Volume 621 Week 72 - Wednesday 3 November 2004 
Volume 621 Week 72 - Wednesday 3 November 2004 
[Volume:621;Page:16513] 
Wednesday 3 November 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Personal Explanations 
Member for TamakiMakaurau—Response to Allegations 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—TamakiMakaurau) 
: 
 I respectfully seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement under Standing Order 343 with regard to a range of allegations that have been made against me in this House over the course of the last 2 weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. This will be heard in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just need to get some clarification from you with regard to the status of comments made in this statement by Mr Tamihere. What limitations will those comments put upon firstly questions that have been legitimately placed on the sheet today and secondly any consequential debate that is likely to result later in the day? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Comments can be only of a personal nature; they have no effect on anything else. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My point was that the National Party would strongly object to this personal statement being made if it were to mean that matters relating to Mr Tamihere that are still of significant public interest were disbarred from discussion in this House. I need your clarification on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No this is a personal statement about personal matters. It does not debar any further comments questions or any other issue. 
JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Over recent weeks a number of false but serious allegations have been made about me. This morning I met with Mr Douglas White QC. On the basis of information I have made available to him I am confident his inquiry will find that I have done nothing wrong. I wish to take this opportunity to deal with the range of false allegations in order to set the record straight for the House. 
The first allegation is that I did not pay tax on a payment I received from the Waipareira Trust. This allegation is groundless. The payment was made net of tax. This has been accepted by the trust. I am advised that I have met all my obligations to the Inland Revenue Department. 
The second allegation related to election expenses. I confirm that I provided a written declaration as to my election expenses in 1999 and that in all respects they were correct. The allegations to the contrary have no substance. 
There was another allegation about the register of Ministers’ interests. I confirm that my ministerial declarations are absolutely correct. With regard to an interest in Maori land the fact is I have not succeeded to any interest and will not succeed to my father’s interest because it will be vested in a whanau trust. Allegations were made that I should have declared an interest in two titles in the west Auckland area. I have no beneficial interest in those properties; I am only a trustee for my nieces and nephews. My declaration is correct and the Cabinet Office has confirmed that. 
Allegations have been made against me about a second-hand Toyota vehicle that was provided to me as a director of Westland Ltd. I always believed that I dealt with that issue according to my arrangements with the company and with the trust. I had no knowledge of the payment of insurance. I had no knowledge of the insurance company. This is a matter that will be clarified by the White inquiry and again I am confident that he will find I have done nothing wrong. 
I come now to the Paragon Risk report. The media and Opposition members have made much ado about that report. I confirm to the House that on 29 October 2004—last Friday—I contacted the Serious Fraud Office and handed a full copy of the Paragon Risk report across to it asking it to investigate the matter urgently and expeditiously. It was me who referred the report to the Serious Fraud Office as I wanted the matter addressed properly and correctly. 
It is correct that as the chief executive officer of Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust I signed cheque requisition forms for hundreds of thousands of dollars at various times. That was part of my job. I state to this House that I have never signed forms authorising cash payments which is what led to the payments identified in the Paragon Risk report. I state to the House that I was not aware of any invalid invoices and I was not a recipient of any of the payments referred to in the Paragon Risk report. I have absolutely nothing to hide which is why I instigated and welcome the Serious Fraud Office inquiry and the White inquiry and I will continue to cooperate fully with those inquiries. 
I come now to the final matter—the so-called golden handshake. The Rt Hon Winston Peters raised this matter in the House on 27 July 1999 by way of questions in the House. A large part of the so-called $195000 package consisted of salary and performance bonuses for previous years. Some of that had already been paid. The balance was an ex gratia payment for my overall contributions to the trust over 8 years as chief executive. I decided not to accept the ex gratia payment and said so publicly at the time. I was again contacted by senior members of the trust including our kuia Auntie June Mariu—the chairperson—and the trust secretary Mr RegRatahi. I did change my mind and I decided to accept the ex gratia component of the payment following the election in 1999. It is correct that I did not advise the Prime Minister that I had accepted this component of the package and that I deeply regret. 
Of course I was aware that we had campaigned with regard to golden handshakes. It was clear in my mind that what we were talking about was not that kind of payment. During my years as the chief executive officer of the Waipareira Trust its staff grew from 12 to 240 and its assets grew from $1 million to $12 million. Contrary to some claims most of that increase in assets came from wise investment and management. The trust made its ex gratia payment to me because it was grateful to me. I have broken no law and I am confident that Mr White’s inquiry will find no improper behaviour on my part. 
I have resigned from Cabinet today because I did change my mind and accept a golden handshake and I did not tell my Prime Minister. Some see that as hypocrisy and I will do my time. I came to Wellington not just to serve as a Minister but to work for my constituents. I could not in all good conscience continue to take a Cabinet salary while awaiting the outcome 3 weeks from now of an inquiry. There are some significant ranges of work and I have come down here to represent my constituents in TamakiMakaurau. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to ask Mr John Tamihere two questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tertiary Education—Quality 
1. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What initiatives is he putting in place to encourage tertiary education institutions to become more focused on the quality of teaching and learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last Friday the Government announced a new student component performance measure to help improve the quality of teaching in the sector by highlighting student retention looking at completion rates and establishing a nationwide student survey. This will shift the focus of providers away from simply enrolling students towards helping them succeed and ensuring they are enrolled in courses that meet their needs. The performance measure emphasises teaching excellence just as the Performance-based Research Fund emphasises excellence in research. Providers with the weakest performance will receive additional assistance and attention from the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Helen Duncan 
: What other initiatives are in place to encourage excellence in teaching and learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For the past 3 years we have been running the very successful Tertiary Teacher Excellence Awards to recognise the top examples of teaching practice from across the tertiary sector. Before the end of the year I intend to announce a new package of initiatives to support professional development for tertiary teachers and that will be implemented in the following year. All in all we are looking at a very good environment for emphasising the quality of tertiary teaching. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why would anyone in tertiary education take the Minister seriously on this when he has exercised no accountability whatsoever for tens of millions of dollars spent on low-quality low-grade courses such as Christchurch Polytechnic’s Cool IT which cost the taxpayer $15 million; 13000 enrolled students did not do the course and no-one has taken responsibility for it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: People in tertiary education will take the Government seriously because they have already seen the success of the Performance-based Research Fund which they were directly involved in and they have also been directly involved in all of the teaching excellence measures that I announced Friday and today. That is why they will take it seriously. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Associate Minister consider an initiative to create a new class of tertiary institution namely a university of technology to enable Unitec to focus on learning and teaching rather than on chasing university status as it has since 1996? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member’s question gives me the opportunity to say that I have been approached by the member representing the New Zealand First Party to raise the issue of universities of technology and I have agreed that we will explore that issue. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Will student evaluations of teaching and learning be made publicly available in light of the fact that resources such as Kiwi Quals website give prospective students little information about the quality of different courses when the dubious quality of some of those courses has been a major concern? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the point of the nationwide student survey is to provide comparable public information so that students have a better basis on which to make up their minds when choosing the institution they want to go to. 
Helen Duncan 
: What other indicators other than those mentioned in the answer to the primary question were considered for the performance measure? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We considered the ability to sustain public interest the strong engagement with community and industry organisations and the ability to establish a coherent programme—exactly the kind of indicators that for example the National Party has failed to comply with over the last little while but which we expect our institutions to comply with. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Another lie from him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard that comment—the member knows he made it. The member will stand withdraw and apologise or he leaves the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will leave the House Mr Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a long-time habit of that particular Minister at the end of every single question to go outside the Standing Orders and make references to matters for which he has no responsibility. These are not only incorrect but are simply outside of his ministerial responsibility and are in breach of the Standing Orders. We on this side of the House simply seek for you to require Ministers to comply with the Standing Orders and not allow them to make statements that are incorrect and outside of what the answer requires. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On that particular point of order I can say that I was about to say exactly that to the Minister because he did go outside the Standing Orders. However a comment was made that cannot be accepted in this House. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that university lecturers are not required to undertake any sort of training in teaching practices and does he view the introduction of a performance-based element to the student component as a catalyst for providers to ensure that their teaching staff do have this kind of training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that tertiary teachers are not required to have a teaching credential but it is certainly my opinion that we are moving now into an era when they will be required to do so. What we are going to be funding in the near future is the basis for professional development across the tertiary sector which I personally hope will lead to them being credentialed. 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Assurances 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she accept the Hon John Tamihere at his word given that he took a golden handshake that he said he would not take; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 In Mr Tamihere’s statement to the House today he has said that he accepted an ex gratia payment when he said he would not accept one. He further said he regretted not advising me of that and I regret that too as my advice would have been not to accept it. Mr Tamihere has resigned from Cabinet today and I accept that as an honourable course of action. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s response what has changed since yesterday when she promised this House due process for Mr Tamihere and today when she accepted his resignation? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to warn people about interjecting or making noises while questions are being asked. Questions are entitled to be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I told the House yesterday there is a process in train—and it still is in train—to have a report on a range of allegations many of them mounted by the member concerning Mr Tamihere. That process is going on. Mr Tamihere meantime has decided he will resign. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why would anybody accept Mr Tamihere at his word given the revelation that he took a golden handshake when he said he would not take one and his admission on page 28 of his book that one thing he was good at was “telling stories some of them less than truthful.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A member’s word in this House is accepted. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does she intend to ask Mr Tamihere to apologise for saying that my allegation that a golden handshake and a vehicle were going to be settled upon him was a lie? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Apart from what I have said today I intend to wait for Mr White to determine the full facts around the payment. At that point it is a matter for Mr Tamihere to judge how he will react. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the primary question at what time did she receive John Tamihere’s resignation and at what time did she accept it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not travelling with a stopwatch. I received the resignation sometime around 11.30 this morning and I accepted it to pass on to the Governor-General who of course must be the person who acts on my advice. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she believe that Mr John Tamihere should apologise to the people of New Zealand for saying he would not take a golden handshake and then taking one? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is for Mr Tamihere but I myself would have thought that the honour with which he acted today would be seen as precisely an apology. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has she sought from Mr John Tamihere a full explanation of all the allegations against him and full disclosure; if she has not done that why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Establishing that is the entire point of the White inquiry. 
Working for Families Package—Budget 
3.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is the Government proposing any changes to the Working for Families package in the next Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 At this stage no. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What reaction does the Minister have to last week’s OECD report which pointed to particular problems with second income earners in families and is the Government prepared to consider ways of boosting the income of second income earners through tax reforms such as income splitting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Income splitting is an interesting idea and I will give a few examples of how it would work. If a couple both earned $30000 a year there would be a net gain of zero from income splitting. But with one income of $60000 a year there would be a net gain of somewhere around $100 a week or more. It is hard to see why that would be seen as equitable when in fact it is more expensive for two people to go out to work than for one person to go out to work in most cases. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister supportive of the accommodation supplements contained in his Working for Families package; if he is how does he reconcile that support with the following statement: “The accommodation supplement or voucher for housing has harmed not helped housing provision for poor New Zealanders including many Maori and Pacific Islanders.” which was from Helen Clark in June 1994? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The introduction of the accommodation supplement system which went along with the removal of income-related rents and the introduction of market-related rents in State housing led to a significant increase in the cost of housing for low-income earners. It is only with a strong programme of income-related rents and State house acquisition that the accommodation supplement system makes any sense. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister concede that in a progressive income tax system if the brackets are not adjusted following significant movement in the consumer price index as they will be for the Working for Families package the taxes are being increased in real terms; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but the largest reason for the gain in taxation over the last 2 or 3 years has in fact been the growth in employment rather than any fiscal drag effects through bracket creep. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister advise the House in light of the reality that in a progressive income tax system taxes are being increased in real terms unless the brackets are adjusted for the movement in the consumer price index how large such an increase would need to be before he would adjust the tax brackets to give some much-needed relief to New Zealand families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CUL 
LEN 
: I do not have a particular set against any changes at any point in the future. But if I plucked a sum out of the air of say $500 million—which is probably the rough cost of income splitting or something rather north of that—if that sum was delivered say through bracket indexation arrangements the vast majority of workers would get very little or around $4 to $5 a week. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister understand that in indexing the tax collected on tobacco alcohol and petrol whilst refusing to index tax reductions by using the same methodology the families of New Zealand may perceive that the Government is applying a double standard? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well they may but in response to that let me say that the reason for the excise duties on tobacco is not simply to raise money but is to discourage tobacco consumption. If there is no indexation then the impact of that negative signal actually reduces over time. Secondly in terms of the excise duties on petrol as the member is well aware the real income from petrol excise duty reduces without indexation so we cannot afford more roads. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With what rigour did the United Future party approach him and his leader during the time of negotiations in respect of their guarantee of support for supply—or did its members just plain lie over as they usually do? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No no the United Future party did not turn the other cheek in any shape or form during the negotiations with the Government. But it was interested in making sure MMP works with stable Government. This is the first Government that has produced stable Government under MMP unlike the attempts when that member was a Minister. 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Decision Making 
4.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What new information does she need in order to decide whether Hon John Tamihere has misled the New Zealand public over his acceptance of a golden handshake and to remove his ministerial warrant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 John Tamihere no longer holds a ministerial warrant. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did the Hon John Tamihere mislead her and the New Zealand public when he took a golden handshake from the Waipareira Trust despite earlier assurances that he would not; if so why has she left his ministerial portfolios open when it is clear that he should have been sacked anyway? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said earlier Mr Tamihere advised the House today that he had accepted the ex gratia payment although he had said that he would not. He said that he regretted not advising me and I have said that I regret that as well. I consider his resignation today as an honourable course of action. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why was the Prime Minister unable to make a political decision that John Tamihere should no longer have a seat at her Cabinet table given the— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know the point the member is going to make. [ 
Interruption 
] The member very nearly was asked to leave; I am on my feet and there will be no comments at all. I always give a warning and I gave a warning to his own side earlier on. I am warning members that there will be no comments during questions or members will be leaving. Members have a right to ask their questions in silence. This is a democracy. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are the warnings now one per side? It used to be that there was a warning and the next time the recipient was kicked out or asked by you to leave the Chamber—I think that is the appropriate way to express it. When you have given a warning to the other side the warning has been to the whole House. It now appears that once you have warned the Opposition the Government gets another run at it and then it gets a different warning. Is that the new rule? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. I apologise because I did not do the right thing on this occasion. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why was the Prime Minister unable to make a political decision that the Hon John Tamihere should lose his seat at her Cabinet table given the undisputed fact that he took a golden handshake after he had told her and the New Zealand public that he would not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like all fair-minded New Zealanders I suspended judgment pending a full examination of the facts. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to her frequent use of the word “honour” and the clear understanding of most people that Mr Tamihere jumped before he was pushed how does honour come into it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Honour comes into it in that in the statement set out today Mr Tamihere has expressed regret and he has resigned from Cabinet. We now await full establishment of the facts by Douglas White QC and I expect the Serious Fraud Office report to go on for some time after that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not clear that while there are a number of things still in debate and contention that the Douglas White QC report will investigate there is no doubt at all that Mr Tamihere said he would not accept an ex gratia payment but did so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is what he has told the House today and he has resigned his portfolios. 
Rodney Hide 
: What does the Prime Minister think would be the appropriate course for Mr John Tamihere to follow if his personal statement today was found to be substantially incorrect? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure that members take great care when they draft ministerial statements. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many of her colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee informed her of the evidence of a former lawyer for the Waipareira Trust who made allegations before the select committee about 32 forged cheques involving the Waipareira Trust? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have any awareness of the matter the member is just raising. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would she expect that members of her Government on the select committee would if they heard such a serious allegation being made by a person of that level of knowledge—being a lawyer for the Waipareira Trust—come and tell her what they had heard at the select committee that day? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is very rarely that any members come to tell me what was said at a select committee. Who knows what they thought of what was said. I can only listen to what the member is saying but it is the first time I have heard it. 
Fuel Efficiency—Government Initiatives 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What is the Government doing to promote vehicle fuel efficiency? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is this week promoting vehicle fuel efficiency through its EnergyWise Rally. Some of our top rally drivers are competing to illustrate how driving techniques can save a lot of money. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How much is “a lot”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Around 20 percent at little or no cost through things like tyre pressure or engine tuning as well as driving style. But on top of that a bunch of new technologies are on trial—biofuelled cars hybrids and high-efficiency turbo diesels. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that his Government at one time promoted greater use of compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel that favoured fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness; if so can he tell us what he personally is doing to encourage its use my noting that garages selling it are closing down and that in Tauranga there are none where people can buy it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: CNG was promoted primarily during the Muldoon Government. It did not seem to work very well. Its use has been on the decline for 20 years. On the other hand the use of liquefied petroleum gas is on the increase as is the use of a range of other fuels. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What other steps is the Government in partnership with the Greens taking to improve fuel efficiency and reduce vehicle emissions and when does he expect the first programmes to be introduced? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot do that. Because I previously was generous I will be generous on this occasion. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for making an interjection when he should not have. 
Hon David Carter 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As the member knows vehicle emissions testing began in September this year managed by my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard. The member may also know of moves to phase in the introduction of substantially cleaner fuels between this year and 2006. 
Member for Tamaki Makaurau—Ministerial Duties 
6.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What ministerial duties and responsibilities are currently being undertaken by the Hon John Tamihere? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 None. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did she fail to sack Mr Tamihere when it has been clear from the beginning that he has misled the New Zealand public by accepting a golden handshake that he said he would not take and why was Mr Tamihere left to make the decision that she should have taken herself? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said in answer to previous questions like all fair-minded New Zealanders—and I think that came out at something like 82 percent—I suspended judgment pending a full examination of the facts. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why was Mr Tamihere still receiving his full ministerial salary until he decided he should resign today and why was his treatment very different from that meted out to Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle who were both required to resign their ministerial posts while their actions were being investigated? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On the latter point—and I know the member was not here—both members tendered their resignations to me. As I have said endlessly the Minister stood aside. He was still a Minister but there were Acting Ministers appointed. That is why he was receiving the salary. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can anyone seriously believe that John Tamihere’s resignation is anything but a sham when his ministerial portfolios have been left open for his return after he has clearly misled the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The portfolios are not open; they have Acting Ministers. I have decided not to appoint a new member of Cabinet. 
Farming—Sustainability 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Has he received any recent advice on the sustainability of New Zealand farming practices; if so what action is he taking as a result? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Yes. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has published a report called  
Growing for Good: Intensive farming sustainability and New Zealand’s environment 
. The Government has already implemented many policies in the areas he discusses under our focus on sustainable development. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned at the finding of the report that across all farming sectors nitrogen fertiliser use has increased by 160 percent in just 6 years; and what impact does he expect this to have on water quality in lowland streams and central North Island lakes given the advice from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research that they are already seriously polluted from agricultural runoff? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am aware that that is a startling increase and is partly brought about by the increasing prevalence of the clover weevil which means that natural clover cannot fix as much nitrogen as before. I look at it in the context of the situation that 99 percent of dairy suppliers who require resource consents obtain them and 17 percent—and very rapidly increasing—of dairy farmers utilise input-output nutrient management systems. I appreciate that farmers can mitigate the effects of increased artificial nitrogen use and increasingly and vigorously are doing so. 
Janet Mackey 
: Can the Minister describe any particular programmes? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Yes I could at length but I will just say that this Government facilitated an agreement between the dairy industry local government and central government—the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord—which addresses issues of intensive dairy farming. The Sustainable Farming Fund has funded 101 specific projects that address the issues that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has raised in his report and the Government’s Water Programme of Action is studying better ways to allocate water resources. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned that New Zealand’s soil loss to the oceans through erosion occurs at a rate 10 times faster than the world average and has been accelerated by land clearance and stocking rates on steep country; and how will he manage this issue to prevent a recurrence of the disastrous floods in deforested catchments that hit New Zealand again earlier this year? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Members should recall that New Zealand is a geologically young country and at the same time as we are being thrust from the oceans by the movements of tectonic plates the top is being washed off and is flowing back into the oceans. I would however say that there is erosion that has been accelerated by what is almost certainly unsustainable patterns of land use in many places and I have officials devising policies to address those problems in the future. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has the Minister ever asked his officials the Minister of Police or the Minister of Justice to calculate the cost of crime and the fear of crime to New Zealand farming families or the loss of sustainability of valuable stock on land that thieves and thugs now treat as public access land; and what is the Minister doing to persuade Mr Goff that the criminal law is not working to protect rural New Zealand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I can certainly say that one thing I will not be doing is supporting the member’s initiative to make it legal for farmers to shoot trespassers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What strategies does the Minister have to ensure that New Zealand farming survives further increases in energy prices as world oil production peaks given the heavy reliance on fertilisers and pesticides made from fossil fuels an increase of 30 percent in direct energy inputs to farming in just a decade large electricity demands to pump irrigation and high fuel use to transport bulk agricultural exports to market? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I will certainly encourage the adoption of irrigation technologies that rely on gravity to distribute water rather than on unnecessary pumping. There are good answers to all the member’s other questions but I cannot really go through them all in the short time allowed. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister accept the recommendations of the commissioner to lead in the development and implementation of indicators of sustainable farming? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government will certainly be taking a lead in the facilitation of sustainable farming practices. As to whether the Government itself will develop the indicators the member seeks that is something we are still considering. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If New Zealand faces trade barriers because of unsustainable farm practices as the commissioner suggests will the Minister manage that risk by making New Zealand farming more sustainable or will he just try to use World Trade Organization rules to force customers to accept environmentally damaging products? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is my firm belief that New Zealand is second to no nation when it comes to sustainable farm management practices. Everything this Government does encourages further progress to be made in that way. 
Family Court—Mediators 
8.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Is he satisfied that the new $1.5 million trial of mediators in the Family Court is sufficient reform to improve outcomes for children? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The $1.5 million will fund the cost of pilots in four courts offering families involved in custody guardianship and access disputes the opportunity for non - judge led mediation as recommended by the Law Commission. Evaluation of the pilot will determine whether there have been improved outcomes for children and this will have a lot of influence on future policy-making decisions. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that research indicates that children are at risk of significant lifelong negative outcomes from ongoing conflict during parental separation which can be greatly reduced when parents receive training on how to protect children and support them during Family Court cases; if so does he agree that initiatives to develop mandatory parent education programmes should be given priority if we are to give real effect to promoting the best interests of the child? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Government is well aware of those issues and takes very seriously its responsibilities as a leader in these issues to help parents make good decisions. We will help parents with more counselling more information and more advice so that they can better undertake their responsibilities. 
Richard Worth 
: Why is the Minister acclaiming this pilot programme when there have already been three pilots of non - judge led mediation in different parts of the country—this is nothing new? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: My advice is that it is new. Secondly this will have a very clear and serious evaluation process and it is following the recommendation of the Law Commission in its report into the Family Court. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister outline the Government initiatives that aim to improve the Family Court processes for children? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The interests of children are central to the Government’s improvements in relation to the Family Court. For example the new Family Court website has a special section designed for children that makes the court processes easier for them to understand. The family mediation pilot will enable children to be involved in the discussions about their family’s future which will make it less scary for the children. This pilot will hopefully lead to quicker processes to resolve a family’s issues and families making decisions by themselves. If the families make their own decisions they will be durable. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister intend to make this mediation proposal compulsory in all custody and access cases or only in those cases where a likelihood of successful mediation is possible? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No. The mediation can never be compulsory because mediation is about the parties negotiating and discussing outcomes for themselves. The compulsion part is when the matter is referred to the judge for a decision. That is the compulsion part. We are trying to get better processes in place before that so that families themselves come to their own decisions about their futures. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister extend his commitment to making Family Court processes more child and family-friendly to funding a national roll-out of the Children in the Middle parent education programme that is already piloted on the North Shore by the Family Court Association; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am not familiar with all the details around that pilot but after the member’s question I will certainly go and investigate the matter. 
Disability Strategy—Implementation 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: What reports has she received on the implementation of the disability strategy by Government agencies? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I recently tabled in Parliament the progress report on the implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy for 2003-04. That report shows that a record number of Government agencies are now making a commitment to address the issues facing disabled people. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What initiatives have been introduced over the last year to promote the aims of the disability strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is a very long list which includes: the introduction of a bill to recognise the language of deaf New Zealanders; a bill to ensure disabled people have the same employment rights as other New Zealanders; changes to the invalids benefit system that removed barriers to employment; and an additional $23 million that has gone into supporting high-needs children and disabled students. 
Sue Bradford 
: How does freezing the funding for some home-support contracts when the average hourly rate is about $10.50 an hour fit with the disability strategy objective to “Develop a highly skilled workforce to support disabled people”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The question emanated from a report that was in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning. Fortunately that report is now out of date. I will briefly quote from a letter that the Ministry of Health recently sent to home-based support providers which stated: “I am committed to working collaboratively with your association in the immediate term to find a way through the issues and concerns facing the sector.” It goes on to state: “I wish to reassure you that the letter you received does not necessarily mean that there will be no price increases for 2 years.” 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister have a similarly reassuring message for the many disability non-governmental organisations that have been holding meetings all around New Zealand about the cuts and cut-offs in disability support funding over a whole range of services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There have not been cuts or a freeze in disability support services. The issues facing the current budget are challenging but I am committed to continuing to work with the providers and with disabled people to find a satisfactory outcome. 
Immigration Fraud—China 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: With regard to reported comments: “Immigration fraud from China has fuelled a thriving black market on the streets of Christchurch and authorities have struggled to come to terms with the fraud.” how widespread does he believe this problem to be and what plans if any does he have to deal with the problem? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Government is concerned about immigration fraud. The size of the problem is however hard to estimate. The Government has allocated an additional $20 million over 4 years to deal with the issue. It has increased the number of immigration fraud investigators established an intelligence unit strengthened the relationship between the police and the Immigration Service and is moving to regulate the immigration advice industry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that in August 2004 a Christchurch newspaper by the name of  
i 
-Ball 
—“Bridging the Cultures” is on its title—has a front-page and third-page article outlining that international students mainly from China can buy camouflage passports from the Internet? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Obviously there have been lots of allegations of matters around people getting access to fraudulent documents. That is unacceptable. As a result the Government has increased money in order to be able to deal with that very very major problem of fraudulent documents. That is why the number of convictions and prosecutions is rising. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What success has the Immigration Service had in tracking down and dealing with immigration fraud? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is as I said a big issue. However we are making some progress. For example last year the number of charges laid and successful prosecutions was up significantly on the year before and already this year the number of successful prosecutions has exceeded those for the whole of last year. The message going out to the crooks and the fraudsters is that this Government takes immigration fraud seriously and that the behaviour will not be tolerated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that international students have not been able to come here on a false passport and further abuse our laws by using fake identification in New Zealand; and has he been advised of that occurrence as outlined in the newspaper by his colleague Lianne Dalziel who appears on page 2 talking about crime? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was not particularly aware that Lianne Dalziel was on page 2 but I am sure—[ 
Interruption 
] Was she on page 3? If there is a photo I am sure it is a very nice photo. Probably the member was saying good sense as she always does. However the idea of fraudulent documents is a problem. The new advance warning systems will help but the fact is that fraud is not just an issue for New Zealand—it is about a $24 billion industry internationally. We are doing a lot about it. We are putting more money into it and having more success as a result. 
Education Service—Remuneration 
11.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Who is responsible for the remuneration packages of chief executives in the education service and does this responsibility include approving entitlements to golden handshakes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 In the education service the governing body of each agency is the employer of the chief executive. Councils of tertiary education institutions are required under the State Sector Act to obtain the concurrence of the State Services Commissioner to the proposed terms and conditions of employment for the chief executive. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Come on speak up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can hear perfectly well. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is the member who gets bounced all over the place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please continue with the answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: For schools and kindergartens the commissioner is responsible for negotiating the terms and conditions of employment but has delegated those to the Secretary for Education. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fully accept that as close as you are to the Minister you can no doubt hear. I have my speaker set on high—I can hear mumbling but I cannot discern or understand what it is he is saying at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a fair point. I ask the Minister to speak into the microphone and to repeat his answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Once an individual agreement is signed by the employing council it is responsible for managing the employment relationship. That includes for example exercising the termination provisions in case of sickness redundancy or misconduct. I am advised that non-contractual ex gratia payments are the prerogative of the institution concerned and do not under the current legislation require concurrence. That is why in my opinion an unfortunate payment was made to the former vice-chancellor of Lincoln University. 
Hon Bill English 
: What kind of Government policy is it that says the Government is opposed to golden handshakes being paid that it approves contracts to make sure golden handshakes are not being paid but that it is OK if the governing body of Lincoln University then decides to pay one—as long as they do not ask? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think they were kind enough to inform that they had and received my displeasure at that time and publicly since. I think the effect for Government representatives on councils that defy Government policy will be clear when they come up for renewal. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister taken action to ensure that when contracts are drawn up for vice-chancellors of universities there is no possibility that golden handshakes can be paid; and where it has occurred in contravention of Government policy has he done any more than just look a little bit displeased about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that if one discusses the matter with people like the chancellor of the university one will know that looking a little displeased is not my reaction. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister know when he approved the contract that universities were legally able to make ex gratia payments; and did he allow for that possibility because he realised that his own policy was probably impractical? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have never approved a vice-chancellor’s contract. That would be an absolute breach of the State Sector Act. I should say that for a former Minister to allege that shows his ignorance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister intend to change the legislation in order that it expresses Government policy that no golden handshakes be paid or is he just going to allow this practice to continue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the problems of having institutions with some autonomy is that they are left with autonomy to do things outside contractual arrangements. This is exactly what happened at Lincoln and this case has drawn to the attention of the Government the problem around the width of the contracts. I do want to consider whether it is appropriate to remove their autonomy in these matters but I should say that it would be a finely balanced decision and there would be many people in the House who would not think that that was a good idea. 
Home Invasion—111 Call 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Will he stake his ministerial reputation on the accuracy of reported police statements that they handled the Bentley home invasion 111 call in “textbook” fashion and that “This is one of the times we should be patting ourselves on the back and saying well done”; if not does he consider the Prime Minister should keep him in office? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 No. As I told the House yesterday I take responsibility for policy issues and the Commissioner of Police has responsibility for operational issues. This case is one that will be looked at in the review of the communications centres. As a hard-working and conscientious Minister I expect to be in office for some time to come and I believe the party that Mr Ryall belongs to will be in Opposition for a long time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The only point to this point of order is to put on record Mr Power’s comment that the Commissioner of Police should resign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What action if any will he take as Minister of Police in light of the so-called textbook procedure in the Bentley 111 home invasion when it is now reported that the emergency services were not advised that firearms were involved that a lone police officer from Rotorua apparently had to backtrack in order to arm himself as the incident was upgraded and that another police officer got lost; and in which textbook is that approach recommended? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I would tell the member that this is one of the cases that will be looked at in the review of the communications centres. I think that relying on newspaper reports is not always very good. I do not believe every newspaper reporter gets right all that he or she tells. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What effect has this Government’s policies had on police performance? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Under this Government the police are doing better than they ever have. The crime rate is at its lowest for decades crime resolution rates are at their highest road deaths for the last month are at the lowest level since records have been taken police budgets are at the highest level they have ever been at and police numbers have never been higher. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Is there any failure over which he thinks it would be appropriate to resign or does he think he should be the Minister no matter what? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that the police are doing a good job. As Minister I have nothing to say other than that they are doing very well and there is no need for me to consider any other action. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the inquiry into the police 111 system shows a need for increased staffing training or other resources will the Minister accept that he has failed in his basic responsibility as Minister which is to ensure the resources are provided for a safe 111 system in this country? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: First I must say the communications centre operation was brought in by the previous Government. We have continued to make improvements to it and we will continue to make improvements if the review states that that is necessary. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question and it was not answered. Will the Minister accept responsibility and resign in the case of the 111 review requiring additional resources staffing or training? He did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is one word that can answer that question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No. 
Questions to Members 
Finance and Expenditure Committee—Inquiry into Fraudulent Investment Schemes 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What witnesses have appeared in the committee’s “Inquiry into the revenue effects of fraudulent investment schemes” and on what dates? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The previous Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence from the Securities Commission and the Serious Fraud Office on 15 May 2002 from the Securities Commission and the Commerce Commission on 22 May 2002 and from the Serious Fraud Office on 29 May 2002. The current Finance and Expenditure Committee heard evidence from Mr David Henderson on 11 December 2002. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the committee given any thought to inviting John Tamihere along as a witness given his expression as being a tax expert in his book  
Black and White 
; if not why not? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No we have not. That would be a matter for the committee. I simply ask this of the member: why does he not open his books and tell us what he received in Fiji in the scam? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the committee propose to call Rodney Hide as an expert witness in particular in respect of his international experience? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may answer only in so far as the question relates to the actual job of the chairperson. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No As I am sure the member will know the committee is prevented under Standing Order 199 from inquiring into allegations concerning identifiable individuals. However the committee has received compelling evidence in respect of Mr Hide’s participation in a Fiji scam conference including an affidavit. As to the interpretation of that evidence that is a matter for the committee to determine taking account of the appropriate Standing Order. 
Urgent Debates 
Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the resignation of John Tamihere. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I did permit an urgent debate on 19 October when Mr Tamihere stood down from his ministerial portfolios and an inquiry was set up. I have therefore had to consider very carefully whether a further debate on this matter is justified given that recent debate having been held particularly as not every ministerial resignation leads to an urgent debate being accepted. I have decided to err on the side of allowing this debate given the interest in the matter but I point out that the fact that two urgent debates have now been allowed on it will weigh very heavily in the balance with any future application on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition’s application was the first one I received and therefore I call on him to move the motion. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Finally it has happened. John Tamihere has walked the plank. But the decision should not have been Mr Tamihere’s. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been far too much interjection in the first minute or two of this debate. This is a serious matter that the House is debating and I want it to be heard in relative silence. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The decision should not have been Mr Tamihere’s. The Prime Minister acted on other occasions. On this occasion she abdicated her responsibilities and has shown she is prepared to adopt a double ministerial standard. It is nothing short of an outrage that the Prime Minister has left it open to Mr Tamihere to return to Cabinet. She is trying to have a dollar each way by trying not to upset urban Maori or the right-wing faction of her own caucus. This is deal-making on an extraordinary scale but we all know why. She is playing for time. She desperately needed and still needs Mr Tamihere’s loyalty. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have now had enough. The rest of the speech will be heard in relative silence. I am not having any more interjections particularly as a lot of them have been in the second person. The member is only lengthening the time that it takes because of course the point of order does not come out of his speech. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The Prime Minister needs Mr Tamihere to convince the public they have nothing to fear from the secret deals being done with Maori to hand over ownership of beaches and lakes. She needs him to woo the hard-working urban New Zealanders whom her PC Government has been offending over the last 5 years. She needed him to keep an increasingly angry Maori caucus onside. But most important she needed him not to call a by-election and upset her tenuous grip on power. So instead of sacking John Tamihere immediately as she did Lianne Dalziel she allowed him to stay on full pay because it suited her. 
The Prime Minister made much of the fact in answering questions earlier today that there were some matters that needed to be sorted out and debated in an inquiry. She referred to the Douglas White inquiry. But on one thing there is no debate. There is no question it is not in contention that Mr Tamihere did accept a golden handshake having said that he would not accept one. That is not in debate; it is clearly understood. She should have sacked Mr Tamihere immediately as she did Lianne Dalziel but she allowed him to stay on full pay until today when he resigned. It was a cynical stalling for time while Labour’s pollsters judged the mood of the public. I could have told her 3 weeks ago that the public do not like it when Ministers tell them one thing and secretly do another. They do not like it when the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that when Mr Speaker was in the Chair he asked that this debate be heard in silence. He did say “the rest of the service” but I think he meant speech not funeral service. 
Simon Power 
: Are you going to allow that to happen? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. The member will be seated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have not finished my point of order. The substance of my point is whether the silence applies to members of the member’s own party interjecting to give him assistance during this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not accept that. I just say to members that frivolous interjections and points of order designed to break up speeches are out of order. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The public do not like it when Ministers say one thing and do another. They do not like it when the Prime Minister is prepared to tolerate double standards. They do not like it when a Minister takes a golden handshake and calls it koha. And they do not like it when the Minister accepting koha is the very person the Government has trotted out to try to con the public into believing that this Government has changed its attitude towards Maori issues. This is the same Minister who is trying to con the public into believing there is no double standard applying to Maori in this country. 
This whole episode has made a total mockery of the Government’s hollow promises to end the so-called “culture of extravagance” and has made the pledge to put a stop to golden handshakes look totally farcical. This is a tired Government. The Prime Minister lies awake at night counting—not sheep but Labour’s votes in the House. It is not hard to see why the Prime Minister took no action. She needed John Tamihere’s vote in the House for this Government to survive. She has been forced to take the pressure because she needs Mr Tamihere’s vote. She had to make a deal because the Government’s majority is at stake; so is the Government’s vote on the seabed and foreshore. 
 There is more to it than this. John Tamihere has already opened his books to the Prime Minister. Why did she not find anything? Was she looking the other way? Was she following the same policy that she adopted during the earlier inquiry into the Waipareira Trust? That found nothing. Was that because of the narrow terms of reference or was the Prime Minister again looking the other way? 
But let us contrast this affair with the treatment Helen Clark meted out to Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle. Both lost their warrants and their ministerial pay while investigations into their electoral enrolments and their out-of-town allowances were carried out. Once Marian Hobbs was cleared she was allowed back. But Mr Tamihere will not be cleared. He is guilty of taking a golden handshake that he said he would not take. There is debate about his tax affairs and debate about electoral expenses and that has been explained today in the House but there is no debate about the fact that he took a substantial golden handshake after he said he would not take it. There is no doubt about that issue at all. Although he called it koha and although he said it would be insensitive to refuse it what sort of PC nonsense is that from a man whom Labour puts up as a good Kiwi bloke? 
How does Lianne Dalziel feel about all this? She is not saying much because she is doing a deal with the Prime Minister also. She has served her time on the outer and the rumours are that she will soon be back. Helen Clark counts on us all having very short memories. She is counting on us particularly forgetting the things that she said when she was in Opposition. Let us just remind ourselves of some of the things she said. First: “We are calling for higher standards of ministerial accountability and behaviour.” Another quote: “‘Responsible’ I interpret as being morally accountable for one’s actions.” “It is better to be told the truth before the election than after it.” said Helen Clark. She said: “I want Labour in Government to usher in a new era of political accountability and responsibility.” “I want honesty”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not quite hear—was that the bell or was it an alarm clock going off? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been here a long time and he knows that that is a frivolous interjection. He also knows that that sort of thing leads to disorder. What I want is what everyone in this House wants and that is order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So what are you going to do about it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have cautioned the member. He has his first yellow card. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very good speech from the Leader of the Opposition has been interrupted twice—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order and that is to be heard in silence—Standing Order 84(3). 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He has been twice interrupted by what you yourself have ruled to be frivolous objections. Now if we are going to have that kind of conduct in the House then National can play the game just as well. During the next speech by a Government speaker we will have a line-up of 27 of us who will all take a frivolous point of order and you will do the same thing and the House will be brought into disrepute. We simply ask that you take some action. It was absolutely blatantly obvious that the points of order from Mr Mallard and Mr Peters were totally out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Both members have been warned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone will be going out very shortly. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I was quoting some of the comments that Helen Clark made when she was in Opposition. She said: “I want Labour in Government to usher in a new era of political accountability and responsibility.” “I want honesty in politics. I want politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say.” She said: “There will be a new era of moderation frugality and integrity in the public sector. We don’t ask for a blank cheque from the public we are making commitments on which we will deliver. We are accountable to you.” The public is demanding that the Prime Minister deliver on that accountability. 
The Prime Minister has failed to act and she was prepared to accept a new low standard of ministerial behaviour. For the sake of political expediency the Prime Minister was prepared to leave it up to John Tamihere to resign rather than doing the right thing earlier than today. But even now the Prime Minister is prepared to offer him a secret deal that will allow him to return to Cabinet. So much for accountability. So much for integrity. 
What has changed in the past 3 weeks? She has known about this payment which the Minister denied receiving for 3 weeks. Why did she allow him to sit on a ministerial salary of $4000 a week over the last 3 weeks and why is the door still open to him to come back? Sure Mr Tamihere played his part in the defence by offering up the koha argument. Ms Clark’s role has been no less damaging. Helen Clark has tolerated two standards of ministerial behaviour for cynical electoral expediency. It is indeed a very sad day for this House and for New Zealand democracy. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Obviously that speech was not a leadership bid! I was looking for the fast-forward button actually. The reports of the count in the American election were somewhat more exciting; I thank the Labour junior whip for continually forwarding them to me. 
Truly that speech was an embarrassment and one scanned the Opposition ranks to see who looked the most embarrassed. Was it Bill English? At least Bill English would have put some energy into it. Was it John Key who looked the most embarrassed? John Key is thinking that if Don Brash can get the leadership of the National Party in 1 year maybe he can do it in 2. I think he has hope. Was it Murray McCully who looked the most embarrassed? No one could see Murray McCully because he was crouching behind with the knife. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that this is a special debate on the resignation of John Tamihere as a Minister of the Crown. I have been listening to the somewhat boring speech from the Prime Minister for 2½ minutes and the subject has not been mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. Please be seated. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The verdict on this side is to sack the speechwriter but we also recommend considering sacking the Leader of the Opposition. We are so happy that this urgent debate was accepted today. 
Earlier today I received a letter of resignation from John Tamihere and I have advised the Governor-General to accept the resignation. Almost 3 weeks ago a process was put in place by me and the Acting Prime Minister Dr Cullen and I believe that that approach has been widely supported by all fair-minded people. That approach saw the Minister asked to stand aside from portfolios and saw an inquiry set up to look at a wide range of allegations that had been made so that we could get to the bottom of them. Fair-minded people accepted that as due process. In the meantime I like fair-minded people—and there are fair-minded people in many parts of this House but not directly opposite—suspended judgment on a range of allegations because I like to know the facts. 
I would expect Douglas White QC to report reasonably expeditiously but I do know that the Serious Fraud Office tends to report in slower time. I say that not as a criticism of the Serious Fraud Office; it is important that it does its work properly and deliberately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It took 18 months for McCully. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Eighteen months for one member was mentioned; another member of this House from an Opposition party is currently before the courts where rather a long time was taken—I will not dwell on that point. 
It has become clear to John Tamihere as it is clear to any observer that obviously if the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate a matter then Mr White QC’s report cannot settle the matter definitively. I might say that John Tamihere himself last Friday took the step of forwarding the Paragon Risk report to the Serious Fraud Office and I commend him for that. Mr Tamihere’s position is that he does not want to sit in limbo-land while a long process of inquiry goes on because there is work to do. 
And is there ever work to do! This Government has a very strong story to tell in Maoridom—a very strong story. I expect that Mr Tamihere now released from ministerial duties will be out there pointing out that when this Government came into office Maori unemployment was 18.8 percent and in the June quarter this year it was 8.8 percent. That is a success and he can take credit for that being part of the Government and that will be one of many reasons why he is out on the stump campaigning for the return of a Labour Government. He will have many other things to say. Not only will he point to the fact that more than 40000 more Maori are in work than when this Government came into office; he will point to the number of Maori succeeding in business. He will talk about 17 percent of our industry trainees being Maori—getting back to the kaupapa of the Maori Battalion and the schemes put in place after the war. He will talk about language strategies Maori Television health initiatives housing success in education the numbers of Maori in tertiary education and the numbers coming into early childhood education. He has a great story to tell. Now that he is released from ministerial duties while those inquiries go on he can go out and campaign fully for that. 
I have said that the course Mr Tamihere took today is a very honourable course. I repeat to the House what I told the media conference—that I have always seen great potential in John Tamihere and I continue to see great potential in John Tamihere. I know because I worked with him as closely as with any colleague how much hard work he put into those portfolios how much energy he put in and it is my hope that he will be able to contribute at ministerial level again. I am not making a new appointment to Cabinet at this time. There is an old saying: “To err is human to forgive divine.” Mr Tamihere is human. I am certainly not divine but I believe that notwithstanding that he is human he has a big contribution to make to New Zealand politics and he will continue to make that contribution. 
In Mr Tamihere’s statement today he said he had accepted an ex gratia payment although he had said he would not. He said he regretted not advising me of that and as I have told the House today I regret that too because my advice would have been not to take that payment. Indeed I can go further and say my requirement would have been not to take it because I do believe in saying one thing before an election and saying the same thing afterwards. I accept the action he has taken today as an honourable one. 
I would say that there is only one crowd that is disappointed by what has happened today—and it is the Opposition. When those members sat in Government they had Ministers sit here and deny they had done anything wrong at all. I am trying to think when I saw an honourable resignation from a Minister in a National Government. I am trying to think of such an example. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Winston. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Well it is true; I cannot remember whether he resigned or was sacked but there was an issue of principle involved and I acknowledge that Mr Peters as Minister of Maori Affairs with  
Ka Awatea 
 actually was endeavouring to do something for his people in that portfolio. I acknowledge that—absolutely. 
But I sat in this House and watched a Minister of Conservation in the National Government never take responsibility. I saw all sorts of allegations fly around about Ministers and flak-jacket contracts and I saw no proper inquiries made and no one taking responsibility. I saw over three-quarters of a million dollars paid out to get rid of people from the Tourism Board because Mr McCully had fallen out with them. I never saw a resignation. We could go on. 
The same party now wants an execution before an investigation has been made. The same party’s deputy leader was found by a court in this country to have used excessive and unnecessary force against a man—a pensioner—who said he had feared for his life. That deputy leader of the National Party was fined $8500. Another member still sitting on that front bench courtesy of Don Brash was fined for contempt of court. So let us not have it said that there is no honour on this side of the House. There is a great deal of honour on this side of the House. 
Earlier today in question time Dr Brash asked me a question about Mr Tamihere and he quoted from Mr Tamihere’s book—I am so pleased he stays awake at night reading it. He asked whether I had taken any notice of a part in the book where Mr Tamihere said: “One thing I was good at was telling stories some of them less than truthful.” What Dr Brash did not tell the House was that this was something Mr Tamihere said of the time when he was 5 years old. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Five years old! Who of us wants to be convicted in our mid-40s as Mr Tamihere is of something we thought when we were 5 years old? That kind of pathetic bleating is what we are used to from that Opposition. I say that today Mr Tamihere acted with honour and that I have sat in the past on Opposition benches and I have seen one Minister after another of a National Government act with dishonour. I rest my case. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Sometimes in politics one makes a serious mistake and gets overconfident and the ramifications last for a long long time. Back in 1999 Mr Tamihere constructed a cardboard cut-out of myself put Sellotape over the top of my mouth and went around telling people that I would not debate with him—even though he had never ever asked me to at any point in time. I just want to quote from a newspaper article of 16 November 1999: “A ‘paper war’ has erupted between Labour candidate John Tamihere and New Zealand First leader Winston Peters over their respective track records.” John Tamihere is quoted as saying: “He [Peters] says he will meet me anywhere anytime but I can’t get him to come to the table.” 
Well we have all seen the ramifications of that in the last few weeks because what happened was that Mr Tamihere was challenging a member of Parliament in respect of his record so we laid it out before the public and the media in 1999. What I do not understand is why it has taken 5 long years for it to become public knowledge. I just want to say to Helen Clark that in 1999 she was given all the warning a leader would need that something was amiss here. She was given all the notice a leader would need that something was wrong—bearing in mind that we in New Zealand First all dramatically remember the attack she led against Tuku Morgan. She called it sleaze. She gave it every description possible. She said it was absolutely abominable that someone might walk out of his office at half-past 3 on a Friday afternoon having been paid to do the job that he was doing then spend his money on something that looked to be expensive—even though it was his money. Even though a schoolteacher might leave school at half-past 3 on a Friday afternoon and go out to a restaurant she still regarded that as being public property. Four full inquiries later into the affairs of Tuku Morgan and Aotearoa Television found nothing wrong whatsoever. But that did not stop the mob in the press gallery from going on about it for 10 long months and following Helen Clark’s every word. 
Today she gets up in this House and she uses the word “honour”. Honour! The reality is that John Tamihere said back in 1999 when he was challenged that he would not take a golden handshake and that there was no car involved. Today we have his admission that those statements were false. How the Prime Minister can say now that she did not know is beyond me. It is simply beyond me. Her colleagues go to the Maori Affairs Committee; there a former lawyer for the Waipareira Trust outlined his concerns where he is the star witness of 32 cheques being forged and apparently not one of her colleagues left that select committee and went and told her. Do members believe that? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am having the greatest difficulty understanding how that information would not have been instantly relayed to the leader. But if we go back to the Tuku Morgan affair who led the charge? Mr Mallard and Helen Clark—day in day out. And the media put in every darn word. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why is Tuku chicken to go to court? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: About what? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He is suing me but he won’t go to court. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Maybe he cannot afford it. But if I were in that case I would be going to court with that member because he falsely used a tape-recording and he knows it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He took a tape-recording and misused it and that would be tampering with evidence. That is what Mr Mallard did and he knows that is true. But more important all those allegations were made by that member but four full-scale inquiries—the commerce department the Companies Office the Serious Fraud Office and one other—found nothing. But the mob was out. Some might call it just being plain anti-Maori. 
Ron Mark 
: No—there is a woman scorned. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no—I remember that attack. And today we are asked to accept that all is above board and this is a matter of honour. Well there is no honour in it whatsoever. 
Pita Paraone 
: He’s a goner. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right and we are getting hoha about that koha because it was not koha; it was $280000 and there was a car involved. And there were for example loans involved—loans written off. Here is what John Tamihere said about his house loan. When I accused him of getting a house loan and being charged 5 percent when the current mortgage rate was 12.8 percent he said he recalled getting a home loan from the trust in 1991 but could not remember the details. What lawyer cannot remember the details of his own house loan? What lawyer cannot remember those sorts of details? 
Here is the second matter. Members will remember that Mr Tamihere said when he got up in the House that he was not convicted of any crime such as forging and uttering. The reason for that was that he had confessed! Do members see the delicate use of words that might mislead people as to what the truth is? I am sad to say there is just too much of it. 
Up in the press gallery of course its members say that John Tamihere is a Maori leader. What they would know about Maoridom is beyond me but they keep on writing that. They say he is a Maori leader. They know nothing about Maoridom. They know nothing about the standards that enduring Maori leadership requires. They know nothing about how Maori feel when they see that their money is going to someone who should not be getting it. 
A golden handshake of $280000 is huge and one cannot say: “Take off the tax component.”—we all have to pay tax. But it was not just that; there was a four-wheel drive as well—and if that is not good enough there are plenty of other things as well. And here come the Labour Party and Mr Tamihere today saying: “Oh it’s a back payment for this and that and this and that over 10 years.” Well I am sorry but as some people in this House know I have always believed that this issue of the golden handshake would be his undoing—as well as other things. Labour members can put any spin on it they like but I am afraid it will not wash. I recall during the 1999 campaign the numerous times Helen Clark rose with her colleagues to criticise the golden handshake mentality. Oh they were imperious then! Were they not as pure as the driven snow back then! But all of a sudden we know that there are different standards when they get into office and have power. 
So I am sad to say that Maoridom has been let down again and grievously so. They were told by the media that a new rising star had just risen in the east. That is what they were told—or in this case the west. 
Ron Mark 
: And the Three Wise Men were on their way. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: And the Three Wise Men were on their way but what was being borne as gifts did not necessarily amount to legal transfer of property or things of value or treasure. So sadly Maoridom has been let down again and I think the inevitable outcome if the inquiry is properly performed is that the Prime Minister will be seen to have acted very very rashly and to have ignored facts and warnings that she must have had for years. It is sad but she has acted rashly on this matter. She has been caught and hoist by her own words in respect of these issues and there is no honour involved at all. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 During the last urgent debate on John Tamihere on 19 October I said that whatever the outcome of the formal investigation Mr Tamihere has to live with having made a categorical public statement that he would not accept a golden handshake before the election and then proceeding to accept one after the election. I went on to say that ultimately he would be judged on the morality rather than the legality of his behaviour and that he should reflect on that as he made a political decision about his future. Mr Tamihere has reflected and I believe he has taken the honourable course of action. But he has taken it at least 2 weeks too late to rescue his political career. 
As I also said during that last urgent debate John Tamihere has been a role model to many people both Maori and Pakeha. He has let them down he has let himself down and clearly we now know that he has let down the Prime Minister. He should not have taken that payment. He should have consulted with the Prime Minister at the time—as we were clearly told today she would have advised him not to take that payment—and in the last 2 weeks he should not have disguised through various ruses the fact that the part of the payment that does not connect in any way with particular expenses salaries or bonuses was in fact a golden handshake. I believe he will now be judged harshly for his belated honesty and he has to live with that. 
I do not want to prolong Mr Tamihere’s agony any further except to say that whatever the outcome of the formal investigation I still think it is unacceptable for a member of Parliament to channel his or her election expenses through an organisation that he or she has worked for especially one that is significantly Government-funded and exists to help those who are very much the disadvantaged and poor in our community. I know that I would have found it immoral and unacceptable to do that myself when I was working at Trade Aid which is in many respects a similar organisation to the Waipareira Trust in that it relies on a degree of Government funding and also exists primarily to help those who are in the greatest need. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Like the Green superannuation fund. 
ROD DONALD 
: Well the Green superannuation fund is a totally separate matter but I am happy to talk about it at any time. 
In fact now that Mr Peters has interrupted me I will move to the second to last point I was going to make. Mr Richard Prebble on 16 October last year in his vociferous speech opposing the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill which will in the interests of public accountably and transparency require all non-Ministers to make similar declarations to those that Ministers make said: “It is over to those who are promoting this bill to show why members of Parliament should make those declarations.” I think that today we have a very clear demonstration of why all members of Parliament should make those declarations. [ 
Interruption 
] It was before he was a Minister I say to Mr Hide. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why would it make a difference? 
ROD DONALD 
: Because he should have made the declaration before he became a Minister that he had received that golden handshake. 
In closing I say that this is a very sad day for this Parliament because our word is meant to be our honour and one of our members has admitted that he has not kept to his word. It is a very sad day for the Government because it has waited 2 weeks for Mr Tamihere to do the honourable thing which he should have done on at least 19 October and I would suggest some time prior to that—perhaps as far back as when Mr Winston Peters first raised the issue. Ultimately it is a very sad day for John Tamihere because I think this marks the end of his political career. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 What a difference a day makes to Helen Clark! Do members remember what occurred yesterday in the House? How many times did Helen Clark get up and say the Government was going to have due process and would not make a decision until all the facts were in? She was not going to decide anything she said until she had consulted with senior people and until the Doug White report came in. And then what happened? Helen Clark had a day from hell answering questions about John Tamihere. She put distance between herself and him and the next day she accepted his resignation. She did not have to accept his resignation. What about due process? What about getting the facts in? What about the Doug White report? Helen Clark sacrificed John Tamihere; she accepted his resignation. She said very carefully that she had had nothing to do with his putting in his resignation but we know that her people were talking to him. They told him that the deal was that if he resigned sat quietly on the back bench like a good Maori Labour MP and voted for the Foreshore and Seabed Bill he may be back as a Minister. We know one thing: John Tamihere will not be back. I do not believe that he can even stand as a candidate for the Labour Party. 
Let us see what Helen Clark has been saying. She called it honour; she called it setting standards. What do we know about Mr John Tamihere thus far? I am not worried about what he did when he was 5; I am interested in what he did when he was 35. When John Tamihere was 35 he forged two signatures and then as a lawyer witnessed them as being accurate. Why? He did it to obtain $160000 of taxpayers’ money for a trust that he was running. There is no question about it. He turned up at the Auckland District Court pleaded guilty to that and then got a section 17 discharge and full name suppression. Bob Harvey and Dr Pita Sharples were there saying what a great guy he was. Forgery and uttering did not matter. Helen Clark has told Parliament she knew about that in 1995 but it was OK to be a forger and an utterer and to be a candidate for the Labour Party and a Cabinet Minister. We can see why that is: because the Prime Minister forged a painting. I did not see her stand down while that matter was investigated either. 
Now we know something else about the standards of the Labour Party. We know that it is OK for a member to say when campaigning that he is not going to take a golden handshake—that he has been offered it but that he is not going to take it—to win support for that and then when elected to rush around and knock on the back door of the Waipareira Trust to ask for the money. That is what happened. The Waipareira Trust which receives taxpayers’ money for the poor and downtrodden—whom Labour members like David Cunliffe pretend they represent—had to sell $115000 worth of assets in order to pay John Tamihere his golden handshake. He took $195000 and then said he had no idea that there may be some tax to pay on it. What is the tax going to be? It will be socked to the Waipareira Trust too and it will probably sink the trust. We know that the amount was $195000 net and $320000 gross. The difference has to be paid plus the penalties and the interest so we are looking at over $200000 in tax. Does Labour care about that? No. 
Then we found out that John Tamihere was using the Waipareira Trust to pay for his campaign and did not put that on his electoral return. Why? If people had known that they would have been appalled and outraged so John Tamihere did not put on his electoral return the fact that the Waipareira Trust had spent $18000 on getting him elected. He hid that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is required by law. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is required by law as Mr Peters called out. Indeed I asked the Serious Fraud Office whether it would be fraud if there was a false electoral return and David Bradshaw said it would be. How did that happen? What did Helen Clark say? She said it was OK; there were new standards and it was a matter of honour—“To err is human to forgive divine.” So Mr Tamihere is human and Helen Clark is divine floating above us all and deciding on justice. We have learnt that it is OK to be a fraudster OK to forge documents OK to utter documents in order to obtain taxpayers’ money OK to tell the public one thing and do the other OK not to pay one’s tax and OK not to fill in one’s electoral return as required by the law. That is the standard this Government has set. I hope the public of New Zealand sees through Helen Clark and the falsities that she has put around. 
We have heard from John Tamihere. The Waipareira Trust did not just pay his electoral expenses; it paid for him while he campaigned for Labour. When he was questioned about that what did he say? He said that someone had to pay his mortgage and feed his kids. That is the standard of Helen Clark: taxpayers’ money went into the Waipareira Trust to help the poor and downtrodden and that money was diverted into funding John Tamihere’s campaign and paying him while he campaigned. John Tamihere knew that was wrong. How do we know that? We know that because he did not put it on his electoral return. It starts to add up. What did he come out with then? What did that great blokes’ bloke that red-blooded male that non-PC Maori MP for the Labour Party—the man who would not stand up for cultural excuses—come up with as his excuse? He said it was koha. He said the Waipareira Trust had offered him the $195000 as a cultural gift and it would have been culturally offensive for him to turn it down. And Helen Clark finds nothing the matter with that! The truth is that John Tamihere was rattling every cage at the Waipareira Trust to get his $195000. That is what we know. That man who had pleaded guilty to forging and uttering filled out his electoral return wrongly took money that he said he would not take and filled in his ministerial return as being nil. He was wandering around west Auckland with $195000 in his pocket and nothing to show for it. But Helen Clark says that that is OK. 
People have asked about the contrast between John Tamihere and Lianne Dalziel who got the bullet immediately. The Prime Minister talked about standards. Standards mean that one does what is right no matter what the consequences are. There is a big difference between Lianne Dalziel and John Tamihere: Helen Clark cannot afford a by-election in a Maori seat. As the leader of the Labour Party she lost all the Maori seats once before and she is about to lose them all again. So she has gone to John Tamihere and told him that if he behaves himself is a good Labour MP forgets about his Maori constituents and thinks about the Labour Party he will be all right. How can any party have as a candidate someone who does not pay taxes? How can any party have someone who said before the election that he or she would not do something and who then did it? How can any party have a person who has pleaded guilty in a criminal court to a criminal charge of forgery and uttering? I am afraid those are the standards of Helen Clark. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There is an old proverb that says “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”. Today John Tamihere has become the latest victim of that proverb. It is certainly true as events have unfolded over the last few weeks that his position as a Minister of the Crown became increasingly untenable. I do not believe that the matters relating to the taxation treatment of the payment that he received were ultimately his downfall. I think that Mr Tamihere’s downfall was brought about by his somewhat less than straightforward statements about whether he had received the payment in the first place—a point that he acknowledged in his statement this afternoon. I think it is a sobering reminder to every single one of us in this House and to the wider community that when we are put into a position where strong questions are asked of us we must give answers in a clear an accurate and a truthful way. People have seldom been hanged for what they do not do; they are frequently hanged for what they do. I think Mr Tamihere’s situation was a case in point. 
Mr Tamihere is not the only person to have woven a tangled web over this saga. When the House debated this matter 2 weeks ago all the calls then were for Mr Tamihere’s instant removal from office. The Douglas White inquiry was argued to be irrelevant a sham a cover-up and an excuse simply to give the Government space. Now that Mr Tamihere has resigned those same people say that because the process of the Douglas White inquiry has been put in train it should be allowed to run its course and make its recommendations and rulings. “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”. 
I think that the issue that arises from all that was touched on by one of the earlier speakers and it relates to standards. Standards come at a number of levels. There are the standards of behaviour required of Ministers of the Crown in terms of their demeanour their general behaviour and the statutory declarations that they make regarding financial matters. It is arguable that Mr Tamihere failed on probably all those counts in the end. Then there are the standards that apply to all members of Parliament. For the life of me I cannot see why we maintain a distinction between the two. I think that the pecuniary interests legislation that is before the Standing Orders Committee at the moment is entirely appropriate and that these events have made it even more so. 
I will make the point that the history of New Zealand politics in the last 60 or 70 years is not littered with very many examples of ministerial resignations. When resignations have occurred it has either been because someone was at death’s door or because an arm was twisted so strongly up someone’s back that it became impossible to do otherwise. An ultimatum was delivered as in the Derek Quigley case in 1982. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was held in the safe actually. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It may well have been held in the safe; it had the same impact as twisting an arm. The only three instances that I am aware of in which a Minister has genuinely resigned on what could be argued to be a matter of principle were Downie Stewart in 1933 over exchange rate policy Apirana Ngata in 1934 over financial irregularities in the then Native Department—both of which were accepted—and Roger Douglas in 1987 or 1988 over the pre-leaking of some aspects of the Budget that year. His resignation was not accepted. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They were left in the corridor. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not care where they were left. The point I am making— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was a jack-up as with Koro Wetere. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member is missing the point. The point I am making is that there is not a very strong history in this country of Ministers accepting responsibility for their actions. In fact Bob Semple’s famous words over the Fordell dam collapse illustrated that: “I am responsible but not to blame”. 
Simon Power 
: Absolutely right. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member whose area that was based in will know what I am referring to. I think that John Tamihere by standing in the House this afternoon and making the statement that he has made—whatever construction members choose to place upon it—has shown a sense of honour. It was very courageous to come here in the midst of all the accusations that have been swirling around face this Chamber and make that statement in the way that he did. Members will have their own view about its content and context but they cannot detract from the fact that in this instance John Tamihere did front up. That is a refreshing thing in this political environment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Two weeks late. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member says that it was 2 weeks late. Two weeks ago Mr Tamihere’s opponents were saying that an inquiry would be a sham that it should not be so limited and that it should be a full commission of inquiry. Now when John Tamihere has reacted by resigning they say that it was 2 weeks late. They cannot have it both ways and that is the point of this issue. 
What has happened here is regrettable. It has certainly destroyed a man’s career and has cast a slur on this Parliament. It has created a situation whereby a lot of New Zealanders—and I am sure the member who is seated opposite me will agree with what I am about to say—who have started off with a prejudice anyway will say yet again that when Maori are let near money they let us down. I think that is a reprehensible sentiment but it is one that is being said and heard in the wake of this incident. That is something we all have to confront. I regret very much that Mr Tamihere’s actions have placed us all as a nation in that situation. 
Where do we go to from here? The Douglas White inquiry will presumably be completed and will either confirm or contradict the statement that Mr Tamihere has made this afternoon. That will cause its own set of consequences. We do need to address the issue of standards because already as this debate has unfolded and in question time this afternoon and on other occasions all sorts of allegations have swirled around about other members about overseas commissions and about trips to all sorts of faraway places—that people were paid for performing duties. While we do not have clear sets of ethical guidelines and standards those allegations will continue to be made and will continue to swirl unproven to the detriment of the reputation of every single one of us. That is the first point that needs to be addressed. 
The second point is the one that I referred to a moment or two ago. We cannot continue in this country as a multi-ethnic culture that stresses its bicultural links if in fact we continue with the notion that putting Maori near money will cause unacceptable consequences. I put Mr Peters’ earlier colleague Mr Morgan into the same category of that debate. We think of the Tainui corporate box saga and of so many other things. The point I am making is that unfortunately for many people this incident will be seen as further proof of that notion. The real challenge for this House and for the members who are parading unctuously here in favour of accountability will be the extent to which they are now prepared to commit themselves to working towards better standards and dealing with that fundamental perception. In that situation John Tamihere is largely irrelevant. His circumstances mean that I think he is politically tarnished. But the message that arises from this matter cannot be lost sight of because if we do that we will simply be condemned to repeat the saga at some point in the future. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The Government has just lost its second Minister in 6 months for misleading the public. It is now time to ask what it is about the culture of the Labour Government that has meant that two of its rising stars two of its more capable Ministers have ended up losing their jobs. I say that it starts at the top. Even the way Helen Clark has handled this particular set of circumstances shows just how finely polished are the tools of deception in this Labour Government. 
The deception starts with small things like Ministers completely ignoring the Official Information Act. A couple of weeks ago in this House David Benson-Pope a junior Minister was shown to have completely breached the Official Information Act. He shamelessly got off apparently because according to Dr Cullen of some synonym in the letter he wrote. That is just one example. I deal regularly with the two education Ministers. Do they answer parliamentary questions on time? Never—not when it matters. Do they keep back information they should release? Every single time. Do they keep to the deadlines? Almost never. 
It starts with Helen Clark. This is a Prime Minister of New Zealand who in the course of an investigation over a forgery allegation refused to answer questions that the police asked her. She just refused to answer them. This is someone who attacked me when I suggested that our New Zealand troops should come back from Afghanistan when she had already decided to bring them back. She had already decided back in October 2002. She had decided 3 months before but said on the public record what a disgraceful idea it was. That is Helen Clark. That is how John Tamihere has found her over these last few weeks. 
I read in the  
Trans-Tasman 
 which used to be a venerable commentator— 
Simon Power 
: It used to be good. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
:—it used to be good—on Parliament about this Government’s high ethical standards. There is only one ethical standard in this Government: do not get caught. That is why John Tamihere’s resignation is without honour. He has known for 5 years that he took a golden handshake that he had said he would not take. He has known for that long. Actually I believe the Prime Minister has known for that long. Why did that man resign today? Was it because he owned up? No. Was it because Helen Clark found out and did something? No. In fact when she found out she did nothing—absolutely nothing. It was because he got caught. That is the only reason he resigned today. I challenge the next Government speaker to give any other reason. 
If this matter had not appeared in the media would John Tamihere have resigned? No. He would still be collecting his ministerial salary as he did up until today. He would still know he had taken a golden handshake in the knowledge that the Government had campaigned vigorously against such golden handshakes. The only standard in this Government is to not get caught. Every time Helen Clark will go as far as she can to get away with it. As Rodney Hide said what a difference a day makes. What happened was not that John Tamihere came to his senses and decided his position was untenable—that was evident to him or should have been the day it appeared in the media. What happened was that Helen Clark decided her position was untenable. She decided 3 weeks later that she could no longer get away with it. She had to cut and run. That is why he resigned today. If John Tamihere had any honour he would have fronted up to the facts 3 weeks ago. If Helen Clark had any standards she would have done exactly the same. 
There are broader issues involved in this than just compliance. I remember as the Minister of Health going to the Waipareira Trust. I remember talking to the people in the waiting room at the medical clinic. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: That made them all vote National! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should listen to this. Those people believed that the Waipareira Trust was there for them. They believed that the money the Government—and as a Minister I was representing that Government—was providing to the Waipareira Trust was to lift the health status of Maori. They believed that that money used properly would save lives that would otherwise be lost. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: We know what the National Party does don’t we. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the problem with that Minister—he does not understand the morality of this. Those people believed that something good was being done. 
I do not care whether John Tamihere accurately filled out his electorate expense return. What I do know is that he took public money to pay himself to campaign as a candidate. I see candidates at every election who have to resign their jobs and live off their savings like I did to get elected into Parliament. He took money that we gave to that trust to save children who have asthma meningitis and whooping cough. He took it. He took money off that trust for a house and a car. It might be in a trust and might not have to be on his ministerial return but he took it. He took not a few thousand dollars but hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
That damages the confidence not just of Maori who supported John Tamihere but of people like me who thought it all looked credible and who believed the rhetoric about independence enterprise and self-reliance. That is what is so deeply dishonourable about what has happened. It is not just that he upset the Labour Party’s political plan about golden handshakes; it is that if that party thinks that $89 on a set of underpants was a grievous thing how much is it when one takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the treatment of sick children and disadvantaged youth to line one’s own pocket? Let Helen Clark tell us what is so honourable about that. Whether or not John Tamihere is now in Cabinet does not matter. What matters is whether he will be able to hold his head up and stand in this Parliament knowing that hundreds of thousands of dollars meant for the most disadvantaged people in New Zealand with the best intentions of everyone involved went to lining his pocket. Mr Mallard should get up because he made the most fuss about the $89 underpants. What do I hear? 
The Labour Party will never understand this because it never thinks it can be wrong with public money. Really it believes the money belongs to it. That is what Labour has dragged Maoridom to as well—a whole culture of dependence and a moralism about public money. I do not think the Labour Party believes yet that a Labour Cabinet Minister could do wrong with public money. John Tamihere did. He has had to face the music. It was not honourable. Helen Clark has one standard: “Can you get away with it?”—and this time John Tamihere did not. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 At least there was a bit of life in that speech unlike the one that started off the debate from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr English was a bit like Joe Cocker—at least Joe Cocker alive—whereas the Leader of the Opposition was like Frank Sinatra dead as far as I could make out in terms of that performance. It was like he was crooning away from the grave as far as one could see. The real essence of what we have just been told is the really fascinating view of life that Tories always have: if one is working on behalf of the poor one should be poor; if one is working on behalf of the rich one should be rich. That of course is the motto Mr Rodney Hide lives by as he takes his outside payments—as he is still taking—in order to be a member of Parliament. 
This is a sad day. It is sad day for Mr Tamihere. He has been an able and energetic Minister who has represented a new wave of urban Maori in this House. He has represented their interests—and their interests are not those of wanting to be dependent upon the State as the member has just tried to argue but of wishing to advance themselves. Mr Tamihere has represented those people throughout his career both before he came to Parliament and while he has been in Parliament. Today he has engaged in an honourable action by standing down and no longer being a Minister. When did a member of the National Party ever do that? 
Darren Hughes 
: Never! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. It was once but then the member stopped being a member of the National Party sometime after that. That was when Mr Peters left the National Party over his treatment as Minister of Maori Affairs. But what else did we see? Did we ever see Mr Murray McCully who was a kind of walking video of accusations and muck during his ministerial career suggest that he should stand aside—a man who was found in fact to have acted unwisely in terms of his relationships with the Tourism Board? No not at all. There was Denis Marshall who never resigned over the fact that people died because of incompetence within the Department of Conservation—[ 
Interruption 
] And what about the man who is now interjecting—as I knew he would not be able to stop himself from doing—who was found guilty of contempt of court and proud of it because the judge found he did not believe what Dr Smith told the courts. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is true. That is exactly what the judge said in the judgment—that he did not find the statements made by the member credible. And what happened? He got advanced to the front bench despite the fact that his 10 minutes as deputy leader of the party caused such extreme stress depression and exhaustion on his part that he had to take 3 weeks’ paid break on full parliamentary salary. Being No. 2 to Don Brash in a bad year was too much for him to cope with. Then he came back and now he sits on the front bench. He is the only one in this House who has been found guilty of contempt of court as far as I can remember. It is the most serious offence I can remember a front-bench member in this House ever being found guilty of— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Proud of it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
—and he is proud of it. He is proud that he tried to bully somebody by misleading that person about the nature of what Parliament was and he thought it was clever to do that. He thought he was very clever and he still sits there grinning inanely away at this House. Well we would not open up the books for Dr Smith because all the books that Dr Smith has are pop-up ones. Little cardboard things come up from their middles if anyone tries to open them. That is about his level of understanding of life. 
What about Mr Rodney Hide that great exposer of things that go wrong in life? He is the man who went off to Fiji to tell people how to evade their taxes the man who has been receiving payments from an outside businessman—I suspect from an expatriate New Zealand businessman—and he has been receiving those payments since he was an MP. 
Rodney Hide 
: How much? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I say to Mr Hide that we would like to know how much. He might like to tell us. But it is funny that he will not tell anybody whom he has been getting the money from and how much it is. Why will he not tell us? Why will every member of the ACT party oppose the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill? Why is every member of the ACT party saying that if that bill is passed they will not disclose their personal interests to the House? Why will they not do that? They sit there and try to look all smarmy. 
The interesting thing about this debate is that it has shifted away from the grounds of 3 weeks ago. At that time all the accusations were around tax various payments and whatever but I have noticed that the more sensible members have pretty much avoided all those charges now because they know that they will not fly—that they will be found to be false. So what they are back to now is the fact that Mr Tamihere accepted an ex gratia payment—something of course totally unknown to any of those members! I am sure that Mr Key got no such ex gratia payment when he left his position as a senior financial person for a major international financial organisation. I am sure he never got any sort of payment of that variety. But of course if he did that is OK. Why? Because he is a rich man and he was working for an organisation on behalf of rich people. So it is perfectly all right to get a payment in those circumstances. Mr Tamihere’s sin is that he took an ex gratia payment for doing well by the poor and from a National Party perspective that is doubly unforgivable. He did good things for poor people and got rewarded financially for them. We can understand why the National Party and the ACT party regard that as such a heinous crime. Well I look forward to the investigations. I look forward to Mr Douglas White who is a highly distinguished QC—even Mr Stephen Franks had to admit that to his highly non-distinguished non-QC in legal terms— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why isn’t there a commission of inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Why does the member want to have millions of dollars spent and to spend on an inquiry more money than the amount of money the accusation was about? That is what the member is basically proposing. That is a classic National Party approach to the Government’s finances I have to say. Let us have thousands of lawyers at ten paces firing away in depositions and all the rest of it—all about what we are talking about in this particular respect! No we are not going to have that. The Douglas White inquiry is around those issues that have been raised and I am confident that Mr Tamihere has adequate explanations for all those charges that have been made. I say bluntly that I am certain that people will find he is not guilty in terms of non-payment of tax. I am quite certain about that and I look forward to the inquiry being undertaken in that respect. Then we will have the inquiry undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office at Mr Tamihere’s request. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yeah right. That is what happened last Friday. Mr Tamihere has no reason to hide anything about the Waipareira Trust but a few other people might get a bit worried around that over the coming few months as the investigation is undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office and we look forward to that. 
I state bluntly what I said to the media today: I hope that my friend John Tamihere is cleared by the inquiries and I hope that when he is cleared the way will be clear for him to return to Cabinet at some point in the future. Mr Hide will sit there on the Opposition benches getting grumpier and older as the years go by and getting paid by his overseas mates—expatriate New Zealand businessmen—year by year. Dr Smith will continue to bleat away as he vaguely remembers he was once a Minister of the Crown but could not hack it as deputy leader of the National Party in Opposition. They will carry on there for year after year and Mr Tamihere will do some good for the people he came here to represent. I look forward to that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh yeah. Take their money. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well Dr Smith is taking a lot of money at the present time from the taxpayer and I do not see any value to the taxpayer coming out of the money he is being paid at the present time. At least the other parties manage to put up people who speak with some degree of conviction. Dr Smith could have spoken with a very high degree of conviction—we all know that. At least the other parties do that but what did Dr Brash do? I am still trying to work out whether he was sleepwalking or whether he had anything to say that was new. I say that Mr Tamihere is worth ten Dr Smiths any day of the week. I look forward to those inquiries and I recognise that he— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has he resigned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He has resigned because that is the honourable thing to do while these accusations carry on and so that he can defend himself. The question “Why has he resigned?” is a Tory question because no Tory ever resigned from anything. The pants have to be completely down around the ankles the shirt pulled up around the shoulders and the camera working away before any Tory would resign for anything in politics. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debate 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It has been said that teams play as well as they have to and it has also been said that Governments are only as good as their Oppositions oblige them to be. I sincerely hope for the sake of the people of New Zealand that that is not the case. I have every confidence that we can perform much better—and we do perform much better—as a Government than we are obliged to by the pathetic efforts of our Opposition. 
I want to look back over the year of Dr Don Brash the Leader of the Opposition. He has had a busy and productive year. We would like to highlight Dr Brash’s significant achievements in the areas of policy announcements. In January Dr Brash said this: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech in each of my five main priorities—race relations education welfare dependency security and the economy”—at least he had those written down. That is the sort of speech that a retiring speechwriter might write: “Over the next 5 months I plan to give major speeches on each of my five main priorities. They are—” and then he looks at the next page and it reads: “You’re on your own you sod.”  but in this case they did not need to write it. 
In July Dr Brash said: “The thing”—we can see he had been thinking about it between January and July—“you’ll see increasingly is major policies being rolled out.” In September he said: “The likelihood is that we won’t do any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform education and so on until the beginning of next year.” Later on in September he said: “We’ll hold fire until next year.” In October we hear this—and he is backtracking of course following a series of bad polls for National—“It is now reported that Dr Brash may bring forward a key speech on reforming welfare.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Stop reading it. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am quoting. “Despite deciding to hold fire on policy Dr Brash announced National’s policy on Kyoto a few weeks ago.” Their policy he said would be to follow the United States and Australia. He said: “I can’t be more specific than that. What will determine it is whether we think there is any advantage in that and at the moment that is still not firmly resolved.” National’s policy on the Kyoto Protocol is not the only one still not firmly resolved. 
On the issue of New Zealand being nuclear-free in April 1987 Dr Brash said this: “I have always taken the view that there is not a great deal to be said for New Zealand being an active participant in a nuclear alliance.” He was a nuclear-free warrior in those days. He told the  
Dominion Post  
that even when he was a National Party candidate he favoured a ban on visits by nuclear warships. But by October 2003 he said this: “Well I have got some views on that issue but I won’t tell you about them at this point because Wyatt Creech is doing a report on that issue and it is due out. So until it comes out I think I’ll hold my counsel.” Well talk about decisive leadership! The presenter asked him: “So you think that is what Bill English should have done?”. Dr Brash said: “Err well let’s say he got himself into some trouble by adding a degree of confusion about the National Party’s policy. I think he was probably unwise to have expressed views on that.” By January 2004 Dr Brash is still undecided but much more decisively undecided than previously. He said: “If the report suggests that we should change our position we will look at it.” 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This afternoon a wake-up call was tabled in the House and 10 years from now when people have forgotten “John Who? Resigned when? About what?” and they have forgotten the misdemeanours of “What was that name of the leader of the National Party back in 2004?” they will however still be coping with the consequences of the fact that the underpinnings of our prosperity from farming in this country are seriously at risk. The report tabled this afternoon from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment states that our farming is currently unsustainable that our prosperity our standard of living depends on farming and that farming cannot continue to go on the way it is at the moment without major change. I would suggest that that issue ought to be occupying rather more of the attention of the House than it is getting today. If farming is to be become sustainable it must be rethought on the basis of ecological systems not just on the basis of short-term economics. It cannot be economic if it is destroying its resource base and if it destroying the natural capital on which our future depends. 
Current farming practices are degrading water quality they are overusing water quantity they are losing soil into the sea at a 10-times faster rate than the rest of the world and dependence on non-renewable energy is growing by the year they are a major source of greenhouse gases and they are changing the very climate on which our farming depends. There has got to be change. 
We all know that lakes Rotorua and Taupo are seriously degenerating with algal blooms in some places and water quality that is unfit for human contact. We have a report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd that our lowland streams are on the whole not fit to swim in any longer. Fish and Game New Zealand has been carrying out a campaign on dirty dairying because of the impacts of the dairy industry on lowland water quality. The reason for all of this is agricultural runoff particularly of nitrogen and phosphorus. We know there is a 40-year delay from when this is applied to the land before it even gets into Lake Taupo so it will get worse even if we stop applying fertiliser. And we learn in this report tabled today that nitrogen fertiliser has increased by 160 percent across our farming system in just 6 years. We need radical action now and even then things will get worse long before they can get better. 
The area that is reliant on irrigation has been expanding at 55 percent every decade. That takes more energy to pump the irrigation water; that leaves less water in our rivers to dilute the runoff when it comes and fosters more intensive agriculture with more runoff and our aquifers are falling. The direct use of energy on farms has gone up 30 percent in the last decade and we can add to that that our fertilisers and pesticides are wholly reliant on non-renewable fossil fuels. We can add to that the dependence on oil-based transport to get our farm products to market. Oil is now $55 a barrel and that will keep rising. There is no going back to $19 a barrel or even $30 a barrel because we have got to the stage where the world’s oilfields cannot produce very much more than what they are producing now and demand is still rising. The greenhouse gases from farming are up 15 percent since 1990 and that cannot keep growing either. 
This is not an indictment of the present-day farmers or of the present-day Minister or of the present Government any more than it is of the farmers the Government and Ministers of the past. It has been going on for decades but it is a challenge to present-day farmers and the Minister and the Government. In question time today the Minister acknowledged the issue but did he pick up the challenge? He is a bit short on solutions so far. He said: “The sustainable farming fund is addressing these issues.” The sustainable farming fund has spent $33 million over 4 years on some good initiatives but it is a drop in the bucket compared with what is needed to turn our farming in a sustainable direction. We need more science invested in sustainable land management. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 In my short term in Parliament it seems to me that October is an amazing month for parties. Twelve months ago National had a clear choice: a young man with a future to lead the party or an elderly man to take them back to the 1990s. They took the latter course to move back to the 1990s. If we watch the Leader of the Opposition move around the country he is recruiting 1990s men to advocate 1990s policies to further drive the knife into the poor and dispossessed of this country. And that is the irony of today’s debate. It is a year later that the Hon John Tamihere whose commitment to working for the underprivileged the marginalised and the disadvantaged at huge personal expense has been demonstrated by the manner in which he has been excoriated by flippant right-wing individuals of this House. It is easy to make slurs under privilege it is easy to make accusations under privilege it is easy to rake through the coals of someone’s past and raise matters that are half-truths but it is much harder to come up with real substance. 
The real pity about that of course is that at a time when this country might need some leadership the House lowers itself to the level of the worst members of the Opposition. I do not want to go into that behaviour. I do not want to go into the flip-flops of the man who helped others down the stairs and paid the court $8500 for the privilege. I do not want to go into the story of the man who could not tell the truth under oath—at least that is what the High Court judge understood it to be. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No he didn’t say that at all. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: He disbelieved his evidence on oath which is the same as not telling the truth on oath. I did not mention that man but he spoke up in response so clearly it touched a key point. 
In the last 12 months we have seen a history of uninformed comments of not understanding what is really happening in this country of trying to grab headlines on the back of people who try to do well in this country. 
Ron Mark 
: Didn’t this man defend a child murderer? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Mr Ron Mark would have to understand that people who are accused of crimes are entitled to a good defence. I would have thought he would be the last person to throw any stones in that regard. 
Look at the current issue before this country which is the attack upon the Parliament by the Chief Justice and members opposite make no comment or raise no issue in the House on what really is a major constitutional issue. Our Chief Justice claims not to have thought she would be reported at an international conference and makes a criticism of the Prime Minister over issues apparently about the Budget. That is an issue that Parliament should debate. It is an issue that has been ignored in this House over the last week as people hunt around for scandals to ride to achieve 5 minutes of notoriety and perhaps a little bit of fame. 
Interestingly those who throw mud pay the price. We need to look at the polls. Who is the person throwing the mud? It is the leader of the “1 percent party”. Who are they throwing the mud at? At the person who has 86 percent support in this country—John Tamihere. Every poll indicates that he is a man who has achieved something a man with a future and a man who deserves a fair go. These people who throw mud in this House the “1 percent” and those on the way out ignore the harm on the family of someone who comes to this House—the young children and the wife who spend their time at home. They listen and are not able to defend themselves. 
Ron Mark 
: Tell us about Tuku’s underpants. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: If the member is comparing $89 underpants with the accusation that Mr Tamihere is facing he should go and change his. We have the politics of bitterness the politics where we ignore the issues of the day to try to pull down an individual for some short-term personal achievement. I am proud to stand here as a member of the Labour Party at a time when John Tamihere is on the ropes. He is a man who whatever he has done wrong if anything has given more to this country than those who are yapping on the Opposition benches. He has worked harder for people who need to be represented than those who foot-dance around policy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It does not matter what sort of gloss they might want to put on it this is a very dark day for the Labour Party. We know that is the case because the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister came into the Chamber together with several of their front-bench members and resorted to very nasty personal attacks on members on this side of the House. They wanted somehow to say that John Tamihere the great hope for the future of the Labour Party putting his hand in the till and ripping the cash off some of the poorest New Zealanders is OK. Three weeks after the issue was raised 3 weeks after the question was asked he scurried up to the Prime Minister’s office and said: “I can’t get myself out of this. I have to admit that I did it I took it.” and the Prime Minister came into the House and said that he is an honourable man for resigning. 
He has resigned only because he has been caught. He has finally handed in his warrants only because he knew that if he waited the Prime Minister would take them from him. Anyone who says that this is someone who has acted honourably has his or her head stuck in the sand. 
As for the personal barbs that have been sent my way let me make it very clear that I have never for one minute hidden the fact that I faced up to a civil court not a criminal court gave the other party a day in court and paid the price. I never tried to hide that. But Mr Tamihere even in his personal statement today is still trying to hide it. He simply cannot get away with that sort of behaviour. 
The Ministers and members over there who shake their heads know that it is the beginning of the end for this Labour Government. John Tamihere can never again stand before an audience and say: “I’m on your side. Look at my record.” because that record will be forever besmirched by the fact that he said: “I cannot take a payment off you.” and then spent time making sure he got it. But these are not wealthy people these are not people with an endless amount of resource they are some of the poorest New Zealanders. To say that they were grateful to him for everything he did for them and therefore they insisted he take this considerable payment just will not wash. 
People will be nice to him people will consider his family—something the Labour Party does not often do—and they will accept his word in this House. But he will not be back in Cabinet he will not be at the helm of the Labour Party and he will not be out on the marae selling the Labour Party message in any way that gets listened to or in any way that gets accepted. 
I do not doubt that the Labour Party will send him on some sort of a reconciliation tour around the marae of this country. I do not doubt that his whanaunga in those places will embrace him as families do but they will not forgive him because they have been betrayed by him. 
I want to make a couple of other comments about the indication Dr Cullen gave today that Mr White has virtually no choice it would seem other than to vindicate the position that John Tamihere put to the House today. That is very very worrying. What it means is that given Dr Cullen’s speech in the House today this investigation is now a sham. Further I have to say this quite publicly to the Serious Fraud Office: we in the National Opposition had our confidence in that office seriously shaken by the performance at the select committee this morning. We will be watching very closely the progress of this inquiry. Whatever happens it is evident that Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister want this swept under the carpet. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 At least that was a better speech than Don Brash’s. Dr Brash did not know that the situation had changed so he stuck to the script and could not even alter his supplementary questions. Then Mr Hide’s twin Mr Brownlee got up. All I will say to Mr Brownlee is that John Tamihere stood in this House and admitted what he had done wrong. I recall that member in a glass house throwing stones—or in Mr Brownlee’s case he should not throw people down stairs. I remember that member defending the case. I would have thought it would be pretty cut and dried when one biffs a senior citizen down the stairs and puts the boot in. One just fronts up and says: “Hey mea culpa I did it.” But oh no he spent a few bits of brass defending that case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to point out to the House that Mr Clayton Cosgrove has just shown himself to be extremely reckless with the truth. I would accuse him of being a liar but I cannot. My point of order is this. I made a personal statement about this matter— 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well challenge it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Cosgrove is running close to leaving the Chamber but I will leave him there. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —and I presented the absolute facts to the House. I understood that when a member does present the facts those points that are included in that personal statement almost set the bounds for how that matter is referred to in the future. I want to tell Mr Cosgrove and his colleagues that if they want to open up Mr Tamihere to a bit more allegation he should carry on with his speech. 
Stephen Franks 
: I would ask you despite the slightly inflammatory end to that point of order to give it careful consideration. Because a succession of Chairs in this Chamber have allowed that member to continue to refer to events about which Mr Hide made a personal explanation in terms that directly contradict his explanation and I do think it is time that the man in question was ordered out next time he does it. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I simply refer both members and other members of the House to the content of the speeches that they themselves have made today in relation to the personal statement made in this House today before yet again casting stones in a glass house. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any more assistance. A member’s word will be taken in this House. I have been conscious of a number of members referring to John Tamihere. But I think most of them were very careful not to show in any way that they do not accept what he said. In this case Mr Cosgrove was doubting and embellishing matters relating to Gerry Brownlee. No more of that. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I want to talk about credibility and integrity and I want to make some comparisons. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh yeah! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: If I were Mr Smith I would not start. I want to talk about credibility morals and commitment. Let us line up Mr Tamihere who stood in the House and for the first time had the opportunity to present some facts here. Now the evidence is out. 
Dr Brash made a very interesting statement in his contribution to the snap debate. He said that the Government was out of step with ordinary New Zealanders in the way it had dealt with the issue. Well there is a real problem with the people who have thrown mud as Dr Brash and Mr Hide have. The people have spoken and 82 percent have said that these are very very serious allegations and they should be examined. The Government has met that request with a high-level inquiry. Let us not forget that it was Mr Tamihere who referred some days ago—before the trust did—the allegations on the Paragon report so wildly thrown around this Chamber and he himself referred them to the Serious Fraud Office. Eighty-two percent of New Zealanders have said: “Let’s examine it. We want a high-level inquiry but we are holding judgment.” I tell Dr Brash Mr Brownlee Mr Smith over there and Mr Hide that the problem they have is they want to execute a person before the facts are examined. The problem with that of course is that those Opposition parties are out of step with 82 percent of New Zealanders. I tell members that I will stand by John Tamihere and I would be proud to have him in my electorate before I would stand in that huge shadow cast by Mr Brownlee and his twin Mr Hide. Because if one looks at the commitments and achievements in business with the trust—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is OK let him go I love it. I relish it because he makes a fool of himself—bring him on! I say this: look at the achievements of John Tamihere in that trust—12 employees half a million bucks turnover; he took that to 200 staff and 12 million bucks turnover a year. Name me a couple of members or the two in the front row especially the deputy leader of the Opposition or Mr Hide for that matter—we know from his track record in gilt-edged securities he could not put a deal together if he tried—name me their achievements. One should line up those achievements and Mr Tamihere’s record with legislation in this place against Mr Hide whom a newspaper referred to as the “human wrecking-ball”. Mr Hide’s achievements of course are to tear down smear and throw mud. But he does not like it of course when members raise issues about him. 
I have never ever and I will not challenge the member’s word. That would be out of order. I have spoken about matters concerning the Fiji scam without challenging his statement. I have simply asked him to come clean on questions that of course he refuses to answer. To this day he refuses to answer why it was he—the perk-buster—who did nothing when he came back from that scam conference to go after the people who ripped off millions of dollars from hundreds of New Zealanders. He will not answer who paid his airfares who set up the invitation even after the Serious Fraud Office and the Securities Commission made him very much aware that it was a scam. But of course the perk-buster calls for accountability everywhere except in his own personal circumstances. 
So I say to Mr Hide: enjoy the media. I say to Mr Brownlee: enjoy the roll on this one. I believe that Mr Tamihere will come through this and then Mr Hide will reap the whirlwind from the people because the people are fair-minded. It says a lot about Kiwis when they say: “We will give you a fair go; we want this examined this is serious but we won’t judge you until after the inquiry.” I say to Mr Hide: “You enjoy the roll.”—if anybody could roll he could—“You enjoy the roll and you reap the whirlwind.” Then it will become an issue of Mr Hide’s leadership Mr Hide’s integrity and where Mr Hide goes from here. I relish that debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Members can imagine our astonishment last week when on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
we saw an image that highlighted what New Zealand First has been saying about our flawed refugee policy better than anything we could have said ourselves. Pictured there was a woman refugee Asha Ali Abdille a sickness beneficiary who was upset because we wanted to improve our health screening services and that was preventing her from bringing in 14 additional family members. 
Dail Jones 
: How many? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Fourteen additional family members. Now we have said for years that our system needs to be tightened so that one refugee equals one refugee not 14 refugees who slide in through the back-door and on to our welfare system. 
But this story just gets worse. I wonder whether the journalists involved really knew just who it was they were putting on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
. It turns out that the so-called sympathy case for bleeding-heart liberals has a background that Al Capone would have been proud of. She has first several convictions for violence and intimidation; second a charge of conspiracy to kill which did not proceed because the prosecution witnesses refused to testify; third evidence of already bringing in several family members some of whom were allegedly not true family members which checks failed to identify; fourth regular movement between the Somali communities of Hamilton Hawke’s Bay Christchurch and Lower Hutt using intimidatory tactics to get her way; and fifth a well-known reputation for carrying weapons and spitting in people’s faces and then for telling them she has AIDS—clearly a true role model for our refugee programme. This story has a disturbing undercurrent that our soft policies allow to happen. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: When did she come? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Ten years ago—when I was not in power. National and Labour are equally guilty on this matter. National was in power but if the  
Dominion Post 
 wants the real story it will be about the lax laws and weak system used to allow these people to come in and then straight away to exploit the New Zealand taxpayer. 
This morning at the select committee we were told by the Immigration Service that three of the MV  
Tampa 
 boys have brought in 11 people already—each not together; three of them have brought in 11 each. That is a disgrace and an abomination to this country. 
We are now discovering that Chinese immigration to Christchurch has underpinned a thriving black market that local authorities on their own admission are not capable of containing. They estimate from what they actually know that there is a multimillion dollar black market operating in Christchurch but they really do not know how big it is. The basis of the black market is the corruption-riddled immigration consultant business that this Government has done nothing to combat and that continues to see scam after scam go undetected and unpunished. This black market operation is aided by lax laws surrounding student visas work permits and other easily exported visas and permits. The result of that when an investigation by the Immigration Service happens is that nearly half of all marriage claims and over 80 percent of all job claims in that region turn out to be fake. 
If we were in power this is what would happen: a person would tell one lie—and be on the next plane. That does not happen with those people in the Labour Government. Under the Labour Government anybody and everybody can exploit the New Zealand taxpayer. Once here these groups set about ripping off the system and 90 percent of refugees have never been off benefits. Nine out of 10 are still on benefits. Once here these groups set out to rip off the system and work in the shady world of the black market often escaping penalties because of the soft policies surrounding these issues. 
It is a rort and it has to stop. It is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and has resulted in a new brand of criminal underworld that we are not in any way equipped to deal with but which requires urgent attention. Every time I hear the Minister give assurances I know full well that he has no idea what on earth he is talking about. He has no idea about what is going on out there. He is just making lousy excuses as the previous Minister did. Fifty thousand people are coming here and refugees—[ 
Interruption 
] Well if a country is entitled to have 14 each and that will be 20. We are not talking about 750 refugees a year; we are talking about 20000 people coming here on a UN requirement for 750. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Listening to the exchanges that have just been going on between Mr Peters and Ms Dalziel I am reminded of the proverb “Absence makes the heart grow fonder”. I want to talk this afternoon about the report that was released by the OECD last week which has been widely reported for one element of what it said but largely ignored for another. I refer to the report about the state of families in New Zealand and particularly to some of the comments that were made by Dr Adema the author with regard to the domestic purposes benefit and getting people back into the workforce. 
Although that report provoked a predictable chorus from those who say it is time to cut the domestic purposes benefit the real point it was making was that in our system at the moment there is significant disincentive for the second earner in a family to get back into the workforce. If one takes a long-term view about the structure of both families and our tax system and also about the structure of our workforce then addressing that issue relating to the second income earner becomes critically important and is far more important than whether we reduce the domestic purposes benefit. 
United Future has campaigned for some time for the policy known as income-splitting. In many senses that policy goes to the heart of the concern expressed in that OECD report. The problem we have at the moment is the anomalous situation where if a couple are involved in running a business—be it a farm a corner dairy or something more expansive—they can assign their income to each other and be taxed accordingly. But where they are running a household as equal partners even though one might be the sole income earner or one might be a substantial income earner and the other a small part-time income earner they are unable to make that assignment. 
Earlier this year a lot was made of the Gilbert family in Waihi—a family earning around $55000 a year and complaining quite legitimately of middle-class squeeze. Under the income-splitting policy that we propose if that $55000 were being earned as a single income and assigned between the two partners then that family would be a minimum of $45 a week better off given current tax rates. If the tax rates changed or reduced then that benefit would increase. 
Many people and I have talked to a large number mainly women in this category of being the second-income earner are desperately keen to get back into the workforce but are nobbled by the high cost of childcare. So they go to work to pay the childcare to go to work to pay the childcare and it becomes a vicious circle they do not break out of. 
Let us assume that that family in a few years’ time has had a net salary increase in terms of either the part-time work or the full-time work of up to around $65000 a year—getting close to what is actually the current average household income. The benefit to them from an income-splitting policy is in the order of $75000—I mean $75 a week. I wish it were the former but that is somewhat a slip of the tongue. Earlier in the House this afternoon in attempting to debunk that argument the Minister said the problem was that if they were earning the same amount there would be no benefit. 
Yes he is absolutely right but that misses the point of the policy. The Treasury review in 2000 also missed the point. Where there is an equality of income there is not a problem. The tax is the tax is the tax! It is where there is that inequality or where that single income is being spread over a household that the problem arises. If one talks to people about the concern and the incentive that they have to get back into the workforce that is the area of concern and that is why income-splitting is a fair policy. It does recognise the equal contribution that both parents make to the household whether one is working in the workforce and the other is working in the home. It is a practical policy that can be implemented at a time when the Government is taking $4.5 billion more in tax than it ever budgeted to. A policy that costs $500 million a year is very practical and very much in the interest of New Zealand families and we promote it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 For a Prime Minister to lose one Minister is careless but to lose six Ministers including Lianne Dalziel for being dishonest shows that this Government is rotten to the core in its culture. We have to ask the question: what is it about the culture of this Helen Clark Government that Ministers believe that they can say one thing and do another? 
We have had all sorts of speeches from Government members today about the word “honour” in relation to the announcement from John Tamihere and his resignation. It is anything but. Let us not get cute. The reason the announcement was made this afternoon was to hide the disgraceful conduct of Mr John Tamihere under the news wave of the US presidential election. What has changed? Lianne Dalziel chuckles away. Is she a member we would believe? As a Minister she was fired for being dishonest. Ruth Dyson can throw her name into the hat. She is a member with criminal convictions who had to resign. 
The US presidential election was the reason this has been announced today not 4 weeks ago when John Tamihere knew he had taken a $195000 golden handshake when he said he would not take it and not 4 years ago when he knew that he had taken $195000 when he said he would not take it. There is absolutely no honour in that whatsoever. 
Mark Burton pretends as do other Labour members that John Tamihere has done nothing wrong. That is how low the Labour Party sets the standard. They say that it is OK to do one thing opposite to what they have said. The tone has been set by the Prime Minister. Let us remember that this is the Prime Minister who signed a painting that she did not paint. She committed an act of fraud and she set the example of dishonesty that goes on within this Government. This is also the Prime Minister who was dishonest in telling the people of New Zealand that all the “corngate” documents were released at the last election when that was blatantly dishonest and not true. 
The Prime Minister set a standard and six Ministers have had to resign because of their disgraceful conduct. I ask the House to compare that behaviour with the last 9 years of the National Government when not one Minister was found to be dishonest—not one. 
I want to know how we can believe anything that Labour Government Ministers say. In this example John Tamihere was caught out. How many times did we hear members opposite say when questions were asked about the Waipareira Trust that we were being grossly unfair we were muckraking and that anything that had happened was completely kosher. Now we find out that $195000 of public money intended to help our most disadvantaged citizens was taken to line the pockets of a Labour Minister who was drawing a salary of nearly $250000 a year. 
Judith Collins 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Nearly $250000 a year was being drawn as salary and John Tamihere and this Government think it is OK for him to take $195000 in a golden handshake. 
I do ask the question as to what is the standard that is acceptable to this Government. In the speeches we have heard this afternoon one Government member after another has defended—believe it or not—the “integrity” of John Tamihere given what he has now admitted and knowing that he was caught out for saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. Whether it is Official Information Act requests the dishonesty of Lianne Dalziel—who it is a matter of fact lied to the public and had to resign her portfolio—now John Tamihere and after Dover Samuels and so many other Ministers how can we believe anything this Government says? 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 Having heard the previous speaker it is clear the Opposition is doing the numbers now; looking for another new leader. The Opposition got its wake-up call today when we witnessed something quite incredible on the Opposition benches. Members opposite were nervous anxious jittery; then there was silence. The Leader of the Opposition made a cameo appearance and spoke in this House. Ten minutes later in a silence so deafening that a member on the other side thought he heard an alarm clock the National Party got its wake-up call. Those members know there is no leadership in their party and no inspiration about where things are going. What they have is “flashback Brash” or “back-in-a-flash Brash”. No matter what way we say it they know they are doomed. 
The polls are looking good for this Government. We have made some changes in communities—real communities. But what is National’s track record under the leadership of Don Brash? In January this year Dr Brash said: “Over the next few months I plan to give a major speech on each of my five main priorities—race relations education welfare dependency security and the economy.” What has the public heard? Nothing. In July this year Dr Brash said: “The thing you will see increasingly is major policies being rolled out.” What has the public of New Zealand heard from the National Party? Nothing. Then in September this year Dr Brash said: “The likelihood is that we will not do any other major speeches on things like social welfare reform education health and so on until the beginning of next year.” So what we have from the other side is leadership under “flashback Brash” or “back-in-a-flash Brash” of a say nothing do nothing party. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the member’s speech but as was pointed out during the snap debate earlier this afternoon it is appropriate if members are referred to by their correct title. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I was just about to remind the speaker. 
NANAIA MAHUTA 
: All we have heard from National is: “Wait and see. We’ll tell you in time”. But what have the New Zealand public heard from the National Party? Nothing. In September Dr Brash and his advisers said they were holding fire. It certainly looks like they are holding fire because they have no bullets in their gun to shoot. It is a very sad track record. What we have seen throughout the whole of this year under Dr Brash’s leadership is backtracking and flip-flopping. They do not know where they are going. They lack inspiration and have no direction. We really do not know what they are on about. 
However this Government has made many improvements since 1999. Maori unemployment is down from 18 percent to under 9 percent. More Maori are in training and employment in our communities. We have made real changes. More Maori are pursuing development aspirations. More Maori are in better housing. More Maori are receiving better health-care. More Maori have better employment opportunities. These improvements do not relate just to Maori but to Pacific Island people and low-income people. We see that as achieving real outcomes in our communities. 
What do we hear from members opposite? We hear only criticism. They have no vision no ideas just silence. They are silent because everybody is supposed to wait until next year for the Opposition to say what a National Government would do. The Opposition cannot put forward one good idea of what it proposes and how it proposes to benefit the public of New Zealand. That is a sad track record especially so late into this term under the leadership of Dr Brash. In fact one of the most innovative changes for Maori has been the emergence of Maori Television. That is one of the most positive things that has happened but the Opposition says that a National Government would scrap it. The Opposition does not even want to see it continue. That is a sad indictment on Opposition members. They have no direction for this country. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 From time to time I ask myself what I am doing here as a member of Parliament what I ought to be doing and what we in New Zealand First as an Opposition should be telling the Government it should be doing. One of the obvious examples that we have at the moment is the failure of this Government to do anything about this refugee Ahmed Zaoui. I will read from the decision of the Court of Appeal and Justice Glazebrook who refers to this person. I quote from paragraph 165 where she refers to: “ … Mr Zaoui’s Algerian convictions the decisions declining him refugee status in Belgium the Belgian and French convictions the deportation from Switzerland non-classified information provided by the SIS newspaper reports linking Mr Zaoui to the GIA in Algeria and other armed groups and an alleged admission as to membership by Mr Zaoui on arrival in New Zealand.” One wonders why this person is in New Zealand. Those comments are from Justice Glazebrook in talking about this person who is regarded as a refugee in New Zealand. 
Keith Locke 
: You’re not telling the truth. 
DAIL JONES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] That member is lying. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
DAIL JONES 
: I am speaking the truth. I am quoting from the judge’s decision. I ask that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member to please be seated— 
DAIL JONES 
: I am asking him to withdraw and apologise— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am going to ask the member to do something— 
Keith Locke 
: Point of order— 
DAIL JONES 
: I am speaking the truth. I am quoting from Justice Glazebrook’s decision. The Greens just cannot take it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The justice upheld the Refugee Appeals—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will sit down when I am standing up. 
Keith Locke 
: I am sorry. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I should say so. The next time the member wants to speak he should make a call. 
DAIL JONES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member said I was not speaking the truth. I am quoting the words of Justice Glazebrook. She referred to this person as having “… Algerian convictions … Belgian and French convictions … deportation from Switzerland …” I am quoting from the judgment. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise because I am telling the truth and he said I was not. He is not entitled to say that I am not telling the truth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. We will dispose of that. I did not hear what Mr Locke said but if the speaker on his feet thought that that is what was said then I ask the member to withdraw. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. I ask the member whether he said that to Mr Jones. 
Keith Locke 
: My interjection— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes or no? 
Keith Locke 
: Not on its own I said he was not telling the truth—no. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Did the member use those words at all? 
Keith Locke 
: I cannot remember the exact words I said. If I said words that were reflecting on his honesty— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member withdraw and apologise? 
Keith Locke 
: —I withdraw and apologise yes. 
DAIL JONES 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was quoting from Justice Glazebrook’s decision page 165 if that member would care to read it. The Greens of course are not interested in the truth of these matters in that respect. 
Of course the important thing about Justice Glazebrook’s decision is that she came down to the situation where I believe we are seeing incompetence on the part of the Labour Party. To put it in simple terms Justice Glazebrook has said that if Zaoui is a threat to the national security of countries overseas he might be able to stay in New Zealand. What the inspector-general has to establish is whether Zaoui is a threat to the national security of New Zealand. That is an extraordinary situation to be in. Mr Locke now agrees with me—which is the point I was coming to. 
Here we have a person Ahmed Zaoui whose risks to this country have been listed by Justice Glazebrook but we have to establish that Mr Zaoui is a risk perhaps to Australia to Fiji to New Caledonia or to Tahiti before—according to current law and according to Justice Glazebrook’s present interpretation—he can be deported. If I were an Australian a Fijian or a Tahitian and I knew that Mr Zaoui was living in my country that he was the leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) that he was charged in and expelled from Switzerland because of a massacre of Swiss tourists in North Africa and that he left South-east Asia shortly after the Bali bombings—which is when he came to New Zealand to find another spot to live in—I would try to eliminate him. There is no doubt about the matter. 
Why have someone who is a terrorist living safely in New Zealand? The courts of New Zealand say that he is not a threat to our security even though he might be a threat to the security of Australia Fiji or somewhere else—and that in my view makes him a threat to the national security of New Zealand. But if there is any doubt about it I say to the Labour Party that we should have legislation before us tomorrow to tidy up this loophole. Instead of the Labour Party bringing in civil union bills and spending time on prostitution reform bills and instead of it being sidetracked on John Tamihere it should be making sure that we are safe in New Zealand. 
This Ahmed Zaoui is a man whose political party in Algeria was funded by Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was supported by a Saudi Arabian multimillionaire—there is one of those in Afghanistan whom they are looking for right now—and the FIS is the party to which Zaoui belongs. He is a person about whom ArabicNews.com says: “Ahmed Zaoui a leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) which is largely blamed for massacres of civilians in Algeria has slipped into Switzerland and requested asylum.” 
Keith Locke 
: Who’s saying that? 
DAIL JONES 
: It says “ArabicNews.com”. He is a well-known terrorist an absolutely well-known terrorist and he was thrown out of Switzerland because of the massacre of Swiss citizens in North Africa and of course we know how that was funded. Now if Zaoui was a good bloke he could have gone back to Algeria because the leaders of the FIS Mr Madani and Mr Belhadj have been released. They did not commit massacres but clearly Zaoui after he left Algeria was involved with massacres. 
I say to the Labour Party that it has to bring in legislation urgently to deal with this bloke because otherwise there is a serious possibility that the inspector-general’s certificate will be challenged and we have had a clear warning from the Court of Appeal of the problems that could ensue. Would any member here want to live next door to someone who might be taken out by some other person from another country? I certainly do not so that is our responsibility. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the member for Hamilton West I want to place on record the great sense of privilege I have to work with someone of the calibre of “JT”—John Tamihere. He is in my view a great example of a decent bloke who has cared for this country and I believe he has much to contribute to our nation in the future. Unlike the people in the Opposition he is not a hater and he is not a wrecker. 
I listened very closely to the previous speaker Dail Jones who as we all know had a previous incarnation in this Parliament in a different era in our country’s history. I looked at his body language during the contribution made earlier this afternoon by Dr Brash. I also looked at Winston Peter’s body language and that of other New Zealand First MPs. I know that Dail and I obviously do not agree on a heck of a lot but Dail could not have enjoyed the experience of seeing the leader of a once broad-based and proud party—a party he was once a member of—go through the motions that we witnessed this afternoon. Dail Jones’s body language was not the only body language that spoke volumes. He is a member of a different party from National obviously but one could sense that sense of pity and concern. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is hard for me to take exception on my own behalf so I take exception on behalf of Mr Dail Jones to the greasy familiarity that the member on his feet is using in relation to Mr Jones. The member keeps talking about looking across the Chamber and observing Mr Jones’s demeanour. Well I can see Mr Jones looking absolutely mortified at being brought into the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That matter should not have been raised. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that it is a convention in this House that the Speaker intervenes when other members are referred to by their first names or in a familiar fashion that is not invited. I believe that Mr Jones did not invite that reference. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I agree that the full name should have been used. There was at least one instance when Mr Gallagher used Mr Jones’s Christian name only and he should not have done so. Please continue. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: As I said obviously I do not agree with a number of Mr Jones’s views— 
Simon Power 
: What is the point of all this? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The point is that he was once a member of a great proud party formerly led by Keith Holyoake Jack Marshall and Sid Holland and we can see what it has become now. That is the point. In terms of democracy in this country it is sad to see one of our broad-based former mainstream parties go down the tubes because of incompetent diffident leadership. I was an admirer of Keith Holyoake as a young chap growing up in Hamilton and to see that gives even me grief. 
The Opposition should make Winston Peters an offer he cannot refuse and put him out of his misery. But more important the Opposition should put Dr Brash out of his misery. If ever there was an embarrassment and if ever we were cringing then today was that day. I was looking at the body language of the Opposition members and I just knew that they were cringing. Even Ron Mark who is no friend of the National Party at the best of times wanted to get out the smelling salts. Even he wanted to offer humanitarian assistance because even he had a sense of embarrassment. Why have I been accused of being familiar as far as Dail Jones is concerned? Because I respect history. I actually respect someone who has significant parliamentary experience and who actually sat in this House during a different era and I know what Dail Jones must be thinking in his heart of hearts. Actually it confirms to me why he moved on to New Zealand First and in that sense I respect him. 
I will quote from my own local newspaper the  
Waikato Times 
 which is a middle-of-the-road paper. It is certainly no friend of the Government but it is no friend of the Opposition either—it plays it very much down the middle. It had a very interesting editorial on 28 September about Don Brash’s decision to shelve a planned series of king hit speeches. The editor of the  
Waikato Times 
 one of our major daily papers in New Zealand with a major circulation stated: “Is it clever politicking or simply a lack of guts? Whatever way Don Brash’s decision to shelve a planned series of ‘king-hit’ speeches this year is viewed it is clear he has taken a huge gamble. By canning the speeches—that were to focus on major policies such as welfare the foreshore and seabed and employment relations—the National Party leader now risks having his abilities judged solely on his performance in the House—the very area in which he is weakest.” 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As someone who is utterly passionate about health I am a bit concerned. We should get the medics in to see to that poor member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. It should not have been raised. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This debate is customarily used for rebuttal. It is one of the few genuine debates we get in the House when people take up points that have been raised previously. I want to deal with something that was raised in the House earlier today but not in this debate. The Minister of Agriculture answered a question about the costs of crime to the rural community the costs of the precautions rural families have to take and the change in the culture and climate of rural areas which have gone from being one of the proudest exhibits of Godzone—we thought we had the best way of living in the world—to being an area that people are now moving from. The Minister of Agriculture’s answer to a genuine question—whether he had an idea of those costs and whether he had inquired about the sustainability of farming in areas where stock is now treated as a public asset for marauders to prey on—was: “I do not support the member’s bill to allow the shooting of trespassers.” 
My bill does not authorise the shooting of trespassers. It is a careful bill designed to restore a state of law that this country enjoyed until only 25 years ago. It is designed to restore the effect of a defence that every New Zealander thought until 1980 was automatic common sense. In fact pretty much every New Zealander still thinks it is automatic common sense; it is the justice establishment and the politically correct Ministers of this Government who think it is laughable ludicrous or outrageous. 
My bill would tell people that what 80 percent of them are already doing is OK. Eighty percent of law-abiding decent hard-working farmers say they would use a weapon to defend themselves and their property if necessary. The bill says that what ordinary decent people think should happen should be the law. What we have in our rural areas now is an international anomaly. In no other country surveyed by the International Crime Victim Surveys is crime dramatically higher in provincial and rural areas than it is in the centre of the big cities. New Zealand is alone in having more crime in its provinces than in its cities. 
There is a simple reason for that. We now expect lawful defenders of their own homes and property to dither to carefully calibrate their proportionate response to wonder what a court might hold later and to wonder whether they are going to be bankrupted or lose their entire livelihood and their families instead of acting on the simple intuitive and rational response of threatening unreasonable force. One simple thing that every code on defence and every military treatise says about defence is that it is not a matter of slowly and in a very carefully calibrated way elevating the hostilities. The best method of defence is to threaten an unreasonable response so that the only sensible thing for the aggressor to do is run away stop what he or she is doing and get out of it. That is the one thing our law says they cannot do. 
The one thing our law now says is that—just get a load of this—people may use force but may not strike or harm a trespasser stealing their property. What kind of force is the law talking about? The only way we can find out is by going to court. That is exactly what the Attorney-General insists happens time after time. Common-sense juries discharge these poor victims. Common-sense juries acquit in more than eight out of 10 cases. Our justice system should take a message from that. Precedents should apply. One would think that the police would be allowed not to prosecute when they lose eight out of 10 cases but the Crown Law Office sends to court the poor devils who have already been traumatised. In McIntyre’s case 2 years later he is going through a second trial. The cost to him is enormous. He will not get out of this for under $300000 or $400000 in costs. No one will compensate him when he is finally acquitted; there will be no reimbursement to Mr McIntyre. The real victims are the defenders. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased to begin the bill’s final process for passage. This Government is conscious that balancing work and family life is a critical issue for many New Zealanders. The Government is committed to ensuring that working people who have families are able to participate in paid employment to their full potential. Thousands of families have already benefited from the paid parental leave scheme introduced in 2002. The scheme has already made a difference to many working families by supporting them with leave and job protection by encouraging greater female workplace attachment and by supporting the health and well-being of new mothers and their babies. 
In 2003 the evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the paid parental leave scheme showed that the scheme had been very well received. The research showed that the scheme’s impact on business had been predominantly positive or neutral and that almost all mothers who accessed the scheme took the full 12 weeks’ paid leave. A number of people who participated in the evaluation made suggestions about how the scheme could be improved. Some of the key suggestions formed the basis of the bill before the House. 
The bill enhances the existing Act to ensure that the benefits of paid parental leave can now be accessed by more people. It lowers the eligibility threshold by providing that to be eligible for paid parental leave a woman need only have worked for the same employer for the 6 months immediately preceding the expected date of delivery or adoption of a child rather than 12 months as at present. This change makes it easier for more New Zealand women to access the scheme particularly those who work in less standard employment arrangements. The bill also extends the duration of leave from 12 weeks to 14 weeks progressively by 1 December 2005. This will enable better compliance with international human rights instruments relating to the duration of paid maternity leave. 
The bill continues to recognise the diversity of New Zealand families. While paid parental leave is predominantly taken by women paid parental leave may also be transferred to a partner provided he or she also meets the eligibility criteria. The bill makes it clear that for the purposes of entitlement to the paid parental leave scheme teachers employed by boards of trustees at more than one State or integrated school are to be treated as having one employer. This ensures that teachers who work concurrently in more than one school or move from one school to another have continuous employment in the public education service recognised for the purpose of accessing paid parental leave. The bill also ensures that the unique situation affecting some junior doctors who currently risk missing out on parental leave entitlements because they are required to change employers as part of their compulsory training will be addressed. A new provision will recognise continuous service between different district health boards. 
Some submitters made suggestions as part of the evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme and to the Social Services Committee that the scheme be extended to self-employed women. Further work on the feasibility of extended paid leave to the self-employed is currently being undertaken. As part of this process officials are considering the overall framework the design the eligibility criteria and the payment structure that could apply to self-employed people. Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future. 
 The bill strikes a fair balance between employers and employees. This balance will allow new parents time to raise a newborn or adopted child without fear of losing substantial amounts of income or resigning from their jobs while also ensuring that the rapid growth of the New Zealand economy continues. By extending paid parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks expanding the eligibility criteria for those wishing to access paid parental leave and allowing new mothers to transfer their paid parental leave entitlement to their partners our Government is ensuring that New Zealand working parents who wish to have children have the best opportunity to do so while continuing to participate in paid employment to their full potential. 
In conclusion I thank the Social Services Committee for its diligence and hard work on the bill. I also commend very highly the officials particularly those from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the Department of Labour for their hard work and commitment to this area. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson I say firstly that it is nice to have a Minister who thanks the committee because it takes a tremendous amount of work by a committee for these bills to come through. Even when not supporting a particular bill we in the National Party find that we do our best to try to help the bill along in the best possible way that we can and when there are some amendments that we can help to make. Speaking from experience which of course most of the Labour Party do not have it is very helpful to them so we do our best. 
This is the sort of bill concerning which the Labour Party should bring itself to understand that self-employed people are not the enemy. Self-employed people work have babies and pay taxes and they also need work-life balance or as the Minister has called it family work-life balance. Yet these people are being excluded and that is why we cannot support this bill. The Labour Party and United Future which is supporting Labour had the opportunity to give self-employed people a bit of a go—to give them a chance. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s right. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: New Zealand First along with National would have been happy to help out in that way. But instead Labour chose to extend the period of paid parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks. It chose to reduce the amount of time that someone needed to be in the same employment before he or she could get parental leave and it did that in preference to providing for the people who own their own businesses in this country. 
New Zealand is a country of small businesses the numbers of which are getting smaller. New Zealand is a country where lots and lots of women and men own their own businesses or set up their own practices. Physiotherapists nurse practitioners people who work in areas such as the trades people who have panel-beating shops—all these people have families too. If we are to give to one section of the community why are we not also giving to them? Paid parental leave is not based on income. It is not something that only those on a limited income can access. This is something that some of the highest-paid people in the country who happen to be employed—people for instance like the chief executive of Telecom—can access. Yet poor old Joe and Janet Bloggs who are on $30000 a year having set up a plumbing business will not be able to access this benefit because they have decided to be independent work for themselves try to build their own business and work all the hours that God has given them. They will pay for the luxury of very highly paid people getting this benefit. That is what it is—a benefit. 
We are all for some fairness in this issue. Most of us on this side of the House have some experience of working and being mothers or fathers at the same time. The two should not be mutually exclusive. We think that people who have families will obviously add tremendously to their work experience because they bring a bit of reality to their work. They understand what it is like to bring up families and often under quite severe financial difficulties. It takes an awful lot to do this. It is very very interesting that this is one bill where the Greens ACT New Zealand First and National are all on the same side. That is because of one issue which is that this bill is discriminatory. Obviously bills that are concerned with benefits need to discriminate in some way otherwise we would not be giving out anything in terms of taxpayer money for people to have children. 
We think that children are really good in this country. We want more babies. We particularly want anyone other than me to have more babies. The reason that we need people to have more babies is that we need to have our home-grown babies first and foremost. We cannot do that if we consistently take more and more money off people by way of taxes—money that they cannot afford—and then punish them because they happen to look after their own children and stay with the person who is also the other parent. That is what they see happening to them. 
There is nothing in this bill for people who have set up their own businesses. There is nothing for the plumbers the electricians or for the people who have mortgaged their homes and thrown caution to the wind. They are the people in this country who make a huge difference. There is nothing in this bill for farmers. That is important because despite all the rhetoric from some of the Ministers about high-tech—and it is true that high-tech is very important—high-tech in this country started with the farmers. We need only to look at the work that places like the Ruakura Research Centre have done over the years and that Fonterra is now continuing to do—and will do more of it overseas because of the funny rules we have here about GE—to see that these industries have been at the forefront of science in this country. The farmers have been the people who have paid for it. They are again being asked to go about their business keep on working—both women and men—have children look after their kids get them to school be in charge and pay for the pleasure of someone else being able to have some time off. 
This would be a nice opportunity for the Government instead of extending the 12-week period to 14 weeks—and what sort of difference does that make anyway except to the pay packet—to extend a little bit of taxpayers’ largesse to self-employed people. We understand that it is good for self-employed working people to be able to have families as well. They are getting squeezed by this Government. It taxes them to beggary. We have only to look at the November issue of 
North and South 
 to see that in this country now there is no point bothering to earn $60000. One might as well earn $38000 because under the Government’s scheme that is what one is paying for. It is all going out in taxes. It is totally unfair. 
This is the opportunity that the Government has. I do not understand why United Future did not help in this matter. I do not understand why given its ability to bring a bit of common sense into this bill it did not use that opportunity. United Future had the Government in the position of having to look to them to us or to somebody else to help out with this bill. United Future had the opportunity and it let it go. That is the great tragedy. 
The Government knew that it could not go to the Greens on this legislation. It knew it could not go to ACT and it could not come to National unless it would allow self-employed people to get a little bit of a fair go. Unfortunately United Future buckled. It buckled on this bill and let down the people of this country who have common sense it let down small business and it did it because it wanted to say to the Government: “We’ll roll over and you can tickle our tummy.” Coming from a farming background I can say that I would not accept that sort of behaviour. United Future has let this opportunity go. It will now have to wait until after the next election when we will have to look again at this whole issue. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have to say that that would be one of the most sanctimonious contributions I have heard in this House made by somebody who likes to describe herself as a spokesperson on families. The utter inconsistency is absolutely breathtaking. On the one hand the National Party is telling one constituency that this bill does not go far enough and on the other hand that it does not agree with one word of the existing legislation. So it does not support the bill at all. 
I think that that is utterly inconsistent with the practice of those members in National’s own party. Sure Katherine Rich did not get paid parental leave but she was paid her full salary while she was having her babies—not once but twice. For weeks on end she was happy to receive her pay as a member of Parliament but she is not happy to see ordinary working women in this country and men who provide parental support when their babies are born with 12 weeks’—now 14 weeks’—paid leave. 
This bill is a fantastic effort on the part of this Government which is really doing something to help young families and working parents and enable them to settle in with their new babies and then to return to the workforce. I think that this Minister Ruth Dyson who has been utterly and consistently determined to deliver improvements to the paid parental leave scheme is somebody who I trust will deliver to the self-employed in the future—but there has to be a new way of finding that out. 
One thing that the very interesting previous speaker did not mention was what National would do about people who were entitled to paid parental leave but who did not take that leave. When self-employed people have been interviewed about the subject they have said that taking 12 or 14 weeks off work would be detrimental to their businesses and that the negative impacts would outweigh the benefits of receiving paid parental leave. When we actually talk to individuals we find it is very clear that a lot more work needs to be done on that but I am confident that Ruth Dyson will deliver on it. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Is it not ironic that we have a bill before the House that gives some form of benefit to one sector of the community while others are denied the same opportunity and privilege? Is it not ironic that a Supplementary Order Paper presented to the House that even the select committee did not refuse has been reassigned to be disposed of? Is it a sign of the future that we are not given the opportunity to speak on amendments presented? That smells of disrespect—or should I say dictatorship. We in New Zealand First have been told that we cannot speak to our amendments so the self-employed—a very hard-working sector—are being denied the same opportunity as employees. 
The title of this bill should be changed to the “Employee Parental Bill” because my understanding of the word “parent” is that it covers all people who have fathered and mothered children irrespective of their social status and employment. 
The Social Services Committee received 11 submissions on the bill the majority being in support of its general intention. Many of those who generally supported the bill wished to see some aspects changed. One suggested change included extending the legislation to cover self-employed women. If this Government has any future intention of including the self-employed I ask when that will happen. 
Initially New Zealand First was in the frame of mind to support the bill subject to the amendments being included. We have now had a change of heart because of the unfairness to a very strong competitor in the economic structure of this country. New Zealand First is very disappointed with the result of the readings of this bill. However I say to fair-minded listeners out there that the opportunity for their participation will come their way. 
New Zealand First in all sincerity—even at this stage of this Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill—exhorts this minority Government to reconsider the present position and include the self-employed in this legislation. If international human rights allow that to happen what are the rights of our women who are self-employed? What about farmers’ wives and those who are running small businesses as has been noted? 
Self-employed people are also family people. If United Future supported my Supplementary Order Paper why does it support this bill as it now stands? That is something to think about. This bill provides some form of benefit. Why is that not extended to families who really contribute to the tax take of this country? 
New Zealand First also recognises parents who are in the process of adopting children. That was one of the amendments we wanted to speak on but that was never taken into consideration. New Zealand First is really disappointed. We thought the Labour-led Government would look at the amendments and consider including self-employed people in this bill. When we look at mothers who struggle—who already have families at the same time as they give birth to the future generations of this country—we ask why they are being left out. 
Who is responsible for not allowing a hearing for our amendments? I asked that question yesterday. Yes I really did but as of today we have not received a reply. We have all heard that this bill is for only one sector of the people—maybe all those who belong to a union? I am not quite sure. If they belong to a union is that why the Government is chasing those employees only? 
New Zealand First looks at the broad spectrum of families throughout the country. We have heard remarks about how beautiful this country is. What about the people who reside in this country? Are they not the ones who make it beautiful? Are they not the ones who contribute to the tax take and to the GDP of the country? Why are they not being taken into consideration? When New Zealand First hopefully becomes part of the Government or becomes the Government this policy will change to include every citizen of this country who meets the criteria. 
I thank members for listening and I tell those in the Government to take heed. They are denying people who have families who work hard and who are entitled to the same treatment as those they purport to support from being included in this bill. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of this bill. We support the extension of parental leave because it values the time that a family spends together when a child is first born. 
Despite the controversy the bill attracted before it was introduced in 2002 paid parental leave went out to 18000 people in its first year at a cost of over $51 million. About 3900 people receive paid parental leave at any given time and 98 percent of those take the full 12-week payment so that they can stay at home. An initial evaluation of the scheme by the Department of Labour found that parents considered it highly beneficial. As well as having more money to cover bills new mothers were able to stay at home longer with their babies. It was also thought to have a positive impact on the number of mothers able to breastfeed. Paid parental leave also acknowledges that being a mother—or a father for that matter—is important. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Before the House rose for tea I was referring to the fact that paid parental leave acknowledges the fact that being a mother or father is important. Whereas previous generations of women fought for the right to have a career it is getting to the point with this generation that women have to fight for the option of being a parent at the same time as having a career. 
According to a recent study by a Waikato demographer Janet Sceats parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to day care at much younger ages because they cannot afford to stay with them at home. Whereas 22 percent of women born in the 1940s returned to work before their children were 2 years old by the 1970s it was up to 64 percent. The concern for our population growth is that women faced with juggling work and family commitments will opt not to have children and that is supported by our current falling fertility rates particularly in urban areas such as central Auckland and Wellington. 
Parental leave seems to play an important role in easing some of these issues but it is by no means a silver bullet. Although this bill extends the scheme from 12 to 14 weeks it is of fairly limited assistance for those who would like to stay at home with their children for the first few years of their lives. Our point is not that every parent should do that or that the State should pay for it but we are concerned that that option is no longer a real choice. Rather I want to quote the word “luxury” which the Hon Steve Maharey labelled it on the radio earlier this year. Whether it is motivated by feminism or the need to realise all labour resources in the light of skill shortages the Government has been focused on subsidising childcare so that both parents can return to work as soon as possible after a child is born. But the same kind of assistance is not available to those who choose to stay at home to look after their children. We are saying that we should at least level the playing field so that families face a reasonably balanced choice between whether one parent stays at home or both return to work. 
To the extent that paid parental leave is only ever enough to subsidise a very temporary break from the workforce United Future believes that income splitting would help to create a more level playing field by recognising that the main income earner is not only supporting a child but is also supporting another adult who takes the main role in caring for that child. Paid parental leave is also limited by the fact that it does not extend to the self-employed. For some time the Government has said that it is looking at extending the scheme to self-employed parents but to date very little has been forthcoming. According to a letter that the Minister wrote to the select committee: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” 
Submitters to the select committee were also very keen to see this issue advanced. It was reported in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
in February this year that Margaret Wilson was recommending to Cabinet that the self-employed be covered by paid parental leave and apparently Cabinet has discussed the matter but was not happy with the proposals put forward by the Minister. So the question that United Future has is: why could this bill not have waited until a solution is found for self-employed parents? Why is the Government able to levy the self-employed for accident compensation levies and assess them for tax purposes yet is not able to come up with a way of paying them with paid parental leave? Or is the issue here the Government’s unwillingness to let its policy-making be guided by anything other than the myth of a class struggle between downtrodden workers and exploitative bosses. We prefer to take the view that the common element here is the family and that that is why the self-employed should be covered by this bill. 
However our support for this bill is based on this idea: if we in this room could imagine 10 women representing a cross-section of women in New Zealand we can assume that five of those women already qualify for paid parental leave that after this bill three more will qualify for paid parental leave and that the remaining two represent those women yet to receive an acknowledgment by this Government that they are also entitled to paid parental leave. My challenge to New Zealand First is: why vote against this bill because of who it excludes rather than support it because of who it now brings in under that umbrella? United Future is happy to support the bill on that basis but is very keen though to advance the cause that New Zealand First put forward its amendments on—that paid parental leave be extended to self-employed women. We are very happy to see that extension at a later date but not to support this bill when we would exclude another group of women from coming under its provisions which is a very sad thing for parties that are posturing to care about families. 
People opposing this bill need to be seriously questioned about that. United Future is very happy to support this bill for that reason. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has supported and will continue to support any moves to extend paid parental leave to more working mothers and fathers in New Zealand and we will be voting for this bill today. We are pleased that the Government did not feel that it needed to wait until after the next election before starting to expand on the 2002 Act and that today we are increasing entitlements up to 14 weeks albeit gradually and extending eligibility to employees with between 6 and 12 months’ service with one employer. 
However I have to say that like many union submitters we do not think that this bill goes far enough towards meeting the demands and needs of working women in particular or our theoretical obligations under ILO Convention 183 Concerning the Revision of the Maternity Protection Convention. But we accept alas that there are budgetary constraints under which the Minister and the department must operate. In particular we would have liked to see more groups of precarious workers become eligible for paid parental leave by removing the minimum weekly hours threshold by extending eligibility to those employed by more than one employer in the previous 12 months and by redefining continuous employment to allow breaks of employment of up to 3 months. 
The Green Party is also keen to inspire this Government—eventually anyway—to implement a legislative right to breastfeeding breaks and to do more to encourage employers to create a positive and enabling environment for breastfeeding mothers in the workplace. We would have liked to move an amendment to this bill in that direction but unfortunately we were informed that breastfeeding is outside its scope. Personally I can see a very direct connection between the issue of paid parental leave and the ability or otherwise of new mothers to return to work after a mere 12 or 14 weeks. But alas that is far too sensible for the system of how we create law in this country. 
Turning to another matter like some of my Labour colleagues I have been somewhat astonished by the ferocious input by National ACT and New Zealand First on the question of paid parental leave for the self-employed. Although those parties have voted—so far at least—against the bill itself I do not get that the parties of the right are saying that only the self-employed should get paid parental leave. I do not understand what sense it makes to oppose paid parental leave for employed workers while advocating passionately for the same right for the self-employed. That is a patently ridiculous proposition. However where I do agree with those members and indeed with Labour members on the select committee as well is that paid parental leave should be extended to the self-employed at the soonest possible opportunity. 
As I would have pointed out in the Committee stage of this debate yesterday afternoon had the Chair permitted discussion on the amendments dealing with the issue the Green Party would have voted for the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Bill Gudgeon from New Zealand First which rendered self-employed people eligible for paid parental leave. However not only was a fiscal veto placed on Mr Gudgeon’s amendment but on top of that the Chair refused to allow any direct discussion of his Supplementary Order Paper—which I found quite extraordinary. It is quite incredible that we cannot debate an amendment—even one with a fiscal veto on it—during the relevant Committee stage of a bill especially when the matter under discussion is also referred to extensively in the commentary prepared by the select committee that a number of us here in the House tonight sat on. We all know that the question of paid parental leave for the self-employed was an integral part of our discussions on this bill. 
As I have said in this House and elsewhere since the introduction of the first bill the Green Party believes that the self-employed should be able to access paid parental leave subject to the development of suitable eligibility criteria and a methodology that allows for a system equitable to those in paid employment. I have never quite understood why given that the Accident Compensation Corporation has managed to find ways of providing cover for the self-employed as part of its equally convoluted mechanisms the Government has found it so hard to do the same with paid parental leave. On top of that the Department of Labour itself in its own 2003 review and evaluation of the paid parental leave scheme found that extending the scheme to the self-employed was in fact one of the three most frequently mentioned suggestions for improvement. This was backed up by a range of submissions from groups as diverse as trade unions and farmers to the select committee during the course of both paid parental leave bills. 
However during our discussions on this issue during the Social Services Committee process this time round the Government advised us that the Department of Labour had not yet had sufficient time to work out how extending paid parental leave to self-employed people could be made to work given other legislative and policy priorities. The Green Party pressed the Government on this matter and we were heartened as the commentary on the bill reports to receive a letter from the Minister advising us formally that: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” The statement forms part of the official commentary on the bill. 
Peter Brown 
: What is the “near future”? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I say to Mr Brown that I believe that the task for all of us inside and outside the House who support this particular extension of paid parental leave is to ensure that we help keep the Minister to her word over the coming year. Although the Green Party would have voted for the New Zealand First amendment on the Table yesterday if it had not been subject to a fiscal veto we also know that in reality it will take time and a lot of work to develop the framework by designing eligibility criteria and a payment structure for applying the scheme to the self-employed as the Minister indeed notes in her letter to the committee. 
We were also pleased to see other amendments made to the bill by the Minister yesterday particularly those that mean paid parental leave will now be extended to doctors who work for example for more than one district health board over brief periods as is common practice as part of their training. It made no sense that teachers who move schools were to be covered while doctors who moved hospitals as for example surgical trainees were not. Women doctors in particular suffer from a huge student loan debt which is only exacerbated when they are excluded from paid parental leave coverage simply because they are required to move from district health board to district health board as part of their professional training requirements. I am pleased that the Government has been flexible enough to acknowledge the reality and the inequity of this situation and even though the improvements will impact on very few women in practice they are women who deserve all the help they can get at this critical point in their careers. 
In conclusion I would just like to thank and congratulate all of those who have taken part in writing and considering the bill including the Minister and all the submitters from whatever perspective they came. I am glad we are taking a few more steps towards paid parental leave today for more women and men even if we continue to lag well behind some other comparable countries. I will finish by noting a report released just a few weeks ago from PricewaterhouseCoopers in the UK proposing that paid parental leave should be paid for 12 months: 6 weeks at 90 percent of earnings and the rest at the national minimum wage. On top of that they suggest a home-care allowance to be paid to parents who choose to stay at home to look after their children aged 12 to 24 months with reduced rates for part-time workers. If only! 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we have done all along in this debate we will be voting against this bill. The reason is that we believe it is unfair it is discriminatory and it increases the welfare burden so to speak on New Zealand. 
It is interesting that in a democracy we expect people and political parties in particular to stand up for their principles. In this debate we have seen two parties who support the Government: the United Future party and the Green Party. Both parties have explained to the House why they disagree with a large part of this bill—the fact that it discriminates against groups of workers in particular. I have to say that members of those parties on our select committee raised those issues all the time but it is a sad fact I believe that they are still supporting a bill that is very unfair. I think that the parties that have opposed this bill even though they may see some merit in it have done so on the grounds that they would rather not support bad law than go ahead and support bad law because of some other reason and privilege the major party may give them. 
This bill is essentially about the right of a woman who is having a baby to choose to stay at home while that baby is young to choose to leave her place of employment to have this parental leave benefit and then be free either to take the statutory 12 months’ leave a woman is entitled to when she has a baby or to stay at home permanently to look after that child. But I say to the Government that the better way to give that choice to working families is not through a welfare entitlement that favours a group of women in New Zealand while discriminating against probably the majority of working women. 
In fact the better way to do it would simply be to lower the tax burden on working families to let them keep more of what they earn so that they can make those choices themselves as to whether they keep mum at home for 3 months or whether they can afford to keep her home on a longer-term basis which is obviously the way that New Zealand used to be. I think all of us can look back to our own childhoods and we can say that many of our mothers stayed at home while their kids were little and it is a really sad indictment I think on New Zealand’s high tax burden that so many working families no longer have that choice. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: If the member who keeps grunting over there would like to take a call maybe he can explain to the House why that logic is wrong. Why is the logic wrong when we know that the average family now has to pay 46 percent of its income in taxes? That includes not just income tax but the 34 stealth taxes brought in by Labour in its short reign. In 5 years it has brought in 34 additional taxes levies fees and other types of tariff which have taken the tax burden up so that almost half of the income of working families now goes in tax. 
I say that that is too high and I remind the member that a Treasury paper published earlier this year explained to the Government that if it simply took the surplus and gave most of it back—not even the whole lot—taxes in this country could be lowered to 20 cents in the dollar. We can just imagine what that would mean to working families and it would not be touching any spending that the Government had already promised. 
So this is a debate about whether we have more welfare in this country which means those working families will have an even greater tax burden as a result of the changes we are passing through the House today or whether we should give those working families a break so that they can make the choice themselves and take responsibility for mum staying at home or not staying at home—whatever they choose. I say that that is the better way to go and that is essentially why the ACT party does not support this legislation. 
We have heard about the discrimination against many working women that this bill now brings into our law—that it discriminates against the self-employed and it discriminates against the casual worker whose work makes up a full-time job but with different employers. We have heard that this bill makes exceptions for teachers who we know have a strong union to back them. We understand it does the same for doctors. What about nurses who make up a huge proportion of our workforce? What about those nurses who have different employers because they are employed by different district health boards? What about cleaners? What about women who supplement their income by going out and doing the tough jobs but with a number of different employers? 
This Government does not care about those people yet I would say that many of their voters are in that category: unskilled workers who have a number of different employers. They make up a 40-hour week by grafting hard and this Government does not care about giving them the right to this new welfare benefit that it is now promoting and providing through this House. I say that smacks of double standards. It smacks of the sorts of double standards that we in the Opposition have become accustomed to from Labour. 
A third reason why the ACT party does not support this bill is that it is yet another election bribe. We see that the next phase of the 14-week entitlement which is the change from 13 weeks to 14 weeks comes into force in December 2005. Is that not great? It means that anybody who wants to look forward to the 14-weeks’ entitlement will realise they had better vote for Labour. I think that that is despicable and that we will see a lot of that as time goes by. We will see Labour putting out more and more legislation that comes into force after the election. In my mind that is not the honourable way to pass legislation. 
We then go on to the fact that this is anti-business legislation. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Labour members groan but I can tell them that if any one of them had run a small business they would know how difficult it is if a staff member takes either 3 months or a year off work—and they do not know which it is. Any woman who has had a baby and who intends to take a year off work will end up taking the 3 months’ paid parental leave and who could say anything against her for doing so? But she will no longer signal to the employer that she will be away for a year. That will come after the 3 months is up. It puts a huge burden on to the small-business person who does not know whether to hire somebody part-time through an agency for 3 months or whether to go out and get a longer-term commitment from an employee to work for a year. 
There are unintended consequences in this legislation. What small business will hire a woman who it is thought might be pregnant? Now that we have brought the time limit for the entitlement down to 6 months an employee can work for somebody for 6 months and then be entitled to the paid parental leave provisions. The limit used to be a year so when an employer took somebody on at least that employee would work for a year before the provisions came in. Now it is only 6 months. If an employer has a choice between a woman who may be pregnant and a man the employer will take the man so the unintended consequence is that this bill will discriminate against women of childbearing age. 
I finish by asking this Government why it is so keen to keep in the workforce working mums who have had new babies when we have over 110000 women on the domestic purposes benefit—50000 of them with children of school age—who do not share that enthusiasm for getting into the workforce? I say that this legislation to my mind again smacks of a double standard. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am privileged to speak in the third reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. But it is so disappointing to follow the previous speaker who has just resumed her seat Dr Muriel Newman because she was talking down. 
In fact this is a great night for many thousands of New Zealanders. This bill is about uplifting the family and it is about providing benefits for many more people yet to come. I am glad to see that the parties opposite that are going to vote against this bill will be supportive of increasing the benefits in the future—which the Government has given a commitment to look into—for the self-employed and others. 
So we look forward to that support as we move forward. This is a great step tonight for New Zealanders—men and women alike—and we should be proud. I support the bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 What a rant we heard from Georgina Beyer the member for Wairarapa! National is indeed opposing this bill because it is discriminatory. It discriminates against the many thousands of self-employed working mothers. Labour and Georgina Beyer have blatantly decided that they will look after their own first and so discriminate against a large section of New Zealand society who are often much worse off and who work much harder than—and who will actually subsidise—those whom the Government wishes this discriminatory bill to help. 
I am sure there is no one in this House who does not recognise just how important it is to have optimal conditions for babies young children and their parents. All the evidence is totally clear that those years months and weeks following birth are absolutely vital. However this bill is utterly inconsistent and inequitable. If indeed this bill had been brought in on full principles of equality equitability and affordability and did not cause a degree of welfare dependency—which indeed it has on one group rather than on another—then maybe it could be supported. But we have the Labour Party grandly bringing in this so-called social good particularly for its own supporters. Not only does this bill not help those self-employed mothers it does not help full-time mothers. So many around the hustings have said so many times that of all the jobs in the world parenting is probably the most difficult to do effectively. 
We notice from the commentary that: “The Bill implements Government policy to extend the duration of paid parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks …” and on it goes. But when has the Minister ever explained why she has not included the self-employed? She has never done that in a detailed manner. Those women working in corner dairies and those women working on farms work just as hard as any other women. They often work harder and face much more difficult circumstances because of the very fact particularly on farms that they do not have the services available in the urban area. But the Minister has never ever explained to us why she has not been prepared to include them in this bill. 
Again she talks grandly about the International Labour Organization conventions. In fact again the commentary states: “One of the policy objectives of the bill is to better align New Zealand policy with standards for the length of paid maternity leave contained in the International Labour Organisation Convention 183 on maternity protection.” Well I just happened to get hold of a newspaper article pointing out that supporters of this bill claim New Zealand is one of only three OECD countries—the other two being Australia and the US—that do not provide paid parental leave and that we are out of step with 120 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. That was the argument the Labour Party was using 2 or 3 years ago. The International Labour Organization’s list of 120 countries has it that women in Afghanistan are entitled to employer-funded paid parental leave at 100 percent of wages for 90 days and that women in Zimbabwe have 90 days’ employer-funded leave at 75 percent of wages—the comment is: “Yeah right!” Here we have once again the Labour Party with its fanciful do-good State dependency-type of policy that indeed makes these grand statements but that really cannot back them up when they go around the world. 
I think Muriel Newman made the important point that philosophically perhaps it would be much easier just to have a simplified lower tax system so that people could make their own choices and so that there were direct incentives to take on the appropriate responsibility. But no what this Labour Government insists on once again is income redistribution churning through the Inland Revenue Department and an ever-burgeoning social welfare system. 
After all in the ideal world all our children would be carefully planned. The stark fact in New Zealand we understand is that probably only about 20 to 30 percent of children are planned. Even then hopefully it takes a 9-month period from conception to birth in order to plan. We would hope that by far the majority of parents in the ideal optimal circumstances would indeed plan prior to conception and do everything possible to plan and organise the arrangements that they themselves wanted. 
But here again with this legislation we see a discriminatory inequitable bill that leaves out a large part of New Zealand society just as deserving as other parts and we see the Labour Government cementing in that State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility. That is a huge concern. 
I note in the evaluation of the scheme that three things were suggested—one of them of course being the extension of the scheme to the self-employed. Well it takes an inquiry before the Labour Government is finally prepared to see that there is a great big hole in this bill. I note that there is a point where the Minister states: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” What does she really mean by that? She has been silent on that for so long. In fact I think this bill first had its genesis 2 or 3 years ago and she has skilfully managed to neglect those who are self-employed. 
As the representative for Port Waikato I see from time to time those rural women who are deeply offended by this bill. That was very much substantiated by the submission of Rural Women New Zealand to the select committee. I think it is worth making a note of their executive summary where they stated: “The Government’s approach to parental leave typifies the fundamental problem with the policy framework introduced over recent years that is slowly and steadily returning New Zealand to unproductive State dependency. The Government appears to believe that most people in families cannot think or fend for themselves and is actively discouraging and penalising those who seek to be self-sufficient and those who plan and prepare for the future.” 
Well that is the view of Rural Women New Zealand and it is quintessentially the expression of those who have been left out by this discriminating Labour Government. Seventy-five percent of paid people working in the farming sector are self-employed. 
Opposition Member 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Seventy-five percent of them. Those are the very people who do not have the services enjoyed by many living in the urban sector—by many in the public service who the Government is so concerned will vote for it. I notice that rural women also say that if the bill is passed a significant number of women and men will continue to be ineligible to receive statutory-funded paid parental leave although they will be required to meet the cost of providing it for others—there is a substantial list of them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I thought a Government member was going to take a call to explain why Labour members are supporting this bill but clearly I cannot rely on them. I thought that sooner or later one of them would stand and say that he or she fully understands this bill and what it is all about. What a guilt trip United Future and the Greens have had. What a guilt trip! Those members spent at least half their speaking time apologising for not supporting the self-employed being covered in this bill. I say to United Future members and they should take this on board that when Judy Turner made her contribution she spoke as if this was a new bill—a new concept. But this legislation came in 2 or 3 years ago. It just increases the entitlements and makes a few more people able to receive them. But the bill ignores the self-employed. We were promised 2 or 3 years ago that the case for the self-employed was a good case and it would be addressed forthwith. How long do we have to wait? Nobody told us—not one single person—mentioned how soon— 
Shane Ardern 
: It won’t happen under this Government. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tend to agree with the member; it will not happen under this Government. Part 2 comes in on 1 December next year. Will the self-employed be covered by then? 
Shane Ardern 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I do not think they will. Yet the Minister says the Government will give urgent priority to the case for the self-employed. 
Georgina Beyer 
: That is correct. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well give us a time frame. We have been sitting waiting for 3 years. New Zealand First would have supported this bill if it covered the self-employed. They pay their taxes they work for this country they are the backbone of this country in many many respects and they are entitled to be covered by this legislation. 
Lianne Dalziel during the 1 minute she spoke or it might have been 1 minute 10 seconds—I do not want to take anything away from the member—said that the reason self-employed people are not covered is that some of them will want to work. Well so do employed people. If employed people work and do not want the parental leave they do not get it. That is the same with the self-employed I would assume. I would assume that that is fair—if one works one does not get the leave. I cannot imagine a woman on $200000 or $300000 a year taking paid parental leave. But she would be entitled to it although a self-employed person on a modest wage is not. 
So the argument might be that the Government does not have the money. Well let us have a look at that. In 1999 the total tax take was $33.1 billion. 
Craig McNair 
: Surely not! 
PETER BROWN 
: It was $33.1 billion in 1999. Guess what it was in June this year? 
Craig McNair 
: How much? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was $45.9 billion. That is an increase of nearly 40 percent but the Government cannot afford to give a little bit back to the self-employed. This is a benevolent Government? Like hell it is. I tell those members over there that they should be ashamed of themselves. Worse still if United Future and the Greens had stuck to the principles they espoused in this House and said: “If the self-employed are not in we’re not with it.” we would have got the self-employed covered. We would have got the cover if they had come across and said: “We will not embrace this bill unless it covers the self-employed.” We would have achieved that target. 
Craig McNair 
: They are lapdogs. 
PETER BROWN 
: As my honourable friend says they are lapdogs. [ 
Interruption 
] But that is not our only concern. Let me enlighten members a little further—the members who know so much about the bill they cannot take a call to explain what they know. 
I have a letter written to the Minister of Health Mrs King from a young lady doctor and I will read a paragraph. “I am a doctor. I have worked full time within the public hospital system since graduation—5 years. I have recently come to Wellington from Whangarei. Prior to this I was employed within the Auckland region by both the Auckland District Health Board and Counties-Manukau District Health Board. From Wellington I’m being sent to Christchurch in December.” If that lady gets pregnant she does not qualify for paid parental leave because she will not have served the appropriate time under one district health board. In other words every health board is regarded as a separate employer. She is sent from one health board to the other but she does not qualify for paid parental leave. 
Is that the way this Government operates? No not for teachers and it is stated in this letter: 
 “I understand that teachers from most public schools are employed by the Department of Education and are therefore still eligible for parental leave even when they have chosen to change schools.” The doctor who is sent from one hospital to another from one district health board to another does not qualify. The teacher who goes from one school of his or her own choice to another does qualify. Is that fair I ask members over there? 
Shane Ardern 
: Definitely not. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is definitely not fair. That is why New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We support the concept. We supported the first bill 2 or 3 years ago and we were looking forward to supporting this bill. However we will not be part of the discriminatory-type regime that this Government is imposing. It is playing favourites here—favourites to its supposed friends and it is leaving out other people quite unfairly. The people I am referring to all pay tax in fair measure. 
Shane Ardern 
: They don’t pay union fees. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says that they do not pay union fees. I think that doctors do pay union fees. [ 
Interruption 
] I cannot argue that point. I do not want to put this argument on the basis of union versus non-union. This is selective legislation by the Government. Where it thinks it will get votes it will push it through. 
United Future members are silly enough to vote against their principles. They know they can stand firm. Many many times they have stood in this House and said that they support the self-employed and how important the self-employed are to this country. It is not just farming people but the small-business person who runs a garage runs a shop or whatever. They are the people whom United Future said it supports. But what do United Future members do when they have to front up to a bill like this? They roll over and say: “Never mind Government. We’ll take care of them in 1 2 3 4 5 years. Just let them keep paying taxes so that other people can benefit from it.” 
This legislation is totally unfair. It would not be so bad if it were a first attempt. New Zealand First lived with the first attempt to exclude the self-employed. That was in 2001 or 2000. The first bill was introduced about 3 years ago. It has taken the Government 3 years and it still cannot get there. I say Mr Speaker that New Zealand First can fix it. You might have heard this before and I think you have by the smile on your face. New Zealand First can fix it and it will. It will fix this legislation to make it fair for every New Zealander who should qualify. We are ashamed that this legislation will go through tonight in the way it is and that is why we are voting against it. 
If the Government had only listened to my honourable colleague Bill Gudgeon’s amendment and taken it on board it would have been a different kettle of fish. We would have been very very supportive. However the Government refused point-blank to give any consideration to the self-employed and the issues concerning doctors that have been covered tonight by myself and the complaints from nurses raised by Muriel Newman. 
This is poor legislation when it comes to New Zealanders and I am ashamed that this Government is pushing it through like this. New Zealand First will not be supporting it and I say that with a heavy heart. Basically it is the sort of legislation that we should be providing for all New Zealanders not just a selection of them. I rest my case. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call in this debate. One of the things in politics is that we cannot get everything done in 5 minutes. Members have principles and things they believe in and we are always trying to improve things for all New Zealanders. This bill is a good example of that. It extends parental leave to another 3500 people in New Zealand. The glass on this issue is half full not half empty. However because we cannot do absolutely everything in this one piece of legislation Opposition parties say “Let’s have none of it.” They will vote down this bill even though we have extended paid parental leave to 3500 people. 
Of course the Government would like to take this further and of course we are open to considering extending paid parental leave into the future. This is not the end of the process. This is the middle part of it. It is another good piece of legislation where we invest in strong public services which the Labour-Progressive Government firmly supports. Don Brash would unwind paid parental leave for all Kiwis. From tonight we are including another 3500 mothers in this provision and we will keep on marching because we believe in keeping this country strong. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 We have just heard from that member over there that another 3500 people will be paid parental leave. What about the rest? What about the self-employed people who will miss out in this legislation? It is all very well that he says it is part of the process to take a little bit here and a little bit there. I am telling the Government that until the legislation affects everybody and everybody has the benefit of it we will vote against it. We will vote against it because it is absolutely discriminatory. Where is the equity here? We are a nation of small businesses. We have 292000 small businesses. That is the mums and dads out there who are working hard trying to make things work. Shortly we will be looking at the taxation bill in the Committee stage and I will have a bit to say when we get there. However the backbone of the economy those people who put in the hard yards make the investments and if they happen to be self-employed do not qualify under this bill. 
The Government says that it has to look after small business. I am absolutely ashamed of United Future which is meant to stand up for those people. I hope that Mr Alexander takes a call not in this debate but in the debate on the taxation bill because that is important as well. A party that can support this legislation—which is inequitable which is discriminatory—and wants to support the Government on it when we could actually bring this down is a nonsense. 
What will the Government do? The 3500 extra people the previous member just spoke about is fine but what about the rest of us? What about the rest of those families? I shall tell members what is happening in business. In particular small-business people are saying that they will not employ somebody who will possibly want to start a family. That is what they are saying. So who will miss out? It is those people whom we should be trying to help. In the real world—and Labour members do not know about the real world; they have never been in the real world; they have never put their money at risk so they would not know—it is about the bottom line. 
I can tell members that small businesses cannot afford to carry people where there is no commitment that they will come back. They could hold a job open for 12 months. This is what happens in the real world which they do not know about. It is about survival and it is very very difficult for small businesses with these compliance costs. All this is is another compliance cost. 
The bill states that a person has to work for somebody for only 6 months. It used to be 12 months. At least with 12 months there was a bit of flexibility but when it is only 6 months that a person has to work for somebody that person will qualify for 12 weeks now but that person has had to work for someone for only 6 months. That is absolutely intolerable. This is another huge compliance cost with red tape that this Government is so fond of getting involved in and it is another nail in its coffin. Not only that the policy also applies if people are going to adopt. Many people do not realise that this will apply not only if they are having their own child but also applies to those people who adopt. 
If I take someone on to work in my business what will I do? I will not ask whether that person wishes to have a family but I would probably look at just taking on a male. But of course how it works is that the wife or the partner may work in a person’s business decide that he or she will have a family and will get paid parental leave but does not need to take the whole period of 14 weeks or 12 weeks as it is now. It could be that the husband or partner would work for me and would be able to pick up a couple of those weeks. Some think they are very smart because they will not take on a woman specifically because she might want to have a family and what actually might happen is that I could be caught out as well if the husband also qualifies. A lot of businesses today are being caught out on that because they do not understand how this legislation works. That is an absolute indictment on a Government that has no understanding of what makes communities work no understanding about small business in particular yet it wants to foist on us an extra couple of weeks of compliance costs and reduce of course the time period in which a person will become eligible. If the Government had included everybody then it might be a different ball game. 
 Because when we look at who is ineligible to qualify for the 14 weeks’ leave it is self-employed women and those who job-share; it is women in casual employment either part-time or full-time; it is women who cannot find or choose not to engage in formal employment including women who choose to stop work to have a family; it is women who for many reasons have had a new employer within the last 6 months and women who cannot have children or choose not to have children. 
I repeat the point I made right at the beginning that this legislation is discriminatory. It is not equitable because not all women qualify for 14 weeks’ leave. National will oppose the bill. We have voted against these matters before. We certainly oppose the bill tonight. This Government should be looking after businesses because they are the wealth creators in our communities. But no the Government says it has to look after these particular workers. The next item on the Order Paper is a taxation bill and the same sort of arguments will be very very important. 
New Zealand relies on the productive sector and on the growth of small communities. That is where the wealth of the country comes from. It comes from those 295000 small businesses that employ 92 percent of all employees. Those self-employed people the ones who put their dollars in and want a return on their dollars are being told by this Government: “We’re going to sock you one with this along with the Holidays Act the Employment Law Reform Act and increases in excise tax on fuel because of Kyoto.” However this legislation will prove to be the nail in the coffin for the Government because it shows it is uncaring and does not understand what makes communities work. I must say we are disappointed that United Future is supporting the bill because there was a chance that we could defeat it. The bill is discriminatory and inequitable and the Government will pay for that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 2 November. 
Part 2  Amendments to Income Tax Act 1994  
(continued) 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is a big part of the bill and we intend to take several calls. I start with clause 4 “Non-residents’ exempt income”. 
The Labour Government continues to trumpet about how much it understands the importance of attracting foreign investment into venture capital in New Zealand. We all know that the minority Labour Government continues to talk about an innovative framework to support high-tech industry in New Zealand but all the high-tech industries or start-up companies do have high levels of risk connected with them and usually in other types of countries venture capital funds are there for that type of investment. The Labour Government once again has come up with a half-baked idea in terms of clause 4. It thinks it will make everybody feel good even though 100 percent of the submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that clause 4 is a very very small step. 
In order to attract venture capital into New Zealand first there needs to be a limited liability partnership structure and second the list of so-called foreign countries needs to be extended to the grey list. At the moment the list that qualifies in terms of clause 4 whereby the sale of shares would not be treated as dividends but as capital gain is extremely limited. When we ask the officials what is happening about the limited liability partnership structure that foreign investors would want and also about a common regime between New Zealand and Australia they say they are still working on it. We suggest that they just finish working on the whole structure so it would then at least show a genuine understanding of the venture capital sector and would become really useful to attract investors. We realise that this is just a political game by the Government in terms of announcing this legislation and selling it by saying it will attract venture capital. But there is actually no substance within this legislation. Last week in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 there was an article from the venture capital sector stating that this taxation bill will do nothing to attract any additional foreign investment into New Zealand. 
I have spent a bit of time expanding on this matter in order to demonstrate that day in and day out in this Parliament just as with the bill that we have finished debating this Government continues to bring into this Chamber legislation that has half-baked ideas without understanding the whole concept of getting New Zealand to become competitive in a taxation framework that is transparent that has low taxation rates and that is easy to comply with. Instead the Government likes to play favourites and it keeps saying that today it is doing something to attract venture capital. But submitters to the select committee made it very clear that we have not even set up the right type of vehicle to attract that foreign investment into New Zealand. I use that example to demonstrate that Parliament is continually being presented with legislation that on the surface appears to address an issue but that in substance does not. Submitter after submitter told us that this bill has no substance. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I disagree with giving certain non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies. That disadvantages New Zealand - resident venture capital investors. It will not attract the appropriate capital needed for the purposes for which Part 2 was created. Even the proponents of this part say that it will not attract the capital needed for the purposes it was created for. We have a Government that allows certain non-residents a tax advantage from shares. This Government is selling off Powerco. This Government is paying for hip-hop trips and spending millions of dollars on the arts. Instead of the Government giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies why does it not give the small Kiwi battler a go? That is what we in New Zealand First are asking. Why does the Government not give the small-business owner or the small exporter a go? Why not give them a tax break? 
If we look at the example of the Republic of Ireland we can see how it helped its exporters. The Republic of Ireland exports $48000 per man woman and child compared with New Zealand’s measly $8000 approximately for every man woman and child. Singapore lacks resources when compared with a beautiful resource-rich country like New Zealand yet it exports about $60000 per man woman and child compared with our $8000 per man woman and child. I say and New Zealand First says that instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies we should give the Kiwi battler the small-business owner a go—because even proponents of the bill say that it will not attract the capital that is needed. 
There is another issue that I want to address. I see the United Future member Gordon Copeland in the Chamber. As I said during the second reading debate on this bill United Future has put in a minority report on this legislation. We note that United Future voted for the bill during all stages yet it has written a minority report as we see in the bill. New Zealand First says to the United Future members that this is their last chance. We will give them another chance to vote the bill down. This is their chance to vote against all the things they said they have a problem with like increasing the taxation thresholds and so on. We say that this is their last chance to do that. We say to this Government and to United Future that instead of spending $21 million on a propaganda campaign for the Working for Families package and instead of giving non-residents a tax advantage on their profits from the sale of shares in unlisted New Zealand companies we should be helping our exporters. 
There is another issue I want to discuss in relation to Part 2. It was brought up last night I think and it is the issue of the taxation of Maori authorities. When that provision was first put into legislation New Zealand First under my name put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party opposes the Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that we have written a minority report in respect of this bill. It is one sentence long: “The ACT Party view is that adopting a low flat rate of tax below those of our trading partners would overcome much of the problems this bill seeks to solve.” Of course the reason this bill is here is that our tax code is extraordinarily complicated because there are all sorts of different tax rates. 
I turn my attention to the complications the Government has got itself into by introducing race into our tax system. It is extraordinary that a Maori authority pays a lower tax rate for the same activity than other New Zealanders are forced to pay and of course that has led to all sorts of problems. I refer in particular to clauses 26 27 and 34. One of the problems will be ascertaining who is a Maori. The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe should give us some guidance on that question. I understand there have been people in this House who have decided they are Maori and then have decided they are not—they are not quite sure. Under clause 26 people can just feel that they are Maori and after they look at the tax rates they can decide they will set themselves up as a Maori authority. 
Pita Paraone 
: You want to be Maori! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The New Zealand First member says that and I draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that if we look at the census we see that in the last three censuses the number of Maori in New Zealand has increased faster than is biologically possible. People may wonder why anyone would want to say he or she is Maori. The reason that people want to do so is that Maori pay lower tax. They also become eligible for a whole range of benefits. 
Brian Connell 
: Not immigration. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Not immigration no. That is the sort of mess the Government gets itself into. 
I am not actually opposed to Maori authorities paying a lower rate of tax; I just want everyone else to be able to pay that same lower rate of tax. What I find interesting about this Government is that Dr Cullen has many many reasons as to why average New Zealanders should not have the benefit of lower tax. He even has the United Future party which supports the Government pointing out that there has been a bit of inflation and that people are paying higher rates of tax. The United Future members cannot actually bring themselves to vote in that way but they do make that point. In that respect—flip-flopping—they have got as far as that. I say to the Committee that it should look at the elections in the United States today. Has lower tax resulted in the rejection of the Bush/Cheney Government? No it has not. We have Government members who may think that the public likes paying extra tax. The Labour Party actually has contempt for its own voters and supporters. Labour members say they are in favour of them but what is their record? Their record is that they believe they can spend money better than the public can and they think they have the right to do that. 
I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and tell the Committee first who is a Maori. I ask him to tell us about all the problems of deciding whether someone is Maori. He may have some personal experiences he wants to share with the Committee. Then he can tell us how people decide whether they are a Maori authority under clause 26. That is now an important fiscal question because if a person decides he or she is Maori that person can pay a lower rate of tax than non-Maori. That is what the Government has put into the tax code so it has a duty to tell us who is a Maori. I would be really interested to hear from Mr Cunliffe who I understand has personally looked into that question. Members may know that the number of Maori MPs in this Parliament keeps going up and down. It was up to 20; now it is 19. Apparently members have changed their minds yet again. That is a matter of humour here in Parliament but it is now a matter of fiscal importance in our legislation and I think Mr Cunliffe has a duty to explain to us as he is the Minister in the chair how one decides whether a person qualifies as a Maori authority. Then he can tell us why Maori authorities should pay a lower rate of tax than other people especially when some of them are amongst New Zealand’s largest companies. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to follow the Hon Richard Prebble because he makes a lot of sense. There is an old saying that is certainly appropriate to socialists. It goes like this: “If it moves tax it if it keeps moving tax it a bit more and if it stops moving subsidise it to get it moving again.” That old cliché has been around for a long time but it is as relevant today with a Government like this as it has ever been. 
 I say to the Hon Richard Prebble who has just resumed his seat that there is one plus in having a discriminatory tax regime for Maori and it relates to a bit of an experiment going on in this country at the moment. There has been a lot of argument about whether lower taxes would increase growth. Dr Cullen over there with a PhD in history—certainly not a PhD in tax rates—has said that they would not increase growth. But let us look at what has happened since we have had two tax rates for two different ethnic groups. The Maori incorporations with a 19 percent tax rate have had growth that has outstripped that of any other kind of business in this country particularly in their farming. In farming Maori incorporations—on a 19c tax rate—have had incredible growth compared with the average growth of the rest of farmers who pay up to 39c in the dollar. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask that member—look at the Topp Twins sitting in the whips’ chairs over there heckling away—to study the facts then come back to Parliament and tell me I am wrong. Have Maori incorporations with a lower tax rate—which will of course be reinforced under this piece of legislation—had strong growth rates exceeding those of any other corporation or entity in this country? The answer is absolutely yes they have. That is absolute evidence that lower tax rates will create higher growth rates. 
There are a couple of other points in Part 2 that need to be touched on. One is the fact that the tax rate for horticultural investment is going to be improved. That is a plus. I say good on the people of Hawke’s Bay who clearly lobbied the member who lives there—not their local member but the member who lives there who happens to be Dr Michael Cullen—to get a special rate. Obviously Michael Cullen is thinking of retiring to the Hawke’s Bay and this is the “smooth the way for Michael into the Hawke’s Bay” clause. Good on them for getting it! But why is that rate not applied to all agricultural land-based industries? Let us look at farm machinery. We all know that when we invest in modern agricultural techniques and equipment we get stronger growth rates and higher productivity. Why are the depreciation rates for farm machinery in general not taken into account in this piece of legislation? Why was that left out? Who knows; how would we ever know? 
Let us look at the depreciation rates on things like planting new pasture and on dairy conversions—a lot of which are going on in my colleague’s Rakaia area. What has happened to them? The socialists have said they are not going to have people planting new grass cultivars that achieve higher levels of production. They are not going to have that; they are going to tax them. They are now going to make people depreciate that over a 15-year period instead of claiming depreciation in the first year as they have always been able to do. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister who is carping away as usual should take the call and explain to Parliament tonight how that helps the Prime Minister’s mission statement in her speech from the throne: “We will be about creating higher growth rates in New Zealand.” How will it help in that regard? I am curious to find that out and I am sure anybody listening is. The answer is that it clearly will not. 
I ask the Committee tonight why we do not reduce all tax rates to the level that the Maori incorporations are enjoying. It has been demonstrated overwhelmingly to Parliament that that creates stronger growth. It is there for us to see. Other farming is not growing at the same rate. So why not reduce the whole tax base to 19c in the dollar which is what the Maori incorporations pay? Instead of doing that one of the very first things Dr Michael Cullen did was put it up. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to say how disappointed I am in the Government for vetoing my amendment to Part 2. [ 
Interruption 
] Is Richard Prebble disappointed as well? Good. I was looking forward to his support. I know that the ACT party is very keen on encouraging New Zealanders to save for their retirement and would therefore I am sure have supported our amendment to Part 2. I would have hoped that other parties in the House would be so kind as to do so as well so that New Zealanders particularly those earning less than $38000 a year would have had an incentive to save for their retirement. In fact even those earning up to $60000 a year deserve an incentive to save for their retirement. 
What incentive do they deserve? They deserve exactly the same incentive that all the members in this Chamber have. We are part of a very privileged group of people in New Zealand thanks to the Labour Government. When the Labour Government brought in the 39 percent marginal tax rate on income it kept the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at 33 percent which means that all of us in this Chamber get a 6 percent tax incentive to save for our retirement. I thank the Government for doing that. 
But I do not thank it for initially penalising all of the people earning less than $38000 a year by taxing them at 33 percent no matter what their marginal tax rates were. After many years of pressure—I call it Chinese water torture: drip drip drip—the Government finally succumbed and removed that discriminatory regime and it has now set the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax rate at an employee’s marginal tax rate. I congratulate the Government on doing that but it deserves a brickbat for not extending the very privileged tax status that we all have and that all other people who enjoy an income of more than $60000 a year have. The Government deserves a brickbat for not extending that incentive to everyone earning less than $60000. 
That is why I am so disappointed that the Labour Government has refused to allow my amendment to stand. It would have been a sensible amendment and would have been very consistent with the Government’s claims that it wants to encourage people to save for their retirement. But of course as with many things with this Government it says one thing and does another. The Government is refusing to help the very people who elected it. It is the workers of this country who voted for Labour—particularly blue-collar workers people who earn less than $60000 a year—but they have absolutely no incentive to save for their retirement. 
That is why it is not surprising that fewer than a quarter of a million New Zealanders are currently members of subsidised superannuation funds. That is an indictment not just on the Labour Government but on successive Governments. The number of New Zealanders in subsidised superannuation funds was over 300000 in 1990 and that number has dropped by over 60000 since then. That is not only sad but economically disastrous. It can be seen coming through in the Reserve Bank figures. Members just need to go to the bank’s September Monetary Policy Statement to see that it is projecting negative savings rates of 11 percent for the 2006 year. A household savings rate of minus 11 percent is not good news for New Zealand—it is very bad news—and the Government could be taking a first step by backing our amendment. 
But let us not stop there; let us get into some serious incentives for saving. We look forward to seeing what the Stobo report has to say. We hope it will look at where the t’s and the e’s are in the “taxed/taxed/exempt” regime. We think it is about time the Government seriously looked at making contributions exempt so that they are deducted from gross income and to compensate for that taxing the money that members of those schemes withdraw at the point of retirement. Along the way it should make the middle “t” a lower-case “t” if one likes by taxing the earnings of superannuation funds at 21 percent then deducting the tax paid by members from their final payout at the point of withdrawal. That is the sort of incentive we need to be making to encourage people to save for their retirement and it would give the Government the added advantage of tax deferral because quite clearly the Government does not need the money now given the surplus that it is running but it will need it in 20 to 50 years’ time when the current crop of workers will retire and the Government will be short of income. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that the Government is calling for closure motions. We have just started to debate Part 2. We have had five speakers on Part 2 which has 65 clauses in it. Part 5 has the highest number of clauses with 90. I am seeking from you that we be given a fair go on this legislation which is very important to the well-being of all New Zealanders. The Opposition has a number of members who wish to take calls on this legislation during the Committee stage and I would ask that you take that into account before closure motions are accepted. 
Darren Hughes 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need any assistance. 
Darren Hughes 
: I just want to say that I note that the junior Opposition whip is developing a habit when Government members seek the call of giving his view of the world on it. It is not a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will reply to Mr Tisch. Thank you for bringing that to my attention but we have had far more speakers than you indicated. National has had five speakers. Part 1 was in fact a much bigger part than this one. Albeit it did not have as many clauses it was the most important part of the bill. I am quite aware of what is needed here. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate getting the call because this is a very important bill and I believe that this is a very very important part. 
I want to ask the Minister in the chair a question and to see what his response is. Before I was shut off last time I was starting to elaborate on the fact that when the Government first introduced the 19.5 percent tax rate for certain Maori authorities I had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to make that rate available to all New Zealand organisations or outfits similar to the concept that the Government had put in the legislation. The question I will ask the Minister and I am sure he is able to answer it is whether if I introduce that same Supplementary Order Paper again it will go to the vote or be subject to the financial veto. That is a question I am hoping the Minister will answer for me because I think it is very important that the Government addresses this issue and at least fronts up to the fact that it was a very reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that I put up on behalf of New Zealand First to make this tax advantage available to all New Zealand authorities of a similar type in a similar circumstance. Instead of the Government spending taxpayers’ money on a whole lot of other issues and projects like the arts hip-hop trips or $21 million on advertising the Government’s Working for Families package it could put more money in the pockets of New Zealand authorities that would be available to all New Zealand races not just to Maori. We do not have a problem with Maori authorities having this tax break—we are for it. But we also want to make it available to all New Zealanders. 
As well as allowing more money to be put indirectly into the pockets of New Zealanders by allowing my Supplementary Order Paper the Government could also be helping couples get into their first houses. That is another issue but it is by the by. I am just hoping the Minister will be able to answer my question. If I put up a Supplementary Order Paper making this tax concession available to all New Zealanders will the Minister veto it with his powers of financial veto? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I take pleasure in rising on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Because I am not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I have a number of questions that I would like to ask the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe. 
I am aware that the United Future party has put forward some amendments to the tax bill that go for lower taxes I understand. I want to clarify whether United Future has put in an amendment to introduce capital gains tax because I know that Mr Copeland has a particular interest in having a capital gains tax in New Zealand. Maybe the Minister would like to take a call to clarify that. I know he has been in contact with the Minister of Finance over this issue. Hearing from the Minister would put our minds at rest because it would be a change for New Zealand to have a capital gains tax. 
I ask the Minister also to address a second issue which is one that the Hon Richard Prebble raised in his contribution. It is what the Government’s definition of a Maori is. Clause 26 “Election to become a Maori authority” states that “A person who elects to become a Maori authority becomes a Maori authority—” but then it does not appear to define what it is one has to do to become a Maori authority. I think many New Zealanders have real concerns about legislation based on race being in place. This bill is cementing that in place yet there is no definition. I remember that this question of what actually a Maori is has been raised a number of times in the period that I have been in Parliament. For voting purposes if one says that one feels like a Maori one can go on the Maori roll. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Minister feel? 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes how does the Minister feel about that sort of definition? Maybe the Minister would like to clarify whether if any authority decided for the purposes of income tax that it wanted to be a Maori authority there any rules regulations or provisions that it would have to abide by or is it OK just to tick the box and say: “I feel Maori because then I can get a lower tax rate.”? 
I think this is a serious issue. This is the Committee stage and there is a Minister in the chair. The purpose of having the Minister in the chair is to address issues raised in the Committee stage; otherwise this debate is a farce. So far I have not heard the Minister take a call. This is a serious issue. Either he knows the answer and is refusing to tell it to Opposition members or else he does not know the answer. But he has his officials sitting right next to him so I would suggest to the Minister that if he does not know—it sounds like he does not—he should ask his officials seek some advice then explain to the Committee whether an authority has to do more than simply feel that it is Maori to be able to qualify for and gain a lower tax rate. 
 The ACT party did put in a minority report that advocated a low flat tax. I remind the Minister that Treasury produced a paper late last year which came to light this year that explained that if the Labour Government simply gave back to families its surplus—the amount of money it overtaxes New Zealand working families—we could reduce our tax rate to 20c in the dollar. Let us just imagine the incentive it would bring to New Zealand to have a 20c flat tax rate; most of the provisions of this bill we could simply chuck in the rubbish bin. Our tax laws are so complicated because the taxes that this Government has put in place have made taxation in New Zealand more complex still. The average family pays 46 percent of its wages in taxes. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you give the call I point out that United Future has yet to make any contribution to this debate at all. I would like to speak on this part if possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Gordon Copeland. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on this part but I must say I find it very very disappointing in the extreme that Muriel Newman continues to advise members of a completely wrong bit of information—I am being parliamentary here because I know that we are not allowed to use other words in this place. I have already officially informed this House of that on another occasion and the rule of this House is that my word must be accepted but that does not seem to make one iota of difference to the member. 
Let me make United Future’s position clear. Not only have we never advocated a capital gains tax but we have no policy in that regard. I have never advocated a capital gains tax in this country. In fact on the contrary I am on the record both publicly and privately as advocating that a capital gains tax should not henceforth apply to superannuation fund earnings. Superannuation funds at the moment pay capital gains tax if shares and bonds are traded. I have made it clear that it is our policy—and I have been an advocate for it in forums in which ACT members have also participated with me—to remove capital gains tax from superannuation fund savings so that they would be on a level playing field with other elements of the New Zealand tax system to which no capital gains tax applies. I put it on the record that that is the position of United Future. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an official document relating to Mr Copeland’s request in a discussion with Dr Cullen for a capital gains tax. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have not yet had an opportunity to take part in this debate so I have come down here to the Chamber tonight and listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. I have found myself agreeing with most speakers with some notable exceptions. The contribution from Shane Ardern I found to be particularly enlightening. The taxation system that is now in place in this country is terribly complex. I would have thought that this bill would be an opportunity for the Government to do something to try to alleviate the huge taxation burden imposed on hard-working Kiwis. Mr Ardern mentioned an old saying: “If it moves tax it.” and he had an iteration of that. Well there is another iteration of that which I want to share with members: “If it moves tax it and if it still doesn’t move kick it until it does and then tax it.” That is exactly what this Government is doing. 
Michael Cullen is held up to us as someone who is fiscally responsible because he skites about a surplus of $7.4 billion. To anyone who has a half-reasonable understanding of fiscal matters that is not something to brag about. In fact Michael Cullen is being fiscally irresponsible. New Zealanders need tax relief. We have an unlikely ally on that in a member of the Government. John Tamihere believes that we should have tax relief as does the Opposition. Strangely enough he is a very strong proponent of the ACT policy of flatter taxation. In fact John Tamihere has gone so far to the right now that he thinks there should be zero taxation. He will not get a lot of support for that from his colleagues but we on the Opposition side of the Chamber think he is halfway right. 
The New Zealand First member took a call before. I say to the young member that on the issue of venture capital he is quite wrong. Conceptually what has been suggested in this legislation is right. We need to attract more capital to this country and a vehicle like this legislation will assist with that. Unfortunately—and this is where I agree with the member—this vehicle in terms of the way it is constructed simply will not do that. I also side with the member when he says that businesses in New Zealand deserve tax breaks. Small business after small business is being burdened with an ever-increasing level of taxation. That is the issue that John Tamihere when he was a Cabinet Minister articulated. I thought he would do something about de-layering tax. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: He’s leading by example. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is leading by example but I was hoping he would do it in a more subtle way rather than by just avoiding the issue. 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has had by my count four questions asked of him this evening: two of them by the New Zealand First member one by the Green Party and one by the ACT party. The Minister has steadfastly refused to get up and respond to those questions. I know he will not disappoint me. I know he will get to his feet and answer some of those questions because it is essential that the people of New Zealand understand what the Minister is trying to do in constructing this legislation. I believe that questions that are fairly put need to be fairly answered. 
The issue around Maori trusts has been debated. I understand that there were issues of double taxation—and I do not for one moment suggest that what was happening was fair—but one does not fix that problem by creating another one. One does not pick out some poor businesses based on race and think that that is a reasonable solution. That is not the way to deal with the issue. The Minister in the chair who has just caught my eye knows that I am right. He should be constructing legislation that takes up the issue with regard to all the businesses that are struggling. I ask the Minister what is wrong with helping out poor non-Maori businesses as well as Maori authorities. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to clause 4 be agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you clarify which one is Supplementary Order Paper 287? Is that the amendment to have a split vote or is that the Minister’s amendment? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This is the amendment that has been on the Table all evening. It is the Minister’s substantive amendment not the amendment to have a split vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of Rod Donald to clause 7 and to add new clauses 61B and 67B are ruled out of order as that Supplementary Order Paper was not lodged with 24 hours’ notice. 
The question was put that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Now that the real Minister Mr Cullen has resumed the chair I wonder whether he would like to take a call and address all the very serious issues— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. I tell the member that that is not a matter for a point of order. 
Part 3 Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 3 is all to do with amendments intended to improve the working of the Inland Revenue Department and to make it more friendly to taxpayers. But can I just point out—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes but even with advertisements like those stating the Inland Revenue Department is here to help I am afraid there is still a lot of scepticism in the minds of the public. For example one of the large number of amendments in this legislation is to do with how the department could improve the dispute resolution procedure so I want to demonstrate to my colleagues in the Chamber how successful that attempt is. Twelve submissions were made to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the so-called improvement of the dispute resolution procedure. Five submissions supported the improvement but considered the amendment did not go far enough and five noted that the amendment did not address taxpayers’ concerns and that the proposals were weighted heavily in favour of the Inland Revenue Department rather than taxpayers. I think that clearly demonstrates that the majority of submitters comprising taxation consultants and large accounting firms still believe that this is very much one-sided legislation. The Inland Revenue Department for example has introduced time frames as to when taxpayers can dispute how much GST they have to pay if they need to. Four years or 2 years is the time limit for taxpayers yet no time limit is imposed on the Inland Revenue Department. 
I will take the opportunity as Rod Donald has said of the “real Minister” being in the chair to raise an issue about how taxpayers perceive themselves as being helpless when dealing with the Inland Revenue Department. A constituent wrote to me about an issue to do with a child support payment. Through mediation he and his ex-wife came to the arrangement that for 30 percent of the time that taxpayer would look after the children. So over 120 days of the year the children would spend time with their father and over another 200-and-something days they would spend time with their mother. My constituent was very upset though because the Inland Revenue Department adopted the stance that unless parents spend 40 percent of the time with their children they cannot qualify for what the department calls shared custody. I think that that father had a point when he said that in effect he is paying for 400-odd days of child support for his children. 
Then he looked through the Inland Revenue Department website and first of all— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: 400 days in a year? 
PANSY WONG 
: Because he still paid child support when the children were with him—right? For 120 days a year he looked after his children yet he still paid 100 percent of the child support. So it was almost as though he were paying for more than 365 days. I raised that case with the commissioner who said that yes the department has to draw a line in the sand somewhere and that 40 percent sounded like a good line to draw. That is such an arbitrary rule. On the Inland Revenue Department website there is once again a message that the department is friendly and that all people have to do is to write to the commissioner. But when my constituent wrote to the department the standard answer was that it did have that 40 percent rule. 
In that particular case the father was through mediation only allowed to spend 30 percent of his time with his children so should that not be taken into account? How friendly is the department? I do not know whether there is a process whereby that very frustrated person can bring his case. I raise that matter because it does impact on the Inland Revenue Department’s working. Today we looked at the financial review of the department. We saw that child support payments of over $840000000 were outstanding and more than half of that was from penalties. I accept that some people will not pay and they should rightly have penalties imposed on them. But maybe some taxpayers simply find the system so unfair that they refuse to pay. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raised with the Minister in regard to clause 113 whether the problems that we have been hearing about recently with regard to Mr Tamihere were wider than we previously thought. This clause is in regard to the employer and PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions. Is this a wider problem than we had previously thought? Alternatively does this mean that the Government actually knew about the Waipareira Trust situation and was changing the law but had not got around to telling us about it? 
Brian Connell 
: Retrospective! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Retrospective legislation. It does seem to me that— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: We have seen it before. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: We have seen it before and I want to know from the Government what it thinks about this tax situation. Indeed I have not actually heard from Dr Cullen with regard to that particular case. Is it typical? If it is not— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: They supported forging paintings so I guess dodging tax is part of it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think the member is being too harsh. It appears to me the Government thinks that employers should pay PAYE. Now that it understands the situation of the Waipareira Trust has it changed its mind? If Government members think that it is a serious problem how do they feel about having a member of their caucus who has not paid tax? Perhaps he has not paid it perhaps it was his employer who had not paid it. How do those members feel about people who knew that their employer had not paid? This is a question we would like to know the answer to. Here we are being asked to change the law with regard to PAYE deductions and the most famous case that we know of is the case of their colleague the honourable John Tamihere—I presume he is still honourable; maybe he is not maybe he is now Mr Tamihere; anyway all members are honourable members. 
What does the member think about that situation? Is that the sort of situation that he was concerned about? Is the John Tamihere situation common or is it uncommon? What does he think the moral position should be? How does he feel about having a caucus member who apparently is going to be a candidate for this Government in the next election who gets up in this House to say: “Even though no tax was paid I am blameless.”? Does the member accept that? Does he think that an employee who knew that no tax had been paid is blameless? Should he have advised the Inland Revenue Department? Should he have taken steps to advise it? What advice does he give to other John Tamiheres out in the community who may discover that their employers have not paid PAYE? Should they just sit back like his colleague did and hope that no one ever finds out or ought they to draw it to the attention of the authorities? 
Here we are as members of Parliament being asked at 9.25 p.m. to change the law with regard to employer or PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions so presumably he thinks it is important enough to change the law. Does he think it is important enough to give us his opinion on the matter? What sort of example does he think the Labour Government is giving to employers and employees when it has in its bosom a member of Parliament who did not pay the tax knew that his employer had not paid it and every one of those members today clapped that member even though they knew he had not paid his tax. What sort of standard is this Labour Government trying to set? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What about a false declaration on a marital settlement? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Oh I think that would be pretty shocking too. Is the member going to tell us what his settlement was? I have no idea. What I do know is that a false declaration on an electoral return is a shocking matter. When it is fraudulent as the one from Mr Tamihere was from a proven forger I say that it is a serious matter. It seems to me—I do not know—that birds of a feather flock together. Here is a party that clapped a member who said that there was nothing wrong with putting in a forged return. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Only a couple of points have been made. Ms Wong decided to refer to the Child Support Act. This bill actually amends the Tax Administration Act and the question she raised should have been raised in a different debate. In respect of the point made by Mr Prebble—I think that is his name—clause 111 simply corrects a reference error in the Income Tax Act. I would point out that Mr Tamihere has made it clear that he did not know that tax was not paid—nor does any other member in this House— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What kind of fool does he think he is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not as big a fool as Dr Lockwood Smith—that is certainly true! Not as big a fool as that member has proved to be throughout his career! I invite that member to explain to the House how he became a multimillionaire having been an MP for most of his life. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 3 which amends the Tax Administration Act because I want to pick up from where the Hon Richard Prebble left off. I am not yet convinced that there is nothing in this bill designed to get John Tamihere off the hook for cheating on tax. We know this Government. When Harry Duynhoven tried to cheat on citizenship the Government changed the law. We know that the Prime Minister forges paintings and thinks that is acceptable. What kind of mischief is this Government prepared to get up to to change the law to help John Tamihere who cheats on tax? 
Let us have a look at Part 3. Let us have a look at the clauses here. Taxpayer assessment—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to that member! She should think a bit before she gets into that. Let us look at clause 92. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I ask the member to apologise for that please. 
Hon Annette King 
: Apologise for what? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Apologise for addressing the Chair in that way. 
Hon Annette King 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been sitting here for the last 10 minutes and we have had a debate that has nothing to do with this bill. It is a continuation of the Wednesday debate and no action has been taken to stop it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will decide what is relevant and what is not. Dr Lockwood Smith was coming to the bill. It was not easy for him because of the noise from the Government side and I would ask members if they want to carry on in that way to take a call but not to do it again from a seated position. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: They are all huddled around because they know they risk a by-election because they know a resignation from Cabinet is not where it stops. They know the Serious Fraud Office will have John Tamihere out and they are worried about a by-election. 
I want to come back to these clauses. Let us have a look at clause 92 “Taxpayer assessment”. Is the Government going to change the law to remove the liability on taxpayers to be honest about the taxes they have to pay? Let us have a look at what they say under clause 92. Will the Government change the law to let John Tamihere off for not being honest about the tax he had to pay? I have to be fair as I look at clause 92(4). Whatever changes the Government is making are to apply from 2004-05 onwards so it appears not to be retrospective to let John Tamihere off the hook. That is clause 92. 
Let me then go to clause 105 “Late filing penalties” and clause 106 “Tax shortfalls”. Is this Government up to sneaky stuff here to get John Tamihere off the hook for failing to pay his taxes? I look at clause 106 and it appears to me—well let us look at late filing penalties because it seems there could be some late filing penalties if nothing more when one dodges one’s tax and does not pay it. It seems that that applies to annual imputations and it would not apply in the other case. 
Again Clause 106 “Tax shortfalls” appears to relate to matters after 1 April 2005. I accept that that clause is not designed to get John Tamihere off the hook. [ 
Interruption 
] He is still a member of Parliament. People who cheat and do not pay their tax do not deserve to be members of this Parliament. 
We go then to clause 116 which is about write-offs by the commissioner. Is the commissioner going to write off what John Tamihere owes? He owes a bit of money. He received $200000 as his golden koha. Even if we do not gross it up there is $80000 in that. But gross it up and it is a lot more that he owes. Is the commissioner going to write it off? No I have to confess that clause 116(2) states that this will apply “after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” I accept that clause 116 looks OK. 
I turn to clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause”. If the Prime Minister says we have to let John Tamihere off the hook is that reasonable cause? Look at clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause” carefully. It states: “Section 183A(1) is replaced by the following: … (f) Maori authority distribution penalty tax … ”. Is that a sneaky one designed to get John Tamihere off the hook? I do not know. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 There have been some interesting contributions. Like the other speakers I am pleased that sitting in the chair is the Minister who might have some relevance to the bill Michael Cullen. If there are some questions we might expect some answers. There has been no evidence so far that that is likely to happen but we might expect some answers. 
I note with a great deal of interest that this legislation has suddenly appeared on the scene as a result of some recent political events. Given some of the assertions that have been made by senior members in the Chamber tonight will the Minister take a call and absolutely deny that there is anything in this part that in any way would help to mitigate the problem that John Tamihere finds himself in? The Minister could easily rule that out. He could easily take a call and say: “Look you are all wrong. There is nothing in here that in any way will influence the outcome as far as John Tamihere is concerned.” Have we had a single peep on that? Not a word! 
I say to the Minister that we are looking yet again at another 212 pages of regulation on what the Government should or should not do in our lives. Can I also say that when we wander around the galleries in this place we see huge rows of books of legislation. I asked the Hon Richard Prebble how many volumes of  
Hansard 
 he has acquired in his time in Parliament. Just think about that—a huge room full of books. The only place I have been recently where I have seen that number of books or a number of pieces of information that would match what we see in this place is my accountant’s office. Members should go to modern accountants’ offices today and have a look at the amount of legislative requirements they have to read through have a look at the amount of tax law they have on their premises at any one time—that is even allowing for digital information; for computers which can store massive amounts of information—and ask them why they go to the expense of having all that information at their fingertips. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance how this bill will help to achieve the goals set down by his Prime Minister in her Address in Reply when she said that this Government is pro-growth. How will it help? That is an easy question for the Minister to answer. He might be able to find some obscure clause in Part 3 that may reduce costs. I do not know where it is; I cannot see where it is. But there is a simple question for the Minister: why do we have to have this level of bureaucratic nonsense dished out over and over again when a flatter tax rate would deal with most of the problems he is trying to overcome in this bill? Why do we have to have so many layers of bureaucratic nonsense when it comes to taxation? 
I have a simple question for the Minister which takes a yes or no answer: has he ever paid PAYE on behalf of an employee in his own right as a businessman? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Yes. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister says yes. I am heartened by that. It must have been a mighty long time ago; I know he has been in this place for a long time. I am heartened by that because if I had had to guess I would have said no but maybe the Minister can clear that up. There are a large number of us in this Chamber who do pay PAYE on behalf of our employees on a regular basis like every month. If we do not if we get it wrong somewhere in this part there will be a heavy hammer that comes down on us with 20-plus percent penalties which compound from the point when we do not get it right. 
I ask the Minister how that helps simplify the tax system. My colleague who was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee said that the debate that took place around Part 3 was about trying to simplify the system. I cannot for the life of me see how Part 3 will simplify it. It certainly does not simplify the PAYE system. I know that my colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith certainly pays PAYE on behalf of his employees on a monthly basis and knows what a convoluted mind-boggling process that is. Let me tell the Minister that even if one does not employ somebody for a couple of months or 3 months one still has to fill in a PAYE IR66 form every month. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 There are three great lies in the world. One of them is: “I am here from head office—trust me.” The second is: “I’m from the IRD I’m here to help—trust me.” The third one is: “I didn’t know I had to pay tax.” In fact we might be able to add a fourth one: “I didn’t know it was a golden handshake.”—no it would be: “I didn’t take it.” Have members tried to deal with the Inland Revenue Department when it has come to “assist” them? Do members know what the experience is like? The department turns one over every which way because it has a view that one has done something wrong. That is the position the department starts from. Anyone who suggests that this legislation will try to make the department more user-friendly is engaged in a giant misconception. 
But giant misconceptions come easily to this Government do they not? Clause 105 deals with late-filing penalties and clause 106 deals with tax shortfalls. I have heard a number of arguments mounted that those measures might be retrospective legislation to try to get John Tamihere off the hook. I have to say to those members that they have got it all wrong. They surely were not designed with that in mind because John Tamihere simply does not pay tax. Therefore there are no tax shortfalls. It does not apply to him. The Government is saying to New Zealanders that that is OK. 
Have members ever been in the position where the Inland Revenue Department says they owe it money? If a person says in return: “Well actually no I don’t. You owe me money and by the way I want a 20 percent tax penalty on top of that.” does the department do that? Absolutely not! [ 
Interruption 
] There are a few members calling out over there. I do not know which ones they are but we could pick any one of them and they would be all the evidence we would want to see that the moratorium on GMOs should never have been lifted. 
Let us turn to clauses 112 through to 114. Those people who believe that acting as the Government’s tax collector in terms of PAYE is a good idea should put up their hands. Not even a Government member put a hand up. Not even the Minister put his hand up. This is a person who maintains that he has been in a position of collecting PAYE before and he simply has not done it; he is intellectually dishonest—and that is being very kind to him. Those people who maintain that the collection of PAYE actually helps the productive sector have got rocks in their head. Actually that tells us that those members have never engaged in earning a fair buck for this country in their lives. They have never been part of the productive sector. They have been on the front teat all their lives and they want the hard workers in this country to continue to contribute on their behalf. 
It is compliance costs and red tape costs such as those that this hugely complex piece of legislation is reinforcing that are driving business people in this country to distraction. The cost is hard to measure but when one is spending 1 or 2 days a month acting as the Government’s tax collector one knows that there is a real cost to one’s business. It might be hard to quantify but there is a real cost to one’s business. 
The argument that has been proposed that with this bill the dispute resolution procedures are somewhat streamlined is another one of the fallacies that the Minister in the chair is trying to peddle. Anyone who has engaged with those procedures knows that that is a nonsense. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Let me put my question to the Minister of Revenue in terms that I think he should think very seriously about. The question that was asked by myself and then by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith was whether these clauses actually—from the facts that we have seen in the newspapers and from the facts that have been given in this House—result in a change in the tax position of the Waipareira Trust and make a change to the tax position of one of his colleagues Mr John Tamihere. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The Minister says “No” and I just invite him to take another look. We have clause 105 “Late filing penalties”. That would appear to me to be applicable. We have clause 106 “Tax shortfalls”. In clause 108 we have section 141FB “Reduction of penalties for previous behaviour”. I think that might actually apply in this case. Then we go on to the clauses that I drew to his attention before: clause 113 “Employer or PAYE intermediaries failing to make tax deductions” and clause 114 “Unpaid tax deductions etc. to constitute charge on employer’s or PAYE intermediary’s property”. Then we get to clause 116 “Write-off of tax by Commissioner” which Dr Lockwood Smith thought was not retrospective but I think that when one reads it ones finds that it does not say that. What subclause (2) actually states is “Subsection (1) applies to tax that is written off on and after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” So it could well be that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is having to look at the facts we are seeing and deciding whether to write off taxes. 
Then we come clause 117 which has the interesting section 181D “Remission of late payment penalties and interest incurred due to obligation by Maori authority to pay further income tax”. Well I am not sure but maybe the Minister knows whether the Waipareira Trust is a Maori authority. I think it is. It would appear to me that that new section might well apply. Then we get to clause 118 “Remission for reasonable cause” which states: “Section 183A(1) is replaced by the following: (1) This section applies to—(a) a late filing penalty: (b) a non-electronic filing penalty: (c) a late payment penalty:”. It appears to me that they all might possibly apply. 
The point I am making to the Minister is this. He should understand the position he finds himself in. Here he is a Minister of Finance saying to the country that the Government is levying tax and that every citizen company trust and Maori authority has a duty to pay tax yet we all witnessed earlier today his party applauding a person who apparently now does concede that no tax was paid. The Minister said he believes Mr Tamihere. Did he believe Mr Tamihere earlier when he failed to tell the whole country that he had in fact received a golden handshake? Does not the Minister’s confidence at some point get shaken? Is not a more serious point that the confidence of this House and the country in the tax legislation that we are being asked to pass is questioned? When members ask whether it could be that the tax legislation we are passing today affects a member of Parliament who has had to resign as Minister and who has a peculiar tax position—I hope it is peculiar—in that he has not paid it and nor has his employer surely the Minister can see the impossibility of the position he is in. Of course we all know that he thinks that too but a thing called the foreshore and seabed legislation means that he is prepared to embrace anyone even a person who has failed to pay his tax. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Amendments to other Acts and Regulations 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 This part is to do with the various adjustments— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It’s very small and very non-controversial. [ 
Interruption 
] 
PANSY WONG 
: Ah! I am sure members of the public are waiting patiently holding their breath and I am sure the Hon Richard Prebble will make his usual forthright contribution in a very appropriate manner in terms of GST. I am not sure whether the trust has anything to do with GST but I do point out that in Part 4—[ 
Interruption 
] There may be invoices and interestingly I understand we are not sure whether GST was properly treated on five or six invoices that were issued by the Waipareira Trust. 
Part 4 relates to GST and who is supposed to account for it and to whether there is an entitlement to a refund of any excess tax paid. New section 45 inserted by clause 134 deals with the refunding of excess tax. I find that quite interesting because we were talking earlier about whether the Inland Revenue Department can present a friendly face to the public in terms of its handling of taxation issues. Certain provisions apply when a taxpayer is entitled to a refund of excess tax. First of all the commissioner has to be satisfied that the amount represents an excess over the amount properly assessed for a taxable period and that it falls within the 4-year period. But there is a catch. Under new section 45(4) the commissioner may refund an overpayment of tax after the end of the 4-year time limit if the commissioner is satisfied that the overpayment of tax is “the result of a clear mistake or simple oversight” by the person concerned. 
 Once again in contemplating that particular section I wonder about the process the commissioner will adopt for determining whether the result is a clear mistake and how that is different from a deliberate mistake. How can the commissioner tell the difference between the two situations and what process will the Inland Revenue Department employ to identify whether the overpayment of tax is a clear mistake or simple oversight on the part of a particular person? Also during the determination period can the individual concerned really present his or her case clearly to the Inland Revenue Department? I certainly find the use of the term “a clear mistake or simple oversight” quite interesting because to make that assessment actually tends to be quite subjective. What does a person have to do to demonstrate that an overpayment is a clerical mistake? How can someone’s intention be assessed if for example one gets a bit mischievous and thinks of the latest high-profile case being debated in the Chamber involving the five famous invoices? When an overpayment of tax is involved I wonder how the commissioner will actually assess whether there is a clear mistake or just a simple oversight—the invoice might be addressed to the wrong person or the address on the invoice itself might not be a true address. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.