Volume 635 Week 30 - Wednesday 8 November 2006 
Volume 635 Week 30 - Wednesday 8 November 2006 
[Volume:635;Page:6283] 
Wednesday 8 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Turkey—Grand National Assembly of Turkey 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey led by Professor Dr Aziz Akgul chair of the Turkey - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Motions 
Cluster Munitions 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That this House— 
acknowledge the unacceptable toll on civilian lives caused by cluster munitions and the lasting legacy of these weapons in postwar situations; 
denounce the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and their use in areas where civilians are likely to suffer disproportionate casualties 
and call upon the international community to set binding standards of reliability to decrease the persistent threat to civilians caused by unexploded bomblets; 
confirm that New Zealand does not currently maintain stocks of cluster munitions has no intention to do so in the future does not intend to produce develop or export these weapons and urges its coalition partners to use such weapons only in accordance with the principles of the law of armed conflict; 
call for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to address the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions; 
support ratification of Protocol V of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons on Explosive Remnants of War dated 28 November 2003; 
welcome the protocol’s entry into force which will occur on 12 November 2006 as an important step towards addressing the humanitarian consequences of unexploded remnants of war; 
urge maximum possible support to clear cluster munitions in post-conflict situations and call for civilian populations to be educated about the risks associated with cluster munitions; 
and support research into the impact of cluster munitions on civilians. 
Motion agreed to. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Party and Member Support—Ministerial Responsibility 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Tony Ryall raised a point of order on Wednesday 25 October seeking a considered ruling on the issue of ministerial responsibility for matters connected with the administration of party and member support funded through Vote Parliamentary Service. Mr Ryall’s point of order drew attention to the lack of a clear accountability framework for the appropriations made in respect of each party for party and member support. Resolving this is not a matter of order in the House. It is a matter for the Parliamentary Service Commission and may ultimately require legislative change. However I accept that it may be relevant to whether questions comply with Standing Order 369. 
The appropriations for party and member support are contained in Vote Parliamentary Service. The Speaker is the responsible Minister. But these appropriations may be expended by both members and Ministers. When Ministers and their staff utilise these appropriations they are doing so not in their capacity as Ministers but in their capacity as members of their parliamentary party. Therefore Ministers cannot be held responsible for these appropriations or the activities they fund. Responsibility lies with the Speaker as the responsible Minister. 
Mr Ryall is correct. Ministers’ staff are funded from Vote Ministerial Services. Ministers may be questioned about the activities of their staff as they relate to their ministerial responsibilities. The Prime Minister is the responsible Minister for Vote Ministerial Services. The Prime Minister may therefore be questioned about the appropriations in Vote Ministerial Services and services provided under the vote. 
However the Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for the administration of member and party support funding provided for the party leader’s office nor is she answerable to the House for the services staff in her office may provide in this capacity. While the legal and employment structures may not make this distinction particularly clear the Prime Minister is not answerable for actions taken in a non-ministerial capacity. The Prime Minister’s position is no different from that of other leaders of parties. They are not accountable to the House as party leaders or for the actions of their staff in administering party and member support appropriations. It is the Speaker who must account. 
What I propose to do is to allow questions to the Prime Minister and Ministers about their offices on the basis that generally these are fully funded by Vote Ministerial Services. But questions for oral answer that explicitly address Vote Parliamentary Service appropriations or their administration will not be allowed. These can be put down as questions for written answer to the Speaker. 
Members need to understand that I may not always be in a position to make an informed judgment about this distinction. Therefore I do not propose to take the initiative in ruling out supplementary questions where ministerial responsibility is not clearly disclosed. As Speaker Burke ruled in 1987 “it is incumbent on the Minister to challenge the validity” of such questions—Speaker’s ruling 141/3. 
Finally I remind members that they cannot demand a particular answer. The answer is the Minister’s responsibility. Provided that the Minister addresses the question it is not the role of the Speaker to judge the adequacy of the reply. Members cannot appeal to the Speaker every time they get a reply with which they are not satisfied—Speaker’s ruling 154/5. 
I am aware members that that is a long ruling but the issue is a somewhat complex one. Copies of it are available from the Bills Office for those of you who wish to look at it further. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. We will most certainly read it given the length of it. But most immediately a question comes to mind. I ask you Madam Speaker whether you have looked back at the  
Hansard  
record to see whether in your view—related to your new ruling—the question that was asked on that particular day to the Prime Minister would have met the test that you will now apply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Yes I did look at it and explicitly it did. Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What was the result? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The result was it was consistent with my ruling. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I gave the ruling on a supplementary question. The ruling was that a staff member may have different roles; that is what I have said in my ruling. What I have attempted to do in today’s ruling is explain in more detail than there was the opportunity to do at that time. May I suggest to you that you consider the ruling. I am happy to hear any comments you wish to make after you have had an opportunity to consider it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Given that we have a ruling that arose from a particular situation I accept that you have said that in your consideration of the  
Hansard  
your earlier ruling was consistent with the new ruling that you have brought in. But the simple question is whether in your opinion the question—in hindsight—was within the scope of the Standing Orders or outside it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. It was consistent with the ruling and as I have said on supplementary questions it is not for me to judge. The Prime Minister in responding said it was not within her ministerial responsibility and that is exactly the position I have taken in the ruling. On supplementary questions that response is perfectly proper because I cannot always judge what staff are doing—neither could any Speaker. It is for the Minister of course—that is consistent with the Standing Orders—to challenge whether there is any ministerial responsibility. That is precisely what I did at the time and I have now given you a rather full explanation as to why. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service and therefore for the very considerable amount of funds that the Parliamentary Service has available to it are you comfortable that someone who is not employed by the Parliamentary Service apparently has full control of the Labour Parliamentary Service fund? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Standing Orders are quite clear: oral questions whether by way of point of order or in another form cannot be put to the Speaker in relation to the Parliamentary Service. Only written questions can be put in that way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. Yes the member is fully aware of that. It is a matter to be raised at the Parliamentary Service Commission whose next meeting will be held next Wednesday. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I appreciate that you have given a very detailed ruling and we have not all had a chance to study it carefully yet but I seek a point of clarification relating to your comments regarding Speaker’s ruling 141/3 which was made by Mr Speaker Burke in respect of Ministers and their relationship to State-owned enterprises. You indicated in the text of your ruling that a Minister had the responsibility to challenge the validity of any charge made. Can I seek from you Madam Speaker some guidance as to what you envisaged would happen if a question was posed regarding the activities of a staff member who was not an employee of Ministerial Services and the Minister then responded by saying that it was not actually within his or her responsibility because that person did not work for Ministerial Services. Does your ruling mean that at that point the House is obliged to accept the validity of that answer and subject it to challenge through the normal ways or is there to be a further process of scrutiny to determine whether in fact that answer applies? I suspect that the circumstances behind Speaker’s ruling 141/3 in its application to State-owned enterprises were a little different from the circumstances of the ruling you have given. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If in fact the response indicates that the Minister is not responsible in a ministerial capacity and that the matter comes under the Parliamentary Service vote yes then the matter stops at that point. 
[The following response was wrongly omitted.] 
Responses 
David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand—Statements by Jill Pettis and Hon Phil Goff MPs 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a Response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the applications of Mr David J McLean on behalf of the Exclusive Brethren of New Zealand relating to statements made by Jill Pettis on 24 May 2006 and the Hon Phil Goff on 14 June and 6 September 2006. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Climate Changes Issues Forestry Environment Ministers—Confidence 
1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Ministers responsible for Climate Change Issues of Forestry and for the Environment? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will her commitment to New Zealand being carbon neutral be just like her promise to get New Zealand into the top 10 countries of the OECD by 2010 which she has now disowned as being unachievable; if that is not the case will she be specific about what she means by being carbon neutral and when her Government will achieve it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of the member’s reference to OECD placings he is aware that was never a formal Government target. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does she consider that forestry as a carbon absorber and storer has a vital role to play in helping New Zealand to meet its climate change obligations; if so why has the Government been so slow in encouraging landowners to plant new forests on the vast tracts of denuded often erosion-prone land that is prevalent over much of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has announced the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative which deals with exactly that issue. Before Christmas proposals will go out for consultation with the sector on afforestation and reforestation measures. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I try for a third time to get an answer to the question. What did the Prime Minister mean when she said New Zealand should be carbon neutral and when does her Government propose to achieve that extraordinary goal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The goal is aspirational but it would involve New Zealand aiming not to put more carbon into the atmosphere than it is able to offset by other means. Given the member’s own claims to wish to have environmental sustainability for New Zealand by 2020 one would think he would be enthusiastic about that goal. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports of actions that have been taken by any individual or group in the community in reaction to any Government proposals to implement climate change policies? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Plenty. I recall that when the Government proposed a mild levy for research on pastoral emissions the National Party’s response was to drive a tractor up the steps of Parliament. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her commitment for New Zealand to be carbon neutral with her Government’s record of electricity generation from coal increasing from 1200 gigawatt hours or 3 percent of New Zealand’s electricity in 1999 to 4000 gigawatt hours or 10 percent of the electricity produced in 2005 which is a trebling in just 6 years; how is her record on coal consistent with New Zealand being carbon neutral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said to the member yesterday I would be surprised if he is advocating that thermal generation should never be part of the mix. Of course the Government’s projects to reduce emissions have led to a resurgence in wind energy proposals. Quite frankly when I look at a party that refused to vote for the first reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill or to support that bill at the Commerce Committee I can only wonder at the hypocrisy of doing that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that any other member of the House would be pulled up for using that word. Why is it OK for her to do so? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what the word was because there was so much noise. Would members please keep the level of noise down so that we can all hear. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement of Labour’s then environment spokesperson Dianne Yates on 13 May 1999 that it was a scandal that New Zealand’s emissions were growing; now that after 7 years of Labour being in Government emissions are growing at over double the rate they were growing at in 1999 why is she overseeing a double scandal? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I point out that the growth in emissions is rather less than that of either Canada or Australia. I also point out that the Government is taking many initiatives none of which the National Party is prepared to support at this time. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatau katoa. Ki te Pirimia: he aha nga kupu tohutohu a tona Minita Taiao mo te ahua o nga tukinga o te Whare Hakinakina ara a Aotearoa i runga i te taiao me te takutai moana? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all. To the Prime Minister: what advice has she received from her Minister for the Environment about the likely impact of the Aotearoa Stadium on the environment and the foreshore and seabed? 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is very wide of the mark but maybe the Prime Minister would like to address it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: None that is relevant to this question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How did her Minister’s decision to reject the Dobson hydro scheme on the West Coast which would have produced sufficient power by now to reduce carbon emissions by over a million tonnes contribute to the Prime Minister’s goal for New Zealand to be carbon neutral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A commitment to do something about renewable energy does not mean that the Minister of Conservation should never uphold conservation values. I know that the National Party does not care about conservation values but that is no reason to be a vandal with the conservation estate. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe. He aha hoki nga tohutohu a tona Minita Taiao mo te whakaaro a te mana whenua mo te ahua tukinga o te Whare Hakinakina i o ratou ake whenua tipuna? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you. What advice has she received from her Minister for the Environment about mana whenua views about the environmental impact of the stadium on their tribal lands? 
] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: None that is relevant to this question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the goal of carbon neutrality for New Zealand a Government goal and how does it compare with the Prime Minister’s goal on becoming Prime Minister of closing the gaps and indeed with her recent goal of putting a giant bedpan on Bledisloe Wharf? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Again that was very wide of the mark but the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Well it was a wide question but I have asked the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] It was wide of the question. However I have asked the Prime Minister to address it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member can actually bear to read my speech he will find it quite clear that that is stated as a question and as an aspirational goal. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that a member’s question should be ruled to be either in or out. It should not need a comment from the Speaker’s chair. The Prime Minister made it plain in her answer to a question that the goal of being in the top half of the OECD was not a Government goal so my question quite legitimately was whether the goal of carbon neutrality was a Government goal. I fail to see how that can be wide of the mark when that was exactly what the Prime Minister was discussing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If his question had stopped there it would have been perfectly acceptable. However he is right; I should not show such generosity in the future. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why have her Ministers supported the decision of the Government company Mighty River Power to proceed with a 320-megawatt coal-fired power station in Whangarei—a plant with a life of 40 years over which it will emit 36 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere—and how is that decision consistent with the Prime Minister’s aspiration that New Zealand should be carbon neutral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Again I say to the member that I would be surprised if he is ruling out thermal options as a way of reaching New Zealand’s energy needs. However we have a big priority on renewable energy. The draft energy strategy will be out shortly for the member to look it. But I want to know who from the National Party talks on climate change: Dr Smith or the climate change deniers Key and Brash? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I listened to the Prime Minister’s answer carefully. She gave me some advice about what my view may be. She gave some commentary on what Mr Key and Dr Brash may think about climate change. But I am none the wiser in terms of the Government’s policy on a 320-megawatt coal-fired power station in Whangarei which I think it was very reasonable to question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. In between those two comments the Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table official figures from the Framework Convention on Climate Change that show that contrary to what the Prime Minister said New Zealand’s emissions are growing significantly faster than those of Australia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Roading—Waikato Region 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent announcements has she made with respect to roading in the Waikato region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the start of the construction of the Mangatawhiri deviation on State Highway 2. In July I attended the completion of the Mercer to Longswamp expressway project on State Highway 1. Both projects are priorities for the Waikato region as they provide safety and economic benefits. Both of these highways were considered safety black spots in terms of road deaths and injury. The value of large State highway constructed safety projects has more than doubled since we became the Government because we do take the safety of New Zealanders seriously. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any criticism of the Mangatawhiri deviation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. I saw a report in the  
Waikato Times 
 in which the local member of Parliament Dr Paul Hutchison criticised the design and funding for the deviation. I do not know who he has been talking to. The Mayor of Franklin District Council Mark Ball and the local people I received feedback from yesterday are delighted with this $46 billion project. I was informed that a request was made for this deviation back in the 1990s but no action was taken. 
David Bennett 
: Can the Minister explain why the Government has put money ahead of lives in consistently delaying the Mangatawhiri deviation then re-tendering the project then redesigning the project when in the Transit plan of 2003 it had a completion date of June next year and while five people have died on that road; and how many more can be expected to die while construction is completed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What New Zealanders recognise is cant from the member opposite. There was an opportunity to fix that deviation in the 1990s. No notice was taken of that opportunity and lives have been lost on that road for years. The deviation will be undertaken. I have turned the first sod $46 million is going into it and it will be completed on time and on budget. 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the New Zealand Immigration Service; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes because it is a hard-working and conscientious department. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why were the applications for work visas by Mr Sunan Siriwan and his partner Ms Phanngarm declined because as the Minister told the House yesterday a processing immigration officer felt they should be declined rather than because former Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor had reversed his direction of 23 June 2005 to grant Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm work visas? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The then Associate Minister reversed his decision by requiring that he be contacted before any visas for the return of Mr Siriwan or Ms Phanngarm were issued. When applications for visas were eventually lodged Ministers were advised in accordance with the reversal decision. Ministers directed the department to process the applications on their merits. A senior immigration officer in the department then determined the applications in accordance with normal procedures and on the basis of current facts and circumstances. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why were the applications for work visas for Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm declined on the grounds that the 6-month eligibility period granted by Mr O’Connor had expired when such grounds for declining their application would not have even been relevant if Mr O’Connor had in fact reversed his decision of 23 June 2005 to grant the work visas? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that the department did not decline the applications because the 6-month window had expired; rather it determined that the earlier but now expired ministerial direction could no longer form the basis of any grant. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can we reconcile his claim to Parliament of 26 July that Mr O’Connor had acted to reverse his decision of 23 June 2005 to grant Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm work visas with the statement by the Department of Labour’s manager of operational support that there was an absence of any direction from the Minister or Associate Minister after 23 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The flag was not mentioned in the 31 October letter to Mr Suriwan’s lawyer because it was irrelevant. It was an internal administrative procedure that had already been satisfied. The letter of 31 October was responding to an application. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am in the process of trying to give the member a frank and detailed response to his question but his colleagues do not seem to want to hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. As the member knows interjections are permitted. There was no barracking during the answer but would the Minister please continue. [ 
Interruption 
] That is not a funny comment and the member will be leaving the Chamber if he makes any other such comments. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When the 25 September application was received the department referred the issue to me in keeping with that flag. I then requested the department to make a decision based on normal immigration grounds. Ministers have not instructed the department in any way as to the substance of that decision. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why if Mr O’Connor had reversed his decision of 23 June 2005 to grant work visas for Mr Suriwan and Ms Phanngarm was the deputy secretary of the legal division of the Department of Labour unable to answer a question from the  
New Zealand Herald  
as to precisely what action Mr O’Connor had taken to reverse his decision and instead referred the question to the Minister’s office? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm that when a journalist asked Dr Brash whether demoting Dr Smith was because he was an embarrassment— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. Would the Minister please be seated. The Minister will be leaving the Chamber if he does not sit down when I am on my feet. That was not an appropriate answer. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have no specific knowledge of the particular conversation to which that member refers. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What has changed in Mr Suriwan’s and Ms Phanngarm’s cases other than the fact that they have been exploited by a Labour MP Taito Phillip Field that makes them ineligible for work visas now when last year former Associate Minister Damien O’Connor decided that they should be granted work visas? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As it is still possible that this case could be the subject of further ministerial appeals it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the substance of the decision. However I can say that it is clear from the Ingram report that Mr O’Connor was not fully informed of all the facts when he made his decision. 
Paid Parental Leave—Uptake 
4.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports if any has she received on the uptake of paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report showing that in this September quarter $25.5 million was paid to almost 6000 new parents. This brings the total paid parental leave payments to $316 million and the total number of recipients to almost 90000 since our Government introduced the scheme in July 2002. I can report also that in the first 3 months of the scheme being open to the self-employed 403 applications were approved. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any further reports on the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen an extraordinary report that the Hon Dr Nick Smith is referring the scheme to the Human Rights Commission because it does not cover some seasonal workers. I acknowledge that issue and assure the House that it will be included in the extensive review of the scheme that is already under way. But I would note the irony; the same member of Parliament who for 5 years has opposed this scheme and thus denied its benefits to all parents has suddenly become its most strident supporter. 
Environmental Education—Initiatives 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he still agree that “comprehensive environmental education from early childhood to tertiary will leave today’s children in a much better position to deal with the very serious issues of climate change scarce oil resources and environmental degradation which sadly are our legacy and the legacy of the previous generations”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister agrees with that statement and with the aim of the Government to achieve carbon neutrality why has his ministry instructed the board of Clydevale School to remove from the plans for its new school all the environmentally sustainable features such as solar heating high-grade batts double-glazed windows natural-light roofing and a wood-pallet burner? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not too sure of the detail but if that member is prepared to send me the detail we will certainly look into it. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What is the Government doing to support environmental education in light of the cooperation agreement of the Labour-led Government and the Green Party and given the need for a bipartisan approach to the issues? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This Government is committed to lasting and progressive policies in this area. In this year’s Budget we announced $13 million over 4 years for environmental education—something that is short on that side. The funding will be used in the following areas: $7.4 million for education for sustainability; $4.6 million for Enviroschools; and $800000 for immersion and kaupapa schools. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that no learning area in the curriculum framework is specifically allocated to environmental studies that any such curriculum has to be integrated across the existing areas and that any comprehensive environmental education programme can be determined only at a local school or centre level and cannot be dictated by the Government? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes; with the Government’s total support. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is not the Government’s programme of spending $13 million on environmental education a total waste of time when the Ministry of Education advised the Clydevale School when it was drawing up its plans to identify and verify spending on innovation and energy efficiency components of the budget then when the school had done that turned round and instructed it to remove all those features from the design? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said earlier on send us the details and we will discuss it. However on the first part of his question I tell that member that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams said that this funding is a significant increase and that he is delighted to see education for sustainability recognised. The World Wide Fund for Nature New Zealand has also welcomed the investment saying that this funding will give schools much-needed resources for environmental education. It is a great policy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should the public take seriously the Government’s commitment to carbon neutrality when it builds coal-fired power stations and refuses to build hydro ones; when it has achieved for the first time in decades more trees cut down than trees planted; and when it is instructing people who are doing their best to build a new school in one of the colder parts of the country to remove the high-grade batts the solar heating the double-glazed windows the wood-pallet burner and the natural-light roofing? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This Government would put its record in the sense of environmental management up against the record of that lot opposite. They are the same lot who brought in the land development encouragement loan that encouraged people to cut down native bush and remove trees from steep country for stock units then they all went along and invested in forestry. That is what they did. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the apparent inconsistency between the Government’s environmental objectives and its plans for new schools can the Minister make a commitment here and now in order to demonstrate some sincerity about the Prime Minister’s speech that he will allow Clydevale School to include solar-heating panels high-grade batts double-glazed windows a wood-pallet burner and natural-light roofing in the plans for the new school which it desperately needs to get under way? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please be seated. The Minister is entitled to be heard so would members please lower the level of their interjections. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Wise Ministers do not make rash and superficial decisions. But what I am prepared to say is that I will ask the Minister of Education to look into it. 
Police Roles—Civilian Employees 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: In what capacity are civilians being employed by the Police to carry out roles traditionally performed by sworn police officers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Civilian police or non-sworn staff have been part of the Police for a number of decades now. Non-sworn numbers have increased over that time focusing on roles that were previously undertaken by sworn staff such as emergency-call takers prosecutors and legal advisers to name but some of them. This has allowed sworn staff to focus on the roles that require their range of constabulary skills experience and powers. 
Ron Mark 
: What plans are in store for the future use by the Police of civilians and can she assure the House that their future use will not lead to an erosion of the responsibilities of uniformed police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Like many jurisdictions I suspect we will see a continued use of civilians within the New Zealand Police because they have a very good role to play but there is a good opportunity for New Zealanders to have an input into the make-up of our police through the review of the Police Act that is currently taking place. It is fair to say that the use of civilians in the New Zealand Police has grown over time without much planning or looking forward as to their appropriate use. I think this is the time to look at how we could use both civilians and sworn staff within the New Zealand Police through the review of the Act. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that two temporary decoy cops were directed to an incident in Wellington in January this year to deal with an intoxicated and extremely aggressive offender but were unable to call for assistance because it took 10 minutes of wrestling before they pepper sprayed him and were able to handcuff him; and why has the situation got so bad that she is sending untrained civilians into situations that should be reserved for fully trained sworn officers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not the right situation to send non-sworn staff into. These officers were temporary sworn staff and even in that case the Police would prefer it did not happen. However when a situation does arrive and there are people close to the scene there are occasions when temporary sworn officers will go to the scene to see what action they can take. It is not ideal and it does not happen very often. In fact the member was able to find only one incidence of that out of the five incidences he received from an Official Information Act request. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the benefits of the increased number of non-sworn police staff? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have. In fact the use of non-sworn staff particularly in answering 111 calls has seen a big improvement in the ability to perform in call handling. This is an area where we have seen considerable improvement since the review of the 111 emergency calls and a lot of those staff are non-sworn staff. We have seen much faster response times and I believe that the public are getting a better service because of it. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the use of untrained civilians to undertake police duties will be restricted to ensure that civilian employees are kept out of dangerous situations such as the one previously outlined by Mr Power? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have been assured by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope that that is the expectation of the New Zealand Police. That is what police are asked to do. As I said in a previous answer there are times when temporary sworn police officers are used in other duties. The Police would prefer that not to happen but having said that I think the public would prefer the people who were closer to that scene at that time to take some action. 
Benefit Changes—Minister's Comments 
7.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by all of his comments made in relation to the welfare changes announced on 26 October 2006? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Judith Collins 
: How does the Minister reconcile the following statement he made in relation to sickness and invalids beneficiaries: “There are no losers under these changes and this is entirely voluntary.” with a statement he made the very next day: “If they’re not prepared to undertake work that’s offered they can’t reasonably expect to continue to get financial support at that same level.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Easily. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How have these reforms assisted sickness and invalids beneficiary clients into work? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: A very good example is Mr Quinn of Wellington who was on an invalids benefit with a permanent and worsening mobility disability when the new service approach was introduced. Pat indicated to his case manager that he was keen to return to work and with the support of Work and Income and his own determination he is now in employment. Mr Quinn tells us that working again gives him the ability to feel he is making a worthwhile contribution to the community. 
Judith Collins 
: Which is it: are sickness and invalids beneficiaries going to be penalised for not undertaking work requirements or not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Chester Borrows 
: Why is the single core benefit which has been promised since 1989 not due until 2011—22 years after it became Labour Party policy? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member sadly has a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of these benefit changes if he thinks that merely changing the name of benefits can assist clients. The Working New Zealand project is about changes to the services and support provided to people who wish to return eventually to the workforce on a full-time or part-time basis irrespective of the label that any benefit system might place on them. 
Judith Collins 
: If the Minister said as I think he just said that sickness and invalids beneficiaries will not be penalised for not undertaking work requirements why then on 27 October the next day did he say that they would be penalised—why did he change his tune overnight? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I refer the member to the extremely detailed information on the website. If she were to take the trouble to read the background information she would not be displaying such a ridiculous level of confusion. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of a Radio New Zealand  
Checkpoint 
 interview with the Minister on 26 October 2006 where he said that there were no losers under his scheme. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of a Radio New Zealand  
Nine to Noon 
 interview with the Minister on 27 October the next day where he said that they would be penalised. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Cancer Treatment—Effects of Industrial Action 
8.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the “pressures brought about by industrial action” on cancer treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received reports that industrial action by radiation therapists combined with other pressures is leading to delays in some cancer treatment centres. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What effect does the Minister think the threats of industrial action workforce shortages and women being sent offshore to Australia for radiotherapy will possibly have on mastectomy rates at Auckland District Health Board? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure. 
Maryan Street 
: What protections are in place to ensure that patients needing very urgent attention can be cared for in the event of a strike? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Under reforms introduced by the Labour-led Government district health boards and unions are required by law to provide life-preserving services in the event of a strike. Life-preserving services agreements have been activated only very rarely during industrial action by radiation therapists. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Is the Minister aware the mastectomy rate at Auckland District Health Board over the last 5 years has grown from 44 percent in 2001 to 59 percent this year and is this acceptable in view of international evidence that with breast-screening programmes mastectomy rates should be declining? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why are women more likely to have mastectomies and less likely to have breast reconstruction in public hospitals than in private hospitals when a survey of eight district health boards over a 2-year period accounting for almost 2000 women treated for breast cancer revealed mastectomy rates of up to 60 percent and breast reconstruction rates of only 19 percent which is in stark contrast to a survey of 1500 women over 5 years treated at a private breast clinic in Auckland which showed a mastectomy rate of only 21 percent and a breast reconstruction rate of 70 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know but I caution the member about drawing conclusions when populations may be substantially different. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: When will the Government realise that despite its own rhetoric staff shortages and growing waiting lists are making some women choose to have their breast removed rather than to wait and wait for radiation therapy; and is it not time he recognised the urgency of this crisis for women and their families? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Now we finally get to the point of the question. The member is suggesting that because there is a shortage of radiation therapy women are proactively changing their choices of the type of treatment they have. I cannot say that that is or is not happening. What I can say is that about 2000 or 2500 people in Auckland each year receive radiation therapy and 30 have been offered radiation therapy in Australia; that is 30 out of 2000 or 2500. This leads me to the view that the influence of the offer of trips to Australia is small indeed. 
Water Quality—Lake Taupo 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What is the Government doing to assist with the protection of Lake Taupo’s water quality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am sure all members will be only too aware of the iconic nature of Lake Taupo and the great significance of that lake to New Zealanders and to international visitors. I am pleased to inform the House that the Labour-led Government has committed $36.7 million towards the $81.5 million fund to protect the lake’s water quality. We have also approved the Lake Taupo Protection Trust as the administrator of that fund. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why has the Government committed substantial funding to the protection of Lake Taupo’s water quality? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Water is clearly one of our most valued natural assets and at the heart of environmental sustainability. This philosophy is clearly expressed in the Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action. We are committing the $36.7 million towards protecting the water quality in Lake Taupo in order to reverse the increased concentrations of nitrogen leaching into it from the surrounding land resulting in increased algal growth and decreased water clarity. We expect the project to achieve a 20 percent reduction in the nitrogen entering the lake over the next 15 years. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How much privately owned land is it anticipated that the Crown or local body agencies will need to purchase in order to attain the goals set down for water quality in Lake Taupo? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That will be a matter for the protection trust to determine. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that at Rimutaka Waikeria and Ngawha prisons there were 11 PlayStation and Xbox game consoles costing approximately $5000 which includes 58 games that go with them; and can he also confirm that these games have been removed only since National started asking questions about their existence? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of that. Most of those PlayStations were in the youth units. The question did prompt the department to look at its policy. We do not have a policy covering this area and management decided to withdraw those PlayStations until an appropriate policy could be developed. 
Simon Power 
: Does he think it is appropriate for prisoners to use violent role-playing computer games where they fight with their fists baseball bats rakes stakes samurai swords handguns shotguns machine-guns chain guns and chainsaws? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is far better to have the games than the real thing. 
Simon Power 
: What does the Minister say to the public of New Zealand who on the one hand see prisoners getting access to PlayStations LCD TVs barbecues and mobile phones yet on the other hand hear that only 19 percent of prisoners are on Department of Corrections inmate employment schemes—down from 26 percent in 2004? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Forty percent of prisoners are currently working. The 19 percent that the member refers to is those prisoners employed by corrections inmate employment only. The rest of the prisoners are employed looking after themselves and running the prisons. With regard to the Xboxes I think it appropriate that we have a proper policy covering those areas. No doubt at some stage before TVs and cassettes were allowed in prisons some may have had the same attitude as Mr Power. The reality is that technology has moved ahead of policy. That is why we are about to look at the policy and put a new one in place. 
Simon Power 
: How can he be confident in his department when in a year his chief executive has agreed is an annus horribilis due to all of the scandals in prisons and the budget blowout in prison construction the man in charge of the Department of Corrections cheque book Chief Financial Officer John Ryan—the Law and Order Committee was told today—is on sabbatical at Oxford; and who is paying for that sabbatical? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not necessarily agree with the Chief Executive Officer; I do not think it has been a bad year for the department. It has done an outstanding job of looking after more prisoners than we have ever had in this country before it has reduced the rate of inmate assaults and it has reduced the rate of suicides within prisons. I think that the department does a very good job. Regarding Mr Ryan I say that he does an excellent job as the chief financial officer. These decisions are not made by me but I guess that if the chief executive has allowed him to go on sabbatical then he has done it for a very good reason. 
Simon Power 
: When the Minister stated last month in relation to prison construction that “changes have occurred in that whole area of management of these projects.” was he referring to the establishment of the programme management office in February of this year; and how successful has that office been at managing the budget blowout when it has spent almost half a million dollars employing 10 consultants in a matter of 5 months? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am informed that the department has been doing a very good job to get the completion of the last two prisons at Spring Hill and Otago completed on time and within the final budget figures allocated. 
Transport Energy-efficient Vehicles—Consumer Education 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What initiatives is the Government considering to assist consumers to choose more energy-efficient vehicles? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Government yesterday released a proposal to provide vehicle fuel economy information at point of sale for both new and used vehicles. This will give New Zealanders information they need when purchasing a car. It builds on the fuelsaver website launched earlier this year. This Government-managed website provides fuel efficiency information for new and most second-hand vehicles. With vehicle labelling at point of sale people will choose more fuel-efficient cars. This will not only save them money every week at the petrol pump; it will reduce particulate emissions which are harmful to human health and it will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are there concerns about how accurate the vehicle fuel economy information at point of sale will be? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In practice we cannot test every vehicle every time it is sold. The best information at present available is the international data produced for the vehicle model when it was made. As vehicles age their relative fuel efficiency compared with other similar vehicle choices will still be valid. It is good to provide energy efficiency information for washing machines and for dishwashers for TVs and for fridges but it is certainly more important to do it for cars. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the list of ministerial self-drive cars so that the public might see the choice of gas guzzlers that this Government committed to zero carbons is driving. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Childcare—Grandparents 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Are grandparents raising their grandchildren going to be given the same assistance that foster parents receive; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The 2005 Labour manifesto made the commitment that we would “Extend the support provided for grandparents raising grandchildren and other carers on a pension in particular those taking on caring due to family breakdown to provide them with the sort of allowances provided to foster parents”. We remain committed to that policy and work is under way to deliver it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is it the Government’s intention to asset test grandparents and whanau carers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that United Future’s Judy Turner has had sustained involvement in this issue by working with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust’s Diane Vivian and lobbying the Government to achieve an equitable result for kin caregivers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Although I cannot comment on the work that United Future might have done with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust outside Parliament I can confirm Judy Turner’s longstanding involvement in caregiver issues. In particular I am grateful to that member for her insights into the issues faced by this group and for the contribution she has made to the work that the Ministry of Social Development is doing on the issue. I commend Mrs Turner’s work and I hope that future work relating to the financial assistance of kin caregivers will continue to involve United Future. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he acknowledge that learning behavioural and significant health problems are common among the children being raised by their grandparents; if so why are they not eligible for the assistance given to children being raised by unrelated foster parents? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is exactly for that reason that we have this policy and are intent on delivering on it. 
Paula Bennett 
: If it is not the Government’s intention to asset test grandparents raising their grandchildren why did Lianne Dalziel the Minister of Women’s Affairs announce at the recent National Council of Women of New Zealand conference that grandparents would be asset tested? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of that report and I am advised that the Minister did not make the comment that has been attributed to her. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of the barriers faced by elderly New Zealanders in finding employment; if so why does the Government consider that grandparents deserve $3000 less annually than foster parents who are less likely to face the same barriers to employment? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can assure that member that Work and Income will continue to work effectively with all New Zealanders who seek work. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why would a Minister in this Government make a statement about grandparents being asset tested when foster parents are not when it costs the same amount to raise a 5-year-old whether or not one is related to the child? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The statement I made was quite clear. I am advised that the Minister did not make the statement that has been attributed to her. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why has this Government made so little progress in assisting grandparent carers and why has the much talked about policy development with United Future still not been completed; or does the Minister think those children would be better off under the care of Child Youth and Family? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: This is an extraordinarily complex issue and it goes right to the root of caring and family responsibilities. There are no simple answers but I must say that I see no similar policy on the National Party books. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to the allegations that have been made. I attended the National Council of Women conference earlier on this year. I was asked a question in respect of the issue of grandparents raising grandchildren. I responded to the question and in my comments made the point that people were eligible for the Working for Families package which was means-tested—which is true. Unfortunately the National Council of Women through a misunderstanding has reported that comment as my saying that work was being done on an asset test. That is incorrect. I have raised the issue with the National Council of Women. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the November circular of the National Council of Women. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Later this week the current Leader of the Opposition Don Brash will embark on a taxpayer-funded farewell bon voyage haere ra trip around the world. Don Brash thinks he will be representing the National Party at the unveiling of the New Zealand memorial in London. But everybody knows that at this time of the year the National Party backstabbers move on their use-by-date leader; it is traditional and history is there to prove it. I believe we could add to that old Christmas carol line “Tis the season to be merry” the phrase “Tis the season for a National Party leadership coup.” 
As I said history proves me right. Pre-Christmas 1997 Jim Bolger was rolled by Jenny Shipley; pre-Christmas 2001 Jenny Shipley was rolled by Bill English; pre-Christmas 2003 Bill English was rolled by Don Brash; pre-Christmas 2006 Don Brash is about to be rolled by John Key or Gerry Brownlee or Simon Power or Bill English or as an outside chance maybe Judith Collins. It always happens at this time of the year and it always happens when National’s leader heads overseas. 
Members should remember that Jim Bolger was overseas when Jenny toppled him; Jenny was overseas when Bill English toppled her; and Bill English was overseas when Don toppled him. Of course it is far better to smile and wave goodbye to a departing back which is a much bigger target than it is to look a person in the eye and see his or her hurt as a result of the betrayal. Poor old Don Brash refuses to recognise that he is on the last leg of his political journey. He is about to give up on his gold elite travel card and he is about to get a golden age card. He is about to pass over his parliamentary salary for the old-age pension. 
National Party plotters opposite cannot believe their good luck. Gerry Brownlee is laughing away. He knows he has hit the nail on the head. Don Brash refuses to heed the “beware the ides of November” call from the media and the commentators. He has already packed his little suitcase and he is ready to leave because he knows this is a chance to get overseas to strut on the world stage and to hobnob it with royalty. The trouble is that the National Party plotters back home are ready to give him the “hobnail” so to hell with hobnobbing; it is all about the “hobnailing” that he is about to receive. 
Let us face it: the shadowy figure of National’s chief strategist Murray McCully is donkey deep in it. He has been behind every coup National has had in the last 20 years and he follows a very well-rehearsed plan. First he ensures that National’s leader is set up to look like a loser—incompetent and silly. Then he ensures that all the wannabe leaders fight with each other to see who will win. When he gets a feel for who will be the winner he does the numbers for that contender. So Murray McCully becomes “Mr Indispensable”—always on the side of the new leader. I have to tell members that the McCully “change the leader” strategy is under way as we speak. He is already up to stage three of the plan. 
It was inevitable that Don Brash would receive the order of the boot after he lost the last election. He was to be fair given time to bask in his almost victory and he received some praise gratitude and loyalty from some members opposite who did not think they would ever make it into this place and cannot believe their luck that they are sitting in Parliament. But for the perennial plotters it was always a case of not if but when. It works like this: one starts by undermining Don Brash—they started doing that about 2 months after the election. He was set up to look incompetent in the House and in the media. His time is coming; National members know it—he is down the road. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Helen Clark’s incredible speech claiming that New Zealand will be carbon neutral is just not credible. We have had 36 Cabinet papers and 71 reports but 7 years after Labour came to office we still do not have a climate change policy. Emissions are going through the roof and are growing faster than those of any other OECD country; forest planting is going through the floorboards with this being the first year in over 50 years in which we have cut down more trees than we have planted; and we have the gall of a Prime Minister who somehow wants to pretend that New Zealand under Helen Clark will be carbon neutral. 
I am reminded of the goal set by Helen Clark that New Zealand would be in the top half of the OECD by 2010. We have all had to forget about that. We had the closing the gaps policy from Labour and the Prime Minister and that too has gone by the wind. Helen Clark has become so desperate to stay on as Prime Minister that she will say anything at all. 
I remind Labour members who have this carbon neutral fantasy of just what their record is not just on climate change but also on environmental sustainability. On Tuesday the nations of the world came together to discuss climate change. The figures came out for the last 5 years. Emissions in the UK have gone down by 1 percent over the last 5 years. In Japan they have gone up by 0.7 percent. In the USA—where big bad George Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies according to the Labour Party—emissions have gone up by 1.3 percent. But here in carbon neutral New Zealand emissions have gone up by not 1.3 percent but 5.4 percent—over four times the rate of the United States and over double the rate of Australia. But the Prime Minister says we should be carbon neutral. 
She told the Labour Party conference—and this was a good one as well—that she thought Labour needed to take leadership on afforestation. That is what she said. Well back in the 1990s we averaged 60000 hectares of new forest each year. Every single year that Helen Clark has been Prime Minister the amount of forest planted in New Zealand has declined. It is so bad that in 2005—for the first time since 1953—we hacked down more trees than we planted yet Helen Clark has the gall to say to us that she wants to show leadership in afforestation. 
Then we have the issue of electricity. Today I asked Helen Clark how come the amount of electricity we as a country produce from coal has gone from 3 percent to 10 percent in just the 6 years she has been Prime Minister. That is a trebling in the amount of power produced from coal but the Prime Minister talks about being carbon neutral. Labour said no to Project Aqua. It said no to Dobson. Yet New Zealand is producing less of its power from renewable sources today than at any time in our country’s history. But she is saying we will be carbon neutral. Right now one of the Government’s own companies Mighty River Power is proposing to build a 320-megawatt—absolutely giant—coal-fired power station in Whangarei. That power station will put out nearly 70 million tonnes of carbon over its 40-year life. Ministers back it but the Prime Minister says we are going carbon neutral. It is a farce. It is a nonsense. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena tatou katoa. When we plot the path to nationhood the events of June 2003 are etched in our memory for it was in June 2003 that a landmark ruling from the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to hear claims to territory below the high-tide mark. The Court of Appeal determined that the Crown had never passed legislation to extinguish unilaterally Maori customary ownership in the foreshore and seabed. It found without a doubt that hapu and iwi could take cases to the Maori Land Court to verify the extent of their ownership. The judges ruled that Crown ownership was not completely certain and that it was possible that a claim to customary title could in some cases convert to a private title. 
But it was also in June 2003 that as quick as a flash the Government pounced in by righteously proclaiming a need to legislate to protect the foreshore and seabed supposedly for all New Zealanders. It went further by feigning protest that all it was doing was treating all New Zealanders in a fair and equal manner. What part of fairness can we understand for tangata whenua a group of people of New Zealand being denied their day in court? If the Government was looking for fair and equal treatment why then did the Waitangi Tribunal warn it that the Foreshore and Seabed Act breached human rights the Treaty of Waitangi and English common law by denying Maori the right to take their claims to court? 
 The Court of Appeal ruling would have allowed Maori to pursue claims to the foreshore and seabed through the courts. Labour shut that option down. Labour’s act of confiscation shut down any possibility of tangata whenua claiming customary title through the High Court—a right that had never been tested in a New Zealand court. 
So who was meant by “all New Zealanders”? It appears that “all New Zealanders” does not include those of Maori descent or other New Zealanders who attended the four national foreshore and seabed hui led by hapu and iwi and called for the right of access to the court to be preserved. “All New Zealanders” does not include the widespread community opposition opposition that the National Council of Women returned to in its press release last month supporting the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
Despite the futile hope that the events of 2003 and 2004 are but a painful memory the fact is that many New Zealanders are still hurting and grieving over the unilateral actions of a discriminatory Government regime. Delegates of the National Council of Women last month emphasised that all New Zealanders feel a special connection with the land. So strong was their conviction their key recommendation from their annual conference was to support the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The council recognised that the Act was a case of discrimination against the human rights of tangata whenua and that there was an obligation to uphold human rights for all people. 
The sad fact is that the divisive actions of the Labour Government campaign and the conflict caused by the ongoing attempts at misinformation and misrepresentation are still creating friction today. I read recently a paper by Dr Maria Bargh in  
Kotuitui: 
New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 
 which must inform this House. Dr Bargh a politics lecturer made the following remarks about events since June 2003: “The foreshore and seabed legislation is not the only statute aimed specifically at removing Maori culture rights and property. This episode is part of a sad and sorry history and it is essential now that we change the game plan so that legislation is not used in such a manner in the future. … It is not too late to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act and to conduct ourselves in a manner which is respectful of human rights and which fosters positive race relations.” 
We must have the courage to listen to this young Maori academic to listen to the judiciary to listen to the National Council of Women to listen to the Waitangi Tribunal and to listen to hapu and iwi—to listen and to learn. Polarised and political position-taking will not lead to nationhood. 
Let us honour the responsibility of this Parliament to bring the nation forward and to create the legal position that existed as a result of a Court of Appeal judgment in 2003. Let us repeal Labour’s Foreshore 
and Seabed Act 2004 
in its entirety thus enabling hapu and iwi to approach the courts if they so choose and let us be strong in our resolve to take on a long-term vision for Aotearoa. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Leading off the National Party’s contribution today was one Nick Smith. How long was he deputy leader of the National Party? Can anyone remember how long that was? 
Jill Pettis 
: A month? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not think it was that long. Was it a month? I am not sure. [ 
Interruption 
] Five minutes—I think he was there for 5 minutes. Members might recall that he turned up to that caucus meeting as the numbers man for Bill English. He had all the numbers in the bag. He left that meeting without Bill English as his leader; Don Brash was the leader and he Nick Smith was the deputy leader. He went in as the numbers man for Bill English and came out the deputy leader. It was very strange behaviour indeed. I saw signs of very strange behaviour again when he led off the general debate today. In fact I do not know why Don Brash did not participate in this debate. I do not know why he bothered to turn up to Parliament this week. It is a very good question as to why he was not asking questions in the House today. I suppose that valedictory questions are in order. I suppose if one is not giving a valedictory speech then valedictory questions might be in order due to the propensity of the National Party to order spring rolls at this time of the year. 
As Annette King highlighted in her contribution to the debate Mr Bolger was rolled in November Mrs Shipley was rolled in October and Bill English was rolled in October. It is time for another spring roll and I am sure a November roll is being ordered from the menu again. When we think about it all the ingredients are there: a disgruntled former leader a hapless current leader a disappointed back bench and of course the key ingredient—with the emphasis on the word “Key”—a pretender to the throne. I have to say that the back-bench members though are pretty confused. We hear them talking about it and some of them feel they owe their parliamentary seats to Don Brash. Certainly he has a cosy relationship with the Exclusive Brethren who delivered pamphlets filled with lies about this Government and lies about the Green Party which is a tactic they have used in other countries. Even the National Party candidates who were a bit embarrassed and did not want to be associated with the Exclusive Brethren could feel one step removed as Don Brash had embraced them on their behalf. 
So on the one hand these back-benchers feel like they owe their seats to Don Brash but on the other hand he embarrasses them every time he opens his mouth. Yesterday we saw another example of that. Don Brash had been briefed about the stadium issues by Murray McCully. Everyone remembers him saying when he was here in the House how well briefed he had been by Murray McCully. Yet on the way into the House he told Television One he had not been briefed at all. Which statement was correct? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh that was before he saw Mr McCully I hear the member interject. This was in the House after question No. 1. When did Mr Brash get this extensive briefing from Mr McCully? I do not think that a tap on the shoulder from Mr McCully in the House is something that I would particularly want to have happen. It is just hopeless behaviour and no wonder the back bench is embarrassed. 
Don Brash is even reported in the  
Listener 
 this week as saying there was a bit of headcounting about 6 weeks ago. Why would he do that? Why would he confirm that the count was on and that the numbers were being done? He might think that it is in his interests because he says he does not sense any mood for change but I do not think that he senses much of anything. It is a little bit like Mr Magoo without his glasses on; he cannot really see what is happening and he has no sense of what is going on. How is that a confident statement from a confident leader? I do not believe it is. Even National Party supporters when they are polled have John Key as their preferred leader. I think the bottom line is that Don Brash is yesterday’s man. I think we can assign him to political dog-tucker. 
The only contender now though is John Key. There ain’t no one else in this race. All the rest have been written off and Mr Key knows this. He was on Canterbury TV recently. I was flicking through the channels and I found this interview so I decided to watch it. Every time it was put to him that he was expected to be leader of the National Party—indeed Prime Minister of New Zealand which I thought was an oxymoron—he deflected the question. Every single time there was no flat denial of this ambition at all. He did not once disavow the interviewer of his desire to take on the top job and that is because that is the job he wants. It is because he does not want to be on the record because he is doing the numbers now. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I can recall a question time in this House a few years back when I watched Helen Clark go through the contortions of pulling her Government back from an economic target that she had set and that was to put New Zealand into the top half of the OECD for economic growth. It was one of those long complicated processes where she started by saying: “Well I put it in my speech but it wasn’t formal. The officials put it in all the documents but it wasn’t me who signed them. It was aspirational. It wasn’t something that we ever took seriously.” In the end of course she had to abandon it because even under reasonable economic conditions she had absolutely no hope under her policies of getting New Zealand into the top half of the economic ladder of the OECD. 
I sat here during question time yesterday and today and I felt it all happening again. Again we have heard an aspirational target. Helen Clark got up at the Labour Party conference and said that New Zealand would become carbon neutral. That is a very very tough target. In fact it is so tough that she will certainly not be able to achieve it. Helen Clark has been asked just what she means by carbon neutrality and she will not say. Does she mean stabilising emissions where they are? Does she mean no growth in emissions? Does she mean that New Zealand will eliminate all emissions? The Stern report states that emissions will have to be cut by 60 to 80 percent. Does she mean that New Zealand will eliminate carbon emissions? That is what most people who use the term “carbon neutral” think it means. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Offset. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Offset or whatever it is Helen Clark has not been able to tell this House what she means by her target. 
National members of course are deeply sceptical and I will tell members why. Every single policy that Labour has brought in except for the bill that is currently before the House has been a failure. The levy for research into methane emissions otherwise known as the “fart tax” was announced and abandoned. The carbon tax was announced and abandoned. The tendering of renewable energy projects was stopped. The negotiated greenhouse agreements were announced then abandoned. [ 
Interruption 
] Now we are hearing the other Helen Clark gambit—that it is all National’s fault. The Government takes the ministerial salaries and the limos and all the credit for everything but if something does not work it is because the National Party did not support it. So now it is National’s fault. 
Well it is not National’s fault; it is Labour’s fault. It is Labour’s fault because although those members know how to articulate their objectives how to publish the pamphlets how to get the civil service pushing the Government’s political message at the cost of tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayer all over the country every day they simply lack the competence to deal with this major issue. How do we know that they lack the competence? Because every single major policy initiative has turned into a debacle. 
Even the things that are not initiatives have ended up a mess. The Government was meant to be producing more energy in New Zealand from renewable sources and we have less. The Government decided to build an oil-fired power station at Whirinaki and to stop a hydro project down on the West Coast because even though that project was going to be in a gorse-filled gully the gully was owned by the Department of Conservation. Those are the decisions the Government made. It could not have made any worse decisions in terms of pushing up carbon emissions. If the Government had set out to raise carbon emissions those policies would have been a success. Imagine if Government members had got up and said that! They would have been ridiculed. 
Now National members are going to expose step by step Labour’s record on environmental policy and climate change in particular to show that the most reckless leader of any Government in the developed world in respect of the global climate is not George Bush and is not John Howard; it is Helen Clark. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 During question time I referred to the school at Clydevale. There is some confusion—and the media are very interested in the story. The name of the school is the Clutha Valley School and it is at Clydevale. I want to clear that up because in question time I gave the impression that the school is called the Clydevale School. It is actually called the Clutha Valley School. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Bill English is a smart enough politician to know where the action is. That is why he is going where the action is rather than staying here. Bill English knows that the National Party caucus is having a meeting but that meeting is not there it is not here and he is not invited to it. That is why his heart was not in his speech today. That speech had to be the worst general debate speech from that member that I have ever heard. 
It was not so long ago that Bill and Mary English were on the front cover of the  
New Zealand Woman’s Weekly 
 with the title “Up and coming politician”. But nobody says that about Bill any more; Bill knows that his time is up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he cannot use just one name; he must use the member’s full name. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr English knows that his time has come and gone. After years of hard work he is here to prove the truism that a soufflé never rises twice. 
Where is Murray McCully? Where is the “Prince of Darkness” at the moment? What coup is he about to run? 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s counting. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We have just had Halloween. The clanking of chains around the National Party is not the sound of Murray McCully; it is the ghost of Brian Neeson. Do members remember Brian Neeson? He was the hard-working member from Massey West. He was the honest butcher who met a worse butcher the wicked witch of the east Michelle Boag. She came in the dead of night slew him and made room for the barrow boy from the money markets John Key who is so passionately committed to Waitakere that he moved to Parnell. It is said that John Key can read a map but he has no compass. But he can now find his way to Henderson as long as he has a chauffeur in the car with him. But what does he stand for? What do we know about this man? Seriously the only thing we know about John Key’s vision is tax cuts. 
John Key is a man whose early years were blighted by tragedy. He is a man whose young life depended on the resources of the State for housing and education. There is nothing wrong with that. We believe that all people deserve a hand up when they need it. But what does he stand for now? We know—to the extent that we know at all—that he stands for reducing the resources of the State to provide the same chance for the next generation of John Keys or “Rangi Keys” or whoever. That is what he stands for—and that is a word starting with the letter “h”. He is so narrow that he makes economists look sexy. He has that beady-eyed glint of the rapacious foreign exchange trader who is to throw away his own heritage for a profit. 
 So what can one call it but the belief that money solves all one’s problems? If a members wants to stand in Helensville and live in Parnell there is no problem. He needs only to buy a house in Helensville and pretend to live in it. If a member wants to have street cred in Waitakere but wants to drive a Beemer or a Merc during the week there is no problem. He needs only to buy a Commodore put his face on it and get someone else to drive it around Waitakere. If a member wants to fit in out west and be seen in his electorate but is too busy running around the country plotting against the guy who mentored him into Parliament there is no problem. He needs only to buy a few more billboards or buildings and stick his face on them or in the window and people might think he lives there. None of this is illegal none of it is wrong but nor is any of it true. 
Therefore who is the real John Key? What does he stand for? Where would he lead the National Party and God forbid if he ever got the chance where would he lead New Zealand? The truth is that nobody knows because John Key does not take stands; he takes positions. He tries to judge where the market trend is in the short term and he will long it or he will short it. Members can take the example of climate change. He simply said: “the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it for very very good reasons indeed.” Well guess what? National now supports the bill. John Key apparently supports the bill also but one cannot really tell because he will not tell people what he stands for. He does not take stands; he just takes positions. He is good at reading maps but he has no compass. He is good at manoeuvring but he has no vision. If the National Party makes the same mistake it will remain on the Opposition benches. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Suddenly the Prime Minister is talking about sustainability the environment global warming and carbon neutrality—well just about anything to get the public diverted from the pledge card and her illegal spending for the 2005 election campaign. Shame on her. The environment is too big an issue and too important an issue to be a mere diversion. Excuse me for my cynicism but for the last 7 years Labour has been too involved with pushing its social engineering agenda to think too deeply about the environment and it has left it all to the Greens. But now just when Labour’s “business as usual” approach is looking downright grubby Ms Clark discovers her environmental consciousness. Well excuse me! 
I have to say that I admire the Greens’ dedication to environmental issues. They understand the importance of looking after our natural world and they have worked long and hard to raise public awareness of environmental issues and to change behaviour. But as with all pioneers of new ideas it has been hard work for them to get their message out to ordinary New Zealanders and to motivate change. They have also suffered from being linked with extreme-left political policies as many middle-of-the-road conservative New Zealanders have not been able to get past those politics to consider the important environmental issues. These people see the Greens as the “Watermelon Party”—green on the outside but pink in the middle. 
National’s blue-green environmental policy released last month is the first public manifestation of an environmental consciousness that has always underpinned National’s work. For the last 70 years National’s rural voters have been the guardians of the land and generally speaking they have done a fine job. We are still one of the cleanest and greenest countries in the world but with increasing urbanisation and pressures on resources there needs to be a new partnership style of environmental guardianship of our natural heritage. 
The Bluegreens were formed in 1997 and they have worked quietly in the background ever since. They are a testimony to the fact that one does not have to be red to be green. The blue-green vision for New Zealand is for all New Zealanders who want a better environmental future for our country. It seeks long-term consistency and effectiveness in environment policy. If we are to make a real difference we need to negotiate with all stakeholders and all political parties to reach a real consensus because our natural environment will be here long after individuals voters and political parties are dead and gone. We need to make good decisions about the environment: decisions that are timely decisions that are based on good science and decisions that will give us long-term sustainable results. 
National believes that most New Zealanders want to do things differently in respect of our environment and now is the time to focus on the important issues—to clean up our air to clean up our water and to manage our resources better. We need to decide on the key indicators to monitor the health of our environment for at the moment after 7 years of this Labour Government many of the important indicators are looking pretty sick. 
With regard to our air scientists estimate that nearly 1000 people die prematurely each year because of air pollution. That is three times the number of crash victims we have. In the face of global warming in the last 7 years our greenhouse gas emissions have increased faster than for almost any other country in the world. How carbon neutral is that? And in the area of water New Zealand has real problems with managing both quality and quantity of its water resources. More and more New Zealanders are concerned about substandard drinking water in streams rivers and lakes that are also no longer safe to swim and fish in. We need to take action and we need to take it fast. In forestry growing trees is one of the smartest ways to combat global warming—and Labour is chopping them down. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I do not want to be critical because that is just not the sort of thing that we do in the Labour Government. But to hear the member Nicky Wagner who is opposite me talking about cynicism just makes me laugh—talking about National’s blue-green policy about its commitment to addressing climate change when its leader has not even accepted that there is a problem. I think this is another example of the National Party’s leader being out of tune with what the members of his caucus are up to. My goodness what are those members up to as we speak? When I look over there at those members sitting on those benches I see there seems to be quite a bit of plotting and scheming going on. We would just love to know what is going on. But to hear that member talk about blue-green policies! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: An oxymoron. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What an oxymoron! I tell Mr Cunliffe that that is no way to talk about those people. But what about National’s blue-green policies? If we mix blue and green together what colour do we get? We get puce. We get a yucky horrible puce colour. I think that pretty well sums up what those blue-green policies are going to be. 
But I do not want to wallow in negativity; it is just not our style. I want to say that it is great to be back in New Zealand. What a privilege I had recently in attending an international conference in Geneva with two very affable travelling companions John Carter and Nandor Tanczos. What a team we were. We all felt a sense of pride when representatives from other countries came to us and said that we are so lucky to have the Government and the leader that we have. 
Jill Pettis 
: And Mr Carter was very proud. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh I think he was; I think he was bursting with pride. Helen Clark is a leader who is resolute about the appropriate handling of Iraq who is genuinely committed—not like the blue-green puce approach—to addressing climate change and who is unashamedly as leader of the Government promoting an inclusive society. 
 Myself and my great westie colleagues David Cunliffe who spoke so well earlier Darien Fenton whom I know we are going to hear from and also dear old Chris Carter who is a great friend and colleague had a great meeting in Waitakere only last Sunday. There was standing room only which is something Opposition members would not know about given the sad little groups they get at their meetings. We packed a hall full in that beautiful leafy green area of Titirangi. We had the wonderful children from Te Atatu Intermediate who did a wonderful welcome for us. Who did we have singing to us? We had Indira runner-up in  
NZ Idol 
. I can tell members of the pride we felt when she stood there and started her performance in front of those 400 to 500 people and said: “I am proud to be part of a Labour family.” That is us. We are hip we are groovy we are happening. That is our westie pride and it is our country’s pride. 
What else received applause? It was the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Members can imagine how I seethe with rage when I hear Opposition members banging on about blue-green policies when they absolutely opposed that bill. It is absolutely shocking stuff. I will tell members what else attracted similar applause at that meeting attended by 400 to 500 people. All of the Government’s good policies did such as our early childhood education policy our interest-free student loans our apprenticeships our industry training and New Zealand’s absolutely thriving economy. New Zealand probably has the lowest rate of unemployment that even someone of Dr Brash’s age can remember. These are all great attributes. They are great things that we can celebrate in Government. 
It is good to stand in this House and say that Labour members are proud of what we have achieved. We have done much but there is much to be done. We are really pleased that we are in the third term of a Labour-led Government and we are already working hard towards a fourth term so that we can keep acting on these great initiatives. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 How funny it is to hear National and Labour fighting about who has the best environmental policy! It is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard. Suddenly National has decided to take climate change seriously and to talk about sustainability. I have to say though that the National Party has had a poor poor record—fighting Kyoto opposing the carbon charge opposing the “fart tax” that would have dealt with methane emissions from agriculture attacking the Resource Management Act supporting much more money going into roading and private car use and of course always putting economic growth above all else. But I have to say that that also sounds very much like Labour Party policy. It was Labour that got rid of the carbon charge and refused to stand up for it when it should have done so that got rid of the “fart tax” when it should have stood up and defended it that has itself undermined public involvement in the Resource Management Act that has invested billions of dollars in roading when it should have gone into public transport and that also still puts economic growth over and above environmental sustainability. 
There is no doubt that this is a very interesting little battle. But the fact is that it is the Green Party that has environmental issues in hand. It is the Green Party that has actions in place and proposes things that can be done right now. That is what I want to talk about this afternoon. The Green Party has six members’ bills that it is putting into the ballot tomorrow afternoon all of which will provide immediate solutions to a number of the problems around climate change emissions and peak oil. They will not fix everything but they are actions that can be taken now. Neither National nor Labour has said a single thing about what they will do right now to fix those problems. The Green Party has some of the solutions right here. 
The first one of our bills is the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill which will require all State sector organisations when buying or leasing passenger vehicles to purchase only those with an engine capacity of less than 1800cc and that are in the top 10 percent in terms of fuel efficiency. It is a good model for the community. The second bill the Climate Change (Electricity Fixed Charge) Bill relates to getting rid of fixed charges so that people who conserve electricity in their own homes get the financial benefit of not being charged a fixed charge. There need to be incentives to conserve electricity. The third bill is the Climate Change (Airline Emissions) Bill and it will require airlines in New Zealand to cap by 2012 their total greenhouse gas emissions at the level they are at in 2007 and require them to take measures to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels putting them on a par with similar industries in that sector. 
The Climate Change (Public Transport Funding) Bill will require two-thirds of national land transport funding to be allocated to public transport walking cycling rail coastal shipping and travel demand management. That will help us to deal with both the impact of climate change and peak oil by saving fuel and decreasing the transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. The Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill will require that the managers of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund consider climate change and broader environmental impacts when making investments. The Climate Change (Rail Electrification) Bill will set targets for the electrification of different parts of the rail network and require the rail operator to use bio-diesel on those parts that are not electrified until 2012 ultimately reducing our carbon dioxide emissions. 
These bills address some aspects of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on oil. They are a demonstration of leadership on these issues—leadership that is lacking from the Government at the moment and that is absolutely absent from any of National’s policies at all. Two of the bills—those relating to vehicle procurement and New Zealand Superannuation Fund investments—require action from only the Government. The Government could do what they propose right now by ministerial directive; it does not need legislation. It needs to take action now and it can. Three of the bills deal with transport emissions given that those are the second-largest contributor to our overall emissions in New Zealand. The bill that gets rid of the fixed charges for electricity goes directly to incentivising and supporting the community to make changes in people’s own homes. 
With this level of change at a structural level by the Government and with the modelling the Government can provide in addressing issues around business transport and incentivising families and communities we cannot go wrong. The package deals with all of the issues and really shows that we are taking leadership here. We expect given the arguments between National and Labour about who has the best policy and who is more environmentally sound than anybody else that if and when these bills are pulled out of the ballot those parties must support them. We must take action. Rhetoric from both big parties is no longer acceptable. We simply do not have the time. I challenge the other parties to come up with similar bills to put them into the ballot also and to support the ones that are pulled out so that we are involved in a cross-party solution-setting process and take action now to protect our country our future and this planet. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am proud to follow my westie colleagues Lynne Pillay and David Cunliffe in this debate today. I am proud to work with other Labour MPs in west Auckland as well as with my Labour North colleagues in Helensville. 
Unlike the member for Helensville who is busy trying to be the leader of the National Party I live among other westies around the communities of Waitakere village Swanson Massey Ranui Henderson and Taupaki. I have raised my family there and I am proud of where we live. There are many different families around us. Some live in State houses. Many are young families who have bought their first home. There are older people families of all ethnicities and people working hard to get ahead. They deserve a fair go and that is why this Labour-led Government has put affordable housing on the agenda. That is why we have introduced KiwiSaver and Welcome Home Loans. It is why we bought back the State houses sold by National. Under those excellent Ministers Mark Gosche and—another westie MP—Chris Carter we have built many more State houses and have made them affordable with income-related rents. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Mark Gosche did it too. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I said Mark Gosche. 
But the member for Helensville whose office is not far down the road from where I live does not want affordable housing—particularly State housing—in his electorate even though he does not live there and it will not affect him. Plans for a development at the Hobsonville airbase which would provide for accessible and affordable housing for the whole community—young and old singles and families rich and poor—have motivated John Key to get out in his electorate. He has hosted some public meetings to whip up opposition to State housing at Hobsonville. The other day I met someone from Massey which is in his electorate who went to one of the meetings. She said it was shocking; people there were saying that they did not want “trash” in Hobsonville. 
 This is Mr Key showing his true colours; he says that State houses should not be developed on that piece of pristine land. Well do poor people not deserve views as well? And where will the future workers of west Auckland come from if they are not allowed to live in areas of new development? I suppose that National members think they should be shipped in from South Auckland—keeping them well out of the way but increasing the traffic and keeping Hobsonville and Helensville pure for the rich. 
The people in my neighbourhood are those who serve the factories and offices of west Auckland. Their lives are on the up and up thanks to this Labour-led Government. I want the future leadership hopeful of the National Party to come clean and tell those workers his plans for them. Does he support the Employment Relations Act or would he amend it delete it or get rid of it along the lines of Wayne Mapp’s member’s bill? If he had a chance would he scrap paid parental leave instead of extending it? Would he stop the fourth week of annual leave that this Government is delivering from next year? 
Jill Pettis 
: Just hire an au pair. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes. Would he take away the rights of workers to get paid extra on statutory holidays? Well yes. We do know that National would renationalise accident compensation because its members said they would during the last sitting of the House repeatedly. Would he bring back those awful health and safety laws we used to have where workers had no say at all? And what would he do about paid employment equity? I am not even sure he could say the words. All we have heard from that side of the House is talk of tax cuts and insults about workers and their unions. 
The question I want to ask John Key is whether he has the bottle. Has he got the bottle to go for Don Brash’s job? Has he got the bottle to come clean with the people of west Auckland about his policies for them—or has he actually got any policies? Has he got the bottle to front up to the people of Massey in his electorate and tell them that they are too poor to live in Hobsonville? I bet he has not. Has he got the bottle to tell the working people of New Zealand that the agenda of the National Party has not changed a bit when it comes to workers’ rights? I look forward to hearing from that wannabe leader of the National Party. I look forward to his showing he has the courage and the guts to go for something— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can never challenge someone’s courage. That is a personal reflection; the member must withdraw. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: OK. I look forward to seeing that he has the tenacity to go for something he believes in because it is not clear what he does believe in. Thank goodness Labour is the Government and will be for a long time to come! 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I have been doing a wee bit of reading on the environment because I think it is terribly important to back one’s talk up with facts and that is something I would like to ponder in my brief 5 minutes. I have had a wee look at the annual report of the Ministry for the Environment. It is nice; it is a very good report. What I wondered about in reading this report was how much commitment the Ministry for the Environment has put toward solving the problem of climate change. We have an awful lot of words from that ministry but how does it back them up? 
In the report it was interesting to find that at the end of 2005 the Ministry for the Environment had invested $8309000 in investigating climate change. OK that is not a lot. It is a big subject but that is a start. How has the ministry done at the end of this financial year? I found that at the end of 2006 the Ministry for the Environment had invested $6791000 in investigating climate change. Hang on a minute! The Government’s investment in climate change investigations has gone down. This is a Government that is extremely hot on climate change yet in its annual report from the Ministry for the Environment we find that not only is the Government not even treading water in terms of investment in investigating climate change but its investment into finding out about climate change has actually decreased by over $2 million. That is what I call commitment! 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Oh yeah. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh yes $2 million less in this financial year; it is talk talk talk. The Government’s investment in investigating climate change shows it is backing away. That is how committed this Government is to addressing the issue of climate change. 
I thought that that was interesting and that I would have a little deeper look at this report. I found that under the “achievement” criteria—this one is “develop and implement policies”—the ministry rates its performance as only “partially achieved”. Well members probably did not need me to tell them that today. But when it came to representing New Zealand at international forums the ministry managed to achieve that goal. In fact the trips overseas are ongoing. 
So what do we have? We have a decrease in investment and we have talk upon talk upon talk. What has all this expenditure all those overseas trips achieved? [ 
Interruption 
] According to Steve Chadwick the climate change policy is: “Don’t just wait; it’s coming.” Well so is Christmas and I bet that after that we will still be waiting. Let us have a look at the Government’s record on climate change. It is all very well to talk the talk but what has the Government actually done in the last 7 years on its watch to solve the problem of climate change? The Government has built coal-fired power stations yet has prevented the building of two sustainable hydro stations. The Government sat on the fence over Project Aqua the Government sat on the fence over the Dobson hydro power scheme yet we find we have two new coal-fired power stations—that is under this Government’s watch. 
This is a Government under whose watch the annual rate of investment in forestry has gone from around 60000 hectares per annum throughout most of the 1990s to practically none today. So that is the Government’s record on forestry. This is a Government whose Ministers drive around in big gas-guzzling self-driving ministerial sedans who then offset that by buying a little bit of forestry to gain carbon credits—and that makes it OK. If that is how the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues models good behaviour then boy I would like to see what is not good behaviour. [ 
Interruption 
] Gosh it has got them excited has it not? It has got them really going and is that not funny? 
This is a Government under whose watch the carbon tax failed. This is a Government under whose watch the energy efficiency strategy failed at the cost of $100 million. This is a Government whose Prime Minister now acknowledges that the Kyoto Protocol has failed. The Prime Minister herself acknowledged at the Labour Party conference that the Kyoto Protocol deficit “did come as a bit of a blow” and that the Government is going to “go back to the drawing board to look for better more comprehensive strategies.” Well I ask you! If the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Kyoto Protocol how can the rest of New Zealand. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Yesterday in the House the Minister of Local Government Mark Burton confirmed that long-term community plans for local and territorial authorities over the next 10 years will require expenditure of $30.8 billion. This compares with the level of expenditure over the past 10 years of only one-third of this amount. The implication of this fact is obvious: local government will have to raise considerably more revenue during the time period mentioned. 
The second fact that the Minister confirmed was that over 80 percent of the additional expenditure is for essential infrastructural development—roads sewerage waste water etc. A considerable amount of the rest will come from requirements for monitoring outcomes as required by central government. The Minister was also asked what the effect would have been had councils had caps set on the amount of revenue they could raise. He responded with atypical understatement saying: “It would have been both limiting and negative.” 
The truth is that the consequences would have been disastrous—potholed and congested roads horrendous smog and greenhouse gas levels sewage pouring into our harbours lakes and rivers—shades of the Lorax. It is interesting how the new “Blue-green Party” voted for the rate-capping bill. Our local communities are facing the consequences of under-investment in infrastructure during the 1990s—and the chickens have now come home to roost. 
But there is another side to the equation. Because the major revenue-raising mechanism for local government is a tax on the value of properties—that is rates—the need to raise a threefold increase in revenue over the next 10 years impacts harshly on some individuals and groups. Farmers are such a group especially those in regions such as the one where I live Whangarei where there is a city surrounded by farms and where it could be claimed that farmers are subsidising urban dwellers. The situation impacts very cruelly on those on low fixed incomes who happen to live in homes with rapidly escalating values; values over which they have no control. 
New Zealand First was able to look at both sides of the equation. Certainly the answer was not to use a blunt instrument such as capping rates—populist possibly but doomed to failure. There were some who said the bill should be sent to select committee to enable a wide-ranging debate. Parties that promoted this idea and that were planning to vote positive at the first vote and then vote it down would have raised hopes; only to dash cruelly those hopes later on. Worst still under the Standing Orders a select committee can only deliberate within the scope of the bill. This was a narrow bill and the committee could not have scrutinised the wide range of issues that need to be teased out. In fact those parties were conning the public. 
What was needed was an independent public inquiry and it was New Zealand First that from the outset called for such an inquiry. We were at the time a lone voice in the wilderness. It was also New Zealand First that played its hand astutely to ensure the Government would agree to such an independent review. The review has now been announced and I have to say we are very pleased with not only the terms of reference but also the personnel. The report-back date will be midway through next year prior to local government elections. The personnel to carry out the review are high-powered experienced and knowledgable and are able to take an independent view—somewhat more high-powered I might admit than a select committee of four Nats four Labour MPs and one Green MP. The terms of reference have been set and are broad enough to cover the full range of issues that need to be examined. The review will be public—that is essential—and it will deliver an analysis that will carefully consider both sides of the equation. 
The review will add to a raft of initiatives that New Zealand First has delivered since the election and will in fact deliver within the next 2 years and beyond. My caucus colleagues took considerable flak over the issue but we stood resolute. As a result of this resolution we delivered what we believe was needed. Now groups all over the country—in fact many of those groups that were saying: “Please vote for this bill to go to select committee.”—have publicly recognised this reality. They are saying that what we needed all along was an independent review—exactly what we have delivered to them. 
I ask the House what did Rodney Hide deliver. In fact Rodney Hide delivered nothing which is par for the course. That is his record since 1996—a load of populism. But I also ask what did National deliver on this one It also delivered nothing. What has any other party other than New Zealand First delivered in this particular case? Although I am very pleased with what has occurred since that time with Labour it has to be recognised that Labour was not enamoured of the idea of an independent inquiry at the time. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Business of the House 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill be read a second and third time to be taken as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. This bill was first introduced to the House on 7 June 2006 and the House has granted leave 5 months later for us to take the second and third readings together. My thanks go to the Government Administration Committee for allowing this non-controversial but very important bill for Rotorua to be heard so quickly. 
This bill in effect realises the intention of the deceased Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson as expressed in her will. I missed the bill’s first reading speeches as I was at the Wahiao Marae for Guide Bubbles Mihinui’s tangi. Both women—wahine toa—were linked historically to Rotorua’s history of colonisation. Mr Seddon was said by our local historian Don Stafford to have married Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson after his first wife a local Maori woman died in a hot pool. Mr Seddon was one of the earliest Pakeha commercial operators as he lived in an accommodation house at Ohinemutu Village next door to Morrison’s Hotel. Mr Seddon owned one of the two original shops in Rotorua on the corner of Fenton and Arawa Streets opposite the post office. The shop known as the Comet sold general merchandise. 
When Mr Seddon died Mrs Seddon-Johnson moved to town then known in the annals of history as “Stinkville” or “Rotten Egg Town”. She was one of Rotorua’s first Pakeha widows and was a lady of some means living near the local library building by the Masonic Lodge. Mr Seddon died and was buried in splendid fashion at the Sala Street cemetery with a large bust in his commemoration. Mrs Seddon-Johnson though was remembered very humbly in the original library building by a tiny wooden plaque the local whereabouts of which is unknown today. The library was one of two rooms built by the town council in 1940; the other was the treasure house. There has been some suggestion that Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson is linked by descent to Richard Seddon. 
This bill will honour her intentions expressed in her will of 1932 which was probated in 1936. We can assure any descendants that her desire to support the library will be honoured by the passing of this bill almost 70 years later. 
The current library building is located in Haupapa Street Rotorua and it is a fine local library. It is located on the ground and first floors of a four-storey building. The top two floors are currently leased out though these leases terminate at the end of this calendar year. The library desperately needs the additional space that will be freed up as a result of the lease’s expiry. The drafters of the bill have been advised by Jane Gilbert the library manager that the library has effectively been in a holding pattern for the last 5 years or so due to the shortage of space. It is proposed that the library will occupy the whole of the building and the additional two floors will increase the space available at the library by around another two-thirds. In that regard the two top floors will provide less space than the two floors already occupied by the library. The council has allocated a budget of around $1 million for the 2006-07 year towards the necessary renovations refurbishing fitting out and provisioning of the library as a result of the two top floors becoming available. 
The essential primary purpose of this bill is to enable the council to access the capital of around $300000 of an endowment currently vested in it pursuant to section 31 of the Local Legislation Act 1937. In that regard I refer members to the explanatory note of the bill which spells out the basic background details. The fundamental difficulty that our council currently has in administering the endowment vested in it pursuant to the Act is that it does not have the ability to apply the capital of the endowment for the purposes of the library; rather only the income can be so applied. Further the purposes for which the income can be applied are arguably not currently specific to enable the income let alone the capital to be applied in the way the council intends. 
There is no doubt that the primary and fundamental purpose and the driver behind the bill being promoted by the council is the need to access the capital to enable the work to be carried out once the leases expire. Members will note that clause 5(2) enables both the capital and income of the endowment to be applied for a range of purposes such as expansion or relocation of the library; maintenance and upkeep of the library; purchase of books periodicals other reading matter and other materials of any kind available for use or hire by the public from the library; and the technological advancement of the facilities available in and through the library. It is fair to say that the bulk if not necessarily all of the endowment will be applied for the latter purpose. It is not inconsistent with the basic thrust of the bill. There may or may not be excessive funds available for the other stated purposes in clause 5(2). 
 The endowment has a rather tortuous legal history to it. Members will note from the explanatory note to the bill that the endowment can be traced back to the will of Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson made in 1932 which was probated in 1936 and of which the proceeds were given to the Rotorua Borough Council to be used for or towards the erection of a new wing for the Rotorua Public Library. It is fair to say therefore that the purpose intended to be achieved by the bill effectively restores the original legal position to one whereby the intent of Mrs Seddon-Johnson is achieved. In that regard although what is contemplated by the council is not the erection of a new wing to the existing library it does involve the expansion of the existing library. 
The residue of Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson’s estate comprised a Crown lease situated in Rotorua. The purpose of section 37 of the Local Legislation Act 1937 was to enable the then borough council to acquire the lease and to borrow a sum for the purpose of paying out the legacies provided for in those provisions of Mrs Seddon-Johnson’s will that needed to be satisfied. As a result of the Rotorua Borough Council acquiring the land under the power conferred to it by that Act revenue was derived from it. Accordingly further provision was made in the Act whereby the income derived could also be applied for certain specific and relatively narrow purposes associated with the Rotorua Public Library. 
The council on at least two or three occasions over the last 20 years or so has approached the drafters of the bill seeking advice as to whether it was able to apply the capital of the endowment for the purposes of the Rotorua Public Library. That advice given last in 2005 has consistently been that the council did not have the power to apply the capital; it could apply only the income. The purpose of this bill therefore is to enable the council to access the capital and apply it for a wider range of purposes than is currently available but in a way that seems to be entirely consistent with the original intentions of Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson. In conclusion the library staff the Friends of the Rotorua Public Library the district council and the community of Rotorua will all be the beneficiaries of the bill. I thank the tolerance of the House for taking this reading so closely today. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National members are very pleased to support the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill. A fine legacy was left way back on 30 December 1932 by this lady that Steve Chadwick as the sponsor of this bill mentioned—Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson of Rotorua. Since probate was granted in September 1936 the borough council—as it was called then—and now the district council of the city and the area have had access to the endowment that was gifted way back then by the generosity of this lady. 
Unfortunately this bill is necessary because the income that came from the endowment can only be used for general maintenance purposes and for the purchase of books periodicals and the sorts of reading materials that people would be interested in. That has tied up the capital so that the district council has been able to use only the income from the source. Steve Chadwick made points about the wishes of the district council and the residents of the area to be able to expand the operation and that is going to require some capital to do. It is consistent with the original intention of Elizabeth Seddon-Johnson. 
The explanatory note makes the point that in her will she “provided that the residue of her estate should be applied for or towards the erection of a new wing to the Rotorua Public Library.” That is not the council’s intent; its intent is to expand and modernise the operation which of course is capital work and has been excluded prior to this. It has not been possible before to use the capital of this endowment for what the area requires. 
Therefore by supporting this bill and by allowing the district council to be able to look specifically not only at the income but also at the capital and to put it towards the expansion of this public library we will support a worthy cause. I am sure the district is indebted to the generosity and the legacy that was left way back in 1936. National has much pleasure in supporting this bill. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I make a brief call in support of my colleague Steve Chadwick. The Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill is a really good example of a local bill where we see the generosity of a now deceased resident of the district being honoured and respected. We also see a typical example of the dedication and commitment of a constituency member of Parliament who even 74 years after the death of her constituent is still in there battling for her and making sure that her wishes are honoured. 
This bill will ensure that the original intention is honoured. I have to say of course that for the good people of Rotorua the freeing-up of this revenue will ensure that the Rotorua Public Library can be enhanced for the benefit of all local people. I congratulate Steve Chadwick for yet again advancing the interests and causes of her constituents and her community. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is pretty obvious that the House unanimously supports the very sensible provisions of the Rotorua Library Trust Fund Variation Bill. After all if there had been any opposition leave would not have been given for the second and third readings to be taken as one. 
The promoter of the bill Steve Chadwick and also Lindsay Tisch have together adequately explained the purpose of the bill and there is no real need to traverse that territory. However I take the opportunity to say I am particularly pleased to help constructively through this bill the people of Rotorua. My parents saw out their final years in Rotorua—at Lake Okareka—and I have to say that those were the happiest years of their lives. During that time my own family with my young children spent a lot of time in Rotorua and I have a particular affection for the place. Therefore it is extremely gratifying to express New Zealand First’s full support for this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Like other members of the House today I look forward as an elected member of Parliament to times when progress will be achieved and when we know members of our constituency will benefit directly from some of the legislation we put through. This is one of those times. 
It is also a time when my colleague the MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick and I and perhaps some others who may choose to declare their status today may be in the unique position of having a special privilege in respect of this bill. As I declared at the first reading our family are cardholders. We are members of the Rotorua Public Library with a status that clearly places us at an advantage in terms of this bill. 
If members go into the philosophy section of the Rotorua Public Library and look for the sections headed “Political Analysis and Cultural Criticism” they might come across books by the distinguished professor bell hooks. The unconventional lower casing is in the words of hooks to symbolise “… that what is most important in my works is the substance of the books not who I am.” This is from a person who also said: “Life-transforming ideas have always come to me through books.” 
So how did this girl from Kentucky growing up poor black and marginalised turn out to be a leading African-American intellectual who has contributed greatly to library shelves around the world? What were the life-transforming ideas that made that possible? Hooks would say that the key lies in communication and literacy and the capacity to read write and think critically. It is about education as a practice of freedom and it is because of education for liberation that the Maori Party is pleased today to support the local member from Rotorua Steve Chadwick in her initiative on this bill. 
We are delighted that the Government Administration committee has supported this bill without amendment and we look forward to the smooth passage of the legislation to enable the council to get on with the job. The job I am talking about is that of accessing the capital of the endowment fund bequeathed by Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson in order to extend the Rotorua Public Library. The substance of books is where things are at. This bill will ensure that the substance of books will be available across the Rotorua community. Having a larger facility more space and more resources will both honour the intention of the bequest and serve as a fine legacy for future generations. 
But as other speakers have said the bill has been a long time coming. Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson bequeathed the residue of her estate as per the terms of her will in 1932 and Mr Tisch talked about probate being granted in September 1936. So here we are 70 years later finally able to see her wishes come to pass and supporting legislation to expand the library and enable the building of a new wing. We congratulate the benefactor and the Rotorua Public Library on keeping the vision alive. Although it has taken 70 years to get to this point it should be noted that the interest from the capital investment of the endowment has been used usefully in library maintenance and upkeep including the purchase of more books. 
Finally I make mention of the advice received from Jane Gilbert of the Rotorua Public Library and Richard Price a lawyer for the Rotorua District Council. Both the librarian and the lawyer spoke of the considerable benefits that would flow through to the whole community in Rotorua through the passing of this legislation. They made special mention of the fact that the amendment will enable an expansion of the Rotorua history section including the history of Te Arawa. 
So I return again to bell hooks and her statement that life-transforming ideas have always come to her through books and the question I ask is what life-transforming ideas will be in the books of Te Arawa from the last year of political history. Will they include a discussion of the confiscation by stealth through the new invention of the Crown stratum? Will the library shelves include any volumes that reveal Government commitment to the lakes protection and restoration action programme or will there be an empty space? Will our histories reveal the damage done to the Te Arawa lakes which had been in a pristine state when leased to the Crown in 1922? 
In 1922 in an honourable gesture our elders signed an agreement between Te Arawa and the Crown. It was thought that benefits would flow through to Te Arawa following that agreement. My hope is that this honourable gesture made by Elizabeth Ann Seddon-Johnson does not suffer the same fate as the agreement for Te Arawa some 10 years earlier. The Maori Party will support this bill as we support any attempts to encourage life-transforming ideas. We will be looking to the Rotorua District Council and the Rotorua Public Library to do their best to honour the original intentions of the benefactor to invest in the business of ideas and to do that truly for the benefit of all the community. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a second time. 
Bill read a third time. 
Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of  Parliament) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill stands in my name and it has been the recommendation from the Justice and Electoral Committee that this bill be discharged. What a sad day it is for New Zealand when politicians totally reject the results of a referendum without even attempting to make what the majority of people voted for a reality. Where is our democracy? Politicians are actually entrusted to make our democracy work and what we see here is self-interest coming ahead of the wishes of the people. That is totally outrageous. The referendum results showed an overwhelming desire to reduce the number of MPs and today we have a select committee—seven members of Parliament—recommending that the wishes of the people be voted down. It is ironic that we are so quick to implement the will of the people on election day when it suits us but with a referendum that over 80 percent of New Zealanders supported we vote it down without even attempting to make it work. Citizens referenda should be binding. 
However I must thank all of the submitters for their willingness to stand behind the results of the 1999 referendum and for their support for this very important bill. I must thank Margaret Robertson for the work and effort she put into the 1999 petition to reduce the number of members of Parliament and for her willingness to revisit the issue earlier in the year. I must also thank the many people who have written and spoken to me since the outcome of this bill has become public knowledge. I thank them for their support. Despite the recommendation from the select committee the vast majority of people still state that on this issue the people of New Zealand should have been listened to and that Parliament had an obligation to act upon their wishes. I also thank the select committee staff for the excellent work they did on this bill. 
I thank the select committee members for their work on the bill but I must say that this is an extremely disappointing result. This result highlights the folly of allowing self-interested MPs to make decisions about their futures. When I looked at the MPs on this select committee I was interested to see that the members were principally list members and I could not help wondering to what degree that factor had influenced the decision that the committee made. However I am sure it did not. Yet it must be put on record that my New Zealand First colleague Pita Paraone who might have been affected by this measure should it have become law—which of course it would not have in this particular Parliament—definitely supported the bill. Despite the overwhelming public support for this change as was evidenced by the submissions made to the select committee—29 out of 43 submissions—select committee members ignored submitters’ views and promoted their own agenda. The number of MPs is a central feature of our democracy and as such MPs should not and cannot afford to ignore the weight of public opinion agitating for change. After all our democracy belongs to the people of New Zealand not just to the MPs here in this House—something that we should all remind ourselves of. 
I was interested to read in the select committee report that National believes that this bill missed the point. I remind National members that there is no real point to miss. The purpose of the bill was very clear: to reduce the number of MPs to 100—not 99 as they commented upon in their minority view. The bill did not in any way wish to change the MMP system but just proposed changing the number of list MPs within that system. We all know that one of the perennial criticisms of MMP revolves around the number of list MPs so why could we not be proactive take that criticism seriously act upon it and at least attempt to make MMP work? MMP is a system that New Zealanders by and large like believing it to be far fairer and more representative of the population than the old first-past-the-post system. 
As MPs we ignore the wishes of the people at our peril. This issue has not really gone away just because a select committee has chosen not to proceed. The whole issue will no doubt be revisited again because the wishes of the people have been ignored. It is a fact that if a referendum were to be held tomorrow on this very same issue the result would be exactly the same as before. People believe that 120 MPs is too many although I understand that one of the submitters to the select committee believed that the number of MPs should have actually been increased—something that we do not want to occur at all! 
Letters in recent editions of the  
Listener 
 
commenting on MMP 10 years on discussed the likelihood of any change ever being made to our system and concluded that changes will not be made in the medium to long term. The writers of those letters stated that changes will never be made while some MPs see the present system working to their advantage and continue to use those flaws in the system for their own self-interest. In New Zealand First we argue that the issue is not about various individuals keeping their jobs and about the personalities of those individuals—one of the many reasons that some parties in this House decided to vote against this bill. Those colourful individuals could still have the opportunity to represent their parties; their parties would just have to manage the process a bit better than perhaps they do now. This bill does not discuss any reduction of the proportionality of Parliament but rather a reduction in the number of list members. The bill is about working in a far smarter way to achieve what the people of New Zealand overwhelmingly want. Those who claim that that is not so have their heads in the sand. 
The desire to reduce the number of MPs still holds true today. Just last week a person at the airport told me that he had voted for the reduction in 1999 and that he would vote for it again today. That is not an isolated incident—far from it in fact. The MMP Review Committee which was established in 2000 considered the appropriate number of MPs that Parliament should have and it could not reach agreement on the issue. What did our politicians do when provided with another opportunity to address the issue? They proved that they are unable or unwilling to act on the issue. 
It is little wonder that the surveys taken of the occupations that people most distrust and trust never ever flatter politicians. It is no wonder that we are always at the bottom of the list—always among the most distrusted of occupations. Could it be that some members have forgotten whom they were sent here to represent? Could it be that in totally ignoring the wishes of the people and getting caught up in utilising the flaws of the system MPs are displaying a quality that is definitely not trustworthy? The issue will not go away with this bill; the public will speak again. Delaying the inevitable is not to the credit of any politician. 
The move to MMP was not the end of political reform; it was only the start. For some people there has been very little change in political behaviour. The review of MMP was really a sham. We owe our democracy much more than that. New Zealand First has long stated that people power in the form of referenda should replace conscience votes and that is a step we wish to take. But how sad it is that even when the results of a referendum are overwhelming politicians know better. New Zealand First in honouring the result of the 1999 referendum attempted to make Parliament a more responsive and accountable institution and to give greater power to the community. It is because of decisions such as those taken by politicians on the question of MPs that we need binding referenda so that we can avoid the situation we have today whereby self-interested politicians override the will of the majority of voters. 
New Zealand First stands steadfast in its support for the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 What a load of empty political rhetoric that was from Barbara Stewart. Her speech was full of emotion and full of appeals to the general public but the general public do not know that she never turned up to the Justice and Electoral Committee for the hearing of evidence on the bill. National supported Barbara Stewart’s Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill going to the select committee so that it could hear the evidence of submitters and debate in detail the desirability of reducing the number of MPs to 100. My National colleagues Richard Worth and Nicky Wagner worked very hard with me on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this issue. 
Lynne Pillay 
: So did the Labour members. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Labour members worked hard too; I will not deny the member for Waitakere her day in the sun. 
It is interesting to note however that neither Barbara Stewart nor any other New Zealand First MP joined the select committee for the purposes of debating this legislation. In fact one gains the impression that those members were content to introduce the bill send it off to a select committee then leave it at that and make a fine political speech at the time of the second reading while not having done any work. Perhaps this is not surprising when one considers New Zealand First’s performance to date on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. That sloppy piece of work seeks to delete Treaty sections in some Acts that have already been repealed—great work! New Zealand First members really need to lift their game. 
My advice to Barbara Stewart is that when she drafts a member’s bill she should try to make sure it is coherent. When one of her bills is referred to a select committee she should at least turn up to the hearing of evidence ask a few questions look interested and try to read the submissions—it is apparent from the member’s speech that she did not even do that. If she does not do those things some people will think she is engaging only in some kind of political stunt. Her lament this afternoon was a little rich given her complete and utter lack of contribution to the select committee debate. 
If Barbara Stewart had read the report of the select committee and read the evidence she would have seen that 43 submissions were received. Twenty-nine were in support of the bill 12 were opposed to it and two did not express an opinion. National members were very interested in particular in the eight submitters who gave oral evidence. The arguments presented are adequately summarised in the report of the committee and I do not intend to address all of them in this speech. Suffice it to say that a major theme of those who supported the bill is that the current number of MPs places an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and does not necessarily make for an effective Parliament whereas those who opposed the bill placed some emphasis on the findings of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System and were concerned that the MMP system could not function properly in a 100-member Parliament. 
I particularly refer Barbara Stewart and other members of the House to Appendix B of the report of the committee which contains parliamentary statistics from New Zealand and comparisons with other jurisdictions. The argument that there are too many MPs in New Zealand is at least a debatable proposition. As can be seen many countries of our size have in fact more MPs. For example Ireland with a population of 4.1 million has 226 MPs—166 in the Lower House and 60 in the Upper House. That is a ratio of 5.45 MPs per 100000 people. Norway with a population of about 4.6 million has 169 MPs or a ratio of 3.66 MPs per 100000 people. That ratio can be compared with New Zealand with a population of 4.1 million which has 120 MPs or 2.91 MPs per 100000 people. The committee was very grateful to various submitters for providing this material. 
Another important aspect of Appendix B that I refer members to is the final page which is also instructive. It has a table showing the number of MPs in relation to the total population of New Zealand from 1901 to 1996 and again in 2006. In 1901 there was one MP for every 11000 people 70 years later there was one MP for every 34500 people in 1991 there was one MP for every 35500 people and today there is one MP for every 34000 people. So it is simply wrong to allege as some submitters did that the current number of MPs is historically high and overrepresents New Zealand’s population. 
As can be seen from the committee’s report a number of submitters believed that the current number of MPs places an unnecessary burden on taxpayers and is superfluous to the requirements of a functioning Parliament. It is not however the current number of MPs that places a burden on taxpayers but political parties that use public funds for party political purposes instead of parliamentary purposes. An obvious example is Labour’s misuse of public funds over the pledge card. If MPs obeyed the rules and acted properly the cost of parliamentary services would be considerably reduced. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: $800000! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: So it is an issue that can be resolved not by reducing the number of MPs but by having MPs who obey the rules. 
As I have said already National Party members listened very carefully to the evidence of the submitters and read all the evidence. As the minority view indicates on the basis of that evidence National members support the report and will therefore oppose the second reading of the bill. 
The minority view of the National Party also makes a number of other points which I will record this afternoon. First there can be a case to argue for a reduction in the number of MPs but the Justice and Electoral Committee on the basis of the evidence presented to it has doubts about whether MMP can function effectively with 99 or 100 members. National members were particularly influenced by the evidence of experts on electoral law like Professor Jonathan Boston and Professor Elizabeth McLeay. 
If Barbara Stewart had more cogent evidence to present to the select committee then either she or her supporters had every opportunity to do so. They chose not to give evidence and as I have said Barbara Stewart did not even attend. At the end of the day the committee must proceed on the basis of the evidence placed before it. 
Second National thinks that Barbara Stewart’s bill raises an important issue which is why we voted for it at the first reading. However it fails to address the important issue of whether the existing electoral system should continue. There was a widespread belief in the public mind that there would be a further referendum to determine whether MMP should be retained. In fact there has never been any such referendum; rather a committee of Parliament reviewed the workings of MMP and reported in August 2001. That committee—given its composition—concluded that the current system should be maintained. 
National maintains however that the effectiveness of the MMP system remains a matter for debate and that at some stage New Zealanders should take part in that debate. However unless and until that issue is resolved National does not believe it would be wise to reduce the number of members of Parliament. As National’s minority report emphasises we were influenced in reaching this conclusion by the helpful evidence provided by several submitters. 
In conclusion National opposes the second reading even though we supported the bill at the first reading. We thought it was in the public interest to support the first reading so as to enable New Zealanders to make submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee—and New Zealand First did not even turn up. That opportunity having been given and submissions having been presented to and carefully considered by the committee National concludes that it would be unwise to reduce the number of MPs while the MMP system continues. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Labour opposes the second reading of the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill but in doing so we commend Barbara Stewart and New Zealand First for their initiative in bringing this issue to the House through the agreement that Labour has with New Zealand First. Unlike those on the other side of the House who make mean-spirited and waspish comments I think it is important in an MMP environment to accept that some of the smaller parties in the House have an absolute role in raising issues putting those issues into the political debating environment and seeing select committees do what they do very well which is to look at such issues further. 
I have been in this House somewhat longer than the previous speaker and I can remember that in the first period of MMP between 1996 and 1999—the hideous dying days of that National Government—a lot of members of the public became quite excited by the idea that a smaller Parliament would somehow deliver the goods. Labour argued against that. It was the early days of MMP. There was a referendum in 1999 on the matter but essentially the issue was never examined fully by this Parliament. Well we now have on record in this Parliament in this excellent report from the Justice and Electoral Committee—and I commend Chris Finlayson for the way he went through that report—the hard arguments against the idea that a smaller Parliament will deliver better democracy. 
New Zealand First has raised other issues such as those concerning the Treaty principles and the age of criminal responsibility and it is absolutely valid for this House to have an opportunity to look at such issues. Labour supported this legislation at the first reading because it is valid for the issue to be examined. 
I will focus on three particular arguments. The first is that the concept of MMP requires an adequate block of electorate members of Parliament and an adequate block of list members of Parliament. Under the system proposed in this bill the number of list members would start to reduce and the ability of MMP to deliver diversity in terms of adequately sized smaller-party caucuses race gender sexual orientation and so forth would be extremely limited. The concept of balance required under MMP could not be delivered under the proposal in this member’s bill. 
The second point is about the doability of in particular the function of an electorate member of Parliament. I represent one of the three key inner-city electorates which is in addition to the electorates of Auckland Central and Wellington Central. I am the Christchurch Central electorate member of Parliament and my electorate has an average population size. I am more than aware that the hours I need to work and the hours my office staff need to work to do the job adequately are already very large. In the larger geographic electorates—albeit with list MPs to help out on occasions—it is an almost impossible job to undertake in the contemporary environment and with the contemporary pressures on members of Parliament. 
Given that members of Parliament spend about 100 days a year in this House and given the other responsibilities of select committee work and to be in other parts of the country it is my view that if we tried to service very large electorates the divide the gap between the public and members of Parliament would be much larger. Certainly every school in my electorate—I think there are currently 31 of them—expects me to visit at least once a year. Each rest home expects to see me and each residents group hopes that I will go along to events. If we add all that up and look at the reality of life—and even for a moment consider the concept of work-life balance—I think that the idea of representing an electorate in this Parliament which is a role for some of us here would be impossible with larger electorates. 
Let us look in the select committee’s report at the information regarding population per member of Parliament. Again the previous speaker made reference to this. The report indicates that over the years our electorates have become quite considerably bigger in population base. The population of our country is increasing fairly fast and we are now seeing after the MMP introduction blip of 1996—when the number of members of Parliament was increased—that the number of people per member of Parliament is back to the maximum it has ever been. Under MMP even if we do not increase the number of members of Parliament the population will increase way beyond that. There are about 34000 people per MP; I am sure that by the next election that figure will be 35000 or 36000 and it will go up. So the second point I make is about the doability of the job. 
My final point is about the issue of other countries and their democracy. Again the select committee did very useful work in looking at the population per MP in a whole range of countries. It shows that smaller countries such as Iceland Estonia Slovenia and even within the European context Sweden have a low population per member of Parliament. Normally such countries combine that with not having a double layer of members of Parliament. 
Let us compare Australia with New Zealand—and we often make that comparison in different areas. A person living in Sydney New South Wales would deal with not only two levels of Federal Parliament but also two levels of state Parliament. Those four levels of Parliament are the equivalent to our parliamentary function in New Zealand. So it seems to me that if Australia suffers from over-governance in some ways maybe we in New Zealand can be accused if anything of suffering from under-governance. In my view we put a lot of pressure on politicians particularly our nationally elected politicians to carry out all functions from taking a regional—and even local—representative role on occasions right up to considering the national and international issues that we as members of Parliament have to consider. So I think that if we look to other countries we see that the size and function of our Parliament starts to make a lot of sense. 
Labour commends Barbara Stewart and New Zealand First for their initiative in bringing up this issue. I also commend the select committee for doing what I consider to be a very balanced and helpful job on this issue. But with reluctance I have to say that Labour opposes this bill continuing through the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is strongly against the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill and we are very surprised that an MMP party like New Zealand First has come forward with it. It shows the level of populism among New Zealand First members that they are willing to commit hara-kiri as an MMP party just to get temporary applause from a grumpy anti-political brigade. The opposition to the size of Parliament as it is—120 or currently 121—is from people who are grumpy about politicians and want to reduce the number of politicians and the expenditure on them but who have not really properly thought through the way to meet their objections to what happens in Parliament. People’s grumpiness with politicians is in many ways justified. It comes from the way that Labour and National Governments have performed in the past—the sell-outs in the past particularly during the 1980s and 1990s—and the fact that there does not seem to be much restraint on executive power in many cases. We can understand where that anti-politician sentiment comes from but this bill is quite the wrong way to go about addressing those concerns. It is the sort of thing that will produce the opposite effect of what it intends. 
Let us take for example people’s objections to the bad behaviour of MPs. There is a lot of concern at the moment about the way that National and Labour members trade insults across the Chamber and about the level of the noise in the Chamber. But the reality is that if the number of MPs goes down from 120 to 100 the 20 or 21 people who will get chopped off the bottom are generally the best behaved politicians. If we look through the list of the current Parliament we see that the MPs who would be chopped off it come disproportionately from the smaller parties and it is the smaller parties that are the best behaved in comparison with the two old parties. 
I think this bill is rather strange and I do not know quite where New Zealand First is coming from. New Zealand First has seven MPs. The Greens have six MPs. With six MPs and on 5.3 percent of the vote we have about 15 portfolios each. I do not know why New Zealand First wants to reduce its number of MPs which would give each of them even more portfolios and make it more difficult for them to confront the bigger parties—which have several times as many MPs as New Zealand First—policy by policy. Why does New Zealand First want to support a bill that knocks the very way that its MPs come into Parliament? 
As cited in the report back from the Justice and Electoral Committee the objections to the current system are basically to MMP as it operates. The report says: “In addition some questioned the current ability of defeated electorate candidates to enter Parliament as list members on occasion becoming ministers.” That seems to be talking about Winston Peters. He lost the Tauranga electorate came in as a list MP and is now a Minister. This bill encourages the sentiment that if one runs in an electorate—and I ran in the Epsom electorate in the last Parliament to get the Green Party vote up—and if one does not win that electorate somehow one does not deserve to come in as a list MP. That is quite the wrong concept in terms of the contribution that people can make to this House. 
Certainly as the select committee pointed out in figures in the appendices of its report Parliament would become much less representative under this measure. It has become much more representative through MMP and through having 120 or 121 members. Seventeen percent of the members of Parliament are Maori and 33 percent are women. That is a tremendous achievement of the MMP system. 
In fact select committees would not be able to function properly if we had fewer members. One of the things at the back of the minds of a lot of the people who voted for a reduction in the number of MPs was restraining the power of the executive. That is done in this Parliament to a significant extent by the select committees. Having sufficient people in Parliament to properly staff the select committees is a restraint on executive power—particularly in light of what Tim Barnett just said about us not having two Houses in New Zealand and hence having the problem that Ministers can drive through decisions very quickly. 
In terms of the cost we have to look at it proportionately. Sure it costs a few million dollars for the extra 20 or 21 MPs but we must compare that with the amount of money in the total Government budget and with the decisions it makes such as that to be made on the waterfront stadium. The figure of $700 million is being thrown around for that project which is about $400 million more than the Eden Park option and that may be decided on all of a sudden. That level of expenditure by the Government dwarfs the extra few million dollars needed to have 120 or 121 MPs. It is value for money to pay that extra money for the additional MPs because we do constrain the executive. We may even constrain the Government in the decision to be taken over the waterfront stadium proposal though the Greens have not been consulted over that decision at all and I think our Maori Party colleagues have not been consulted either. We need MMP parties in order to properly represent the total electorate and to constrain the power of the executive. 
The Green Party is certainly against this bill. We support the select committee recommendation to discharge it. We need to be proud of our MMP system and of the representation across the spectrum that the eight parties provide in all sorts of ways—in terms of gender of ethnic origin and of representing different migrant communities etc. We will not achieve that if we reduce the number of MPs and effectively undermine MMP. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The electoral system of representation in Aotearoa—in New Zealand—has since 1867 been founded on a notion of dual constituencies. The nation is divided into 62 general electorates and seven Maori electorates enabling representation of both the general population and tangata whenua in a mechanism that should work together to create a cherished national identity. With MMP the dual system is elaborated further with the potential for distinctive representation from the diverse populations of Aotearoa. 
The possibility of proportionality has been enhanced through the event of the 52 list seats. This system is one that back in 1993 Maori voted for by a much higher margin than others. What Maori understood was that authentic Maori representation could be achieved through the independent Maori voice of the Maori electorates and as well wider Maori democratic participation across Parliament could be ensured. Indeed the diverse Maori world views that emerge alongside those of the Maori Party members from list members in National Labour New Zealand First and the Green Party are a sign of the influence of Maori in the MMP environment. 
With this bill this strength would be reduced as all four of those parties mentioned would be forced to scrutinise their lists to make the call as to whether it would be their Maori MPs that were to be retained. History would tell us that they would not. Electoral reform held the great promise of increased Maori representation through the guaranteed representation of the Maori seats alongside the expectation of better representation on the list. The association of MMP with stronger representation for Maori was encouraged by the iwi stations—Maori radio stations—in 1993 which influenced listeners to think that MMP stood for “More Maori in Parliament”. They were right. The ratio of Maori MPs rose dramatically from 7.1 percent in 1993 to 17.3 percent now. So in the interests of whanaungatanga and manaakitanga there is no way that the Maori Party can support a move to reduce this level of representation. 
The question of proportionality is however relevant. The Maori Party takes great pride in the fact that as at the end of the last session we had delivered 183 speeches in this House across every political topic. Our contribution is always informed by kaupapa and tikanga Maori by our histories our traditions and our world views. But we know that the ability to present a distinctive Maori world view is not so easy when one is constrained by the apron strings of a mainstream party. As an example it has been a matter of some disappointment to us that the Government Maori members have been forced to lead a campaign of misinformation about our bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act—a bill that serves to repeal an Act that Maori throughout this land remain universally opposed to. 
This is where the importance of a strong mixed-member proportional system is most profound. We know that although the Foreshore and Seabed Bill was an act of confiscation which had and still has devastating impacts on the well-being of Maori it showed Maori that they cannot afford to put their trust in individual politicians—Maori or otherwise. The trust and confidence of our people will be respected by the philosophical positions the values that come from the diverse political parties represented in this Parliament. These are philosophies that may see value in tikanga and kaupapa Maori that value human rights and that respect due access to justice—one law for all. 
Our MMP system has inspired considerable interest from many international commentators. Therese Arseneau when a professor of political science in Halifax had some interesting comments for the House about how we evaluate the question of numbers of MPs against the outcomes of representation. She stated: “The New Zealand experience suggests caution. Effective representation is not just about number of women and Maori MPs. 
Also important is an examination of how these representatives fulfil their role to link representation to actions. While sheer numbers remain important perhaps more important is the question of where the women and Aboriginal MPs are found … and are they allowed to represent the diverse interests? In New Zealand party discipline may preclude such representation.” 
Indeed the Canadian professor may have hit the nub of the problem. As tangata whenua found out in the foreshore and seabed debacle there were some Maori MPs and worse yet some who were in Maori electorate seats who had to overlook the anguish of their constituency and vote along party lines. 
Representation and proportionality will not be found in a choice of two. Essentially party lines will always prevail. The last thing that this nation needs is a return to the bipartisan politics of first past the post where one is either red or blue and nothing in between. MMP embraces the browns the blacks the greens and the golds as part of the rich fabric of nationhood. Demographically Aotearoa is becoming more colourful more Pacific more Maori more Asian. Our Parliament must enable its members’ voices to be heard through greater representation of parties that honour diversity. 
Perhaps where this is most evident is in participation in select committees. Although Labour maintains the controlling role as chair of 11 of the 18 committees with National chairing five and New Zealand First and the Greens one each the requirement to reflect the overall proportionality means that chairmen can no longer exercise the casting vote. Although in the past it was taken for granted that the committee system could be controlled by the Government in more recent times there is more opportunity for a divided committee outcome to reflect proportionality. Smaller parties such as our own may participate in an item of business as a non-voting member thereby creating more likelihood of an environment of contestable and diverse advice. 
These were issues that the submissions to the select committee canvassed and that influenced the decision to recommend that the bill not be passed. Submitters emphasised the importance of the select committee process in providing a check on the power of the executive. 
The challenge before this Parliament is how best to achieve a representative and legitimate legislature that will truly reflect Aotearoa. The history of Parliament demonstrates that over the century various attempts at achieving an MMP dream have been enacted. We celebrate the Young Maori Party the Independent Ratana MPs Mana Motuhake and Mauri Pacific as part of that journey. There have been other movements outside that have also exerted influence. In the last years of the 19th century and the first years of the 20th century Papawai Marae near Greytown became the focus of Kotahitanga the Maori Parliament movement. There have been Mana Maori Te Tawharau Te Kauhanganui and Kohuirau. They have all served to remind Parliament of the strength of support for expressing an independent Maori voice. 
Ten years ago the Royal Commission on the Electoral System articulated that dream of MMP for Maori. Its report stated a vision that the rights of Maori would be preserved and defended in the Maori seats while the list may motivate parties to become more focused on minority issues to elevate the positions of Maori candidates on the list and to actively recruit more Maori candidates in an effort to win more votes. Ten years on we see that the momentum of Maori political representation is absolutely thriving in this Parliament. 
I leave the last word to political analyst Colin James in his article “Can the Maori Party succeed?”. I quote: “Set this challenge in the context of this society’s changing culture and colour: there are many more Maori (and Pacific people) and proportionately more of the Maori feel and act Maori. Maori culture is starting genuinely to influence ‘mainstream’ culture. A generation from now we will be much more of the Pacific not just in it.” The diversity that is the cornerstone of the MMP system is also the diversity of the emerging Aotearoa. Proportionality and representation are too important to be compromised. The Maori Party will not support this bill. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I think that the member who introduced this bill Barbara Stewart of New Zealand First overlooked a very real reality of the current political system in New Zealand. That of course is the MMP system. If we were to go back to 100 members of Parliament within an MMP system we would have some very very difficult practical problems to overcome. I think that the bill—like the leader of New Zealand First—is populist in the sense that most New Zealanders would probably say: “Yippee let’s go back to 100 members.” but we in this Parliament also have to deal with the question of practicality. When we think about it if we went back to having 100 members there would be some rather perverse outcomes. 
First of all we have a fixed quota of electorate seats for the South Island. If we bear that in mind alongside having to allow for list MPs which of course are necessary under an MMP system if we are to avoid massive overhangs in Parliament then it is very obvious if we do the sums that the size of the North Island electorates would have to increase very very significantly if we were to go back to 100 seats. I already hear complaints from people like John Hayes of the Wairarapa Anne Tolley of East Coast Bays and John Carter of Northland about the sheer geographical size of their electorates. Even in the cities electorate MPs say that they now have a vast number of people to represent. So at the electorate level this Parliament would become a lot less representative in terms of the number of people particularly in the North Island all reporting through to one electorate MP. 
The second point of course is the point Dr Pita Sharples has very very accurately outlined—that is the effect on MMP itself. That also would be jeopardised in the sense that there would be more people with fewer representatives at the electorate level. Also at the national level the number of MPs who are able to cater for MMP would be significantly reduced if we were to retain the proportionality that is at the heart of the MMP system. Simply stated the practicalities do not work out. 
We can go back to 1993 when we had 100 members of Parliament and then simply adjust the situation for the growth in the New Zealand population from then until now which has been about 18 or 19 percent. If we retained electorate representation of the same size as in 1993 before MMP we would now be up to 115 to 116 members of Parliament which is fairly close to the current 121. 
 Also although MMP ideally put forward a scenario where 50 percent of MPs would represent electorates and 50 percent would be list people we have got well away from that mix. In fact under MMP we have never had an exact 60:60 split or a 50 percent:50 percent split within the 120-member cap. As members know we currently have 69 constituency seats and 51 list seats. The problem will continue in that direction while our population increases as long as we keep the 120-member cap and if we set aside for the moment the whole question of overhang. So effectively what we will be doing is progressively working our way back towards a first-past-the-post system. That is not what New Zealanders want in their Parliament. 
Everyone I speak to about this issue including some people who were seriously opposed to the concept of MMP readily admit that we now in our current arrangements have better representation in Parliament of the diversity of views that exist in New Zealand society. There is a place now for the Maori Party United Future the Greens ACT and New Zealand First. We are not having people forced—whether or not they like it because they have no other choice—to back either of the two old parties Labour and National. Therefore it would be a major step backwards if the bill was adopted. 
I do not have a lot more to say as I think that the various points have already been well canvassed by the previous speakers. Suffice it to say that for the reasons I have outlined we will be voting to oppose the second reading of this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Amendment Bill I am really happy to stand up and speak about the experience we had during that time. I would also like to answer a couple of the points that were raised by Barbara Stewart. It saddens me just a little that Barbara Stewart is a little cynical about the process undertaken by the select committee because in fact the select committee spent some time on the bill. As Chris Finlayson mentioned earlier we heard a number of submissions and certainly I believe that the submission process was very very important. I feel that the referendum was very much a knee-jerk reaction and I think the referendum was carried out at a time when MMP was not working as well as it has been at this point in time and there was perhaps not so much public confidence in the process. 
I really would like to record my thanks to the committee because the members worked very well on this bill and I think there was a very constructive approach in listening to the arguments and considering in a very objective manner. I do note that there were a number of very good submissions and one in particular I would like to draw attention to is that of Professor Nigel Roberts who is the head of political science and international relations at Victoria University. He certainly urged caution with regard to the matter of reducing the number of MPs. He stated that simply lopping 20 MPs off the list would likely cause problems when it came to determining the outcome of the elections as the fewer the list seats available the greater the chance of an overhang. If Mrs Stewart’s bill had been in place last year Parliament would have an overhang of 2 MPs due to the Maori Party winning four electorate seats but being entitled to only two seats on its party vote. Such a Parliament would have two extra list MPs under that scenario. 
The MMP Review Committee established in 2000 considered the matter of the number of MPs in the House of Representatives and was actually divided on the matter. I am very happy that that was not the case with this select committee. After careful consideration of the bill we had a unanimous position which was that all members were opposed to the bill. I do note that as previous speakers have said Barbara Stewart did not attend to listen to submissions. That does disappoint me because had she attended I think she may well have been swayed because the submissions were very compelling about I guess just how much more representative Parliament is with the number of MPs that we currently have and if I can use the term enjoy. The committee also felt it was very important to include a number of appendices to the report one of which included the results of the public being asked whether Parliament or voters should make a final decision about law and policy. Overwhelmingly the support was that Parliament should make that decision. I think that is very appropriate. 
So that very much reiterated that the most detailed submissions were opposed to the bill; that is they were in favour of retaining the status quo with the number of MPs in this Parliament. As other speakers have said we have a system of only one House and the select committee process is very very important. I think it would be fair to say that a number of members of Parliament and parties are finding it quite difficult to ensure that members are able to attend select committees so that we have that representation there. If we were to reduce the number of members of Parliament then that proportionality would be affected. It would be affected in terms of parties and their abilities to represent their constituencies. By their constituencies we do not necessarily mean electorate seats; we also mean constituencies comprising the people who have voted albeit for minor parties. Those minor parties must have representation to ensure that the voices of the people who voted for them are heard in Parliament. So certainly there would be a real disadvantage there. 
There would also be a tremendous disadvantage in terms of the number of minorities in Parliament and the number of women members. Without bringing personalities and specific members of the committee into it I was a bit concerned when Barbara Stewart talked about naked self-interest because the majority of the members were list members of Parliament. I can attest that I was the only member who was in fact an electorate MP. But from all parties as I said before there was a real commitment to consider the bill. I do think that Parliament would be much the worse off without minor parties being able to represent those views that are indeed part of our population even if I do not agree with a number of those views. 
I also think in terms of women MPs. If we look at the number of MPs we see 32 percent represented in Parliament today. But I consider that if we did not have the proportionality with list MPs that number of women MPs would be considerably diminished. I feel that would be very much a loss not only to women voters but to our democracy generally. I look to my left and I see my very good friend Sue Moroney sitting here today. I know that if it were not for our system Sue Moroney would not be here. She was one of the new intake and a reduced number of MPs would not see the contribution that Sue makes in this House today. That can be said of a number of minor parties. I do not want to be nasty about it at all but I could compare the contribution that Sue Moroney and other hard-working list MPs make with the contribution made by “Bob the Builder” from the National Party. There could be considerable debate about who contributes the most meaningful speeches and the better representation and I will leave that to the Parliament to decide. 
However I am very pleased to say on behalf of the Justice and Electoral Committee that we considered all points of view and we reached a unanimous decision. I believe that that decision was very much not in the self-interest of those members but in the interests of New Zealand’s democracy. Something that all New Zealanders should and do hold very dear is the ability to ensure that there is representation of all groups in Parliament and I know that that will grow. I also know that we compared our system with a number of other democracies and on a population base we are not overrepresented in numbers of MPs. In fact we have considerably fewer numbers when one takes into account that many democracies have both an upper and a lower House. 
I am sure that Mrs Stewart had the best of intentions when bringing this bill to the House. I have worked constructively with her on a number of other issues and I look forward to doing that in the future but sadly on this occasion we are opposed to her bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Following on from the speech made by my colleague Lynne Pillay I get to make a contribution to this debate and as she rightly pointed out I do so because we have 121 MPs in this House. I come to this House to make a contribution having represented the most respected profession in this country—a fact seen if we look at the surveys that occur from time to time when New Zealanders get to have a say on which professions they most respect and which they least respect. It is a strange phenomenon for me to represent nurses one day as one of the most respected professions—nurses come in either first or second in every single survey—then the very next day to become part of one of the least respected professions that of a member of Parliament. I ask myself how I can go from being involved with the most respected profession one day to being part of the least respected profession the next day when nothing about me has changed—my principles are exactly the same and the things I would argue for are exactly the same. I am essentially the same person yet potentially the New Zealand public would judge me quite differently from one day to the next. 
I raise that issue because I want to put into context a little what happens for people when they answer such surveys some of the prejudices and biases they bring into that and perhaps some of the prejudices and biases they also bring to bear when they sign petitions. I can well imagine that some of the people who sign a petition answer a survey or respond to a question about how they rate members of Parliament and whether they want to see their numbers reduced may well quite happily say they would support having not one member of Parliament in the debating chamber—such is their view and their cynicism about members of Parliament. But I think that that is a superficial view and that is why I was pleased to see that the select committee had had an opportunity to address this issue in some depth because it is a question that needs to be looked at in an unbiased manner in looking at all the facts and figures and at what happens overseas. 
When thinking about what does happen overseas it occurred to me—and I imagine this happens for most members of Parliament if they get the opportunity to travel overseas—that one of the things that happens quite frequently is that other members of Parliament and people from other countries say to us what a wonderful country we have and what a wonderful system of Government we have. Certainly MMP and the diversity it brings with it is well respected internationally and it lends something to this country that I think would be very sad for us if it were missing—that is the diversity that our ability to have 120 MPs gives us. 
In particular it is an issue close to my heart that a reduction in the number of MPs in this House sadly would lead to a reduction in the number of women members of Parliament a reduction in the number of Maori members of Parliament and a reduction in the diversity we bring to debates in this House. I do not think that that is good for democracy so I am pleased to see the outcome from the select committee on this matter. 
Labour is not supporting the bill to go through a further reading but there has been a good debate and a good discussion has been generated. I thank Barbara Stewart for bringing forward the opportunity for this issue to be considered and I thank the select committee for its deliberations. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I commence by making one or two comments about the acerbic remarks of Chris Finlayson. I actually thought more highly of that member than that. I believed that he had shown himself to be somebody who was very capable of focusing upon the issues and when he lowered himself by making those personal attacks he dropped slightly in my estimation. But Lynne Pillay also made a remark that was very close to a breach of the Standing Orders in terms of talking about the non-attendance of members at select committees. I wanted to raise a point of order at the time but I thought we were not in that sort of debate. However I hope that the people in the Chair will reflect upon that in the future as it is a breach of the Standing Orders and maybe new members like Chris can make sure that they are up to date with the Standing Orders. 
I want to make a contradictory statement that I need to explain to people. It is that I do not believe that reducing the number of MPs in this House would be a positive move in terms of the operation of our Parliament yet I am more than happy to vote for this bill. I would like to explain that seeming contradiction. First I have a strong belief in the role of our select committees in this Parliament. I believe that MMP has really strengthened the role of select committees and certainly over the last three Parliaments if I have been able to make a major contribution it has been through the select committees. I see members in this House who have operated on select committees with me and who have made very very positive contributions even though they have been in Opposition roles. I believe it is at select committees that participatory democracy really takes place. 
I often give the case of a person who came along and delivered all of his presentation by reading from Braille as he was totally blind. I believe that Nanaia Mahuta might have been there that night. He completely convinced the select committee and the officials that he was right and that the legislation as it had been drawn up was wrong. As a result the necessary changes were made to it. I thought that if one person could come along and make that sort of impact then we do have the elements of positive participatory democracy operating through our select committees. 
I have seen select committees massacre legislation and Ministers then come back and thank committee members very much for doing that because the Ministers have believed the legislation was better after that process. I note that on most of our select committees the Government does not have a majority. However I believe that the role of our select committees would not be able to be fulfilled anywhere nearly as satisfactorily as it is not only in terms of the scrutiny of legislation but also in terms of the reviews that are done—the financial reviews and the accountability of Government departments—if there were to be a reduction in the number of MPs. 
Members may therefore ask why I am happy to vote for this bill. It is because I also believe very very strongly that we need to learn how to listen to the voice of the people. The people voted resoundingly for a reduction in the number of MPs. In 2004 I went to Switzerland on a study tour and I looked particularly at the use of binding referenda in that country. It really is quite amazing that at all levels the Swiss either have the capacity to take legislation to binding referenda or they are required by the constitution to do so. For example any constitutional changes have to go to a referendum. Any legislation can be put to a referendum with I think 100000 signatures out of the country’s population of 7 million. People can actually put up legislation for debate with 50000 signatures in place and even down at the level of the village—the village where I was had only 1000 people—the Government could not commit over SwFr100000 of capital expenditure without getting the agreement of the people. One would think that was a very clumsy system; in fact it operates extremely well for the Swiss. 
I will give an example of how the Swiss system operates. In May of the year I was there there was a referendum on a proposal by the Government to reduce taxes and the people rejected it. They could see that the consequences in terms of the expenditure of the Government would have been negative so essentially they told the Government to take it back again. I refer to just one thing. I met up with a former Speaker of the House who had been the mayor of the city of Vevey where the Alinghi boats were built. He said to me—and he did not have particularly good English so I had to sort of interpret—that the people are very clever. When I teased out what he meant I found he was saying that if we give people all the information upon which to make a decision they will get it right. He said that time after time the people of Switzerland at the national level at the federal level and also at the cantonal level etc. get decisions right. I came away believing very strongly that as a nation we need to mature as a democracy. I do not believe that we are ready tomorrow to move as far as the people of Switzerland have moved. In order to do that we need to find mechanisms that will allow the voices of the people to be heard. As Barbara Stewart pointed out New Zealand First believes that issues involving conscience votes should in fact go to referenda so that the people can make those final decisions. 
I am not convinced entirely by Lynne Pillay’s argument that it would have been terrible to have had an overhang of two MPs instead of an overhang of one MP. Instead of 101 MPs we would have had 102 so if that is a strong argument to vote against this bill I am not convinced by it. I note that of the 43 submissions 29 supported the bill and only 12 opposed it. 
I also have to mention something else which is that in the first two MMP elections—and I have not seen research done on this issue since then—proportionality could have been achieved with 100 MPs. So the proportionality argument is not necessarily a strong one in that case. I think the case for having representatives of the different groups is probably a much stronger argument. 
I am a little disappointed that the Justice and Electoral Committee has come back with this—not with the report but with the suggestion that the bill should be thrown out. That select committee was made up of three Labour members three National members and one Green member and I wonder whether that is really reflective of the composition of this House. 
I resigned my ministerial warrant back in 1998 over a very important issue that goes to the heart of what we are debating here tonight. At that time and over previous Parliaments a lot of MPs had been jumping parties—waka-hopping. Some of those had come from New Zealand First but it had been happening before then—members should not worry; it had been happening long before then. Over here and over there members were party-hopping. What was happening as a result was that people were actually starting to lose their faith in the democratic process and once people lose their faith in the democratic process then democracy itself is imperilled. I believed I had been voted in as a New Zealand First MP and therefore I had a responsibility to those people to resign my ministerial warrant. 
I thought that that would be the end of my days in Parliament but I still believe that making that decision has been my most important contribution to this Parliament. When I thought back on history I thought to myself that the people of Germany in the late 1920s had lost their faith in the Weimar Republic. They lost their faith in their democracy and that allowed—in fact that created—the conditions for the rise of the Third Reich. I do not believe that the same sort of thing as that will occur here. Nevertheless I think we should protect our democracy. 
In conclusion I say that I believe the result of the bill being put up and going to the select committee and of the submissions on it being heard and explained demonstrates the toothless nature of our present referendum system. We have a condition that 250000 people have to sign a petition in order to get it into the referendum process. But when 90 percent of the people say yes to the petition yet it is thrown out in fact by 121 people—or even by 7 people it could be said—it shows that the system lacks teeth. We need to reconsider the whole referendum process. If I go back to the Swiss thing—and this is where I think we have a weakness—I can tell members that the Swiss ensure that the voting public actually has all the facts at hand. People have the details and they can make decisions. They talk in their coffee bars etc. and they can make decisions around real information. I believe that many of the referenda we have in this country are emotive and do not provide people with a good balanced set of information. Consequently when we get them into Parliament and before a select committee we get a different result from the initial one which can only lead to a lack of confidence. Therefore there is a sense of disappointment in but I guess that in some respects there is also a sense of understanding of where things are going with regard to this particular bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I put the question I feel that I should apologise as the member did raise the point that I should really have drawn it to the House’s attention that under Speakers’ rulings one cannot refer to the absence of a member from a select committee. I do apologise to the member and the House for not pointing that out. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Reduction in Number of Members of Parliament) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 9 
New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under Standing Order 117(2) National will be sharing some of our calls. On call 2 National will take one 10-minute call on call 4 National will take two 5-minute calls and on call 11 National will take two 5-minute calls. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. That is helpful and perhaps whips can advise me if they are splitting their party’s calls too. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First of all I acknowledge and pay tribute to the Hon Matt Robson who was the original sponsor of this bill. Even though he is not in Parliament at the moment he has continued to take a very keen interest in the bill’s progress and I wish to acknowledge also his ongoing assistance and advice. 
I acknowledge also the splendid work of the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee Ron Mark and all members of that select committee. Notwithstanding their individual views they have conscientiously listened to the nearly 200 submissions and have returned this bill in a workable form. I thank and pay tribute to each individual member of that select committee for the very professional job they did. I acknowledge that there were differences and members will hear tonight from members of that select committee. 
Most of all however I pay tribute to the many many New Zealanders who are working in the field to try to minimise the devastating consequences of harmful and inappropriate consumption of alcohol amongst our young. I wish to deal in further detail with regard to the submissions made to the select committee by these groups. I also wish to reiterate the fact that their considered submissions definitely do not represent a knee-jerk reaction to a problem as argued by some who oppose this particular bill. 
I am aware also that many members have apparently not made up their minds on this issue and I am aware that there are members of this House who wish to consider fully some amendments to this bill including the split age of purchase of alcohol in terms of on-licence and off-licence premises. To state the obvious in order to do that members must clearly support the second reading of this bill so that we can discuss it line by line and clause by clause in the Committee of the whole House. 
More important even than that is this simple reason: poll after poll from a variety of organisations is recording anything from 65 percent to at least 71 percent public support for this bill. It is my view that the Parliament of this country should at least consider in depth this bill on a clause by clause basis along with the recommendations reported back from the select committee. As previously mentioned this can be done only during the Committee of the whole House to ensure this happens. On that basis and indeed for some members on that basis alone I urge members to support the next reading of this bill. I note that many members will have not had the opportunity yet—particularly of course those who did not sit on the Law and Order Committee—to read some very well-thought-out and researched submissions albeit I acknowledge the very good summary report produced by the select committee. 
In 1999 this Parliament voted to lower the age of purchase of liquor from 20 to 18. While I personally did not support this at the time and indeed I was not even a member of the House at that particular time I do not question the sincerity of many members who were genuinely convinced by the promise of a new drinking culture and also were promised that there would be a rigorous enforcement of the new age of purchase in terms of lowering the age of purchase from 20 to 18. 
The unfortunate reality however is that lowering the alcohol purchasing age combined with the other rules affecting liquor retailing in our society has meant that the negative outcome predicted by opponents of that 1999 bill has come to sad fruition. The evidence from around the country is an indictment of the fact that the legislation lowering the age of purchase has clearly not worked and has been very detrimental in our country. Professor Langley of Otago University and a team of international researchers concluded that there were significantly more alcohol-involved crashes among 15 to 19-year-olds than would have occurred had the purchase age not been reduced to age 18. 
There were some very positive submissions but one of the most thought-provoking researched and concise submissions came from Professor John Langley director of the injury prevention research unit Department of Preventive and Social Medicine Dunedin School of Medicine University of Otago and his team. As members will be aware they were engaged in an exercise for the  
American Journal of Public Health 
 and indeed I want to express my gratitude for the comprehensiveness of their research and also their submissions to the select committee. They concluded that lowering the purchase age has had large trickle-down negative health effects for 15 to 17-year-olds. Their research estimates that if the purchase age were returned to 20 years an annual saving of over 400 injury hospitalisations and 12 fatalities among 15 to 19-year-olds from road traffic crashes alone could be expected. I am very grateful for the comprehensive evidence that they presented. 
In terms of the significant problem of off-licence sales to under 18-year-olds I certainly note—indeed I think my Waikato colleagues do—the sting operation in Hamilton last year that found nearly 70 percent of licensed premises in the city sold alcohol to underage people during the weekend operation. Police and Hamilton council staff sent two volunteers aged 16 and 17 into 32 licensed premises during Operation Scramble and they successfully bought alcohol in 22 of the licensed premises. Sting operations in Opotiki Dunedin Taupo Hutt Valley and more recently I believe even in Te Awamutu near my town and elsewhere have found similar findings. 
Speaking very personally I think as a society we want to teach our 15 16 and 17-year-olds how to drink alcohol in a happy social and safe setting if that is their choice and their families’ choice. Let me acknowledge right now that there are a number of families in this country who very clearly make a very conscious choice not to consume alcohol full stop. Having a beer with dad or wine with mum—or the other way around—at the dinner table is a great way to learn about alcohol and maybe to bring around drink cultural change. 
However the lowering of the purchasing age of alcohol has had a large trickle-down negative health effect for our 14 to 17-year-olds by them either directly buying or getting supply via their 18-year-old mates from alcohol purchased at the local licensed dairy supermarket or wherever. Indeed when in 1999 Parliament voted by a narrow margin to lower the minimum age for the purchasing of alcohol to 18 the New Zealand Drug Foundation the Ministry of Health the Alcohol Advisory Council and other public health organisations opposed at the time the lowering of the drinking age. It is my best understanding certainly in terms of the submissions that were read to the select committee that the views of those organisations have not changed since then. 
Indeed as previously noted by the Hon Matt Robson in his first reading of the bill in 2005 police have strongly stated: “Alcohol is increasingly available in today’s New Zealand. As well as the 1999 lowering of the minimum legal age for purchasing alcohol which has legally allowed a whole new group of 18 to 19-year-olds to buy liquor and to drink on licensed premises there have never been as many places where you can get hold of alcohol as there are today. As the policing task has got bigger and bigger more and more pressure is placed on already stretched resources.” I note the New Zealand Police Association survey of front-line officers. If members have one reason and one reason alone to give this bill a second reading and to discuss it in great depth at the Committee of the whole House please listen to front-line police officers in our country the majority of whom favoured raising the age of purchase from 18 to 20. 
 I also acknowledge in terms of Dr Mapp and Gordon Copeland’s proposed amendments that they were more split on the issue of off-licensed premises and on-licensed premises. But for that reason and for that reason alone I ask my colleagues and members of this House to please please send this bill to the Committee of the whole House so that we can look at some of those issues in depth. Indeed there is much talk about 18 being the magic age for example and I have heard this statement: “If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to drink.” I think that statement is seriously flawed and I suspect that Ron Mark as the acting chair of the Law and Order Committee and a former professional soldier will clearly state why when he speaks later in the debate. There are plenty of examples where graduated ages of entitlement apply. The graduated driver’s licence is a good example as is the lower permissible breath-alcohol level and blood-alcohol level for all drivers aged under 20. I do not think that anyone would see 18 as being the magic age. 
Finally I pay a final tribute to the submitters to this bill particularly to the Students Against Drunk Driving Alcohol Healthwatch and the New Zealand Drug and Alcohol Foundation. I would urge those members who have not read some of those submissions to read them. Those submitters have made a very excellent contribution. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill and I begin by thanking Martin Gallagher and Ron Mark as the chairperson and acting chairperson respectively of the Law and Order Committee. I thank in particular not only my fellow members of the select committee but also the officials who worked with the committee. Despite the appearance of the bill this eight-page bill is extremely complex legislation and the officials who spent many hours toiling over how its provisions would fit with the principal Act deserve the praise of this Parliament. It was and it remains a very complex and difficult matter that this bill seeks to address. But I am of the view that Parliament must pass workable and clear law—law that will not complicate the enforcement of issues such as those currently being debated. 
Let me state clearly that no one wants to see young people—or to see anyone for that matter—being harmed by alcohol. The question for this Parliament tonight is whether this bill in its current form can fix any problem of that nature. We did as a committee make the decision to progress the bill in a way that would give Parliament the opportunity to vote on the alcohol issue as if the bill was drafted in a way that raised the legal age to 20. However the bill is still very badly flawed and it represents in my view very poor law. 
This law will badly confuse the current law on the purchase of alcohol. It is important when members consider their vote on this matter that they remember this bill does nothing in terms of the supply of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol but relates only to the purchase age and to nothing else. I welcome the opportunity provided by the Government’s announcement today that it is to look at the supply and sale of liquor to those under 18—and I see that Minister O’Connor is in the House. I have already told him this privately but I will now say publicly that I think that announcement will be helpful to this debate. 
The select committee has gone to some lengths in its commentary on the bill to explain the submissions it received. I know that this seems odd but I will say it anyway. If members have not read the commentary on the bill they should do so before they cast their vote tonight. One of the pieces of evidence that has stuck in my mind throughout the nearly 12-month period during which this bill was before the select committee was the submission from the New Zealand Police. The police gave evidence to the committee that for 18 to 20-year-old alleged offenders in nearly 52 percent of the cases where an alcohol-related offence was committed the last drink the alleged offender took had been taken at home. 
So why then will I be voting against this legislation? Well this legislation creates bad law in four or five key areas and I will spend some time going through those now. When the committee was forced to try to make the law work it had to introduce the frankly ludicrous legal concept of an exemption for those accompanied by a former guardian—not a present guardian but a former guardian. That imposes a most bizarre set of circumstances not only on those serving alcohol—or on parents—but also on those attempting to enforce such a provision. The committee recommended a new clause to allow minors to drink alcohol in on-licensed premises when accompanied by a former guardian. That creates a huge amount of difficulty when an individual in such an establishment is put in the position of having to identify the legal status of an individual who is accompanying a minor. 
More to the point the committee was forced into the position of having to create a further exemption relating to spouses or civil union partners—in other words for an 18-year-old who enters on-licensed premises with his or her 20-year-old civil union partner or spouse. How could any 18-year-old who is married to somebody aged 20 or over or who is in a civil union relationship with such a person obtain access to alcohol in on-licensed premises without proof of such a marriage de facto relationship or civil union registration? We can imagine the predicament that that would put the New Zealand Police into when trying to enforce these matters. 
Further the committee was forced to deal with the issue of how to address matters relating to people between the ages of 18 and 20 who are employed in on-licensed premises. We had the ludicrous position where a person in that age group was able to carry a tray with beer and wine on it together with a meal to an individual in on-licensed premises but he or she could not drink alcohol. Once the pub had closed for the night that employee could not drink alcohol. That would create all sorts of difficulties for those seeking to enforce those provisions. 
But the situation became even stranger when the committee was put in the position where initially the bill actually made it unlawful to provide alcohol to somebody under the age of 20 at appropriately supervised gatherings that were private social functions. I cannot conceive of circumstances where Matt Robson would have seriously wanted to legislate against that environment. In an environment where under-20-year-olds were under the supervision of a neighbour or others and when their parents or guardians—not former guardians at that point—were present then this legislation would not allow alcohol to be served or supplied in that situation. So the initial bill actually confused the concepts of supply and purchase and we had to work hard as a committee in order to overcome that issue. 
It is trite to say that at age 18 people in New Zealand acquire the ability to undertake certain tasks such as to vote serve in the military get married purchase tobacco purchase age-restricted publications enter a credit contract and—bizarrely in the circumstances of this legislation—hold a firearms licence. Yet the original intent of this bill was to prevent people under the age of 20 from purchasing a beer. 
 I go back to what I said earlier. I welcome the Government’s initiative in this area. Frankly more work needs to be done in respect of the number of liquor licences that are presently available in the market. That very important issue needs further consideration. But I draw members’ attention back to my first comment which is the main reason I will be opposing the legislation. Parliament must pass workable and clear law that provides the authorities with the ability to enforce it unambiguously. No one wants to see young people being harmed by alcohol or by any other matter but this bill is badly flawed is inconsistent requires peculiar legal definition and will make life more difficult. It will be harder for the police to enforce the law if this legislation is passed than if it is not passed. The harm that some say is caused by the current situation—and I do not deny that at all—will not be remedied by legislation that makes enforcement more difficult for the police and for that reason I oppose this legislation. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging the work of the Law and Order Committee. I acknowledge Martin Gallagher for bringing the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill to the select committee Ron Mark as chair of the committee and the members of the committee for attempting to deal with a very very difficult issue. Those members have put their very best efforts into this bill. 
The issue of alcohol-related harm is a major problem for New Zealand. It is not a new problem; it is one we have confronted for many many years. It is calculated that the impact of this problem on our economy is $4 billion a year including $655 million for the public health sector and $240 million in crime and related costs. I could go on and on. These are harms for our country and for our economy but they are not harms caused by just people who are 18 and 19 years of age. Although I acknowledge the efforts of the member in introducing the bill into the House and those of his predecessor the Hon Matt Robson I say that the Government in trying to reduce the harms as it has a responsibility to do has to make sure as the previous speaker said that we end up with law that is workable logical and truly effective. 
The submissions on the bill truly reflected the public sentiment. We are told that 80 percent—or thereabouts—of the country would like to see the purchase age for alcohol increased. I say that 80 percent of the country want to see the harm from alcohol reduced. That would be perhaps a better reflection of public opinion. People see this bill as an opportunity to do that but there are some dangers in supporting a bill such as this one. In spite of the select committee’s very careful consideration the bill like the two others that have come before the House in recent times is a rather ad hoc approach to what is a very very complex problem. 
The last two bills that this Parliament passed in an attempt to reduce harm came before the House in 1999 and 2004. In 1999 we lowered the drinking age—a measure I opposed at that time—and allowed the sale of beer and wine in supermarkets which is something that many people may regret at this point. Then in 2004 we changed that legislation in order to allow controlled-purchase operations to run smoothly—a good amendment that allows us to identify people who are currently not abiding by the existing legislation. 
This Government is absolutely committed to reducing harm from alcohol; there are many initiatives and much work has been done—there is a huge commitment to doing that. One of our goals under the Health Strategy is to minimise the harm caused by alcohol and illicit and other drug use both to individuals and to the community. We have a national alcohol strategy that is aimed at minimising the alcohol-related harm caused to individuals and families. But we have a problem in this country and the problem is that too many people binge drink and too many people accept the culture of binge drinking. In fact the latest survey which was conducted fewer than 2 years ago by the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC) identified that 450000 of us were binge drinking on our last drinking occasion. Some people might think that that figure is ridiculous but those are the cold hard facts. Those people were not 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds; they were grandparents parents uncles aunties—they were not just the children of those individuals. 
We have a moral responsibility as a Government and as a Parliament across all parties to reduce the harm from alcohol. The vast majority of New Zealanders enjoy drinking alcohol. But for too many people drinking alcohol becomes a problem and we have treatment for them. Other people—450000 on their last drinking occasion—go out with a determination to get drunk. Those are the problems we are dealing with here. In spite of the best attempts of the select committee the bill as reported back is based on one assumption and that is that the purchase age for alcohol will be raised to 20 years. The problem is that all the other clauses in the bill are based in my view on the faulty assumption that indeed the purchase age will be raised. 
If we keep the purchase age at 18 years of age we must do ongoing work. Today the Government announced that we will review some of the sale and supply issues around alcohol and minors—those under the age of 18 years. It is essential that we do that. If we thought that making something illegal might stop the utilisation of it then we would wonder why young people use marijuana. That drug is illegal regardless of age yet we still have as we know wide utilisation of marijuana across this country with effects we are yet to fully determine in my view. The idea of shifting the purchase age from 18 to 20 and hoping we will see a change in culture in this country is in my view rather ambitious hopeful and destined to fail. We have to do everything we can to change the culture here. 
If people think the non-passage of this bill will leave us in a vacuum it is important to remind those people of work that is under way. I would like to flag that ALAC has a social marketing campaign that says to each and every New Zealander that the binge drinking culture we have in this country is the responsibility of each and every one of us—as grandparents as parents as friends and as peers. The programme ALAC is working through is raising awareness of that fact. The programme is no silver bullet and it will not turn round overnight opinion on and the culture of drinking but we are committed to the programme and we will continue it. 
We have controlled-purchase operations and we will enhance them. People who sell alcohol to people under 18 or to people who are intoxicated are currently conducting an illegal activity and will be prosecuted—and they should be prosecuted. It is no good shifting the purchase age up to 20 if we will still get the same level of non-compliance across the board. 
I acknowledge that the bill as originally placed before the House had reference to the advertising of alcohol. I acknowledge the consideration by the select committee of splitting off that part of the bill and wait until we have completed a review of alcohol advertising due in the middle of next year. Hopefully that review will truly identify whether alcohol advertising influences the way young people and older people drink in this country and whether changes are needed. We have within the industry the Hospitality Association with its host responsibility initiatives. The members of that association know full well that if they do not address the issue of alcohol harm then ultimately this Parliament will pass draconian law that will impact severely on their commercial operations. We in this House should lay down the challenge to the industry that unless it fully cooperates and does everything possible within its powers to reduce binge drinking to reduce unacceptable levels of intoxication and to improve the culture of drinking in this country then ultimately Parliament will deliver a change in law to it. 
I think this bill as reported back cannot be truly effected because there are too many exceptions. There are too many contradictions in the clauses put back before the House. In spite of the best attempts of this House through amendments that members may put up in my view we need a full considered review of the Sale of Liquor Act that addresses the issue of supply and sale to minors. We must warn people that if they continue to flout the laws currently in place then they will be prosecuted. Binge drinking and alcohol harm in this country are an issue and a concern for each and every New Zealander. We have a responsibility as a Parliament to put into place sensible laws that the vast majority of New Zealanders will comply with and abide by. We have to change the binge drinking culture in this country that encourages and condones the behaviour of too many young people in this country. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I say to the Minister Damien O’Connor that this is another committee another review and I predict another failure. I do not doubt that members across Parliament are concerned about under-age drinking—drinking by those aged 14 15 16 and 17—but in truth another committee will not solve the problem. When the Government puts out a press release on the eve of this debate I believe that it is misleading the public and I would say—for those members of Parliament who are thinking about that option—misleading members of this Parliament. 
In truth to change the culture we have to change the law. We have seen that in many other areas of our lives: changing the law changes the culture and our acceptance of the way people behave. That is why I have proposed an amendment that I believe will make a difference. But to consider that amendment members will have to vote for the second reading tonight because that is a matter for the Committee stage. So if members want to make a sensible change to the law they should vote for the second reading tonight. 
In 1999 I was on the select committee that considered the legislation and the whole discussion in Parliament and at the select committee revolved around drinking in bars and restaurants. I remember lots of discussion about civilised drinking in bars and restaurants and how having that would change the culture. In part that aspect has actually been successful. Virtually every person one talks to—police officers the public at large and indeed publicans—will say that in fundamental truth there is no real problem in bars and restaurants. So I propose that we leave the age at 18 for that situation because it is regulated controlled and in fact quite well policed. The 18-plus card has been reasonably effective in keeping out under-age drinkers—not obviously in all cases but in most cases. That is not where the problem is. 
I have to say that in 1999 the select committee did not properly consider the issue of off-licence places—liquor stores and supermarkets. We were warned by submitters back then that reducing the age to 18 would lead to an increase in drinking by those aged 14 15 16 17 and 18. By and large we discounted that warning but we were in fact wrong to do so. We all know as a matter of common sense—and I believe that the Minister Damien O’Connor also knows—that there has been an increase in binge drinking by that age group. There is a simple reason when we think about it. Eighteen-year-olds are frequently in school. Their friends are frequently 16 and 17-year-olds. Yes they might drink at home but that is often because they have bought alcohol themselves in liquor stores and supermarkets. Where do people most frequently have their parties? At home. So the argument that drinking is all being done at home is simply not appropriate. 
Reducing the off-licence age to 18 has caused problems and those problems were in fact predicted. Tonight we have the chance to fix that particular problem which is the principal source of the issues the public is concerned about. The way to do that is to increase the age from 18 to 20. It is not difficult to enforce. Everyone knows what an off-licence is. Everyone knows what an on-licence is. By and large those terms are fixed. The public have given us a clear verdict on this matter. They want a sensible solution. Front-line police want a sensible solution. The injury prevention unit at Otago University has stated that the rate of injuries sustained by young drivers has not declined to the same extent as that of all other drivers. Why? Because of alcohol. 
Tonight members have a clear choice. If they want to take a serious approach to fixing this problem they will vote for the Law and Order Committee’s report. If they want another committee another review or another do-nothing approach then they will support this Government’s review—but to do that would be wrong. I tell members to take a common-sense approach and to vote to support the bill going further. Then they can have a solution which will make the age 18 for on-licences and 20 for off-licences. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak in respect of this bill having spent about 11 months on the Law and Order Committee and listened to the submissions to it. The point I make is that I believe that this bill should proceed through the House tonight so I will be voting for it. I believe that the public want us to debate seriously the amendments that have been offered by Dr Mapp in respect of the split age and to consider fully whether that age should go up or stay exactly where it is. 
My history in respect of dealing with young people who are the worse for alcohol goes back a long way and it is not surprising I suppose that I take a conservative approach. I will be supporting Dr Mapp’s bill to split the age and the reason is fairly simple. Eighteen-year-olds who are drinking in hotels are drinking in an environment where they are supervised not only by the bar staff the people on the door and the licensee in the background who runs the risk of losing his or her licence—and therefore income—if he or she stuffs it up but also by the other patrons drinking within the hotel. My experience is that there is actually very little problem with 18-year-olds drinking in hotels. They tend to remain sober—although some of them do not and they get turfed out or are taken home. Frequently a courtesy coach is available. If little scraps and scuffles do start they are not as dangerous do not last as long and settle down pretty quickly. 
If we then look at young people who drink in unsupervised areas we find that they tend to drink with people who are younger than themselves. They drink in public or private places. They tend to get trashed quicker. They drink less reasonably—hoses on the end of funnels boat races and all the rest of those things that some people may have considered fun in the old days but that have led to a hell of a lot of misery over time. No one is watching and no one is making sure that people are drinking safely. I guess my experience is that I have seen too many pissed young people raped young people assaulted young people drunk young people who fall off things and hurt themselves and young people who start fights that lead to more serious events. 
The comment we keep hearing time and time again is that this bill will not work. Quite honestly I ask which single bill or which single piece of legislation actually works 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of participants in the community. The Minister of Corrections referred to the consumption of marijuana. Well we have a law against smoking cannabis. Does it work? Some would say no. Does it dissuade some people from smoking cannabis? Yes it probably does but other strategies such as education about the health risks and the future risks work as much as the criminality involved in getting caught smoking cannabis. What a surprise; that is exactly what will happen with this bill. 
If this legislation passes and the drinking age is put up from 18 or if Mr Mapp’s amendment goes through and people who are 18 can drink in hotels and people who are purchasing from off-licences have to wait until they are 20 will that solve all the problems? No it will not. I wonder whether each member of this House can imagine themselves in the glare and the spotlight of public scrutiny when someone shoves a microphone in front of his or her mouth and asks: “Would you vote for something that would solve 10 percent of the problem or 20 percent of the problem?”. If we accept that this legislation is not a one-hit wonder—that in actual fact to change the drinking culture in New Zealand we have to take a number of different initiatives and this is just one—then I challenge that member to say into that microphone under that glare of public scrutiny: “No stuff ya. I won’t pass legislation that will fix even 10 percent of this problem.” 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak in two capacities not only as a New Zealand First spokesman but also as the chairman of the Law and Order Committee that heard the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. Firstly I sincerely congratulate the select committee on the work the members did on this bill. The bill has been about a year in gestation and has presented us all with challenges. It was a privilege to chair a committee where people managed despite their personal views on this legislation and what it intended to do to put those views to one side and to try their level best to agree to produce workable legislation that if enacted would be able to be implemented—because there were many consequential changes to other legislation that had to be considered—and to produce a quality report. 
I also congratulate and thank sincerely the officials from the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Health and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who worked with the select committee. I say to Matt Robson if he is listening that this is his work. He started this bill from here and I hope that he gets the result he is seeking. 
I also want to correct a mistake that I made last night. It is not quite in line with this bill but it is in line with the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill which was reported back by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and was debated last night. I express my apology to Tariana Turia for incorrectly representing her views. In fact the Minister of Corrections who stood and blocked the “goon squad” inquiry was Matt Robson when he was the Minister of Corrections. I sincerely apologise for that; I got that one wrong. 
But what we have not got wrong is the way in which we have handled this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. The bill has posed a number of challenges to the select committee and at the end of the day we come to the point where we ask what we do with this bill from this point on. My plea to the House tonight is for members to vote for the second reading allow this bill to go before the Committee of the whole House and allow it to be debated in full part by part and clause by clause. In that way the issues highlighted by Mr Power—who has made no secret of his intention to vote against this bill since the day it first arrived in Parliament—may be teased out and debated so that the bill where appropriate may be amended. 
We did not recommend as a select committee the split-age option but we went out of our way to highlight the issues brought before us and to offer some guidance to any other member of Parliament who might see that as a compromise position to take. I note with respect the Supplementary Order Papers from Dr Wayne Mapp and Gordon Copeland and their intention to take up further discussion of the split-age option. 
For me there are a couple of issues that stand out clearly. [ 
Interruption 
] I hope I am not interrupting these people on my right by my speaking. If members are opposed to this bill the chances are that they oppose it on the basis that people who are 18 years of age and who have the right to vote the right to get married and the right to fight and die in a world war for their country should have the right to have a beer. It is a good argument and we need to discuss that more. We need to discuss it more in the Committee stage because evidence was produced that the research oft touted by people does not stack up. 
For example many young people have said to me: “I have the right to go and fight and die for my country.” but when I asked them: “Well the Army is short of people right now so if I vote to keep the drinking age at 18 will you join the Army tomorrow and go to Afghanistan?” I could not see them for a shower of small stones and pebbles as they disappeared off into the distance. They do not want to join the Army. They do not want to join the Air Force. They leave it to some little boy from Ruatoria to do that or to some little boy from way down south—from Twizel or somewhere like that. 
Those educated young people who came before the select committee like the Young Nats are the very last people in my humble experience to put their money where their mouth is and sign up for the Army. [ 
Interruption 
] I said “like the Young Nats”; I did not say they were the only ones. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The interjection is a barrage and is just too much. Only a reasonable level of interjection is acceptable. 
RON MARK 
: I take that back—it is not just Young Nats who will not join the Army. I have not seen one “young Green” in the Army yet either. 
But another group of young people came before the select committee and stated: “Since lowering the drinking age in 1999 alcohol-related harm to youth has worsened including increased per occasion drinking amongst 14 to 17-year-olds; increased alcohol-related hospitalisations; increased apprehensions of under-18-year-olds for disorderly behaviour; increased convictions for disorderly behaviour in this age group; an upward trend in 14 to 17-year-olds prosecuted for drink-driving; young teenagers accessing alcohol more easily; and increased problems with young people drinking in public. Since lowering the drinking age in the statistics of deaths caused by drink-driving 15 to 19-year-olds have increased in proportion of total deaths from 29 percent to 37 percent as an age group.” 
Students Against Drink Driving stated: “Alcohol-related harms are borne disproportionately by young people and we support the intention of Mr Gallagher’s Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill to reduce youth alcohol-related harm through key changes to the Sale of Liquor Act.” This group stated further that the driving limits for blood-alcohol levels should be dropped lower to zero. It stated: “We encourage the social supply of alcohol to young people be further addressed.” We must always remember that when some groups of young people step up and demand their rights in terms of being allowed to drink at the age of 18 and 19 they are not the only voices worth listening to. 
I listened to the evidence from the police. It is interesting that the Police National Headquarters often has a view on legislation that opposes that of the Police Association. The association came out very firmly—it was not worried about the difficulties of enforcing the legislation despite much of the protestation from some politicians in this House—and stated that it wants the age raised. 
It is the police who are on the beat on a Friday Saturday and Thursday night—not any of us. It is they who face down the bottle-throwing and the rioting. They are looking towards Christmas now and wondering what they will have to do. I have it on good authority that there are already plans to deploy teams to Tauranga and other trouble spots in preparation for more riotous behaviour on New Year’s Eve. 
 The question is this: are we going to do something or are we going to do nothing? We could at least let this bill go through to the next stage. And if after that serious debate on the bill clause by clause and part by part where we all get to put our personal views perceptions and observations the majority of this House decides to cast the bill to the wind then so be it. But to nip the bill in the bud at this point in time would do an injustice to the 71.6 percent of New Zealanders who say that we should put the drinking age back up. 
I make this plea to all members regardless of what our views might be right now and I sense there are many views. Let us at least have the next debate let us at least analyse the bill completely and then let the vote occur and the will be done. I am prepared to live with that; I hope members are also. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Studies by the injury prevention research unit of the University of Otago show that hazardous alcohol consumption is the leading modifiable cause of injury in New Zealand. It accounts for 78 percent of all deaths among 15 to 19-year-olds in New Zealand. Our child and youth injury record is among the worst in the developed countries and it has got worse since the drinking age was lowered to 18 in 1999. Is there anything about that that anyone in this House does not understand? Many argue that we need to change the culture of drinking. Of course we do; I agree with that. But in doing so we need to choose strategies that are known to have a high probability of being effective. The laws of our land are part of our culture too—firearms control compulsory breath-testing compulsory seatbelt wearing—and they have an important role to play in producing positive health outcomes. 
We urge members—I say this on behalf of somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of New Zealanders—to make a decision that is based on that research; not on how they feel but on how they think when they read the evidence. This is a day when we are challenged to make a difference to the health and well-being of teenage New Zealanders. The single most destructive drug in New Zealand—and I speak as the Minister in charge of the Government’s drug policy—is alcohol by a country mile. The single biggest predictor of criminal offending in New Zealand is the use and abuse of alcohol. The single biggest inflictor of harm is alcohol. Raising the age at which alcohol can be purchased will not of course solve all those problems and no one has ever suggested that it will. But that is why the Government is working across the board on a wide range of harm reduction issues connected with alcohol: community alcohol and drug programmes Community Action on Youth and Drugs and so on. 
Parliament has to back up the community as well—not with excuses but with positive steps that make a difference. Putting up the minimum age for legally buying alcohol to 20 will make a difference. We know it will because we know that lowering the age made a difference; we know that. Many many countries that have lowered the age have raised it again and it has made a big difference the other way round—absolutely. The proof of that is irrefutable. If any members have not read the Otago University studies in that regard they should. Professor Langley from the injury prevention research unit at Otago University has found there were significantly more alcohol-involved car crashes among 15 to 19-year-olds than there would have been if the purchase age had not been reduced to 18. The research found that if the purchase age was set at 20 an annual prevention of over 400 injury hospitalisations and 12 fatalities among 15 to 19-year-olds from road traffic crashes alone would be expected. How sobering in every sense that finding is. 
Imagine the 12 families a year who lose a teenager. Imagine meeting those parents knowing we could have saved a life with our vote here tonight. It is no exaggeration to say that Parliament is making a decision tonight on which lives hang. It is making a decision for 400 hospitalised teenagers a year—eight a week. Let members go to those families at the bedsides in the hospitals and tell them that their kids should be encouraged to abuse alcohol and smash themselves up! 
This country has a massive alcohol problem. According to the Ministry of Health the social costs of alcohol misuse alone total between $1500 million and $2500 million a year. But economic measures alone of course do not really describe the full extent of the damage to individuals to families and to communities. I put it to the House tonight that every member here knows that the choice we face is not between competing facts. We know what the facts are. We know in our hearts as well as in our heads that lowering the minimum age for buying alcohol increased harm to young people. Many people of goodwill thought it would not; they were wrong. It has. 
The proposed review to look at the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds is one review we do not need. The jury is already in on whether lowering the drinking age has been a successful measure in improving New Zealanders’ binge drinking culture. It has been a miserable failure and it is costing lives. I have to say as an interpolation that this is not a Government measure. I am a member of the coalition Government and I was not consulted on that review so I am not part of it. The Labour Party part of it can say it is its review but it is not mine. This is the kind of review we have when we want to give parliamentarians a soft option. I hear that sigh of relief in many places: “Oh gosh we’ve got a review so we don’t have to make a hard decision.” Well this is the place for hard decisions and this is where the buck stops. 
We do not have the luxury as parliamentarians of a soft option. The issue of access to alcohol by under-18-year-olds and alcohol-related harm has already been reviewed. It has been before a select committee of this House for 11 months. The Law and Order Committee has had Ministry of Justice reports and health reports on the impact of lowering the drinking age. It has received 180 submissions from medical researchers non-governmental organisations police the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand and many others. Raising the purchasing age to 20 years is of course not enough by itself to change New Zealand’s excessive drinking culture but it is part of a comprehensive package. The Minister Damien O’Connor is right. We have to do more regardless. It could be an important and integral step in the right direction. 
I accept that 18-year-olds can vote and join the armed forces. So the question is why they should not have the same rights of citizenship as say 20 or 21-year-olds and so on. Well it is known that brain development is not fully complete until age 20 as a matter of fact. Eighteen and 19-year-old New Zealanders certainly have the judgment to exercise the rights of citizens but not if that judgment is badly affected by alcohol. Do members think that young people go into the Army and get on the field and are given some drink before they do that? If they do then surely that is not what we are proposing here. 
Those most likely to consume large quantities of alcohol are overwhelmingly young. We are not talking about 18 and 19-year-olds only. Massey University found that a quarter of 14 and 15-year-olds have had at least six drinks on one occasion. The proportion of young people drinking as heavily as that has doubled in the last decade. Why would that be do we think? Do members think that the much more widespread availability of alcohol could have anything remotely to do with that? Police and social agencies know. They drag drunken teenagers off the streets more than they used to. They clean up the mess. They pick up the bodies. That is why 84 percent of police officers according to one survey and 90 percent of the ones whom I have met in the regions of New Zealand where I have spoken at public alcohol and drug meetings support putting up the purchasing age to 20. Yet the police supported lowering it to 18 when it was lowered in 1999; I know that. They did it in goodwill and they thought it would work and now 90 percent of them say it has not worked and that we should put the age back up. We should at least be listening to the people on the front line of the streets of New Zealand whom we ask to clean up the mess. 
Every parliamentarian here knows that there is no more virulent lobbyist than the liquor industry lobbyist. I have been around for a long time in this place and this is a day when the health and well-being of young people have to come before lobbyists. The health and well-being of young people in New Zealand are tragically impaired by overindulgence in alcohol. The lowering of the drinking age—while one measure alone either way is not in itself the solution—is a message a direction and an indicator from this lawmaking body. If we started to say that it is all right at 18 why not 17 16 15 and 14? People would start saying “Oh that’s rubbish.” Well in England they actually had no drinking age at all and when they introduced it at 12 there was an uproar from the liquor industry. 
I am just saying to members that I implore them to put themselves alongside the police officers social workers and families whom they must think of tonight when they vote. Putting this bill through will give hope to many many people in New Zealand who think that this Parliament does make mistakes from time to time. The respect they would have for an institution that acknowledged a mistake and reversed that mistake when it had the opportunity would be profound. I suggest that we think that way very clearly when we come to vote this evening. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and be here in the Parliament to vote against this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. My legal background has taught me that laws must be made on the basis of sound evidence and demonstrable efficacy. Although the issues surrounding alcohol the harm that is caused by alcohol—which is undeniable—and the issues around youth drinking are very serious the bill itself fails the test of being based on sound evidence and being demonstrably efficacious. It should not become law. 
So let us look at some of the facts around young people and alcohol and the way to deal with them. Parents guardians educators and all those who have concerns about the impact of alcohol on adolescents have a reason to celebrate actually. The number of under-age drinkers is decreasing. This information comes from the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)—the most up-to-date research on young people by a truly independent body. The proportion of 14 to 17-year-olds who are non-drinkers doubled in 4 years and the trend is continuing. Education and social marketing is successfully reducing young people’s drinking entirely independent of the legal purchasing age. This is not evidence that supports the raising of the purchasing age of alcohol. 
One of the main justifications for raising the age from 18 to 20 has been that lowering the age to 18 has decreased the unofficial drinking age—that is more younger people are drinking because 18 is the legal purchasing age. But we have to remember that we have no minimum legal drinking age in this country. So for all Jim Anderton’s fury and passion the fact is that 14-year-olds can drink legally in this country and 12-year-olds can drink legally in this country. So if we are going to be worried and concerned about young people—very young people—drinking we need to address that specifically. It is legal to provide minors with alcohol as long as there is parental supervision and it is a private party. 
The ALAC research shows that 50 percent of under-age drinkers are supplied alcohol by their parents; not by 18-year-olds but by their parents. Eighty-seven percent of under-age drinkers had their last drink at home—and Simon Power dealt with this issue very well—under the legal supervision of their parents and families. This bill allows and continues to allow adults to supply alcohol to minors at private parties. It seems timely to remind members that under-age drinking at private parties with parental supervision has some very serious consequences. One might want to remember the very tragic case of Julie Johnson and the death of Renee Brown that was the result of alcohol drunk at a parentally supervised party in Northland. This bill will keep that situation alive and will retain that ability to supply this alcohol to under-age drinkers. 
So how exactly would raising the age from 18 to 20 fix this issue for these under-age drinkers? How would it interfere with the supply chain of alcohol when it is being supplied predominantly by parents? The Law and Order Committee recommends that 18-year-olds in a marriage or in a civil union should still be able to purchase alcohol and it creates this new legal fiction called a “former guardian”. But given the existing problems with enforcement around the existing law how on earth will this practically work? Will pubs be required to see a marriage licence or a birth certificate that names a former guardian before they supply a person with a drink? Will people have to identify themselves with photo ID to make sure they are the same person that is named on the birth certificate? 
Do we really want to legislate to discriminate against de facto couples? Because even those who have lived together perhaps for several years but who for their own reasons have chosen not to get married will not be able to drink as their married counterparts will be able to. So on the one hand this Parliament has recognised the status of de facto couples and their ability to be responsible adults through the Property (Relationships) Act and all that that entails yet is now prepared to draw a line around married and unmarried people just for the purposes of having a drink in a pub or buying a bottle of wine from a bottle store. 
The Care of Children Act extinguishes guardianship at 18. This bill will reinstate it for just that small little purpose. It is a ridiculous piece of legislative “pretzelism” if one likes to try to get to a solution that is easy but effectively without substance. I do not support the split age proposal. It is a means to create a second class of 18 and 19-year-olds and there is no evidence that it will have any advantageous impact on the harm that having a raised age is supposed to cure. This is all about appearance. It is appearance that makes people and MPs feel that they are doing something but in effect it has no substance. 
Another argument for raising the age is the association of purchasing age and traffic incidents. There has been a lot of talk tonight about the Otago research from the injury prevention unit. But while this research argues that there is a direct correlation between purchasing age and traffic accidents what it actually says when one reads it carefully is that the rate of decline in these accidents is slightly slower for 18 and 19-year-olds and then it also goes on to say that it has not considered the impact of easy accessible alcohol. It has looked only at the age issue. 
The fact is that there is considerable access to alcohol now and these rules were changed at around the same time that the age was lowered. There were many changes during the 1990s around alcohol. There was an increase in the number and the nature of alcohol outlets. In Auckland the number doubled in 5 years. Sunday trading was allowed there were extended opening hours and the lowering of the age. 
The only research that factors in all these different aspects and all these different changes is the Ministry of Health report  
Young People and Alcohol: Some Statistics to 2003 and 2004 on Possible Effects of Lowering the Drinking Age 
. This report shows that the number of 14 to 17-year-olds prosecuted for driving with excess breath or blood alcohol has been increasing since 1997—2 years before the legal age was raised but after the liberalisation of access to alcohol through supermarkets and dairies. The report states that the number and percentage of 15 to 19-year-old drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes decreased between 1994 and 2000. So during the period that the age was raised and although there have been some little raises in between we are still sitting at a level lower than was present in 1994. So we have not increased significantly during the period that the age was lowered. 
So the evidence is clearly showing that the correlation between lowering the age and incidence of harm is not certain. It is not certain and it is not clear and the other factors have to be taken into account. What is clear is that there is a failure to enforce the law. The Pseudo Patrons Project in 2004 showed that over half of the bottle stores that they went to sold alcohol to young people without asking for ID. Since the lowering of the age the number of convictions for selling alcohol to minors has decreased. So there is less enforcement now of the law than there was prior to 1999. I am surprised there are not more harms as a result given the plethora of access to alcohol and the failure to properly enforce the law. We should be looking at much worse statistics but we are not and we need to take that into account. 
 I know the Law and Order Committee worked very hard and dealt with a lot of issues but I think this Parliament and the people of New Zealand deserved a better report with better evidence than the one we received particularly when we are talking about stripping away the existing legal rights of adults. At 18 a person in this country is an adult. He or she can raise a mortgage die in defence of our country become a member of Parliament own and use a firearm and like all adults go to a bar and buy a beer or go to a bottle store and get a bottle of wine. If we are going to strip away these legal rights from adults we need to do it on the basis of very sound evidence and proven efficacy. That is simply not the case with this bill. I urge members to vote against this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The gallery will be cleared if there is any more of that. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The health services research centre at Victoria University in its 1999 study  
Te Iwi Maori me te Inu Waipiro 
 said everything we need to know about our rationale for supporting this bill. The first two sentences of that resource are definitive: “Prior to contact with Pakeha Maori lived in one of the few parts of the world that had never developed alcoholic beverages. The Inuit people of Canada the Trukese of Micronesia and a number of Native American Indian tribes share with Maori the attribution of being indigenous peoples who did not develop alcoholic drinks.” 
Last night this House witnessed an unusual attack on the Maori Party. That speech was the most intoxicating I have heard in my short time in this House. Indeed we did wonder from which spirit bottle that genie escaped. The nature of the delivery was such that I also queried how one could savour the taste of the beverage of bile that was spewed in the direction of my Maori Party colleagues along with the lessons that we should learn from the orators on the marae. What I experienced last night masquerading as a speech in a debate was really the type of personal attack I have never heard from any orators on the marae. But then of course my marae experiences may not be as extensive as the honourable member’s. 
The central thrust of the attack was that one should not need to prepare or develop a position on any issue before rising in this House but instead members should simply rise—as the spirit moves them so to speak—to speak off the cuff. The Maori Party believes that looking to history is a valid tool for understanding an issue; that planning and preparing to respond to significant issues of State should be the solemn responsibility that all members of this House take seriously. It is a responsibility that we will continue to take up in our commitment to defending the rights of Maori in advancing the interests of Maori for the benefit of this entire nation. 
It is precisely because of the state of an alcohol-free Aotearoa that we in the Maori Party know that alcohol use and more particularly alcohol abuse is something that was foreign to Maori. Indeed the botanist Joseph Banks wrote in 1769 that “Water is their universal drink”. He said that Maori showed great repugnance for wine especially strong liquors. Perhaps that is why liquor is frequently referred to in te reo Maori as waipiro or stinking water. Set against that context fast forward 237 years later to 2006 to the grim reality that Maori report a higher incidence of alcohol-related problems and one inevitably has to ask where it all went so wrong. 
A national Maori alcohol survey undertaken in 2000 Te Ao Waipiro 2000 helps us to work it out. The survey took in some 2000 people who identified as Maori. Out of all men surveyed one in five indicated that alcohol was causing problems to their health. The most frequent drinkers were 18 to 19-year-olds particularly men who drank every 1 or 2 days. Again out of all age groups it was 18 to 19-year-old Maori who consumed the most alcohol on typical drinking occasions—12 to 13 drinks for men and eight to nine drinks for women. This is the exact target group affected by the bill. It is figures like these that give proof to the theme song of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC): “It’s not the drinking it’s how we’re drinking”. 
These figures are sobering in all senses of the word but what is even more disturbing are the alcohol-related problems that emerge from such patterns. Twenty-one percent of 18 to 19-year-old Maori surveyed said that they drink and drive. Out of all age groups it was young people aged from 14 to 16 years who were most likely to have reported experiencing problems from other people’s drinking including sexual harassment car crashes physical assault and other accidents. It was for all those reasons and more that when the membership of the Maori Party started developing our policy programme in mid-2005 special commitment was included to promote changing legislation to restrict the sale of alcohol from 18 years to 20 years or older by the entire Maori Party of 21000 members. The research reveals that youth binge drinking has increased and it is this binge drinking that is especially harmful. I know the argument has been put that most 18-year-olds are mature enough to consume alcohol responsibly but the same national Maori alcohol survey I quoted earlier reported that 62 percent of 18 to 19-year-old men were consuming over 20 litres of alcohol per year. Frequently feeling drunk was highest amongst young men aged 16 to 24 years and amongst women aged 18 to 19 years. 
When the survey actually asked young people whether it was a problem for them the answers in themselves were revealing. Twenty-two percent of 14 to 17-year-olds and 23 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds were concerned about their own alcohol consumption. So when nearly a quarter of our rangatahi are saying they are drinking more than they are happy with should we not be listening to them or do we know better? Should we ignore the New Zealand Drug Foundation the Ministry of Health ALAC and other public health organisations that have advised Parliament that when Canada and the United States raised their drinking ages alcohol-related harm decreased? Or when we turn to the justice sector and observe the dramatic increase in the numbers of drunk disorderly teenagers since the drinking age was lowered in 1999 should we just turn a blind eye? When the injury prevention research unit of Otago University advises us that hazardous alcohol consumption is the leading modifiable cause of injury and accounts for 78 percent of all deaths amongst 15 to 19-year-olds in New Zealand is anybody else in this House shocked by that? When we open the pages of the  
American Journal of Public Health 
 and see that earlier this year an article featuring the New Zealand law change reported that the rate of alcohol-involved crash rates after the law change was 12 percent higher for 18 to 19-year-olds and 14 percent larger for 15 to 17-year-olds do we just close the book and pretend we never saw it? Is ignorance really bliss when those white crosses on the roadside are increasing? 
I work amongst the problems of youth drinking virtually every week. The Maori Party agrees with all those parties who have stood in this debate and said that raising the purchase age on its own will amount to nought unless it is combined with education and other targeted strategies. We are also of the view that all we are doing today is restricting the purchase age as one aspect of a strategy. We are not saying and indeed would not say that 19 and 18-year-olds cannot drink. The emphasis is specifically on the purchase of the drink. The issue we must turn our minds to is a broader strategy to reduce youth hazardous drinking and indeed New Zealand’s culture of hazardous drinking. For example we have to address things such as the availability of liquor the way in which we drink adult binge drinking and the whole culture of liquor abuse in this country. We must be open to every possibility and search for effective strategies to find ways that actually work. Maybe Dr Mapp’s amendment could be part of the solution. One such strategy has to be the active and willing participation of whanau—family involved in becoming responsible mentors cause champions and role models; leaders in this whole initiative instead of as in too many cases actual perpetuators of the binge culture. The Maori Party supports this bill. Thank you. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 There is an old saying that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions and there is a similar saying in this Parliament that very often changes to the law are accompanied by the law of unintended consequences. It is quite clear now as Dr Wayne Mapp explained in his speech that when the drinking age was reduced in 1999 from 20 to 18 an unintended consequence flowed from that action. I refer to the fact that it was overlooked at that stage that when the drinking age was dropped to 18 for the first time in New Zealand’s history people who were within our secondary school system were included. That was the unintended consequence; that was the thing that was not picked up in 1999. It is a very very important point to ponder because that reality opened up for 14 15 16 and 17-year-olds a new route of alcohol supply. 
I will explain to the House exactly how it works. This is not based on evidence that has come from the Dunedin school of medicine and it has not come from alcohol or drug counsellors of any sort; this is evidence that has come from the thousands of parents across this country who have teenage children. If I speak to those parents who have children at secondary school they say to me: “Gordon this is how it works.” They tell me that kids of 14 or 15 pool their money approach an 18-year-old they know who is in the seventh form and say: “When you go to the supermarket to buy your booze would you please add to your quantities some booze for us and we will give you $5 or $10 for your trouble.” That is what is happening that is why we have a new supply route for these young people and that is what we need to bring to an end. 
Some say that binge drinking has always occurred in New Zealand. I would like each member of Parliament tonight to think back to his or her own secondary school days to see whether that is true. When I think back to my secondary school days I conclude that at 14 15 16 and 17 we basically had an alcohol-free secondary education. We started getting into booze after we had left school. Apart from private consumption with parents and family basically when I was at secondary school we were not into binge drinking at that age. That situation has changed since we lowered the drinking age. [ 
Interruption 
] 
OK then let me ask members this question individually: when each member was at school was he or she aware of binge drinking amongst 14 and 15-year-olds—yes or no? That is just a question members can answer on their own consciences. People who are listening to this debate can answer that question. But binge drinking did not occur before we dropped the drinking age to 18. 
I want to move on therefore to the Supplementary Order Paper proposing the split age which I have signalled to all members of Parliament I will be introducing to the House at the Committee stage. It is very simple in its application. It simply says that if a person is 18 he or she can purchase alcohol in a bar or restaurant but that person cannot purchase alcohol from a supermarket or a liquor store etc. until he or she is 20. That Supplementary Order Paper is designed to stop the supply route to young people from 18-year-olds who are in the secondary school system. 
I was quite surprised today to receive a letter from the president of the Otago Polytechnic student union. In that letter which I believe was sent to every MP the president said: “We support the split-age proposal.” That letter was from a significant tertiary educational institution in our country and its union says that it supports the split age as proposed. I thought about that for a moment and I thought that it makes perfect sense. There is no 18 19 or 20-year-old in the country who would dispute the split-age proposal. Why? Those young people know very well that their supply of alcohol will continue uninterrupted under that proposal. I urge members to think it through for a moment. 
Young people can get a drink in a bar or restaurant when they are 18—status quo. Do they have a problem with supply outside of those premises? The answer is no. Why? Their mates—some of them—will be 20 or they will know people who are 20. The same supply route will be coming from 20-year-olds down to 18-year-olds as we now have from 18-year-olds down to 16-year-olds but the difference is that it will stop at that age. That is the really important point that I want members of this Parliament— 
Hon Members 
: How? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I have just explained it to members. I will take them through it again because people are asking “How?”. If members have not understood it I say for them to please ask the people of New Zealand afterwards or the parents of teenage kids and they will explain it to members. I tell them to ask the 18 19 and 20-year-olds and they will explain it to members. They will tell them how it works. To the people who do not understand it I have to tell them in all honesty that they are out of touch. They should get back in touch with the way these things work. 
Let us come to the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand. Everybody in this Parliament says that we have to do something about the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand. I say to members tonight that voting for the second reading of this legislation—so that it can proceed to the Committee stage and we can look at the technicalities; we can look at the split-age proposal—will of itself help to bring to an end the binge-drinking culture in this country. 
It is a ridiculous proposition to say that we will retain the status quo but we have a worry about the binge-drinking culture. If members are genuine and sincere about that they should change the status quo. The people of New Zealand expect Parliament to show some leadership and some backbone on that issue. It is very very difficult for any MP with any credibility to say: “Oh no no. I am against binge drinking but I am not going to change the status quo. I am going to oppose this bill here tonight.” I will tell members why it is not credible. The polls clearly show that 67 percent of New Zealanders want the drinking age increased back to 20. It is also important to look at the gender breakdown of those polls because 72 percent of women say that they want the age taken back to 20. I say to the National Party in particular—because it is well-known that that party has a problem with women voters—that if it wants to get women voters back on its side then National members should think very very seriously about how they vote tonight because 72 percent of New Zealand women will listen to what National members say tonight note their votes tomorrow morning and keep that in mind when it comes to elections in a few years’ time. 
Other surveys have also been done which indicate that as many as 74 percent of New Zealanders want the drinking age raised to 20. I refer to a study that was undertaken by Massey University and significantly in that study 79 percent—almost 80 percent—of New Zealand women wanted the drinking age raised. So I say that members need to bear those realities in mind. Let me say also to the Labour Party that if this is a conscience vote in Parliament then Labour members are free to follow their consciences. But I tell them that if they do not alter the drinking age during their watch in this Parliament then that fact will also register with voters when it comes to the election in 2008. 
People have talked tonight about the need for parental education. I must say that I am absolutely horrified when I read in some of the material I have been sent that we have a problem with 10-year-olds drinking in this country. It really raises again the issue that surely there can be no more important priority for the Parliament of New Zealand than to get much more involved in parental education. There is a colossal breakdown of parental responsibility if 10-year-olds are able to drink and obviously they are getting alcohol through their family situations. 
I ask quite frankly of members tonight whether they are going to wimp out on this bill. Are they going to wimp out on the needs of the 14 15 and 16-year-olds in our country or not? Are they going to wimp out based on the fact that the Government has promised some review at about 1 minute to midnight? And just before the debate started we had two Ministers say that they are going to do a review. Well I tell those Ministers that that is great. They should do a review but they should do it after we have taken a vote on this bill after we have got it to the Committee stage and after—I hope—we have adopted the split-age proposal which actually resolves most of the difficulties mentioned here tonight. Certainly for those people who quibble about little technicalities in the bill as reported back by the select committee I tell them there is a thing called the Committee stage to come and those issues can be ironed out at that stage. 
I urge members in all sincerity not to let the young people of this country down and not to let their families down. We have received as a Parliament a cry for help and we should respond to it. I say to everyone here tonight that if they do indeed think that the split-age proposal has some merit then they need to vote for the second reading of this bill tonight. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Mark Blumsky. This is a 5-minute call shared with David Carter; call 4. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 A few months ago I became aware that this bill would be coming to the House. I also became aware of the silence of the young so I took the opportunity to survey about 2500 Wellington adults aged between 18 and 22. Because of the responses that I received I am not supporting the bill tonight. I received hundreds of responses to that survey and they were overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the legal purchasing age at 18. As well some respondents said they appreciated that we had taken the time to ask them what they thought. Many of the respondents were very eloquent in putting their case for not lifting the legal purchasing age. A significant number observed that raising the legal purchasing age would result only in more illegal drinking of alcohol. Too many said that in putting up the drinking age we would be driving the activity underground. I ask why we would want to take 18 and 19-year-olds out of a public protected monitored environment where they can dance drink and eat and put them in a garage or an old flat—with one loo if they are lucky—with no protection or monitoring. 
We know what would happen in that situation. One respondent to the survey said exactly what can happen. The woman said that she has an 8-year-old boy and has no idea who the father is. She got drunk in a garage and cannot remember a thing but is reminded every morning of what happened that night because she is now a mother. She has no idea who the father is. The gossip was horrible. Her peers at the time were taking bets on who it was because of the activity in the garage that night. Kids can be very cruel sometimes but I suggest not as cruel as we will be if we take those young women out of a protected drinking environment and put them into a very unprotected environment. 
As another respondent noted: “If you put it in the back room you may think you’re hiding it but you’re not solving a damn thing.” Another interesting point was made by respondents and it has been alluded to tonight by others. Many of the respondents made it quite clear they do not know why we are having a debate about the drinking age. They think we should be having a debate about drugs and the problem that drugs cause in their age group and in society. 
Young adults have had a taste of the privilege of alcohol and come hell or high water they will keep swigging. Anyone who says the problem of alcohol consumption is with only 18 and 20-year-olds—that they are the ones with the problem—should join me on a wander through the city streets with Winston both early morning and at night and they will see a hell of a lot more 30 and 40-year-old men and women who are making a drunken nuisance of themselves on the streets. So why not raise the drinking age to 40 and keep those people off the streets! Many older Kiwis just cannot handle their booze. 
Parliament needs to recognise that at 18 one is an adult. There are 121000 adults aged between 18 and 19 today and they deserve to be given respect and to be treated as responsible—but learning—New Zealanders. At the last Wellington City Council elections an 18-year-old was elected as a city councillor. She was deemed old enough to help govern the city of Wellington but not old enough to cheer the mayor on the night the councillor took her oath. 
Young people are growing up very quickly today and the 18-year-olds of today are a very different group of 18-year-olds from how it was when we were that age. I think Parliament needs to send this clear message to the young 18-year-old adults of New Zealand: “You must be responsible. You must take personal responsibility for your actions. You must be held responsible. Get drunk but there are no excuses if you do and it is nothing to be proud of. You must handle the consequences of your actions.” 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will certainly be voting against the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill tonight but at the outset I say that I respect all the views that have been advanced by those for and against this legislation. The only good thing that will come out of this legislation is that New Zealand again has the chance to debate its irresponsible attitude to alcohol because we as a nation have a problem whereby too many of us do not use alcohol in a responsible manner. But to blame that problem on 120000 young 18 and 19-year-olds is not a responsible way to treat this issue. 
Many of those people got the right to vote in 1998 and I voted at that stage to lower the drinking age and the great majority of young people have accepted that responsibility without difficulty. We are debating this issue in Parliament tonight because of the actions of a few. But I say that more important than trying to blame that particular age group New Zealanders need to accept that we as a nation have a problem. 
I am one of those people who infrequently visit the likes of Courtenay Place—my name is not Winston—but more important as the father of four young children I say that when I go to occasions it gives me no satisfaction to see people of any age drunk and out of control. It is pathetic and is something that we as a society should not accept. But again at those functions the people who are drunk and out of control are certainly not only young. Too many people who are well over the age of 20 give a very bad example in the way they handle alcohol. So the problem is far greater. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Let’s make it 50. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Raising the age is not the answer. As a nation we must realise that we have a problem and start to address it. It is around a cultural change and it is around education. I say that out of this debate tonight all the parliamentarians for a start should acknowledge the problem and be prepared to work on it. 
We need to work with the industry. Jim Anderton blames the liquor industry and says not to trust its lobbyists but I say look at the work done by the Beer Wine and Spirits Council. I have seen lots of material from that organisation. It is not about pushing more booze; it is also about trying to portray an attitude that sees booze being used sensibly. Let us also work with non-governmental organisations. I congratulate the Alcohol Advisory Council on the job it is doing because it is out there telling us that we have a problem. Finally I want to see Parliament work with the hospitality industry because those people are at the coalface. They work with the police dealing with people of all ages who are drunk disorderly and violent because they have consumed too much alcohol. 
In summary there is no silver bullet for the problem faced by New Zealand. But to raise the drinking age will not be a solution. The solution starts in the near future with all the Christmas parties and barbecues we will have over the summer when we as adults should drink responsibly particularly in front of our own children. That is where this culture starts and too many times at functions we see older people themselves giving a very bad example to young people in the use of alcohol. 
I say to members tonight that they should vote against the legislation but let us start as a country and as a Parliament finding solutions. Those solutions are in agreeing that it is not acceptable for people to drink alcohol to the extent of becoming drunk pissed and out of control. We must start to handle alcohol responsibly and if we as a nation accept that challenge tonight then we will make progress. It will not be quick progress I hasten to add. I remember just how I learnt to face the challenge of alcohol when I was 18 and 20. But if we as a nation accept that it is a problem for this nation and start to do something about it then some good will have come out of this debate tonight. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Jill Pettis. This is a 5-minute shared slot; call 4  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 Alcohol is not just a youth issue. I am not willing to give up on the majority of young people who make a positive contribution to our society in many ways. I have been disturbed about the discussions that have taken place in many fora about returning the drinking age to 20 with its implications that it is young people’s drinking that has led to social decline in New Zealand. I do not believe this is the case. The current debate targets young people unfairly and for this and for many other reasons I will not vote to return the drinking age to 20 years. In 1999 I did not vote to lower the legal age for purchase of alcohol to 18. I am a member of the Law and Order Committee which heard 180 submissions. I am concerned about young people’s drinking and I have considered this bill and its implications very very carefully. 
Society seems to be united in its view that we have a very poor attitude towards alcohol consumption in New Zealand. The term binge drinking is frequently mentioned and we have heard it mentioned a lot here tonight. The actual title of the bill is Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill. If we as a society are genuinely concerned about reducing harm for young people what are we as adults—who are legally able to purchase alcohol—going to do about modifying our behaviour so that we set a good example for the young people that we purport to be so concerned about? 
The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand advises us accurately that alcohol is not just a youth issue; 60 percent of heavy drinkers are over 30. A recent global study of alcohol consumption shows that women in England and Ireland are the world’s biggest binge-drinkers. The study found that the heaviest drinkers tended to be from wealthy families with well-educated parents. Women who had consumed four or more drinks on at least one occasion in the previous 2 weeks were classified as heavy drinkers. Are members doing a quick mental calculation about their last fortnight’s behaviour? New Zealand’s attitudes towards alcohol consumption differs very little from those in England or Ireland given that most of us are descended from British and Irish stock. But we also need to recognise that our attitudes towards alcohol have prevailed for decades. This is not a new phenomenon. 
Although I do not support the bill I genuinely hope that it leads to an honest debate in all of our communities about how we may positively influence our attitude towards binge drinking and harmful consumption of alcohol. In the ongoing debate we may like to think about the following points. It is not the age we are drinking it is how we are drinking. Parents not 18-year-olds supply half of the alcohol that children drink. About 63 percent of parents say they set very strict rules about their children drinking alcohol; however only about 52 percent of them actually know when their children are drinking. 
The whole of society needs to support and promote education programmes that encourage safe drinking habits coupled with stronger penalties for breaking the law. In my patch earlier this month three licensed premises failed a police sting that used under-age volunteers. In some of the premises young volunteers were allowed to enter unhindered and were served alcohol without any problems at all. Under-age drinking can be better addressed through proper enforcement of alcohol sales. Current enforcement does work to stop persons under 18 purchasing alcohol in bars or bottle stores when that enforcement actually occurs. I say that more enforcement of the current law is needed rather than a change in the law. The vast majority of 18-year-olds are mature enough to consume alcohol responsibly and it is unfair to penalise them for the behaviours of 14 and 15-year-olds. Do not punish the 18-year-olds who are drinking legally. Changing attitudes towards drinking is everyone’s responsibility. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in this debate and I acknowledge my colleague Martin Gallagher who took over the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill from Matt Robson. I know that Martin took that bill on from a position of wanting to prevent alcohol-related harm. Even though I do not believe that this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill is the vehicle to do that I certainly acknowledge the intent and the hard work that he has done on this legislation. 
When the drinking age was lowered at the end of the 1990s I was the president of Young Labour and we made a submission and lobbied many MPs. We did that for many reasons. One reason was that we knew the very aggressive debate that was happening over the drinking age was bringing a lot of attention to the issue of youth drinking. We knew that if the drinking age had been kept at 20 at that stage a great change would have happened to the permissive atmosphere that had actually existed across New Zealand prior to that. Prior to that as anyone who grew up in the 1990s will say 19 18 17 16 15 and—yes I say to Mr Copeland—14-year-olds were drinking when the drinking age was 20. 
The difference between the situation then and now of course is that when attention is drawn to something people notice it. Certainly since the lowering of the drinking age we have noticed the problem we have with youth drinking. No one is saying there is not a problem but attitudes have changed and since the lowering of the drinking age we are far less tolerant of youth drinking than we were 6 or 7 years ago. There are actually more ID checks taking place; I have been checked more in my thirties than when I was an under-ager at high school. I say to those people who say there was no real under-age drinking way back then that I do not know which kind of utopia they lived in. We started to go to parties when I was 15 and we could walk into any bottle store and buy alcohol. 
I also note the irony that Parliament has from time to time debated the age at which young people should be locked up as criminals. Some people were saying that should be happening at 12 years of age. Apparently at 12 years of age someone is old enough to be considered sufficiently responsible to go to jail and serve out a life sentence for the most serious of crimes but now we are also trying to say that someone who is 18 is not responsible enough to buy a beer. Ironically this bill is not about 18 and 19-year-olds at all. It is about 14 15 16 and 17-year-olds who people say have more access to alcohol than previously even though as Metiria Turei has pointed out research has shown there are fewer under-age drinkers now than there were before the lowering of the drinking age. 
Putting the purchasing age back up to 20 will not change anything because it is not illegal for 14 and 15-year-olds to drink now and that will not be illegal even if the purchase age goes up to 20. Fourteen and 15-year-olds will still be allowed to drink legally in this country. That is why I agree with my colleague Damien O’Connor that the issue is about supply. The issue is about the fact that 18-year-olds can hand alcohol on to a 17-year-old and unless it can be proved that they bought the alcohol with the intent of providing it for under-age friends nothing can be done about that. All the 18-year-olds will say is that when they put the drink down in the corner at a party other people took it and they did not know that those people would do that. The work Damien O’Connor is going to do around supply will do far far more than this legislation would do to improve the problem that we have with youth drinking. 
But as many people have pointed out alcohol is not just a youth issue. If members bring up any age group at all we will be able to point to some kind of alcohol-related harm that is stereotypically attached to that age group. Most under-18-year-olds are not responsible for the majority of alcohol-related domestic violence. That is one of the biggest problems we face when it comes to alcohol and this bill will do nothing about it. Focusing on 18 and 19-year-olds as scapegoats for everything that is wrong with drinking alcohol will do nothing about that problem. 
 Many people have said that enacting this legislation would be better than doing nothing and that at least if we did that we would be doing something about the issue. I disagree with that because one point is that the more people are allowed to drink on licensed premises the better it is. A worse problem may be that some people in this Parliament will think that by changing the age to 20 we will have done something. They may think that by putting the age up to 20 we will have wiped our hands of the problem and that we will be able to go back home and say to the voters that we voted to put the age back up to 20 so Parliament has done its bit—and we all know that that is not true. 
In fact binge drinking is a problem around the world; it is not a New Zealand problem. I think that here it probably came from the 6 o’clock swill. We can look at the changes that have happened in the UK at the moment around the liberalisation of alcohol. Anyone who went to pubs when they closed at 11 o’clock in Britain would have seen how people would just throw down three four five or six drinks before the pub closed. All the reports from England now since the liberalisation of the laws allowed the pubs to stay open are that people do not do that any more. They drink because they want to or because they have finished their drink and they feel like another not because they are in a race to get to the bottom of the glass. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I will make a contribution not about the sale of liquor and whether the age should be 18 or 20 years but about the supply—not sale—of liquor to minors under the age of 18. Contrary to popular myth currently there is no legal restriction on the supply of liquor to minors under the age of 18 for their consumption at private social gatherings. The supply does not have to be at the private gathering merely for one. It is lawful for any adult to so supply a minor with any amount of liquor even if that minor is not that adult’s child or under that adult’s guardianship. 
Currently it is also legal for one minor to supply another minor with any amount of liquor for consumption at a private gathering—it can be done in a car. There is no requirement that liquor supplied to minors be consumed under supervision. This contrasts poorly with laws for adults where obligations on those running licensed premises include a requirement not to supply intoxicated persons with liquor—there are no such restrictions in respect of supplies between two minors for private functions. 
This present law of course has undesirable effects on the availability of liquor to minors. It also places minors at risk in circumstances where their own parent or guardian may disapprove or not have the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the liquor being supplied. It is widely agreed that inappropriate drinking by minors carries a risk of adverse short-term and long-term effects upon them. Intoxication increases risky behaviour by minors. Immediate risks obviously include physical injury and accidents including car accidents while they are intoxicated and risks of accidental pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. Consumption of alcohol by minors is also correlated with higher rates of alcoholism for those minors in later life. 
The current loophole also makes it more difficult for the police to enforce other aspects of the Sale of Liquor Act because minors found in possession of liquor can then use the excuse that it was legally supplied to them by a friend or relative. This makes it more difficult for police to discover and prosecute those who do sell liquor to minors. The availability of liquor to minors through the current loophole is also a material factor in the incidence of intoxicated minors at both private gatherings and in public places. This loophole can be closed easily and it was proposed to be closed in Matt Robson’s original bill. 
The Law and Order Committee reversed that at the select committee stage and stated that it did not favour it and it is now no longer in the bill. I cannot follow the logic of the select committee members when they state that there is no need to tighten up on this exemption. I just do not follow their logic. They stated that one of the reasons they did not think it was right to make illegal the supply of alcohol to minors was that effectively it amounts to introducing a drinking age. It does not. Let us not forget that the reason we have laws to make illegal the sale of alcohol to minors is that we think it harms them. If we think that selling it to them harms them how is it any better to have unrestricted amounts of alcohol supplied to minors who are under the age of 18 years? So I am pleased that the Government has indicated it will look at this particular issue. I actually do not favour increasing the drinking age generally but I do think we have to do more to protect our young people from the effects of overindulgence in alcohol. 
One other issue I would like to see that review look at is the issue of alcohol consumption in cars. Cars are a means of transport normally. They are weapons in the hands of people who are irresponsible or drunk. Cars ought to be a means of transport not party venues. At the moment it is completely legal for people to use them as a party venue and to be honest I think that pissing up large in the car and rarking each other up is dangerous behaviour that we should protect young people from. 
So I am voting against this legislation but I do think there is a real problem in terms of the unrestricted supply of alcohol to minors. If I take my own situation my 13-year-old daughter could be supplied with unlimited amounts of alcohol without my permission and against my wishes and to her detriment—and there is nothing wrong with that at law. Changes to the law will not solve New Zealand’s alcohol problems but some changes to the law are necessary and will take us in that direction. So I really recommend that the House gets in favour of looking at the issue as to whether we have to tighten up the supply—not the sale but the supply—of alcohol to minors. Thank you. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 This will be just a very quick call because I certainly agree with the sentiments being expressed in the House tonight. This is a vexed question and here we are all concerned anxious and worried. We are a bit like the worried well looking to show that we have a hook to hang our hats on to show that we care about our kids. Well this bill is not that hook and I certainly will not be supporting it. 
I take exception to the idea that we women should vote to raise the drinking age to 20 just to get the women’s vote. We should be taking this issue really seriously and asking what the solutions to the problems of binge drinking and the supply of alcohol to minors are. I was a mother of three teenage children and yes it was a challenging time when they were under the age of 18. But my husband and I took that responsibility together as parents. We provided food at home and allowed our children to socialise at home. We made sure that they slept over when they spent nights with their friends and had a bit of alcohol. We also made sure that if they decided to go away—and they do sneak away—there was a sober driver. Those were the rules when young people came to our house and we never had a problem. I think more parents should show that kind of responsibility. It is not the age that matters here; it is the culture of support and the responsible attitude to drinking that we inculcate in our children. 
I grew up under the shadow of the intergenerational effects of the 6 o’clock swill. My father was an alcoholic and I loathed seeing him drunk when he came home every Friday night and could not balance the peas on his fork. I resolved then that I would be more open as a parent with my own children. I would teach them to be socially responsible to be able to handle alcohol and to not overindulge. We managed it in our own house under our supervision. I am astonished at this bill. Members think that putting the age up to 20 will solve this situation. There is nothing in this bill that will solve this problem. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ban marijuana—that would be a good idea. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is right; that is my next point. Let us look at the proliferation of liquor outlets that exists now. This bill does nothing about that. We should look at the mobility of our young kids. Let us talk about the statistics from the Dunedin school of medicine study. Cars are faster now. We had an old Austin A40—it could not go over 30 miles an hour—with a flagon in the back seat. I am not proud of that but we could not speed. They were not mean machines and they were not killing machines. We also have kids driving around with a lethal cocktail—a mix of cannabis P and alcohol—in their systems but are we being honest in the education we give our children about the cocktails and mixes of drugs that they are imbibing? 
This bill really worries me. I think it stigmatises young people. Every 2 years young people come to the Youth Parliament and say to us that they do not want the age raised. This bill ignores that. Its supporters think raising the age will help young people. In my community for every school ball this year there was not one problem afterwards. Why? Young children took responsibility. They had their after-ball parties and managed the effects of their partying after the ball. Why were those children not congratulated? No they are stigmatised and they become statistics. 
This bill is muddled. The amendments that I have heard about would make it even more muddled and murky. I will not support the bill and I certainly hope it does not pass its second reading tonight. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 49 
Anderton(P) 
Flavell  
Mark  
Tremain(P) 
Borrows 
Foss(P) 
Moroney(P) 
Turia  
Brown(P) 
Gallagher  
Paraone(P) 
Turner(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Harawira(P) 
Robertson  
Worth(P) 
Clarkson(P) 
Hayes  
Roy E (P) 
Yates (P) 
Coleman  
Heatley(P) 
Ryall  
Copeland  
Jones(P) 
Samuels  
Cosgrove(P) 
Key(P) 
Sharples  
Cunliffe(P) 
King A 
Smith N (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
King C (P) 
Stewart(P) 
Duynhoven  
Laban(P) 
Swain(P) 
Field(P) 
Mahuta  
te Heuheu(P) 
Teller: 
Finlayson  
Mapp  
Tolley(P) 
Goodhew  
Noes 72 
Ardern(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hide(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Auchinvole  
Connell(P) 
Hobbs  
Roy H (P) 
Barker(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Dalziel  
Horomia(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Bennett D 
Dean  
Hutchison  
Street  
Bennett P (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Dyson  
Locke  
Tisch  
Beyer(P) 
English(P) 
Mackey  
Tizard(P) 
Blue  
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Turei  
Blumsky  
Fenton(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Wagner  
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons  
McCully(P) 
Wilkinson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goff(P) 
O’Connor  
Williamson  
Brownlee(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Burton(P) 
Groser  
Parker  
Wong(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Guy  
Peachey(P) 
Carter D 
Hartley  
Pettis  
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Chauvel  
Henare(P) 
Power  
Teller: 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Rich(P) 
Hughes  
Motion not agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 9.43 p.m.