Volume 635 Week 31 - Wednesday 15 November 2006 
Volume 635 Week 31 - Wednesday 15 November 2006 
[Volume:635;Page:6489] 
Wednesday 15 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Local Government and Environment Committee to have authority to meet in Australia from 27 November to 1 December 2006 and to adopt such procedures and practices as are suitable for the conduct of its business. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Privilege 
Reflection on the Conduct of a Member 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised with me as a matter of privilege an email newsletter Robson-On-Politics e-news published on the  
Scoop  
website of 1 November 2006. The newsletter discusses the role of the United Future party as a support party for the Government. It examines the position of the party on various issues including alcohol and tobacco. In his newsletter Mr Robson states: “The liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne as with that of the tobacco has always meant that he has faithfully delivered his vote for their interests”. 
Standing Order 400(n) establishes that the House may treat as a contempt reflections on “the character or conduct of a member … in the member’s capacity as a member of the House”. Its purpose is to protect members going about the business of the House from unfounded scurrilous allegations of serious impropriety or corruption. To allege that a member is under the control of someone outside the House is a reflection against that member. To make such a statement in the House would not be in order. An allegation that an industry has supported a member in order to obtain his or her vote cast in the House could certainly be taken to be an allegation that a member has been dictated to by an outside body. 
The fact that a matter is out of order does not of itself establish a contempt. The allegation made can reasonably be interpreted as directly reflecting on Mr Dunne’s character and conduct as a member of the House. However to constitute a contempt the reflection on Mr Dunne must also be shown to carry with it an implication that Mr Dunne’s relationship with the liquor industry or the tobacco industry is corrupt or otherwise improper. I am satisfied that to allege that Mr Dunne has “faithfully delivered his vote” as a result of support from the industries concerned could carry such an implication. Whether or not it actually does is for the Privileges Committee and ultimately the House to decide. Accordingly I have determined that the statement in the newsletter does involve a question of privilege in that it may constitute a reflection on the character or conduct of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House. Consequently the question of privilege stands referred to the Privileges Committee. 
Questions to Ministers 
Police—Public Confidence 
1. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received on public confidence in the New Zealand Police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen two recent reports. The first is the State Services Commission survey of New Zealanders’ confidence in the integrity of State servants when delivering services. The New Zealand Police came out at No. 1 in the survey at 74 percent ahead of other organisations such as the armed forces or political parties which came last. The second report was released last week. New Zealand has now reached No. 1 along with Finland and Iceland on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. A corruption-free police force is something we can be proud of. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the Minister’s answer to the primary question what reports has she seen in relation to a lack of trust in the New Zealand Police to act independently? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is a lot of interest in this answer. I read the appalling comments made by the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash in this morning’s  
Dominion  
Post whereby he attempted to get off paying the GST the National Party owes from misspending around $100000 of taxpayers’ money and receiving 12.5 percent more election advertising than it was entitled to by attacking the integrity and independence of the New Zealand Police. I believe that that was a deliberate attempt to subvert any possible future police action. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police found a prima facie case against the Prime Minister a prima facie case against the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and a prima facie case against the Minister for Social Development and Employment yet mysteriously and apparently without any political pressure decided not to press any charges in complete contrast to their decision to charge my colleague Mr Ardern for a minor incident involving a tractor and my colleague Dr Smith for a breach of a law that was subsequently changed; can she tell the House whether she might have noticed just a small discrepancy in the way the police have treated those cases? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No there is no discrepancy. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was heard in silence. We will have the Minister heard in silence. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. The police make decisions on who will be prosecuted every day of the week. They do that with fairness and honesty. For example the police decided not to prosecute—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure you can anticipate the point of order. You did say that the reply would be heard in silence. I heard Gerry Brownlee call out not once but twice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to please show courtesy to each other when they ask questions and when questions are answered. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The police make decisions on whom they will prosecute every day of the week and have done so for generations. For example they decided not to prosecute the National Party for not paying the GST—the overexpenditure—on election expenditure. Why? Because they did not know whom to charge because no one would own up! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is inappropriate for the Minister to mention in her answer a matter that is essentially operational. What is more it is inappropriate for the Minister in her answer to say something that is patently untrue. There has been no breach of any law by the National Party. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: On the latter point the police did indeed inquire into matters. Because there was no written contract or documentary evidence they did not know whether to charge the National Party in Parliament or the National Party outside. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that Ministers’ answers to questions are supposed to be given in a way that is commensurate with the public good surely it is inappropriate for Ministers to answer in a way that if it is not untruthful leads to debate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If both questions and answers were ruled out on the basis that they could lead to debate we might as well cut out question time immediately and go to orders of the day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. As members know it is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of questions or answers and statements made therein. That was a matter of debate not a matter of order. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister consider that public confidence in the police would be enhanced if the traffic service was to be split off as a separate agency thus enabling the police to concentrate on catching criminals and those who do not pay their bills and on keeping families and communities safe? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The issue of whether we should decouple the police in terms of traffic and general policing is the matter of a review by the State Services Commission and that is due for report in March next year. However having said that I say policing in New Zealand also involves road policing and road policing means not just issuing traffic tickets but actually apprehending criminals on the road in their cars when they undertake illegal traffic actions. The police pick up many people through that method. 
Ron Mark 
: In light of that answer does the Minister not agree that one of the issues that New Zealand First has raised in the inquiry that has been conducted by the State Services Commission as part of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government surrounds the loss of confidence by the public in the police because of what it sees as a deviation from the police’s primary function—that being fighting crime and lawlessness—and an overly heavy-handed concentration on quota ticketing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think it is fair to say that that has been the perception. Interestingly enough the number of tickets issued by the New Zealand Police has dropped for the last 2 years. I do believe there is far more confidence in the police than there has been for some time and that is reflected in surveys but the review will take place and decisions will be made after that. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What other reports has the Minister seen in relation to police independence? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen comments again by Dr Brash—but also repeated today by Mr Brownlee—where he claims that the police prosecute National MPs but not Labour MPs. I have to say first of all that that is a scurrilous attack on police integrity. It is also wrong in fact. Dr Brash claimed as did Mr Brownlee that the police prosecuted Nick Smith. They did not. The charges were laid by the Solicitor-General and he not the police prosecuted him. This is the same Solicitor-General who provided the legal opinion on election spending to the Auditor-General. In my view the attack on the police by National is a blatant attempt to get off the corrupt hook it is hanging on. 
Stadium Auckland—World Cup 2011 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she said of the proposed Auckland waterfront stadium: “I just favour whatever can be built within the timeframe available to do the best credit we can for the country.” did she mean that there should be no limits to the expense incurred on behalf of the nation’s taxpayers; if not what did she mean? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister meant what she said. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm yesterday’s statement made by the chairman of Fletcher Building Dr Roderick Deane: “If it was to proceed then stage one it has been indicated to us would be on a cost reimbursable basis.”; and will the Prime Minister tell the House just what arrangements have been made with Fletcher Building to date? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It had already been said publicly I think before the Prime Minister said that that if the waterfront stadium proceeded the platform construction would need to be on an open-book basis because there is simply not time to proceed with a full tender. However the second stage the building of the stadium on top of that platform can be done through a proper tendering process. 
Keith Locke 
: How can giving Aucklanders only 2 weeks to decide on such a hugely expensive project be consistent with section 82 of the Local Government Act which says that affected residents must have their views properly heard before a local authority makes a decision; and why is the Government overriding both its own Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter point I thank Dr Smith for his interjection. Mr McCully has already written to Mr Mallard to support special legislation for the Eden Park option. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question asked why Mr Cullen and the Government took the position not why the National Party took its position. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The reason for my reply is quite a simple one. In the case of both the options before Auckland at the moment it seems likely that special legislation will be needed to override the Resource Management Act. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The main thrust of my question was on the Local Government Act. The Minister did not reply to the overriding— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a useful reminder for all members that supplementary questions should contain only one question. Ministers in reply can in fact reply to any of whatever questions are asked. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement made by Dr Deane in relation to the platform for the proposed waterfront stadium: “It would not be on the basis of a fixed price. That’s because of the risks involved and the uncertainties and the toughness of the timeframe.”; and can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plans to enter into a contract that would see all of the costs associated with the risks the uncertainties and the toughness of the time frame carried by taxpayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The statement made by Dr Deane in fact mirrored a statement made by Mr Mallard publicly last week so there is nothing new in that statement. In terms of the risks and the risk sharing of course Eden Park does not have a fixed design does not have a fixed cost does not have a budget and does not have a source of funding. 
Keith Locke 
: What consideration has the Government given to the Auckland City district plan and how will the Government build a 37 metre high stadium when the district plan covering that area prescribes a maximum height of 15 metres—that is less than half of the height of the planned stadium—and when the neighbouring residents were given an assurance that that would be the maximum height? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is one reason why indeed there would need to be legislation. But equally if the member cares to look at the Eden Park option he will find that it is almost certain that it will need to be higher than that limit as well. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in the $120 million estimate for the platform announced by Mr Mallard in light of the absence of a fixed-price contract and the fact that the costs associated with the risks the uncertainties and the toughness of the time frame will not be met in any way by a contractor appointed by the Government without any tender process? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think somewhat more confidence than in the original estimate of $150 million for Eden Park which has already got to $387 million and may end up being a good deal more than that with probably—let us be realistic—the risk being borne by the Government. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of her Minister of Finance that Mr Mallard’s estimated price tag of $500 million for a waterfront stadium could rise; if so by how much would it have to rise before the Government decided that the project was not such a smart idea? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I happen to be fully briefed on what the Minister of Finance said and what he said was that both projects could rise in cost. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement from the chairman of Fletcher Building that a fixed-price contract was unacceptable and a cost reimbursable basis acceptable to the company because “that would minimise the risk for Fletcher Building”; and can she therefore confirm that the Government intends that all of the risk should be carried by taxpayers and ratepayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The reference is only to the platform building project which will be done on an open-book basis but I remind the member again—I am sorry to be repetitious—that in the case of both projects there are not full detailed design projects; in the case of both projects there are not completed final costs; in the case of both projects there is not a source of funding; and in the case of both projects there is not a budget. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister Trevor Mallard who stated today that Eden Park is “a poor second option it shows a lack of imagination it shows a city that doesn’t have a vision but it might be that that’s what Aucklanders want.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I come back to what the Prime Minister says. She wants a stadium that will make Auckland and New Zealand proud. We are awaiting the results of the Auckland consultative process. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether any of those questions just asked of her were put by National when Murray McCully met with Trevor Mallard? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The impression I have from reports is that Mr McCully is quite an enthusiastic supporter—indeed a supporter also of the waterfront stadium. But that member coming from the East Coast Bays district I assume he has some residual loyalty to the North Harbour option as well. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a copy of page 10 of the central area section of the Auckland district plan which shows a maximum height of 15 metres in the area where the proposed stadium would go. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change—APEC Summit 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he be raising the issue of climate change in his discussions with other foreign and trade ministers at the APEC summit this week; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will he be seeking support from his APEC colleagues for the position that a precondition to any trade deal with OECD countries is that they sign up to an international binding greenhouse gas reduction treaty such as the Kyoto Protocol; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because the issues are treated as somewhat separate and of course environmental issues come into play at least as much with non-OECD countries as they do with OECD countries in terms of trade discussions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What discussions has he had with the non-OECD members of APEC about the likelihood of their ever agreeing to carbon reduction targets if the US and Australia do not and is that not a suitable subject for a regional cooperation forum that includes some of the fastest-growing countries in the world to address? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not specifically briefed on the first part of that question. I can say that obviously it is desirable looking forward beyond the first conference of parties period for Kyoto that we see a more broadly based and inclusive agreement internationally and it is useful I think to see that the aspirant for the National Party leadership is now fully supportive of matters to address climate change issues. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that right from the very beginning of the negotiations that led to Kyoto a precondition of the developing countries taking targets was that the OECD countries should demonstrate progress and how does he expect them to ever take responsibility if the United States and Australia do not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is always easy for countries to say “I won’t do something unless everybody else does the same thing.” If we took in that same attitude we would still have hugely high tariff barriers around New Zealand to the detriment of most New Zealand producers. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How will New Zealand’s stance at APEC assist the plight of New Zealand furniture manufacturers driven to the wall by cheap imports made from illegally and unsustainably harvested rainforest timber from South-east Asia and the Pacific the logging of which is causing biodiversity loss species extinction and accelerated climate change and will the Government support international agreements to prohibit the import of unsustainably and illegally harvested timber? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Obviously the Government does support effective measures to try to reduce the usage of such timber. But if one is also trying to negotiate with developing countries around the whole issue of greenhouse gas emissions and targets it may be best not to start off by kicking them straight in the face in that respect. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that those developing countries themselves have asked for assistance in stopping the illegal theft of their forests by foreign multinationals and would it not be a good idea to institute rules in New Zealand that supported the rights of those countries to log their own forests legally and sustainably? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of such moves; we are sympathetic towards such moves. But I do not think it is adequate simply to blame multinational companies. That kind of bogeyman approach to international environmental issues is not terribly convincing. 
Electricity Commissioner—Minister's Comments 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did he call the electricity commissioner into his office on 23 May 2006 endorse Transpower’s new proposal to put power lines through the Waikato and say that he would deny that the meeting ever took place if he were asked? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The only correct part of that statement is that I called a meeting with the Electricity Commission and Transpower. Its purpose was to bang heads together given the stand-off between and the bad behaviour of both players. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why at the meeting on 23 May did the Minister tell the commission—as was quite explicitly stated by the electricity commissioner at the Commerce Committee—“You have to stretch things a bit.” and make this statement: “We were definitely being pushed to accommodate Transpower rather than enforce the law.”; and why do Ministers in this Government whether in relation to the pledge card Mr Field and now Transpower believe they are above the law? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are two responses to that. The first is that at the start of the meeting I made it clear that I did not wish to hear any arguments for or against any particular proposal. The meeting was about telling both players to get on and solve the issue and not to play games with each other—as both were both publicly and privately. That is the most important point that was made at that meeting. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why would Mr Hemmingway who has been described by this Government as a “person of great integrity” and about whom the Minister of Energy last month said: “a person who had done a very good job” and “we were very fortunate to be able to attract him to this country” mislead a select committee of this Parliament and say quite explicitly not once but five times that at that meeting Dr Cullen made it absolutely explicit that they should get on and approve the Transpower proposal against the law? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I regret to say that what Mr Hemmingway says is simply not true. I gathered at the meeting that he was not entirely listening to what was going on and unfortunately his more recent statements demonstrate that. But of course it was Dr Nick Smith who only 3 weeks before this meeting asked the Government why it was relying upon the advice of the Electricity Commission rather than that of Transpower. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did Mr Trevor Mallard release a press statement entitled “Independent assessment of proposed grid upgrade” on 13 April this year and in that press statement state quite explicitly: “The Government could not influence the outcome at all.”; and why did he then meet with the electricity commissioner and make it plain that he wanted the Transpower proposal approved—how can that possibly be consistent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not because I did not. I have already told the member that. What we told Transpower and the Electricity Commission—I have publicly and privately many times referred to the male rutting that was going on between the two of them—was that the interests of the country and the interests of Auckland meant that they had to find a solution and stop playing games with each other. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can that Minister’s Government dismiss repeated statements at the select committee on Radio New Zealand and on Newstalk ZB when the select committee heard last Thursday that another member of the Electricity Commission said: “He had worked with Ministers all his career and had never been spoken to the way he had by Ministers under this Government over this issue.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because in my view both the commission and Transpower at the time were not serving New Zealand well and I do not apologise for trying to ensure that the commission and Transpower arrived at a solution in the interests of New Zealand. Mr Hemmingway also needs to be reminded that he has the legal status of the commission wrong. It is a Crown agent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister tell the House what other independent statutory officers he has been bullying—commissioners from the Commerce Commission the Solicitor-General the Commissioner of Police the Health and Disability Commissioner—and which of those has he been having secret meetings with behind the scenes and telling them what to do rather than allowing them to go about their independent lawful business? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Absolutely none. The only person I know of in this House who has been convicted of contempt in relation to independent officers is that member for contempt of court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the very explicit  
Morning Report 
 transcript in which Mr Hemmingway said that he was told by Dr Cullen to approve the Transpower proposal and that he would deny that that meeting ever took place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the transcript of the Commerce Committee last Thursday in which Mr Hemmingway made a number of very serious allegations about interference in the independence of the Electricity Commission. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Primary Health Care—Reports 
5.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on primary health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New research from the Commonwealth Fund shows that New Zealand has one of the world’s best primary health care systems. New Zealand general practitioners are leaders in the use of information technology electronic patient records electronic laboratory results and so on. New Zealand also has much better provision for after-hours primary care than do many nations. Our practices perform strongly in many measures of quality and New Zealand has good levels of service coordination. Our primary health care providers have much to be proud of but as always there is still room for improvement. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has he received any reports on aspects of our primary health care system that need improvement and has he seen proposals to address any shortcomings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. The Commonwealth Fund report shows that New Zealanders still find going to a general practitioner too expensive. However the research was done only part-way through the low fees roll-out and is therefore a very strong endorsement of Government policy in that regard. I am concerned however that the National Party is still on record as supporting higher doctors’ fees for patients. Its members should study the Commonwealth Fund findings closely. They really do need to get on with their inevitable U-turn. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not time the Minister of Health stopped picking the eyes out of various reports and admitted to the House that the most damning fact in this entire survey which the authors have made very clear in the report is that based on doctors’ reports long waits for elective surgery appear to be the norm in New Zealand; is it not time that he admitted that this Government is failing to deal with the desperate elective surgery needs of patients in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is absolutely correct. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Tell the full story. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am agreeing with the member if he would just like to hold his breath for a little while. I am on his side. I think the finding that New Zealanders— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not too close. Don’t get too close. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we will not get too close. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member who asked the question was heard in silence. Would members please give the member who is answering the question the same courtesy. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I agree with the member who asked the question and indeed that is a strong showing in the fund’s report. It was however research that was done around May or June of this year and since then most of our district health boards have at long last moved to a situation where people will receive their surgery within 6 months. At the moment we have about 13 or 14 district health boards complying with that and by Christmas time we will have nearly all of them complying. The very thing that that report showed is the very thing that this Government has fixed. 
Ingram Report—Ministerial Review 
6.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Tuesday 12 September 2006 that he has reviewed the immigration matters covered in the Ingram report? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. A number of immigration matters are covered in the Ingram report which I have read on a number of occasions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If as the Minister told the House yesterday and repeated just now he has read the Ingram report on a number of occasions why could he not tell the House yesterday that neither the Hon Phil Goff nor Ross Robertson MP provided the evidence they held to the Ingram inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I told the member and the House yesterday the Minister of Immigration is not responsible for the provision of evidence by members of the House to the Ingram inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When reviewing the immigration matters in the Ingram report has the Minister asked the Prime Minister whether she had in her possession a letter dated 3 August 2005 revealing that her Ministers Phil Goff and Paul Swain had both been introduced to Mr Sunan Siriwan by Taito Phillip Field while Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa in March 2005; if so did the Prime Minister ensure that her Ministers informed the Ingram inquiry of what they knew? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No and I suggest he puts the question to the Prime Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the material evidence held by the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Paul Swain and Ross Robertson MP—that in March 2005 Taito Phillip Field was aware that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa—have been relevant to the Ingram inquiry given that Noel Ingram QC could not establish that Mr Field was aware of the fact that Mr Siriwan was working on his house any earlier than 26 May to 30 May 2005 because of a lack of evidence? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: With due reference to the previous caveat I guess that that depends on what the evidence was. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would the material evidence held by the Prime Minister—that two of her Ministers had in the presence of Taito Phillip Field seen Mr Siriwan working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa in March 2005—have been relevant to the Ingram inquiry given that Noel Ingram QC was forced to conclude at paragraph 199: “the evidence does not support a finding that Mr Field knew that Mr Siriwan was working on Mr Field’s house in Samoa at the time he wrote that letter.” that letter being Mr Field’s final submission to the Associate Minister dated 18 May 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place I suggest that the member ask the question of the Prime Minister and in the second place I would note that if that is in any way connected with a Mr Williams who was apparently a witness in that matter the Ingram inquiry found him to be entirely without credibility. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What conclusion should we draw from the fact that the Prime Minister the Hon Phil Goff the Hon Paul Swain and Ross Robertson MP all had material information contradicting the evidence Taito Phillip Field gave the Ingram inquiry yet not one of those people supplied the evidence they possessed to Noel Ingram QC? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s repeated innuendo reflects badly on that member. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister just address the question please. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have confirmed to this House on a number of occasions both Mr Robertson and Mr Goff have made no secret of the fact that they visited the Hon Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa. What is clear from the evidence is that they did not discuss immigration matters surrounding Mr Sunan Siriwan according to any evidence I have seen. I suggest that the member learn that repeated assertion does not proof constitute. 
Cancer Diagnoses—Scanner 
7.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he share the concern expressed by a visiting American cancer expert that New Zealanders are missing out on high-quality diagnoses because we do not have a PET/CT scanner in this country; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The first positron emission tomography (PET) scanner was brought into New Zealand just under a year ago by Pacific Radiology in Wellington. Although PET scanning is an exciting technology there are a number of issues to consider around its wider use in New Zealand including the sourcing of isotopes which are currently flown to New Zealand from Australia. The case for public provision of PET scanning in New Zealand is under consideration now. 
Barbara Stewart 
: When did his ministry begin investigating the viability of PET scanning and how much longer does he anticipate these investigations will take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answers to the member’s two questions are earlier this year and early next year. 
Ann Hartley 
: What is the process for deciding whether new technologies such as PET scanning should be introduced into New Zealand’s public health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A process to assess new technologies was formulated recently—earlier this year. PET scanning became the first technology to undergo assessment. The process is designed to assess whether we need this or that new technology and if so how many bits of kit we need how and where we will place them and how they will be funded. I am meeting with the relevant advisory committee on the PET scanner tomorrow to update myself on progress and I anticipate that the final decision to proceed—or not—will be made early in the new year. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it possible that we are being denied the benefits of what has been described as the gold standard in cancer imaging because of bureaucratic dithering about who should pay for it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we do not have bureaucratic dithering; we have a fairly determinative process to work out whether when where and how we fund such items. 
Health Sector Strike Action—Employment Relations Act 
8.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Will she consider changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 to limit the unrestricted right of radiographers and other crucial health staff to go on lengthy strikes as has been unanimously requested by the Canterbury District Health Board; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The right to strike is not unrestricted. Industrial action is not permitted in the first 40 days after bargaining is initiated. Industrial action in essential services requires that notice be given to the employer and to the Department of Labour who must then provide mediation to attempt to avoid the industrial action. There is also a requirement to provide life-preserving services as agreed between the Council of Trade Unions and District Health Boards New Zealand. These restrictions and requirements maintain balance in a modern health system and a modern employment relations regime. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does that answer mean that she has not considered the Canterbury District Health Board’s request that hospital workers be deemed an essential service provider much like the police who have binding statutory procedures for settling disputes or is the Minister of Health just going to sit there and let more and more health workers go on strike? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My answer to the primary question reflected the obvious fact that the member’s question was inaccurate. In my view our employment relations regime provides a balanced framework. 
Darien Fenton 
: How does the right to strike for health workers under current legislation differ from previous legislation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Health workers were able to strike under the Employment Contracts Act. The key difference now is that unions and employers must agree as to how life-preserving services will be provided during the strike. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Has the Minister given any advice to the Minister of Health to ensure that parties use mediation instead of us seeing this perpetual round of strike threats strikes patients inconvenienced loss to the public and huge disadvantage and disquiet in the community? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Minister of Health is not a party to the negotiations but actually there is a requirement that parties are referred to the Mediation Service. I am confident that requirement has been met. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister aware that in the last 12 months New Zealanders had more strikes than at any time in the previous 10 years and that this particular 12 months looks like it will even break that record? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The initial reference that I have in relation to health strikes indicates that in this current year compared with the first three-quarters of 1999 we have had about a third of the number of industrial stoppages. So under that member’s Government the situation was actually a lot worse. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Can the Minister understand the desperation that district health boards like the Canterbury District Health Board feel when industrial action results in intolerable delays for cancer treatment and makes it very difficult for district health boards to provide the elective surgery that New Zealanders desperately need? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes; I certainly understand the problem. I do not share the member’s views on the solution. 
Energy Efficiency—Homes 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: What reports has he received on proposals to improve the energy efficiency of New Zealand homes? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 The Government’s initiatives to reduce the amount of energy required to heat new homes to heat water in new homes and to light heat ventilate and air condition commercial buildings have been warmly received. I agree with the Registered Master Builders Federation when it said that it is important that good progress is made in the area of sustainable building and with Jennian Homes when it said that such initiatives are important for consumers. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How will the changes benefit the homeowner? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Higher thermal insulation performance requirements for new homes—walls floors ceilings and windows—could potentially save these homeowners up to 30 percent on their electricity and gas bills. For example I am advised that the annual energy savings could range from 5205 kilowatt-hours per year for a home in Auckland for instance to 12720 kilowatt-hours per year for a home in Dunedin. An approved solution making it easier to install solar water heating systems could potentially save homeowners who choose this option up to 50 percent of their water heating bills. These homes will be healthier drier and more comfortable and homeowners will also benefit from a higher capital value from having an energy-efficient home if and when they come to sell. 
Hon Bill English 
: Where is the consistency in the Government imposing these higher upfront costs on homeowners because of the benefits in terms of a sustainable environment when the Government in putting up its own new buildings follows a different policy such as when it told Clutha Valley School— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh you’ve changed the name now. 
Hon Bill English 
: —yeah—to remove from its plans for a new school— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was Clydevale! Which one? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have observed over recent months your regularly throwing out of the House members who interrupt during a question. That was consistent barracking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member will be aware that the rulings are that interjections are permitted; barracking is not. That was an interjection—I called “Order!”—just as there are also interjections from that side of the House during questions. Would the member please proceed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker what is the distinction you make between interjections and barracking? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The distinction is that the person can be heard. Barracking is when it is impossible to hear. A solitary interjection was not loud enough that members could not hear the member. 
Hon Bill English 
: Where is the consistency in the Government imposing upfront costs on homeowners for long-term sustainability benefits but in terms of its own buildings such as the new Clutha Valley School telling that school’s board to remove from its plans solar heating natural-light roofing high-grade double glazing high-grade batts and an efficient heating system? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Firstly in respect of the school that the member refers to— 
Hon Bill English 
: Why don’t you fix it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member should breathe through his nose. I am advised that the school has been peer reviewed by an architect whom the school agreed to who has found that in all but one case the same job and the same techniques can be done in a more economical way. In respect of the first part of the member’s question in relation to the imposition of costs the choice is for new homeowners as to whether they challenge their builders or designers upfront to look at their family profile and say whether if they were to spend a few more dollars on some of these energy-efficient measures they could have a long-term cost saving of—as I said—perhaps 30 percent per year in their gas and power bills which is a huge payback in these high energy cost times. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister considered an initiative that would require over time all houses sold leased or let in New Zealand to be assessed for their energy efficiency and given a standardised energy-efficiency rating in much the same way as washing machines and fridges are given one today; if so what is being done to explore this idea further? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I believe that Jeanette Fitzsimons in relation to her responsibilities in respect of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is studying an action on that very point. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did his Government promise in 1999 to upgrade the building code to improve energy efficiency when now 7 years later nothing has been done; and can he be explicit as to when that upgrade will actually be achieved or will it be another 7 years of all talk and no action? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can say that in my role—and I have been 1 year in the job—I am committed to ensuring that these changes— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Just settle down. The changes will be in place by October 2007. As Minister for Building Issues I am committed to those changes being made just as I am committed to the ongoing implementation of the Building Act 2004 the licensing of building practitioners the ongoing protection of DIYers changes and enhancements to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service product certification investigation of home warranty insurance the reviewing of the building code—all work that could have been done when that member was a Minister. He had 9 years to do it but sat on his chuff and did nothing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ministers are reminded that when making their answers they should keep them to addressing the question without innuendo. 
Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations—Compliance 
10.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Fisheries 
: What action if any has the Minister taken to address non-reporting of customary fishing activity since seven of the 15 iwi or hapu groups required to put in quarterly reports under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 have not done so for 2 years which equates to eight consecutive reports? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 In relation to the kaimoana reports I am concerned at the level of non-reporting. Ministry officials are working closely with the relevant groups to improve reporting. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why did the Minister’s office write that it was choosing to take a “partnership approach to the regulations with our Treaty partner rather than an enforcement approach” when the law states that quarterly returns must be provided; and is the Minister aware of whether the police or the Customs Service are also taking a partnership approach rather than an enforcement approach to burglary drug running or anything else? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was a little wide of the question. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I think the partnership approach is a great approach in the sense that regulation 27 of the amateur fishing regulations which are currently in place over a large part of New Zealand does not require any returns for customary catch. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What initiatives have been undertaken by the Minister to support the management of customary fishing? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have met with a number of iwi groups on weeknights and during the weekends regarding the establishment of iwi forums. The forums will work with the Ministry of Fisheries to develop and implement programmes to ensure that the requirements of the regulations are properly carried out. Other things include the employment of pou hononga who are advisers and people with regulation expertise to assist people on the ground—who are generally hau kainga people doing it voluntarily—the development of a database to better monitor customary harvest and the establishment of a training programme for kaitiaki. 
Phil Heatley 
: What sort of message does it send to iwi like Ngai Tahu who always file quarterly reports and obey all the rules when this Minister turns a blind eye to seven iwi in his electorate and can commercial and recreational fishers also look forward to a partnership rather than an enforcement approach; and how can we possibly keep track of fish stocks for everyone’s benefit—Maori commercial and recreational fishers alike—if this Minister will not insist on catch reporting? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The great thing about Ngai Tahu in so many ways is that because they got off the rank first they are a good model of consistency. What we have done in the sense of the document I have here is ensure that those who are behind are catching up. I tell that member that a whole lot of other groups have reported consistently. Some of them have been patchy—certainly; that is right. But it will be quite surprising to members that in the magazine of the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council there is an article stating: “A practical training programme initiated by SITO is helping tangata whenua rebuild and sustainably manage their customary fisheries taonga and as Sheridan Gundry discovered it is winning some rave reviews.” That person is one of the top international writers and the article actually made the cover of the magazine. I will give the member a copy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members respect that when a member is still on his or her feet they do not rise. 
Phil Heatley 
: Apart from the poor reporting why did the ministry do 267 regulation 27 customary fishery inspections in the year before the customary rules were supposedly tightened but only 81 inspections in the year after the customary rules were supposedly tightened? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In 1998 the National Party did nothing. It did nothing for 2 years—nothing whatsoever; zip. What the Ministry has done is really improve the performance going forward. We need to keep in mind that the Ministry is made up of hard-working people who support partnerships on the ground. 
Phil Heatley 
: When Dover Samuels said in 2004: “… if we keep abusing and depleting our fisheries there will be nothing left for Maori to have customary rights over.” and the then Minister of Fisheries David Benson-Pope responded: “I plan to start work on tightening up the customary fishing regime.” why has this Minister since then firstly not insisted that hapu in his electorate file quarterly reports and secondly slashed the number of regulation 27 customary fishing inspections by two-thirds? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is important for that member to remind himself of what I just said about the performance of the ministry and what is happening. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Members will be leaving the Chamber. It is impossible to hear the Minister’s answer yet there was silence when the member asked his question. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: My colleague Dover Samuels knows all about this—about the people who are pillaging raping and setting-to on the kai moana the seafood. We will see them all at Christmas—the Pakehas the Asians and the Maori—getting stuck in. What this Government is doing something about is making sure it is looked after. I am not too sure what that member is insinuating. Only about 5 percent of the North Island coastline is covered by customary regulations and the take is minor compared with other takes of kai moana. It is minor compared with what everybody else savages and raids the seabed over. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request that shows that quarterly fishing returns have not been filed by half the North Island hapu groups in that Minister’s electorate in the last 2 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the annual report of the Ministry of Fisheries which shows that only 81 customary fishing inspections were carried out this year with 267 in the previous year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Minister’s office saying that they were choosing to take a partnership approach rather than an enforcement approach. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table various reports that show Dover Samuels railing against customary fishing abuses and David Benson-Pope fixing them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
:. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I indicate to the member that if he seeks leave to table the response on the Official Information Act I do not think there would be objection. I think it was the request he wanted to table. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the response to the Official Information Act request that was chased up by the Ombudsman because it was refused— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. We all know what it is now. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Maori Students—Educational Achievement 
11.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How does the Minister account for Maori students being nearly three times as likely as non-Maori to leave school with little or no formal attainment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government inherited an education system that clearly did not meet the needs of Maori as the member will know. We have set ourselves the very clear goal of transforming that system to ensure Maori do succeed. That has included major research on what works for Maori students such as the work by Russell Bishop which I am sure the member is familiar with; the Hui Taumata process which is now in its fifth year and involves educators from all over the country; many new resources such as the $26 million for te reo; and the Maori education strategy that the member I am sure has hold of. Of course I have to draw to the member’s attention that resolving the issues of education of Maori will not just be an education issue. It will relate to family responsibility parenting skills housing employment—large numbers of things will come into the success story. But certainly we are doing our bit. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister concerned that more than 61 percent of all schools are unable to provide consistent evidence of improved learning outcomes for Maori students that 17 percent can provide no evidence and that in fact only 9 percent had substantial evidence of improved outcomes for Maori over time; and given this what commitment is he prepared to make to improve the achievement of Maori students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I draw the member’s attention back to my first answer which shows that the Government has over the last 7 years certainly shown its commitment. I think one of the things that helps with the ongoing measurement is for example the annual report on Maori education that I have here in my hand. While that report does show that some schools are not very good at reporting on these particular issues we do now have a very good record of achievement over the past 7 years. Members can see that there is steady progress. I repeat it will not just be education that makes the difference here. Something as fundamental as family life comes into this as well. But steady progress has been made over the last 7 years. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What have been the improvements in Maori achievement under a Labour-led Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There has been in the words of Mason Durie “a major transformative experience for the education sector” under the policies of the Labour-led Government. Many more students are achieving qualifications under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). In 2002 35 percent of Maori school-leavers left with low attainment; by 2004 this had dropped to 25 percent. In 2004 12 percent of Maori school-leavers achieved the university entrance qualification or better up from 8 percent in 2002. Now of course Maori are moving on to tertiary education at a higher rate than the population as a whole. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that the percentage of Maori leaving school with little or no formal attainment dropped from 34.9 percent to 25.4 percent from 2002 to 2004; and while the figure for Maori is double that for all school leavers there has in fact been a positive move in the right direction? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm that those figures are there. It is steady improvement; it will not be radical because there is a complex of reasons why Maori underachievement has been there but we are getting on top of it. To the member who asked before for Mason Durie’s quote I refer him to  
Maori Achievement: Anticipating the Learning Environment 
 of the Hui Taumata Matauranga in 2004 for the full quote. Of course he could also just ring him. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the annual report on Maori education claims that a review of three ethnically targeted parent support and development programmes—two targeted at Maori—found that risk factors such as parental education and socio-economic status were far more accurate predictors of poor educational outcomes than ethnicity? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes that is absolutely right and it is why for example programmes such as the SKIP programme have been so successful not just for the families in parenting but it has followed on to schools which recognise the change in the behaviour of the students. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Maori Affairs who said in this House yesterday that “What has to be understood … is that Maori are decreasing in the negative statistics three to four times quicker than Pakeha.”; if so how does he account for the fact that NCEA levels for Maori students remain significantly lower than for non-Maori students in years 11 12 and 13? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the way that I have accounted before. I think we have had a system that has not served Maori well because they have been asked to fit into the system rather than the system addressing their particular learning needs. But on top of that I think we are talking about the issues raised by Mr Donnelly; for example parenting family background the fact that people often come from homes where there is not a high level of education and they are often in lower socio-economic groups. These are very complex issues as the member I know knows but I also understand that he knows that we are doing what we possibly can in the education area right now and we are seeing steady positive results. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with his official Rawiri Brell who stated in today’s select committee that the ministry advocates learning to be by communities of communities and for communities; if so does he agree that it would logically follow that for Maori communities “by Maori of Maori for Maori” is a worthwhile goal that should be supported; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree it is a worthwhile goal but I point out that what really makes the difference for any student is not that we simply have by/for Pakeha or by/for Tongan or by/for Maori but the experience in the classroom of teaching and learning. Regardless of the setting there still has to be effective teaching. So yes I agree it is a worthwhile goal but I would still want to add on top of that good leadership in the schools good resourcing effective teaching and all the components that go towards a good education. 
Court Fines—Collection 
12.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he stand by his statement that “we’re doing a great job collecting fines”? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes of course I do and I want to thank that member for the question. The courts are responsible for collecting fines on behalf of more than 100 issuing authorities. That is 25 times more than the four issuing authorities there were in 1990. More money is being collected by courts in total dollars and this is more in proportion to the amount of fines lodged with courts than ever before. I have also implemented a number of new initiatives including the collection of fines at airports which has already netted $92696 in overdue reparation fines from travellers in the first few months of operation. We are doing heaps and we are doing a very good job. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister claim that he is doing a great job collecting fines when half a million people owe fines that date back further than a year including 73000 that are over 10 years old and 7000 that date back to 1987 when the Berlin Wall was still intact and Labour had a flat-tax policy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member will recall that the National Government was in office for 9 years and it could have traced them then. I can tell the member some very interesting facts. In 2001-02 $113 million of fines money was collected. In 2005-06 $206.9 million—that is almost a doubling of it—was collected. At that same time the outstanding amount in 2001-02 was 79 percent and the outstanding amount now is 54 percent. Everything that should be up is going up. We are collecting more and the amount in proportion of what is outstanding is going down. We are doing a good job. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What other reports has he seen on the new improved collection of fines? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have seen reports that say the courts have collected $10.8 million in 2004 and $10.4 million then $11.6 million this year on for example the “Confiscated Car Club”. I have already said to Parliament that the amount we are collecting is going up in absolute terms—that is in dollar terms—and the amount that is outstanding is dropping in proportion to that. We are doing a very good job. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that these historic fines are often for significant amounts ranging from $3000 from 1987 and some for over $100000 dating back to 1992 and since he is doing such a great job letting offenders from the 1980s off the hook has he investigated the possibility of using private debt collection agencies to recover these fines instead? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That member’s statistics show that no one gets off the hook. The amount that defaulters owe is outstanding. There are two problems with this: firstly on occasions is identifying the people; and secondly is finding where they are. In terms of 1987 the 9 years the National Party was in power these people could not be tracked down. The trail has gone even colder now. We track everybody. No one gets off the hook. I tell the member that we have on occasions engaged private investigators and we have introduced a new system. For example for the top fines defaulters owing more than $50000 under the new system I introduced in June 2004 55 were identified and now only 16 still owe more than $50000. We are slowly but surely getting on top of it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are the court systems sufficient to collect a fine of $100000 if in fact one results from the National Party paying its bills? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Of course we have sufficient systems. The warning is clear to those people who do not pay the fines at airports. If the National Party members did not pay their fines they would be staying in New Zealand. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that in addition to fines there are over 18000 reparations to victims that date back further than a year including 16 offenders who owe victims over $100000 each dating back to 1997 and what does he say to the 284 victims who are still owed money from 1987—in one case over $20000 after 19 years waiting for resolution? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The situation is simply this. In 2001-02 there was $31 million overdue in reparation. This was 70 percent of the total. In 2005-06 this has now fallen to $27 million and is 43 percent of the total. This Government has got tougher on people and I will give the member some other simple statistics. In 2001-02 there were 41000 attachment orders put against people’s pay. In 2005-06 there were 203208—a 500 percent increase. We have got on with the job. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the biggest fine defaulter is a man who owes $1.8 million but lives in Brisbane and in light of the fact that a newspaper journalist was able to track down this man driving his Mercedes earlier in the year why has he not sought cooperation from the Australian authorities to get the money from him and how does the Minister think this squares off with his earlier comments this afternoon that “We’re getting tough.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: My staff have known for a long time where that gentleman lives. The man got fined for breaches of the Customs and Excise Act for importing wound-back odometers that Murray McCully refused to do anything about at the time. We have made approaches to Australia and the simple fact is that the Australians will not agree to the extradition of such a person. But the message is clear to that gentleman. Should he come back to New Zealand he will be arrested at the border. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that a Wellington woman who owes more than $145000 in fines and reparations for theft from her employer and traffic offences is serving a 2-year sentence on home detention but has not been contacted by the Ministry of Justice to arrange repayment despite the fact that her whereabouts on home detention should presumably be fairly easy to establish and what does he say to the woman’s former employer who is still waiting for the money? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can confirm to the member that data matching between the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice has improved and we have better data links. I also say to the member that the number of people who get a prison sentence in lieu of paying their fines has also increased. In 2002-03 there were 140 people who got a prison sentence as an alternative and in 2005-06 there were 293. So in fact the system is getting tougher on people. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister given his statements on getting tough and data matching explain why on the one hand the Government prevented the expansion of information sharing between the Collections Contact Centre the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income to improve the collection of outstanding fines as recommended by New Zealand First during the select committee stage of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill yet on the other hand has not fast tracked the expansion of information sharing to track down people overseas with student loans who are not convicted criminals? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As I said to the member during that particular debate we already have data matching between the Collections Contract Centre and for example the Ministry of Social Development. In fact if he goes through the attachment orders that I spoke about previously—saying that 41000 were issued in 2001-02 and 203208 in 2005-06 which is a 500 percent increase—he would see that there has also been an increase in the number of deduction notices against banks. In 2001-02 there were 154 and in 2005-06 there are now 4858. These are very impressive figures. 
General Debate 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The National Party was very keen indeed to ensure that New Zealand had the opportunity of hosting the Rugby World Cup. Because of that my colleague Murray McCully met the International Rugby Board with Mr Mallard to make that point very clear. There was bipartisan support for New Zealand to host the cup. We also made a commitment that for that cup there would be a stadium that could host 60000 people. We are still committed to that. But that does not mean we are willing to write a blank cheque for any wacky project that the Government comes up with to make sure that the games do not take place in Helen Clark’s electorate. 
We very much regret that a full year after New Zealand won the right to host the cup the Government says that its preferred stadium option is a waterfront stadium and gives the citizens of Auckland 2 weeks to take it or to leave it. Yesterday we advised Trevor Mallard that the National Party was willing to support legislation to facilitate the upgrading of the Eden Park stadium—with some qualifications around financing—because the project seems eminently feasible the costing of it has been well supported by quantity surveyors and it seems clear that the extra capacity can be built comfortably within the time frame that we have available. But we would need to be satisfied about a number of issues before agreeing to support legislation for the waterfront stadium. 
First of all it is quite unclear what the cost of that stadium would be. Trevor Mallard talks about $497 million—not $500 million but $497 million—creating an impression of totally spurious accuracy. We have in our caucus someone who has actually built a stadium. He says that the cost of this waterfront stadium is likely to be double or treble the figure that Trevor Mallard talks about. It will be much much higher and the fact that the chairman of Fletcher Building has made it very clear indeed that this is a cost-plus contract makes that abundantly clear. 
Secondly there has to be huge uncertainty about whether this project can be built on time. It would not be satisfactory for us to say in the middle of 2010: “Whoops! Can we put the world cup competition back 12 months because the stadium will not be finished?”. 
It is also crucially important that the citizens of Auckland like this project because Aucklanders will be picking up a big chunk of the tab and Aucklanders will have to live with the result. As somebody who lives in Auckland I do not find the idea of a huge inward-looking stadium that blocks the views of one of the finest harbours in the world and that essentially is lifeless for most of the time attractive at all. My own preference on this question is not relevant; what is important is that the citizens of Auckland like the project and at this stage the indications are that Aucklanders do not like it. Trevor Mallard says that a waterfront stadium would “transform” Auckland. Well it might do but not for the better. If the Government wants to transform Auckland let it support the Eden Park upgrade and use the savings to transform the Auckland roading system so that the economy of Auckland can be transformed and so that people going to the games can get there before the first whistle. 
Let me also comment briefly on the suggestion that bed taxes be used to finance the stadium. The National Party is not at all enthusiastic about a bed tax; indeed to date the Government itself has opposed bed taxes with the then Minister of Tourism Mark Burton stating 4 years ago that it was neither fair nor credible to single out the accommodation sector for extra taxes. It is worth recalling that the tourism sector is the only part of the export sector that pays GST on its sales and that international visitors already pay $500 million in GST every year. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Last Friday the Families Commission announced the results of a study of mothers undertaken by Massey University on parenting and participation in the paid workforce. The study gave particular attention to the cultural and attitudinal norms of society around the important decision made by mothers about whether to provide at-home care for their children—particularly preschoolers—to re-enter the paid workforce or to have some combination of both options. 
The conclusions of that study are noteworthy. Firstly the women involved think that society no longer feels that a good mother necessarily stays at home full time. Secondly they believe that society today expects them to re-enter paid work part time and does not value stay-at-home mothers. The women feel that more should be done by the Government so that mothers have the choice to stay at home and care for their children rather than be offered assistance with childcare only. Most women also felt that the first year was an important time for mothers rather than for fathers to be with their children for bonding and breastfeeding. United Future shares those concerns. At the moment Government assistance weighs the scales in favour of workforce participation through assistance with childcare but does nothing at all for stay-at-home mums. 
The Prime Minister laid out her vision for such mothers a couple of years back. She lamented their relatively low levels of participation in the paid workforce whilst refusing to acknowledge in response to questions from United Future that mothers who stay at home with their children are also making a much valued contribution to New Zealand society and its economy. She talked about choice which is something that all of us value but she put forward no policy for stay-at-home mums. 
United Future has a very different vision. We say that full-time childcare by mothers should be both valued by society and tangibly recognised through Government policy. That is why we are passionate about income splitting for the 336000 couples who are raising children. Income splitting would reduce income tax for many couples and boost their net household income. In addition though that policy would send a positive message to those mothers who freely choose to stay at home with their children that our culture does value their unique and vitally important role in training and raising the next generation of Kiwis. 
Income splitting addresses the unique position of mothers holistically and it turns the focus directly on to the family unit and its need for an adequate income. In many cases it supplements Working for Families income support and reduces the need for such support through income tax reductions—three words that are now more and more associated with United Future. That is why United Future has included income splitting in its confidence and supply agreement. That is why the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne will be issuing a discussion document on income splitting and all couples with children can take some encouragement from that.  
 In this House we have consistently argued for a threshold adjustment to tax brackets for several years now. We have consistently advocated for and are acting on a reduction in business taxation and I am sure we will see both of those things delivered in next year’s Budget. We also continue to stay on the case of income splitting for couples who are raising children because it is fair it is just and it recognises the tremendous and irreplaceable contribution that mothers make to the training and the welfare of our children—something that is not only our future but already to a very significant degree our present. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the next week or two the National Party will enter its eighth year in Opposition and still its members have not decided who is to be their leader. This is an extraordinary position to be in and I do not know of another period in New Zealand history when a party thrown into Opposition wallowed for so long with its leadership unresolved. Last time Labour was in Opposition its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. The time before that when National was in Opposition its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. But this Opposition has gone 7 years and in a week or two it will enter its eighth year in Opposition and still there is no progress. The issue is unresolved. 
The National Party’s favourite season of October and November though still not closed has only a couple of weeks to run yet its members still have not budged. They might budge of course in the next fortnight but it seems that the show-pony candidate is now losing his bottle. They might have budged yesterday of course but their leader scuttled back from the other side of the world to be at his caucus and to maintain his position. National members might of course budge early next year—in February or perhaps at Easter—or maybe they will do so before Christmas so that they can then leave time for the splits and divisions that will result in their caucus to heal over the holidays away from the media glare. But the point of the matter is that National members have not budged and they have not shown any sign of doing so. They might of course change leaders on the basis of some future blunder by the current leader or on the basis of a reinvigorated centre-right candidate in the form of Bill English. But right now as National’s eighth year in Opposition gets under way the issue is unresolved. 
The far-right candidate is of course doggedly going nowhere in every respect; the centre-right candidate is not showing his hand; and the show-pony candidate has his bottle slipping away from him for now. The deputy leader of the National Party is listening to this speech with a lovely grin all over his face. The issue is unresolved. This party cannot get there. It cannot amass the numbers for anything. The numbers for Don Brash of course are not there but he stays there anyway. The numbers for John Key might be there but only if he is there and he is not sure so no one else is sure. The numbers for Bill English take the form for most people in the National caucus of being everyone’s second preference which is always helpful if the caucus cannot sort out who its first preference is. 
The National Party is paralysed by its own indecision. Its members hang in suspended animation waiting for something to happen for anything to happen—anything really would do. A poll rise would do a poll fall would do a political event of some sort would do and a walking of the plank—or whatever it is to be—would do. They wait for developments and they wait for a sign; they are paralysed by their own indecision. They wait in the hope that an event or a shift might occur or that somehow the political scene might change—that it might nudge them towards some resolution or other. But right now as was the case last month and the month before that there is no resolution. That is why of course there is no policy in the National Party. There is no coalescing on any platform ever. There is no certainty about where in the political spectrum National might place itself. The reason is that the three candidates for leadership are quite different people—from the far right from the centre-right and a show pony. 
It is not easy if one is the National Party spokesperson on health say or on economic development or foreign affairs to know how to frame the policy where to pitch it whereabouts on the spectrum to place it whether to be timid or radical and how to triangulate the Government or head it off at the pass. These things are difficult to do if members do not know who their leader is or where their party is being led from. 
So there is no policy except tax cuts and even then there is no detail. In health for example National has a 5-point plan with four points on it. The plan has four sentences as if that adds up to something resembling a policy—of course it does not. National cannot sort out its leader so it cannot even sort out its portfolios. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a great shame that Mr Hodgson the member who preceded me is not back in his office doing something for those thousands of cancer patients who are unlikely to get their treatment because of his incompetence so far rather than being here in the House and making a ridiculous speech like that. He did make one interesting point. He said that the Opposition should be trying to triangulate the Government. That is a political manoeuvre where one tries to get the Government in trouble. Let me tell members we do not need to do that while there are senior Ministers in this Government wandering around the halls of this Parliament referring to Helen Clark as “Queen Helen” and bemoaning her imperious decision to place the national stadium on the Auckland waterfront. 
I do not want to speak this afternoon about the merits of one stadium over another. But I do want to make this clear: the National Party supported the efforts of the Rugby Union which were also supported by the Government to get the 2011 Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. We did so because the benefits of hosting such an event are enormous for this country. Everybody who has any idea about tourism numbers will know that they have held up in this country over the last few years largely attributable to things like  
The Lord of the Rings 
 movies and various other smaller-scale events that have meant that the rest of the world have been able to look at New Zealand and say that that is a place they would like to go to. We think those initiatives are worthwhile. 
But we also know that during the time of the Rugby World Cup in excess of 2 billion people worldwide will be watching at least one rugby game in New Zealand. That will be a huge opportunity to showcase the nation and to build on an industry that now is over 40 percent of our domestic economy. We are very upset about the fact that Labour Government members have sat on their hands for 12 months and done nothing to back up the promise they made to have a 60000-seat stadium available for the final of the Rugby World Cup. We now know that a big part of that “sitting on their hands” has been caused by the Prime Minister who said “not in my backyard.” That sort of behaviour is just unacceptable. 
Now we are in the awkward position of seeing local authorities in Auckland struggling with the decision that they must make within 14 days to commit their ratepayers to what appears to be quite an extraordinary expense. There were interesting comments from the Minister of Finance who said that if they go for one stadium Eden Park there will be no Government money. But if they go for the waterfront stadium the cheque book will be wide open. We know that there have been discussions between the Labour Government and Fletcher’s but I do not want to suggest that this is somehow a mechanism for the Labour Government or the Labour caucus to get rid of a certain encumbrance that hangs around their necks at the present time. But I would say that $800000 in a multi-hundred-million-dollar project is very little. So it does surprise us that we are in this situation. 
But more than surprising us it angers us. This event is too big and too great an opportunity for the country to be put at the sort of risk that Trevor Mallard is creating at the present time. If this Government were serious about New Zealand getting its maximum opportunities out of the Rugby World Cup then it would not be some little cabal on the ninth floor making all the decisions. It would be an opportunity I would have thought for the Government to involve far more people than that and to avoid the sorts of unfortunate political stand-offs that appear to be happening at the moment. 
 United Future is taking a wait and see position and the New Zealand First party is saying that it wants to take a wait and see option as well. Nobody can sit comfortably in this Parliament without the numbers in front of us without knowing what it will cost and without knowing who will bear that cost. We spend lots of time in this Parliament talking about the rates burden on people throughout the country and our desire to reduce it. The Government even brought in a rates rebate scheme. Let us make it clear that unless Michael Cullen is prepared to make a bigger commitment than he has so far anybody who receives that rebate will end up losing it. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 If anybody has any doubts about the paralysis in the National Party they have only to read the transcripts of both of those National Party speeches. On the Auckland stadium options Don Brash said: “I am not going to express my opinion.” which is short for the fact that he has no opinion. Gerry Brownlee the second speaker for the National Party said: “I am not going to discuss the merits of one against the other.” or in other words: “I have no opinion at all either.” Parliament should be a contest of ideas and it is very clear that on the Government side of the House there are ideas. On the Opposition side of the House there are no ideas—none whatsoever. 
It is interesting to see that this Labour Government has been promoting issues around global warming for quite some time and that the deniers of global warming and the destroyers of the environment on the National side have been loud and clear. But what do those members say when public opinion turns around dramatically after Helen Clark’s speech on global warming at the Labour Party conference? Suddenly John Key the show pony of the National Party gets attention when he appears before the cameras and says that he wants to see Al Gore. He had not expressed an opinion on global warming at all until then but when one is looking for big ideas one looks to the Labour Government. The Government is talking about economic transformation it is talking about national identity and both of these notions resonate with our community. 
From the other side of the House we had a speech today from the leader of the Opposition that was so wooden and dull it could have been delivered only by a Haitian zombie. The single most important achievement of Don Brash in this House has been to make Gerry Brownlee look good. No one else has been able to make Gerry Brownlee look as good as that before. 
Dr Brash is yesterday’s man. It is over for Don Brash; we all know that. Here is just one example. Dr Brash went to the RSA’s 90th anniversary do here in Wellington and said that he would have a review of the legislation for veterans. Well the Government has already announced that. He also said that he would have a review of Veterans Affairs New Zealand. Well I had already announced that. He is always picking up yesterday’s ideas. He is yesterday’s man. Mr Brownlee shows some energy and enthusiasm but we do not get any sense of energy or enthusiasm from Dr Don Brash. 
Don Brash reminds me of that fabulous quote from Winston Churchill on his political opponent Mr Attlee. He said: “An empty taxi turned up outside 10 Downing Street and Mr Attlee got out.” Well that is like Dr Brash. He went overseas to follow Helen Clark to the opening of the New Zealand Memorial in London. Who knew he was over there? No one seemed to know that he was over there. There were no reports of him—nothing. He drifted in and out of London. The only people who knew that he was in and out were the customs staff on the border; no one else knew about that. And he left early because he knew there was a vote going on in the National Party caucus. He is very nervous. 
It is springtime in the National Party and it is time for a change. Let us not forget that Bolger was rolled by Shipley in November Shipley was rolled by English in October and English was rolled by Brash at the end of the year—and Dr Don Brash knew that it would be four in a row so he scurried home to shore up the numbers. 
All the writers and commentators are saying that National has to get its leadership sorted out. Supporters of the National Party want to see strong leadership. The National Party cannot be united around Don Brash because the writers and the public know that Don Brash will not cannot and will never lead the National Party to victory—and certainly not at the next election. So the question is who will lead the National Party. 
 Well one obvious contender is Mr Key. If we find a television camera there is Mr Key in front of it. He is trying to make himself more appealing so he has suddenly found the issue of climate change. This is from the party that is determined to rip out the guts of the Resource Management Act which is a key part of protecting our natural environment. But National has suddenly found that global warming is an issue in New Zealand and it is coming to that issue. It is not that it is saying that the science is there or that it is committing itself to anything; it is just simply saying that it believes there should be some consideration given to the issue. 
But when we look at the National Party front bench we see that it is pretty woeful. I was interested to see in  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 the other day that Dr Nick Smith one of the front bench members of the National Party was referred to as being “on another planet”. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The stadium debate which engulfs New Zealand and particularly Auckland at this present time is an important debate. It has important implications for Auckland and it has important implications for New Zealand’s capacity to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup. The process by which we resolve that debate is even more important. 
We all have our own personal views about the right way to go forward. It is no secret amongst my colleagues and it is no secret to the Minister for Sport and Recreation that I strongly believe that the North Harbour Stadium would be the right place for us to host the final event and I commend Brendon O’Connor from that stadium and Mayor George Wood for putting forward such an effective and compelling case for North Harbour. It is the cheapest of the options; it also makes very good sense from a number of transport and other points of view. I commend my colleagues John Key Jonathan Coleman and Wayne Mapp for the support they have given that option. 
But this is not the National Party’s process; it is the Government’s process. The Government holds the pen. The Government is responsible for the fact that 12 months after the bid was won we are now embroiled in this debate with so few facts upon the table. The National Party role in this process is to deal sensibly and professionally with requests for legislation made by the Minister to facilitate the venue that the Government identifies as the one to move forward. Legislation is required whether it is for a waterfront stadium or an upgrade at Eden Park. In that respect it is important that we on this side of the House are able then to put aside our personal choices and ensure that there is a good process. 
The project will not be completed in the term of this Parliament or very likely not even in the term of the next Parliament. It has profound implications for the next Government of New Zealand. Although it is possible with United Future and New Zealand First that the numbers might be gathered together to help the Minister pass legislation through the House it would be much better for Auckland for New Zealand and for International Rugby Board confidence in our ability to host the World Cup if there is a consensus that spans the two major parties as we move forward with that legislation. The last thing I want to see is the International Rugby Board chief executive on the phone to the chairman of the Australian Rugby Union asking the Australians to put together a back-up proposal because it looks as if the Kiwis cannot get their act together. 
That is why with 10 days to go before the leadership of Auckland is required to spell out a decision the National Party has decided it should be proactive as part of this process—that we should spell out to Auckland and to the decision makers in Wellington what the parameters are for our decision making about the two different pieces of legislation in prospect. That is why we signalled that if the Eden Park proposal were selected by Auckland and moves forward we see no problem with facilitating the legislation dealing with the Resource Management Act consent process and the funding issues—with the qualifications my leader Dr Brash has talked about—to go very quickly through the House. The numbers and the design features are reasonably robust. 
Rob Fisher said this morning that they are 9 months ahead with the waterfront proposal and they are well ahead whether or not by 9 months. We feel sufficient confidence having looked at quite detailed plans as Mr Brownlee has indicated to indicate our support for legislation that will facilitate that. That is important. What it says is that Auckland provided the decisions are right can host a Rugby World Cup in a 60000-seat stadium in 2011. The National Party will commit to the legislation that will make that possible. 
If the Government wants to take a more adventurous path and move to a waterfront proposal that has many more significant question marks hanging over it then we have spelt out the more rigorous path we will take in regard to that legislation. That is appropriate. We have signalled to the Government that it will have to answer some very tough questions—not because they are National’s questions not because National has a partisan view but because they are the public’s questions. This is the public’s money and the public has a right to answers. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 This is one of those occasions when we start to think of contrasts. In this cup week I can think of a number of analogies that I will come to in a minute but one starts to think of the contrast with regard to the divide between the parties. On the one hand we have a Government that has announced a whole range of measures whether they be energy efficiency in housing climate change initiatives national energy strategies ideas visions and a whole series of climate change and environmental initiatives such as the solar water-heating programmes. My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons is working on star rating systems. The ideas are oozing out of members on this side of the House who are in Government. 
Then we look across the House and see the contrast with that. We see the effort made by National’s leader Don Brash. He staggered through—he talked about Bob Clarkson; I think he meant a bob each way—a sort of dissertation about a stadium idea or policy that he may have. He did make Gerry Brownlee’s speech look good. Then we had a contribution from Murray McCully which was actually rather sound in some ways. He has the spokespersonship on that whole deal for the National side of the House. He was the third speaker off the rank. I will tell the House about the National Party—here is the contrast with the Government which is pumping out ideas. I think somebody in America called it the vision thing. We have a group of people opposite us who are absolutely paralysed. They are dominated by plotting scheming and paralysis. They are trying to work out which horse they should jump on. 
It is cup week I am a Cantabrian and we did host the New Zealand Cup. I am reminded of a few horse analogies—as the crazy horse walks out the door— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am reminded of a couple of horse analogies. We have on the Opposition side of the House one or two thoroughbreds so those members say. One is nicknamed “National Velvet” according to  
North and South 
 and he is the front runner—that being John Key. Of course the problem with regard to John Key and the leadership is that he ain’t got the bottle or the steel to move. He does not know what to do. He would love to have a go at it but he is absolutely indecisive. And he purports to want to be the Prime Minister one day! That guy was once a sort of junk bond - trader in foreign exchange in New York. He traded in junk bonds up and down the country. Was he decisive in that? He cannot make up his mind as the thoroughbred of the National Party whether he will run. 
Then there is the draught horse over there Gerry Brownlee who would love to have a go at leading National. He is itching to have a go. He cannot believe his luck that he got to the deputy’s seat which he has and he knows that the only way he will survive—as he gets up every day in this Chamber with a bit of bluff and bluster—is if John Key rolls Don. 
But the problem is of course that the National Party is absolutely paralysed. It does not know which way to go. What did it roll out? Don Brash made a very interesting speech. He talked about the stadium costings and the need for a GST component to be included in them. He is the man who in the 1980s chaired the committee that designed GST. Suddenly in the Chamber today he rekindled his wonderful eloquent knowledge and expertise on GST. 
The problem is of course that as Don Brash pontificated on high about the GST in respect of the stadium costings he did not mention the $112000 that National owes in its GST overspend which it will not pay back. Given the muck that National members threw around this House week after week and I will not use the word but I think everybody knows what the first letter is—it is the “h” word— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the use of that letter is an imputation. Members cannot get around the rules. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. The member threw the muck around yet he had a dose of amnesia when it came to his party’s GST and whether it would pay it back. I remind people who are listening to this debate that National went so far in not moving on its own payments that the taxpayer-funded Television New Zealand had to pay part of the GST for National. It had to pay its bit back to the broadcasters. 
We can look at the National members staggering around over there in Opposition. Don Brash made a speech that would I suspect make paint dry. Don Brash stood there with no vision and no ideas but was backed up with a bit of smoke and mirrors and bluster from Gerry Brownlee. Then of course there is Bill English. John Key’s other problem is that he is being undermined by Bill English. Bill English would love to go there but he is a sort of old nag that is off to the glue factory. Bill English would love to get there but he ain’t going to make it. 
National members should get some vision they should get some ideas and they should actually tell us what their policy is on the stadium. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to join in the Wednesday debate this afternoon because on the Labour side of the House we sure have plenty to talk about and using a further analogy I can say that it is not just one or two members opposite who are headed for the knacker’s yard it is the whole National Party. I have never seen so many press releases about a National leadership challenge as I did when we were putting our files together this afternoon. What it means for the National Party is that it is paralysed. We are seeing no example of policy at all. National members have had many years in Opposition in which to put policy together. Being in Opposition is a good opportunity for a party to put policy together but we have not seen any emanating from National members. It is a waste of time on their part as nobody is listening to them because of their preoccupation with leadership changes. The impression that the public has about National members is that they just cannot get their act together and they are clearly headed for the knacker’s yard whereas members on this side of the House are like the great horse Kiwi from Waverley. We won the political equivalent of the Melbourne Cup and we have a very proud history in that regard. 
One of the other issues on which the National Party has got itself into a real quandary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ll tell you what that member would be rejected by the glue factory. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that he has had his turn and he should hush down a little. One of the other issues on which National has got itself into a real quandary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no Minister in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes there is a Minister in the House. The member will please continue. The clock has been stopped. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh my apologies David Cunliffe is here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will continue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want you to rule on this matter. Clearly there is a Minister in the House but we could not see him because he was slumped down over his seat asleep. Is there a requirement that the Minister should be awake in the House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr McCully. It is a frivolous point of order and the member knows that it is. The Minister had his head down and was working. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could enlighten the House as to why there has to be a Minister in the House and what that Minister does while in the House. If there is a purpose to the Minister being in the House I would be interested to know whether that purpose can be fulfilled by someone who is sound asleep. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for that. There have now been two frivolous interventions. I ask the member for Whanganui to restart her speech. 
JILL PETTIS 
: They are sharp are they not? They are so pathetic. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You referred to the member as the member for Whanganui. She is a list member and is not the member for Whanganui. You called the member for Whanganui; I think you should refer to her by her proper title. She is a list member not the member for Whanganui. She actually lost her seat to a very good member from the National Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. That was an indiscretion on my part. I call the honourable member Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Here we are proudly calling ourselves Kiwis and proud to be New Zealanders yet National Opposition members opposite worry themselves about things of no consequence at all in the greater scheme of things. That shows the huge difference between members of that party and Government members sitting on this side of the House. We are concerned about leadership; we are concerned about vision; we are concerned about New Zealand and the things that really matter. That is the difference between leadership on this side and the National Opposition on the other side which is riven with division. National is riven with division but we are leading the country and will continue to lead. 
We are leading on things like climate change—an issue that the whole world is talking about. Climate change is being talked about by the developed world by the whole progressive world. But the National caucus is filled with division about whether climate change is a reality and about how they can avoid talking about the issue and revealing those members within the National Party who are sceptical about climate change. They are too scared to lose what little backing they have from the business community and from the agricultural community. 
Which party made all the fuss about the methane tax or more commonly known in New Zealand as the “fart tax”? Which party led the charge? It was the National Party that decried the impact on climate change of methane and all of those emissions from farm animals. It is now catching up with the fact that it made a huge mistake. Credible scientists and credible people—like Al Gore who is respected internationally—are leading the debate on this issue and prominent countries in the world are listening to Al Gore’s words. National knows that it made a grave error back then. It has no policy because it has no leadership. 
John Key is a climate change sceptic. He is a doubter. John Key is the man who is more concerned about what his shares did overnight. When asked what is the first thing he thinks about each morning—I do not know whether Mrs Key knows this—he says: “My shares. I wonder how they fared overnight.” He is not the man who says: “My first thoughts— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is bad enough that Ministers go to sleep in the Chamber; it is not acceptable that you do. We want that woman pulled up; we want an apology; and if you were a halfway decent Speaker you would send her out of here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not see that as a need to pull her up. All she said was that the first thing Mr Key thought about in the morning was his shares. That is a debatable issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not what was said and you know it and the  
Hansard 
 record will show it. If you let it go it is a disgrace. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member has caused any offence the member will please withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I do not know what I am withdrawing for but I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You used to be a junior whip. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. Well that just shows how sensitive those members are. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I said that I will withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: And apologise thank you. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Absolutely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not acceptable that you allow that member to qualify her withdrawal in the way she has. On past occasions when the Speaker has asked someone to withdraw and it has been done in an insincere manner as that member has just shown the Speaker has required the person to leave the House. That should be exactly how it is played out in this circumstance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say Mr Brownlee that what I heard the member say was that the first thing Mr Key thought of in the morning was the value of his shares. I did not personally see anything wrong with that. That is what I heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that when you are asleep you do not hear the whole story. That is what has just happened and the  
Hansard 
 record— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I did not hear anything about what the member might be insinuating. I have asked the member on my right that if she has offended she will withdraw and apologise and recommence her speech. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I did without qualification. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the issue. The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I want to draw your attention to the fact that the member having withdrawn and apologised then qualified that withdrawal. That is unacceptable inside the Standing Orders and the Speaker always takes a course of action when there is such a qualification. I invite you to take it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not hear the member make a qualification but she knows that she cannot make a qualification. The member must stand withdraw and apologise. I ask the member to do that right now. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No please do it. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: And apologise. 
JILL PETTIS 
: And apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken offence that a member of this House should accuse the Speaker of being asleep during this debate. I seek a withdrawal and an apology for that accusation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you call the member back so that he can do that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order please! Look guys; just calm down just relax. This is the Wednesday debate. I did not take any offence at the comment and certainly was not asleep. But I thank the member for rising to support the Speaker’s position. I understand the situation and I have dealt with it. I now want to call— 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that you did not take offence but I certainly did and on that basis I was asking for a withdrawal and an apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You cannot take offence on behalf of another member. I am going to move on. I call the honourable member Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: It is absolutely delicious that members opposite can become so preoccupied about issues of no real importance at all. Getting slagged off a bit is just politics. That is what politics is about. It just shows how thin their skins are when they cannot take anything. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have already drawn to your attention the requirement under the Standing Orders for apologies and withdrawals to be made without qualification. I suggest to you that the member on her feet is now referring to the fact that members on this side who raised objections for which she was required to withdraw and apologise are “thin-skinned” to use her term for raising objection. I put it to you that that is not only a qualification of the apology and withdrawal but also it comes dangerously close to challenging the ruling that required her to make that withdrawal and apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to desist. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member also used a very unparliamentary term. She talked about National members who were “slagged off”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that points of order are heard in silence. If they are not then someone is going to get a yellow card. I call the honourable member Lindsay Tisch. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Following on from the point raised by my colleague Murray McCully he brought to your attention that a member cannot qualify a withdrawal and an apology which the member did do and then used a very unparliamentary term when she referred to National members as getting “slagged off”. We take offence and those words should not be used in this House. I ask that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A member has taken offence. The member will withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the situation. 
JILL PETTIS 
: This is a new point of order. I seek clarification. In the interests of a continuation of a smooth debate would you clarify whether the word “misogyny” is unparliamentary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well one can do anything in context so it depends on the way in which it is used in the House. 
JILL PETTIS 
: In context I suggest a bit of misogyny is rife here this afternoon because three male speakers from our side of the House spoke before me and there was not one interjection from the National Party. But when I got up on my haunches members opposite did nothing but interject and interject. I think a little bit of misogyny— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Picking on the girls. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes they are picking on a poor woman. I say: “Shame on you!”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Jill Pettis was doing it all over again was she not? She has been required to withdraw and apologise without qualification. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Twice 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleague Mr Tisch has indicated she has actually been required to do that twice. What did she do the third time? She repeated the same offence all over again. Mr Assistant Speaker she is simply trifling with your rulings and you seem to be willing to tolerate that. I find that unacceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s speech has been terminated. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 If ever a member were headed for the knacker’s yard quite frankly it would be the member whom we have just heard from Jill Pettis. She is probably too tough to turn into glue. She has been in Parliament for three terms but no one knows her and she does not even know the Standing Orders. I can tell Mrs Pettis that very soon she will be able to collect her pointy hat jump on the broom and head back to Wanganui for good. Normally I would be telling her campaign manager to do plenty of radio but in this case I do not know whether it would be a good idea. 
We have heard today that this is the Government of ideas. And it is. It is the Government of stupid ideas; it is the Government of middle-class welfare; it is the Government of retrospective legislation; and of course it is the Government of an unplanned stadium with no site no costings and no guarantee. I ask members to picture the day of the final of the Rugby World Cup 2011. The former Minister for the Rugby World Cup the now disgraced High Commissioner for Niue is sitting in the high commissioner’s residence eyeing that bottle of Heineken on the table rueing the comments he made in 2003 about John O’Neill and turning on his TV to see the All Blacks run on to Homebush. That is what we are headed for. On that day it is quite possible that down on the Auckland waterfront we will have a half-submerged half-built stadium and a $1.5 billion bill for the New Zealand taxpayer. 
Of course that is what has happened throughout this whole thing. Mr Mallard has approached this whole Rugby World Cup issue with a loose wire connecting his brain and his jaw. He got very excited heading off to Dublin. He was fulfilling his boyhood dream rubbing shoulders with the International Rugby Board and wearing his New Zealand Rugby Union tie wherever he went. He loved being up there on stage with Tana—members should have seen him last week with Jock Hobbs—he loves the limelight. He has been captured by fulfilling this childhood dream. But that is the problem. This stadium is all about politics; it is not about sport and it is not about what is best for New Zealand. 
Contradictions are running right through Labour’s approach to this issue. Four months ago MPs were invited to a confidential briefing on Eden Park with the non-existent Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. She was saying that we had to get behind this stadium and that it would be fantastic. Who is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? We were hoping she would be taking a call in this debate because she has had a lot to say. But I guess she has pretty much been told to shut up and hide away. At that stage the Government wanted Eden Park and everyone had to get behind it. It had to be a cross-party thing; we had to be totally supportive. Now the tack has changed and I want to know why the Government did not come up with this proposal for a waterfront stadium a year ago. It has had plenty of time. But it is so craven that it will do anything to win the next election. Helen Clark hates rugby; I do not know why she wants this waterfront stadium. Why is it? I will tell members the reason for it. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the—[ 
Interruption 
] Sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yes mum. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know that the member is new but I say to him that points of order are heard in silence. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member has made a statement about what is a very important and topical issue. He said the Prime Minister hates rugby. I ask the member to withdraw that remark because it is totally untrue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. That is a debatable issue. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As I say this stadium is not about rugby; it is about Helen Clark building a monument to herself. She wants to be able to go into the next election and say: “Hey we’ve fixed Auckland. We’ve transformed the waterfront and we’ve done all this other stuff.” But what a miscalculation—it is backfiring. Members just have to read the  
New Zealand Herald  
each day. No one in Auckland wants this stadium. The councillors on the Auckland City Council want Carlaw Park. This is a failure of leadership. Why did the Government not just make a decision and take the responsibility? Why hand it back to the people of Auckland? The Government will get no decision. 
So now we have two options—as my colleague Murray McCully has said that is what the Government is offering. We have taken the sensible path. We are saying that yes we will support legislation for Eden Park because the stadium can be built we know the costings and we have to have the World Cup final played here—we cannot lose it to Australia. But there is no way that we will write a blank cheque to give this Government license to build the “Clark-osseum” down on the waterfront to burn taxpayers’ dollars and to end up losing the whole thing to Australia. 
Of course the reality is that we know where the stadium really should be and I do not know why the Government is not considering this. As my colleague Mr McCully said and Dr Mapp will agree the stadium should be at the home of the Ranfurly Shield—North Harbour Stadium. We have the land it is what my constituents in Northcote want it will cost only $250 million it will be the heart of the region for the future and that is where we would like to see it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is quite clear that the leaderless rabble across the Chamber have no policy and that is why the speeches of those members lack both consistency and factual accuracy. The last speaker Dr Coleman from the North Shore has not yet been to see the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to put in the bid for the North Shore and he has not let other people do so on his behalf— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is Northcote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debatable issue. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was speaking about the member for Northcote as well! 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it possibly be debatable whether a member is the member for North Shore or Northcote? Dr Coleman is the member for Northcote and I am the member for North Shore. That point is not debatable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept the member’s point. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that it is Wednesday. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: My difficulty of course is that that man has made absolutely no impression not only on me but on the Labour Party in the House—and on the Assistant Speaker quite clearly because the Assistant Speaker failed to pick up on the whereabouts of that very anonymous member. 
Let us look at the analysis of whether the Prime Minister hates rugby. Let us dwell upon that question for just a minute. The Prime Minister goes overseas. The Leader of the Opposition goes overseas. No one talks to him. He comes home early. The Prime Minister goes overseas on important world trade business and takes huge personal time out to go to the International Rugby Board meeting where her contribution secures the World Cup for New Zealand rugby. Her contribution was acknowledged by Jock Hobbs and the New Zealand Rugby Union. She showed the leadership that the last speaker can only envy—the leadership that he admires and the leadership that he wishes there was a touch of in the Opposition across the Chamber. If there were leadership across the Chamber and if the loyal Opposition had a leader to lead the charge that Opposition would also have some policy. But does the Opposition have policy? 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: No. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: We know that but the Opposition does not know it because we did not hear a “Yes” from the other side of the House. The Opposition admits to having no policy. This side of the House knows the answer—no. 
The member for Northcote is very quiet on the question of policy. “What is that?” he asks. The senior Opposition whip is very quiet on policy. “What is that?” he asks. “Who has to have policy around here? We are supposed to be the Opposition.” But to be in Opposition one needs to have a leader. So who are National’s leadership choices? Is it the millionaire who made his money from market trading and does not have any policy or plank to rely upon? Or is it the very right-wing Dr Brash who is so far to the right that only the member for Napier follows him faithfully like a puppy dog? 
The truth of course is that if we want to look at policy and contradictory behaviour we just need to go to a school in Napier. On Monday night this week William Colenso College in Napier said it all about Government policy. It had a prize-giving. William Colenso College is a decile 2 college which has students from year 7 to year 13 after a recent merger. It is a decile 2 college that could announce on that night that its National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results were the equivalent of an average decile 7 school. That is an amazing announcement from a decile 2 school that cannot pick and choose its students. 
The significant thing about that of course was that the local National member was sitting on the stage when that announcement was made. He is the very man who went on record during the last election campaign as saying that we had to get away from NCEA. Did he demur? No he clapped because he saw policy in action. What he also acknowledged by his presence on that stage was the failure of the National Party’s bulk-funding approach. The modern William Colenso College was born out of the bulk-funding fiasco of 1999. A new board was voted in—led by a very capable man who is now an MP—and a new principal and William Colenso College now has the figures to speak highly of the Government’s policy in education. 
An echelon that went through primary school in the days of the National Government came to William Colenso College in 2002 and its average literacy rate was 8 percent—that was its norm. Eight percent of that class had a normal literacy rate; the rest were lower. That class—a large complement of students—graduated on Monday and they were at the top of their performance level. The National Party member for Napier sat there and clapped them because he acknowledged publicly the success of the Government’s policy in education. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I have a question for Trevor Mallard. The question is what has changed since 13 May 2005. What has changed? The polls have changed dramatically and the front pages have not been very kind. On 13 May 2005 Trevor Mallard said that the Government was not prepared to fund a $300 million stadium. Now Mr Mallard is putting before all of New Zealand and all of Auckland a stadium that will cost probably twice as much—which is an estimate on the low side—and will have a much higher risk. It is a pity that he started the process just the other day and not on 13 May 2005 because that was 18 months ago and a heck of a lot of work could have been done in that 18 months. 
I stand here proudly as a former Mayor of Wellington. Wellington is a city that did build a stadium very close to the waterfront. That stadium has made a heck of a lot of difference. It was built on time and on budget. I congratulate all Wellingtonians on getting in behind and helping to deliver on that project. The economic spin-off has been huge. I go back to the arguments we had at the time. Would we put it in Porirua the Hutt Valley or Wellington? What would it do to rates? The cost of it would send rates sky-high. How could we consider changing the location from Athletic Park which was the home of rugby? 
I hear some familiar stories when I listen to the airwaves and read the newspapers at the moment. It all sounds familiar. The question is whether Auckland can do it. Can Auckland put a stadium on its waterfront? I actually hope it can but I have huge reservations and those reservations have been compounded by the inactivity and poor decision-making and leadership of the Labour Government. 
Two debates are running at the moment. The first debate is on whether Auckland should have a national stadium. I think Auckland should be the home of a national stadium. Should it be on the waterfront? I hope so because the economic spin-offs would be huge. Should Auckland have a 60000-person Rugby World Cup venue? Too jolly right; it must have that for New Zealand’s benefit. Would it not be ideal if those two venues were the same? Unfortunately I do not see that as being possible. There are too many risks before us for that to occur. 
The first risk is whether the stadium can be built on time. Maybe but it is a risk. Will it be affordable? Is that not when the guesswork really starts I ask Mr Mallard. The most fancied figure is $500 million. In May 2005 Mr Mallard said that the economic return from the whole tournament was $408 million so we have to weigh up whether the investment is actually worthy of that return. There is risk around the robustness of the numbers. The Government commissioned Rider Hunt a quantity surveyor to do the numbers. Could Rider Hunt possibly get the numbers wrong? It has costed a couple of prisons. Spring Hill prison was estimated in 2002 as costing $202 million but it ended up being $380 million—that was only 86 percent out. The cost of the Otago prison was estimated in 2004 as $156 million but it was delivered for $218 million—a 40 percent blowout. We have an issue. Quantity surveyors will get it wrong because it is all guesswork and the final plans have not yet been done. That is important. 
The general manager of Fletcher Construction for the lower North Island Bob Hall who built the Wellington stadium said when he was talking about preliminary budget estimates: “I would caution how this information should be interpreted and in particular be judged against any other proposal …”. He was talking about a preliminary budget estimate for the Manawatu stadium. “It would be my expectation that the design development phase would inevitably see additional dollars added to the overall project…”. This stadium will cost more than we believe. That has to be an issue for the Government for us and for Aucklanders. 
I sincerely hope Auckland can deliver on the Rugby World Cup opportunity. It is vital for Auckland and for us. I hope the city can show some leadership in the debate that is going on and get an answer by the time the deadline is up. That is important for the city. I give a final warning. We cannot focus just on building the stadium whether it be on the waterfront or at Eden Park. I learnt a valuable lesson in Australia: one has also to fill a stadium with a series of events. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be able to participate once again in the general debate. Last time I spoke in the general debate I was musing about the time of year. Yes it is still springtime. I was talking about how springtime is my favourite time of the year most importantly because that is the time of the year when the Labour Party has its conference. What a fabulous conference it was. 
Last time I talked in this general debate I was looking forward to the conference; now I would like to reflect on what a fabulous conference it was. It was the best-attended conference in 20 years. Yes it was held in provincial New Zealand—in Rotorua. My colleague the MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick hosted a fantastic conference that was full of people from real New Zealand—people who came from across the board. We had great diversity because that is the sort of party the Labour Party is. We have that sort of diversity that can inform our decision making. That is why we get decisions right. I also thank the Mayor of Rotorua who spoke at our conference and outlined just how well his city is doing under this Labour Government with all its forethought planning and vision. 
The other thing that happens in springtime that is dear to my heart is the Melbourne Cup. That has come and gone. We know who the winner was. The race has been run and we know who the winner was unlike National members who do not know the winner of the “spring roll”. National members have a traditional “spring roll” whereby they start to debate who their leader should or should not be. It has been going on since well before the Melbourne Cup. It still is not completed and that party is paralysed as a result. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Talk about something you know. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do know a bit about the Melbourne Cup and I know a bit about how races are won so I will use a horse racing analogy to explain what I observe is happening opposite. I am also very pleased to note that this is the third time in this general debate that a member on this side of the House has used a horse racing analogy to explain what is going on in the National Party caucus. I am thrilled to bits that I have had that sort of influence on my colleagues; they are thinking about horse racing analogies. I have one of my own. 
Darien Fenton 
: What about the donkeys on the other side? 
SUE MORONEY 
: No I will not talk about donkeys. It is thoroughbreds that I am used to talking about but in this case I will talk about the National Party. 
A large field left the gates. No one knew exactly how many horses were in the field and who was lined up. They have been out of the stalls for some time and have been jostling for position. That always happens in a horse race—horses jump out and start jostling for position. But the National members have kept jostling for position and jostling for position and jostling for position. They are coming round into the home straight and guess what? They are still jostling for position. No clear leader is really emerging. So while all this is going on the punters of course are swapping horses. I think that in this analogy the punters are the back-benchers of the National Party. They are not really too sure who they are betting on. Perhaps they keep swapping their bets around because the leadership challenge that we were all expecting still has not happened. 
The other thing that I have learnt in my time of being involved in horse racing is that timing is everything. Timing one’s run is very important. Now John Key should study a few horse races because if he had he may have got his timing right. He might have worked out that a few weeks ago when a poll came out saying that National Party supporters preferred him over the current leader Don Brash that was the gap opening up in the home straight. That was the gap that he should have been able to power through. But did he take the gap? No. He could not take the gap. Perhaps he needs blinkers or a shadow blind or one of those other techniques that horse racing trainers use because he certainly does not seem to have the courage to take the gap. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can never challenge someone’s courage as it is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. John Key certainly has not spotted the gap and he has not had the acceleration to be able to take that gap when it opened up for him. 
So he has shown to us that he does not have the right attitude; he does not have that winning attitude that is required. He has been held up when the gap opened up and he does not have that burning desire to win. If he does not have that burning desire to win to lead his own pack then the member really should not consider thinking that he could ever lead this country. Because if he cannot even design his own career and work out when to make a move and get his timing right on that what chance does he have of getting the timing right for critical decisions for this country? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: I move  
That the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time 
. Otira kei te Kaihautu na runga i tena tono e tika ana kia huri atu ki a Ngati Mutunga kua tae a-tinana mai mai i te marumaru o to ratou maunga titohea a Taranaki. Hei aha? Hei whakarongo hei tautoko i tenei ta ratou pire mo to ratou kereme. No reira e mihi ana ki a ratau mihi ana ki te Whare. E whakaaro ano hoki ki a ratou kua wheturangihia o ratou mate huhua kua tomo atu kua ngaro atu ki tua o te arai. No reira Ngati Mutunga tena koutou nau mai haere mai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Indeed Mr Assistant Speaker in taking that call it is apt that I turn to acknowledge the presence of Ngati Mutunga having come here from the shadow of their barren mountain of Taranaki. And for what purpose? To listen and to support this bill of theirs about their claim. And so I greet them and the House. I also acknowledge those who have passed away theirs and ours who have entered the void and are lost beyond the veil. And so greetings to you collectively Ngati Mutunga welcome welcome. 
] 
I took a brief opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Ngati Mutunga representatives who have come from Taranaki to listen to this the third reading of their settlement bill. In so doing I also acknowledge the many Ngati Mutunga kuia and koroua who are no longer with them or with us and the contributions they made to bring this very very important settlement legislation to this point. I welcome Ngati Mutunga representatives here today. 
I also want to acknowledge the significance of the settlement legislation to Ngati Mutunga. This bill brings to an end the longstanding and significant grievances of Ngati Mutunga and settles all of its Taranaki-based historical Treaty claims. The historical wrongs committed by the Crown that are acknowledged in this legislation contributed to the loss of Ngati Mutunga land and resources and to the collapse of its social structures. The Crown’s breaches of the Treaty have had a devastating effect on the welfare social and economic development of Ngati Mutunga. What happened to the people of Ngati Mutunga was at the most serious end of the scale of the Crown’s breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi . 
The historically based Treaty claims of Ngati Mutunga relate mainly to the confiscation by the Crown of all of Ngati Mutunga’s land following the wars in Taranaki. The effect of this on Ngati Mutunga was severe. When members of Ngati Mutunga iwi joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka they were arrested imprisoned and endured harsh conditions including forced labour. I encourage all New Zealanders to read the historical account outlined in the Ngati Mutunga deed of settlement. Stories such as those relating to Ngati Mutunga are a tragic and shameful part of our history but remembering them is essential in order to understand the relationship between Maori and other New Zealanders and the contribution Maori have made to the development of this country. 
We must know and understand our history if we do not wish to repeat it. We must also seek to reconcile the damage caused to the Crown’s relationship with Ngati Mutunga. This Government has set itself the goal of building a strong sense of national identity. This bill furthers that goal. The additional effort this Government has put into settling Treaty claims is now showing results. This is the second claims settlement bill to pass through this House this year and a third bill is set for introduction later this year. 
Ngati Mutunga began negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The heads of agreement setting out the basis for settling Ngati Mutunga’s Taranaki-based historical Treaty of Waitangi claims was signed on 24 September 1999. After signing the heads of agreement Ngati Mutunga decided to suspend negotiations temporarily while it considered the best way forward for the iwi. In November 2002 Ngati Mutunga re-engaged with the Crown to continue negotiations. A draft deed of settlement containing the Crown’s proposed settlement offer to Ngati Mutunga was prepared and the approval of the iwi was sought. Forty-eight percent of eligible Ngati Mutunga voters voted on whether to accept the Crown offer and 94 percent agreed to accept it. On 31 July 2005 the deed of settlement was signed. 
The passage of the settlement bill represents the final steps of a long and arduous journey for Ngati Mutunga to have its claims properly heard accepted and addressed. I acknowledge that it has been a difficult journey for Ngati Mutunga to make. I commend the current membership of Ngati Mutunga and the Ngati Mutunga negotiators for negotiating in the utmost good faith and for demonstrating that they were willing to cooperate and even to compromise in order to reach an agreement. 
I am pleased to acknowledge all of those from Ngati Mutunga who have worked hard to make this day possible. I particularly want to acknowledge Bill Tuuta who led Ngati Mutunga to the heads of agreements stage but sadly passed away before negotiations resumed. I also wish to acknowledge those who undertook these negotiations at great personal cost to themselves to achieve this important milestone for their iwi. I acknowledge too the kaumatua and kuia who provided leadership and inspiration to the Ngati Mutunga negotiators and to their wider iwi. 
Like everyone else in this House I wish all the best for Ngati Mutunga its elders its descendants the negotiating team and the trustees of Ngati Mutunga’s governance entity. Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga—that is who they are—will soon begin the task of managing the settlement assets. I am certain that they will do so with the judgment tenacity skills and commitment that they showed throughout the settlement process. I am also certain that with the benefit of Ngati Mutunga’s leadership and the revitalisation of its mana and identity future generations will receive a strong enduring legacy because of the decisions made here today. I commend this bill to the House and thank Ngati Mutunga. Kia ora. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 E nga mana e nga reo e te tupuna maunga whanaunga Taranaki tena koutou i tenei ra hohonu. 
[ 
To the authorities languages and Taranaki the ancestral and kindred mountain greetings to you collectively on this auspicious day. 
] 
I am pleased to support the third reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. As a member of this august institution and as a Maori New Zealander of Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Ngati Awa descent I congratulate Ngati Mutunga in particular and the Government on concluding the settlement of the historic grievances that form the basis of the bill that is now before us which we as parliamentarians—with the exception of only one party—are about to pass into law. 
I make a comment about that one party the ACT party which will take its line of opposing all Treaty settlements. Of course in the end if a party is against everything and stands for nothing—especially for something as important as this bill—then that party will find itself reduced to two members in this House and those members will have to either go dancing or be in the army. The reality is that matters such as those dealt with in this bill are important. The ACT party has shown no empathy for what we do in respect of these settlements. That situation would not be so bad if ACT proposed something different but in all its years in this House—10 I think; the same period of time as those of us who came to Parliament in 1996—it has never proposed a different settlement model. 
 To come back to the matter in hand I point out that it is important to emphasise the significance of the near-universal parliamentary support for this settlement. This bill represents the mighty step on the part of Ngati Mutunga to finally make the decision to settle and to put the grievance behind them. But the settlement also sends a signal about the maturing of our nation Aotearoa and of our willingness as New Zealanders in the end—because it has taken a long while—to do the right thing. I think that that is important. New Zealanders should be proud that in this country some of us regard these settlements as being so important that they form part of our national identity. 
In respect of the settlement before us the Crown can through the Government of the day—in this case the Labour Government—and on behalf of all New Zealanders admit to injustice and wrongdoing apologise for it and move to make reparation for it. Maori claimants—in this case Ngati Mutunga—are acknowledged for the grievance they have carried for such a long period through generations and they are relieved of that today. Hopefully the words that were uttered by the people of Ngati Mutunga who appeared before our select committee provided an opportunity for them to look forward and move on. We wish them all the best in that regard. 
These grievances signify for most Maori the illusory—indeed the discriminatory—nature of the so-called British system of justice. Until these claims are settled most tribes would say that their tupuna—their ancestors—signed up for the introduction of British laws and justice into this country in 1840 on the basis of the protection of tino rangatiratanga. But of course as we all know the events that followed the signing of the Treaty were more about a nation that practised inequality of citizenship. That is a total injustice for the circumstances that give rise to most if not all historic grievances are about the application of a different standard of citizenship to a certain section of our community. Some Maori would say that that injustice is still being applied. I would like to think that slowly but surely our system of justice is being seen to apply in an even-handed way. 
In a nation that prides itself on being a modern democracy it is an unacceptable state of affairs that these historic grievances are still on our books and that is why it is National’s policy—and it has been since the 1990s—to place due importance on the conclusion of durable Treaty settlements. But I would add that today in 2006 we urge the conclusion of more timely settlements. When we get into Government in 2008 we will certainly be looking to put a little bit more vigour a lot more passion and a lot more commitment into having these grievances cleared off our books so that we all as New Zealanders can go forward. 
Historic settlements are only a beginning. They take us back to the supposed “level playing field” of 1840. However the fact that two cultures of a vastly different nature gave certain undertakings to each other meant that it was always going to be a bit questionable as to whether the playing field was even. But the intentions were sincere I think and I am proud of both our British and Maori antecedents. If the Treaty’s purpose was only to put things right that had gone wrong then we are attributing to our British antecedents a deception of the most significant magnitude and to our Maori tupuna a lack of either the wit or understanding to make a judgment on what they should have done. Maori signed the Treaty and ceded sovereignty but in return they expected certain guarantees to be honoured. The last 20 years have seen our nation working through those guarantees and endeavouring to understand them and give life to them in these settlements. 
I pay special tribute to Sir Doug Graham and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger because I think they had enormous courage in the early 1990s to develop a platform for settling these injustices. If someone in 1980 had said National would be the party to develop a platform for settling these injustices some people may not have believed that person. So I am very proud to be part of the party that had the courage to develop that platform. It took long enough to do so I know but that is why it is important to acknowledge the contributions of Sir Doug Graham Jim Bolger and their colleagues of 1992—the year that marked the first of the big settlements. 
I join with Minister Ririnui today in wishing Ngati Mutunga all the best. I congratulate their leaders including those who are considerably younger than I am. I acknowledge them because I think they have done extremely well. 
Before I finish I would like to raise one issue. I understand that yesterday in the Committee of the whole House my colleague Chris Finlayson had a Supplementary Order Paper around the request by Ngati Mutunga for the Crown to enable them to use legislation to effect a liquidation of their existing iwi representative entity and to replace it with a new one. They were denied that request. I can understand their strong feelings about the issue given that this House has seen the same thing happen in previous settlements namely the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act 2005 and more recently the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. We must remember that those Acts apart from the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act were largely completed by a National Government. I would like to think that when we are in Government in 2008 my colleagues will give serious thought to this matter because not being able to replace the iwi representative entity puts Ngati Mutunga at a huge disadvantage and to enormous cost even though a very simple solution is available to them. 
I am very proud to take part in this debate. I am very proud to see this bill pass through its third reading this afternoon. Again I congratulate Ngati Mutunga. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the third reading of the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee that processed the bill I want to revisit the question raised yesterday by the member Chris Finlayson surrounding the matter that Georgina te Heuheu has just raised. It is important to apply some clarity because at the end of the day it is about giving some certainty to the process. To do that I want to recall the commentary in the bill itself. It states: “On 19 July 2004 the proposed settlement package was approved by Cabinet. On 14 December 2004 the Iwi Authority and the Crown initialled a deed of settlement. Following ratification the deed of settlement was signed on 31 July 2005.” This is the bit I am leading to: “The governance entity structure was also ratified at this time. On 21 December 2005 the Ngati Mutunga governance entity Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga was established.” 
The issue raised yesterday was surrounding the information or advice that the select committee had received from parliamentary counsel and the Office of Treaty Settlements. There was some reference to the commentary we had adopted; that the commentary was in effect incorrect in relation to the advice that we had received. 
 I thought that again it was important to revisit exactly what the commentary said so that we can have on record confirmation of whether indeed the matter is correct. It reads: “The Office of Treaty Settlements advised us that amending the bill to provide for the disestablishment of the iwi authority and the establishment of the post-settlement governance entity was not feasible. The Parliamentary Counsel Office advised us that amending the bill to disestablish or establish private trusts would be very unusual and could have implications for previous settlements. They told us that establishing a new governance entity is a private matter. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement which cannot be achieved with certainty under normal (non-legislative) processes. Although settlement legislation has been used in association with private trusts to the extent that the trusts are made perpetual instead of being subject to the rules that limit the life of a trust the Crown will not use government legislation to establish a legal entity to receive and manage settlement assets.” 
I find that that part of the commentary for me clarifies the advice that we received from the Office of Treaty Settlements and Parliamentary Counsel confirming that it cannot be done through the process of this bill. So I think it is important to add some clarity to that matter particularly for the members of the Maori Affairs Committee who spent a lot of time making sure to get this process right. 
From there I would also like to look at the historical aspects of the bill because I think it is important to give that some acknowledgment—acknowledgment of the wrongs committed by the Crown and acknowledged in the legislation which contributed to the loss of Ngati Mutunga land resources and social structures. The Crown’s breaches of the Treaty have had a devastating effect on the welfare and the social and economic development of Ngati Mutunga. What happened to the people of Ngati Mutunga was at the most serious end of the scale of Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The historical Taranaki-based Treaty claims of Ngati Mutunga relate mainly to the confiscation by the Crown of all Ngati Mutunga’s land following the wars in Taranaki. The effect of this on Ngati Mutunga was severe. When members of the Ngati Mutunga iwi joined the peaceful settlement at Parihaka they were arrested and imprisoned and endured harsh conditions including forced labour. I thought it was important to give some acknowledgment to the historical part of this debate on this bill. 
From there I think also that it is necessary to talk about the negotiation because obviously the negotiation is the area where one finds whether there will be a settlement. Ngati Mutunga began negotiations with the Crown in 1996. The heads of agreement setting out the basis for settling the Ngati Mutunga Taranaki-based historical Treaty of Waitangi claims were signed on 24 September 1999. After signing the heads of agreement they decided to suspend negotiations temporarily while they considered the best way forward for the iwi. In November 2004 Ngati Mutunga re-engaged with the Crown to continue negotiations. A draft deed of settlement that contained the Crown’s proposed settlement offer to Ngati Mutunga was prepared and the approval of the iwi was sought. Forty-eight percent of eligible Ngati Mutunga voters voted on whether to accept this Crown offer and 94 percent agreed to accept it. 
On 31 July 2005 the deed of settlement was signed. The passage of this settlement bill represents the final steps of a long and arduous journey for Ngati Mutunga to have their claims properly heard accepted and addressed. I acknowledge that it has been a difficult journey for Ngati Mutunga to make. 
To that end I would like to move on to some acknowledgments particularly to Ngati Mutunga and the spirit of cooperation that they have shown and exercised through the negotiation process. I recall when Ngati Mutunga were giving evidence to the select committee the position that they put very clearly to us. That position was that they adopted a pragmatic view and the reason for adopting that pragmatic view was to ensure that they were able to arrive at a settlement that they could accept so that there were no barriers put in place and they could as an iwi move on. So I acknowledge the manner and the spirit of cooperation that they adopted and also acknowledge the committee members for their involvement and participation throughout the process. I think it is necessary to say that the advice and help from the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Parliamentary Counsel Office must be acknowledged also. 
In ending I would also like to congratulate Ngati Mutunga not only on their participation and involvement but also on the opportunities that they now face once this legislation is put in place. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an amendment to the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill: first to dissolve the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority; and second to transfer the assets and liabilities with regard to taxes and duties—final report of the Ngati Mutunga Iwi Authority. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave of the House. Is their any objection? There is objection. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 E nga manuhiri tuarangi nga kuia me nga koroheke nga tuakana me nga tungane koutou nga uri o Ngati Mutunga kua tae mai nei ki te tautoko i tenei kaupapa o tenei ra nau mai haere mai whakatau mai ra. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elderly women and menfolk older siblings and brothers and to you the descendants of Ngati Mutunga who have arrived here to support this matter today welcome welcome and alight here. 
] 
The Greens are pleased to support the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill at the third reading. We want to acknowledge the very hard work of Te Runanga o Ngati Mutunga in negotiating the settlement for its people. We believe that it has demonstrated real genuine leadership in dealing with both the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements in this process. We specially want to congratulate the kuia and kaumatua of Ngati Mutunga for all of their hard hard work over many many years. That hard work has meant that the iwi and the runanga were able to take on this challenge and succeed. I do not doubt for a minute that we all understand and recognise that all the achievements that we make now are based on the work that has been done in the past—the strength of our elders in keeping these issues alive so that we can take them just a little step further. 
When Ngati Mutunga came to the hearings at the Maori Affairs Committee what was most obvious from their submissions and discussions with us was the desire to put this process behind them so that they could properly plan for their collective future. Their whole approach to the settlement was about the future opportunities that the settlement gives them. I do not mean just the financial and land resources but the sense of having worked through what is a very difficult long expensive process that in the end has strengthened them. They said to us that their Ngati Mutungatanga was strengthened that their unique identity within Taranaki was strengthened and that their collective work had reconnected the ahi ka with Ngati Mutunga across the country. Their work had built a collective understanding of their history with all of the past hurts that that includes—that is true and that is difficult—but also with all of the joy and passion that comes from being Ngati Mutunga. They told us that this work had made them much stronger as a people. This is not the most common experience post-settlement but it was theirs and it means that they are perfectly placed to build a strong and successful future based on their Ngati Mutungatanga based on their successes and based on their desire for a strong healthy well future for their people. 
I will conclude by saying that the Greens are very pleased to have played even a small part in recognising and witnessing this process and we wish Ngati Mutunga all the very best for their future. Kia ora. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Kaiwhakawa tena hoki tatou o te Whare nei. Kei te tautoko nga mihi ki a Ngati Mutunga i a koutou i tu i mua i a au. 
Nga mihi hoki ki a koutou nga kaumatua nga kuia nga rangatira katoa i tau mai i roto i te Whare i te ra nei koutou hoki i kawe nei i te kaupapa e whakatakoto mai i mua i a tatou inaianei. He mihi hoki ki a koutou e noho ana i raro te maunga tapu o Taranaki e whakarongo ki nga korero whakamutunga kia whakatau atu i te pire nei. 
Engari i mua i te haere tonu o nga korero e mihi hoki ki a koe e kara e Jamie me to ropu mo nga mahi pakeke nga mahi whakahirahira i mahia koutou ki te whakaotingia nga mahi taumaha i hoatu to iwi i runga ou pokohiwi. 
I te ra nei ka hoki mai te pire nei mo te wa tuatoru i runga te huarahi e kawe mai tenei kaupapa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to us also of this House. I endorse the acknowledgments of Ngati Mutunga by those who stood before me. 
My greetings to you the elders the elderly womenfolk all the chiefs who have arrived in the House today those of you responsible for the matter that is before us at this moment. I also acknowledge those of you at home beneath the hallowed mountain of Taranaki listening in to the closing speeches that are to settle this bill. 
Before I continue I offer my congratulations to you Jamie and your team on the hard work and tremendous efforts undertaken by you collectively to complete such an onerous task that your people placed upon your shoulders. 
This bill comes back for its third reading in much the same way that brought this matter here. 
] 
Madam Speaker before I continue I want to acknowledge your presence because I think history is being made in that I think you are the first person to as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations initiate a Treaty claim and also to sit in the Chair in your position as Speaker to oversee the progress of the legislation to its conclusion. Quite clearly history will show the uniqueness of your position at this very time. 
On behalf of New Zealand First it is my pleasure to participate in the third reading of this Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill; a bill that provides a chapter in the history of Ngati Mutunga that evidences the settlement of their claim arising from breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. This bill is intended to help bring some closure to events of the 19th century that were manifested in actions commenced on 5 September 1866. Such events as I have already stated during earlier debates saw the people of Ngati Mutunga and of course other iwi of Taranaki subjected to one of the darkest hours in our history as a nation. It is significant to reiterate the comments of the Waitangi Tribunal during its consideration of this claim: “There may be no [other claims] where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time …”. 
It is important to say at the outset that any amount of apology and compensation cannot truly amend the events of the past. Having said that the passing of this legislation today will however provide some redress for the people of Ngati Mutunga. To this end I say that the offer that was made by the Crown and was accepted by the negotiators on behalf of Ngati Mutunga is of a quantum such that it raised concerns within the Maori Affairs Committee which considered this bill. I say this again in the context of the view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal: “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori to restore the honour of the Government to ensure cultural survival and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.” I suppose that the comments made recently by the chairman of the tribunal that suggested that the total amount of all the settlements once concluded would rise to about $3 billion should not have come as any surprise. 
This bill will bring finality to the claims made by Ngati Mutunga—that is the descendants of Mutunga—and it follows the consideration of submissions made to the Maori Affairs Committee. Compared with other settlements of this nature I ought to say that the submissions received on this bill were in the main of a supportive nature. The only concern expressed was that of the local body which was concerned about the fee simple of a reserve that is currently its responsibility being vested in Ngati Mutunga. I should say that this support was further evidenced by the iwi ballot to accept the negotiated settlement and the new body to receive the proceeds from this settlement. Although the agreement was not as strong as we all would like to see the fact is that people were given the opportunity to participate in the process and if they chose not to then that should not be a reflection on the ability of the negotiators to advance this settlement. 
The question of a new entity to receive the proceeds from this settlement raised some discussion during the Committee stage particularly with regard to having it included in this bill. I think that the essence of the intent of this was articulated in a point of order raised by a member from National. I am disappointed that it could not proceed any further and I ought to say that the only reason why it did not proceed was a technicality. The saddening part was that it was supported by the claimants themselves. 
During the hearing of submissions representatives from Ngati Mutunga—although having completed a deed of settlement entered into negotiations and accepted the settlement with the Crown to be fair in the circumstances—expressed some disquiet about elements of the final settlement. The source of this disquiet included the formula used by the Crown negotiators to arrive at the quantum that was used to reach this settlement. In the view of Ngati Mutunga the total area of land that was originally confiscated amounted to 150000 acres. However the settlement is based on a much lesser amount and is drawn from Sim Commission evidence and findings—the source of information in developing this quantum offer. The Office of Treaty Settlements might want to review the approach it takes with future settlements given the comments and the lessons we have learnt from this particular settlement. 
Another point of disquiet was the apparent reluctance to provide the claimants with the full formula used to arrive at the quantum for this claim. Although I accept the explanation given by the Office of Treaty Settlements to the select committee I think that the time taken to address that particular issue could be minimised if in fact the formula was provided to the claimants during the negotiations. However we also found that in ascertaining this formula the size or population of an iwi contributed to the overall quantum for each claim. Notwithstanding the extent and the seriousness of the breaches of the Treaty if an iwi is of small numbers then that contributes to the size of the settlement. Given the small size of this iwi against the amount of land confiscated and its commercial value one can easily see Ngati Mutunga’s position. Also if any credence is to be given to the recent comments of the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal this becomes an issue for future settlements. 
I conclude by making reference to my party’s concern about the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Looking at the bill I see that reference is made to breaches of the Treaty and its principles. I suggest that not including any such reference to the principles of the Treaty would make no difference to the need to settle claims such as this one. 
In conclusion I wish the people of Ngati Mutunga all the best for the future and also say to this House that a lot of members here will never appreciate the responsibility that has been put on the young shoulders of Jamie Tuuta and his whanaunga by the people of Ngati Mutunga. In years to come people will be critical of the size of this settlement. They will be critical of the process that was taken. In terms of Maoridom Jamie and his descendants will have to bear the brunt of this. 
Hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi atu ki a ratou nga manaakitanga o Te Runga Rawa kei runga i a koutou mo nga ra kei te heke. Na reira tena koutou tena koutou huri noa ki tenei o tatou Whare. Kia ora mai ano tatou. 
[ 
I want to extend the blessings of The Almighty Above upon them for the future. So greetings to you and to us throughout this House of ours; once again greetings. 
] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Ko te titohea ka mengiatia he puna koropupu ahakoa tukitukia e te poaka. E kore e mimiti ka koropupu ka koropupu ka koropupu. 
[ 
The land even though it has been made barren by uprooting by pigs is like a pool that continues to bubble up. It will not diminish but will continue to bubble up. 
] 
Titohea makes reference to a free-flowing spring whose flow despite being defiled by pigs will not diminish. Indeed it wells up and gushes forth in spite of the pollution and the filth that surround it. This korero is extremely appropriate today. 
Ngati Mutunga no koutou tenei korero. Kei te mihi te Pati Maoriki a koutou Ngati Mutunga mo ta koutou maia ahakoa tukitukia e te hau e te ua e te pu e te raupatu e te muru o te whenua tena koutou katoa. Hara mai me nga mate hara mai me te raukura. 
[ 
This is about Ngati Mutunga. The Maori Party commends you for the courage and perseverance to withstand the devastations caused by elements of nature land wars confiscation and loss of lands for being so resolute despite being battered about by the elements the musket conquest and confiscation of land; greetings to you all. Welcome with your grievances and plume. 
] 
Today we commend Ngati Mutunga for the courage and perseverance to withstand the devastation of raupatu in the context of confiscation and colonisation. Ko koutou ko era atu iwi hapu o Taranaki me ki ko nga iwi o Tokomaru Kurahaupo o Aotea waka. 
[ 
Let us say that you and other tribes and subtribes of Taranaki are those of the Tokomaru Kurahaupo and Aotea canoes. 
] 
The Maori Party is mindful of the analysis of the Waitangi Tribunal in the 1996  
Taranaki Report 
. That report described the context of Taranaki as beyond comparison stating: “There may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time.” Not many in this country will know that military action in Taranaki on behalf of the Crown did not end until the invasion of Parihaka in 1881 or that conflict with the use of arms was spread not over one not over two but over 40 years of violence and that Taranaki experienced relentless attacks on the people who placed their faith in the prophets of peace Te Whiti Tohu and Titokowaru. 
But the tribunal went further to suggest that while the pain of war may soften over time the real issue that remains the central problem is the relationship between Maori and the Government. The passive resistance of Taranaki iwi and hapu was punished with land deprivation the burning and ransacking of homes the destruction of crops and the assault of the pen. These matters are well recorded in our history. Special legislation was enacted to deny all rights of trial. Several hundred of Taranaki Maori were sent to jail indefinitely to places like Otakou—to Dunedin. The imprisonment and sedition charges laid against their leaders were intended to annihilate the movement and to force the people to retrench from their position and to retreat into submission. E kore e mimiti te puna ka koropupu ka koropupu ka koropupu tonu. The spring will never diminish. It will continue to bubble. 
And so it is that Nga Uri o Nga Tupuna o Ngati Mutunga are here today. It would benefit members of this House to travel to Taranaki to places like Parihaka and Urenui to sit in the whare puni of Taranaki to understand the depth of feeling about confiscation about the locking away of their leaders. The songs and the haka of Taranaki capture that history. Piki mai Pungarehu ka tangi mai te piukara—climb the hill at Pungarehu and one can hear the sound of the bugle. E rere ra te motu nei ki roto koia o Parihaka. 
[ 
This part of the land must seek refuge at Parihaka. 
] 
Reference is made to the arrival of soldiers at Parihaka. Despite the histories that have been told and the waiata that are sung the mamae must remain in the hearts of the Ngati Mutunga people. 
So to assist the House to understand the context I thought I might try to use a role play to convey the effect of the deed of settlement in which the Crown and Ngati Mutunga agree to a full and final resolution of all Ngati Mutunga historical claims. For the purposes of this role play I will enlist the support of the Hon Mita Ririnui. Our key prop in this scenario is a fictitious house belonging to the honourable member. For the purposes of the exercise it has been valued at $250000. Think about this. Two years ago when the Maori Party was getting established we had to take Mr Ririnui’s house off him to set up the national headquarters of the Maori Party. We did this in the best interests of the nation. That is what we are here for—the best interests of the nation. 
With the benefit of hindsight and on careful reflection we realise that it was not really fair so we are prepared to fess up and suggest that it would be in the best interests of the nation that we the Maori Party acknowledge that we were at fault and that we are willing to enter into a process of negotiation to make amends for the confiscation of his property. We hope that Mr Ririnui will agree to the settlement which we can both accept as fair in the circumstances. We believe that it would be fair in the circumstances to offer Mr Ririnui a settlement price of approximately 1 percent of the value of the house—a value that we believe represents the value that will stand for at least another 25 years. We are here with our cheque in hand for the sum of $2500. 
We based this amount on an evaluation we got from a commission that we have used in similar situations. We understand that Mr Ririnui has another valuation different from the one that we prefer. Aroha mai we will stick with our one thank you. Unfortunately the Maori Party is unable to pay any more for the house because our long-term goal is to expand into other areas. We need to consider the overall quantum in order that we are able to afford to take the houses of other Ministers in due course. 
We are however always willing to be reasonable and indeed our generosity knows no bounds in that we are prepared today to table an apology for having to take his house for the best interests of the nation. I am sorry but we did want the member’s house. We know that the Ririnui whanau has a vested interest as such in the house through the Ririnui family trust and ever wanting to be helpful we suggest that Mr Ririnui disestablishes the family trust and transfers all of the assets and functions of that body to another post-settlement governance body—well actually our offer is conditional upon this. 
Fairness however must always operate within fiscal constraints. So we further direct that we set up a board to which we appoint some representatives to ensure that the new post-settlement governance body will be accountable for the settlement funds—remember they are $2500. We would like Mr Ririnui to let everyone know in his whanau and take a roll-call at all of his meetings so that we can trust that they have participated in the process. His children and grandchildren have a vested interest in knowing what koro and kuia are doing. Everyone can have a vote for the $2500—the 1 percent. Any costs involved shall be met from Mr Ririnui’s own resources. The $2500 that Mr Ririnui will receive for his house shall be put into a trust fund and we have some helpful suggestions about how that fund can operate. 
We believe that this settlement is fair in the circumstances and we will celebrate with Mr Ririnui and his whanau as we take the nation forward. To prevent any further problems we recommend that this settlement is full and final. There will be no coming back. We thank Mr Ririnui for the spirit of cooperation. 
The question is whether anyone would sign it—$2500. If it was a “take it now or go to the back of the queue” offer I suppose some probably would. The Maori Party has consistently raised our concerns that the Treaty settlement process is fundamentally flawed. On the one hand we respect the right of iwi to do as they will provided that people know what is happening. This is tino rangatiratanga. On the other hand the process the quantum is wrong. We say that the Crown will go to whatever means it can to achieve settlements—settlements that stand the risk of creating divisions in whanau hapu and iwi. 
Thankfully this was not the case with Ngati Mutunga. Settlements resolved with a quantum that Ngati Mutunga humbly described as modest we describe as outrageous. The quantum is not negotiated. A cash settlement of $14 million with $400000 of that already set aside for negotiation costs does not cut it when one considers the travesty of justice experienced in Taranaki. Ngati Mutunga were required to carry the bulk of the cost themselves. 
A lot of questions remain unanswered one of which is why Taranaki which suffered the worst excesses of war and raupatu had to struggle to find resources to undertake settlement. We welcome Ngati Mutunga back and some time in the future when circumstances may indeed be fair we will speak to Ngati Mutunga about how justice can not only be seen to be done but in fact be done. Ngati Mutunga tell your children and their children that the Maori Party has extended that invitation. Tera te wa ka hoki mai koutou ki konei. 
[ 
A time will come when you collectively will return here. 
] 
This is an invitation that we will give as a priority when the time comes for us to form a Government in the future. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Ka hoki mai nga kupu waiata ki ahau e noho mai i rongo atu i nga korero kua whakaputa mai a taua tangata e noho mai ra. E tu kau ana ra Taranaki te uru. Kua riro ra nga manu e noho i runga e. E toru ra nga waka o Taranaki ko Tokomaru ko Kurahaupo ko Aotea. E tu kau ana nga pou o Parihaka ka mihi atu . Mihi mai ratou ki a koutou e noho mai i runga ra mai i Waitara te tangata mai i Te Whiti te Pouwhenua mai tetehi atu o nga tau heke e tino kaitautoko. A me koe hoki e teUpoko o te Whare nei e noho mai i runga i to torona. Ka meatia mai taua tangata mai a Tai Tokerau e mihi mai ki a koe to whakaarahi mai i tenei pire mai i te timatatanga tae noa atu ki te mutunga. Ahakoa nga piki me nga heke e riro mai i runga a nga uri nei ka haere tonu te waka kua whakatutuki mai pea i te kaupapa ahakoa kua riro ai a roimata e hupe i runga i te kaupapa o te auwetanga i te ngarotanga o o ratou nei whenua katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The words of a song came back to me as I sat listening to that member over there who has resumed his seat. Taranaki stands barren in the west. It is bereft of bird life. Taranaki has three canoes: Tokomaru Kurahaupo and Aotea. I acknowledge the pillars of Parihaka Tohu and Te Whiti and the legacy that they left. I extend my greetings to you sitting up there in the gallery. I acknowledge you as well Madam Speaker and endorse the acknowledgments by that member from the north. You played a significant role in this bill from the beginning and continue to do so in its concluding stages. Despite the highs and lows upon these descendants the grief shed and the grievances over lands lost through confiscation the journey of the canoe towards a settlement continues. 
] 
I will make a brief reference to the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell. In spite of what I would call the grievance rhetoric and in spite of what I heard about tino rangatiratanga manaakitanga me era atu o nga kaupapa hohonu ki ta te whatumanawa a Maori [ 
sovereignty respectability and other such matters of deep significance to Maori 
] nowhere in that speech did I hear and I could stand to be corrected that member as a representative of the Maori Party support this bill. I find that to be hugely significant; that a party representing a certain sector of our population is not stating or articulating support for an iwi who exercise their own tino rangatiratanga in making their decision about where they want to go in the future. I am not concerned about waiting for invitations in the 22nd century—we will probably have developed scales by then and learnt how to swim underwater. My concern is about the here and now. 
In spite of the rhetoric if we are not clear in our agreement in front of the konohi of the people about where we sit then we should not be here. This is a major significantly critical occasion on which to show a cohesiveness and a collective will to allow an iwi to go forward into the future. That is what this is about and if we are not going to be upfront about that then we should not be here. We should not use this stage of campaigning and articulating tino rangatiratanga manaakitanga tiakitanga me era atu o nga tanga katoa [ 
sovereignty respectability protection and all those other “tanga” things 
] if when the time comes to exercise it we are not sufficiently courageous to do so in front of our people. 
The honourable Minister Mita Ririnui made reference to people who are not here to people kua whakawairua mai [ 
who have passed away spiritually 
] and I thought about that statement over time. I would also like to make a reference to the whole collective of those people who are not here and who cannot be here. Ka rongo atu ratou i o ratou nei taringa ki te tangi mai karanga mai a nga mareikura. 
[ 
With their own ears they hear the laments and calls from female supernatural beings 
.] 
In particular in my time I make reference to Hamiora Raumati a koroheke who for 40 long long years—members opposite talk about 9 long years; well they are going to get another 3 years and then it will be 12 long years—sat on the Poari Matua Maori o Taranaki and spent most of those 40 years along with those other kaumatua wahine and tangata finding a way forward to get some satisfaction for what every speaker has spoken about which is the confiscation of our land. I was fortunate to be able to sit with Hamiora and others as they told the history of their sufferings in auwetanga. Ratou katoa mai i Paraninihi ki Waitotara tae noa atu ki Taipake. [ 
grievances. All of them from Paraninihi to Waitotara including Taipake. 
] One statement was made which was probably made in terms of a prophecy. It goes like this. Nou te pahua tuatahi anei te korero a Te Whiti ma ki a ratau ra nga tuatara. Ana ma matau pea te pahua whakamutunga. He aha te tikanga o aua korero? He aha te tikanga aua korero poropititia e ratau? 
[ 
You plundered first was what Te Whiti said to them the reptiles. Perhaps the final plunder will be by us. What did those statements mean? What did those predictions by them mean? 
] 
Maybe we are starting to see that there could be some elements some threads and some strands of that prophecy because they have had the courage to take the waka Tokomaru forward. I do not quite agree with what the honourable member Pita Paraone said when he referred to the tino taimaha rawa atu i runga i o koutou nei pokohiwi. [ 
weighing heavily upon your shoulders. 
] 
I do not quite agree because to me that is a korero makutu. Ka taka mai te tangata i raro i te toimahatanga o nga korero i runga a pokohiwi. [ 
bone-pointing talk. A person with such responsibilities upon one’s shoulders is cursed and expected to fail. 
] I say this. I say they take the responsibility and they look to it as an opportunity. Go forth! 
We know of the extraordinarily difficult situation—well I personally know it. I just want to recall for the benefit of the House the kuia at Parihaka and I recall them humbly. Of the four kuia there is only one left. Her name is Auntie Matarena Rau Kupa. She is about 90-plus years. To the other three who included Auntie Neta my mother and Auntie Sally korero. They had this extraordinary belief in this phrase: “Whangai mai te hoariri.” It means: “Feed thy enemies.” What an appalling thing to insist that I do! But they carried that as a kind of precedent in regard to their relationships. It was a central part of their passive resistance ki a ratau nga tuatara. [ 
to them the reptiles. 
] 
I congratulate Ngati Mutunga. They are here not because of; they are here in spite of. They are here because of their collective implacable will unremitting commitment and determination; their wellspring of indomitable strength; and their capacity to overcome gut-wrenching disappointment and despair. May I say with due humility that I am proud to be part of such a whakapapa. Tena koutou. 
I end with this. This is a new dawning—e ata pohou tenei na. May Ngati Mutunga apply the same kinds of capacity determination commitment and collective implacable will in their future and I wish them the very best for their future hei huarahi mo tatou katoa kei roto o Taranaki. [ 
as a way for all of us in Taranaki. 
] 
I end by singing a very quick waiata: 
Na wai te po-i po-i e poia mai te ni’o na 
Na’au nei e Te Ati Awa a titi a iho to rauku-ra 
Aue ka titi aue ka titi titi ka titi ka titi ahau—e ka pai ra!  
I finish by saying that that waiata is a poi waiata that was celebrated at Parihaka on the return of those people who were jailed unjustly in Otakou. It was sung by the women our kuia. Mutunga mai i Te Ati Awa mai i nga iwi katoa tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai tatou katoa. 
[ 
And so from Mutunga Te Ati Awa and all the people greetings to you greetings to you and to all of us. 
] 
Bill read a third time. 
Waiata 
Third Readings 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill and the Insurance Companies' Deposits Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These bills started their life in this House as the Business Law Reform Bill. They are part of a programme of reform designed to give effect to the Government’s overall objectives to clarify and update the intended purpose of various statutory provisions to remove unnecessary compliance costs—something we all welcome in this House—and to ensure consistency between different legislative requirements. 
The Government wants the law affecting the operation of business to be clear efficient and effective. This legislation represents a stage in the incremental improvement of existing business laws to achieve these goals. The Business Law Reform Bill process allows an exception to the general prohibition on omnibus bills and these are allowed to proceed through the agreement of the Business Committee. The Government is therefore grateful to all parties for their support of this process otherwise I would have had to introduce five separate bills taking up considerable time and effort of the House the select committee and the officials. 
After some of the comments I heard though during the select committee process I should make the point that I did not say that this bill was a matter of technical amendments. I checked my first reading speech and in fact I identified that I was really pleased that I had the opportunity to deal with significant policy issues as well as technical amendments in a single bill. I think it is a process that we are all very supportive of. Nothing in this process prevents matters of controversy from being dealt with by way of a Business Law Reform Bill. It is up to the parties whether such a bill can be introduced and proceed. 
Did some controversy arise during the hearing of the submissions? Yes. Is that fatal to the passage of those provisions? No. If this were a Statutes Amendment Bill then it would be fatal to the provision proceeding although the reality is that it would not have got into a Statutes Amendment Bill in the first place. I would not need to use a Business Law Reform Bill if all provisions qualified for inclusion in a Statutes Law Reform Bill. 
An example raised at the select committee was the submission of the captive insurers who indicated that the bill would have wider application than was intended. However the legislation was only ever intended to cover companies that did not offer insurance in New Zealand. If they offered insurance in New Zealand they were not to be caught by the provisions of the legislation. They were not to use the word “insurance” in the company name or to hold out that it was a New Zealand insurer when it was not. This of course was designed to protect New Zealand’s reputation internationally. We have some companies that have registered themselves with a company name that includes “insurance” but they do not sell insurance in New Zealand. They are not participants in the insurance industry in any way shape or form. The reason the word “insurance” has been put into the company name is so that they can hold themselves out internationally to be covered by our regulatory enforcement system and they are not because they do not sell insurance. So the whole purpose of referring bills to a select committee is to tidy up any wording that does not achieve the objective. I think people agreed that in this particular case the intention of the Government was one that they upheld. 
The chair of the committee though in the Committee stage seemed to think that if a submitter disagreed with the wording or the submission was in opposition to the changes proposed then this is not suitable for a Business Law Reform Bill. That is not the case and I hope that she revisits her attitude before we introduce another one as I doubt that the National Party would want to oppose business law reform per se. 
The issue that created concern at the select committee was the opposition of the Accounting Standards Review Board to the exemption-making powers within the bill. Did I know that the Accounting Standards Review Board was opposed to the exemption-making power before I introduced the bill? No I did not. I was briefed before the board made its submission to the select committee so I was aware of its opposition to it at that point. But as I said during the Committee stage I met with the chair of the review board after he had made the submission and we discussed the concerns that he had in some detail. I took advice and essentially I addressed a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to deal with some but not all of the concerns that had been raised. 
There were two significant changes by way of Supplementary Order Paper. First the power to make exemptions will be limited to classes of persons; exemptions will not be able to be made for individual reporting entities. This will deal with concerns that the focus may have been too much on the interests of the entity not the wider public interest. Secondly the main criterion for making decisions will be changed from “exceptional circumstances” to a decision as to whether compliance would result in financial statements that are misleading in a material way. The criterion is more specifically focused on the problem at issue and I believe sets a much higher threshold. This change will not affect the fact that the exemption power is to be used only in exceptionally rare circumstances when an international financial reporting standard is not fully relevant to New Zealand’s circumstances. 
There were other comments made by the chair of the select committee during the Committee stage that reflect I believe an inadequate understanding of the business law reform process. We were castigated for the reporting requirements of foreign companies when the member’s own party could have addressed that issue in any one of the 9 years it was in Government in the 1990s—or indeed in the years in the early 1980s because the reporting requirements that she referred to and which this Government has addressed have been around for a very long time. 
The changes to the Financial Reporting Act 1993 are aimed at generally improving the workability of the financial reporting system and in particular remove excessive compliance requirements on some small companies and many overseas companies. They will also improve enforcement by introducing an infringement notice system for company directors who fail to file their company’s financial statements with the Registrar of Companies by the due date. 
Proposed changes to the Companies Act 1993 further improve enforcement by extending the management and director-banning provisions to persons who have been banned in certain overseas jurisdictions. This delivers on another aspect of the single economic market agenda with Australia. The legislation further seeks to improve the efficiency of the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 and gives credit unions more room to grow their business without introducing unmanageable risks to their members. In addition the field of membership of a credit union will be broadened by extending membership to charities and incorporated societies affiliated with the common membership criteria of the union. The bill also gives credit unions and their associations more flexibility on administrative matters such as the ability to determine the minimum deposit-holding of each member and removing compliance costs when seeking to broaden their service base. 
Changes to the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988 will allow the Minister of Commerce to specify the date from which new and reassessed rates of anti-dumping and countervailing anti-subsidy duty will apply. The bill will also exclude the Christmas break from the statutory time frame for the completion of dumping and subsidy investigations. 
All in all these bills improve the regulatory environment for business and reduce compliance costs especially for small to medium sized enterprises in terms of financial reporting and I welcome that both with my hat as Minister of Commerce and as Minister for Small Business. I am very grateful to officials who provided good support to the select committee and indeed to all members of the select committee for the work they did. I commend the bills to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 This is legislation that proposes incremental and minor improvements to the reduction of business compliance costs. It streamlines the various provisions in the business law area and National—and the public as well I believe—has come to appreciate small concessions from the Labour Government when we can get them because they are better than nothing. 
All the Minister’s talk and all the Government’s talk about economic transformation is unfortunately not backed up by this legislation or by the numerous pieces of commercial legislation that have come before the House—legislation that seems to consist of incremental changes. Some changes in the area of employment law are significant improvements to the business operating environment and were requested particularly by small and medium-sized businesses which the Minister continues to champion and which make up 92 percent of New Zealand’s business. The majority of those businesses requested a 90-day litigation period for employers to enable them to give an opportunity for work to new staff and new graduates to people who had had no previous work experience and to new migrants. But the Government turned the request down. 
Businesses also asked for clarification to change the confusing holiday provision not to mention the provisions of the Resource Management Act. But none of those significant improvements as requested by businesses is evident in the bills being passed in that direction. The outcry of those businesses in terms of increased compliance costs—taxes fees etc—seems so far to have fallen on deaf ears. But that is reality and unfortunately businesses have to come to terms with having low expectations and have to accept what little incremental improvement we can extract from the Government. 
A further example of this Government’s anti-business attitude was shown by the passage of the insolvency law reform legislation. It is opportune today that I relate all this business law to that legislation as well. The centrepiece of the insolvency legislation was the introduction by the Government of the so-called voluntary administration scheme where creditors can come together and agree to freeze outstanding debts to allow an entity to work out of a financially difficult situation. 
A hundred percent of submitters came before the Commerce Committee to say that unless the special privilege enjoyed by the Inland Revenue Department was addressed—with regard to the position that it could have a preferential claim on outstanding deductions such as GST and PAYE—then the scheme would not work. But when it came to the crunch the Labour Government chose to protect the Inland Revenue Department instead of standing alongside business—particularly small and medium-sized businesses which the Minister claimed to champion. The Government was very defensive of its position of making sure that tax revenue would not be affected by the loss of that privileged position of the Inland Revenue Department yet we learn from the department that even with that protected position it claims back only $5 million a year. So it is disappointing that once again we are consigned to supporting legislation that consists of very low ambition or expectation for the business community in terms of reducing compliance costs or creating an environment of economic transformation. 
All those exaggerated claims by the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel about conducting a vertical horizontal and dynamic review of regulatory frameworks are nothing but—once again—hot air when the House is passing yet more legislation that makes only minute incremental changes. Maybe the Minister was indeed embarrassed by this legislation which consists of only timid incremental changes and that is why at the last minute she decided to inject some excitement into the process by cutting through the public consultation phase of the select committee deliberation. She wanted to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that would have introduced major changes to the Takeovers Code in order to tackle the issue of why some entities choose to use the scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act rather than the amalgamation provision under the Takeovers Panel jurisdiction when a merger situation occurs. 
Well this Minister should not be complaining too loudly or crying wolf about the fact that National refused to be at her beck and call to undermine the select committee process. Labour believes it is above the law; National is here to uphold the law and to defend the public’s right to make submissions to the select committee. We learnt that earlier this year the Takeovers Panel carried out a public consultation over a short 10 days and it did not receive an overwhelming endorsement from the commerce sector with regard to the proposed changes. Indeed this Minister was on the record in  
Hansard  
as saying that a 10-day consultation was hardly a proper process. She turned down a request for us to cooperate in that instance and she duly delivered a lecture on the importance of following the proper parliamentary process whereby submitters have the right to present their arguments and engage in robust debate through the select committee process. National endorses that point and that is why it turned down the Minister’s last-minute introduction of the Supplementary Order Paper which would not have given the public an opportunity to present their arguments. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s outside the scope of the legislation too. 
PANSY WONG 
: By the way the National Party’s pride and joy the hard-working up-with-the-play senior whip has very correctly pointed out that that particular Supplementary Order Paper was totally out of the scope of this legislation. Therefore to introduce something that was outside the scope of the legislation at that late stage was not acceptable. 
But I point out how cooperative National is when it comes to improving the environment for economic activities. The chair of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich actually offered to accept that Supplementary Order Paper provided we were allowed to have a limited consultation because after all only a confined sector is involved in the takeover type of activity so it would not have been a very difficult process. We agreed to accept the Supplementary Order Paper subject to our being able to invite those relevant submitters to come to the select committee for us to hear them because it was a very technical issue. Well the Minister would not have a bar of that. She simply wanted to ram the Supplementary Order Paper through the Committee stage then pass it into law. 
National wants to make it very clear that it is a responsible Opposition party. We will support positive and sensible changes even though they are not ambitious and will not lead to economic transformation but we will never be bullied into undermining the parliamentary process just because the Minister and the Government are announcing themselves as being above the law and proper process. National supports this legislation and we will support further legislation that consists of logical—even incremental—positive changes. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is regrettable in a third reading debate to hear National members taking pot-shots at process when this legislation which has been broken down into five separate bills brings efficiency and effectiveness to the law regarding the operation of business. The fact that this legislation has been broken down into five bills brings a dynamic sense to reporting requirements and to security requirements. 
Pansy Wong 
: Which part? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I say to Ms Wong that I will deal specifically with the part that appears to have missed her scrutiny even though the rest of the Commerce Committee clearly had the chance to peruse it. I will take the member if I can to what is now known as the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular I ask Ms Wong to turn to clause 8. I will lead her to a provision that achieves precisely what the select committee recognised in the opening paragraph of its introduction in the commentary on the bill and what the Minister spoke about in essence in her third reading speech. I ask the member to flick over—and I hope she is doing so now—to clause 8. Is the member with me yet? 
Clause 8 inserts new section 209A. Ms Wong is a member of the Commerce Committee so I am surprised that she does not recall that the select committee unanimously had the wisdom to give some weight to clarity efficiency and effectiveness by looking at the requirement on shareholders to receive an annual report. Shareholders must receive the report within 15 working days if they communicate that wish to the company after receipt of notice of the AGM. Shareholders can receive the report in either hard copy or after the exciting introduction of this bill of course in electronic form. Many people now are quite rightly looking to electronic retrieval systems and storage so receiving annual reports in electronic form is really the way the business community is moving. 
But the sensible addition of the select committee—and I remind Ms Wong that this was a unanimous addition too—is that once shareholders have requested for a particular year an electronic copy of the annual report or also of the concise report if they wish to have that then the company must regard that as being an enduring request to be complied with each year. So it is not a situation where each year shareholders have to remember to contact their company at head office and ask for a full copy of the report to be sent—either electronically or the hard-copy version whichever has been indicated. Instead the communication given once is communication that remains as long as those people are shareholders or until they take the next step of telling the company that they do not want to receive such a copy. 
Of course the advantage of that system is that it enables shareholders if they want to be entirely passive and not bother themselves with reports thus saving a company the expense of producing unnecessary reports or of altering its database so that reports will be sent automatically. Once shareholders expresses the interest the self-selecting process is then signalled and they remain on the database as shareholders to receive the annual report or the concise annual report—or both if that is the request. Shareholders remain in that situation until they elect to remove themselves from the database in such a form. Although this amendment to the Companies Act is small—and I have chosen the brief time available today to concentrate on just this small amendment—it signals the whole tenor of the business law reform legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I turn now to the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill which illustrates really the Government’s commitment to improving the efficiency of business and compliance costs. As Minister Dalziel said in her third reading speech the changes to the Financial Reporting Act are generally aimed at improving the workability of the financial reporting system and reducing business compliance costs. I address this from the point of view of constitutional law issues because if we want to make a really determined effort to improve business efficiency and to make the Government responsive to the market then the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill is a very good illustration of how that can be achieved. 
The point I refer to also demonstrates the efficacy of the committee structure in this House and the importance of the Regulations Review Committee. That committee pointed out to the Commerce Committee that the proposals in clause 28 of the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill were in fact in breach of constitutional policy. New section 6A(2) inserted by clause 28 gives the Governor-General by Order in Council the power to make regulations that amend the maximum amount of assets maximum turnover and maximum number of fulltime-equivalent employees. It is relevant to raise this only because new section 6A(1) inserted by clause 28 sets the limits for the maximum amount of assets maximum turnover and maximum number of fulltime-equivalent employees. Regulations made by way of Order in Council will have the effect of changing what is contained in the Financial Reporting Act when this legislation is passed so will in fact change primary legislation. 
It is important that this House recognise that primary legislation should be changed only by primary legislation and not by the delegated legislation of which regulations are part. However the Regulations Review Committee will of course review every regulation made—that is the reason for its existence. Having been a member of that committee I can speak to its diligence in that respect. 
The Commerce Committee quite sensibly and quite properly whilst noting the apparent breach also drew the conclusion not to propose any amendment to rectify that breach because it noted quite correctly that the possible risks were minimal. I think it is quite proper that the Commerce Committee highlighted that point. It also adopted a sensible approach in terms of aiding business efficacy in this country by noting the minimal nature of the breach. But it is important to bear in mind the important principle that primary legislation should not be amended by way of delegated decision-making powers or decisions as will be part of this new Act. However businesses must work and be responsive to changing markets and it is very sensible that limits are set but can be changed from time to time subject to review by the very efficient Regulations Review Committee. 
I make that point because it is an important statement of principle and one we should bear in mind at all times. Having raised it I say that it also indicates the importance of the way in which the committees of this House work together to express their various areas of responsibility and concern. The report from the Commerce Committee quite properly summarises the Regulations Review Committee’s concern and its response to it. It is a good report and it recognises the importance of the amendments to the Financial Reporting Act. That is in line with the whole ethos of this business law reform legislation which is to make our business community our commercial community more responsive to the market and to the many changes ahead of us as we move into a very business-friendly and value-added economy as part of our policy of economic transformation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call on this legislation which was previously known as the Business Law Reform Bill. National supports this legislation and has supported it right through. The legislation makes some incremental changes to the way that businesses will operate in the future and we support that but a number of the issues that we believe are important in terms of compliance have not been addressed in this legislation at all. Although the Business Law Reform Bill has been broken down into five other bills each of which has some merits in terms of the big challenges facing businesses—particularly small businesses—in New Zealand this legislation does absolutely nothing. That is why I said that although there are some incremental changes that we support unfortunately the legislation does not go far enough for us. 
Let us look at what has been happening around the world and at some of the reports that have been done. I have some here. Here is a very important and interesting report that was done back in July. Look at the size of it! It is called  
Finding the Balance: Maximising Compliance at Minimum Cost 
. It is a very full and comprehensive document. This Government has not taken notice of the very important recommendations that appear in this report by the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs. Here is another document called  
Constraining Government Regulation 
. The previous speaker Russell Fairbrother talked about the Regulations Review Committee and although it has a very important function it is unfortunate that in terms of compliance the committee really only gets into something once legislation has been passed and people make complaints. I sat on the Regulations Review Committee. I guess it is a committee that is— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: High-powered. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well it can be high-powered. It is a very important committee as the member said. It can be tedious. However it has an important function in overlooking the whole range of legislation and regulation that come forward. I do not know whether members opposite have seen  
Constraining Government Regulation 
. It is a very very important document. 
I spent some time overseas to see what other countries are doing. Here is a document from the Commission of the European Communities. It is interesting to note the challenges faced by European countries. Germany has an economic programme called Agenda 2010. It has taken information out of this very comprehensive document which has given it some leads and certainly some competitive advantages in the marketplace that it has not had before. 
I went to Singapore. It has a programme called SPRING. This document has identified the sorts of challenges that small businesses in particular face. It is called  
SME 21: Positioning SMEs for the 21st Century 
. If we look at the Singaporean economy we see that the constraints there especially in respect of environmental law and environmental issues are very strong. But Singapore has been able to take the red tape out of compliance. It has been able to identify those things that businesses are interested in and assign someone to help each business as a policy adviser. The scrutiny with which a proposal is analysed is very very clear. Businesses deal with one person at a time and at the end they know whether their project will go ahead. 
Here is an Australian document dated 16 August that talks about Australia slashing red tape. If we look at the  
Report of the 
Taskforce on Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Business—Final Government Response 
 we see a very comprehensive document. 
Unfortunately the Government here seems to brush over these important issues that face businesses. It plays only at the edges. As I said there are some incremental changes but they are not significant enough to give that competitive advantage to small businesses in this country. We need bold and innovative strategies. They can come about by the Government taking seriously the issue of regulation. Regulation builds walls where there should be bridges. 
 We find that over the last 6 years the Labour Government has been very quick to introduce legislation and just gloss over the regulatory impacts the compliance cost regimes and the impact statements that should appear in legislation. Although as I mentioned the Regulations Review Committee actually had some oversight of that—it is usually too late by the time that the committee gets to it to actually be able to do much about it. Regulation is important and should be about building bridges. The public sector has every interest in maintaining and growing its position and little incentive to ensure optimal outcome from interventions. Its drive is to maximise not optimise the regulatory interventions. 
Government has become bigger over the years and the structural bias that we are seeing now creates a regulatory culture that has remained. There is no incentive for public servants to reduce regulations. I said in my first reading speech—[ 
Interruption 
] My first reading speech Mr Cosgrove was an interesting speech in that it did challenge the Government— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A small speech! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It was a 10-minute speech; it might have been small in stature but it was full of character. It was full of some very informative information that the member may be interested in. I will not repeat it; it is in  
Hansard 
. I am sure that the member might want to get it out and have a look at it for some late-night reading. 
We have had the McLeod Tax Review the ministerial panel on compliance cost and the Small Business Advisory Group’s reports. So a large number of reports have been done. Unfortunately this Government knows best and tends to overlook the expertise that is necessary in order to structure the environment in which businesses operate in a way that reduces the compliance and red tape that are there. 
The primary cause to address really is the incentives for the public sector to regulate. This legislation goes absolutely nowhere towards addressing that. We need to create a system in which public servants put their energy into creating optimal outcomes for Government interventions. That as I said before is the crucial issue that should be dealt with. Instead the Government just makes more and more laws. There is no incentive for public servants in New Zealand to propose a removal or rationalisation of regulations or of old regulations. That just does not occur. Australia’s move to a regime of sunset clauses in a number of regulations is something that National has endorsed. I know that my colleague Dr Richard Worth who chairs the Regulations Review Committee has some very strong points he makes about monitoring regulations that are in New Zealand. 
Although these incremental changes are for the better the opportunity has been lost to make substantive changes in the areas of taxation the Resource Management Act Occupational Safety and Health regulations and employment law. There is no incentive for the Government to reduce compliance and there is no incentive for public servants to see how they can optimise outcomes. The Government is interested only in creating barriers that shackle investment and business; we see that time and time again. National wants businesses to be able to get on with the job of creating wealth and jobs instead of being distracted by the excessive red tape that we see at every turn. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this series of bills having had the privilege of sitting on the Commerce Committee that examined the Business Law Reform Bill as it then was which is now split into its composite parts. I risk repeating things that I said in the first and second readings and at the Committee stage of the Business Law Reform Bill. These bills—the five that are currently under discussion in their third reading—show again that the Labour-led Government is prepared to invest in the incremental improvement of the business legal environment by ensuring that legislation surrounding the operation of businesses is clear efficient and effective. To that end we have listened to the submissions from the business community and from business representatives who had a number of things to say but were to a person in favour of the kinds of reforms that these bills represent. 
The amendments are intended to clarify commercial law statutes by removing conflicts within and between existing legislation. They are also intended to remove unnecessary compliance costs. This is an issue that we on this side of the House have addressed previously because it is something that despite the mythology to the contrary is of great importance to us. If we can reduce unnecessary compliance requirements and costs we believe we should do so. There is no benefit to be gained in continuing to heap additional compliance costs upon businesses—especially upon small businesses. This set of bills arising out of the omnibus Business Law Reform Bill is designed to achieve that end. 
For example the Companies Amendment Bill proposes to exempt some overseas companies from some reporting requirements. This does not lessen the stringency of reporting requirements in this country but it does take away unnecessary requirements from companies that are based overseas but are trading within New Zealand. Similarly the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill is aimed at improving the workability of the financial reporting system. The Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill will prohibit an entity incorporated in New Zealand from using the word “insurance” in its name if it does not offer insurance. That is one of those common-sense kinds of amendments that allow business operations to run smoothly and without impediment or unnecessary bureaucratic interference around the name and the application of that name within the New Zealand business context. Also the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill will give credit unions more room to grow their businesses. I welcome that because credit unions are frequently those organisations that ordinary New Zealanders are most likely to have access to for investment and return. The Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill will allow the Minister of Commerce to specify the date from which new and reassessed rates of anti-dumping and countervailing duty will apply. 
One of the issues that I take up in particular relates to the report from the Regulations Review Committee. My colleague Russell Fairbrother commented on this before. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Ah! I’d like to hear about this. 
MARYAN STREET 
: The member opposite is suddenly alert and attentive at the mention of the Regulations Review Committee. This is because he chairs that committee. I am delighted that he has chosen to pay attention at this moment. 
 What is really important about the scrutiny that the Regulations Review Committee applies to legislation is that it protects the prerogative of the House to provide the ultimate scrutiny of the law. That is a very fundamental and critical democratic purpose of this House and of the legislation and the process surrounding legislation before it. So the Regulations Review Committee rightly considered what are basically the “Henry VIII” provisions in the Business Law Reform Bill as it then was. The members of the committee—including myself because I am also on that Regulations Review Committee—considered that it was worth drawing to the attention of the Commerce Committee that the delegated authority in the Business Law Reform Bill was such that the Commerce Committee was required to think about it again. Delegated legislation should not be allowed to creep into regulation without the scrutiny of the House so the Regulations Review Committee drew these provisions to the attention of the Commerce Committee and said: “What about this? Have a look. This isn’t really how things ought to go.” 
It was a very important debate and it was a very important issue that was brought to the attention of the Commerce Committee as my colleague Russell Fairbrother said previously. But on balance the Commerce Committee decided that the delegated authority was acceptable because the issues around it are to do with the size of a company—that is the number of people employed by the company the size of the assets of the company and so on—and the size of a company could easily be determined by regulation without further recourse to the House for amending primary legislation. In other words the risks of allowing this delegated regulation to go through were far outweighed by the convenience and the benefits of allowing this delegated authority to proceed in the form of regulation. But it is worth drawing to the attention of the House because the process is important. The checks and balances around legislation that comes before this House are important and the upholding of them through the very able and competent chairing of the Regulations Review Committee that my colleague opposite Dr Richard Worth embodies is also a significant contributor to the democratic process. 
The omnibus bill now broken up into the five component parts represents an incremental improvement in the business legislation environment and business groups and business owners throughout the country will welcome the passage of these five amendment bills. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei po. In doing some research for the debate on this legislation I found that there has never been a better time to be reforming business. 
Over the last weekend in Otaki in the rain and the wind 2000 people flooded to the Otaki Racecourse to attend the second Te Arahanga O Nga Iwi National Maori Business Expo. The crowds were treated to some 97 Maori businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs from throughout Aotearoa specialising in education performance art creative design fashion tourism and other ventures. 
Last month New Zealand’s national indigenous broadcaster Maori Television recorded its highest ever ratings with a monthly cumulative audience of more than 580000 unique viewers tuning in to the channel. This is a sign of its spectacular business success and the growth of the Maori broadcasting industry and it also indicates the willing readiness of many New Zealanders to look into the Maori world. 
In my own electorate we celebrate the success of cultural tourism through Te Puia which builds on the success of the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute and the Whakarewarewa geothermal park. Next year we celebrate 40 years since the first intake to the carving school Te Wananga Whakairo entered the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute. Initiatives such as these demonstrate the strength of the contribution Maori are making to the economic social and cultural fabric of Aotearoa through Maori business. Indeed tangata whenua have an asset base of $9.4 billion. Approximately $3.1 billion of that figure is in agriculture fishing and forestry and $2.4 billion is in general business and property assets. The remaining $4 billion is evenly distributed across all business areas such as mining manufacturing wholesale - retail trade tourism transport education health and cultural services. 
Maori business is smart business for Aotearoa. The Maori Party is therefore delighted to welcome the removal of unnecessary compliance costs and the range of legislative proposals being introduced in this legislation. This package of legislation formerly considered as part of the Business Law Reform Bill is another step in the incremental improvements being made to ensure that there is consistency with business law and between different legislative requirements. 
We support the small—but priority—improvements that are being applied to business law statutes so that the operation of business can be clear efficient and effective. We also welcome the changes such as the workability of the provisions in the 1993 Financial Reporting Act. The changes seem to move towards there being easier smoother and lower-cost operations. They include allowing the registrar time to notify companies that they will have to file their obligations in the passage of the Act strengthening the accountability of the Accounting Standards Review Board in exercising the powers of exemption and enabling companies to take advantage of the reduction in compliance costs a year earlier. These changes will be of significant value for the Maori economy. 
For those members who are unfamiliar with the wealth of opportunity established in the Maori economy I have consulted the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report  
Te Ohanga Whanaketanga Maori 
 
which states: “The Maori economy can be defined as the assets owned and income earned by Maori—including collectively-owned trusts and incorporations Maori-owned businesses (e.g. tourism broadcasting and the self-employed) service providers (especially in health and education) and the housing owned by Maori. The wages and salaries earned by Maori workers are also part of this definition.” It is in this context that newspaper headlines scream that Maori are facing extinction so it is great to come to this House to celebrate the successes of Maori business. 
Yet yesterday the Minister of Maori Affairs was unable to answer why the numbers of Maori living in severe hardship have increased by 243 percent under his ministry. Today the Minister of Education was unable to answer my questions around the fact that Maori students are nearly three times as likely as non-Maori students to leave school with little or no formal attainment. Well I hope these Ministers will find some answers in the entrepreneurship the visionary enterprise and the unprecedented achievements that have been reported in respect of the Maori economy. 
Every member of Parliament should appreciate the fact that the Maori economy contributes some $240 billion in taxes and $650 million in exports. All members of Parliament should familiarise themselves with the latest Maori business output figures which reveal that growth between now and 2014 will be the highest in transport utilities manufacturing wholesale and retail trade cultural and recreational services and health and education services. 
In the spirit of celebrating our productivity I want the House to take note of the significance of an award made today by the Public Service Association (PSA) in recognising honorary life membership to a Te Arawa Kaumatua Kiwhare Mihaka. Kiwhare has been a union member of the Council of Trade Unions since 1957—that is nearly 50 years of dedicated commitment to Maori and to the life of New Zealand workers. At 4.45 this afternoon Kiwhare was presented with his life membership badge at the PSA congress. It is only appropriate that we in this House recognise the enormous service he has given to this nation. 
 Finally in thinking of the decades of successful contribution to the Maori economy I want to refer briefly to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Act. Some 44 years ago in 1962 a gentleman by the name of Bill Proctor established a credit union for the benefit of Maori living in Pukekohe. This organisation was the first Maori credit union to become a registered member of the New Zealand Credit Union League. The Nga Hau e Wha Credit Union was focussed on enhancing the well-being of Maori within the Pukekohe community. The membership of the credit union quickly grew to 100 people and by March 1964 it had savings of £656 in hand with £781 loaned out amongst 27 people. Within 2 years 407 of the loans had been repaid. 
The growth of credit unions was dramatic and exciting and for the many Maori communities the opportunity to gain credit through such means was unique. So we welcome the new administrative changes that now allow credit unions to decide their own common bond—their field of membership—and to have the opportunity for amalgamations charities and incorporated societies to become members. We embrace these new proposals for the way in which the credit unions will be empowered with the appropriate flexibility to determine their own minimum deposit levels and be able to undertake such changes as offering new services to their members without requiring ministerial approval. These are all steps in the right direction in terms of recognising the autonomy and the independent self-determining journey of the credit unions. 
When one is faced with a range and diversity of proposals such as the ones that appear in these bills—the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Amendment Bill the Financial Reporting Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill and the Insurance Companies’ Deposits Amendment Bill—it is always difficult to confine the debate to specific issues of relevance. The Maori Party is however reassured that the changes are based on suggestions from business law practitioners enforcement agencies and the business community. In the spirit of always respecting the authority of the actual communities involved and in recognition of the tremendous achievements of Maori in business we are delighted to support the third readings of this suite of five business-related bills. 
Bills read a third time. 
Social Security (Long-term Residential Care)  Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The principal purpose of the bill is to clarify the Government’s longstanding policy intent that a person assessed as needing long-term residential care shall pay no more than the maximum contribution for contracted care services. This legislative clarification of Government policy is required because varying interpretations of the current legislation have resulted in some older people being unfairly charged more than the maximum contribution to receive a basic package of care. 
The clarification of the maximum contribution policy in this bill means that all older people in a rest home or a continuing care hospital that has a contract with a district health board for Government funding will pay the same price in that region for the same basic package of services set out in the contract. The maximum contribution policy is not new and it reflects the Government’s commitment to fair treatment for all older New Zealanders requiring longer-term residential care. Nothing in this bill prevents an older person from agreeing to pay for extra services over and above that basic package of contracted care services. That freedom of choice remains. 
One of the changes to the Social Security Act 1964 included in this bill is a redefinition to ensure that overseas private pensions and annuities are treated the same as New Zealand private pensions and annuities when older people are being means assessed financially for eligibility for the residential care subsidy. This change addresses an inequity in the way that private overseas pensions have been treated in the income assessment for residential care. 
Another change is the clarification of eligibility for disability allowance for people in community residential care services and age-related care. This change recognises the difference in contracting arrangements for services provided to the two groups and ensures that predominantly younger people with disabilities in community residential care can receive the disability allowance on the same basis as others in the community. 
The Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill also has a number of minor technical amendments that address anomalies identified during implementation of the earlier 2004 changes in income and asset testing. Those technical amendments include: firstly the insertion of a purpose and overview section in Part 4 of the Social Security Act to aid understanding of the long-term residential provisions; secondly the increase of the income from assets exemptions for couples with one partner in care so that they are not disadvantaged compared with single people or couples with both partners in care; and thirdly the provision that people who are exempt from asset testing such as people who are subject to compulsory treatment orders or who have been deinstitutionalised from long-stay psychopaedic or psychiatric hospitals are able to retain a weekly personal allowance. 
The bill resulting from the Committee stage also addresses issues around the backdating of eligibility for residential care subsidy the payment of disability allowance and two minor technical amendments. The extension of the backdating period for eligibility for a residential care subsidy from 28 days to 90 days is a fairer policy for what proved to be an impracticable period of time for people to apply for a residential care subsidy. 
People with disabilities in community residential services such as IDEA Services homes who apply for the disability allowance within 12 months of the 2006 Budget will now be able to receive payment from that date—18 May 2006—or from the date they became entitled to receive it whichever is later. This means that they will receive their full entitlements even if they take some time to apply. 
Two other minor technical amendments arising from the Committee stage are first a change to the date that repeal of the regulation making the 1 July 2006 consumer price index adjustment to the incomes from assets exemption will take effect and second the date that the bill will take effect has been altered to the day after the date of Royal assent. 
The changes made to the Social Security Act 1964 by the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill promote fairness for older people in New Zealand. These changes clarify Government policy so that it can be easily understood and fairly applied. I commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose this bill. Parts of this bill are good and I am not going to go over those tonight because the Minister has already mentioned some of them. But I will take issue with one of the points that the Minister raised. He stated that effectively this bill allows and requires the elderly to be charged the same rates for the same services across the spectrum of old-age care. That might sound like a very very nice egalitarian sort of outcome to seek. But unfortunately it completely ignores the fact that the price of land and the price of property for rest homes providing old-age care depends very much on where they are situated what the outlooks are what size the rooms are and just what the actual facilities are. What that means is that if it is taken to its nth degree it can require the ghettoisation of our elderly—our very vulnerable elderly people. We in the National Party consider that to be a gross infringement on the rights of the elderly. They need to be able to decide that they do not want to have to shift out of the suburb that they have lived in all their lives. They should not have to shift away from an area where they know people and where they know the shopkeepers and instead be required to shift to an area where they do not know people but where the rest home happens to be situated because that is where the land is cheapest. 
 Of course if people go into care or if they are assessed as such then they often have to go into rest homes or the equivalent. We on this side of the House do not believe that it is fair to say to people that just because they are elderly and are getting State assistance for their care that is all they can get. We do not believe that they should pay only for extra services rather than for instance the view they are enjoying the area in which they are living and the amenities in the general area. We think that is a gross infringement. It says to people that the Government knows best—but very seldom does the Government know best. In fact adult New Zealanders are best able to make up their own minds. 
We think it is a very good thing to increase the amount of assets people can keep before the State starts to take back some of that money because we understand that there has been a certain amount of inflation—particularly so over the last 7 long years of the Labour Government. But having said that I say that we are deeply offended at the concept that adult New Zealanders cannot make a choice about whether they wish to increase the level at which they pay for facilities because they wish to be in the area of their choice. We think that is deeply offensive and we could not possibly support it. 
In addition I note that this bill at its third reading is significantly different from the bill we saw at the second reading and there is a reason for that. It is that Labour members did not turn up—or rather did not stay—in sufficient numbers for the vote in the Social Services Committee so that its amendments could be put into this bill. In fact the House has had to wait several months for the Labour Government’s amendments to become part of the bill at this very late stage because Labour members just could not be bothered turning up on time in the select committee to vote for their own bill—even though the chairperson of the select committee happens to be a Government member. So we have to say that what we have in front of us is a bill that is a testament to the inability of the Labour Government to turn up and to stay for its own bill. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: They’re going anyway. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As my colleague Dr Hutchison says they are going anyway—it is just not quite soon enough. 
We have here a bill that is unamended by the very good amendment that my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison had put forward in the Committee stage of the bill which would have allowed elderly people with up to $150000 worth of assets to purchase an apartment within a rest home and still retain their subsidy. He wanted to put it forward with the support of the National Party because in our opinion it is very unfair that people in that situation should lose their subsidy if they use their money or assets to purchase an apartment within that sort of facility. We think that it is cruel degrading and completely unnecessary. At the end of the day the average New Zealand taxpayer does not mind if someone has an apartment a house free-standing on its own or a unit. What they do want to know is that people who need help will get help. They want to know that they are not being ripped off and that their elderly mums dads and grandparents will be able to have a rest home if they need it in the area of their choice and close to their family and friends rather than being told that unfortunately we cannot afford to have a rest home now in the area that they like because of the Government’s ideological bent—which frankly is very bent on this issue. 
What has happened under 7 years of this Labour Government’s regime? What we have seen is a lot of small operators going out of business. A lot of mum and dad operators of rest homes set up for the care of the elderly have gone out of business and what has happened? A lot of foreign-owned companies have come in and made a lot of money out of this area. That of course is because they have economies of scale they can have agreements with their staff and they can work things around. They are not hidebound like small operators are by mortgages debt and an inability to be as flexible with staff as some of the bigger providers are. We have met some of those people running small businesses over the last few years and many of those people have said that all they have ever had out of this Government is an increase in regulations and a decrease in the understanding that they are providing a service that many people in this country actually value. 
Most people who are elderly and even those who are quite sick are often living in their own homes or living with their families. One of the good things that happened in the 1990s was in fact the increase in numbers of people being able to age in their own homes. I think that that is a very very civilised way in which to approach old age and often the illnesses that come with it because life is not just about the fast lane and about fun and those sorts of things; a lot of it is about dying and its process. Many of us who have actually had this happen in our own families understand that even though it might at times be inconvenient to have an elderly relative living with us it is actually a blessing because it shows us the value of life and how precious it is. It is a wonderful thing for our children and grandchildren to see that life is not just about the fun times but also about looking after those who have looked after us and who have put a lot of effort into us and into looking after our own children. 
I think that one thing we can be very proud of is the fact that we now do not institutionalise people as of right or normality just because they are old they are unwell or their health is failing. We can be proud of the fact that after those changes in the 1990s we now embrace our elderly and take them into our homes and into our hearts. We understand that we cannot just shove them aside to be visited occasionally at Christmas time; they are part of our lives. I think that that is a hugely humanising aspect of one of those changes—and I congratulate this Government on continuing with that progress. But I would ask the Government to please not ghettoise our old people who cannot stay in their own homes or with their relatives. I ask the Government to allow them to have the dignity of choosing where they stay what they pay and what they should expect instead of saying this silly nonsense about elderly people not having the right any more to choose what suburb they live in if they live in a rest home because frankly rest homes cannot afford to have those basic facilities in an area where land is expensive. Rest homes are businesses and they are not going to want to lose any more money just to be able to provide something that people want. 
Anne Tolley 
: They’re trying to site prisons close to people’s homes. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: One of the comments from my colleague Anne Tolley was about where prisons are sited and so on but I think that if we look at it we realise that elderly people are not incapable of making their own decisions. Why does this Government not trust them to do what is right for themselves? Why will it refuse to allow elderly people to decide that a one-bedroom or two-bedroom unit is not the same depending on which suburb it is in? It actually does make a difference. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. That previous speech was rather amusing to some degree. It said a lot about caring for elderly people. I do recall some time in the past under Mr Bolger a bit of a reneging of a promise about a surcharge at some point. That really showed a lot of concern for elderly people at that time! I have to wonder to myself with that speech from Judith Collins—from those sometime eloquent words coming from her—whether that was some purport of a vision coming from the National Party because if it were could we put that down to some form of leadership bid that might be occurring? Vision really is something. Those members ought to look at that lady as one of the contenders because when she was talking about those poor elderly people who should be able to make up their own minds I believe that Don Brash might want to consider what he might like to do about making up his own mind on his leadership state at the moment. 
But no the important matter before us in this third reading this evening is of course elderly people whom Labour is committed to—not only elderly people but families young and old. 
 Labour believes in fair treatment and dignity for our senior citizens and this bill continues to make progress on both fronts by providing certainty for all. 
In the bill the maximum contribution for the provision of care is agreed on by funders and providers and it is the same for all needs-assessed residents in a region regardless of the type of care they need—rest home dementia continuing hospital or specialist hospital. Strangely enough I have just come from a meeting with Alzheimer’s New Zealand and those who were present at this particular meeting highlighted to us the many needs to be met in their particular sphere of concern and said that they were able to interface with the Government. The meeting I have just come from this evening is an indication of progress and of taking notice of our elderly people which of course this bill is endeavouring to do. 
Finally I would just like to mention that the bill precludes people from receiving both the residential care subsidy and the disability allowance. That allowance will now be able to be used more widely to go towards the same costs that those living in the community can use it for. With that I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its conclusion. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. National is indeed opposing this bill and the reason we are opposing it is that it represents a reminder once again that Labour has failed the elderly in the detail. That is very much the case in this particular bill. We heard Georgina Beyer chairman of the Social Services Committee say that Labour is committed to certainty for all. How wrong that was for the elderly couple who were married for 57 years and Labour had through this bill the opportunity to ensure that they would be able to age together. I put up an excellent amendment to ensure that that would happen and the Minister totally ignored it. So when we have the chairman of the select committee who went painstakingly through this bill say that Labour provides certainty for all this bill is a living representation that this Labour Government once again fails the elderly when it comes to detail. 
National does acknowledge that there are some useful aspects to this bill and one of them was mentioned by the Minister when he talked about the 28-day rule being extended to 90 days so that elderly couples would have the chance to make arrangements without penalty when one went into long-term residential care. I think that was certainly an important aspect. But I go back to the two parts of this bill that are very concerning and are an indictment on this Labour Government if it claims it really cares for the elderly. 
The first one of course is in relation to ageing together which the Labour Government claims it is for and that so flagrantly is opposed by its action in this bill. The second one relates to the freedom of New Zealand’s elderly to be able to choose whether they can live in the retirement home of their choice; but instead the Labour Government chooses to cap the subsidy so that that choice is taken away from them. 
We hear a gasp from the Labour Government but that in principle just represents the grey socialistic ethos of this Labour Government deciding that everybody in New Zealand should have the same and should not have choice. It is the reflex reaction that it has had for many years and just cannot get over. 
I want to go over the situation of this couple who were married for 57 years. As they did not have assets of their own their daughter bought an apartment for them valued at $150000 that was attached to a rest home so they would be able to live there. The wife on clinical needs assessment and on financial assessment was indeed eligible to receive a subsidy from the State. But when it came to the actuality of it the district health board refused to pay that subsidy and the only way that that couple could have gone on was for the wife to move through the wall next door and away from her husband of 57 years. That is the situation and the Labour Government had the opportunity to correct it. 
Let us just hear what the Minister said in his second reading speech: “There is one last matter …” and it is interesting that the Labour Government put this matter last. But anyway he said: “I am aware that the National Party has indicated that it is introducing a Supplementary Order Paper. It asks that an additional amendment be made to the bill to ensure that couples residing together in a retirement village under an occupation right agreement—a ‘licence to occupy’; sometimes known as an LTO—can stay together when one has been assessed as needing care.” Then he goes on to say and we dare not say that “h” word: “The Government also believes that couples should be able to stay together as long as it is possible and safe.” He says even further: “There seems to be agreement across the House about that. That is the aim of the Government’s older people strategy.” 
Why on earth did not the Minister agree to support my amendment or the amendment of Sue Bradford from the Green Party—either of those amendments—and make that possible? But he chose to say: “No we won’t do that.” He goes on to say: “National’s amendment perhaps unwittingly allows for that double-up payment to occur.” Well maybe it did but that could have been solved by the Minister making an appropriate amendment himself. He says: “The Government expects parties to work together to find a solution and some providers and district health boards have already done just that.” Well I ask the Minister to name one district health board that has done that. 
Then he goes on: “Residential care providers will need to address the way in which they write their residential village occupation rights agreements and district health boards will need to address this issue in their age-related residential care contracts.” They are empty words. We know that time and time again this Labour Government has failed in detail for the elderly. It had an opportunity here but on this occasion it decided outright that that elderly couple were not going to be able to age in a place together. 
The reason we are cynical is that it was only a month or two ago that Dr Nick Smith brought up in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill the situation of an elderly man aged 90 and his wife also married for 50 years where the wife had to go into care because of Alzheimer’s. The Labour Government made it not possible for him to have a living alone entitlement. That is how miserable it was. Nick Smith first of all wrote to the Minister and the Minister refused him not once but twice. He then went to the Human Rights Commissioner who ruled that this was a flagrant abuse of that elderly man’s entitlements; and it took that to happen before the Labour Government took notice. But then what happened? Michael Cullen decided that the amendment Nick Smith put up would increase the Crown’s total operating expenses and total operating revenues by approximately $600000 so he decided to refuse that elderly man. 
 Here we have two occasions in a few months showing why we should not trust this Labour Government when it comes to details in terms of caring for the elderly. The Government clearly has very wide and altruistic rhetoric that when it comes down to detail simply means nothing. Labour had the opportunity twice in this bill by means of an amendment from National and an amendment from the Green Party to have sorted out the problem for that elderly couple. Instead it chose very cruelly not to. 
With the district health board situation right now there are dozens of elderly couples—some not in the position to have a daughter pay for them as was the case of this couple—who will literally be torn apart because of the lack of care by this Labour Government for elderly couples when it comes to details in legislation. Unfortunately the National Party cannot support this bill because once again it realises that the Labour Government simply does not care when it comes to the detail in looking after New Zealand’s elderly. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] It is an excellent decision. The bill is largely of a technical nature and amends some of the anomalies identified in the changes to the income and asset-testing regime that had been implemented. This bill also clarifies that people who receive a residential care subsidy for disability-related care can receive a disability allowance on the same basis as those who live in the community. That group of people definitely needed to have their residential care subsidy clarified. We also note that people who receive a residential care subsidy for age-related care may not receive a disability allowance because the residential care subsidy is intended to meet their assessed disability-related needs. 
We approve of the changes that were implemented to the legislation during the Committee stage of the bill; they were good changes. We were particularly pleased that the 28-day rule was extended to 90 days because we know that it takes a long time for a person to ensure that the necessary changes in his or her living circumstances are made. 
New Zealand First members believe that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation—hence our Supergold card. With an ageing population we must have high-quality affordable care available for all older New Zealanders when they require it. Of course certainty is always needed about how much an individual needs to contribute towards his or her care. New Zealand First members are adamant that retired couples must be able to grow old together with all of their due entitlements. After all is said and done they have earned the right to do that and they need to enjoy life together for as long as they possibly can. 
We were very pleased to hear the message repeated by the Minister that retired couples under an occupation right agreement are able to stay together for as long as possible with all of their entitlements. We are adamant that with the passing of this bill any person eligible for a subsidy for care should receive the care component of the subsidy—including couples who reside under occupation right agreements. We raised that matter directly with the Minister of Health’s office and we now await the agreed outcome which is that district health boards will be encouraged to constructively engage with providers in order to find an agreed solution to that issue. Put simply the care component of the subsidy must be disentangled from the accommodation component. There are currently examples of district health boards and providers negotiating fair solutions to that issue. We believe that can and should happen right across the country. 
If someone with an occupation right agreement is assessed as needing rest home - level care to be provided at that person’s place then the Government should pay for that care and the owner of the facility should not be paid twice for the accommodation component. New Zealand First wants to ensure that if a senior citizen is eligible for a subsidy then he or she receives it. Additionally if individuals are receiving the same care package they should pay the same price. We have a commitment from the Minister’s office that the Government expects the parties to work together to find a solution. Residential care providers will need to address the way that they write their retirement village occupation right agreements and district health boards will also need to address the issue in their age-related residential care contracts. So we are confident of reaching a fair and an equitable solution on this matter and of course we will be monitoring the Government to ensure that it follows through on its undertakings. Couples who want to stay together must receive care together. 
The bill also allows those exempt from a financial means assessment—asset testing—to retain a personal allowance and it clarifies that any person who is needs-assessed as requiring indefinite long-term residential care in either a rest home or a hospital that has a contract with a district health board will pay no more than the maximum contribution for the services set out in the district health board provider contract for services whether or not that person is subsidised. The bill clarifies that if the cost of the contracted care services provided to a resident assessed as requiring care exceeds the maximum contribution the funder is liable to pay the difference. It is essential that if a taxpayer’s subsidy is paid a certain level of service is provided regardless of whether the person concerned is State-funded or self-funded. In this House we would all agree that for people to receive anything other than the same level of service or medical care would be totally outrageous and of course we are very aware that residents are able to purchase any additional services on top of those that are subsidised. The element of choice is still there. 
The bill makes it clear that even if people have assets of more than $150000 they will pay no more than the maximum contribution for their care. In this House we are all only too aware that the cost of residential care very quickly erodes the savings that many people have worked for and then very carefully put away for their senior years. We have all had people visit our offices and discuss that issue at length. 
We were pleased to read that the bill now treats New Zealand and overseas private pensions and annuities equitably. That means that in both cases only 50 percent of a private pension or annuity is to be included as income in a means assessment. Previously 100 percent of an overseas private pension was treated as income. The treatment of overseas private pensions as income for assessment was unfair and it is good to see that that anomaly has been amended and that those people will not be unfairly penalised. 
We in New Zealand First believe that in the future many elderly people will choose to opt for quality home-based support services but we are very aware too that the provision of those services is challenging. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. The matters raised in it do need to be resolved and we look forward to a very speedy resolution of them. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the third reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. Although we would have preferred to see the asset test for long-term residential care abolished completely—and for that matter the Social Security Act itself completely rewritten—we remain happy to support the tidy-up provisions contained in the bill. However when the bill was before the Social Services Committee one particular issue was drawn to our attention by submitters which was that of people in need of long-term residential care who are unable to obtain a residential care subsidy because of the nature of the contracts between district health boards and care providers. 
 The standard district health board contract contains a clause that precludes care providers from entering into service arrangements such as “licence to occupy” agreements that result in the provider receiving payment benefit or value from the district health board or anyone else including the resident for the provision of such services to residents. The consequence of such a clause has been the anomalous situation whereby residents who meet the needs and means assessments for residential care subsidies have been denied them because of the nature of the agreement they have with their care provider. In some situations this has resulted in the bizarre scenario that Paul Hutchison talked about earlier of a couple having to effectively separate with one partner in a “licence to occupy” unit and the other bundled off to a room somewhere else in the rest home facility so that the subsidy can be provided. That approach harks back to the dark ages when people with disabilities were separated from their families and led a lonely existence hidden away from society—days that I hope are long since past in this country. 
I agree that it is not acceptable for providers to double-dip by obtaining funding from the district health board and other sources for the same service but this is an issue that could have and should have been properly worked through with the providers and preferably through the legislation that went through the Committee stage yesterday. 
From recent discussions with aged-care providers I learnt that they have been attempting to resolve this problem with the district health boards for some considerable time. Providers reported reluctance from district health boards to negotiate the issue in good faith. I therefore proposed a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage that would have had the effect of setting a 6-month time frame for the district health boards and providers to negotiate the unbundling of “licence to occupy” agreements into their care and non-care components which would stop the double-dipping aspect of it. My Supplementary Order Paper would have precluded the district health boards from contracting to providers in a manner that excluded residents with “licence to occupy” agreements from funding. 
Unfortunately business in the House proceeded more rapidly yesterday than a lot of us anticipated it would and I was unable to be present for the Committee stage of the debate. However I thank the Maori Party in particular for its support for the Green Party amendments. Although the Government did not find its way clear to vote for our Supplementary Order Paper I also thank the Hon Peter Hodgson for his comments indicating that he and the Government are taking this issue seriously. I hope he will be able to persuade the district health boards to negotiate through the issue with better faith and greater enthusiasm than has been demonstrated to date. 
In conclusion I acknowledge all of those who took the time to make submissions on this bill. I know that the whole submission-making process sometimes feels like a thankless task especially on bills like this where not a lot of public or media attention is paid to what is happening. But as ever submitters are making an invaluable contribution to the workings of democracy and we MPs do listen to them even if our amendments do not always get through. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. This week as I returned to Parliament I brought with me a very special portrait. It is a portrait of a renowned weaver the kuia Ranginui Parewahawaha Leonard. She is a woman of much significance so much so that my first-born child is named after her. Ranginui Parewahawaha was my grandmother and as it happens one of her great-grandchildren is sitting in the gallery tonight. She was 112 years old when she passed away some 22 years ago yet my memories of her are very vivid as were her piercing eyes. Her tiny frame was rather deceptive; her strength was formidable. Her nimble and meticulous skills in particular with raranga—that is weaving for those who do not know—stayed with her right through to the end. She was one who at the age of 100 years would still carry her firewood in a sack on her back from my uncle’s place to hers—a trek of some 800 metres or so. 
So she was a very strong woman and as we come to this bill the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill I think of her. For her first century she lived pretty proudly in her own home only conceding to be cared for by my mother and my auntie in the last few years of her life. It was a life that I would think must have been very hard but a life that was fairly fulfilling. It was a life of independent means of strength and of good heart. So in this bill tonight we of the Maori Party bring the aspirations that the proposals to amend the income and asset testing regime for elderly people requiring indefinite long-term residential care will guarantee the same autonomy and good health that my kuia enjoyed in her time. 
A critical component of well-being is of course financial stability. We welcome the proposals that the people assessed as requiring indefinite long-term residential care will pay no more than the maximum contribution for care whether or not they are subsidised. People who have assets over the applicable assets threshold and who receive contracted care services that cost more than the maximum contribution will pay only the maximum contribution. That sense of a cut-off point from which no other charges will be incurred is an important one. The Maori Party supports these changes to the means-testing policies because we believe that they bring with them the capacity to truly ensure manaakitanga is applied when considering the care of pakeke. 
We were disappointed that the bill was reported back to the House with no amendments and that no report or commentary on this bill was tabled by the Social Services Committee. It was not as if the submissions received by the committee were of little significance. Indeed I am told that at the time of the second reading of this bill my colleague Tariana Turia referred extensively to the expert advice and counsel of the submitters particularly the macroeconomist Susan St John. It was St John’s contention that the opportunity to consider the appropriate funding of long-term care had been lost with the fast passage of this bill. Her advice to the Social Services Committee made it clear that the legislation had arisen solely to meet the obligations of a political promise. 
Last night I laid in the House the longest place name in Aotearoa. It was an 85-letter word. 
Anne Tolley 
: You gave the short version! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: That is true. Tonight I have another word for the House. It is not quite as long. In fact it is only 12 letters in all but it is one that we must all wrap our lips around and commit to memory if we are truly to be representatives of the people. What is the word? It is “consultation”. Consultation is critical to the attainment of quality policy. A commitment to produce effective policy means that it would likely be useful to get the views of New Zealanders in developing options and assessing them. Without a proper consultative process and a serious effort to define and address the actual problems New Zealand faces in the provision of long-term residential care policy will be created in a vacuum. In addition consultation offers new approaches for considering the dilemmas associated with such variables as income assessment including the income-from-assets exemptions for couples and residential care subsidies for disabled-related care. Effective consultation enables us to point out pitfalls or gaps in our thinking—and of course to raise issues we have not considered. 
There is a particular reason why the Maori Party is identifying the lack of consultation in this bill and that is of course as a result of the responsibilities the Crown has through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. At its heart the Treaty confirms the relationship with Maori. It promises commitments to a constructive and mutually respectful relationship. So we look to the proceedings in this House to learn what our kaumatua kuia and koroua have thought about the current asset-testing regime. We are interested in the perspectives of whanau hapu and iwi in regard to funding for the provision of services and care to older people. 
The nation is entitled to transparency in discussions regarding payments for long-term care. I understand that the ropu HealthCare Providers New Zealand came to the select committee stating that it did not support raising the threshold for asset testing. The Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association suggested that we should remove asset testing in total as soon as possible. I am told that the Salvation Army presented a submission stating that the residential care sector had to be better funded. It was the Salvation Army’s view that given the demographics it is likely the market will develop a form of care that sits outside the regulations. The logical flow-on effect of that would put older people potentially at risk of inadequate and costly care. 
I have mentioned just a few of the submissions that were heard in my attempt to ensure that the  
Hansard 
 record is a more fulsome one than perhaps the one we would otherwise receive. But the broader issues of a fairer and sustainable sharing of long-term care must be examined in a public forum. We absolutely endorse the views of Susan St John that there is not enough transparency or discussion with regard to paying for long-term care. It was for that reason that we were interested in the royal commission of inquiry. 
Earlier tonight I paid tribute and made reference to my grandmother Ranginui Parewahawaha Leonard and said that our family was fortunate we were able to care for her. The future however is not so clear. As the demographics indicate the proportion of our population requiring residential care and the needs of our elderly people will grow. We think that we must prepare; we must take every care every effort to consult to care and to plan reasonably for the future. It is with this in mind that the Maori Party supports this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Evidence Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 14 November. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Kia ora no tatou katoa. Last night I talked about the Evidence Bill bringing together decades and volumes of judicial decisions and reforms relating to the concept of evidence into one comprehensive scheme. I acknowledged the work done by the current Law Commission and its recommendations especially around its taking into account Te Ao Maori—the Maori dimension. We endorse concepts such as promoting fairness to parties and witnesses protecting rights of confidentiality and avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay. We also support the amendments to the hearsay rule; the removal of clause 33(3)(f) which refers to a person’s reputation for being untruthful; and the amendments to clause 40 to provide that no evidence can be given or question put relating to the sexual reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. The Maori Party also supports the amendment that provides for judges to recognise the rights affirmed by section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
The right to remain silent is an issue that has been confronting the nation face on in the midst of the media frenzy around the death of the Kahui twins. If the talkback shows are a gauge of public opinion the shockwaves that rumbled throughout Aotearoa with the reluctance of the family to come forward would certainly indicate that as a nation there was universal condemnation of the delay. But as the defence lawyer stated the family members were entitled to remain silent whatever the nation thought. It is a basic principle of our law that no matter how controversial or how popular—or unpopular—the issue everyone has the right to remain silent. 
The Evidence Bill sets in place a massive amalgamation of the various aspects of the law which I have already talked about in the sense of the concepts of logic fairness to parties and witnesses and the rights of the public interest. I was interested in the speech delivered by Mr Fairbrother in the first reading when he reminded the House: “in the criminal law where the State is the prosecutor we are really not in a battle about truth but in a power relationship. … that imbalance of power underlies many of our rules on the law of evidence and most of those rules will still be carried forward in this new Evidence Bill.” Ngati Kahungunu lawyer Moana Jackson in his legendary report  
The Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 
gives further explanation of the power relationship in suggesting that the idea of a cultural and independent justice is always fraught and that law as with any other social practice is culturally bound. That being the case when this bill enters into the Committee stage the Maori Party will be interested to understand and to see clarification of the nature of the power relationship that Maori were able to enter into in contributing to the discussions around the evidence. 
Although the list of individual submitters included some familiar names—Annette Sykes Maui Pomare and organisations including Te Puni Kokiri and the Maori Land Court—it is disappointing to see there was no formal forum by which hapu and iwi or Maori justice organisations were met with. It is that “consultation” word again. It is plain common sense that evidence law affects every statement made by every witness in every court. So it is important not just that rules are clear simple and accessible but that they are culturally relevant. 
The Maori Party in our very parliamentary presence stands for the values of democracy as a form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power. We will be supporting the Evidence Bill at its second reading because of our respect of the voices from the people within the Law Commission the Maori advisory committee and those who have been consulted. Kia ora tatou. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the second reading of the Evidence Bill and I am also delighted to follow my very good friend Te Ururoa Flavell. I wish I could sing on a karaoke machine as well as he can. I have to say I can find considerable sympathy with the comments he made this evening except the complaint about there being perhaps a lack of consultation by the subcommittee that was given the stewardship of this bill. When this Parliament convened this bill was already before the Justice and Electoral Committee and submissions had already been called for. The time for the making of submissions had long since closed. 
As I recall it just 11 submissions had been received. The subcommittee considered two things: first that it was a small number and secondly that given the time we should remind the public that this bill was still being considered and we re-advertised for submissions. We advertised as extensively as we thought was appropriate and we gave ample opportunity. Nor did we cut off the time. Although we set a closing date for submissions we did not impose any cut-off point and we received submissions right until near the end of our deliberation. On occasions we actively sought submissions and we would have welcomed a member of the Maori Party to have approached us or even to have sat in on any of our hearings; and it is perhaps with some sadness that that did not occur. But I will not brook any criticism of a lack of consultation. 
The fact that there were so few submissions probably reflects two things. First the law of evidence is seen by many if not by most as an arcane area of complexity which is better left alone. It is an area where those who practise law either take to the law of evidence easily and recognise the art form it is or continually stumble over that. 
Secondly those most concerned with the law of evidence are trial lawyers. In this country there is in fact a small Bar—both criminal and civil—and trial lawyers are very very busy people. It is a big obligation for those involved to consider a bill such as this and to come forward with submissions that the writer could be proud about effecting changes. So it was a daunting task for many of the people whom we would have liked to hear from. Trial lawyers were instead represented by their informal and formal organisations rather than there being many submissions from individual trial lawyers. 
Having said that I point out that on occasions the subcommittee felt it necessary to reach out for more assistance. We did that and we were amply rewarded for those efforts. No request we made for assistance was spurned and the assistance we received from the Bar from academics and from lay people was considerable. 
Before I proceed with this speech I must pay special tribute to the committee staff Cath Anyan and Sean Rainey both of whom were efficient effective of great assistance and totally unobtrusive. Their presence was such that we often took them for granted but they never failed to deliver on anything we required. The report is a tribute to Sean Rainey’s writing skills because it seems to encapsulate much that we wanted to include in what is a difficult area of law. 
I must also pay a special thankyou and an acknowledgment to senior legal advisers Chelly Walton and Boris van Beusekom. Given the first reading speech of the Minister the advisers felt able to contribute in a round-the-table-discussion way and perhaps in an academic way rather than advocating any policy position. Their assistance and humour was greatly appreciated. 
Finally in my thank you list I mention two other groups of people. The first group is from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We were fortunate throughout our deliberations to have had the assistance of Bill Moore and Dr Hugo Hoffmann both of whom approached their task and our sometimes demanding demands and expectations with humour and graciousness. They delivered a product with one exception that met if not exceeded our expectations. 
The one exception of course was in the area of the Judges’ Rules. We decided that the Judges’ Rules should in fact be brought forward into statute and we set our parliamentary counsel the task of endeavouring to prepare a provision that would have incorporated the Judges’ Rules into the Evidence Bill. It seemed to us that it would be an easy task because the  
Adams on Criminal Law 
 textbook has an appendix on the Judges’ Rules and most trial lawyers are familiar with the essence of them. 
Parliamentary counsel came forward with a draft and in so doing they expressed to us their amazement at how difficult it was to produce because the Judges’ Rules have lost a degree of coherence and accessibility and have perhaps been overshadowed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We finally decided after much deliberation that it was too much to ask of any counsel or specialist adviser to be able to come up with a coherent set of Judges’ Rules and that it was really the obligation of the judges to do so. 
That point takes me to the last category of people whom I want to thank. I thank the specialist adviser the Hon Dr Robert Fisher QC who is a very respected academic a very respected trial and appellate judge and a man who gave us considerable assistance with patience and understanding. He anticipated our concerns often before we got to them. The committee was very fortunate to have that support and I think that the way in which the members of the committee worked reflects the willing contribution from the seven people I have just named. 
I thank my colleagues on the subcommittee Dr Richard Worth Christopher Finlayson and Nandor Tanczos. I think we enjoyed our meeting process. We met on many occasions we did our homework and we resolved our issues in a fairly natural way. I have to say that there was probably a comfortable if not somewhat serendipitous division whereby those members of the subcommittee with experience at the civil Bar and those with experience at the criminal Bar were able to naturally assume responsibilities as this bill evolved. 
The very pleasant thing was that Nandor Tanczos who brought to the consideration a layperson’s perspective lacked nothing in perspicacity and nothing in his understanding of the principles we were dealing with. Some amendments to the bill can be attributed to one or two occasions—perhaps it was more often than that—when Nandor Tanczos asked a “what if” or “Why do we do this?” question. His contribution merited a special thankyou when the committee concluded particularly from the specialist adviser the Hon Dr Robert Fisher. 
So that was the committee process. We were unanimous on the various matters we dealt with and at no stage did we lose a sense of the enormity of the task. We called for submitters and we welcomed their oral submissions. We were flattered to receive submissions from the full Supreme Court along with submissions from the Chief High Court Judge and from the author of the Law Commission report Justice Baragwanath who spent time with us and urged us to adopt a less prescriptive version of the bill. We think that we may have delivered a not too prescriptive version but a codified version of the statute. 
Many areas in this bill are worth discussing at some length and I will perhaps do that during the Committee stage and in any third reading speech I give but I will mention two areas of the bill briefly. The first area concerns the evidence of complainants in cases of sexual offending. We considered a submission from the Wellington Women Lawyers Association. The association challenged us as to why evidence of reputation should any longer be part of our evidence law when it came to allegations of sexual assault or sexual violation. We were interested in this challenge because of course reputation has nothing to do with what is a transaction of the moment. 
We sought further submissions on this issue from both the Law Society which had already provided us with a very lengthy detailed and helpful submission and again the criminal Bar which in this country is effectively represented by Auckland practitioners. Mr Peter Winter of the criminal Bar responded. He travelled again to Wellington as I recall it and he conceded that the criminal Bar did not like the removal of the reputation aspect of the law but could see that we were heading that way. He spoke from instinct rather than being able to provide any analysis. We have omitted evidence of reputation from the admissible evidence and that is dealt with in clause 40 of the bill. 
The second area of the bill that I will touch upon briefly concerns the statements of co-accuseds. The report from the Law Commission would have allowed—in a manner perhaps consistent with the philosophy that hearsay evidence is now admissible but there are a lot of prescriptions to that—the statements of a co-accused in a joint trial to be used as evidence in court—that is as evidence against an accused. This would have created many difficulties. We discussed it and in the end we decided that the status quo should remain. 
The principal reasons for that decision were first that is impossible for a co-accused to challenge the way in which a statement made by another accused is taken at the police station and secondly that the practice in joint trials of the statements of co-accuseds not being paid regard to by juries seems to be working adequately. There is ample anecdotal evidence of juries being able to set aside incriminating comments against a co-accused in the course of considering their evidence in joint trials. We believed that to follow the Law Commission recommendation on that point would lengthen joint trials increase the amount of appellate work and run the considerable risk of injustice. 
This is an important bill. It is not a codification of the law of evidence but an attempt to bring into statute in a clear concise and accessible way the laws that must be followed. The statute prevails over other legislation unless it is stated otherwise. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to contribute very briefly to this debate. I have listened with interest tonight to a number of speeches that Te Ururoa Flavell has made as the member of Parliament for Waiariki. I have been very impressed by the careful comments that he has made on two preceding bills. But I have to say that in respect of his comments on the Evidence Bill he is well wide of the mark. Every attempt was made to provide consultation opportunities for those who wished to be heard. For the reasons that the previous speaker Russell Fairbrother spoke about only a few people afforded themselves of that opportunity. 
The second point I would like to make is that we saw in the deliberations that took place at select committee level a very appropriate use of advisers. When it comes to complex technical legislation good choices made by a committee—in this case the Justice and Electoral Committee—at an early stage can reap huge benefits. We made a wise choice to appoint the Hon Robert Fisher a former judge of the High Court. In my view he has not been fairly treated in the context of the work he has done as a judge in the jurisdiction of the High Court. He gave much of himself to improve significantly the context of this bill. Well we will see when the bill is passed how this legislation works in practice in the courts but I express confidence that it will be a great outcome. 
I make one final comment with reference to what the previous speaker said. I understood him to say that this bill is not a codification of the law of evidence. It is substantially on that path so I believe that the opportunity for judge-made law and other influences to intervene will be starkly limited by the passage of this legislation. 
I look forward to the further stages of this bill and to its speedy passage through the House so as to produce an Evidence Act of which we will be truly proud. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am quite pleased to have taken part in the subcommittee process around the Evidence Bill. I think it has been a very valuable process; it has certainly been valuable for me in terms of increasing my understanding. I think also as previous speakers have mentioned that the result is a very good piece of work from the subcommittee. 
I very much thank the other members of the subcommittee for the work we did together. In particular I thank the chair Russell Fairbrother and I also thank him for his kind words earlier. He was an excellent chair and took a very collegial approach. He said that we would not hurry this work and that we would take the time we needed to work through the very complex and dense issues. So I thank him for that. I also thank my colleagues from the National Party Dr Richard Worth and Chris Finlayson both of whom made an enormous contribution to the discussions debates and working through of the issues. I thank the officials Shelly and Boris whom Russell Fairbrother mentioned Bill and Hugo from the Parliamentary Counsel Office and Cath and Sean the clerks of the committee. They all contributed enormously to what was a complex bill. 
As other speakers have done I particularly thank the Hon Robert Fisher for the extraordinary work he put in. He put in a significant amount of work. He was able to bring to bear his experience to help elucidate the difficult issues we were grappling with. That was enormously valuable in those discussions. 
There was some debate about whether the bill was too prescriptive or whether it left too much discretion in the hands of judges in terms of working out the rules of how cases will run. We came to the conclusion that it has an appropriate level of detail. It still leaves a significant amount to be worked through so it is not too prescriptive and many provisions will still be dealt with by regulation. We came to the conclusion that the overall balance in this bill between the primary legislation and the delegated rules and regulations is right. 
Before discussing some of the specific issues we debated and the conclusions we came to I will touch on some of the overall purposes and principles of the bill. We have not significantly changed these but I think they are worth reiterating for members of the House and for members of the public who are listening. Firstly: “The purpose of this Act is to help secure the just determination of proceedings by—(a) providing for facts to be established by the application of logical rules; and”—and this is an added subclause—“(ab) by providing rules of evidence that recognise the importance of the rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;”. I think that was an important addition to reaffirm the centrality of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when it comes to the proceedings of courts. 
Other purposes include: “(b) promoting fairness to parties and witnesses; and (c) promoting rights of confidentiality and other important public interests; and (d) avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay; and”—this is a new subclause—“(e) enhancing access to the law of evidence.” That is an important consideration because one of the difficulties in the past has been that the laws of evidence have been scattered in case law as well as in legislation. The attempt here is to bring it all together. Although there still are rules and regulations to be worked out this bill basically provides a central place where the law of evidence can be found. I think for the public that is enormously helpful. 
Clause 7 sets out the principle that relevant evidence is admissible. That is as one would expect. Clause 7(2) states: “Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding.” and clause 7(3) states: “Evidence is relevant … if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination …”. Subclause 1 of clause 8 “General exclusion” states that judges: “must exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that the evidence will—(a) have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the … proceeding; or (b) needlessly prolong the proceeding.” We have added clause 8(2): “In determining whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by the risk that the evidence will have an unfairly prejudicial effect on a criminal proceeding the Judge must take into account the right of the defendant to offer an effective defence.” I think that that is a useful addition. 
Evidence that is not otherwise admissible can be admitted with the written or oral agreement of all parties. Also when it comes to hearsay evidence it is basically admissible if the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness or the judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the person was required to be a witness. So that sets out the general parameters of what the bill is trying to produce. 
Then we move to the specific effects. One of the things that was of great interest to me coming at this as a layperson with some interest in the law was the issue of improperly obtained evidence and evidence obtained by oppression and the like. Clause 24 refers to the exclusion of unreliable statements. The committee struck out clause 24(2)(a) and (b). Subclause 2 stated: “The Judge must exclude the statement unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities—” 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Is this a second reading speech? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Yes I am talking about the committee’s report back and the amendments we made. I thought that was the role of the second reading speech. The subclause continues: “(a) that the circumstances in which the statement was made were not likely to have adversely affected its reliability; or (b) that the statement is true.” The point of removing “that the statement is true” is that the real issue should be whether the statement was made in circumstances that were not likely to have affected its reliability. The issue of whether it is true will be determined in the decision. So it is quite proper that that be excluded. We have replaced that subclause with: “The Judge must exclude the statement unless satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the circumstances in which the statement was made were not likely to have adversely affected its reliability.” 
We have to look at that clause in conjunction with clause 118 which relates to judicial direction. One of the things that concerned me greatly was the issue of statements made by witnesses who were cellmates of an accused. We can look at cases in this country whereby that kind of evidence has been the cause of very significant concern. Under clause 118 a judge must consider whether to give a warning whenever certain evidence is given including “evidence of a statement by the defendant to another person made while both the defendant and the other person were detained in prison a police station or another place of detention:” That was something that the subcommittee added because of the very significant concern around those cellmate statements. 
We had a very lengthy discussion around the issue of improperly obtained evidence and around the codification of the  
R v Shaheed 
 decision and whether this was appropriate. We had a range of views on that matter. The amendment that we did end up recommending was in clause 26(3)(c). When looking at improperly obtained evidence the judge must find on the balance of probabilities whether the evidence was improperly obtained then if the evidence has been improperly obtained the judge must determine by means of a balancing process whether the exclusion of the evidence is proportionate to the impropriety. The matters that the court may have regard to are the nature and quality of the improperly obtained evidence. We removed from clause 26(3)(c) the words “in particular whether it is central to the case of the prosecution:” because it seemed extraordinarily inappropriate that that would be a consideration as to whether that evidence was included. 
So that is a very brief look at some of the issues that we discussed. I look forward to further readings of this bill in order to discuss some of the other matters that were so central to our consideration. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of preventing boredom and tedium I rise to take what will be a very short call. I think Mr Nandor Tanczos has pretty much revisited the bill. Suffice it to say that New Zealand First did not have a member of Parliament on the Justice and Electoral Committee so we are I guess at the mercy of the committee and its findings. 
I will note firstly that Dr Worth was on the committee—and we in New Zealand First do place some store on his abilities in these areas and matters—and secondly that virtually every paragraph in the report speaks of an amendment to the bill. That leaves me wondering what of the original bill remains. It would appear that the select committee has taken an axe to the bill and severely altered it from the bill that the Minister presented. We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage and to hearing the arguments as to why that was done. 
Hon Bill English 
: What does Winston think? 
RON MARK 
: If Winston were here he would say that he thought the speech given by Judith Collins this evening was interesting in that she espoused great concern for the elderly which we never saw when National was last in Government. Winston would say that the Government is in better hands these days than it would have been had New Zealand First bowed to the requests of the National Party and formed a coalition with the great menagerie that National was proposing to form one with. 
Winston would say that as Minister of Foreign Affairs he is doing a great job and actually enjoying it and he would say that he was very pleased with the comments made in the Grand Hall this evening by a number of Americans as to how well they thought he was doing his job and what a great asset he has been to New Zealand in his very short duration in the job of Minister of Foreign Affairs. Winston would say that Gerry Brownlee’s focus on Winston’s expenditure as Minister as Foreign Affairs is a little curious given Don McKinnon’s expenditure when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. Winston would say a great deal more than that but I say to the Hon Bill English that I do not have the time to completely fill him in on all that. Winston would say that Nandor does a good job as an MP but that he sometimes allows his criticisms of Winston to cloud his judgment. 
I simply say that New Zealand First—and Winston would agree with me—will support this bill through its second reading. We will listen with interest to the contributions of Dr Richard Worth as to why the select committee took an axe to the Minister’s bill and changed it as much as it did. 
Bill read a second time. 
Judicial Retirement Age Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Retirement Age Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
This bill proposes to raise the retirement age for all judges of all courts associate judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 to 70 years. Judicial retirement age has received little legislative attention since it was first introduced in 1903 when the Supreme Court Judges Act introduced a mandatory retirement age of 72 for judges of the higher courts. In 1908 the Judicature Act consolidated various Acts relating to the higher courts including the Supreme Court Judges Act and the retirement age of 72 was retained. The statutory retirement age for higher court judges has since been provided for by section 13 of the Judicature Act. 
In 1979 the report of the Royal Commission on the Courts noted that 72 years was out of line with the generally accepted retirement age for most public offices the civil service—where people at that time were required to retire at 60—and the business community. The commission recommended that the retirement age for all judges be reduced to 65. In 1981 the retirement age for higher court judges was reduced from 72 to 68 to bring the retirement age into line with that for judges of other courts such as the District Court where it had been set at 68 since 1924. 
A compulsory retirement age is desirable for a number of reasons. The first reason is that of judicial independence. Judicial independence is fundamental to the operation of a democratic society. Judges need to be able to act independently. They must be able to carry out their role of determining cases before them in accordance with the law and free of concern about their security of tenure. Judicial independence may be compromised if there is a perception that judges are not concerned with the merits of the case before them and instead are concerned with finding favour with the Government in order to secure appointment. An apparent lack of independence would also diminish public confidence in the administration of justice. Security of tenure and its counterpoint a compulsory retirement age are key protections of judicial independence. A compulsory retirement age enables judges to carry out their functions and duties fearlessly without concern as to their future term of office. 
The second reason a compulsory retirement age is seen is desirable is that it limits the need to monitor individual judges’ ability which might otherwise be required so as to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the judiciary. At present a judge can be removed from office only on the grounds of that judge’s misbehaviour or incapacity to discharge the functions of his or her office. Having a compulsory retirement age helps to ensure that issues of incapacity rarely arise. 
New Zealand’s current judicial retirement age of 68 is low compared with that in overseas jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland the retirement age is 70. In Canada all superior court judges retire at 75. Not only is a retirement age of 68 comparatively low in relation to that in overseas jurisdictions but also it does not reflect the fact that many people including judges are more than capable of working well past their 68th birthday. Improved health and lifestyle standards mean that many people now expect to actively participate in employment into their late 60s and in some cases beyond then. With many people able to continue working later in life the requirement to retire from the bench at 68 may also discourage some worthy candidates from accepting a position as a judge at a later stage in their legal career. 
The current retirement age of 68 causes a loss of valuable knowledge and experience to the judiciary. It removes from the bench a group that possesses experience maturity and judgment. In New Zealand many judges continue to work in related fields after retiring from the bench—for example as arbitrators. A number of retired judges have gone on to become highly regarded arbitrators. 
The bill is a simple one. It proposes to replace the retirement age of 68 with 70 in six Acts: the District Courts Act 1947 the Employment Relations Act 2000 the Judicature Act 1908 the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Act 2006. The new retirement age will apply to all existing appointments as at the date of commencement and to all new appointments following that date. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We have just heard a splendid recitation of the history of judicial tenure from the repository of judicial insight in the Labour Government. There is little I can further say in support of the commendable purpose behind the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. However there are probably three points to make. 
The first point is that under the Human Rights Act there are prohibited grounds of discrimination. One of those grounds of discrimination to be found in section 21(1)(i) of the Act is that there should not be discrimination on the grounds of age. But here of course we have an exception to that provision. The exception is that judges—if this bill is passed—are to be forced from office when they reach the age of 70. That provision in the bill may or may not be appropriate but it is an interesting statutory exception to what has been seen as a clearly established principle in legislation: there should not be discrimination on the grounds of age. 
The second point that is important to reflect upon is that in the context of constitutional law it is important that judges have security of tenure. Fixing an age for their retirement is not inappropriate in that context. 
The third point I make in passing is that I believe it is wholly unsatisfactory that we should encourage any outcome that would see part-time judges. This issue has been explored and considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. As a general proposition that committee found some difficulty in contemplating the status of part-time judges. So on behalf of National I express the hope that in supporting this legislation which increases the retirement age of judges to 70 we will not have to confront that particular issue. 
Finally under the Supreme Court Act 2003 which saw the abolition of the Privy Council and the setting up in New Zealand of the Supreme Court as our highest court we decided that it was not inappropriate to have acting judges. Section 23 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 permits of the possibility that judges of the Supreme Court who are acting judges might hold that office until the age of 75. We might see whether this bill will presage the possibility of the age of retirement which used to be 72 drifting back to the original position of 75. National supports this legislation. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The retirement— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: No no Russell doesn’t need to speak. What can he say? What can the member say? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: After that effort I felt compelled to speak. The Judicial Retirement Age Bill appeals to me because it gives Dr Richard Worth a retirement occupation having seemed to suggest his retirement days have already commenced in the House. 
I have to say that the age of retirement is a contestable issue. There are many lawyers who would agree with me that many judges should be retired at 45 whereas there are a number of other judges who clearly should go on for many years beyond that. Competence of judges unfortunately is not an artefact of age and a very good judge is a loss to the profession and to the courts when he or she does retire at the compulsory retirement age. There are many judges—particularly of the High Court and the Court of Appeal—who retired far too soon on obtaining the age of 68 years and although they would have said they were tired because the workload they carried was considerable from talking to them one got a sense of loss and certainly many of the Bar shared that sense of loss. Having a low compulsory retirement age is not a filter for keeping judges no longer competent away from doing the work. In fact it presents as a loss to the community of some very good minds that seem to get better with advancing years. 
The real problem for judicial capacity is workload pressures. This Government has worked to ease that by spreading the work over the courts and bringing more equity and appointing judges from a wider cross-section of the community so that they represent the community and strangely enough could even find reasons to find some good in the community of Dr Worth. So it is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill; for some judges I know 70 is still too young an age. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I thought my colleague might rise but I just rise to indicate briefly that the Green Party is supporting the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. The Minister the Hon Rick Barker made reference to the fact that 68 is a comparatively young age—when compared with other jurisdictions—when it comes to judicial retirement. So I think that is a strong argument. The argument around the need for security of tenure is also an important one as is the enhancement that raising the retirement age will give to the ability to attract senior practitioners and academics who might be put off by a retirement age of 68. I think they are good reasons. I also see merit in the argument that the current age causes a significant loss of valuable knowledge and experience from the bench and I might add brilliance as well. 
I was reflecting on the fact that I have been fortunate to hear Sir Ivor Richardson speak recently—both before the select committee and at some other forums—and I was enormously impressed by the brilliance and the sharpness of his mind and the erudite arguments that he put forward. I also heard Lord Cooke when he came and gave evidence to the select committee on the Supreme Court legislation. So when I look at some of the people of that magnificence who have been on the bench in New Zealand I have no doubt that for some people 68 is far too young an age and that we would do very well from seeing some of those senior judiciary continue on the bench for some time further. So we support the bill. Kia ora. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I very briefly put on the record that New Zealand First is also supporting this bill. I think it is worthy of note actually that as an MP one often gets approached by people who want to be Justices of the Peace and I have noted with some alarm the age of some people who are still supposedly functioning as Justices of the Peace—some as old as 90 I am told. It does beg the question when one has business people such as the great Sir Angus Tait. He is a very highly regarded businessman in Christchurch. One would shudder at the thought of people retiring Angus Tait out of business at the age of 65. 
If one looks at a number of the captains of industry and indeed even some of the leaders in this House—Dr Don Brash must be getting close to his retirement age if he had been a judge. To actually say that Don Brash could not continue on as a leader after 65 years of age because he was too old for the job would be a little unfair a little cruel and a little unkind. I know that some members of Parliament want to get rid of him a lot quicker than that and that is their choice but— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: How old is the member? 
RON MARK 
: Old enough to see what is happening around here. I am a bit embarrassed to give my age—it is the grand old age of 52 since the member asked. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You’re older than me Ron. 
RON MARK 
: I am a bit younger that him am I not? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Yeah could be. 
RON MARK 
: A little bit younger than him. So being a younger man and being very respectful and mindful of my elders I do not think I would like to see Dr Richard Worth forcibly retired as a judge at the age of 65. That would leave him only 1 year to go if he got the job next year would it not? I think there is a lot more work in that old horse over there and a lot more wisdom. It is actually an interesting question is it not? We have gone through an era in this country when we suddenly deemed by fashion I guess that it was inappropriate to have older New Zealanders holding senior management jobs or positions of authority. We suddenly turned and if I could put a finger on a time and say “I think it happened about there.” I would probably target the Roger Douglas Labour Government era when suddenly people viewed Government departments the public service and captains of industry as being all businesses and that businesses needed to be run by young vibrant vigorous people—not necessarily people of great depth great wisdom or great experience but young and vibrant. One of the legacies that that has left us is a whole bunch—a mass of highly qualified highly competent wise seasoned experienced New Zealanders now sitting on the scrap heap. 
Some call it retirement but regretfully—and unfortunately it affects men I think more these days—a large number of men in their 50s who are on the scrap heap struggle to get back into the workforce because they are deemed too old. Well I think that is a load of nonsense. I think and New Zealand First believes there are judges who are serving this nation today who are of immense value to this nation. They have a lot of service left in them and we can ill do without their wisdom knowledge and experience. All I ask the House to consider when we work our way through this bill is to cast one’s mind a little wider at the greater New Zealand society and ask ourselves whether we have not in fact done ourselves a disservice by forcing people to retire from the public service—from the service of the Government—when really they should never have left but were forced into retirement forced into redundancy and forced out of work simply because they were deemed or considered to be too old. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The Maori Party comes to the Judicial Retirement Age Bill tonight understanding the very unique status of judges as repositories of learning and wisdom. We are particularly influenced by the high calibre of a number of judges who have spoken in support of the human rights of tangata whenua. 
Tangata whenua have long been aware of and have greatly respected the questioning of the colonial policy that the first Chief Justice Sir Charles Martin is remembered for. We respect the views of Sian Elias the Court of Appeal judge and her comments on the foreshore and seabed ruling. We appreciate the expertise of Judge Caren Fox in relation to the foreshore and seabed legislation. We are also eternally grateful for the insights and leadership provided by Judge Heta Hingston. We are grateful for his involvement in reforming the Maori Affairs Act of 1953 and the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and of course for his work in relation to the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
This House and this nation have long paid their respects to Lord Cooke of Thorndon who recently passed away. In the 1987 Court of Appeal case  
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General 
 Lord Cooke described Te Tiriti o Waitangi as still being a “valid compact” that imposes “fiduciary” duties of “mutual obligation” between the Crown and Maori tribes. Such a commentary is part of our history as a nation. Lord Cooke left this nation significant statements which include: “the Treaty signified a partnership between races”. Such statements have contributed to the growing maturity of our land. 
Those names and those judges are but a few of a strong cast of potential leaders who are taking this nation forward with their deliberations and their findings. As a party that absolutely values the capacity of being able to speak out the Maori Party says it is vital that the ability of judges to speak frankly on issues is preserved. 
Not long ago I spoke in the context of the Evidence Bill on the values of democracy as a “form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power.” We remember a couple of years back when Maori Land Court judge Caren Wickliffe now known as Judge Fox reminded the Prime Minister Helen Clark that there were proper routes to take if she disagreed with judges’ decisions. If the House cares to cast its collective mind back that reminder came at a time when the current Speaker the current Leader of the House and the current Prime Minister were frequently criticising the status of some members of the judiciary. The clear distinguishing line between the executive and the judiciary is an essential element of our democracy. At that time Judge Wickliffe stated that the executive should not tell the court what to do especially if it was still involved in the case. Indeed the Crown or any other party could appeal or seek a judicial review of a decision they did not agree with. Judge Wickliffe had rejected the Crown’s attempts to prevent East Coast foreshore and seabed claimants from proceeding to the substantive hearing. The Crown wanted a stay on the proceedings because of planned legislation affecting the seabed and foreshore ownership. 
This was a murky period of our history but through it all the virtues of judicial independence remained unscathed. These same democratic principles lead the Maori Party to look favourably at the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. The bill promotes the notion that security of tenure and a compulsory retirement age are “key protections for judicial independence” thus enabling the judiciary’s “fearless performance of judicial functions” by keeping its members free of concerns about job security. That fearless frank and fierce critique we have associated with the judiciary must be protected at all times. 
When we consider “fearless frank and fierce” we could do no better than to recall the advice of former Maori Land Court judge Heta Hingston who famously described the Government’s public domain title as being nothing more than a smokescreen to its true motives. In mid-2004 he said: “The foreshore and seabed has never been in public domain. Their position that public access would be jeopardised is complete ignorance. Essentially what the Government has done is take away from Maori. Quite simply it is another case of raupatu; it’s confiscation.” Judge Hingston concluded that the Government’s actions were best interpreted as the “tyranny of the minority by the majority”. He urged Maori to continue to seek justification on all options that were available to them and he spoke of the value of international forums. 
In the context of such brilliant advice from Heta we welcome this bill which increases the statutory retirement age for judges and associate judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 years to 70 years. The Maori Party will support the proposals to amend the District Courts Act 1947 the Employment Relations Act 2000 the Judicature Act 1908 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Act 2006. We believe that in all of these areas age should not present a barrier to the provision of expert advice. 
It is of course fitting to be speaking to this bill on a night when we have all been considering better opportunities to provide for the ongoing contributions of our elders. The current retirement age runs the risk of the nation missing out on the valuable knowledge and experience that the judiciary offers. We know that the restrictions around retirement age are also perceived as being a barrier to attracting senior practitioners and lawyers to the judicial office. 
We cannot leave this important bill however without also raising the critical issue of judicial impartiality. In  
Maori and the Criminal Justice System: a new perspective—he whaipainga hou 
 
the Kahungunu lawyer Moana Jackson discussed the concept of the potential for judicial bias to be realised as the end result of a process that is itself culturally biased. His report noted that when all necessary variables of previous offending legislative guidelines and the gravity of the offence have been considered Maori believe that the differential notion of the sentence can be attributed only to judicial insensitivity and prejudice. I quote directly from that report: “I have noticed that judges while most of them try their hardest to show themselves to be free of prejudice and some of them may be … a subconscious form of prejudice shows itself in the judge’s attitudes sometimes when talking to sometimes when looking at Maori defendants. … Maori people know that look and they know what it means”. 
These are grave issues of State. I hope that in subsequent discussion on the Judicial Retirement Age Bill barriers other than age such as those of institutional racism may also be considered. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Energy Safety Review Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Energy Safety Review Bill be now read a second time 
. In doing so I want to thank the chairperson of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich and the members of the committee especially Maryan Street for the work they did on considering the original bill including hearing and responding to comments received on it. I also thank all those who made submissions to the select committee for their input into helping to improve this bill. 
The bill with amendments made by the Commerce Committee will amend the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act 1989. Energy is critical to the economic growth prosperity and social well-being of all New Zealanders and the Energy Safety Review Bill represents an ongoing commitment by the Government to the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas. The bill will ensure continued access to safe and reliable energy for our everyday use and for use in industry and will provide for skilled practitioners and electricity and gas supply systems that minimise the public’s exposure to risk. 
The bill will amend the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to include clear purpose statements. The purpose statements for both Acts as set out in the bill include “to protect the health and safety of members of the public” and “to promote the prevention of damage to property” and for the Electricity Act specifically “to provide for the regulation of electrical workers.” In particular the bill updates the occupational regulation provisions of the Electricity Act: the registration and licensing of electrical workers the procedures for addressing complaints against electrical workers and enforcement provisions. 
The electrical worker registration and licensing regime plays a key role in consumer protection. When people require or want electrical work to be done they and their families need assurance that the electrician is competent and the work will be done safely. The bill provides for the continuation of registration and licensing as the means of providing that assurance. It will also enable the public to easily recognise a licensed worker by way of publicly available registers in line with the licensing regime for building practitioners under the Building Act 2004. 
The bill originally proposed the replacement of the existing registration and licensing regime with a licence-only regime in line with that for licensed building practitioners but as recognition of the investment made by electrical workers to obtain this qualification the Commerce Committee has recommended the retention of registration. As a qualified electrician myself I know that those in the electrical trade highly value their registration and I know that they will appreciate the select committee’s acknowledgment of this fact. 
The bill however will provide for more flexibility in the registration and licensing regime. This flexibility will allow for specialist registration categories and for competencies to be specified for the particular work authorised under each registration category. This will save workers in specialised fields from having to acquire and maintain competencies that they do not need in their work. I am sure though that the existing electrician class will continue to be the mainstay of the trade. 
A significant feature of the bill is the improvement of the link between competence and licensing. The bill amends the Electricity Act to provide for competency-based licensing which will ensure that before a worker is issued a new licence he or she is competent in specified areas such as new equipment and changes in standards and regulations. Most workers already regularly update their knowledge base and skills set. The new competency-based licensing regime will ensure that the public can be assured that the electrician they hire is fully competent. Importantly for workers competency-based licensing will be more flexible than the existing refresher training arrangement allowing it to be better tailored to the needs of individual workers. 
I am aware that there has been considerable discussion regarding whether ongoing training requirements might be excessive. To address these concerns and to provide some balance with the greater flexibility being given to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board the bill includes guiding principles that the board must follow. The bill prescribes more explicit requirements for the board to undertake consultation with relevant stakeholders and requirements for the board to obtain the Minister’s approval on key matters. For example registration categories will be determined by the board in consultation with those who will be substantially affected and the registration categories will require approval by the Minister. This approach provides added assurance that the board has followed due process and has defined appropriate registration categories only after sound analysis and ministerial scrutiny. 
The bill will also allow the Electrical Workers Registration Board to delegate some of its registration and licensing powers to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. For example gasfitters should be more easily able to gain competence and registration to do the particular electrical work needed to install the increasing number of gas appliances that need mains electricity supply or that incorporate electronic controls rather than having to call in another tradesman. This has to be beneficial for consumers. 
The bill also proposes a small amendment to the membership of the Electrical Workers Registration Board. The board will be required to have at least two board members who have current practising licences and at least one member who has electrical industry knowledge so as to provide expertise on employer licence issues. 
The bill will amend the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to require owners of electricity generators greater than 10 megawatts and owners of electricity and gas distributions systems to have in place a safety management system to ensure there is no significant risk of serious harm to the public nor of significant damage to property. The specific requirements of safety management systems will be set out in regulations. The bill provides that the regulations must include requirements relating to the systematic identification of existing and new hazards the regular assessment of each hazard identified the documentation of the safety management system and its audit. The Government’s requirement for safety management systems acknowledges modern risk management concepts and has widespread industry support. 
I am very pleased to support the bill which will improve the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas. We have an excellent electrical and gas safety record in New Zealand and the improvements that this bill introduces will ensure that our excellent safety record continues. The bill will provide greater assurance of safety to consumers requiring electrical work to be undertaken. It will make it easier for tradespeople to gain competencies that are relevant to their particular tasks and for plumbers and gasfitters to gain relevant electrical skills. The bill was developed with substantial industry involvement and I again thank the Commerce Committee for its excellent work. The amended bill comes back with the unanimous support of the committee for which I am very grateful because the bill did need some work when it came in. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.