Volume 624 Week 85 - Thursday 7 April 2005 
Volume 624 Week 85 - Thursday 7 April 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19679] 
Thursday 7 April 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency for the week. The bills for consideration are likely to include the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill including the Supplementary Order Paper relating to Building Act matters the Gambling Amendment Bill the Railways Bill the Architects Bill the Charities Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill the Public Records Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Fiordland Marine Management Bill the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and the first readings on the Order Paper. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Does the Leader of the House intend allowing the House to have question time next week on Wednesday and Thursday which is the time when the Opposition has an opportunity to question the Government about the way in which it is running the country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No but of course if we could arrive at an arrangement about the length of question time for the remainder of this Parliament I am sure I could make that time available. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Can I ask Dr Cullen why we need urgency next week when he abandoned proceedings in the House last night and we are shortly to contemplate a month away from this place in an adjournment. How could the public and anyone who is halfway sane believe there is a need for urgency in those circumstances? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Last night of course the business we would have got on to was reports of select committees which is not Government business and we are not taking urgency for that business. 
Points of Order 
Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the first opportunity to raise this point of order. When the House adjourned last night points of order could not be raised because the bell was ringing. But I now most certainly do raise a point of order and believe that you should rule on it and rule on it right now. 
There has been an understanding in this House that it is the duty of the Government to provide the quorum. You will find many such statements made by Opposition members and made by Government members. The Standing Orders Committee in my time decided to reduce the quorum so it is now down to three but one of the requirements of the quorum is that a Minister of the Crown ought to be present. 
If it is established that it is parliamentary for the Government to collapse the House just by withdrawing its Ministers then the executive is basically saying it can do that at any time it chooses. In this case it was for a dinner but it might be because the questions asked are embarrassing or for a whole variety of reasons. But if it is now established that the Government can close down Parliament at any time it likes I put it to you that we are no longer a parliamentary democracy; we are some Third World country. 
I do say to you Madam Speaker that when you went to the Governor-General very recently you said you were going to uphold the privileges of Parliament. I believe that you should do so now and publicly state that it is unparliamentary for the Government to withdraw Ministers deliberately just because it does not suit them to be subject to parliamentary business and that it is particularly unparliamentary to do that on a day set aside as members’ day. 
It may be that the Government does not want to discuss the state of our polytechs but members on this side do and we have support from the Standing Orders that say that reports of select committees should have time found for them. We finally found some time last night only to have the matter withdrawn. 
I think it would be extremely unfortunate if the Speakership were to adopt the view that the executive can make this arbitrary use of power with no rebuke from the Speaker. I cannot imagine that a Speaker of the British House of Commons would not admonish Ministers in the strongest possible terms for collapsing the House just because it suited the executive. I invite you so to rule. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 38 is quite clear in this respect. There is no quorum requirement at all now except of course that a Minister has to be present and presumably somebody has to be present in the Chair. Apart from that there is no requirement for anybody else to be present. When we did have a quorum requirement—as I managed to demonstrate quite conclusively once as senior Opposition whip—on a members’ day it was actually the responsibility of the Opposition rather than the Government to maintain the quorum. Mr Birch found that out much to his surprise when the Government withdrew from the Chamber after the Opposition had been threatening quorum calls. 
Last night was a most unusual situation where one party in a multiparty House refused to be reasonable about the conclusion of the business around members’ bills which the Government was perfectly prepared to see concluded. All parties were prepared to see the House rise at that point except for the ACT party and the Government was forced to use the only mechanism available to it to ensure the most orderly possible procedure—that is to ensure that a State dinner did not occur just a few metres away from the Chamber with members possibly going backwards and forwards between the Chamber and the State dinner. 
Finally I would perhaps have greater sympathy for Mr Prebble’s argument today had he not been on the 8.30 flight to Auckland last night. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am concerned that the Leader of the House has made light of what is a very serious point of order. Standing Order 38 states quite explicitly: “A Minister must be present during all sitting hours of the House.” Yesterday evening we saw the Leader of the House quite blatantly and quite proudly break the Standing Orders of this House. I put it to you Madam Speaker that if the Leader of the House can quite blatantly abuse a Standing Order because it suits the Government to do so then effectively the message to all members of this House is that if a Standing Order does not suit them they should just break it. Equally it sets an appalling example to the people of our country when we as lawmakers say in effect that we break rules when it suits us. 
The more important constitutional point that Mr Prebble rightly raises is that this Standing Order has now been used to set a dangerous precedent which effectively means that the Government can collapse—shut down—the House at any time it wishes. If a confidence vote is coming up that the Government thinks it may lose it just needs to withdraw every Minister and instantly without any points of order the House is shut down. It can do the same if there is an embarrassing bill on members’ day. 
I have a bill in the ballot. My rights have been undermined because members’ ability to advance legislation depends on their bills being drawn in the ballot and only bills drawn in the ballot can be debated. Effectively what the Government did last night through the subversion of the Standing Order was to take away 2½ hours of members’ time. 
This democracy of ours survives on conventions. We have had this Standing Order or similar provisions going all the way back to 1853. I sat in the library this morning and went back to the Standing Orders that were first established for our Parliament in 1853. At no time in those 150 years has this stunt been pulled before. 
A dangerous precedent has been set. The right thing for the Leader of the House to do is to stand and apologise to this House for breaking the Standing Order and he should set aside 2½ hours of members’ time to make up for such a blatant breach. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a speech I really must respond to on a factual basis. In fact it was not a result of the Government action at all that any time was lost for members’ business in relation to members’ bills. First of all we had started the last member’s bill on the Order Paper and therefore that action did not affect the number of bills to be drawn in the ballot today. Secondly the Government sought leave twice—twice—to finish all members’ bills on the Order Paper last night so that there would have been no time subtracted in the future for the consideration of members’ bills. The only business the House was not able to discuss was the reports of select committees. I finally note that during the dinner function the deputy leader of the National Party thanked me for the fact that members were able to attend the dinner as a result of my action. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Sue Kedgley. [ 
Interruption 
] She stood first I am sorry. The member will be heard but the other member stood first. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Now that the Minister has confirmed that he did use a mechanism available to him to close down the House last night which precluded the completion of debate on my bill and other issues on the Order Paper it would be helpful Madam Speaker if you were able to give us a ruling as to under what circumstances you would consider it acceptable for a Minister to use that mechanism to close down the House and under what circumstances you would consider it unacceptable for a Minister to use such a mechanism. I think that that would be very helpful. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker before I get to my point of order I want to address your idea of seniority in this House. If you thought that a member’s rising to his or her feet first was some sort of entitlement to precedence then obviously you would have called the last speaker before Dr Cullen who had already spoken once on the point of order. That is pretty obvious really. I do not want to be difficult in this House as some members are wont to be but I am bound to point out that we have a thing called seniority and that you should uphold it. 
The second point I want to make is that New Zealand First agreed to the House being lifted because we had in this country the president of the biggest Islamic country in the world. I was somewhat astonished to see the desire of one party which spends all its time talking about the need for foreign intervention foreign aid and foreign subjugation in terms of its policies for foreign exports not to have the House rise. I think there is a precedent for the action taken. It is a very unfortunate one which I think happened in 1904. So it is 101 years since it was last tried. But my real point is that if a party does object then the House should continue to proceed with its business. In that respect I think it is rather disappointing that the rights of the House as enunciated by one party—which nevertheless are still the rights of the rest of us—were ridden over in a very roughshod way. That is the point I want to make. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 My point follows closely on the theme adopted by the member who has just resumed his seat. Madam Speaker I draw your attention to the definition of “leave” in Standing Order 3 which states that it “means permission to do something that is granted without a dissentient voice”. The Leader of the House suggested that his misuse of Standing Order 38 was OK because as he said all the other parties wanted to see that action happen. 
First I am not sure that that is true. As I understand it other parties were told: “If you don’t go along we’ll collapse it anyway.” So the consent or approval that he secured might have been against the background of a threat just to wield power. But that right to deny leave is in fact the right of any member who wants the House to continue; it is not the right of the parties. I think that until the Standing Orders decide that this Parliament is simply a congress of parties the Leader of the House should not use the argument that other party representatives were happy with his actions—and I am not sure that they were—to justify something. 
I urge you to invite him to consider this and suggest that he create a convention out of this incident that the House cannot be collapsed unilaterally and adhere to it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The first point I make is that I made reference to this issue at the dinner last night for the Indonesian President largely to point out in a fairly sarcastic way that there were very few members of Parliament at the dinner. Furthermore there were even fewer Ministers at the dinner. So the question is: where were those Ministers? If they were in their offices working why could they not have been in Parliament working? Given that the business of the House would have been the select committee reports and the National Party had produced a speaking list that went well into that list of select committee reports the actual disruption to the dinner would have been minimal. 
The real point of Dr Nick Smith’s point of order was that there are numerous rights within the Standing Orders for members to exercise. If they were recklessly applied by all members of the House then there would be no business of the House. It is the conventions that apply to the way in which the Standing Orders are used that allow the House to do the business that members are elected to do. Dr Cullen has taken hold of a Standing Order which has never been used in this way before and grabbed powers for the Government that mean that Dr Cullen or Helen Clark or whoever might be running the country at the time would be the person who determines whether Parliament sits. That is unacceptable. It also cuts right across the rights of elected members which you particularly are charged with protecting. 
When we were told yesterday that there was a likelihood the Government would collapse the debate we assumed that meant what it usually means—that the Government would pull its speakers so that the time that is taken over any bill or discussion is reduced. At no point did we think it would mean that the Government would fail to provide a Minister to the House and effectively shut the place down. It is the use of Standing Order 38 to shut down Parliament for the convenience of the Government that causes the most concern for Opposition parties. The suggestion is that Dr Cullen should apologise for using this Standing Order in such a reckless manner. The problem is that if he refuses the opportunity arises for other members to use the Standing Orders in an equally reckless manner. There can be no winners out of the development of that sort of circumstance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will hear two more contributions and then I will rule. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will respond to one point that Mr Franks made. Mr Franks rightly made the point that leave can be denied by one member of the House. But the implication of what he said was that when leave is denied for something—and leave is sought for many things—the Government is not able to use any other mechanisms. Of course frequently the Government uses other mechanisms when leave is denied. To take a very obvious example which we may well see some time in the near future—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Will the member please leave the House. A point of order is being spoken to. As the member is quite aware it shall be heard in silence. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For example the Government may seek leave to have a Supplementary Order Paper that is outside the scope of the bill considered as part of the bill. If that leave is denied the Government does not just say “Well that’s it.” Normally the Government would move a motion in order to enable the Committee of the whole House to consider it and would then use the majority at the cost of a debate to overtake the situation where leave has been denied. I think Mr Frank’s assertion that simply because leave is denied for something the Government cannot use any other leave that is available to it to achieve its objectives is one that cannot stand because it would be quite a dangerous assertion within the proceedings of Parliament. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am now even more alarmed after hearing Dr Cullen’s contribution. I will not quote his words but the effect of what he said is that Standing Order 38 is a mechanism whereby the Government can get its own way if it does not get it by other means and that Governments are always entitled to do that. That is an interesting notion. If we read Standing Order 38 we see that it is actually an instruction. It is an instruction from this House to the executive. It states that a Minister must be present. That is an order. Last night the Government defied this House and defied the Standing Orders. 
I have been giving some thought as to whether it was such a serious defiance that it was a breach of privilege. You Madam Speaker may yourself consider referring the matter to the Privileges Committee. I think so because if we look at what amounts to contempt—and I will take just one example—we see that it is something that obstructs members from carrying out their duties. The ultimate obstruction to carrying out our parliamentary duties is something that prevents us from exercising free speech. If I feel strongly about it it is because I was the member exercising my right of free speech. It was my speech that was interrupted. I take grave exception to the Minister interrupting my speech. I was not invited to the President of Indonesia’s dinner—not that that has anything to do with it; I would have had the same view even if I had been invited. [ 
Interruption 
] Why should I be required to stay here? I think that that was a reflection on me. 
I want to come back to the point I am making. As far as I know Standing Order 38 has never been interpreted by any Speaker but I put to members that the interpretation by a Speaker who is upholding Parliament should be that it is an instruction to Ministers. Where there is evidence that Ministers have deliberately broken it then there ought to be some penalty. I think there is quite a strong case here that the Leader of the House should be referred to the Privileges Committee because he created the ultimate obstruction to this House exercising its duties. He arranged for all Ministers not to be here so that this House could not meet. Not to rule that would be to condone what Mr Cullen is now telling us—that there is a new device and that any Government at any time whenever it chooses can close down this House. I cannot see any other Parliament that calls itself a Parliament accepting that sort of arbitrary power. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I thank members for their contribution. As has been noted Standing Order 38 sets out the procedure for the Speaker to follow if no Ministers are present in the Chamber. That procedure was followed. If members wish to criticise the Government for the action it took then they are perfectly entitled to do so. If members think that the Standing Order is defective they can raise that with the Standing Orders Committee and I suggest they do that. 
I further note on the question of quorum that there are no quorum requirements today except in so far as that for the House to function there must be a Speaker and a Minister present. I also note that it is not for the Speaker to comment on the appropriateness of the Government or Opposition parties utilising the rights that are open to them under the Standing Orders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to think very carefully about the ruling that you have given us today fairly quickly. The first line in Standing Order 38 states that a Minister must be present during all sitting hours of the House. That is not debatable. It is not optional—it is a requirement. The Government deciding that it determines when the House sits—not anybody else not the Speaker not the rest of the members; just the Government—is the point being made here today. The right for members to participate in the parliamentary debate is what is also at stake here today. For you as Speaker simply to say that if we do not like this we should send it to the Standing Orders Committee—and we know what a long procedure that is—is I think letting down this House and letting down members in this House. 
Dr Cullen shows absolutely no remorse for taking the course he did yesterday. We already know that most members were not invited to the dinner last night so there is no reason why there had to be that so-called traipsing in and out and there were only a few Ministers there so there is no reason why Ministers could not have been here. What we are faced with is a Leader of the House who simply says to you that he will decide when Parliament is open and when Parliament is closed. I have to say that we are very disappointed at your speedy ruling on this matter and we would ask that you consider firstly asking the Leader of the House to make an apology for using the Standing Order so recklessly and secondly how members’ rights might be better protected by a stronger ruling from the Chair. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Firstly I want to make it clear that all members were invited to the dinner last night. In case some of them already had engagements or their secretaries did not tell them about it I make it clear that they were all invited to the dinner last night. That is the custom of this House in those circumstances. Secondly Standing Order 38 is a statement of the condition under which a sitting of the House can occur in exactly the same way as the quorum requirement was a statement of the conditions under which a sitting of the House must occur. Equally under the old rules a quorum could have been withdrawn—which is precisely what I did as senior Government whip and the Opposition then had to provide the numbers on a members’ day after threatening to withdraw its own members. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 This will be a very short contribution. I am not allowed to dispute your ruling so what I will respectfully suggest to you is that you take a course of action that other Speakers have taken and actually look at the  
Hansard 
 and the arguments that have been put to you. I am not suggesting that you need to change your ruling but I do think that you need to look at it to see whether it should not be wider. It is a very serious ruling to accept what Dr Cullen is saying which is that this mechanism is open to the Government because the other alternative is that this is an instruction to the Government. When the Government abuses it it should be open to rebuke including the ultimate rebuke of the matter being sent to the Privileges Committee. That would be a very strong statement to the Government. 
I would also say to Dr Cullen that maybe there were invitations. It was my understanding that we were told that there was not enough space in the place next door for every member. But I am not criticising members who went to the dinner because when the original invitation was put out for a Saturday I thought that the presence of the President of Indonesia was important enough for members to come here on a Saturday for it. I am not saying that it was not an important occasion; I just fail to believe that this House is not capable of having a dinner and being able to sit at the same time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are debating the ruling at this point. I am happy to put my ruling in a written form for members. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a different point of order? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes it is a new point of order. This House does operate by conventions and there are the Standing Orders. I seek leave for the House to set aside 2½ hours of time for members’ business for the next sitting day on Tuesday 12 April to make up for the time that was removed by the abuse of Standing Order 38. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for 2½ hours of members’ time to be set down for Wednesday 13 April to make up for the time that was stolen from members by the actions of the Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Parliament Buildings—Media Access 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a completely new one but again this is the first available opportunity I have had to raise it. You may remember—and other members most certainly will—that I have raised this particular point of order on a number of occasions. I believe that  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that members are to be heard in silence on points of order. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I believe that  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and the Standing Orders make it quite clear that members are not to be obstructed when coming to and from the Chamber. I have raised this issue on many occasions but I have basically given up. I think the media have now probably established by common law right that they can sit on the bridge between the Beehive and Parliament House. 
However I discovered that last night suddenly that rule was enforced. It seems quite extraordinary. This is Parliament. We parliamentarians have to zigzag and work our way around the media. On Tuesday I actually had to wait for a while until the leader of the Maori Party had finished her very interesting interview. But I discovered that last night the media were suddenly cleared away because another delegation was visiting that apparently has stronger views about the media. It seems to me that the Government should have a consistent rule. If we MPs have to endure the media—that is part of our job—would it not have been a good idea for the President of Indonesia to be introduced to some free press as well and for him to have to walk through the media the same as we do? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am more than happy to follow up that point for the member. 
Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wish to seek clarification. The Government has generously given leave for the time that was lost last night to be made up next Wednesday. But I suspect that the Government’s intention is to subvert that as well by moving the House into urgency on Tuesday which means that Wednesday technically will not occur because as we know we have this archaic ritual whereby Wednesday is not recognised during urgency. So can I seek clarification from the Leader of the House as to whether he is actually acting in good faith allowing members to have the 2½ hours or whether it is just another tricky deal? Is he intending not to give members the time he took away from us last night and simply to subvert it by urgency? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In the business statement at the start of today’s sitting I said that the Government intends to take urgency on Tuesday. If the business I outlined is finished by 1 o’clock on Wednesday I will be very happy for the member to have his 2½ hours of members’ time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Has the matter been clarified for the member? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave in the event that the Government does not allow for the 2½ hours of members’ time to be granted on Wednesday 13 April for the House to set aside the time to make up the 2½ hours on Tuesday 3 May. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is an important point here about the leave. The member referred to the Government not allowing the time. It is in Parliament’s hands once urgency is moved as to how long the business takes not the Government’s hands. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave was sought to put that matter—it shall be put first. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I advise you that yesterday I had the benefit of seeing a delayed broadcast of Parliament’s question time. I want to put New Zealand First’s position very very clearly. Frankly I believe that some members of this House are wasting question time seriously. Although the issue today is very very important nevertheless it is 35 minutes since the House was called and it means that some of us are having our right to put our issues seriously compromised. I believe Madam Speaker that if you look at  
Hansard  
over a long period of time you will know who the main offenders are. 
With the greatest respect we are getting frightfully sick and tired of it. If members cannot make their points of order succinctly then we should move on with parliamentary business. Around the country hundreds of thousands of people are waiting on New Zealand First’s questions and I think they should have an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. I have reviewed  
Hansard. 
 As the member well knows last week he made three spurious points of order that occupied some time in this House. But as I indicated yesterday the rules will now be applied rigidly. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In that regard during the course of Dr Nick Smith’s previous point of order there was an interjection that I noted from your body language you did see. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I could not hear who it was though. I knew there was an interjection. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Even during Mr Peters’ point of order just a few moments ago a number of people perhaps only laughed but none the less interrupted that point of order. It certainly was not heard in silence. 
The Hon Bill English has a question set down for later in question time. He made one comment during a point of order—we do not challenge your ruling but he probably was unlucky in the circumstances to have been slung out of the House. We would appreciate it Madam Speaker if you would consider allowing him back into the House to ask that question. Certainly the custom has been that when Ministers—and I can think of a number—have angered the Speaker in the past they have been given a great deal of leniency because of questions addressed to them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the member’s point. The Hon Bill English will be allowed back into the House for that question. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker and I apologise to Mr Peters. I am forced under the Standing Orders to raise my point of order at the first available opportunity and again this is it. I draw your attention to  
Hansard 
 which I have sent you a copy of and to the comments you made to the House last night. I invite you to correct the record because you told the House last night that you had had no advice of what Dr Cullen was proposing. I have now learnt that at the Business Committee which you chaired he in fact made that very threat. I think you should have told the House that you knew he was intending to use that mechanism instead of leaving me with the impression that you were as stunned as I was by his action in staging a walk-out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will take one contribution on this. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As a person who spoke at the Business Committee my recollection is that I gave a general indication that the Government would look at other mechanisms to achieve its objectives not specifically this one. I can certainly say and can assure the House that I had no communication with the Speaker about the action I took at 7.30 last night. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to review  
Hansard 
. My recollection is that the allegation was of collusion and that is what objection was taken to. Of course the matter was raised at the Business Committee but no decision was taken. I looked for members when I came into the House and when the point of order was raised by the National whip. 
Urgent Question—Leave to Ask 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware that we set down an urgent question for your consideration today but on the balance of things and on the advice you have received you have decided that it should be turned down. However we believe that it is a matter of particular importance. It relates to a ministerial action that has possibly led to a breach of a suppression order. We therefore seek leave to ask an urgent question in the House this afternoon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the urgent question. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. The urgent question will not be put. 
Questions to Ministers 
Farming—Sustainability 
1. IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that there is little evidence that existing efforts to address environmental effects of farming are “sufficiently profound or widespread enough to maintain and enhance New Zealand’s natural capital.”; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report has raised many concerns about land treatment. Those concerns are worthy of being addressed. This Government was aware of some of the issues prior to the report. That is why we set up the Sustainable Farming Fund and provided funding of $9 million per year for projects to improve farming practices. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister concerned about recent moves to reticulate vastly more water and electricity in order to service increased dairying in dry areas such as Canterbury when those areas are manifestly unsuited to that type of agriculture or has some miracle occurred to enable dairying and potato growing to be now sustainable on those poor stony and shallow soils? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Unfortunately I am not an expert in this area but I can say to that member that in-stream values and such issues are protected through the regional planning process and the Resource Management Act. We are very aware of the growing pressure particularly from dairying. That is why a large number of projects funded through the Sustainable Farming Fund are investigating better ways of managing the environmental effects of farming. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Minister aware of an OECD report of 2001 that rated New Zealand as the most proficient user of nitrogen fertilisers amongst all OECD countries—a fact that seems to have been ignored by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government acknowledges that farmers in New Zealand are very environmentally aware. We are some of the most efficient in the world and we do take environmental issues as a concern in all practices. The report done by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will form background material for the 2006 OECD report on environmental performance in this country. I am sure that once again it will be shown that we are making huge improvements in this area. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is the Government doing to address the concerns raised in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government as I have said is carrying out a number of initiatives to ensure that the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment are being carried out. We have undertaken a number of initiatives prior to the report. We will continue with those and continue to fund the Sustainable Farming Fund. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Is the Minister concerned that 90 percent of our surface water is unsuitable even for swimming and that 10 percent of our groundwater is heavily contaminated with nitrates; if so when will the Government take real measures to improve the quality of our freshwater resources? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not accept the claims made by that member. There are nitrates in most water around this country at very very low levels. There is concern about their increasing levels. The clean streams accord negotiated between local government central government and the dairy industry is a very good initiative in that direction. I would like to applaud the industry for its initiatives. I hope that the Green members will all attend the Ballance Farm Environmental Awards being held up and down this country which acknowledge and applaud the new practices undertaken by many thousands of farmers in this country. 
Tariana Turia 
: Will the Minister agree to the establishment of a forum for strategic dialogue and the development of a “team New Zealand” vision for farming and food in the interests of natural capital economic capital social and cultural capital and human capital; if so what steps will he take to support that initiative? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have set up a Food and Beverage Taskforce. I attended its second meeting last week. It is taking a comprehensive look at the production manufacturing and marketing side of all food production in this country. It will look at the issues that that member has raised. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment this morning at the Primary Production Committee that New Zealand has “dropped the ball” even on attempts to measure the sustainability of agriculture; if so what has the Government done in the 6 months since the publication of the  
Growing for Good 
 report to develop indicators that are relevant to the environmental impacts of agriculture? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We have received and welcomed the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. It does not mean that we are not in a position to assess environmental guidelines in this country. He has assisted us. I can start to read out the 101 projects being funded by the Sustainable Farming Fund if this House wishes. Otherwise I am happy to table that report for the member to pick up. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Government considering introducing a scheme similar to the one that was introduced in the United Kingdom recently in which farmers can earn money for protecting and enhancing their local environment by for example protecting freshwater rivers from pesticide fertiliser and nitrogen runoff in order to encourage wildlife and taking other measures that cut pollution and increase all forms of wildlife on farms; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I understand that we fund the Forest Heritage Fund. The Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust is assisted as well to protect many of the values in natural areas on farms. We will continue to do so and we will take the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that locally produced food is more sustainable than food that has been flown or shipped from around the world; if so is he concerned that New Zealand one of the great food-producing nations of the world imports more food than almost any other OECD country—including 24358 tonnes of meat last year—if so what measures is the Government taking to reduce our dependence on imported food and to encourage local production? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As a country that depends upon its ability to export to many countries around the world the only fair approach we can take in trade issues is to allow those countries where they can do so efficiently to export into our country. We will receive those goods. It will be up to consumers ultimately as to whether they buy them. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Does the Government have any plans to calculate the costs of the negative environmental impacts of agriculture as it has done for transport given that those costs have been estimated at $4 billion per year in the UK; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of any initiatives to calculate that cost. I do know that this country and this economy depend upon the billions of dollars earned through sound environmentally sustainable agricultural production in New Zealand. I seek leave to table the list of 101 projects funded by the Sustainable Farming Fund. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
John Tamihere— 
Investigate 
 Interview 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that John Tamihere’s comments maligning her and her Government were a result of stress? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister has no doubt that Mr Tamihere has been going through a period of considerable stress. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That really does not answer the question at all. It loosely addresses it perhaps. The question asked whether she sticks by her statement. Now she is saying that she has no doubt that he was. It was categoric at the start of the week and it now seems to be sort of “perhaps”. Maybe we should have that clarified by the person who answered the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did she note in Mr Tamihere’s apology on the  
Close Up  
TV programme that he did not resile from the comments he made about her Cabinet colleagues or herself except for Dr Cullen whom he wants to share a toothbrush with and about her caucus; and will she now accept the resignation he says he has offered or does she instead accept the truth in what he says? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly I am sure the Prime Minister did note that and secondly the Deputy Prime Minister is grateful for the offer but has enough toothbrushes. What was the third point? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Clarification is sought for the third point. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The third point was: will she accept the resignation that Mr Tamihere says he has given or does she instead accept the truth in what he said? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not for the Prime Minister to accept Mr Tamihere’s resignation from Parliament; it is the Speaker who accepts a resignation from Parliament. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There was no hint from Mr Tamihere that he might resign from Parliament. There was a strong suggestion that he had offered his resignation from the Labour Party. Of course if he resigned from the Labour Party that would leave him as a member of Parliament much as Mrs Turia was left as a member of Parliament after her resignation from the Labour Party. The person answering on behalf of the Prime Minister said that it is not up to the Prime Minister to accept the resignation. If she is the leader of the party who else would accept it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Dail Jones 
: How long can the Prime Minister continue to support John Tamihere a Labour MP in a Maori seat when he is prepared to crucify his fellow Maori MPs by suggesting that they and he were duped by Dr Michael Cullen and New Zealand First over the foreshore and seabed legislation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding although I have not seen the  
Close Up 
 interview or the transcript is that in fact he paid tribute to Dr Cullen’s drafting skills. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the answer he has just given does the Prime Minister believe it is acceptable for John Tamihere to go around saying that the Maori MPs were in fact duped by the drafting skills of Michael Cullen—including that of New Zealand First being duped? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that Mr Tamihere did not make that claim. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister contemplate a mechanism such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from South Africa—and in the absence of Desmond Tutu I would be very happy to serve myself on it—and what it might make of the Christchurch  
Press 
 article today in which Mr Tamihere says: “… you can still have a professional relationship with a bloke but still think he’s a tugger.” and who in the Labour Party was he talking about when he used that phrase? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Leader of the House advises that he could definitely have a professional relationship with some people who think they are “tuggers”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There were two parts to my question. The first was whether this was a phrase capable of being reconciled on but I wanted to know who the Prime Minister thought Mr Tamihere was talking about amongst his colleagues when he referred to them as “tuggers”; he completely refused to answer that part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address that part of the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no advice on that matter. On the first part of the question he originally asked perhaps some of us would rather see Mr Peters in a tutu rather than as a Tutu. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s a pretty preoccupying predilection over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee was that your question? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to suggest that John Tamihere has been suffering from stress when last night when he was asked whether he was under stress he answered that he had been down a bumpy road—“But no” he said “I’ve checked my suspension and my suspension is riding OK.”; and does she agree with him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Despite rumours the member’s suspension was not under threat from the Prime Minister at any point but I am advised that in fact anybody who has lunch with Ian Wishart is probably showing signs of stress already. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister or her stand-in at the moment why on earth he would conceive of New Zealand First members of Parliament wearing tutus although it is obviously the kind of garb and dress that some members of his caucus commonly wear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a little wide of the question but would the Minister please answer it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not quite sure what the member is getting at in that respect but I respect that some of my colleagues are very open about their sexual orientation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the situation we now have that Mr Tamihere has made very serious allegations against the Government that the Prime Minister says are untrue and defamatory; that last night on the Television One  
Close Up 
 programme Mr Tamihere did not retract any of the allegations but has said there is a reconciliation with the Government; and if that is so does the Prime Minister accept that this House and indeed the public are entitled to know who is telling the truth—the Prime Minister or Mr Tamihere—and how does she propose to resolve that matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the statements made by a back-bencher only for statements made by Ministers. If I understand what Mr Tamihere said the process of reconciliation is under way with the Labour caucus. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there is no way Mr Tamihere is going to be disciplined by the Labour Party because disciplining him would cause it to pay too big a political price? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is addressing a matter relating to the party not ministerial responsibility. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Forgive my inexperience. Can I reword it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can reword the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a fairly substantial rewording Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as it relates to ministerial responsibility that is fine. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that her Clayton’s style apology to the United States President for any offence she had caused when making remarks about the Iraq War served as a template for Mr Tamihere’s apology given on  
Close Up 
 last night and did she or her staff assist him in its preparation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do know that the Prime Minister met with Mr Tamihere on Tuesday because the  
New Zealand Herald  
told me so and I also knew out of my own knowledge. As to comparisons between this event and matters relating to President George Bush I think that is drawing rather a long bow indeed. 
Working for Families Package—Senior Citizens 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How much additional money per week are senior citizens likely to receive as a result of the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that just over 2700 people on superannuation and veterans pensions have already received extra income from the Working for Families package—mostly from accommodation supplement changes. The exact gain would depend on individual circumstances. A very small number of senior citizens looking after dependent children will also gain from other aspects of the package. Senior citizens have not had to wait for the Working for Families package of course to receive assistance from this Government. One of the first things we did was to restore the 65 percent wage floor for New Zealand Superannuation from April 2000 at a cost of over $800 million over 4 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister therefore confirm that his refusal to answer the question—which asked how much—applies to all but 2700 and confirm that even for that number he has refused to outline the amount they will get; in short can he confirm that his policy in respect of the Working for Families package simply does not include elderly New Zealanders whom most sane rational New Zealanders regard as part of the family? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am happy to give the member a breakdown of what each of the individual 2700 people plus those senior citizens who look after dependent children might get from the package. But I think that reading it out in the House today given that it is already 3 o’clock would be a little bit time-consuming. I have said that that number has gained from the package already and that a small number will gain if they have children in the future so I have not refused to answer the question at all. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What else has this Labour-Progressive Government done for older New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Since 1999 this Government has reduced driver’s-licence fees for all drivers over 75 protected the interests of retirement village residents provided lower doctors and prescription fees for all those over 65 enrolled with primary health organisations funded the new older persons’ mentor programme phased out asset testing for long-term residential care established the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to secure retirement income for future generations and committed to doubling the number of major hip and knee replacement operations within 4 years. I will stop there; the list is way too long. 
John Key 
: Is it likely in the Minister’s opinion that the 100 single or married people who earn between $50000 and $80000 and who receive an accommodation supplement are retired New Zealanders; and if they are not likely to be retired people who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year are single have no children and receive an accommodation supplement could he just tell the country what those people have done to deserve an accommodation supplement when many hundreds of thousands do not receive one? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware that the member is referring to an answer he would have received from Dr Cullen in his capacity as the Minister of Revenue in charge of the Inland Revenue Department. [ 
Interruption 
] Whatever he was reading from whether it was from the Ministry of Social Development or the Inland Revenue Department I have here the answer to the question: “The client’s entitlement depends upon their income and family circumstances at the time of payment. This can change from pay period to pay period as these circumstances change. To get approximate annual income figures the statistics that the member refers to in terms of the $80000 and so on has annualised clients’ income at a point of time in a yearly figure. While this provides an indication of the spread in income of recipients results do not necessarily reflect the actual annual income that clients receive for the 12-month period.” Now if the member would like to go back to the question of the words I tell him that what this refers to is the modelling of the issue. No one in the $80000 bracket receives it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the Minister referred to the small number of senior citizens with dependent children was he referring to grandparents with responsibility for the upbringing of grandchildren; if he was referring to those people why are only a small number of grandparents responsible for grandchildren covered by the Working for Families package and not all grandparents and if he was not referring to them will he be extending the programme to include grandparents caring for their grandchildren? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the members of United Future know the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren—or indeed the issue of any relative raising a child—is under active consideration. Within the package we are talking about here we are talking about such people as the ones who are on orphans benefits and unsupported child’s benefits. Those benefits are going up and therefore those people will be receiving an increase. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister admit that the realignment of income from 1 April is based on figures already 15 months out of date and does he agree with the reported comment in the  
Timaru Herald 
 on 15 January this year that said that superannuitants were feeling the pinch of a cold summer the rising cost of living and their superannuation not being kept up to 65 percent of the average wage; and why is he ignoring the 80000-plus superannuitants who rely solely on the pension as their only source of weekly income? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No no and the Government is not ignoring the superannuitants in this country. As I mentioned before one of the first acts of this Government was to increase their income and they are now $21 a week better off because of this Government. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table an answer from the Hon Steve Maharey in which he makes it quite clear that there are 100 New Zealanders who earn between $50000 and $80000 a year and receive the accommodation supplement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a written answer from Minister Rick Barker admitting that the rate of return for elderly people has gone below 65 percent on frequent occasions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Early Childhood Education—Compliance Costs 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has he been advised of the compliance costs of the data collection requirements for the new early childhood education funding system that requires some services to perform a staff hour count? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The staff hour count is not compulsory. Education centres that want the significant extra funding for quality services available from this month are however required to certify that staff are present. They have always been required to certify the attendance of children. Most centres can count their staff numbers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that his new system requires early childhood centres to record every child and every registered teacher every hour of every day; and does he recall this email: “Dear Mr Mallard yesterday I spent just over 2 hours completing Wednesday’s record.” and does he recall his response in an email to his staff member which shows he has no idea what is happening that states: “Charlie can you please get me an update. My understanding is that all that has to happen is that the roster which had to be done anyway is transferred to a form to be held for audit.” and how can early childhood centres have any confidence in a Minister who thinks there is nothing to it when they are spending 2 hours a day filling out the forms? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Every early childhood centre is required to have a roster. At the end of the day— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Every day? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes staff do come and go from early childhood centres and they have always been required to have a roster to show how many staff are there. They transfer the information to a form. My understanding is that it takes competent people 5 minutes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Have the increased hourly rates been made available to private centres? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm John Tamihere’s view that Labour politicians have no idea of life with children because they do not have any as demonstrated by this email from a teacher who went to one of the Ministry of Education training sessions: “I brought up the problems at the ministry training session in New Plymouth. The facilitator recommended that we should ask our parents—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can that member please leave the House. There is to be no interruption while questions are being asked. Can the member please complete his question. 
Hon Steve Maharey withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you are quite right to ask Mr Maharey to leave. But I believe he is set down to answer questions in the House. It would be a penalty on Opposition parties who want to ask that Minister questions if he were to be out of the House. I am sure Mr Maharey is quite pleased not to be here. Perhaps like Mr English Mr Maharey could be asked back to answer the question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I was sitting next to the member whom you have asked to leave the House. I can affirm that he was not interjecting; he was talking to myself and his other colleague. There was no attempt to interrupt the speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can come back for his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm John Tamihere’s view that Labour politicians have no idea about life with children because they do not have any as demonstrated by this email from a teacher who went to the ministry training session in New Plymouth: “I brought up the problems at the ministry training session in New Plymouth. The facilitator recommended that we should ask our parents to change their working hours so they can drop off and pick up on the hour. They felt no reasonable parent would be put out by this.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the question was in two parts. I can confirm that between the Deputy Prime Minister and myself there are an average of 3½ children for whom we are responsible and there are a few more parents further down the front bench. I do not have as many children as the member admits to that is absolutely correct but I do know that any such suggestion made by a ministry official is nonsense. 
Hamish Sands—Government Actions 
5.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What is the Government doing to secure the release of Hamish Sands’ body and to determine the cause of his death? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I would like first to express my condolences to the family of Mr Sands for his death. The UN team sent to Bouake has positively identified his body and has arranged a visual examination by a surgeon from the French hospital. We are currently working through a number of different channels to encourage the New Forces group to release the body and that has been promised. We have made arrangements when it happens for the body to be transferred to Abidjan for a full autopsy to determine the cause of death. We then hope to repatriate the body in line with the wishes of the family. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What specific steps is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade taking to achieve that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To secure access to the body and its release the ministry has been working through the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross as it has been from the start of this matter. Both organisations have had direct contact with the New Forces group and both have been very helpful. We have also made our representations through the United Kingdom Canadian and South African diplomatic channels as each of those countries has posts on the Ivory Coast. I put on record for the information of the House our thanks and the thanks of Mr Sands’ family for the ready cooperation of those countries and their assistance at every point that they have been asked for it. 
Police Priorities—Detectives 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his statement: “I am advised that detectives are not reassigned from their primary duties”; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that detectives are not reassigned from their primary duties. However under the direction of district commanders all police staff including investigators may from time to time be deployed to respond to any offence including traffic offences. 
Ron Mark 
: Why does this Labour-led Government think it appropriate at a time when there are thousands of unallocated files awaiting investigation seven of which involve rape and when police are warning New Zealanders of the serious threats posed by a burgeoning methamphetamine P market which is being run by organised crime gangs that previously were mortal enemies in joint-venture operations across international and ethnic boundaries that the cream of our police—detectives—are now being pulled from their investigations to issue traffic tickets for seatbelt and warrant of fitness offences? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is simply not reality. District commanders have the responsibility of deploying their staff to the best effect in order to meet their obligations to police the whole spectrum of criminal offending. From time to time there may be one-off special deployments involving staff across all units but that would be rare and would certainly not involve pulling staff from significant and active inquiry work. That is a quote from Assistant Commissioner Peter Marshall on 15 February this year. 
Tim Barnett 
: What comments if any has he seen in relation to the crossover of duties performed by the police? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have seen a report quoting Senior Constable Peter Daly in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
: “No doubt there are times when general duties police are called to traffic but I’ve never seen someone taken off a rape case and sent to write tickets. I keep hearing that but I’ve never seen it. But then I’ve only been in the job 17 years”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister been advised that he may have breached a suppression order while he was talking about staffing issues on Radio New Zealand this morning? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a very interesting question but what on earth does it have to do with the principal question which is about the reassignment of detectives from their primary duties? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am inclined to agree with that. It is really right outside the scope of the original question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I realise that it is a very sensitive issue but the fact is that this morning the Hon George Hawkins was on the radio talking about these staffing issues. Also if we look at the primary question we see that it very much goes to the heart of staffing issues within the police. If the reassigning of detectives from their primary duties is not a staffing issue then I do not know what is. Everyone in this House knows that it was the article on the front page of today’s  
Dominion Post 
 
in which these issues were discussed that got Mr Hawkins into the studio today to justify his position. My question simply asked whether he has been advised that during the course of that he may have breached the suppression order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What the member says may well be right but it is very clear both in the Standing Orders and in the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 
that supplementary questions have to be relevant to the principal question. Supplementary question Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is a rewording I hope. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As long as it is relevant to the principal question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It seems to me that if a supplementary question is ruled out of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is ruled out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
:—and it clearly was then we cannot really give a free supplementary question on top of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a free supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It must be an additional supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is an additional supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have heard the Greens and members of United Future ask questions that were so wide of the wicket that they would have scored a six on their own and the Speaker has allowed them to have another go. The fact is that Mr Hawkins incompetent as he is had to get on the radio this morning to justify the disastrous situation in the police force up and down the country. It is a staffing issue that has got him into trouble and he should answer in Parliament today whether or not his staff are scurrying around working out how to get him out of trouble. We know that one member of Parliament has been done for a so-called breach of a suppression order in recent times and now it would seem that the Government is trying to get this Minister off that. We want to know just what advice he has had. He cannot speak as a Minister about staffing matters trying to justify himself and breach the law and not expect to be asked questions about it in this House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Now we are in quite a different area. The member has now thoroughly abused the point of order procedure. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 19/5: “A member should raise a point of order tersely.” The member went all around the paddock on an issue that had nothing to do with the point of order which was actually about the fact that when a supplementary question is clearly ruled out the Speaker has discretion to invite the member to rephrase it but the member cannot then expect simply to get another supplementary question that does not count against the party’s allocation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Brownlee having asked his question I would have thought the Minister of Police would welcome an opportunity to get up and tell us—as I am sure he would—that he does not believe he breached the suppression order. Otherwise we are left with the impression that the Government believes he did and does not want him to speak any more. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this. The member has already been indulged—at least to my memory—on two other occasions when he has been able to rephrase his questions instead of having to ask second questions. On other occasions when a member has been indulged and has been able to rephrase or clarify a question it has always been relevant to the principal question. On this occasion the member is raising matters that are totally outside the scope of that question. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary question he can but it must relate to the primary question. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that Mr Brownlee by bringing United Future and the Greens into the question when raising that somewhat spurious point of order really also challenged your consistency as Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet and give the member the courtesy of silence while he is raising his point of order. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I think he was also challenging your performance and your objectivity as the Chair of this House. I do not think that is orderly. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Ruling on that point of order I say it is not the first time that that member has done that and it has been observed by me. If there is another occasion on which it happens then of course action will be taken. I ask the member whether he wishes to ask a supplementary question within the scope of the primary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister was discussing staffing issues on the radio this morning did he breach a suppression order? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I did not. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Minister give an undertaking to take ministerial responsibility and explain exactly what investigation or other action he will take if he is presented with evidence that all of the detectives in a particular office were recently sent out to get traffic tickets—were sent away from their other work? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: None. It is over to the district commander to assign duties and it is not the job of Ministers to do it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of this morning’s interview in which—on the last page of that transcript—the Minister clearly breached a suppression order. The prohibition as to the nature of the crime was mentioned by him. He breached it and he should not be misleading this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The normal practice is for such leave to be sought at the end of supplementary questions. Are there further supplementary questions? [ 
Interruption 
] The member has sought leave to table a transcript. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to now think about what you have ruled with regard to National members having to use an extra supplementary question out of the allocation that we receive on a daily basis effectively to ask the Minister the exact same question. I ask what the difference is between asking whether the Minister had been advised on whether he had breached the suppression order and asking him very directly whether he did breach it. The fascinating thing is that he was able quite categorically to state that he did not. I think we can then assume that he may have received advice. I just ask you why we have been able to ask virtually the same question and to get an answer very quickly from the Minister but it has had to cost us two questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that the member obviously had advice to rephrase the question so he brought it within the context of the primary question. There is no problem with that. If that member challenges one of my rulings one more time then he is on notice. I have ruled; you challenge my rulings all the time. Can we please move on. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the police are not stretched for staff when so many stories about understaffing are emerging from within their own ranks and are being publicised in the media and in the House; and if he persists in denying those claims does that mean he thinks his officers are a bunch of ungrateful and deluded whingers? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There are more police than ever they are better-funded than ever and I have great confidence in them. That is why the crime rate has dropped 8.2 percent. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is true that he in fact despite public denials has actually asked for increased resources to go to the police but has been refused and can we take it that that is because increasing their resources would be seen as an admission of failure in terms of stemming the rising tide of the crime statistics? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member must know that the police are well funded. They have a Minister who has got them more resources than anyone else has in recent years. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The main question that was asked was whether he had asked for more resourcing and had been refused that resourcing. He did not address that question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member will have to wait until the Budget. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question that was asked of him. It was addressed. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether he is happy to have detectives taken off their caseloads and sent out to man traffic checkpoints and issue warrant of fitness infringement notices in the light of statements such as this one from a letter dated 29 March 2005 and written to me by a senior investigating police officer: “A large amount of serious crime is not being investigated because there are not enough investigators to go around.” and such as this one in a second letter dated 9 July 2005 and from the criminal investigation branch and signed by Inspector Shearer the area commander of the Manurewa Police Station: “The level of crime reported in the Counties police district over the last 2 to 3 years has seriously affected our ability to investigate all matters in a timely matter.”—the letter goes on to apologise to the victim that the police can no longer prosecute the case because it has taken too long given their staffing? Is that what this Government is all about? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is not what this Government is all about. We are about bringing crime rates down doing it well and getting improving results. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the transcript from today’s Television One  
Midday 
 news where the judge in the Sergeant Solomona case gave as one of the reasons the severe lack of resources of the police force in south Auckland. 
Document not tabled. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email from the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard to one of his staffers in his office pointing out that he does not understand the new early childhood roster system. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? Yes. It will not be tabled. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I seek leave to table an email from a teacher who attended a ministry training session in New Plymouth where teachers were told to ask parents to change their working hours to fit the system. 
Document not tabled. 
State-owned Enterprises—Sales 
7.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What reports if any has he received regarding the sale of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I have seen a survey showing that 79 percent of New Zealanders oppose State-owned asset sales. This Government’s policy is that no State enterprises will be sold. 
Mark Peck 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on State-owned assets? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report that indicates a return to the failed policy of selling off State-owned enterprises. That report is from the National Party. My advice to the 79 percent of New Zealanders who oppose the sale of State-owned enterprises is to strongly oppose National’s policy of flogging off the family silver. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister support State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post’s decision to sell 50 percent of its courier business to German-controlled DHL Worldwide Express and if that is in line with the kinds of policies advocated by the Labour Party will he now be campaigning against the policies of the party he belongs to? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As that member well knows that is a joint venture not the sale of New Zealand Post. Of course the point is that that member actually wants to sell New Zealand Post and Kiwibank. He cannot sell them just yet because he knows that 79 percent of New Zealanders are against that. So he talks doubletalk and weasel words but everybody knows what National is up to—it wants to flog off State-owned enterprises. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister seen the transcript of a radio interview with Mr John Key where he said that the National Party’s new spending allowance would be $300 to $400 million a year—not enough even to meet the growth in tertiary education alone; if so is it true under that circumstance that it would have to sell every State asset off as fast as possible simply in order to stand still? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility for the second part of that question but the Minister can address the first part. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just noted that a few moments ago you were very firm with the deputy leader of National Gerry Brownlee about questions that are wide of the mark. You said that the second part of Dr Cullen’s question was outside ministerial responsibility. The first part of Dr Cullen’s question was entirely about Budget estimates and the level of expenditure. There is absolutely nothing in the primary question in that regard. If you are to be consistent with the rulings you have given Gerry Brownlee there is no way that you can allow the first part of that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s argument so the question is out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a long list amounting to $9 billion of State assets sold by Labour when last in Government at a time when Mr Swain was hankering to be a member of Parliament and Dr Cullen was one. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Toll Holdings transaction in which Dr Cullen gaily sold off for the second time ownership of our railway service in this country. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I seek leave to table a survey that shows that 79 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to National’s State-owned enterprise sell-off policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise a serious issue about corrections to answers of which I seek a considered ruling. One week ago I asked this same Minister a question about when he knew about the flaws in the Building Act. He gave an answer that subsequently turned out to be incorrect. Later in the day he came to the Chamber and provided a correction. As is well known after question time not many members are in the House. I quite properly sought a copy of the correction. I had the incorrect answer and I wanted the corrected answer. I sought it from the Hansard 
office and it told me that no the only place I could get the corrected answer was from the Minister’s office. But now a week after the incorrect answer was given to me I still do not have the corrected answer. The reason I seek a considered ruling from you is that I believe it is proper that when a Minister gives an incorrect answer and is forced to correct it in the House the member who received the wrong answer must have some right to know what the correction was. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members who are dissatisfied with answers to written questions should first take the matter up with the Minister then second write to the Speaker. On the question of the correction the member sought to an oral answer I will take that matter up. 
Building Act—Reports 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What adverse reports if any has he received on the effects on homeowners and building owners of the new Building Act 2004? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I have seen in a local Auckland newspaper the  
Central Leader  
that some developers had concerns about increased costs from the more rigorous inspection regimes under the Building Act. The same story goes on to quote the Chief Executive of the Property Institute Colin English who said that there were positive spin-offs from stricter rules particularly from Auckland. He also said: “If the regulations work there should be less leaky buildings. There are more checks and balances.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why when there is absolutely no evidence of do-it-yourself homeowners being responsible for the leaky-home crisis does his legislation prohibit homeowners from doing work on their own homes and is that not the sort of anti-Kiwi family law that has seen his colleague John Tamihere refer to him as a tosser? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Some people have expressed concerns about the tightening of control on the home handyman but those predicting the end of the do-it-yourself home handyman are grossly exaggerating the impacts. Works that are critical to a building’s safety and functioning will need to be signed off by a licensed person but the home handyman remains free to do non-critical work without such oversight. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What will be the key effects of the Building Act on homeowners and building owners? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: A quote from the regulatory services manager of the Horowhenua District Council Tony Thomas best answers this question: “The Act ensures better decision-making throughout the building processes and provides more assurance to consumers and homeowners that buildings are designed to be built right the first time.” Who could argue with that? 
Brent Catchpole 
: What reports has he received that councils are racking up their charges for consents and inspections since the demise of private building certifiers as a result of the new Building Act and what is he doing to protect homeowners from that practice? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have not received any reports but I have in front of me a quote from Manukau City’s Director of City Services Wayne Godley who said: “The new laws will make it clearer to industry workers what standards their buildings are required to meet and better practices in building design and construction will be encouraged.” That is good news for New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague asked a very specific question that concerns the public—about charges being racked up—and we got some sort of woolly-woofter answer like that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will New Zealand’s new building standards be made freely available on the Internet so that ordinary citizens can know how to abide by them; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Where copyright is not impinged and property rights taken standards will be freely available where that is appropriate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s rhetoric about an ownership society with taking away the rights of owners to upgrade their own homes; and where is the evidence that the old regime where a homeowner had to get a building consent and a code compliance certificate provided any difficulty for building standards to justify disallowing them from being able work on their own house? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The new Building Act is all about ensuring that people who are homeowners have a safe building. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked what evidence there was to justify changing the law in respect of a homeowner doing his or her own building work. The bland response from the Minister saying that the Building Act was going to be good for homeowners does not in any way answer a question that is on the minds of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand building owners. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do not require an answer; it requires the question to be addressed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like you to reflect on the ruling you have just given this House. I think that if you check the Standing Orders you will find that an answer is required that addresses the question. The Standing Orders do not simply state that the question must be addressed; they state that an answer that addresses the question must be given. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And that is exactly what the Minister gave. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of order that I was raising was that you stated to this Parliament— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I had not completed my point of order when you interrupted me. What you just told this Parliament is that the Minister does not have to answer the question but that he only has to address it. I was pointing out to you that the Standing Orders require the Minister to give an answer that addresses the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer has to address the question. In that particular instance the Minister’s answer addressed the question. It may not have done it to the satisfaction of the member but it did address the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member challenging my ruling or relitigating it? 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I am seeking clarification on a very important issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have just given clarification to that point. Would the member please sit down. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an important issue because question time in this Parliament is a very important time. I am seeking clarification because I heard you very clearly—and if you check the record of the House you will find it yourself—telling this Parliament that a Minister does not have to answer a question. The Standing Orders state that a Minister must give an answer that addresses the question unless it is not in the public interest to do so. This is a very important issue otherwise I would not be taking up the time of the Parliament. What I am seeking from you Madam Speaker is clarification to the House that in fact answers do have to be given and that they have to address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I am happy to give that clarification. The answer must address the question and the Minister did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was an entirely inappropriate comment. Would the Minister withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm estimates given to me by his department yesterday that between 60000 and 80000 buildings in New Zealand are in breach of section 363 of the Act that came into effect on 31 March making insurance for those buildings invalid; if so does he accept responsibility for this awful mess? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am still seeking advice over that. In an extreme case that could be an issue and of course the best way to address this issue of uncertainty is for the member and his party to support the Government’s amendments next week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very specific: does he accept responsibility? The Minister made no attempt at all to address the issue of responsibility for the serious flaws in his legislation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s answer addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Speaker! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I listened very carefully. The member may not be satisfied with the answer and it may not fully address the question but it did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My question asked whether he accepted responsibility. In what way can you claim that answer from that Minister in any way addressed that question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not required upon you to explain your reasons for doing something. Once we are into that then every decision by every Speaker and every Chair is open to litigation. We are seeing endless relitigation of rulings now. There is obviously a coordinated tactic on the part of the Opposition that simply does not like the referee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. It is quite clear that it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer in any way. That is for the public and for members of this House. However the Minister did address the question. Is there a supplementary question? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the Building Remedial Measures Amendment Bill in my name accepted by the Clerk this morning to be introduced and have its first reading following question time on Tuesday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is; leave is denied. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to completely reject the suggestion made by Dr Michael Cullen that somehow the decision by the Opposition to take a different approach to the use of the Standing Orders is anything to do with you or your role as Speaker. That is quite wrong. At the start of question time today we had the opportunity for the Leader of the House to apologise for abusing the Standing Orders and for tipping up the conventions of the Standing Orders in a way that was abusive of members of Parliament. He declined. I hope it is now evident that the Standing Orders as we said during the course of the exchange that went on at the start of question time are open for all members to use in way that is less than productive. We do not normally do that because the conventions of the House also suggest that the Government should be able to advance its business. However the rules appear to have changed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is exactly an example of what I just said. The member was relitigating the rulings you gave before we even started question time. That matter was already ruled on and in effect the member commented on your ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order that has been raised—if it was a point of order—I accept the member’s assurance. However I would also note that matters that are raised as points of order that are not points of order and when that is done in a frequent manner then that comes close to being disruptive of the House. I make that as a general comment to all members of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a new point of order. Could you just clarify the standard you are now applying to members making comments when they are not meant to be making comments? I was thrown out of the House for commenting during a point of order and I accepted your ruling. The Hon Steve Maharey was thrown out of the House for carrying on a conversation while a question was being asked but Dr Cullen who interjected during a question and in a way that was not parliamentary was able to apologise and withdraw but stay in the House. Is the difference in treatment related to whether the comments are made during a point of order as opposed to a question or in this case was Dr Cullen allowed to stay because of his seniority? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was not aware that the member had started to ask his question. I am actually very careful about that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In fact there was a pause between the question being asked and the matter being raised but I did ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he did. 
Paternity—Current Law 
9.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is she satisfied that the interests of children mothers and fathers seeking to clarify legal paternity are adequately provided for by current law; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Children’s interests have been emphasised following a recent Court of Appeal judgment. There is no requirement for an adult to submit to a parentage test but these issues are included in an upcoming Law Commission report. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree it is totally unsatisfactory that a father seeking to establish paternity to provide grounds for a relationship with a child must endure 5 years of legal battle at huge expense where the other parent refuses DNA testing such as in the recent case going all the way to the Court of Appeal; if so does she agree with United Future that in this age of access to the science of DNA this situation is wholly unnecessary; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I agree that the case that the member cites involved very tragic circumstances. It should not be repeated if possible. The Law Commission will soon release a report likely to canvass the use of DNA testing to which the Government will respond but I note that recent legislation like the Status of Children Amendment Act gave Family Court concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court to make declarations of paternity thereby cutting costs and increasing access. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What action has the Government taken recently to improve processes for people seeking to establish paternity? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Care of Children Act and the Status of Children Amendment Act which come into force this July remove some barriers for men seeking to establish paternity. In particular the courts will be able to recommend less invasive DNA sampling as well as blood tests which may lead to more people taking the paternity test. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does she support a law change requiring each birth certificate to name both the child’s biological mother and father as proposed by United Future to prevent the farcical situation of the court Family Court or otherwise needing to assume wardship of a child for a couple of hours to get a DNA sample from the child where the other parent refuses; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I agree that those issues do require some attention and in that way I welcome the Law Commission report which is likely to make comment on these very issues. The Government may consider whether a law change is desirable as part of its response to that report but it is likely that access to the courts will always be required because one cannot write law for every situation. It is important to have the option of an impartial judge looking at the situation to assess the best interests of the child. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not catch when the Minister said the Law Commission report would be out. I wonder whether she could advise us. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I understand that it will be released in April this year. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister also support the policy of requiring both parents’ names—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave. Mr Copeland was asking a supplementary question. 
Lianne Dalziel withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have silence while questions are being asked. Would the member please start again. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister also support the policy of requiring both parents’ names on a birth certificate on the basis that it is in the best interests of a child to know who his or her biological parents are given that this was the persuasive argument for the Court of Appeal and given that New Zealand is party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which gives rights to this effect; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: In most circumstances I do think it is in the best interests of children to know who both their parents are but whether that means we should have compulsory parentage tests is something that I think the Government will have to consider in response to the Law Commission report. 
Health and Independence Report 
—Surgical Inpatient Discharges 
10.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can she confirm that the 2003  
Health and Independence Report 
 shows that in 1999-2000 there were 160574 publicly funded surgical inpatient discharges (acute and elective) and in 2002-03 this number had fallen to 157754; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes and I can confirm that the Ministry of Health advised me in October 2003—and I made that information public—that the surgical inpatient discharges reported in 2002-03 are incomplete and fail to include all surgical procedures carried out in the mobile-surgery bus and all publicly funded operations undertaken in private hospitals. As well the ministry advised me that recent process and technological developments mean that some procedures that used to be carried out in public hospital inpatient or day-patient settings are now being delivered in outpatient or clinic settings. As people receiving outpatient procedures are not formally admitted to hospital they are now no longer counted as discharges in the national system. This shift amounts to thousands of procedures rather than hundreds. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can she explain to the 2000 people at present being cut from the Counties-Manukau waiting list—some who are going blind some in constant pain—that her Government is funding sex-change operations at $30000 each and is that not exactly what John Tamihere says this PC Labour Government is doing—betraying mainstream New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If it is PC to fund a limited number of sex-change operations today it must have been PC to have done it in the 1990s—and it was done. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can she give examples to the House of procedures that were counted as inpatient surgical procedures and are now done as outpatient procedures? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can. Cataract surgery for example is now commonly done as an outpatient procedure and no one would claim that a patient has not had an operation. Other examples include orthopaedic procedures such as carpel tunnel release and release of tennis elbow; gynaecological procedures such as D and C; and gastroenterology procedures including endoscopy and colonoscopy. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is she aware of the reported comments today by a senior orthopaedic surgeon at Wellington Hospital that he has operated on only about half the patients he would have expected to treat in the first 3 months of the year because the number of orthopaedic beds at Wellington Hospital has been reduced from 28 to 18; and does she as the Minister of Health acknowledge any responsibility to ensure that hospital productivity actually increases in proportion to taxpayer dollars invested? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last part of the question no not always. In respect of the first part of the question I am advised by district health boards that they expect to provide all their contracted volumes in orthopaedic surgery by the end of the financial year and I have no indication they will not achieve that. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of her answers what explanation can she give for the fact that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment increased by 5102 in the 3 months from September to December 2004 and we now have 118553 New Zealanders waiting to see a specialist for the first time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the people of New Zealand that of those 118000 people 93000 have been waiting fewer than 6 months so they are inside the Government’s expectation; and 25000 have been waiting longer than 6 months which is around 21 percent and that I will tell New Zealanders is a huge improvement over 1999 when 34 percent of people waited longer than 6 months. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she disagree with Grey Power president Graham Stairmand who said: “A sex-change operation at about $30000 will buy 10 cataract operations.” and that: “We would consider that doing the 10 cataracts would be money better spent.” and does this not back up exactly what John Tamihere has said about the Labour Government that it has lost touch with ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: We do thousands of cataract operations a year and we will soon be announcing a whole lot more. We intend to double the number of knee and hip replacements that older people get and we are well on the way. However allowance has been made for up to four operations for people who require gender realignment. That member did not speak out against it in the 1990s. He has suddenly found a reason to. He would know if he is really a doctor that people who have to have this operation must undergo the most rigorous clinical assessment. I can only assume that he is telling the endocrinologists of New Zealand that they do not know what they are talking about. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Has the Minister heard any reports or received any reports on some of the reasons why sexual reassignment surgery may be considered under the public system particularly pertaining to suicide? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes in fact for a person to receive such an operation—and funding has been put aside from the high-needs pool for up to four operations a year—the person must undergo a psychiatric assessment psychological counselling and a specialist’s appointment with an endocrinologist to meet the very high classification required to receive the surgery. [ 
Interruption 
] One of the problems that has been identified is suicide. I take that issue seriously. Nick Smith does not but I do. Any young person who is in a state of mind where he or she wishes to commit suicide because of his her gender identity deserves the same support as any other New Zealander in the health system. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is from the  
Eastern Courier 
 dated 1 April 2005 which states that 2000 will be removed from the waiting list at Counties-Manukau District Health Board. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from the Christchurch  
Press 
 dated 19 May 2003 stating that a total of nearly 25000 New Zealanders have been dumped from hospital waiting lists. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The third document is from the Christchurch  
Press 
 dated 2 April 2005 where Grey Power president Graham Stairmand says that they would consider doing the 10 cataract operations would be money better spent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The fourth document is from the  
Health and Independence Report 
 dated 2003 that shows the number of operations from 1999 to 2003 have gone down by 3000 cases. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a point of clarification. During my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison’s seeking of leave to table documents members of the Labour Cabinet including Mr Swain commented all the way through calling out “Yeeaas” in that sort of tone before he had finished asking for leave to table. I am wondering whether that is going to be the standard from now on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was a lot of noise during the seeking of leave to table those four documents from both sides of the House. I would ask members in the future particularly the chatterers in the back row to please keep the noise down. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that gender reassignment surgery was carried out in the 1990s under a National Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Creative Industries—Government Support 
11.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing to support New Zealand’s creative industries? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Among a number of other initiatives this Government supports the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme which has been enormously successful. Since it was introduced it has helped nearly 3000 New Zealanders to find work. It recognises that creative industries are important to New Zealanders as we have a world-leading arts and culture industry providing over 50000 jobs and representing 2.8 percent of our GDP. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the Minister seen any proposals to change the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment scheme? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes I have. I see that the National Party would scrap it because apparently Dr Don Brash does not see any value in creative industries. By saying that National would scrap the Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme he is effectively saying that an entire sector including the film music and television industries is off-limits to job seekers. During these boom times when New Zealand music film and other arts— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would have expected you to bring the Minister back into line with the Standing Orders. This Minister has absolutely no responsibility thank goodness for National Party policy so all of the answer is outside the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order is valid. Would the Minister please address the question in terms of her responsibility. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am responsible for this programme and I am concerned that there are grossly ill informed attacks upon it and that in these boom times in New Zealand film music and other arts which are at the highest level they have ever been and are returning more jobs and more exports to New Zealand than they have ever done there are threats that the programme will be withdrawn. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister clarify something? As a result of this programme are we likely to see more art such as dunnies that bray like a donkey statues of the Virgin Mary enclosed in a condom or pictures falsified by the Prime Minister—is this programme going to lead to that sort of thing? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: We have seen an enormous number of young New Zealanders who are trained and talented getting jobs in areas like modelling design tattooing producing clothes—particularly high-fashion clothes—producing films like  
Whale Rider 
 and  
In My Father’s Den 
 producing hit New Zealand music that is being exported like that of Golden Horse and many many other such examples that are returning vast numbers of jobs and profits to New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we are well aware of what you might call the good things the programme might deliver but I asked the Minister specifically about these fringe-type art things that New Zealanders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet while the member is making his point of order. 
Peter Brown 
: I simply asked the Minister about what one might call fringe-art exhibits that really do upset some New Zealanders. Will this programme lead to more of those? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government unlike Soviet USSR is not responsible for the output of artists particularly those on the fringe. We are interested in seeing real jobs real exports and real profits to New Zealanders. These projects are designed for artists who want to work and to be paid for what they do. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that it is getting a bit rowdy but Bill English was thrown out for interjecting on a point of order and both the Hon Chris Carter and the Hon David Cunliffe interjected loudly on Mr Peter Brown’s point of order. It was done from the cross benches where he is standing. It was designed to disrupt his point of order. I am sure they will agree that they interrupted on his point of order. I think you should treat them as you treated Bill English. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All I heard was a level of buzz in the House that was unacceptable. I did not hear specific voices and that is why I asked all members to be quiet. I have ruled on that Mr Hide. I did not hear that; I did ask members to be quiet. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard them loud and clear and saw them. All that you need to do is ask them whether they called out during that point of order and I am sure you will get an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the members? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Yes Madam Speaker. I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister will leave the House then. 
Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If we are going to apply the rules in the same fashion there was a point much earlier on when you did not know who had interjected and you could not identify the person. It was Richard Prebble. Perhaps he would now like to stand up and own up to interjecting during that point of order and he might like to leave as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has a point. It should have been raised at the time but did the member interject when I could not hear? 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s too late. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is too late but the member is making the point that if we are— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Madam Speaker I thought we were up to David Cunliffe. You have not got to me yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can we move on please. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I would like to own up to speaking but not with intent to disrupt so I would be— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can leave as well then please. 
Brent Catchpole 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Going back to the last answer given by the Minister I ask you to reflect on the answer that she gave in that she gave the name of a non-existent country—a country that no longer exists in fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding was that David Cunliffe was asked to go for calling out in the point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I did. I said would he please leave. And Maurice Williamson came very close to being asked to leave. At this rate it will be a very quiet House. 
Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber. 
Marc Alexander 
: How is the Government supporting New Zealand’s creative industries when it allows one of its Crown-owned companies TVNZ to pay millions of dollars to secure  
Coronation Street 
 after a bidding war with Prime Television when it could be using that money to develop local programming and talent? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am not the Minister of Broadcasting so I am not accountable for the decisions of TVNZ. However I will point out that well over $180 million is being spent by New Zealand On Air for all television production in New Zealand and I look forward to seeing that increased. 
John Tamihere— 
Investigate 
 Interview 
12.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What concerns if any does he have about poor incentives in the social welfare system in light of John Tamihere’s statement that “We’ve got a range of poor incentives. We say to people ‘you stay in a state house at 25% gross’ and we’re teaching them to be crooks. There might be four income earners in there—we’ll never know it.” and what is he doing about them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 This Government has made and is continuing to make changes to ensure that proper incentives are in place in the social welfare and housing systems wherever they are required. One recent example part of the Working for Families package that affects both areas is that we no longer abate the accommodation supplement from the first dollar of earnings. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can New Zealanders take the Minister seriously when his colleague John Tamihere said that he is “very smarmy very clever but no substance.” and that he “deserves” to “wear all the bulls..t that’ll come” because of his policy failures—statements that Mr Tamihere has repeatedly refused to retract? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will let people make up their own minds. 
Hon David Carter 
: How does the Minister justify his housing incentives which allow a State house to be occupied by a family with a declared net annual income exceeding $115000; and is John Tamihere not just telling the truth when he calls the Minister “smarmy” and states that his housing policy is a mess? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may help to tell the House how people’s income is rated for a Housing New Zealand Corporation house. To be eligible for an income-related rent a tenant and partner need to provide income statements for themselves for the past 52 weeks. Those should include Work and Income payments salary and wages and accident compensation payments. Tenants need to list all those residing in the property. The corporation also requests information about savings investments and other sources of regular income such as family support and payments from boarders flatters and adult children. I should point out that only 9 percent of Housing New Zealand tenants are in houses on a market rent and nearly all of them got their tenancy under a National Government. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise what reports the Government has received on the success of the income-related rent system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Housing New Zealand Corporation has informed me that over 98 percent of new tenants qualify for an income-related rent with over 90 percent of existing tenants qualifying. That means that over 56000 families or more than 170000 people are benefiting from the restoration of income-related rents. The average household is $35 a week better off. The last Government sold off 13000 houses but also charged that vulnerable group top-dollar market rents to encourage tenants to move out so that it could easily sell off those houses. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: If news media reports are correct that the Labour Party is now undergoing a process of reconciliation and healing and in light of the claims of rampant fraud in Housing New Zealand made by the Minister’s former associate social services Minister does the Minister intend to welcome the assistance of Mr Tamihere with his interest and expertise in the area of fraud to assist him in exposing the widespread criminal activity that is apparently taking place in his portfolio under his nose? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that someone who thinks that people who live in State houses tend to criminality and that one of the Government’s best housing policies is the one teaching them to be crooks actually belongs in the Labour Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility for that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is clearly some enthusiasm for the Minister to answer that question. I think that if he were to seek the leave of the House to answer it we would certainly all agree. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Does the Minister not agree that on that question and on all of Mr John Tamihere’s allegations it has now come down to a matter of credibility; and how galling is it for a person who believes he has lived a life of blameless excellence to find that he is disbelieved with allegations made by a man who has two convictions for forgery and uttering and five drink-driving convictions who has admitted he lied about receiving a six-figure golden handshake and falsified his tax return and who has just been turned over by the Serious Fraud Office yet he is being told he is believable— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member cannot make those allegations of criminal behaviour in the House. The early parts refer to matters of record but the latter parts did not refer to matters of record at all and were out of order. The member is going far too far. One could talk about falsifying one’s declaration on marital settlements for example without any evidence. 
Rodney Hide 
: The White report shows that Mr Tamihere did not fill out his tax return correctly. He did not declare his income as required by the law. We have already tabled the High Court decision where Mr Tamihere admits to two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It depends what words people use. Mr Prebble said that Mr Tamihere had falsified his tax return and that was not what was found by the White report at all. The White report was quite clear that the responsibility for paying that tax rested with the employer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am happy to withdraw that. I think we have enough allegations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for doing that but I also remind him that the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for John Tamihere. If we could just get to the question it would be good. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is not the question. The question is about the Minister’s credibility. How galling is it for a person who believes he lives a life of blameless excellence to find that he is not believed when he has had allegations made against him by a person who has been convicted of forgery twice and for the public to now believe that person’s allegation that the Minister is “smarmy” and has “no substance”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the claim made by Mr Tamihere was that we have a range of poor incentives that people stay in State houses and that we do not know whether there are four income earners in a house and we will never know. I point out in terms of credibility that in fact we do know. There was a lot of noise in the House before but I explained to people that we do know the incomes of all people who are in Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Speaker. 
Hon Annette King 
: Good God! 
Rodney Hide 
: Annette King is calling out when I am supposed to be asking a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have not started yet Mr Hide. Would you please ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I would if she would be quiet for a change. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that was unnecessary. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It was a comment directed at you Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was directed at me. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He said “you”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes he did say “you” actually. 
Rodney Hide 
: I did not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is what I heard. 
Rodney Hide 
: I said “she”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please ask your question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister be taking any advice from Mr Tamihere regarding matters of fraudulent behaviour in his portfolio in respect of money for which he is responsible or will he be looking for Mr Tamihere to retract his statements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In relation to Mr Tamihere’s concerns about the Housing New Zealand Corporation not knowing the incomes of people in its houses I have just pointed out that we do. We know every single income earner. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I took notes during some of these answers today but am none the wiser. My question asked whether the Minister would be taking advice from Mr Tamihere. That was not addressed. I was given the answer to a previous question. I asked him whether he will be seeking for Mr Tamihere to retract these statements. Again he did not address that question whatsoever. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I listen to the views of all back-benchers in the Labour Party but in the case of this particular issue I have already received advice from Mr Tamihere via an article in the  
Investigate  
magazine and I have just replied to it now. We know the incomes of all these people. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed. 
Points of Order 
Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost as a consequence of the Government’s breach of Standing Order 38 to be set aside for Tuesday 3 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider the content of that leave request. The member did not merely relitigate a ruling that you gave but stated it was wrong. The member stated that the Government had breached Standing Order 38. That of course— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I didn’t. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member should very carefully look at his own  
Hansard 
 because that is what he said. He said that the Government breached Standing Order 38. You Madam Speaker have already ruled that the Government was not in breach of the Standing Orders on that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Leave was denied. [ 
Interruption 
] Is there another point of order? 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table Standing Order 1 “Purpose”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 1. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the 2½ hours that was lost last evening as a consequence of a Minister not being present in the House—when Standing Order 38 requires a Minister to be in the House during all sitting hours of the House—to be made up on Thursday 5 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is denied. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table Standing Order 2 “Interpretation”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 2 “Interpretation”. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost last evening as a consequence of the Government breaching Standing Order 38 with regard to Ministers being present in the House to be set aside. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that time to be set aside. Is there any objection? There is. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 3 “Definitions”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 3. Is there any objection? There is. Members need to be counselled that they are close to bringing themselves and the House into total and justified disrepute. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the matter of last night. 
Parliament Building—Media Access 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before question time I drew your attention to the question of access to the House and the gangways and the media. I was informed during question time that the situation was more serious than that which I had raised with you—a lot more serious. I am now informed—although I have to say this information still is second-hand—that accredited members of the news media who are entitled to be in Parliament and who have accreditation from yourself were told by police officers that if they did not move themselves from parts of this building they would be arrested. 
We had the issue of police officers extensively litigated last year. It is my understanding that a police officer may not exercise authority in this House without the Speaker’s express approval. You indicated to me Madam Speaker when I raised the point of order before question time that you were not aware that there had been incidents on the gangway last night. That would indicate that police officers were acting in Parliament without your approval. If that was so I think that is a very very serious matter. 
When you are looking into that could you also inquire as to whether police officers did threaten accredited members of the news media who are entitled to be in Parliament with arrest and if they did so whether they had your approval. If they did I think members would like to know why the Speaker thinks that members of the press gallery should be threatened with arrest—even if some members may be sympathetic to that. I think we should get a report on the matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am happy to look into that matter. 
Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am very concerned about the statement you have just made in respect of the points of order that I and my colleague John Carter have made. The leave applications we sought were perfectly within the Standing Orders. Of course there is a convention that we should not abuse those provisions but I find it quite ironic that when the Government abuses Standing Order 38 which is very explicit and was never intended as a mechanism for shutting down the House you refuse to make any negative comment at all. I would have let the matter rest if you had made even the comment that it was unwise for Dr Cullen to do as he did last evening. I ask you to reflect on the comment you have just made in respect of myself and Mr Carter when I am complying absolutely with the Standing Orders in terms of the points of order I am raising that suggested I am doing anything other than acting quite properly within the strict interpretation of the rules we are obliged to obey. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order that has been raised I say that I merely reminded members that if they continue to work their way through the 370-odd Standing Orders then they will bring themselves and the House into disrepute. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not finished. On the other matter the member raised yes that matter was raised in an earlier point of order during the proceedings of the House today. That matter was fully discussed at some length. The ruling at that time was that if members are unhappy with that particular Standing Order then they should take it to the Standing Orders Committee. But the Standing Order was followed as written. That was my ruling. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The fundamental point on which it is essential for this House to operate is the Standing Orders but we also have conventions. Under your ruling many Standing Orders can be abused in exactly the same way that Dr Cullen did last night. We rely on conventions and good faith in this House for this democracy to function. If the Speaker is to take a very narrow interpretation when it involves the Government but a very broad interpretation when it involves members of the Opposition then that in my view will break down the great traditions of this Parliament that enable it to operate effectively as the democratic institution of our nation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not rule; I merely counselled members to think carefully. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether there is a Standing Order that will allow me to make the comment I want to make but I feel that I am obliged to make it. I am a long-serving member of this House and indeed one who I think has some respect in it. I am concerned that what we have seen in the last 24 hours is an abuse of the Standing Orders. I respect this House absolutely and it gives me a lot of disappointment that I am here now making these points of order which I intend to continue with for some time. The point the Speaker made was absolutely right; it will bring the House into disrepute. The problem we have is that we as the Opposition have no other means of making the point that the Government took the opportunity to misuse the Standing Orders in a way that was never intended. The only way we can fight back is by doing exactly the same thing as that. Indeed the difference is that we are doing it within the Standing Orders. I am disappointed that I have been driven to this point but I intend to continue to do what I have been doing for some little time in order to drive the point home to the Government that what goes around in this place comes around. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. The point I was making is that it is a matter of debate. There has been considerable debate on it. Obviously members will make their judgment as will the public. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps we could resolve this issue. You have seen fit to provide counsel to myself and Mr Carter in respect of the use of the Standing Orders. I think it would help considerably if you saw fit to provide some counsel to the Leader of the House about his use of Standing Order 38. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The application of Standing Order 38 was in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is a question for comment by the public and by members of this House not by the Speaker. My role was to apply the Standing Orders as they are written. I have done that. If the Standing Orders are not acceptable to the members of this House then I suggest that the Standing Orders Committee should look at them. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 4. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for Standing Order 4 to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost as a consequence of the actions of the Leader of the House last evening to be set aside for Thursday 5 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 5. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 5. Is there any objection? There is; it will not be tabled. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table Standing Order 6 “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table Standing Order 6. Is there any objection? There is; it will not be tabled. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 7 “Functions of Standing Orders Committee”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for the 2½ hours that was lost last evening as a consequence of Dr Cullen’s not being able to provide the Minister required in accordance with the Standing Orders to the House. I think the date is important. The date that I was indicating for that time be set aside is on Tuesday 10 May. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that date. Is there any objection? There is. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 8. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 9 “Official report”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 10 “Custody of Journal and records”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the whole damn book and have it put on each member’s desk so that we can all study it at our leisure. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 pre-print of the part of the debate this afternoon when members addressed the granting of leave for matters not earlier contemplated by the rules which I have just received. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to sit on a members’ day so that the time that was lost from last evening’s business as a consequence of there being no Minister in the House as directed by Dr Cullen Leader of the House may be made up on Wednesday 11 May immediately following question time in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to speak in support of this particular point of order. It was my bill that members were almost able to complete— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What is the point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Seek leave. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave basically to support Nick Smith’s seeking of leave that time be made available on Wednesday 11 May to make up time so that members can complete the business that was intended to be completed last night. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier in the proceedings today a number of members who had interrupted a point of order were asked to leave the House. Dr Nick Smith quite audibly interrupted Sue Kedgley. I think that if that is the standard of behaviour that has been set earlier today Dr Smith deserves to go as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear Dr Nick Smith do that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Maybe you could invite Dr Smith to confirm whether he did it. I am sitting opposite him. I heard him call out to Sue Kedgley: “Just table it.” He quite audibly interrupted her during the point of order. You could ask him the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to Ms Kedgley that I am on my feet. I say to members that we are going from the sublime to the ridiculous and I will now caution members. Dr Smith has his first yellow card. He is a good sportsman so he knows what that means in association football. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I felt obliged to say that I did believe that in the circumstances Dr Smith was trying to assist me rather than to interrupt in a disorderly fashion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave quite specifically for Sue Kedgley’s bill which was not able to proceed last evening to now be considered by this House at this very moment it having been interrupted by the Government using the tactic and the abuse of Standing Order 38 by not requiring any Minister to be in the House at that time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I have some clarification that no one objected so that means that the bill can be considered? Does that mean immediately? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Was there objection? There was. I am sorry I did not hear it. There was objection I say to Mr Carter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was very clear that following my point of order in respect of Sue Kedgley’s bill you ruled quite clearly that no objection had been raised by Government members. No Government member jumped to his or her feet and took a point of order so my view is that the proper item at the top of the House’s agenda is—quite properly—the bill in the name of Sue Kedgley which is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Government does not object if members now move immediately to conclude the first reading of Ms Kedgley’s bill. 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed by leave from 6 April. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before the debate was interrupted the Hon Richard Prebble was speaking. He has 4 minutes and 55 seconds remaining if he wishes to take the call. He does not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the usual situation when a debate resumes is that a member picks up his or her allotted time and concludes and if the member is not here then he or she simply does not have that time available to them. But no one could have predicted that the Government was eventually going to grant leave for Mrs Kedgley’s bill to proceed. I wonder whether we might give Mr Prebble the opportunity should he come down to the House during the course of the debate before a vote is taken to have his 4 minutes and 55 seconds. It might also be useful if Mrs Kedgley was able to perhaps start this rather extraordinary debate notwithstanding her previous speech—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mrs Pettis that I know that and that member knows that other people have been booted out of the House this afternoon for interrupting points of order but I will not make a big deal of it because I know that she was just trying to help the House. I think it would be useful and I so seek leave for the Chair to recognise the mover of the bill so that we can all know exactly what it is all about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members that Ms Kedgley has already spoken to the bill. She can do so again only with the leave of the House. Is Ms Kedgley seeking leave to do that? 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Yes I would be happy to seek leave to give a very brief explanatory introduction because I have already given 10 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Whether it is granted is up to the House. Is there any objection to that— 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I wish to make a point of clarification before we put the question on the leave—as other members on the other side of the House quite regularly do. I point out that this debate actually gives a right of reply of 5 minutes at the end for Ms Kedgley and if she takes that now it will close the debate. I am quite happy if that occurs if the Opposition is as well. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to disabuse Mr Gosche but Ms Kedgley is seeking leave for additional time to speak to bring members up to speed given the extraordinary nature of this debate. If leave is granted then that extra time is not deducted off her final speech and in no way does it suggest that the debate would be shut down. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like to caution members about points of order. Standing Order 84(3) indicates that there is to be no comment at all during points of order. Now the House has allowed that in order that the person who takes the point of order can do so but in doing so that person must realise that he or she must not bring into the point of order any conjecture that will lead to disorder. So can we please have silence during points of order. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The leave that was sought was in order for us to move forward from a difficult position. Leave was sought by Nick Smith and then moved further by Gerry Brownlee to allow Sue Kedgley to make a contribution. The point that I want to make to the House is this. We are trying to move forward so that we can actually get back to the Government’s business and the Government has seen that as a sensible way forward. What we are now asking is that Sue Kedgley be given an extra 5 minutes or whatever time she needs—less than that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am aware of that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —and that Mr Prebble’s contribution follow if he comes down to the House. It is just to help the House move forward. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The point I raised for the benefit of the House is that Sue Kedgley has the right to make a reply and using it would close the debate. I wanted to make sure the House was aware of that. I am absolutely surprised that members are unaware of this debate and I am particularly surprised at members of the ACT party. I was here listening to the debate last night and I participated in it. The ACT party insisted upon the debate carrying on last night and I am absolutely amazed that ACT members do not know anything about it and are requiring Ms Kedgley to now— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now be seated. We are now getting into debating material. It is my understanding that Sue Kedgley has sought leave for an additional speech and it is up to the House as to whether it grants it. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not clear on the seeking of leave but I understood that leave was sought for Mr Prebble to have his time. I can advise the House that he is on his way from his office—not on a plane as Annette King suggested which was totally out of order during a point of order. He is on his way and he is here now. I am sure that Mr Prebble will be quite happy to take his call—hard fought for that it has been—and finish the speech that he tried to give last night. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard it as an outrage to suggest that I have gone on an aeroplane in order not to speak in this debate. I think that Annette King should think about that and withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: It was me. I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I call the Hon Richard Prebble. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I rise to speak to the Green member’s bill the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill and to say that like other members the ACT party’s reaction to flexible employment is very much in favour. When I read the title of the bill I was sympathetic. However when one reads the bill one can see that it is completely different. 
This bill sets out a bureaucratic procedure whereby somebody who has agreed to work for an employer and has signed up and completed an employment agreement can then write a letter saying: “I would like to work different hours.” and the employer is required to agree. The employer is even required—as one sees if one reads the bill carefully—to employ someone else to do the work so that the person can have flexible employment hours. If the employer disagrees the employee then has the right to go to the Employment Court. I just ask the Green Party members where they have been. Have they any idea of the expense and the red tape involved when an employer has to go off to the Employment Court just because someone has written such a letter? 
When one reads the bill further one discovers that the employee can basically do this every year. So every year he or she can write and say: “I’ve decided to change my hours—I’d like to work different hours.” and can demand that the employer employ someone else. So for example although the employee was hired to make sure the shop was open at 8 o’clock he or she can decide not to be there at 8 o’clock and the employer would have to employ someone else at that hour. The employee might instead like to work from 11 until 3 which are nice easy hours. The employee can then go to the Employment Court which will have to look at the matter and the Employment Court can fix the hours. I looked through the bill to see whether there was any clause that asked whether the employer could afford it and what the effect would be on the company—and members can see that the effect could be disastrous on many small businesses. There is no such provision. 
I listened very carefully to the Green MP’s speech last night. She told us that we should do this basically because the Europeans do it. Again one wonders where the Green MPs have been. We could have some debate in this House about whether the present high levels of employment are due to the changes made by Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas which I think is so or whether the present Government can take the credit. But there is no doubt about one thing—the reason the British have a higher level of unemployment than us is that even though they have the most flexible labour laws in Europe they are much more inflexible than ours. If we were to look at the Europeans that the Green MPs were citing we would see that they have in some countries up to 17 percent of the workforce who want to work out of work. The Green MPs are asking why we cannot join them. They are saying: “Wouldn’t that be great.” and that somehow we are out of step with the rest of the world. We are actually because we have more of our people working. 
From the ACT party’s point of view the only thing the Green MP got right was the name of the bill. If we really want to have flexible working hours we should have a freedom-to-contract bill. Any employer and any employee should be able to sit down freely without any interruption from the State and negotiate whatever hours time and conditions they want. If the Green Party really wants flexible employment then that is what it ought to do. Indeed we have Mr Tamihere’s word that the changes made by the Labour Government with the enthusiastic support of the Greens have actually put up the costs of employment. I will not repeat the words Mr Tamihere used when he described the changes the Government has made because most of them are unparliamentary. These changes which the Green Party wants to make would be at the expense of employment at the expense actually of flexible working hours and at the expense of greater prosperity. 
The Green Party does not appear to realise that the vast majority of firms in New Zealand—about 90 percent I understand—actually employ five people or less. The Green Party is saying that the State should fix everybody’s hours of work—what time they would start and what time they would finish. Even the Communists did not go that far. This is an appalling proposal. It would add costs and it is anti-employer and I think it is actually anti-worker anti-women and anti-New Zealand. It is totally contrary to our traditions and the Green Party needs to have a rethink. I say to the member that the ACT party most certainly will not be supporting this bill. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to give this contribution on behalf of my colleague Sue Bradford who was prepared to give it last night but cannot be here today. All of us in the Green Party are of course delighted that not only has Sue Kedgley’s member’s bill on flexible working hours been drawn from the ballot but also that the Government has seen fit to support it to a select committee. That is wonderful news. I certainly hope that Labour will go all the way and help us make sure that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill becomes law—if not in this Parliament then at least early in the next one. 
From both a worker’s and a parent’s perspective it is critical that the parents of babies and young children are given backing in law to allow them the ability to work shorter hours if they are required to. All parents and particularly mothers who have gone back to work when their babies have just been born or when their children are very young know how hard it is to cope with the dictates of full-time hours and inflexible working days. I have experienced the stress and tension of working a regular 40-hour-a-week job to support my family with two really young ones in childcare and two older ones at school as well. At the time I was lucky enough to have an employer who allowed me to start very early and to have a shortened lunch break so that I could leave by 3. But it was an utterly exhausting business and it would have been wonderful to have had the right to negotiate for shorter hours and/or more flexibility about when I actually worked. 
Many mothers and fathers are in this situation today as a higher than ever proportion of parents go out to work—often for economic reasons above all else. With the Government’s current massive emphasis on paid work as a solution to the problems of single parenthood it is just as well that it has seen fit to support this bill. If it had not the irony of the contradiction would have stuck in the craw somewhat. Solo parents in employment face a particularly tough time in trying to balance work childcare after-school care and all the work that still needs to happen once parents get home. If we are to keep advising and pushing people on to the domestic purposes benefit out into the employed workforce the least we can do here in Parliament is to give them the right to request reduced part-time or flexible hours from their employers. 
I would also note in speaking in support of this bill that there are particular jobs and professions that will particularly benefit from the bill’s application once it is passed. For example the Nurses Organisation has recently pointed out that it would help solve current nurse and midwife shortages if younger women in those professions were allowed to have more flexibility once they became parents as difficulties with childcare arrangements are often cited by them as reasons for leaving the profession. 
I am also pleased that my colleague Sue Kedgley has included a clause stipulating that parents of disabled children will be able to have the proposed new law apply until their child turns 18. This is very practical given the realities of life for working parents of children with even moderate impairments much less major ones. 
In a society that is so focused on all of us getting out to work we must maximise the possibilities of balance between the requirements of employers and the real life needs of our children our partners and ourselves. Paid parental leave is one critical part of this equation but so are measures such as a much higher minimum wage increased support for breastfeeding in the workplace and legislative encouragement for flexible working hours. While unions continue to do their best to improve conditions for their members in these respects this will never be enough at least not in the foreseeable future. With the impact of 1990s de-unionisation still with us all too many employees still do not have a union to bargain for them and even for those who do having a law like this will help enormously in achieving particular improvements for workers who are also parents of young and/or disabled children. 
I look forward to the day when we in New Zealand are mature enough to begin to match countries like some of those in Europe where employees have the legal right to request more flexibility in their working arrangements when they have young and/or disabled children. I hope this will happen before the end of 2005 and I wish my colleague’s bill speedy and successful progress through the House. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. If anything the fiasco we have just seen in the House demonstrates clearly that we cannot run on laws alone. We have had a very clear example in the House—when we take things to the letter of the law without taking into consideration the viewpoints of all people affected we will have a fiasco. 
United Future has been criticised for not supporting this bill going to a select committee because we are known as the family-friendly party. Let me assure those who are listening to this debate that this legislation is absolutely not family friendly. The scenario in this bill should relate to that of a normal working relationship whereby anybody who is negotiating for a job can speak to the prospective employer and discuss the hours he or she wishes to work as occurs already in many businesses throughout this country. 
Nobody would disagree with the scenario in this legislation but it has been brought about in such a legalistic manner. A poor old employer may have somebody come on to his or her payroll on the pretence of working let us say from midday until 3 p.m. then all of a sudden after 6 months the employee can knock on the employer’s door and demand that the working hours be negotiated. Sadly many people do that because they have no intention of working long term from 12 to 3. They get a foot in the door they know that the poor old employer will have to be dragged through the court system and negotiate and the employer ends up the loser. 
If we are talking about time with families as I have heard many speak about in this debate I say that all the reforms that were designed to give us more time with families I have seen go through over a number of years have in reality given us far less time with families. We are starting to work in a 24/7 society and I think that when we are in a situation whereby there is freedom of negotiation about employment by a willing employer and employee it is always far better. 
For a working family United Future’s income-splitting policy would achieve far more for those who want to stay at home and look after their children have more time with their family or whatever. There is an interesting scenario whereby in many families the other partner is forced into taking a job. In today’s society that may well be the male but it is often the female. When we sit down to work out how much better off with a second income those families are at the end of the day we must consider that there are often transport costs to get to work extra clothing costs involved in the job and extra meal costs because of the job—that can be because one of the partners comes home and is just so worn out after the day that he or she chooses to have takeaways or something else. Those are always extra costs. There is also the cost of day-care facilities and many of those other things. So when we work it through for a two-income working family and consider the work-life balance sometimes the few miserable extra dollars they get at the end of the day make one wonder if it is really worth it. 
I believe that although a lot of that legislation sounds fair in itself we are actually channelling people into a lifestyle that they have not chosen. I think that a lot of our legislation has actually taken choice away from families who do not want both parents working and who really want one of them to stay at home to raise their own children. United Future’s income-splitting policy would do far more to achieve a good work-life balance and far more to achieve the ability of one parent being able to go to their children’s sports matches and many of those other things that I have heard about in this debate. So United Future has chosen not to support this bill because in our opinion it is not family friendly. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of this bill. The Labour Party and the Progressive Party will support its referral to the select committee. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support the bill going through to the select committee. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all I would like to thank some of the speakers in the debate in particular Mark Gosche and Helen Duncan who spoke yesterday in support of this bill. They said that when the bill reached the select committee they would listen to the views of New Zealanders. I thank them for that. 
I expected Labour to support this bill because it has made many commitments to being a family-friendly party. Only yesterday or the day before Labour released a family-friendly policy in respect of the State services so it is only logical that Labour would support a bill that seeks to make life a little easier for parents with young children. I agree too with Helen Duncan that this bill should be part of a package of measures to make life easier for parents with young children and the Government has introduced many measures such as paid parental leave childcare increased subsidies etc. which we strongly support and which will complement this particular bill. 
I was surprised by Wayne Mapp’s suggestion that this bill was addressing a problem that does not exist. I wonder where Mr Mapp has been. There has been a long debate in the media in recent times about the extraordinary toll that trying to work full-time and juggle family responsibilities is taking on families today. Is he unaware of this debate that has been raging in the media? Has he not read the various reports that have been put out by for example the Council of Trade Unions and another one here by Victoria University and another one by the Department of Labour? All have put out reports. They have surveyed workers and have found that one of the No 1 issues of concern is the overload; the long hours people are working and the fact that they are under constant stress. This relentless pressure is having a debilitating effect on their families. They are able to spend less and less time with their families. It is corroding their relationships. They are missing out on key milestones in their children’s development. So Mr Mapp’s contention that this is not a problem in the workplace is quite bizarre and I suspect it suggests how out of touch he and the National Party are with social problems in New Zealand. It is extraordinary too that a party that claims to be family-friendly would oppose a simple piece of legislation that tries to make it easier for parents with young families. 
I utterly respect and accept that ACT would oppose this bill. After all ACT members have an ideology of always putting the needs of employers ahead of the needs of employees and they have never pretended to be family-friendly but United Future members do and New Zealand First members do. It is quite extraordinary; they came up with the usual tired old line that was used against paid parental leave and pay equity. They said they could not do that because it would pose such high costs to employers and that it would go against women employees because employers would be worried that it would increase their costs. That is what they said about the paid parental leave bill and other bills and it has not come about. 
This is a very modest bill. It is based on successful UK legislation which has not resulted in employers being taken to an employment tribunal. Nine out of 10 applications in the UK have been utterly successful. More than a million employees in England have successfully used this mechanism. I expect exactly the same thing to happen here. I expect it will be mutually satisfactory for the employer and the employee and that employees will realise that when we have more flexible working hours they will have a more satisfied motivated and productive workforce. So I expect employers to get fully behind this bill just as families and employees already have. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill read a first time. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill makes three main amendments to the Social Security Act of 1964 to put into effect Budget 2004 decisions. Three areas are covered: changes to the accommodation supplement changes to the calculation of benefit stand-downs and changes to section 70A of the Act to encourage more sole parents to establish the paternity of their children and apply for child support. In relation to the accommodation supplement the bill will be beneficial to residents of retirement villages who have a “licence to occupy” tenure and who meet the other accommodation supplement eligibility criteria. This proposal was widely supported by submitters and the change comes into force on 1 July 2005. 
In relation to changes to the calculation of benefit stand-downs the bill is likely to help approximately 4500 benefit applicants a year who work for part of the year such as seasonal workers by enabling them to elect a 52-week or 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down period. That change will come into force on 1 May 2005. I want just in passing to thank Mr Rick Barker and Mr Mark Peck both of whom have for a long time advocated on behalf of seasonal workers in the meat industry in particular. Those workers have found it very difficult to cope with the fact that they often earn what is seen as a relatively high income but then they have a relatively long period of lay-off before they start the season again. That is particularly the case in Southland and in the Hawke’s Bay. I know that those workers will be very appreciative of the hard work of Mr Peck and Mr Barker in relation to the changes for workers in their industry albeit that those changes will affect people across a wide range of seasonal occupations. 
The changes to section 70A of the Act will mean that where the Government believes the State should assist sole parent beneficiaries a parent should also contribute financially. I will extend that of course to say that I think parents should contribute emotionally and financially to their children throughout their lives. The majority of sole parent beneficiaries 85 percent of them as at 26 November 2004 have established who the other parent is in law and have applied for child support. The bill further encourages sole parent beneficiaries to name the other parent of the child in law or apply for child support. The bill provides for a further reduction of $6 per beneficiary for those who are required to name but who have not named the other parent in law or who have not applied for child support when required to do so. The reduction will occur only where the sole parent beneficiary has been given a reasonable opportunity to reconsider his or her decision. 
The bill provides for two additional exemptions from the reduction of the benefit payable to sole parents where they fail to meet their obligations such as naming the other parent or applying for child support. The two additional exemptions apply where first of all the beneficiaries or their children would be at risk of violence should they take steps to name the other parent of a child or apply for child support and secondly where there are compelling circumstances for the beneficiaries’ failure or refusal to carry out their obligations and child support is unlikely to be collected from the other parent in the foreseeable future. Examples of that would include refugees and asylum seekers in circumstances where the other parent of the child is overseas missing or deceased and cases where the other parent of the child is deceased in this country. Carers of children who are not their own in circumstances where the natural mother has not established paternity would also be included under that exemption. I say to the House that I think those exemptions are very necessary. We do have to have criteria that will cover people who are in circumstances where the fathers of the children simply should not be in touch with their children or with the families because they are not fit to be parents in the first place or people who are in a circumstance whereby they are simply not able to be part of this regime because the other parent is deceased. 
From June last year to March this year there was a 15 percent reduction in the number of section 70A beneficiaries. This bill builds on that success and reinforces it and those changes come into force on 1 July 2005. I say once again to the House that the changes are part of a package of changes that for the first time has seen the turning back of the numbers of people who are not declaring the name of the father of their child. Those changes are effective because they give a financial incentive for someone to cooperate but also because we are getting out and working with people so that they understand what is going on here and have begun to tell us the name of the father of their child. I stress that because I know there are people in the House who think the only thing to be done here is to have a financial incentive as they would like to describe it placed on these beneficiaries. That clearly has not worked in the past. The numbers climbed right throughout the period when the financial penalties were in place. It has only been by the introduction of a comprehensive approach including financial penalties that we have seen the numbers drop from their peak of a little over 20000 to a little over 16000 now. I intend to ensure that they continue to drop. 
Measures to assist those beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction have therefore been quite important to us. We have trained case managers and required them to get out and talk with beneficiaries. Our early intervention programme has been very successful. Case managers provide information to pregnant single women before they even get on to the sickness benefit as to how to establish paternity. Sole parent beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction imposed on them receive a letter that confirms the reduction so that they know what is going on. They get a fact-sheet about how to apply for legal aid. All those kinds of changes along with the financial penalty are what is making the difference. 
Other assistance to sole parent beneficiaries is important as well. In addition to the specific assistance offered to sole parent beneficiaries who have a section 70A reduction imposed on them case managers provide enhanced case management to all people on the domestic purposes benefit. Case managers work with clients to develop personal development and employment plans in order to help them to prepare for their eventual return to work and I want to stress that. People who come on to the domestic purposes benefit are normally there for about 3½ years. We do not want people who come on to the domestic purposes benefit to wait until their child is 6 or 14. We want them to work even before they come on to the benefit on the assumption that they will return to work when that is appropriate. They have childcare responsibilities obviously. If they are dealing with children and there is a large number in the household it may be appropriate for the person to draw the domestic purposes benefit and look after those children. But even if that is what people are doing they need to be preparing for their eventual return to work when it is appropriate and that is what we are doing. I stress that because I have noticed throughout the debate on this bill an enormous amount of ignorance about the significant steps that have been put in place to assist those people to return to work and I have not heard one single good idea proposed that is not already in place. I think it is worth reminding people that those things are there now. 
Other amendments are contained in the bill. It also makes a number of other changes to the Act to reflect current policy and practice and to update terminology. Those changes come into force the day after the date on which the bill receives royal assent. I thank everybody in the House who has been involved with the bill. I know there is contention about the changes to section 70A of the Act and I am sure those changes will be the substance of the debate that will take place now. But my understanding is that everybody supports those changes because they can see that although the bill may not go as far as they want it is a worthwhile step. I understand that people do support the benefit stand-down changes and the accommodation supplement changes and I thank them for their support on those matters. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like first to thank the Minister the Hon Steve Maharey for mentioning the fact that many members of the House have put a tremendous amount of effort work and cooperation into getting the bill through. There were a few snide comments in the Minister’s speech but that is of course what we expect from Mr Maharey. 
I have long been a critic of some of the piecemeal attempts to deal with the issue of what we will call for today’s debate “childless fathers”. I make no apology for the fact that the National Party is supporting this bill even though it is seriously flawed to various extents. We support it for a couple of reasons; first because we agree with the retirement villages provision to bring the situation for often the elderly living in retirement villages into line with modern-day practice. And yes we support the provision of particular rules to make it fairer for seasonal workers to be able to do more seasonal work without losing benefits—or in other words being discouraged from working. We agree with that. 
We agree that very significant steps should be made to ensure that every child in this country has a father. We think that the steps brought forward by the Minister which were agreed to by a majority of the select committee and no doubt will be agreed to by a majority of the House in relation to section 70A of the Social Security Act which is the measly $6 a week to be taken off someone’s benefit when she refuses to name the fathers of her children—and I use the plural because that is what we are often dealing with—is in fact a disgrace. It is a disgrace for various reasons. 
I make no apology for being in favour of the domestic purposes benefit. I make no apology to those fathers—those men who call themselves fathers—who write to me and email me and frankly abuse me because I stand up for the rights of responsible parents. I say that every child starts off with two parents and wherever possible those two parents need to be responsible for their children until those children are of adult age. Even then as many parents and many of us in this House would say one never ever is not responsible for one’s children no matter how old one is—probably until the day that they become responsible for us in our old age. 
In fact to me it is a very personal situation. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that in my family I had a grandfather who left my grandmother with seven children and no money—not one bit. He went off overseas. There was no domestic purposes benefit there was nothing. I would not stand in this Parliament or be part of any Parliament that would say we would do that to our people. That is why I support the bill. 
I have stood in this House and given speeches about this and I have been abused by various people in the House and told that I am cynical. I find that a disgraceful statement. I feel very strongly about this. When I hear of fathers who say: “I can’t get access to my child so I am not going to pay.”—so what? Access is a child’s right. I say to Mr Maharey that yes I know there are dreadful fathers. As he said there are some fathers who are not fit to be fathers and have no right to be. Those were his words. Yes but every child has the right to know his or her father. When we take away that right we take that right not from the father we take it from the child. 
I find that attitude of: “Oh you’re just going to impose financial penalties. That’s being cruel and heartless.” utterly ignores the fact that these children are in almost all cases the children of our poor. Unfortunately the attitude we are getting in this society is of fathers who are there for the fun times but not for the bad times and the tough times. They are running off to Australia. So many mothers have contacted me and said: “We are trying to get the Inland Revenue to get these fathers to pay for their children.” What are they told? They are told that the Inland Revenue Department cannot help them or they are told that the Inland Revenue Department will not tell them what it will do. 
I want to read to the House a statement from a woman whom I will rename “Mary” because I want to protect her privacy unless she says otherwise. Mary has been trying for years to get child support from her ex-husband who lives in Australia. Mary now has cancer. It is of grave of concern to her—which I think is putting it pretty mildly—that her partner is now having to support her children and she cannot work. 
Despite Mary supplying the Inland Revenue Department with addresses contact numbers and the times and dates of her husband’s arrivals and departures in and out of New Zealand neither the Inland Revenue Department here or in Australia has been able to make her ex-husband pay any child support to her. He has the money to travel around the world but he will not give any to his kids. 
Mary of course is not on the domestic purposes benefit so the only way in which she can get any help with her children is through either her family or the father of her children. She has supplied the authorities with her ex-husband’s website address which apparently shows that he contracts to Australian Government departments. But the authorities either cannot or do not have the will to follow up on him. A copy of that information was given to the Child Support unit and to the Inland Revenue Department earlier this year but nothing so far has happened. And that is what happens! 
We have heard at various stages that attempts are being made to bring those men into line. They are almost always men; we know that some women are involved but mostly they are men. We know that attempts happen but the attempts are too small. We know that in 2000 a reciprocal agreement was signed between Australia and New Zealand and we all support that. But that agreement has to be enforced. The people who are responsible parents must be supported—not by doling out money to them but by actually helping them to provide for their children and by saying to those children that even if their fathers do not have the gumption and the courage to be their fathers we think they should have. At least those children should know who their fathers are. 
If a child has a father who is a murderer that child should know who that father is. If children do not know their fathers they do not know themselves and that is a tragedy not just for those children but for the grandchildren and for generations to come. Recently I was in the office of my colleague Nick Smith in Nelson. He had there a list of all the people who had come to Nelson on ships in 1842. I was able to go through that list quickly and say to him that my ancestors’ names were there. They had come to New Zealand in 1842. I was able to do that for one reason: I know my forebears; I know where they come from; I know who I am. I am not sitting around looking at someone and saying: “Well maybe that’s my father.” I am not looking around and saying: “Maybe that’s my brother.”—because I know my family. Why is it that in this society we tolerate the fact that those people do that to their children? If that is not child abuse I do not know what is. It certainly is! It is a disgrace and we need to bring it to an end. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I should more correctly during the second reading debate have made the acknowledgment I am about to make but as chairperson of the Social Services Committee which had the purview over this bill before it returned to the House I would like to acknowledge the members of that committee. They put in a great deal of thought and consideration some of which we have heard from the member who has just resumed her seat. I would like to acknowledge Dr Muriel Newman who was the deputy chairperson of the committee Paul Adams Sue Bradford Judith Collins the Hon Taito Phillip Field Bill Gudgeon Moana Mackey Dr Lynda Scott and the Hon Judith Tizard. I also thank all advisers and committee staff who assisted in the passage of our work with this particular bill. 
I would like to talk about two of the other provisions that are quite important in the bill. The bill extends eligibility for an accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy tenure and who meet the other qualifying criteria for the accommodation supplement including an income and cash assets test. From 1 July this year it is expected that several hundred retirement village residents will qualify for an accommodation supplement of on average between $37 and $54 a week. 
A stand-down period of between 1 and 10 weeks applies to most new applicants before their benefits commence. The stand-down is currently calculated on the applicant’s income in the 26 weeks before becoming entitled to the benefit and on the number of children in the applicant’s care. From 1 May 2005 all benefit applicants will be able to elect either a 52-week or a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down periods. At the moment some seasonal workers who work for part of the year can be disadvantaged by the 26-week assessment. This change will benefit approximately 4500 people a year by reducing the length of their initial stand-down period and it will also reduce disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work. 
I am pleased with the progress this bill has made in reaching its third reading. I look forward to its speedy dispatch in becoming law. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I was touched by the words given by Judith Collins about how important parents and family are to her. I likewise support her views—very much so. 
In fact as I listened to her I thought about my own upbringing where our parents and grandparents were present where we had aunties and uncles everywhere and where we sort of ran out of room for places to sleep. Not too long ago just before Christmas I went back to the East Coast to attend a funeral. I took one of my grandsons with me and also a little dustpan and broom. My grandson asked me: “What’s that for grandfather?”. I said: “Oh I’m just going to sweep the room of our hotel.” So we got to the area where we were to attend the funeral and drove down the road to where an old concrete shed stood. My grandson looked at me and asked: “Where are we going?”. I said: “Just to our hotel.” Unfortunately for us—or fortunately for him—the old doorway was all boarded up. The building was just an old concrete shed where our families had lived and slept. He asked: “Are we going to stay there tonight?”. I said: “Yes but we can’t get in because it’s on council property at this stage and I don’t want to be charged with breaking and entering.” But that was the kind of spirit that was generated where families were close and where both parents grandparents and aunties and uncles were there to support us. 
If the figures given by Judith Collins in her press release are correct they suggest that many more people than are known about have absconded and are now resident across the Tasman. The present system of international border control may need attending to. However the lack of information is the main factor that allows fathers and in some cases mothers to default and leave the responsibility of financial support to the taxpayer. We can debate figures but this still will not alleviate the problem or produce a solution to the issue of fatherless children. 
We must hold the parents responsible unless we want a situation similar to what has happened in Romania where many children are being cared for in orphanages. That would be the extreme case. New Zealand is not a Third World nation but in some cases one might think so. To have an environment of balance stability and strong family orientation there need to be laws in place that will ensure that children’s welfare is paramount. Short of being a do-gooder I ask if there is any other way this problem can be eclipsed. New Zealand First will support this bill with provisos as stated in our minority report but we also remind the Government that the State cannot carry the social ills of this country forever. New Zealand First advises strong and effective laws that will promote accountability so that our children and families grow up in an environment that will include good parenting and life skills for future generations. This situation is an indictment on the communities we all live in and the ball has bounced back to within the walls of Parliament. 
I ask members to hark back to the policies that have been legislated for thus far and see what we have come up with. Have they been for the benefit of our families? Are these policies working? If we have organisations that are not fully functional how can the laws be implemented? New Zealand First lays down the challenge to this Labour-led Government to get it right. If not New Zealand First will ensure that this will happen. I remind members that the bill’s purpose is to put into effect as part of a broader package of initiatives measures to encourage more sole parent beneficiaries to establish paternity and apply for child support. I applaud the Minister’s foresight in helping mothers to prepare for an independent future. Flaws there may be but a beginning that has a positive future is a good beginning. 
Parents have the responsibility. I spoke with my son who manages a swimming pool in one of the towns in Waikato. He told me about a lady who goes there every morning to do her swimming training. She mentioned a young boy whose father left his mother and the child was adopted out. Many many years later this young man married and a family reunion was held. He introduced himself as so-and-so. An uncle pulled him aside took him away and told him who he really was. Unknown to this young man he had married his own sister. How sad. How sad. Now we see the responsibility that the father should have taken. 
Parenting is the utmost responsibility in every land in this world. If parents do not carry out their responsibilities as parents what do we have? As Judith Collins said the poor are mainly those who come from parents who have lost their parents or whose parents have denied them the opportunity to be brought up in a good functional home. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. It is interesting to reflect that as a Parliament we should treat child welfare as being of paramount importance. If we think about children and what it is that damages kids we now know that welfare harms children if it goes on too long we know that not having two parents harms children and we also know that for children not to know who their parents are damages them and damages them forever after they become adults. Previous speakers have acknowledged that. It seems to me that of all the responsibilities that Governments have the laws that deal with children are the most important responsibility. When one thinks about that and then looks at the bill that is in front of us one can say only that what the Minister for Social Development and Employment has delivered to Parliament is a sad reflection of the fact that he has not taken his responsibilities seriously enough in this area. 
When the Minister finally delivered this bill to Parliament he mentioned that 20000 women had refused to name the father of their child. He has known about this problem for 5 years. When he first learned about the problem 12000 women were refusing to name the fathers of their children. As he said that number had grown to 20000. The largest reason why women do not name the fathers of their children is not that they do not know who they are—they do—but that welfare fraud and welfare abuse is going on. Those women and their partners decide that they will not name the father so that he will not have to pay child support. I remind the House that if a father is named and has to pay child support he can have to pay up to almost half a million dollars over the time that the child is his financial responsibility. Until the child is 18 years old the father has to pay child support. Any man who is given the opportunity to pay under the table—to give the partner $100 per week or whatever it works out at—will be tempted by that unless the law is strong. The Minister knows that the law in that area has been extremely weak. All I can say is that the Minister’s lack of action and the fact that he has not brought into this House a bill that will fix the problem properly shows that he as a Minister is soft on fraud. 
It is interesting to note that we have been having a debate this week about the descriptions that Mr John Tamihere made of some of his colleagues in the Labour Party. About Mr Maharey Mr Tamihere said that he was smarmy and very clever but that he had no substance. When I look at this bill I see that it typifies a Minister of no substance. This is one of the most serious problems that New Zealand faces. Thirty-five thousand children do not know who their father is because the Government colludes with women not to name the father. Labour has delivered to this House today a bill that now gives those fathers who do not want to be named and the mothers who do not want to name them two new exemptions. It gives to any man—any casual partner who does not want to accept responsibility for raising his child or any man who wants to be a dad but who does not want to go through the child support system—two new excuses not to be named. 
If a man tells the child’s mother that he will beat her up if she names him then she will not have to name him. We already know that in that area false allegations of violence are rife. It is one of the biggest problems the Family Court faces. We already know that around New Zealand there are thousands and thousands of court orders against men who are not violent because all that a woman has to do is to claim a man is violent. Because we have had some terrible tragedies whereby people who were claimed to be violent have gone out and committed the most terrible crimes there is a very very low test for violence. Now we will find that many casual partners who do not want to pay anything will simply say that they will beat their partner up. The level of violence—perceived violence or violence being used against women—will grow. The other point the Minister made was about the other new exemption for fathers who are unlikely to pay child support. All that a man has to do is to say that he will not pay up and he will be excused. 
It is really worrying for in particular members of the Opposition and for members of Parliament who are worried about the issue of children not having their dad named on their birth certificate that those two new exemptions mean that the numbers will be hidden. We will no longer know exactly what is going on in that area. The Minister has already claimed that the number of women who do not name the father of their child has gone down from 20000 to 16000. The question that I have is: does that mean that those 4000 women all named the fathers and that the fathers will now start to pay child support or is it that the majority of them—3600 or whatever—have claimed exemptions under those two new areas? I do not know whether that is the case. I have put in parliamentary questions already but I do not know whether the Government will tell me. So I worry that this bill provides a way for the Labour Government to actually hide what is going on in this really important area. 
Bill Gudgeon raised a very very serious issue just before. Under the Labour Government’s thoughts on all this we will end up with children who are brothers and sisters first cousins or whatever marrying each other because they will not know of that relationship. Whenever the issue is raised in Parliament of children not knowing the identity of their father it is quite often picked up on talkback radio and then we hear those terrible terrible calls where a woman may call in and say that she does not know who her father is that she has spent her whole life trying to find out and that her mother will not tell her. The woman’s mother hides it and the woman says she is not whole. I think to myself that we are a Parliament and we make the laws but here we are passing a law that the Minister has had 5 years to sort out. I ask myself whether I can put my hand on my heart and say to those people out there who are worried about the fact that children do not know who their dads are that the bill we are passing today will fix that problem. I have to say that I cannot say that. This law will not fix that problem. This law may hide the problem. This law will not ensure that the problem of people who want to avoid having their names on their children’s birth certificates or who want to avoid paying child support will be fixed. This law will not fix that. Nor will this law allow for that other group of men who want their names to be on the birth certificate and who want to be dads to have that recognition. This bill will not fix that problem either. 
It is a sad day for New Zealand when we face a serious serious problem and we have a Labour Government that fails in its responsibility to give us decent legislation that will solve the problem. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this bill. I also commend Judith Collins for the speech she gave in this House because I heard the heartbeat of a mother as she spoke and I think many others also heard that heartbeat. No doubt many were touched when she made mention of her grandfather who left his seven children with no money. I think the issue that possibly struck a chord with some in this House was that of the family having no money. I want to think of and meditate on that for a moment. In reality today with much of the social engineering that goes on in legislation the issue of money is not as relevant as it was in the time that her grandmother faced that issue. 
But as one who is proud to stand up as a married man a father of four children and a grandfather of 2½ grandchildren—one is still cooking in the oven—I believe that we men have a tremendous responsibility to stand up and be responsible for what we are and that is men and fathers. Yet I have seen in this House legislation that has pulled down and even mocked those who dare to stand up and say that a relationship is important. I have always said and will always continue to say that I am a generational politician. I am very tired of seeing laws come in that focus on one generation—one particular lifestyle. Where are the laws to build the very unit that Judith Collins’ grandmother had pulled apart on her? 
Let me clarify something here. I would never dare to stand and judge why people in a relationship part company. I see many things in society—many things that we have put in place—that make it too easy for us men to walk away. I think one of the major changes was when no-fault divorce came in. I have heard and understand the reasoning for it but it made it just that little bit easier for men to walk away from a responsibility that we should seriously give consideration to. 
Sometimes when we get caught up in issues I believe we fail to ask the right question. I have felt for the Minister of Police in this House as he has been questioned—in many cases I believe unfairly—on the policing issues in this country and on the shortage of police. I am yet to hear one person stand up in this House and ask the real questions on why the crime rate is increasing. I believe that the crime rate is increasing rapidly because fathers are not taking their responsibility to raise the children whom they are responsible for. If we can begin to focus again on the responsibility of being a parent and if we can begin to put things into place that will help parents to do their job better I do not think we will need an increase in the number of police; I think we will see a decline in crime. 
This bill does not assist the establishment of paternity and this is an issue on which United Future would like to see more extensive work done that recognises that the law needs to support the right of children to access information about who their father and mother are. All members relate I am sure to the situation of seeing that faults or habits that we thought were our parents beginning to develop in us as we age. It is quite scary. Even the medical profession is starting to recognise that things are hereditary. If for no other reason children deserve to know who their fathers and mothers are so that at least they can find out areas in their own lives that they will need to work on. United Future wants to acknowledge that establishing paternity is not just about catching dead-beat dads but also about fathers who wish to be involved with their children but who are being denied that by the mothers who want no potential involvement by them. This situation needs to be recognised in law. We are pleased to see the Law Commission is due to report shortly on this DNA testing issue and await significant change to what has been a problematic and at times damaging state of affairs for mothers fathers and children. 
We understand there will be contention over the exemptions to the section 70A penalty that this bill argues. Currently the law allows exemptions to naming if a child was conceived through— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.