable that this particular issue will eventually get a positive hearing by the House. It may take some time. But one of the things I know having been a shop assistant—and I happen to be one of the last shop assistants who went on strike to stop shops opening on a Saturday—is that when the tide is coming in we cannot stop it. I visited a place on the south coast of England—a place called Botham or something like that—where King Canute put the chair in the sand and said to the tide: “Come in no further.” Anybody who has been there will know that the tide rises about six metres there. Indeed there is a road just above the beach and when the tide really comes in it goes across the road so poor old King Canute got a right royal dunking. 
I know that on this particular issue people will eventually reach the stage where they will simply refuse to observe the law. If we as a Parliament allow that to happen without building in the necessary protections for employees who do not want to work on the day or for those people who run businesses who do not want to open on the day who do not particularly worry about the competition or have religious objection to opening on the day then I think we do people a disservice. What will occur is that by custom and practice this will happen around the country. Then nobody will have a say as to whether they have any protections in those situations. It is much better that we deal with it. 
I say to the member who preceded me in this particular debate that the Commerce Committee is the place to send this legislation not only from the point of view that the Commerce Committee dealt with the previous shop trading hours legislation but that it can deal with it quickly. I do not think that there is much of a need to have a round of submissions on this occasion. There has been a ministerial inquiry. There were copious submissions on the previous bill moved by Rodney Hide and also on the issue of local authorities being able to have their own say on whether shops would open. We have the evidence in front of us that would allow the select committee to do a quick job on tidying up this legislation and getting it back to the House. If it is the member’s wish that this particular matter is dealt with in time to come into force before Easter 2005 then I suggest to him that the Commerce Committee is the logical committee to send this legislation to. 
Having said all that and having said I will vote for the bill I also do not want to belittle the argument of those who are concerned about the thin end of the wedge. There are certain days within the calendar year that certainly are sacrosanct. One thing I can never see this House doing is agreeing to shops opening on Christmas Day. I can never see this House agreeing to shops opening on Anzac Day the half day on which we remember our service personnel. Neither can I see the House making any significant progress if it does not honour the wishes of those who would seek not to work or not to open their shops on Easter Sunday. And that will be the attention. Many employers who will want to open on that day will want to be able to say to their workers to come to work. I am sorry but if those employers want the luxury of being able to open their shops if the local authority decides it is useful for this to happen in their particular area then they will have to accept some checks and balances as to what they can or cannot require employees to do. 
I am sure that they will find the staff who will be prepared to work. I am sure that the vast majority of those employed in an enterprise will work. But that genuine opportunity not to work has to be offered to the employees and protections need to be built around that. Some of us would say that some penalty rates should probably be built in to make it a disincentive to employ workers other than the ones who are needed to work on the day to supply the services that tourists demand. 
I hear the member chortling in the aisles opposite. This is probably the one point that he and I do not agree on. Having said that it works as a reasonable disincentive and means that sufficient staff are there to do the work that is necessary to service the tourists but also makes sure that those who are prepared to work on the day get adequately compensated. Those are all issues that I am sure the select committee can get its head around reasonably quickly. 
The member having moved his resolution is in a bit of a dilemma. I know that the member cannot change his resolution once he has moved it. It may well take an amendment or the leave of the House; I do not know. I found myself in this particular dilemma when I moved legislation recently. I moved that it be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It took quite a little bit of fancy footwork to work it out. I suggest to the member that if he is serious about progressing the legislation and if he agrees with the point I have raised he take some advice now as to how he can tidy up his resolution. I am certain that if there is a willingness to give this bill a first reading it would probably be in the House’s best interests to refer it to the Commerce Committee which is not overly taxed with work at the moment. The Local Government and Environment Committee has a heck of a lot of business on its agenda just now. But it is not just that. The Commerce Committee has the expertise in the area and it is a committee that can consider the bill quickly and probably do so without needing to go to any significant round of seeking submissions. I will certainly be voting for the bill. I know many of my colleagues will not be but that is the nature of a personal vote. I look forward to the debate on this bill as it develops in the House. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will take both your advice and the advice of the honourable member. I remind the House that I have not moved a formal motion as yet and when I do in my right of reply I advise members now—so that if they wish to refer to it as part of their contribution to the debate they may do so—that I will be seeking the report back to the House to be on or before 16 December 2004. In the intervening time I will be giving consideration to Mr Peck’s suggestion of referring to the bill to the Commerce Committee. I will move the motion formally as you suggested Mr Assistant Speaker in my right of reply. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that the position Mr Brown is in? He can now move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Putting a date in the referral motion is quite acceptable but he will need to seek leave to change the committee which I believe he will do in his second address. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by offering my support to some of the comments made by Mr Peck. I thought they were constructive and I add my considered opinion that the bill would be better dealt with in the Commerce Committee primarily because I think it is a committee that has its head around the issues and would move it through the select committee process expeditiously. I also add—because I am sure Mr Peck meant to—that the only reason the Commerce Committee does not have a lot of work on at the moment is because it puts through its work very quickly. 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s got a good chairman. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I understand it has one of the best chairmen in Parliament. It will be a pity to lose someone of that calibre. 
I reluctantly support this bill. I want to explain why I say “reluctantly”. I have a great deal of sympathy with the position Mr Woolerton finds himself in and I say to the House that we continually miss the opportunity to resolve this issue. As Mr Peck has already noted just before Easter this year there was a bill before the House that sought Easter Sunday trading right across the country. I was a member of the select committee that considered it. I know Mr Hide was and he made a significant contribution to it as others did. 
Rodney Hide 
: My bill! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am sorry I cannot hear the member! I worked on that select committee and I believe that it made a very considered recommendation to the House. It was a difficult position to arrive at. The submitters were divided roughly fifty-fifty against and for but on balance I believe that the committee decided that the only way to progress this rather vexed situation was to ask the House to pass legislation that would allow Easter Sunday trading. 
I pick up Mr Peck’s concerns here on the bill as it stands at the moment. The select committee I worked on when Mr Hide’s bill was before it put in place some safeguards for workers who did not want to work on Easter Sunday. The bill was very specific. It would have allowed employers to employ people on a part-time basis for that day only and it was clear that those employees who did not wish to work would suffer no disadvantage whatsoever. That safeguard was built into the bill. Shoppers would have been able to exercise their own consciences by choosing either to shop or not to shop and shop owners had the same ability—they could simply make a decision either to open their shops or not to open them. Unfortunately that bill was rejected. 
The bill we have now I believe has been born out of sheer frustration. There is a ridiculous situation across the country whereby some areas can have shops open and some cannot. It is a head-in-the-sand attitude. The reality is that the genie is out of the bottle. We will never stop Easter Sunday trading from happening across the country. It is a matter of time before everyone does it. A progressive Parliament would have got hold of the issue when it had the opportunity some months ago and said that we should embrace Easter Sunday trading and put in place some quality legislation. We are now getting a reaction to that being rejected and a reaction to some places across the country that can open shops and some that cannot. A couple of examples have been quoted and I will repeat them: we have Taupo and Queenstown which can open their shops and places like Rotorua and Tauranga which simply cannot. There is a patchwork approach to where shops can or cannot open and that will send confusing signals both to the people who live in this country and to the people who visit it. It will do our tourist trade an immense amount of harm. 
We need to face up to the reality of what is coming down the tunnel. People now work on public holidays when once upon a time that was a no-no. There are now shops that are open 24 hours a day and shops that open 7 days a week. The reality is that Easter Sunday trading will come whether or not we like it. The situation is doing immense damage to our wine industry because people come to this country specifically to go around some of those vineyards and to experience some of the things New Zealand has to offer and we are not embracing it. I support this bill. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 This House often speaks about the importance of families. It takes time to be a family and it takes time to be a parent. I was a retailer for many years. Occasionally I go and sit on my corner and sell jewellery still. I can recall when Saturday shopping was introduced and I campaigned against it as well. When the Americans came and decided that New Zealand was closed on Saturdays they might have decided that in fact New Zealanders were doing other things. They were watching their kids play rugby. They were playing rugby. They were out in their gardens. They were enjoying a weekend. New Zealanders knew what to do with a weekend. They knew what to do with leisure. Yes there were people who worked every day of the week and worked nights. They worked those hours because there are jobs that have to be done 24 hours a day. People have to be looked after in hospitals 24 hours a day. People need to be looked after when they get old and cannot look after themselves 24 hours a day. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about people going out and selling stuff. 
There is no shortage of opportunity in this country to buy stuff. There is though very much a shortage of time for people to be a family—to spend time with their children. I enjoyed watching my daughters play sport on a Saturday morning. It was one of those lovely times. I would sleep in a little then we would get up and have breakfast together then we would go down and watch the kids play netball and then we would come home I would go to Harriers and my friends would be there. 
When Saturday trading was introduced we were told that we would have a choice and that it was not compulsory. My retailing friends said: “You’ll not get me selling on a Saturday. I enjoy my leisure too much.” Yeah right. It was not by demand. The shops were empty. It was pushed by a few very large chains. The shops in those large chains were not full of customers. They had to do a very hard sell. They had to advertise and advertise and advertise. Slowly it took off and then the smaller shops decided that they were missing out and they would do it too. Eventually I had no choice. They destroyed my livelihood. I had to sell on a Saturday like everybody else. I never saw my son play sport on a Saturday. When one goes overseas one expects to behave the way people overseas behave—“When in Rome do as the Romans do”. It may seem like a rearguard action and I admit it is. 
I think Mark Peck said earlier that we would never see the shops open on Christmas Day. I would not be so sure because I can remember when it was said that we would never see shops open on a Sunday and it happened. Not being able to shop is not the end of the world. Somebody spoke about having to travel for 2 hours to go shopping. That is not the only choice. People could take their families out fishing. Parents might play with their children or stay home and talk with them. People might go out into the garden. Members can say that people have choices. It appals me that in a society like ours when we have never had so much stuff and we so desperately need time we decide to open the shops again. 
I believe in the principle of appropriate decision-making. I think local communities should make those decisions. But sometimes there needs to be a higher law and that is what we are here for—to give a direction to the community. Life will not fall apart if Easter Sunday trading happens but it will not get any better. People say to me: “Mike do you remember when you campaigned against Saturday shopping? The world has not fallen apart.” I tell them to have a look around for a while. Families are under extreme stress. We have a lack of purpose and a lack of reason for being. When shopping is people’s main source of recreation I say we have lost our way. We will be opposing this bill. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 That was the Green spokesman Mike Ward. We have a situation here where the Green’s health spokesman Nandor Tanczos expects to be able to buy his cannabis 24/7 on 365 days of the year yet the Greens will not let us open our shops for the tourists who are going past the door. But it is OK for the Greens to be smoking dope—which is against the law—promoting it and doing it every day of the year as a religious experience. 
The ACT party rises to support this bill— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I understand what the point of order will be and I was going to bring it to the member’s notice. You may not suggest any illegality on the part of any member of Parliament. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not suggesting it; I am stating it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The act of doing what you were talking about is illegal and that must not be suggested in respect of any member or any group of members. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is one of those things. If I was suggesting that Nandor Tanczos smokes cannabis I take it back. I am now misleading the House but at least I am within the rules. 
We rise to support this bill and we commend Mr Peter Brown for bringing it to the House’s attention. I hope that he will take up Mr Peck’s suggestion and that the House will agree to send it to the Commerce Committee because there is no doubt that it will be treated expeditiously by a committee that is well chaired and has some very wise heads that have spent years and years and years considering shop trading hours legislation. I say that we can process the bill expeditiously. 
I will pick up on a couple of points. Why is it that we cannot just trust the people? Why is it that in this House we have to decide which shops can open when? Do we have some divine inspiration here this night that means we can decide that it is not OK for shops in Rotorua Tauranga and Mount Maunganui to open but it is OK for shops in Taupo and Queenstown to open? No one in this House can defend that decision on any rational grounds. This bill comes along and we are asked to make an exception for Easter Sunday. That is interesting. So can a shop now open on an Easter Sunday if it chooses to? Oh no. It still has to have the agreement of the local authority. I ask Mr Brown whether we do that for any other day. 
Peter Brown 
: No. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No. So suddenly we have councils deciding for 1 day out of 365 whether shops can open in their district. 
Brian Connell 
: Elect the shoppers. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes! Why can we not just leave it up to the business people and save all that hassle? Why could we not just say that shops can open on Easter Sunday? What does it actually have to do with the local authority? 
Peter Brown 
: The member’s got a point. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I thank Mr Brown. I know he has supported our bill. Whose shop is it? It does not belong to those of us in this House. It does not belong to the local authority. It belongs to the business owner. Mike Ward says that they do not really want to open. They do not have to open. No one is forcing us to go shopping. 
Brian Connell 
: The Green member spoke about choice. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. The Greens speak about choice for some things but I cannot refer to that because of the Standing Orders. They even decide which rules they will follow. They sit in this House passing laws and then decide which ones they will follow and which ones they will not. That is what Green MPs do. 
I say to members of this House that this bill is a move towards liberalisation. I know that my friend Mr Tim Barnett agrees with that. He will be saying that people should be able to trade on Easter Sunday in all manner of things subject to getting approval from the local council. 
Peter Brown 
: I bet the brothels are open. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a good point. I bet they are too. Tourist trades and all the brothels will be open. So what about the garden centres? How come the people of New Zealand can go out and buy their marijuana and go to the local brothel but law-abiding citizens cannot go to the garden centre and buy some soil a few plants that they can legitimately grow and a spade? 
Brian Connell 
: They can do it in Taupo. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: They can do it in Taupo. Let us send this bill to the Commerce Committee let us pass it and let us get going. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise as a member of United Future to talk about the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill. I am sorry to say that we are not all in agreement over this bill but two of us will certainly be voting in favour of it. Personally I wonder why it has taken so long for this bill to look as if it will go to the next stage. I think that this bill has been a long time coming. We have had other bills that have tried to do the same sort of thing and every time there has been a strange stumbling block about why shops should or should not open. What really amazes me is that we are even having this discussion at all. Surely it is the right of employers and employees to decide when where and what they will open and for whom. They make the decisions; they make the money. There is no risk for the Government or for anybody other than satisfying the needs of members of a local population who choose with their wallets to come and visit the premises. It seems to me that we are really encountering a certain geographic discrimination. 
It is all right as Rodney Hide has pointed out for shops to be open in certain parts of the country and not in other parts. That is geographic discrimination. Quite frankly every business should be allowed to open any damn day it chooses whether that is Easter Christmas or the middle of the night. I could not care less. It is the business owners’ business it is their right to open and it is the public’s right to decide whether they will go in and spend their money. 
We listened to an extraordinary contribution from the Green member who talked about some higher principle. It seems to me that the only higher principle that he likes is his own. He wants to ban the opportunity for people to choose to go to a shop on Easter Sunday and spend their money. So it is a higher principle that he adheres to but he denies the opportunity for everybody else to have their higher principles that might conflict with his. 
 One of the things that really strikes me as being absurd is why do we not allow employers and employees to be able to have freedom of choice on when they want to work and also to choose when and how to be a family if that is the flipside of the coin? We do not always have to decide that Saturdays and Sundays are times for family and that the rest of the time is a time for work. Different families have different requirements and different needs. 
I had shift work for many many years and I chose not to take Saturday and Sunday off because I did not want to be off work when everybody else was. I wanted to have a clear run when going to the shops or to the theatre or cinema and so it was very very valuable for me to be able to choose the time I wanted to have off. So why discriminate against that freedom of choice? And why discriminate between one group of employees and another? The police are still working hospitals are working and the hospitality industry is still running. So not only is there geographic discrimination but also the type of business that one is in becomes discriminated against—but for what reason? Hospitality is not an essential item. People can buy food the day before and cook at home but we think there should be an exemption for the hospitality industry. Why should there not be an exemption for every other thing? We sometimes want to buy books on a Sunday Saturday or any other day and it seems ridiculous to have a mandate that says we cannot. 
Besides this Government should be in favour of more wealth creation if for no reason other than its predatory desire to keep plundering the wealth of those who create it in the first place. So I would assume that Labour is in favour of this bill. 
This bill also touches only the tip of the iceberg because there are other days in the year too that should be left up to both employers and employees to decide for themselves how when and where they choose to open for business. Let the public choose with their wallets and let us not have an edict from on high based on the prejudices and ideologies of the few. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill and I wish to preface my remarks by going back in time. When I did that by looking at the  
Hansard 
 I saw the interesting issue which has arisen almost decade by decade in that we finally realised that there needed to be change. That need for change was recognised first of all in 1980 when for the first time in New Zealand Saturday trading became legal. Then in March 1990 there was a very unusual situation in this country whereby Sunday trading became legal under the legislation at the time but that was after the extraordinary decision made by the Government of the day by Order in Council to move in late 1989 to Sunday trading. The decision to allow it to proceed was made by Cabinet not by the people or by Parliament. So in March 1990 the very issues that are before members today were debated in this House. 
The interesting thing about that debate is that the very kinds of submissions that were made and talked about in the select committee then are the ones that have already been advanced here. The major body of submissions was made—160 of them—by people who were concerned about their Sunday. Those people were concerned about Sunday trading and its effect and impact upon family life. In the course of their submissions they ranged all over saying that it would cause divorce family breakdown and a whole number of irretrievable aspects of family life that would not be seen again. Of course the reality now is that Sunday trading has been established. It was established by law in the legislation that members are looking at as being a part of the legislation that needs changing today and it has waited until now for Parliament to once again look at the issues that are before the House and that have been debated tonight. 
The people took no part and had no real voice in that earlier decision. The issue I want to bring to the House’s attention is that this bill provides for the local community and local people to have their part in regard to Easter Sunday. Why Easter Sunday? Why not Christmas Day or Anzac Day? It is because in the fabric of our lives and in our tradition and our history there is something about that day that still deserves separate recognition. I would commend those who think that way. Therefore when I heard Mr Ward speak about family life that is something that I commend although it is a choice and an aspect that is not pleasing to all people. 
But if this bill is passed and goes to its final form the local community will have every opportunity to express its mind. After consultation members of the local community will be able to pick up the concerns of the employer groups and employees that have already been enunciated in this House. Those family groups will be able to have their say about how the legislation impacts upon say Kaikohe—a wonderful little town in the mid-north. Those people who are affected by the implications of industrial legislation on being able to open or not and its impact upon their employees such as at The Warehouse for example will be able to express opinions before the local council. 
The local council would determine as the representative local body on behalf of its people what the attitude to this 1 day—Easter Sunday—should be. I say again that this is not about Christmas Day or Anzac Day; it is Easter Sunday which is of equal significance to a considerable number of people in our community. 
So I stand to support the bill. I know that in places like Paihia and Parnell people enjoy this option at present for all sorts of excellent commercial reasons and there is no sound reason why on a case by case basis deliberately and in response to local needs the local community which in this case would be the council cannot make a choice about its Easter Sunday. So to that degree despite the fact that I know that in my home district many will oppose this bill for excellent reasons I want to emphasise again that this bill is about a choice—a deliberate choice made locally—that affects only those who wish take up the offer that this bill may make to them in the commercial or family sense. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my opening speech I foreshadowed that I would move that this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have now taken the advice of many members in the House and I seek leave to move the bill to the Commerce Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will try to briefly address the issues that have been raised by many members in the House. First of all I want to make it absolutely categorically clear that there is no intention to apply the regulations of this bill to Christmas Day or Anzac Day. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Not yet. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says “Not yet” but I would say that there is no mood or spirit in this House—and certainly there is no mood in my party—for Christmas Day to be included in this sort of legislation. Second I recognise the point that Mark Peck made that this bill does not put any restrictions on working people or put pressure on people to work. I tried to imply that that issue would be addressed by the local bodies when they considered whether shops should open. I believe that that is where it is best addressed because the local councils know intimately the people who make up their communities. 
In terms of Tauranga and Rotorua I have to say that it is the concerns of Tauranga and Rotorua in particular that have driven us to push this bill. They are both rapidly growing cities—Tauranga is probably the fastest-growing city in New Zealand—and they want to be able to open their shops on Easter Sunday. Rotorua is an equally fast-growing city and it is very largely dependent on tourism. For it to have its shops closed and the people to come in bypass Rotorua and then go on to Taupo is really hard to take and that is putting it bluntly. 
Members of Parliament must respect local people—people who live and work in their own regions. They must respect them to the degree that those people are allowed to make their own choices on certain issues. 
 This is a very good issue whereby local people can say whether they want shops to open on Easter Sunday. In Mount Maunganui we had a vicar called Geoff Cranshaw—he is no longer there; he has moved on to greener pastures—who was totally in favour of shops opening on Easter Sunday. He said that as a result of the shops opening he would get more and more people into his church. He was very confident that family people and people who were out doing their shopping would come into his church. I think that that is a view shared by many in the church community. 
I was disappointed by the Green members’ contribution. It appears they know better than anybody else. They have been elected to Parliament and sit in some of these fine green leather seats and then they think they know better than the average guy outside. They do not. A member comes to Parliament as a representative of the people. 
Rodney Hide 
: They wouldn’t let you eat a chicken. 
PETER BROWN 
: Would they not? They would not eat a chicken? I do not know about that. The point I am making is that when we come to Parliament we are no better or worse than the people we represent. This bill is about allowing local communities the ability to make a decision. It is absolutely ridiculous that the communities of Queenstown Taupo Nelson and some of the others I listed earlier can have their shops open with no problems whatsoever but the rest of the country’s shops are closed. I really resent the Green members implying that they know better than others. 
I thought Marc Alexander made a very good point when he highlighted the fact that many people in New Zealand now work shifts and unusual hours. I thank the member for raising that. I thought of my own son and his wife when he raised that point. My son is an airline pilot. I want members to imagine how it would be if he did not work on Easter Sunday or on any Sunday or particular day. He works as required by the community and the public. His wife Karen—a tall slim lady—is a police officer. She is at the beck and call of the whole community when things go wrong not just on Easter Sunday but on any day of the week and at any time of the day or night. 
I conclude by moving that the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee be directed to report back to the House on or before 16 December 2004. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. I seek leave on the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill for a party to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b). 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 My understanding was that this was to be a normal personal vote. It certainly is the expectation of the Labour Party that those for whom I am not as whip holding proxies will expect the ringing of the bells and will as normal progress to the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for a split party vote. The remedy to the member’s question lies in that. Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. Therefore a personal vote will be held. Before we get to that point the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. If we are going to have a personal vote and there is going to be the ringing of the bells— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will just go back a step. I think some members were confused as to what the question was. The question was that the bill be read a first time. I will put that question again because I do not think it was clear to any members. That will decide the issue. The question is that the motion be agreed to and the motion was that the bill be read a first time. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it. The Ayes have it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is a personal vote called for? That is the point. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The confusion is that people think this is just a normal vote. The point Mr Benson-Pope mentioned before is that although I sought leave to have a split vote that was denied. We are now moving into a personal vote. That is the process we should be going for. Green members have to vote against it. Some are voting for it. We are calling now for a personal vote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree with that. But for the Green Party’s “No” vote the motion would have been agreed to and that would have been the end of the matter. We can be grateful in many ways for the “No” vote. Does any member call for a personal vote? That is fine we shall have a personal vote on this issue. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 56 
Alexander   
Eckhoff   
Paraone (P) 
Sowry (P) 
Awatere Huata  
Franks 
Peck   
Stewart   
Beyer (P) 
Goudie (P) 
Perry (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Brash (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters J (P) 
Swain (P) 
Brown   
Hide   
Power   
Tamihere (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hodgson (P) 
Prebble   
Tisch   
Catchpole (P) 
Hunt (P) 
Rich (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Chadwick   
Jones (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Wilson (P) 
Clark (P) 
Key (P) 
Roy  
Wong (P) 
Coddington   
Mackey J 
Ryall (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Collins (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Connell   
Mark (P) 
Scott (P) 
Cullen (P) 
McCully (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Donnelly (P) 
McNair (P) 
Simich (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne (P) 
Newman 
Smith L (P) 
Hutchison   
Noes 61 
Adams   
Dalziel (P) 
Hereora (P) 
Robson (P) 
Anderton (P) 
Donald (P) 
Hobbs (P) 
Smith M 
Ardern (P) 
Duncan (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Smith N 
Baldock (P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Kedgley   
Tanczos (P) 
Barker   
Dyson (P) 
King   
te Heuheu (P) 
Barnett   
English (P) 
Laban (P) 
Tizard 
Benson-Pope   
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke   
Turei (P) 
Bradford (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Turia (P) 
Brownlee   
Field   
Maharey (P) 
Turner (P) 
Burton (P) 
Fitzsimons (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Ward (P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gallagher   
O'Connor (P) 
Worth (P) 
Carter J 
Goff (P) 
Ogilvy   
Yates(P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Gosche (P) 
Okeroa (P) 
Copeland (P) 
Hartley (P) 
Parker (P) 
Cosgrove   
Hawkins 
Pillay (P) 
Teller: 
Cunliffe (P) 
Heatley (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Pettis 
Motion not agreed to. 
International Treaty Examination 
Consideration of Report of Health Committee 
Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Health Committee on the international treaty examination of the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products 
. I think it is valuable to give a bit of background to this and remind members in the House tonight that this is simply the report back on the treaty. It is not a report back on the inquiry and it certainly is not a report back on the implementing legislation which is still to be tabled in this House. So it is in a rather peculiar position that we are debating tonight because there is not a lot to debate. We do not have the implementing legislation where the rigour of the recommendations of the select committee inquiry report of which there were 34 recommendations and the discussions between the New Zealand and Australian Governments—through both the therapeutic goods agency and Medsafe—are now progressing on developing the rules and orders. 
But I go back to 2000 when the joint agency was proposed by Ministers of the Crown which then enabled the New Zealand Government to decide that it was not proceeding with the New Zealand Healthcare and Therapeutic Bill. With the development of talks about a new agency the need for a New Zealand - only bill to look at regulating complementary medicines became redundant. 
After this a discussion document was put out by Medsafe for the Ministry of Health and I have to say that in that time from just a discussion document on the joint agency much misinformation many fears and many concerns of those in the complementary health-care medicine sector were stirred up. We would go into places around the country and find people wearing black armbands saying: “We don’t want this agency.” but they did not know why. They did not know that the proposal was for an entirely new construct of an agency; not an agency based on the model of Food Standards Australia New Zealand which is another agency that regulates food safety between Australia and New Zealand. This was an entirely new approach. 
They did not understand that at all but they were told by some in the House to vote against it. They did not understand it and they were told to vote against it because it was going to restrict their choice to complementary medicines—which was not something that had even been considered. They were told that if they went into a health-care shop they would pay substantially more for their complementary medicines which the community believes it has the right to take at its own risk and we would not argue with that. 
 So this was just a discussion document but it did stir the industry up and it stirred up the Opposition to demand an inquiry which I think was quite valuable. We held the inquiry in 2002 and it was held at the same time as the process between the two Ministers was continuing. Many on the committee did not understand and felt that because an inquiry had been called for by the Health Committee the Ministers of both countries should stop the work they were doing on a proposed joint agency. That was patently absurd. No moratorium was ever declared on that work in progress with both ministries. 
The treaty examined by the select committee was another interesting bite at the cherry and another opportunity for those who were opposed to the agency to stir the public up again and come in with the same rhetoric fears and prejudices about what was proposed. The treaty covered only the establishment of this unique and innovative arrangement for a new agency. It covered only the structure of the establishment of the agency with a ministerial council with the Minister of Health of New Zealand and the Federal Minister for Health of Australia on equal footing for establishing the rules and the standards in delegated legislation. We did get—and I think this was very valuable—some sound advice from the Regulations Review Committee which is forever the watchdog of the development of legislation. Its advice and recommendations will be really valuable in the drafting of any implementing legislation. 
The board of the new agency of which there are five members will be the operating arm of the agency. It will be led by a managing director with powers consistent with those of a chief executive officer of any State-owned enterprise in New Zealand. They are not unbridled powers. We heard that term all the time—that this managing director will have unbridled powers. The powers are actually commensurate with those of a chief executive officer. 
The agency will have accountability to both countries. The treaty is not the instrument to provide that clarity. During the select committee review process of the treaty it was frustrating that members who still do not understand the construct of this new agency tried to find the clarity in the treaty. Treaties do not set up the powers and the orders; they are merely the instruments to set up the enabling structure for the powers and orders to be written and they are only now being written. 
We did get advice from the Regulations Review Committee about delegated legislation and that was something about which we all felt very keenly and Mr Richard Worth will be very pleased we did. We had very good advice from Debbie Angus and from the Regulations Review Committee that our delegated legislation would need to comply with New Zealand principles. 
There was opposition yet again to this model and it was felt that the matters that were proposed should be covered by rules and should be in primary legislation. What the members who proposed this do not understand though is that they do not know how those matters will fit into the implementing legislation. There was a fear that the back-pocket legislation had already been drafted and would be slam-dunked on to the table. 
 The Regulations Review Committee also highlighted for us that there are different approaches between Australia and New Zealand on the disallowance procedures and that we had to be aware of those while drafting the legislation. We did not agree with the Regulations Review Committee that rules and orders should be amended by the House. They should be agreed to by both Governments. 
A lot of fear was whipped up that we could have less representation and therefore we would lose our sovereignty. I cannot imagine a Minister of Health—now or in the future—ever signing away the sovereignty of our New Zealand way in a new agency. 
We were also concerned about compliance costs. Again everybody who was opposed to this came up with the rhetoric that it would cost more and yes for complementary medicines we did hear that costs of $3.1 million will be transferred to the industry but nobody who came before us said that we did not need regulation in this field. The main driver of the agency is to protect community safety and there are risks with those products. 
It was amazing to hear the fearmongering on this from the Opposition in particular from the Greens. I hope they feel happy when they see the implementing legislation because we are proceeding with this and it will require the amendment or the revocation of the Medicines Act of 1981 and amendment to the medicines and dietary supplement regulations. 
In conclusion it is sad to see that the bulk of responses came from consumers health practitioners and industry players from the complementary medicines sector who did not appear to be commenting on the proposals in the discussion paper or the treaty but were reacting to the misinformation being circulated during the consultation period. They claimed there were no risks from and therefore no need to regulate complementary medicines. They were fearful of increasing prices and decreasing product choice and they objected to decisions being made by an Australian bureaucrat about which products they could access. 
I am now confident that with the treaty in place and with the Minister’s oversight and leadership on the development of this unique agency all those fears will be dispelled. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party has for a long time supported closer economic relations with Australia and for a long time we have supported encouraging our businesses to enjoy a larger market. In fact this very afternoon I was with the Hon Hugh Templeton one of the originators of Closer Economic Relations who has been a great enthusiast for Australia and New Zealand developing an environment where each other’s businesses can make the most of a larger market. But when we look at the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a joint scheme for the regulation of therapeutic products we see a Labour Government that simply has not listened to its own Health Committee or even its own members of the Health Committee let alone the large number of submitters who are deeply concerned about the compliance costs potentially placed on New Zealand businesses particularly small and medium-sized businesses which make up the backbone of our economy. This is very much the hallmark of an arrogant Labour Government that has simply stopped listening. We have had two reports. One was from the select committee advocating that the Government not go ahead with it. Yet despite that it has signed a treaty. It has consistently not listened. 
It is worthwhile going through the various aspects of the Health Committee’s report and the history indeed is important. Both Medsafe and Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia released a joint discussion paper in 2002 which attracted more than 1600 responses from various firms and New Zealand businesses. What happened? We learnt that the select committee’s main finding was that the proposal to regulate complementary health-care products jointly with Australia should not proceed. So what did the Government do? It went ahead and signed the treaty. It did not listen to the 1600 submissions. The report goes on to state: “This option was not supported by the Government in its response to our report. Many of our concerns remain unresolved. … Some of us are concerned that the Government signed the agreement with Australia before we had even tabled the report on our inquiry into how best to regulate dietary supplements.” Well if ever there were an example of a Government that after 5 long years has simply become arrogant and has simply stopped listening it must be this Labour Government. It is time it went. It has a maximum of only 12 months. If ever there were a Government that stopped listening it has to be this Labour Government. 
Let us have a look at the scope of the joint agency itself because it includes medicines medical devices and complementary health-care products. Also in May this year it was announced that the joint agency would also regulate blood blood products and blood components. I personally have no problem with that at all but I do have great concerns when I see Pharmac in its submission noting considerable worries about the joint agency proposal including possible increases in the costs of generic drugs particularly for small-market products and possible increases in patent terms of medicines. In its written submission it suggested that the flow-on effect of the free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States of America could amount to between $85 million and $135 million over 3 years. That has to be a very serious submission. It does make one worry greatly when the Government has gone ahead signed the treaty and said: “Don’t worry. Trust us. We’ll bring out the legislation.” and when Pharmac an organisation that has served New Zealand very well is bringing up some very serious concerns. 
The committee went on and said that Pharmac noted that the increase to the estimated cost in fees and charges incurred by the New Zealand industry would be $20 million. Of the total we also note that the national interest analysis refers to costs borne by the Crown under New Zealand’s regulatory regime. Of the total $4.2 million currently funded from the Crown revenue $1.1 million would remain as an ongoing cost to the Crown but the remaining $3.1 million would under full cost recovery—the mechanism preferred—transfer to industry as part of the estimated $20 million. 
I think it is relevant to look back at that initial report of the committee that inquired into the proposal to establish the trans-Tasman agency in the beginning. It reported back in December 2003. What did it say about compliance of the joint agency proposal with regulatory guidelines? It said that the Government before it makes any decisions on the proposed trans-Tasman agency to regulate therapeutic products will ensure that it demonstrates that all its requirements in respect of best regulatory practice have been fully complied with including the five principles and guidelines—efficiency effectiveness transparency clarity and equity—set out in the 1997 code of good regulatory practice administered by the Ministry of Economic Development. Has the Government done that? No it has not. It has not even bothered to follow the code of good regulatory practice and its five principles that must be basic to any legislation that is formulated. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: What a load of rubbish! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I hear from across on the Government side that this is a load of bollocks. It is not a load of bollocks. It is absolutely important if we are to go into a joint agency of this nature that these basic things of sorting out good regulatory practice are worked out before we enter into it and the Government has failed in that respect. The report goes on and states that the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Economic Development requirements relating to regulatory impact statements and business compliance cost statements should have been sorted out. They have not been sorted out. In fact they were very defective and the select committee drew attention to that in its report. 
In terms of the structure of the joint agency the point is made that the treaty provides for a unique and innovative arrangement between New Zealand and Australia and we in National are not necessarily opposed to that. We see that compared with the Food Standards Australia New Zealand agreement on this occasion there is an equal sharing of power at the top of the agency which is far better than the Australian states totally outweighing New Zealand in terms of the balance of power. However we are concerned about some of the other arrangements and we note that the agency is intended to be accountable to both Governments and will be broadly structured on product type. It will be headquartered in Canberra but there will be offices in both New Zealand and Australia. 
Only last Friday I was visiting both Nutra-life Health and Fitness (NZ) Ltd and Healtheries both companies that have paid great attention to good manufacturing practice. They asked why one of the offices—particularly the one to do with complementary medicines and health-care products—could not be in New Zealand to balance the situation. There is a suggestion—and I see the Minister shaking her head. Is she listening? Let us hope she is because this is a reasonably positive and constructive suggestion to balance the situation. 
Then we go on to legal issues and indeed there are a number of legal issues relating to the joint issues and delegated legislation. I must point out that the report of the Regulations Review Committee raises two key concerns. The first is that some of the matters proposed to be dealt with in the rules are matters of policy and principle and ought to be in primary legislation. I point out that the chairman of that committee Richard Worth did an excellent job. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the report of the Health Committee on the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a joint scheme for the regulation of therapeutic products. As the select committee report states New Zealand First is opposed to the treaty agreement particularly as it pertains to therapeutic products. This treaty and the subsequent signing of it has been beset with problems right from the very outset when the main finding of the Health Committee inquiry into the proposal to regulate complementary health-care products jointly with Australia was that it should not proceed. 
 In the report we note that there are a number of legal issues that relate to the joint agency. The agency will be established and have legal status under Australian legislation and this raises further questions about how New Zealand’s interests will be protected. I was quite surprised to see that the Government did not support the first report that was issued by the Health Committee. New Zealand First agrees that there needs to be some regulation in the health-care industry. I think that most New Zealanders would be totally unaware that complementary health-care products are currently unregulated. We agree that consumers must have confidence in the products and that the ingredients claimed to be within those particular products are actually contained within those products. 
Like my colleague I was very fortunate to spend some time at the Healtheries and the Kordels manufacturing plants in Auckland. I was very pleased and impressed with the rigorous testing regime that occurs before any of their products are manufactured. The continual checks during production and the quality process are a whole part of the entire manufacturing process. These two manufacturers and their consumers can be totally assured of the safety the quality and the efficacy of all their products. It was very impressive to see the level of care in all their products. 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s the Australian standards. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Although it may be an Australian standard it can be implemented here in New Zealand. New Zealand First believes that this too is a sovereignty issue. We do not want to have the New Zealand role in this agency reduced to that of an Australian state and that was noted in the legal issues part of the report that came back from the Health Committee. It is an insult to New Zealand particularly when we are not even a state of Australia. It is also an interesting fact that some of the Australian states do not follow the highly prescriptive regime that Australia wants New Zealand to follow as a result of this treaty. So definitely some questions need to be asked there. Why should this new agency impose this rigid regulatory regime on New Zealand? People usually have to get their own house in order before they start on someone else’s house. Matters of policy and principle that should be dealt with in the New Zealand Parliament should not be dealt with in an agency that has been set up in Australia. That must undermine our sovereignty even if we do have a branch set up here in Wellington. 
We are also concerned that the complementary health-care products and the dietary supplements actually come under this particular treaty. We in New Zealand First believe that they should be treated as a totally separate category and a totally separate class of product—definitely not to be included as an integral part of the treaty. Natural health-care products should not be controlled in this very same rigid way and by the very same people who control the pharmaceutical products. We know that there is a difference in purpose for pharmaceutical products and for the complementary health-care products. There should also be a separate office for administering the complementary health-care products. After all the bottom line is that these products are seen as being preventive rather than as a cure for disease. Most people take these products so that they will not contract an ailment rather than to cure a disease or to relieve the symptoms of an illness. 
Our third concern lies with the major impact that this treaty will have on a large number of New Zealand industries already involved in this particular sector. Every impact report that the Health Committee received on this proposed change has highlighted the detrimental effect for New Zealand businesses. So why should we vote for a treaty that does not recognise the concerns that the entire industry has recognised? It is quite surprising. This industry like every other industry requires a level of innovation often brought about by small businesses to stimulate and to grow the entire category. As I said before innovation is absolutely essential in an industry such as this. I know for a fact that many of these small businesses—a lot of them do tend to be small businesses in this particular area—are already prepared to meet the standard quality requirements such as ingredient testing good manufacturing practice guidelines and labelling to ensure the overall industry integrity. So why not develop a New Zealand - based system? We believe that the increased compliance costs and the additional regulation imposed by this trans-Tasman agency will cause many of these small businesses to close. That is definitely not something that we want to see occur at all. 
As New Zealand is the smaller partner in this treaty our interests will we believe be very much under-represented. The increased cost of products to consumers and the compliance costs for manufacturers will result in the closure of some of these businesses—and we actually heard that from some of the people involved in the Australian industry. When we look at the treaty we believe that it will definitely lead to higher prices for consumers and higher compliance costs especially among the smaller New Zealand - based companies that supply only the domestic market. Not everybody exports across to Australia. 
Like many other MPs in this House I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the number of emails I have received that are firmly opposed to this trans-Tasman treaty proceeding. I estimate that I have received well over 50 emails that are opposed to this joint regulation. That number could even be closer to 75. I have not received one solitary email advocating that this joint agency should proceed. I must admit that all these emails are not from one particular area in New Zealand. They have come from throughout New Zealand. There appears to be a total lack of support for this proposal from the complementary health-care industry in New Zealand and from many of the consumers in this particular industry. 
I must say in all fairness that I have received one letter in favour. That letter was from a member of the pharmaceutical industry who was concerned that we work with Australia because: “It wants critical mass in its regulatory system for pharmaceuticals.” It appears that this treaty is really being used as the instrument for change in the complementary medicines industry. New Zealand First questions the motives of the Government in agreeing to a treaty that has no tangible benefits for New Zealand. We strongly recommend that the Government explores options for administering a New Zealand - based regulatory framework. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make our comments on the Government’s treaty that was signed on 10 December with the Australian Government in relation to the regulation of therapeutic products medical devices pharmaceuticals and complementary medicines. 
The Health Committee looked predominantly at two areas. We looked at how complementary medicines should be regulated and then with the kinds of conclusions we came to on those matters we looked at how this proposal affected those outcomes and whether we thought it was a viable option. For instance the industry was very clear in its dealings with us that it accepted there was a need to strengthen the regulatory framework which is currently a very weak structure in New Zealand—that is regulating complementary medicines. However I guess the area that the industry seemed to feel a bit ripped-off by was the fact that it felt that it had had ripped out of its hands the chance to develop a system of its own that suited the New Zealand - innovation aspect of that industry and to set up a system that would facilitate trade through mutual recognition. 
The things that came out when we looked at what a strengthened domestic regulatory system could include are very interesting and highly relevant to the outcome of this treaty. First of all any regulatory system would need to be risk based. When one is talking about vitamin pills and products that in general make what we would term “wellness” claims as opposed to therapeutic claims then the intention that this treaty has of bringing complementary medicines into the same category as pharmaceuticals—transferring them from their current status of being regulated under foods—United Future agrees with the industry is a complete overkill. 
Several other people who have spoken tonight talked about tours they have had through complementary medicine factories. I spent some time with members of the Health Committee at the Comvita factory in Te Puke. What struck us on entering that factory which at the time we were there was manufacturing and processing honey was that on one side of the factory honey was being processed to put on one’s toast; it was being processed as a food product. Directly over the corridor that same honey was being processed to treat wounds. The difference we saw between one side of the factory and the other was almost the difference one sees between a warehouse and a science fiction movie. Because the standards—the very necessary standards that one needs to have in place for the processing and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals—are extremely rigorous as they should be. But when one applies these standards to very low-risk products it does start to look rather ridiculous. 
One of the things the industry understands it does need is a central register—a simple electronic lodgment. Of course one of the areas that this treaty does not cover and which came up very strongly in our inquiry is that we would like to see—and the industry is very keen to see—that complementary health-care products are regulated based on a negative list. This includes a list of ingredients that are not permitted as opposed to the white list that focuses on a very substantial list of things that are permitted. The industry is well aware of the need for good labelling practice and better customer information. It is committed to excellence in good manufacturing practice and that needs to be monitored and enforced properly. But one of the things that has really marked out the New Zealand industry and set us apart in many ways from other countries has been the huge development over the last 20 to 30 years of innovative products that started often in very humble beginnings in people’s garages. They have now developed into amazing products that are well able to move beyond making just “wellness” claims. There is now very clear scientific evidence of their therapeutic efficacy and they are well able to move into that area because of that evidence.  
The next thing the Health Committee did was to have a reality check. We realised that the Government did seem fairly hell-bent on signing this treaty so we took a very realistic approach and made a series of recommendations to be considered on the understanding that the Government did intend to go ahead with the treaty. Let us be clear here. This treaty which was signed on 10 December was literally signed while the ink was drying on the select committee report that was waiting to be tabled. I think we did have a slight slap in the face sense about an inquiry that had been undertaken very seriously. We had taken a huge amount of time out to listen to the concerns of both consumer groups and those working in the industry. We had listened to their proposals and their fears. The Health Committee also visited the Therapeutic Goods Administration. A huge amount of work had gone into this only to find suddenly that at the end of the day it did not actually matter—that this proposal was going ahead without taking any time to pause and reflect on the recommendations of the report. 
We have a huge myriad of concerns. When one first reads the Government’s response to the Health Committee’s report it seems very much like it is endorsing many of our recommendations. But there are three recommendations that the Government does not support. As far as I am concerned these are perhaps the most key and the most substantial of our recommendations. If I had to draw a bottom line on this issue for United Future it is the request from the industry that complementary medicines and products be regulated within their own category. I may be wrong here but I suspect that the Minister herself would possibly be prepared to consider that option but is unable to offer it because there is a complete unwillingness on the part of the Australian Government which is partnering with us in this treaty to give it even a second consideration. 
Also the Government—and I would probably rank this as my second concern with this treaty—does not make any provisions for the recommendation that a negative list be used because of the fact that it requires a high threshold of harm to be substantiated. So we are disappointed about that. The other thing that concerns us is that there seems to be a dismissing by the Government of our concerns about the impact of this treaty on the small businesses that make up part of our industry here in New Zealand. When we look at the Australian Government’s own response sheet to the treaty it is spelt out very clearly in black and white and makes the point that the advantage to the complementary medicines industry is very much on the side of the Australian market. The Australian Government sees that there is huge advantage to the Australian industry over the New Zealand industry and obviously that makes it a real plus for Australia. We need to make sure that any treaty we sign gives us at least the same advantage as anybody we are partnering with. United Future is becoming increasingly concerned. We have been lobbied as have other members of Parliament by vast numbers of people all expressing their concern. I think we need to remember too that there are several groups here. There are consumers importers manufacturers and product developers that are all seriously expecting to be badly affected by this treaty. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This international treaty that we are considering today must be one of the most contentious treaties to come before this House. The majority of MPs in this House oppose it the Health Committee opposed it most New Zealanders oppose it and certainly most in the industry oppose it. So how on earth one might ask is it that we would be considering in this House today something that the majority of members of Parliament and of New Zealanders are opposed to? 
Just to recapitulate briefly in October 2000 Cabinet quietly agreed to establish a joint trans-Tasman agency to regulate dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals. Now it agreed to this in secret behind closed doors. It did not consult New Zealanders and it did not consult the industry. The industry thought that Cabinet was busily agreeing on legislation—begun under the previous National Party administration—to set up a New Zealand - based regulatory system. The industry thought that the legislation was well advanced and that Cabinet was happily working on it. Then suddenly to its astonishment the industry discovered that behind its back the Government had agreed to a treaty that will—and it will it does not matter what Steve Chadwick says—be a first in the world where an agency based in one country will have total control to regulate an industry in another country. 
So then Cabinet put out a discussion document and an overwhelming majority opposed it. Then the Green Party collected 30000 signatures opposed to the proposed trans-Tasman treaty. That triggered a Health Committee inquiry as Paul Hutchison has mentioned. Once again the overwhelming majority of submissions were opposed to it. Then the Health Committee itself unanimously agreed to oppose the idea of harmonisation through a trans-Tasman agency and proposed that instead we should seek mutual recognition and strengthened domestic regulation which the industry thought would happen through the legislation I spoke about earlier and that that would be the most appropriate method of governing complementary health-care products in New Zealand. 
Three days before the Health Committee’s unanimous report was to be released we learnt suddenly that the Government was quietly and sneakily signing the treaty behind closed doors. In that case it was quite open I must say. It actually invited a few of the media along. The Government signed the treaty and a couple of days later our unanimous Health Committee report came out opposing what it had done and we had the extraordinary and indeed probably unprecedented in recent times occasion when MPs from all of the Opposition parties joined in a press conference to denounce what the Government had done. 
Why as Paul Hutchison asked is the Government not listening? Why is Steve Chadwick just saying that all we are doing is fearmongering; that all that New Zealanders are opposed to is based on fearmongering? I can assure members that it is not; it is based on rigorous analysis of that treaty through a prolonged Health Committee inquiry and then an examination of the treaty. We have looked at the fine print. The more I look at the fine print the more implacably opposed I am and the Green Party is to that treaty. As part of the treaty examination process the Government had to conduct a national interest analysis of the proposal. Finally it had to make public its regulatory impact and a statement of the likely impact on New Zealand businesses and consumers from joining it. 
Those documents confirmed what we had all predicted. I quote: “There would be significant increases in compliance costs for manufacturers and distributors of complementary medicines especially smaller New Zealand - based companies higher prices for consumers and some brands have been taken off the market and that has led to decreased consumer choice.” That is what the national interest analysis showed. It showed that dietary supplements would be classified and regulated under the same system as medicines and that the new agency would operate basically as an expanded version of the existing Australian therapeutic goods agency. All it would be doing is extending its authority and control to New Zealand. We had been constantly reassured during the Health Committee that it would be quite different. When we looked at and analysed the treaty it was exactly the same apart from what I will mention about some of the governance arrangements. There would be 100 percent cost recovery. Manufacturers would have to obtain product licences for every single product they sold meet good manufacturing practices and so forth as well as 100 percent cost recovery. The major impact would be on small businesses and importers of products from overseas. 
We also had access to the Australian Government’s regulatory impact statement and that was very interesting. It stated that Australian businesses that already had approval in Australia would have “an early competitive advantage over New Zealand firms that have to seek local approval for new products and Australian businesses would benefit financially from having products on the market earlier than New Zealand firms with great potential for enhanced profit.” In other words the Australian businesses sought to benefit enormously by extending their market here getting an early competitive advantage over New Zealand. The Australian regulatory impact statement also acknowledged the likelihood that companies would shift their operations to Australia as a result of the high compliance costs which would reduce the New Zealand Government’s tax take. 
The other point about the agency is that it will be headquartered in Australia and it will have legal personality in Australian domestic law. The treaty states: “To avoid doubt the agency shall not have international legal personality.” It will not be an international organisation. It will be set up under Australian legislation. Basically it will be staffed principally by Australians and will essentially be an extension of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration. Most significantly the agency will not only make all of the decisions and regulations about dietary supplements it will also monitor and police all of those industries in New Zealand. We will have the spectre of Australian inspectors coming to New Zealand—Australian police possibly—to enforce and monitor the dietary supplements industry presumably closing down agencies or small shops that they feel do not comply. That is extraordinary. When I asked where is there another example in the world where an agency in one company has those sorts of powers they said that there was not one. 
The Minister has made great play about the fact that there will be a Minister from New Zealand and a Minister from Australia in a ministerial council and that unlike the food agency where we have one vote out of 10 we will have those two Ministers at the top. That all sounds great until one analyses the fact that basically all of the key powers over this industry will be delegated to a managing director who will have complete delegated powers for all regulations. Basically it will not matter what the Ministers say in their ministerial council all the key powers are delegated to a managing director who will be able to make rules without any recourse to our Parliament but which will have an immediate effect in New Zealand. 
It is worth remembering that the whole point of pursuing trans-Tasman mutual recognition with Australia was to benefit New Zealand businesses and consumers by eliminating regulatory impediments to trade with Australia. But the effect of this agency will be to burden New Zealand businesses with increased compliance costs and regulatory impediments that will be passed on to consumers open up competitive trading opportunities for Australian businesses and hand over control and sovereignty to that other agency. It is not only dietary supplements that will be affected. Pharmac has expressed grave concerns about it. As Paul Hutchison said this could end up costing the taxpayer between $85 million and $135 million over 3 years. Pharmac says there will be significant increases in the cost of some medicines resulting in their likely withdrawal from the market and a reduction in the number of generic medicines approved. 
The question is what on earth is the point of this? Where is the benefit to New Zealand? All there is is downside. That is why New Zealanders the New Zealand dietary supplements industry and members of Parliament are completely opposed to this. Hopefully the Government will find that it will never get the votes to implement this unfortunate treaty into law in this Parliament. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The proposed trans-Tasman agency will see the regulation of therapeutic products in New Zealand and Australia and that includes three categories: medicines medical devices and complementary health-care products. ACT New Zealand was opposed to that treaty for many reasons that I will go into but I would like to say that like National MP Mr Paul Hutchison we have also been great supporters of closer economic relations with Australia. However that does not mean that New Zealand should find itself in the position of blindly following what our trans-Tasman neighbour wants us to do. There are times when we must stand up and protect what we have here in New Zealand—times when we feel that we have something much more valuable than what our cousins across the ditch want us to look at with regard to closer economic relations. 
 The history of the treaty is very interesting. It has been described fairly well by most of the other Opposition parties but I would like to mention briefly the arrogance in which the signing of the treaty was gone about. The signing happened on 10 December 2003 just a couple of days before a lengthy well-documented and well-researched report by the Health Committee was tabled in the House. 
I think that the arrogance of the Government warrants mention because the select committee worked very hard on that report. We were very proud of the findings we came up with and we were all in broad agreement on the recommendations. But it was clear as time went on that the Minister of Health and the Government had made up their minds they would completely ignore the report and its recommendations—well before it was due to be tabled. In fact we received quite blatant criticism from the Minister of Health for taking far too long to reach our recommendations and table the document in the House. She seemed to forget that the committee had had a pretty heavy workload in relation to her legislation before it—which of course gains priority over any inquiry that might be held. So the arrogance of the Government in that move should be noted for the record. 
The Health Committee as I say went through a fairly exhaustive process in the inquiry and again in the examination of the joint agency. We had several submissions one of which was from Pharmac and that has been noted in the report. 
Pharmac had many concerns although the officials started their submission to us by stating that they supported the joint agency. But they had many criticisms. Of particular concern was the fact that the full-cost recovery model could mean a significant escalation in the cost of registering medicines in New Zealand. That should be of concern to us both to small companies and to much larger ones. Pharmac stated that it had reservations about aspects of the proposal but as I say it supported the joint agency. 
Its other concerns included possible increases in the cost of generic drugs to the country—particularly for small-market products—and possible increases in the patent terms on medicines. Of course that should be of great concern to Pharmac because it relies heavily on patents coming off earlier rather than later in order to provide cheaper medication to New Zealanders. In its written submission to us Pharmac noted that unless rules were very carefully drafted the cost of increases with regard to patents as a flow-on effect of the free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States could amount to between $85 and $135 million over a period of 3 years. We note that the estimated cost in fees and charges incurred by the New Zealand industry would be $20 million. Those are not small figures; they are large figures and they should be taken very seriously. 
But the most interesting thing of all and something I questioned Pharmac on when its officials came before us was that Pharmac had made a submission as a result of the discussion document in 2002 in which it categorically stated that it opposed the joint agency—for the very same reasons mentioned in the most recent submission—but had then changed its mind and stated that it supported the joint agency. I wondered how that had come about and I believe that what probably happened was that the Government told Pharmac that it should in its written submission support the joint agency despite its concerns. 
One of the things that concerns ACT most is the increased compliance costs that will likely be a result of the joint agency. We have documented that well in the report. There was a general consensus around the committee table about the worry of increased compliance costs particularly on the complementary health-care industry and on consumers. As I say we went into a great deal of detail in our inquiry report in that regard. 
Many of us considered that perhaps a third category to regulate complementary health-care products as a class in their own right might have been the way to go and there was also long discussion about the possibility of mutual recognition—each country maintaining its own recognition within the broader band of a joint agency. But that according to the Government is a complete no-goer although I have to say that the reasons are still completely foreign to me and I believe to most other Opposition members. Many committee members were concerned about the adequacy of the regulatory impact assessment. Sue Kedgley previously went into that in detail so I will not say any more about it. 
The Regulations Review Committee had some very pertinent remarks to make. Those were mentioned by Labour member Steve Chadwick in her first speech. She thanked the Regulations Review Committee for the report and the work it had done but I believe that the points it raised are still very pertinent. 
There were two main issues that the committee felt needed to be addressed. The first was that some of the matters proposed to be dealt with in the rules were matters of policy and principle that ought to be in primary legislation. The second was that there were significant differences in the disallowance of regulations in New Zealand compared with Australia and that rules and orders made by the agency needed to be subject to the same requirements for scrutiny and disallowance that applied to all other delegated legislation in New Zealand. The committee members were concerned that the treaty did not deal with that matter adequately. 
We outlined in the report the disadvantages to the treaty and I want to mention those briefly. The first is a reduced ability to regulate according to the specific conditions and preferences of New Zealand. New Zealand will lose its sovereignty and identity in relation to the registration of medications. 
The second disadvantage is the reinforcement of the existing trend for pharmaceutical firms to shift their regulatory activities to Australia as they rationalise those activities. There are probably many members on the other side of the House who think that that is a good thing. There is a very anti - pharmaceutical firm attitude in this country and we are seeing the repercussions of that now with the mass exodus of such firms. In particular the Government should be worried about the loss of tax revenue that will result from that exodus. 
The third point is that regulation may well lead to higher prices for consumers and to higher compliance costs falling on manufacturers and suppliers especially among smaller New Zealand - based companies that supply only the domestic market. Again what we will see in this country is a loss of innovation—something we have greatly prized in years gone by. But with heavy regulation in place as we see under the Therapeutic Goods Administration regime in Australia many of the smaller companies will just not be able to afford or will lose the time and energy they presently have to cope with that. 
I make too a brief mention of medical devices. Similarly there may be an increase in the price and a reduction in the choice of medical devices due to those becoming the subject of regulatory controls. 
To sum up I tell members that ACT does not agree that the Government should have ratified the treaty. We feel that the concerns raised by the Health Committee during the inquiry into therapeutic goods and its subsequent recommendations were not adequately addressed by the New Zealand Government when it formulated the treaty. We are particularly concerned that a thriving local industry will be harmed and disadvantaged with the imposition of a very heavily regulated and bureaucratic Australian regime when other more appropriate options are available. I have mentioned what I feel those are. We believe that ratification of the treaty will result in increased compliance costs to those in the industry and will particularly affect small business. As a smaller partner in the treaty we also fear that New Zealand interests will be significantly under-represented and that increased costs and loss of choice for products will be the consequences for New Zealanders. It will be a very sad day for New Zealand. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I thank the Health Committee for its examination of the treaty and for its comments on the important issues of sovereignty accountability and the impact of the joint scheme on New Zealand industry and on the health and safety of all New Zealanders. The proposal to establish a joint trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency and regulatory scheme has been developed over a number of years through successive Governments. In fact when I became the Minister the joint regulator had already been agreed to in principle by the previous National Government. I looked at the work that had been done by the previous Government and agreed that we should proceed with the agreement that it had made in principle. In fact this Government announced some time before the select committee inquiry that we would be proceeding. 
The proposal had been carefully crafted to provide New Zealand with a new world-class sustainable regulatory system through an arrangement of equal partnership with Australia. In fact it is seen by the Australians and by New Zealand as an extension of CER. When I recently met with the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash he gave a commitment that the National Party would work to ensure that the joint regulator became a reality. He said that it was a good deal for New Zealand. It is an innovative arrangement that will preserve and grow New Zealand’s— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You weren’t at the meeting. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I was at the meeting. It is an innovative arrangement that will preserve and grow New Zealand’s influence over the regulation of therapeutic products and sustain our capability to make sound regulatory decisions that protect public health at a lower cost to industry than other options. It also has a fair and secure arrangement that will safeguard New Zealand’s sovereignty and will ensure proper accountability and parliamentary oversight of the agency. 
It is important to recognise that maintaining the status quo is not a viable option for the future regulation of therapeutic products in New Zealand. The existing medicine legislation is 20 years old. It is outdated and no longer provides an appropriate framework for managing the risks associated with the full range of therapeutic products now available. New Zealand’s regulatory scheme is unsustainable in the medium to long term. For example under existing legislation—and I do not know whether Heather Roy is aware of this—pre-market approval is not required for medical devices in New Zealand regardless of the level of risk associated with their use. I think New Zealanders would be shocked to know that. Thus there is no assessment of the safety quality or performance of devices such as heart valves or pacemakers before they are placed on the New Zealand market. In contrast pre-market approval is required for lower-risk products such as anti-dandruff shampoos and fluoride toothpaste. That situation is untenable and cannot be left to continue. The public health and safety of all New Zealanders is far too important for us to ignore that situation any longer. 
Through the joint agency we will build a strong and confident arrangement that is respected internationally. New legislation is therefore required to modernise New Zealand’s regulatory scheme and bring it into line with international norms for the regulation of therapeutic products. On its own New Zealand will struggle to maintain the capacity and capability to regulate therapeutic products into the future. It will become increasingly difficult for New Zealand to recruit staff with the knowledge and expertise needed to evaluate the increasingly complex and sophisticated therapeutic products now being developed. There is already a worldwide shortage of such expertise. Gaps that exist in New Zealand’s expertise will increasingly diminish the regulator’s ability to adequately assess and manage the risk to public safety arising from the use of medicines and medical devices. There will inevitably be delays in approving products under the status quo system so that New Zealanders will be denied timely access to new products that are available in other countries. 
If New Zealand were to have its own stand-alone regulatory scheme for therapeutic products it would first be necessary to develop new legislation to address the current anomalies in regulatory coverage and to bring New Zealand’s— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make the point that the Minister is speaking outside the lines of the report. The chairman of the Health Committee made it clear that the debate should be about the report and not the Government’s agenda. I am deeply concerned that the Hon Annette King is using this debate purely as a vehicle to talk about the Government’s agenda and not the report. I would ask you to ensure that she sticks to the report. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order I have listened to the whole debate. Members ranged widely over every issue that they wanted to cover and I think that it is important that I get the opportunity to range over similar issues myself. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order the Minister was speaking about the report and the matters in the report and there was nothing that was different from what the last six or seven members have spoken about. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If New Zealand were to have its own stand-alone regulatory scheme for therapeutic products it would first be necessary to develop new legislation in order to address the current anomalies in the regulatory coverage and to bring New Zealand’s regulation into line with international best practice in therapeutic product regulation. In order to administer the regulatory scheme it would be necessary to significantly increase the regulatory capacity and expertise and to maintain that expertise in therapeutic products as they grow in complexity and sophistication. Even if it were possible to recruit the staff for such a regulator the cost of regulation would be unacceptably high given New Zealand’s small population and market size. Going it alone was not a viable option. For the reasons I have given the current Government and past Governments have recognised that New Zealand’s system for the regulation of therapeutic products is not sustainable and that the best way to ensure sustainable regulatory capacity and appropriate protection of public safely in the future would be through collaboration with another regulator. 
Three possible models of collaboration were considered. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Stop reading it. She’s reading it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What is the problem with Murray McCully? I think he is somewhat distressed and upset. I would just like him to listen; this is a serious debate. Three models of collaboration were considered. First there was the model of unilateral recognition which meant that New Zealand would have to accept the regulatory decisions of other regulators which would be regulators outside New Zealand. That would have meant that we would not be able to respond to safety issues but would be reliant on other regulators’ decisions. Second there was the model of mutual recognition. If we wanted to have mutual recognition the New Zealand regulator would have to have another regulator that had confidence in New Zealand’s own decisions. I am afraid to say that New Zealand does not have a lot of legislation in place and we could not compare ourselves with another regulator. Mutual recognition was declined as an option before we became the Government—not since we became the Government. The third model was the development of a joint therapeutic products regulatory agency which will retain New Zealand’s voice in decision making. It will allow the pooling of resources with Australia in order to overcome the deficiency in regulatory capacity. It will share the regulatory costs which will reduce the impact on New Zealand industry and it will create a single CER market for therapeutic products and a one-stop shop for those wishing to market products in both countries. It was for those reasons that the previous Government and this Government agreed that a joint regulator under the expansion of CER was the best way to go. 
We also looked at compliance costs and I think they are an important consideration in moving towards the arrangements that we want to have for the joint-agency cost recovery will be on the same basis as in other industries and best-practice guidelines for cost recovery will apply. The cost to New Zealand businesses will actually be lower than for a stand-alone agency because regulatory costs are shared across the larger New Zealand - Australia market. However in order to protect small businesses it is intended that under the fees and charges rules that will be developed for the joint scheme a form of fees relief will be available for small businesses with low sales volumes. 
The Health Committee noted—and I would like to read this to the House because this has been misinterpreted all evening—that: “the Australian Regulatory Impact Statement states that Australian firms may have an early competitive advantage over New Zealand firms seeking approval for new products under the new system.” The committee mistakenly interpreted that statement as support for the view that New Zealand companies would be at a disadvantage under the joint regulatory scheme. In actual fact that statement was taken out of context. It related to permanently exempting therapeutic goods from the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement not from the joint scheme. I ask the members who have raised that point to go back to the agreement between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and to read page 11 of the impact statement. When they have read it I want them to tell me they got it wrong because they have got it wrong. On governance and sovereignty New Zealand will have an equal voice with Australia. It will become very clear very soon that New Zealand’s voice is equal with Australia’s in all respects. It will be equal in terms of what is accountable in this Parliament and it will be equal in terms of legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] I am listening to the members of the Opposition because I know that behind the scenes they have also been talking to the Australians about the agency about CER about how important the relationship with Australia is and about how important it is to have a joint regulator. I find it interesting that they are denying that this evening. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think this issue is a good example of what is wrong with our whole treaty-making process. I had a member’s bill in this Parliament a couple of years ago which was unfortunately defeated. I think the reasoning behind that bill has been shown to be correct in the debate we have had tonight. One of the problems when treaty making is done only by the executive is that the executive particularly under our system of MMP Government—and this has happened since the beginning of MMP—represents the minority in Parliament. That is what we see here. The majority of Parliament is against this treaty and against any subsequent implementing legislation. Yet the minority of this Parliament which constitutes the executive is signing a treaty against the wishes of Parliament and of the people of this country. That is not democratic. That is why my International Treaties Bill should have been approved by Parliament and is why the parties that did not support it such as National should now rethink their position. Surely we should move one step forward towards true parliamentary democracy in this country and give treaty approval powers to Parliament. 
I think the Health Committee has done very good work in this report. The whole point is that a regulatory situation has been proposed by the select committee. It is not as though anyone is saying we should let everything in on a wholesale basis. The select committee has proposed an appropriate regulatory system but not one that is based in Australia and is under the control of another country. That is the difference between the two schemes. 
I think one of the most telling points was made in Steve Chadwick’s speech. She said that she could not imagine how a future Minister of Health could betray the sovereignty of New Zealand. I do not have the same illusions that she has about future Governments of New Zealand future Prime Ministers and future Ministers of Health. We have had a variety of Governments in this country and we have had people betray our sovereignty to one degree or another. Even the Labour Party has said that in the past in relation to wars that New Zealand has gone into such as the war in Vietnam etc. Mr Simon Power of the National Party quite recently said in effect that where America goes we go. A Labour member said that future New Zealand Governments can be trusted to be in control in the ministerial council. Surely that contradicts what Labour members say when they criticise National and other parties for going along with another country’s policies without criticism of those policies. 
I think it is very important that we have an appropriate regulatory structure particularly in the areas of complementary medicine diet pills herbs and all the rest of it. Research has shown that most of those remedies—certainly the overwhelming majority though whether they have an effect we can debate in any individual case—do not have any serious downsides compared with pharmaceuticals in particular many of which have side effects that we are still investigating. The arguments of the people involved in dietary supplements and those sorts of products are that they should be given the proof that their products cause a lot of harm and need such strict regulatory control and all the compliance costs—and all that is to be done in Australia—and all the other disadvantages that the other speakers have referred to. That is just not good enough. 
It is fortuitous but very good that we have had this debate because it shows the contradiction between the MMP system we have developed in this Parliament and the old-style system of the executive signing treaties which was appropriate to a pre-MMP era and must be changed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 This is a very interesting debate. The Government has moved against a select committee report and when we come to vote on it what will happen? Will Government members be supporting a report from the Health Committee that shows quite clearly that the actions they have subsequently taken are incorrect and that the whole country is against exactly what they have done? 
We are supporters of CER. We are quite happy to work alongside Australia and have closer economic relations with that country. There is no problem with that. But when we look at the first report that was done in December 2003 we see that it was to decide whether there was any merit whatsoever in having a trans-Tasman agreement. That is what the first report did. Before it was even out there in the marketplace what did this Government do? It entered into an agreement with Australia before the inquiry into the proposal to establish a trans-Tasman agency to regulate was finalised. The Government moved to do that before this report was tabled. That is a complete abuse of the select committee process and this Government will pay. When Government members vote on it will they be voting for this report which is absolutely damning of what they have done? [ 
Interruption 
] Here we go. Let us get this one very straight. 
Let us look at the next report which is the one I have in my hand. We have entered into an international treaty. Let us look at one of its recommendations. On page 3 the report states: “We made 34 recommendations to the Government. Our main finding was that the proposal to regulate complementary healthcare products jointly with Australia should not proceed.” That is what it states. This report contains recommendations on page 9 that throw this Government out to the wind. It is abusing the situation and every person who takes vitamins is getting up and saying: “Look this Government is abusing the process. It is abusing the select committee and it will pay.” The Government will pay at the next election. By gee it will pay because I know in my heart of hearts that this report is correct. 
Once again all that Government members are trying to do is to defend themselves in a situation that they know is completely wrong. They will pay the price because this is the report we will be voting on next members’ day. It will not happen tonight because I have a lot more to say yet. When I look at what Pharmac says I can see that I will probably need more than half an hour on that one. On page 3 the report states: “Pharmac noted a number of concerns about the joint agency proposal including possible increases in the costs of generic drugs particularly for small market products …”. This is a nonsense. Government members will pay. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.