Volume 669 Week 63 - Tuesday 14 December 2010 
Volume 669 Week 63 - Tuesday 14 December 2010 
[Volume:669;Page:16381] 
Tuesday 14 December 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Hon Peter Slipper Deputy Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that by early 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my full quote from March 2009 which is: “… I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively. I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” Those statements have proved to be absolutely entirely 100 percent correct. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Two years into his Government does he take responsibility for the economic results that came out today which were much worse than Treasury estimated 6 months ago or will he continue to blame everybody else for his failure? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I cannot take responsibility for a global financial crisis although Michael Cullen once blamed me for it. I cannot take responsibility for an earthquake. I can take responsibility for doing something about leaky homes—the previous Government did absolutely nothing for homeowners—and I can take responsibility for New Zealand having the best tax switch it has had in 25 years. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will he then take responsibility for the fact that a large part of that deficit was because this economy has not performed under his management over the last 6 months as Treasury says? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am glad we are coming into the Christmas period because maybe Phil Goff can take a holiday even if it will not be supported by— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know that Ministers cannot start with that sort of gratuitous attack on a member who asks a question. Nor did that address the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order was called. I accept the basis of the member’s point of order. The only issue though is that he may recollect that his previous supplementary question was fairly blatantly political. I seem to recollect his saying something about the Prime Minister’s failure. Then the supplementary question that the member asked just now was more of a statement than a supplementary question. Where members make political statements there is a limit to how much I can control Ministers in terms of their answering them with political statements. However I would ask the Prime Minister to come to the substance of the statement as quickly as possible please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How does he take responsibility for Treasury’s statement? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member stopped just when the statement started and I seem to remember that what followed was a fairly loaded statement. [ 
Interruption 
] There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings that indicate that there are devices that are used to try to turn a statement into a question. Some former Speakers did not allow them but I do. But I would ask the Prime Minister to please come to the substance of the statement in his answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: New Zealand’s economic position relative to Ireland Greece Spain Portugal the UK the United States of America most of the European Union and all of the OECD is stronger than it was. So no I cannot take responsibility for the global financial crisis but thank goodness we have a leadership team that is taking New Zealand out of these difficult conditions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When looking at the blowout in the Government’s deficit of $2.5 billion over the last 6 months how much of that deficit can be accounted for by tax cuts for the wealthy which it is now shown that he is effectively borrowing in order to pay for? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: None. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how successful gimmicks like a cycleway and the Job Summit have been in reducing the unemployment and welfare rolls and as a way of contributing to creating new jobs and cutting expenditure? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Very. Although I am prepared to accept that things are not going brilliantly for the New Zealand economy all I can say is they are going better than they are for the Labour Party. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did he yesterday describe the tax take as being slightly down when the reduction in corporate tax has been a massive 28 percent over the last 4 months from what was forecast; is that not a sign that this economy is failing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No not if one looks at the way that corporate taxes are paid. They are paid on a provisional basis. Everyone understands that when the bad times initially come corporate tax is higher and that over a period of time it takes a while to catch up. The member will remember that under the Labour Government corporate taxes were much higher than had been anticipated. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is he aware that the Children’s Social Health Monitor released yesterday showed a dramatic rise in hospital admissions for Maori and Pasifika children for conditions with a social gradient over the last 2 years and what actions will the Government take in a post-recession Budget to protect the most vulnerable children from such hardship? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the document that the member is quoting from. What I can say is that the Government is trying to tackle those issues with a variety of different mechanisms and in a variety of areas. Whanau Ora would be one good example of that where we are trying to get in and support families at the grass roots in order to make a difference for those vulnerable children. 
Rahui Katene 
: What consideration will he give to recommendations from the Maori Party the Child Poverty Action Group and the Alternative Welfare Working Group for the in-work tax credit to be extended to all low-income families as an immediate support for families on benefits? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that is very unlikely. The reason is that the fiscal cost of that would be significant. When the policy was introduced by the previous Labour Government it was brought in because there was a recognition that we always wanted to make sure that working paid. The in-work tax credit recognises that and National’s position at the time supported that. 
Economic Outlook and Government Financial Position—Reports 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economic outlook and the Government’s financial position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today the Government released the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and its first Investment Statement. These documents show that economic growth will be steady and show an improvement in the Government’s fiscal position though the fiscal position this year is worse than was expected at the 2010 Budget. The figures confirm that the events of the past 6 months particularly the Canterbury earthquake and more subdued domestic recovery have taken this year’s deficit to the outer limits of what is acceptable to the Government. However we remain on track to achieve surpluses by 2015-16 as expected in the Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: What is New Zealand’s main challenge as identified in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Unquestionably our most significant challenge is to reduce the vulnerability to overseas financial markets that was caused by the extent of our overseas lending. Our main challenge is to increase national savings. The Government can play a role by producing more saving and less borrowing and we can also encourage New Zealanders to lock in their change in habits over the past couple of years a change that has indicated quite a dramatic shift to spending less and saving more. Early in the new year the Government will be hearing from the Savings Working Group which was set up 6 months ago and we will be considering decisions then. 
Craig Foss 
: How will Budget 2011 take further steps to address the issues highlighted in today’s economic update? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Budget 2011 will lock in a reasonably sharp improvement from the significant deficit this year. In fact the forecast today shows that we expect the Government deficit to halve in Budget 2011 reducing to around 2.8 percent of GDP. We will also be pressing on with our six-point economic programme including extensive investment in infrastructure increasing the efficiency of the public sector and supporting business with innovation and trade. We will also be considering work from the Welfare Working Group and the Housing Shareholders Advisory Group and we will be publishing the second  
National Infrastructure Plan 
. 
Craig Foss 
: What does the Government’s first Investment Statement show? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s first Investment Statement shows the extent of assets owned by New Zealand taxpayers which New Zealand taxpayers have funded through paying their PAYE tax their power bills their petrol tax and their road-user charges. The Crown owns $223 billion worth of assets. It is by far the largest owner of assets in the country—about five times the size of the New Zealand Exchange. By 2015 it expects those assets will grow by $33 billion which includes investment in schools hospitals broadband electricity generation and roads; extensive rail investment; and accumulating financial assets. We owe it to taxpayers to manage this very large resource much better than it has been managed in the past. 
Craig Foss 
: How do today’s economic projections compare with those of other forecasters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This morning the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released the consensus forecasts which are on the whole very similar to those of Treasury. They show growth of about 2.1 percent this year rising to 3.5 percent next year. Probably more important they show unemployment falling steadily to 5 percent over the next couple of years and wage growth accelerating to about 3 percent in 2012-13 comfortably ahead of inflation. 
Pansy Wong—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
3. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his advice to the House last Tuesday that he accepts former Minister Pansy Wong “made an unplanned and inadvertent mistake”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because that was the finding of the independent McPhail report. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Would he be surprised to learn that having approved his Minister’s private travel to China in December 2008 Mrs Wong was greeted in Lianyungang by a large pre-printed banner which when translated read: “Warm welcome to New Zealand Cabinet Minister to visit and inspect our company” and does he therefore still believe that the trip was private and the mistake unplanned and inadvertent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the latter part of the question yes. To the former part of the question no because when one goes to China and one is an important person often there are banners. I accept that that member would never have had one other than “Goodbye and see you later” but members on our side of the House get lots. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Would he be surprised to learn that Mrs Wong then inspected that company and encouraged “the staff members of Hovercraft to be innovative and brave” and that she wished “the company achieve a great success in the nearest future”; and noting that her husband is a part-owner of that company does it now occur to the Prime Minister that the trip to Lianyungang was motivated by matters other than attending the flower show as Mrs Wong claimed? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Prime Minister may answer in so far as he has responsibility. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It was acknowledged that Pansy Wong visited that company. Good wishes to people who work in companies are not unusual things to express. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Would he be further surprised to learn that while in Lianyungang city Mrs Wong met with the chief secretary of the city and “attended the signing ceremony of co-operation framework agreement between New Zealand Pure Natural Ltd and the people’s government of Niushan town Donghai and Lianyungang city” all of this on a private trip he approved; and did he know that the majority shareholder of New Zealand Pure Natural Ltd is Sammy Wong who was also there on a taxpayer-funded trip? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister in so far as he has responsibility. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have no knowledge of that. But what I can say to the member as I have said the whole way through is that if the member wants to take anything to the Auditor-General or the police he is more than welcome to do so and the resignation of Pansy Wong from Parliament does not alter that one little bit. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Acknowledging that Mrs Wong’s resignation does not alter that fact one bit in respect of the possibility that public moneys may have been misused will he now agree to refer these issues to the Auditor-General showing leadership that he managed to discover with earlier Ministers but somehow not with this Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister has no responsibility for members travelling on a private trip. I do not see why the Prime Minister is responsible for that issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has the ability as Prime Minister to refer anything he wishes to the Auditor-General and he is being asked whether he intends to do what he did previously—for example not all of Mr Heatley’s travel was ministerial travel and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the member sufficiently. The Prime Minister may answer the question in so far as it is simply seeking his view of something but it does not automatically mean the Prime Minister has the responsibility. I call the right honourable Prime Minister to answer the question in so far as he can. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. For me to do that would be to rely on the information that Pete Hodgson has or thinks he has and actually in my experience of Pete Hodgson he is more often wrong than he is right. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: As the Prime Minister has acknowledged he knew nothing about a second visit to a company largely owned by Mr Wong does he still stand by his statement of 9 December that “there is no basis for further investigation”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and if any member wants to take any allegations to the police or the Auditor-General then they should feel free to do so. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he stand by his statement on 9 December that Mrs Wong’s misuse of a taxpayer-funded trip was simply “an innocent mistake” and that she was certainly fit to remain as a member of Parliament; if so how does he explain the Wongs’ failure to come clean with Mr McPhail about the full extent of their business dealings while in China on a taxpayer-funded trip? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I stand by my statement. The Leader of the Opposition is making unfounded allegations. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why was the Prime Minister in this morning’s media so keen to see referred to the Auditor-General unproven allegations against Len Brown Mayor of Auckland when he is not prepared to send proven allegations against the Wongs to the Auditor-General? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: They are not proven and I am not the one sending them in the case of Len Brown. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I have a number of documents which I seek leave to table. The first is called a supreme newspaper. It is a newsletter of Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd dated January 2009. It is off a website that has subsequently been taken down and as well as the original Mandarin and photographs it has an English translation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When people object they must say so. The Prime Minister cannot object by nodding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I heard the Prime Minister say yes. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I am sorry but the Speaker determines that matter. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table an extract from the New Zealand Companies Office database regarding New Zealand Pure and Natural Ltd showing major shareholding by Sammy Wong and other shareholders including Jenny Shipley. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Lianyungang City Overseas Exchange Association website congratulating Pansy Wong on becoming a new Cabinet Minister in New Zealand dated 2 December 2008 and acknowledging that she will travel to Lianyungang towards the end of the year which she did 3 weeks later on an unplanned trip. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Prisons Mt Eden and Auckland Central Remand—Private Management Contract Appointment 
4. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps have been taken to ensure that the corrections system has better access to world-class innovation and expertise? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 This Government is committed to a world-class corrections system in New Zealand. To achieve that we must have access to world-class innovation and expertise. Today I was delighted to announce that global services management company Serco has been selected to manage the Mt Eden Prison and Auckland Central Remand Prison. Serco has a strong track record in managing prisons operating six adult prisons and two youth offender centres in the United Kingdom and Australia. I am confident that this new partnership will lead the way in delivering innovation and excellence across the entire corrections system. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What benefits does the Government expect to obtain from the private management of prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: One of the major advantages of private management is the ability to build performance incentives and penalties into the contract. It also allows the Government to target problem areas more effectively. The contract now being finalised with Serco will contain rigorous oversight and significant financial incentives to ensure that the company consistently delivers its services to a high standard. We also expect the partnership will lead to innovation and efficiencies that can be extended to prisons throughout the New Zealand corrections system. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Question No. 5 was originally set down for the Prime Minister to ask him about his specific commitment to achieving an economic step change for New Zealand. I am not sure that it is fair or relevant to ask that of the Minister of Finance. I do not know that he made such a commitment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is the Government’s responsibility who answers questions in respect of responsibility. The question is about New Zealand’s economic performance and it seems not unreasonable that it be directed to the Minister of Finance. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 When the Prime Minister promised a step change in economic performance did the Minister of Finance believe that the step change— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not what the question in front of me actually says. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The original question was to the Prime Minister asking him about his promise— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect the member has been in this place just as long as I have and knows that the final wording of questions is agreed with the Clerk’s Office. Some questions require rewording. I ask the member to ask the question as worded. 
Economic Performance—Step Change 
5. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Was it his objective for the National-led Government to deliver a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance and if so has such a step change been achieved? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes it is our objective although incoming National Governments always find they have to achieve this. In 1975 and 1990 the incoming National Governments inherited from the previous Labour Governments economies that were headed for recession with bad Budget positions. In hindsight I wonder why we did not expect that in 2008 but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I read this question it simply asks: “Was it his objective for the National-led Government to deliver a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance and if so has such a step change been achieved?”. There is nothing wrong with referring to past record but the substance of the answer should not be an attack on other parties. This is a question on notice and the answer should relate to whether the Minister considers—and there is no fixed answer to it—that a step change has been achieved. The other matter may be relevant but it should not be the prime part of an answer to dump on the questioner’s party. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes it is our objective. In response to the member’s question of whether a step change has been achieved I say that incoming National Governments achieved a step change in growth both in 1975 and in 1990 and we probably should have expected that it would be required in 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has totally ignored the Speaker. We are getting close to Christmas and I do not want to deal in too severe a way with any member but I ask the member to treat the questioner with some respect. As I understand it the Minister has acknowledged that a step change in New Zealand’s economic performance was an objective. It ought not to be too difficult for the Minister to say whether the Government has achieved that without going back and giving the House a history lesson as he was doing. Given the question asked that is not reasonable or fair. I ask the Minister to listen to what the Speaker is saying on this matter because members have a right to ask reasonable questions. This is not an unreasonable question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes and this Government inherited an economy that was contracting and shrinking; in fact the export sector started shrinking in 2005. Since then we have turned it round considerably but there is a long way to go. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister of Finance believe that the step change has been brought about by giving $14 billion in tax cuts to New Zealanders earning over $100000 meaning that the previous Government’s fiscal surpluses would change to the massive deficits revealed today? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is showing that he does not understand the legacy left by the previous Government which was in the 2008 Budget a forecast of 10 years of deficits. The tax packages that this Government has produced since 2009 have been fiscally neutral—that is income tax cuts have been paid for by increases in taxes or reductions in expenditure elsewhere. The member is simply wrong. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister of Finance seen figures released today showing that retail sales slumped by 2.5 percent after the GST increase to 15 percent in October which went with rising prices falling real wages and higher unemployment; if so how are those outcomes a sign of the economic step change that the Prime Minister promised? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree that the flat consumption is in sharp contrast to the record of the previous Government when from about 2004 onwards the export sector was driven into the ground and New Zealanders went on a debt-funded spending binge. We make no apology for the fact that our policies are designed to turn that round by encouraging savings and exports. An increase in GST and an increase in the effective tax rate on housing will help us to avoid the same kind of binge occurring again. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Did the Minister note that GDP in constant dollars rose by 1.2 percent from December 2008 to June 2010 compared with the 3.4 percent rise in the corresponding first 18 months in office of the previous Government; if so is that again an example of the step change that the Prime Minister promised? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Given the global financial crisis that intervened and the damage done including the damage done by that member to our export sector I accept that the first few years of growth under this Government have not been as high as we would like them to be. However we are putting in place the platform to turn round the damage done by the previous Government to overcome the effects of the global financial crisis and to strengthen our economy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given that he is refusing to take responsibility for the economic position he has had 2 years to influence and that he is blaming the previous Government why did he describe on 18 December 2008 the economic position of this country he inherited from Labour as “reasonable” and why did his Treasury officials state in their briefing to him that Labour had “done a good job of getting the New Zealand economy in a position where it can respond well to economic shocks.”? Why does he not take responsibility for his own actions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In December 2008 that advice was wrong. The net debt position of the Government’s books was relatively sound but Government spending was completely out of control. The export sector had been driven into the ground there was a loss of confidence in investment and debt was going through the roof. It has taken us all of the last 2 years to turn round the damage done by Labour to New Zealand’s economy. 
Public Transport Investment—Effect on Congestion and Commuter Stress 
6. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What is his response to the finding of the IBM Commuter Pain survey that investment in public transportation is key to reducing congestion and commuter stress? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I note that improving public transportation better management of the roading system and providing greater flexibility to work from home are all cited by commuters in the survey as measures by which transport stress can be reduced. The good news is that the Government is very active on all of those fronts: firstly investing nearly $2 billion in commuter rail in Auckland and Wellington; secondly better managing the roading system by completing the Auckland and Wellington roading networks with projects like the Waterview Connection and Victoria Park to extract the full benefits from those networks; and thirdly wearing another hat investing $1.5 billion in ultra-fast broadband to provide better telecommunications and encourage telecommuting from home amongst other things to reduce the need to travel around our cities. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can he reduce congestion for stressed Kiwi motorists when he has cut funding for every activity other than new State highways including cuts of 26 percent for walking and cycling and cuts of 50 percent for public transport infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is simply completely incorrect in those assertions. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can the Minister claim to be providing for a balanced transport system when over 80 percent of new project funding since he became the Minister has been for new motorways? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out to the member that the roading system carries by far the vast bulk of commuters and freight movements through New Zealand— 
David Shearer 
: What about the “Holiday Highway”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In fact the highway referred to by the member opposite carries more traffic and more people per day than the entire Auckland commuter rail network currently. It is good that we are investing in commuter rail because it has the potential to grow over time but the member is deluding himself if he thinks that is the solution given where we started from. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Can he confirm that the majority of conventional economic benefits from the central business district rail loop in Auckland would be congestion reduction for road users? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I could. Unfortunately the numbers are not as high as that and it is not until we get out to the “transformational benefits”—which Treasury for example has rather severe doubts over—that we actually get to much larger benefit-cost ratios. But we will assess that project over time. It is important that we assess it carefully and with clear eyes because as the member may have noted from earlier in this session the Government has to be very careful fiscally. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given that the central business district rail loop will significantly benefit motorists stimulate three times as many wider economic benefits as the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” and is supported by Auckland will he now prioritise the central business district rail loop? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is well ahead of himself in that respect. I point out to him that he is talking about notional future demand versus current demand in comparing two projects. Also he is comparing a commuter project with an interregional roading project. The two are rather different. There are many questions to be answered in the central business district rail case before we even consider who might fund it—for example exactly how many cars it might take off the road 5 years after it opens which is not apparent from the business case and would seem to be reasonably important for something that is promoted as a congestion buster. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given the Minister has said that more analysis is needed why did he commit billions of dollars to the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” in March 2009 when the business case was not completed until 9 months later in December 2009 and as the Minister said only 4 weeks ago “No work had been done on this project prior to it being confirmed as a road of national significance”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out to the member that the nomination of a road of national significance is not the final shape of the project; it continues of course to be refined. Again I refer to the difference between a notional project which talks about projected possible demand in the future and a project that is creating the demand and is under spec right now. It is quite obvious that the road that he keeps trying to compare with this commuter rail project has demand on it right now and needs to be addressed for a range of reasons including safety economic growth and connection between Northland and the city of Auckland. 
Gareth Hughes 
: When will the Minister admit that all the evidence demonstrates that public transport like the central business district rail loop in Auckland is a better way to cut congestion and reduce commuter stress than wasting billions on his uneconomic pet motorways? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have to say I think that the member’s suggestion is reasonably adolescent. Debating which projects should proceed does not mean unquestioning support for any project on the grounds that one transport mode is good and another one is bad. We have to be slightly more mature than that. 
Child Poverty—Government Action 
7. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of his statement of 9 February 2010 that “I worry that there are signs of an emerging underclass in New Zealand” what action has his Government taken to reduce the number of children living in poverty since that statement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government believes that paid employment is the best way out of poverty for children and families. This year we have been working hard to create jobs and grow family incomes by strengthening the New Zealand economy and repairing the damage done by a global recession and 9 sad years of a Labour Government. We have continued to run substantial deficits to fund social services that support children and families including those in vital areas such as education and health and to fund income support payments like Working for Families. 
Hon Annette King 
: What is his definition of an underclass in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is a New Zealand where the rungs on the ladder of opportunity are broken. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he read the comments from Unicef that “The overall picture painted by the updated 2010 Children’s Social Health Monitor is deeply concerning.” and “That so many of our children are admitted to hospital for illnesses associated with socio-economic deprivation is a wake-up call for all New Zealanders.”; if so does he agree with those comments? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and no. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he prepared to set targets for the eradication of child poverty in New Zealand as urged by the Every Child Counts organisation; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty. There are a number of things we can do. Firstly we can make sure that every child has a decent education and of course national standards are an important step in that regard. We can make sure that we reform welfare so that so many young New Zealanders are not trapped in welfare dependency as was obviously the case under the Labour Government. We can make sure that we have innovative ways of tackling these areas and Whanau Ora is a great example of that. I could go on but we have the adjournment debate sometime tomorrow and members will want to go home tomorrow evening. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he read the recent article in the  
Challenge Weekly 
 newspaper by Garth George a strong advocate of the Prime Minister and the National Party who said “The measure of a society’s soul is the way it treats its most vulnerable members—children … —and on this measure we fail miserably.” and “The gap between rich and poor is still widening rather than closing depriving many of the right to live even a subsistence life and forcing many to work so hard that family life is non-existent.”; if so does he agree with him? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I did not see the article. Yes I agree with parts of what he said. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with Presbyterian Support an organisation that has been working for 100 years in the community which asks “How can a small relatively well-off country like New Zealand allow such a generous ration of misery for so many when at face value there should be more than enough to go around?” 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: On face value I agree with Presbyterian Support. The question we have to ask ourselves as a country is how we address that issue which is an important issue. One of the things we need to do is to deliver opportunity for those kids because being poor does not rob someone of hope. What is absolutely required is a decent education. I personally am saddened that for 9 years I sat back and watched the Labour Government allow more and more young New Zealanders leave school unable to read and write properly. If I were a member of that Labour Government I too would be deeply ashamed of what it did. I know that members opposite are scared and frightened of their record in that area and embarrassed at this Christmas time but unfortunately that is their record in office. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he still believe that Working for Families which lifted thousands of children out of poverty in New Zealand is communism by stealth? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: When it faced very high effective marginal tax rates of nearly up to 100 percent yes and that is why this Government changed it dramatically through its tax cuts. New Zealanders who faced that are very grateful for that change. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he say to a delegation of Church leaders whom he met in late November to discuss the future of welfare in New Zealand: “If we cancelled welfare to 330000 people currently on welfare how many would starve to death? Bugger all.”; if so does he stand by that stupid comment? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no recollection of the comment. What I do have a recollection of— 
Hon Members 
: Ohhh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I say to those members that if they want to hear the answer they should let me finish. I have a recollection of two things: one was quite an extensive conversation about how we might reform welfare; the second was one of those Church leaders making a very offensive statement and I having to correct him about it. 
Broadband Ultra-fast—Progress 
8. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress has the Government made this week on the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 This week has seen further significant progress. I have just returned from Manaia View School in Whangarei where the first stretch of fibre has been put in the ground marking the beginning of the nationwide roll-out that will see 75 percent of New Zealanders have access to ultra-fast broadband. Deals have been signed with two companies covering 16 percent of the premises targeted. These areas will be completed by 2015. I am very pleased that this important infrastructure project is under way before Christmas. The benefits should be available to the likes of the children of Manaia View School early in the new year. 
Jonathan Young 
: What progress has been made in other regions covered by the urban broadband policy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Crown Fibre Holdings yesterday announced a further three parties that it will start to negotiate binding offers with for the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband infrastructure in the remaining regions. They are Enable Networks covering Christchurch and Rangiora; Flute Network a joint venture covering Dunedin; and Telecom New Zealand covering all areas except those covered by the previously short-listed bids. This paves the way for further deals to be agreed to in the first quarter of next year and more regions to benefit from ultra-fast broadband. 
Clare Curran 
: Why is the Government trusting Telecom to deliver the best ultra-fast broadband outcome for New Zealand given its history of competition abuses which is strewn with examples of non-compliance and obfuscation including eight breaches of the Fair Trading Act since 2003 with fines and repayments totalling nearly $14 million and one breach of competition law under the Commerce Act relating to Telecom’s high-speed data transmission offering for which the Commerce Commission is reportedly currently seeking penalties of up to $25 million in the High Court? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: First I point out to the member that no deal has yet been done with Telecom. I also point out that she probably needs to decide which view she has in relation to that. Publicly she said on 5 July of this year: “It is not in New Zealand’s interests for Telecom to be run into the ground and excluded from the biggest network build for the next generation.” so I am not quite sure what the member’s view is. 
Clare Curran 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question; instead he told me what I had said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked why the Minister was trusting Telecom for certain things. If I remember the Minister’s answer correctly he said no deal had been concluded yet. He then pointed out that the member had suggested herself that Telecom should not be excluded from these things. The question asked for an opinion on why the Minister was trusting Telecom and the Minister gave an opinion. It is difficult for me to ask for a more precise answer than that. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table a media release from the Commerce Commission dated 18 June 2010 titled “1300— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not table media releases as recent as that. Does the member have a further document that she wishes to table? 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an article titled “Harsh penalty sends message”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Clare Curran 
: It was published on the Stuff website on 7 December 2010 and was written by Nick Krause. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the member further describe the document. This is published on a Telecom staff website is it?—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the Stuff 
website; I beg your pardon. No we do not do that. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Criticism and Durability of Framework 
9. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is he aware of the widespread criticism of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill from both Maori and non-Maori submitters and does he have confidence that the bill will provide a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes and yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister intend to seek any assurance from the Maori Party that it accepts that the Government’s new foreshore and seabed bill will if passed fully and finally settle the legal framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims; and if no such assurance is forthcoming will he be willing to consider adopting the solution favoured by Labour the Greens the ACT Party and many submitters—Maori and non-Maori—who say the issue of the threshold test as well as that of unextinguished rights ought to be referred back to the courts for statutory protection for access and non-alienation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am not really quite certain where the Labour Party stands on this issue because that may be the latest permutation but the submission by Dr Cullen—a very good submission—to the ministerial review panel emphasised the need for codification of the tests and said: “to wait upon protracted legal arguments developing in New Zealand jurisprudence in this respect would defeat the purpose of what many are seeking: both certainty and equity”. So in response to the second part of the member’s question I would say certainly not the suggestion is ridiculous. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does he think these criticisms mean in terms of finding a durable framework for consideration of foreshore and seabed claims? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said in answer to the member’s supplementary question Mr Goff seems to criticise the inclusion of tests to determine customary title but as I said that contrasts with what the submission to the ministerial panel by the Labour Party said. That said that the tests should be retained. Mr Goff also seems to think that we should just leave everything to the courts to decide and again that contrasts with section 96 of the Foreshore and Seabed Act and Labour’s 2008 agreement with Ngati Porou. So it is very hard to find out where the Labour Party stands on all this sort of thing. It is about as consistent as vomit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the last part of that answer went over the top. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister agree to amend the Government’s bill so as to require that any proposed agreement between Ministers and claimants to confer customary title under that bill would be referred to the courts for ratification as is currently required under the Foreshore and Seabed Act for negotiated agreements under that Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Although the negotiated agreements deal with foreshore and seabed reserves what I have said all along is that when the submissions have been concluded I will have a good look at them and if there are issues that need to be addressed they will be addressed. That is the sensible thing to do when one is dealing with submissions that are still being heard by the select committee. I know that for example Waikato-Tainui and Ngati Porou are yet to make their submissions to the select committee. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What does he make of Mr “Quinten” Hay’s submission on the bill or has he not bothered to read it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think the member probably means Mr Quentin Hay who is a former partner of mine in Bell Gully. If that is the person I have not read it but I certainly will. Then I will give the member my considered view. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Was Mr Quentin Hay correct in his submission when he said that the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for answering whether someone was correct. The member can ask about his opinion on certain things but he cannot ask him to accept responsibility as to whether someone is correct when the Minister has no responsibility for that person whatsoever. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that the second clause of the member’s question brought it in because it went to whether— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was about to let the member rephrase his question. I ask John Boscawen to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Quentin Hay who said the Attorney-General must have been misreported in the comment that ministerial deals provided for in clause 93 are akin to the settlement of a private dispute because the Attorney-General’s argument is “fallacious”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That sounds like Mr Hay. No as I have said I have not read the submission. With the greatest of respect to Mr Boscawen I am always very wary of listening to selective quotation. I will read the submission and then I will give him my considered view. 
Social Services—Contract Mapping 
10. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is the Government improving transparency of taxpayer-funded social services? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Today the Government launched contract mapping a new tool that locates Government funding across New Zealand. The website uses Google Maps to pinpoint every social service provider in the country. We are able to see who gets the money what it is for how much they get and where we can find them. This tool means that policy makers communities and Ministers can immediately see where services are funded and will be able to identify gaps and overlaps in the community. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will contract mapping contribute to the Government’s priority of having coordinated social services? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Significantly. Currently we have the Ministry of Social Development’s contract map. Early next year we will also add the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Education and Te Puni Kokiri. 
Neurosurgery Services—South Island 
11. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he confident that the announcement of 10 November regarding neurosurgery services in the South Island will provide a sustainable service? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have been assured that the configuration of the South Island neurosurgical services recommended by the expert panel is sustainable. Having said that building the service will not happen overnight. A number of things have to click into place such as staff being recruited at both the university and the district health board level. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What was his response to the letter from Canterbury neurosurgeon Ronald Boet stating that he would resign if the announced model was imposed on him? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not recall receiving that letter. My comment would be that the important thing we need to do for the South Island is to have a service that is sustainable and that will provide for the future. That certainly is the recommendation that has come from the independent panel and I think that would be very good for New Zealand. I know that policy has been welcomed by the member’s two colleagues from Dunedin. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What was his response to the letter from Canterbury paediatric neurosurgeon Martin MacFarlane stating that he would retire from his profession if the announced model was imposed on him? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware that a number of people around the countryside may not be happy with what is being proposed but let us remember that the reason why this review was started was that the doctors could not agree and the district health boards could not agree. That is why a decision was made. If the member opposite is saying that the Labour Party’s position is that it wants a one-site service run from Christchurch then I find that very interesting. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why will children from the whole of the South Island have to travel to Auckland for neurosurgery; and does he care enough about them to act on their behalf? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think that all the children of the South Island will have to travel to the North Island for their neurosurgery. This is about providing a sustainable service for the people of the South Island. That is why it has been strongly endorsed by her colleagues from Dunedin. 
Legal Aid Public Defence Service—Progress 
12. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the Public Defence Service? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I recently officially opened the Papakura-Pukekohe Public Defence Service. Its opening was significant because it marked the completion of the roll-out of the Public Defence Service across the entire Auckland region. A formal evaluation of the Public Defence Service and feedback from judges practitioners and court staff indicate that the Public Defence Service is operating well. It continues to provide clients with as good a level of legal representation as they would receive from the private Bar. It has led to a significant reduction in the number of jury trials court time and costs. 
Chester Borrows 
: What plans if any does the Minister have to expand the Public Defence Service to other locations? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister I say that I just could not hear the question because of the interjections from across the front bench. Would Chester Borrows mind repeating his supplementary question for me please. 
Chester Borrows 
: What plans if any does the Minister have to expand the Public Defence Service to other locations? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am pleased to report that the Public Defence Service is expected to be up and running in the Wellington Lower Hutt and Porirua courts early next year and in Hamilton and Christchurch by the middle of next year. 
Questions to Members 
Question Nos 1 and 2 to Members 
Questions by leave withdrawn. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Submissions Received 
3. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 Four thousand one hundred and seventy-eight. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Requests for Oral Submissions 
4. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee 
: How many submitters on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill have requested to be heard in person? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Chairperson of the Maori Affairs Committee): 
 Five hundred and twenty-two. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Pansy Wong—Resignation of Member of Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement that Pansy Wong has accepted that she breached  
Cabinet Manual 
 rules in her conduct as a Minister and will be resigning from Parliament as a result. The member provided no authentication for the statement set out in his letter and an anticipated announcement cannot be a particular case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Pansy Wong to make her valedictory statement forthwith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Valedictory Statement 
PANSY WONG (National—Botany) 
: 
 It was beyond my wildest dreams when 14 years ago in 1996 a girl born in Shanghai China who grew up in a Hong Kong apartment where eight families shared a single kitchen and bathroom delivered her historic maiden speech as New Zealand’s first member of Parliament of Asian ethnicity. That dream is not mine alone and it comes with expectation responsibility and hope. I have tried every single day to keep that dream alive and to make sure that nothing should happen to dash that dream. 
Recently questions were raised about the use of my parliamentary travel entitlements. These questions related to a 2008 end-of-year trip to China and Malaysia. When these questions were raised I immediately resigned as a Cabinet Minister and cooperated with a thorough and exhaustive independent parliamentary inquiry. This inquiry covered the use of my parliamentary travel entitlements over the past decade. The inquiry found that I had erred and that my 2008 trip involved activity that although unplanned and inadvertent could be construed as being for private business purposes. I accepted the findings apologised and repaid the level of rebate attributable to that part of the trip. That amounted to $237.06 each for me and my husband. 
That inquiry brought into sharp focus for me the fact that my political career has been an all-consuming one right from the time I started as a list MP servicing Asian communities throughout New Zealand until today. I know my career would not have been possible without my husband Sammy’s unrelenting support. As a consequence his business interests were severely curtailed and in China were limited to Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft a business he became a minority shareholder in on 25 December 2008. That shareholding resulted from a historical minority interest in the Christchurch-based Pacific Hovercraft which he was asked to help when it was going through difficult times. Both of those businesses are now defunct. 
The past 14 years have passed without my having had time to stop and reflect. But the past 3 weeks have given me the opportunity to do so and it will for ever weigh on my conscience that my continuing political pursuit has placed huge demands and constraints on my husband. I have decided that this will no longer be the case. Often my brother in Christchurch has told me that the Rt Hon John Key our Prime Minister is the person who can turn round New Zealand for a better future; I agree with him. It is apparent that my mistake has become a distraction to the Prime Minister and the Government. They must focus on the important and urgent economic social and environmental issues; it is not acceptable to me that I have become a distraction to this very important focus. 
One of my political highlights in the general election of 2008 was to become the first MP of Asian ethnicity to win a general seat. I am privileged humbled and grateful to the constituents of Botany who demonstrated that representation can be beyond ethnicity and that New Zealand is a country of equal opportunity. The playing field is far from being equal but anything is possible if one works hard for it. Together with the campaign team we knocked on over 10000 doors and increased Botany’s winning margin of 3000 to over 10000. Botany you rock! 
Between 2001 and 2006 the Botany electorate grew by 34 percent—four times the national average. It is a multiracial community which reflects my belief that many people can live together in one community many people with shared values. Economic and physical security good education and community spirit abound and it is a great place to bring up children. Together we achieved the community desire of naming the new local board Howick and brought forward the opening of the skateboard park to resolve the conflict between residents and skateboarders. Schools community groups the police and business associations are all working together to make Botany the best electorate in the country. I have enjoyed meeting so many good people through doorknocking and community activities and that will be sadly missed. But Botany deserves an MP who can fully focus on its issues. 
My enforced period of leave has given me the chance to reflect. I have had 14 years of unrelenting workload in the Public Service and it is time to turn a page in my life’s journey to focus on personal and family priorities. My political pursuit has its roots in proving that my country is a land of equal opportunity and that Asian New Zealanders can succeed in the highest office. Not being satisfied as a list MP I set my sight on winning a seat; jumping down the 192-metre tall Sky Tower in 2002 was to show that determination. Two attempts to win the Auckland Central seat set the foundation for me to win the newly created Botany electorate in 2008. Then I was appointed to the Cabinet the first Minister of Asian ethnicity. That year I was also named in the top 10 of overseas Chinese achievers by the international overseas Chinese media grouping based in many countries—yes we can! 
In my maiden speech 14 years ago I stated that for a long time Asian New Zealanders had not taken an active part in the planning of our nation’s future. They had not been vocal in expressing their aspirations for this country. They had confined their aspirations to themselves and their families. Our future generations need to be confident and proud of being New Zealanders and need to enjoy the benefits of making their contributions as world citizens. 
Much has changed and progressed in the last 14 years. Examinations in Chinese at Bursary level were introduced in 1998 after many years of community lobbying. Nowadays second-language learning is part of the school curriculum. Consultation documents for a code of community values first appeared in the Chinese language; nowadays official documents and communication are regularly presented in multi-language format. Immigration policy is important to ethnic communities and consultation with them is now accepted. Celebrations such as the Lantern Festival and Diwali are held throughout the country and people from all walks of life are participating. The early discussions of the Asian police strategy have now evolved into an ethnic policing strategy. The lobbying for Asian liaison personnel to be added into the police force has now been extended to recruiting Asian uniformed police. Workshops were held with the ethnic catering sector with regard to major changes to food safety legislation. The first Asian health survey was launched by the then Health Minister the Hon Bill English. Chinese traditional medicine practitioners and acupuncturists have made their views known as accredited providers with regard to regulation and ACC. In the establishment of the one Auckland City Council there is a provision in the legislation to set up an Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel. Asians now participate in the policy and decision-making process. 
One of the more vocal and political movements was the 8400-signature petition against the change made to extend the citizenship qualifying period from 3 to 5 years in 2005. A compromised change was made as a result not to extend the change to permanent residence holders at the time. Protest meetings were held when changes were made to raise thresholds of English language requirements and after the lapse of thousands of overseas immigration applications. In 2008 thousands of Asians marched in Botany protesting the killing in 9 days of three Asians. National’s promise of a tough law and order policy as well as a promise of 600 additional police were well-received. Asian New Zealanders are no longer silent bystanders; they make their views known and voices heard. 
On a more sombre note my ongoing involvement in two high-profile domestic violence cases when two mothers were killed by their husbands was a chilling reminder that these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. They resulted in one 5-year-old boy growing up with his grandmother in New Zealand and “Little Pumpkin” being looked after by her grandmother in China. She and her grandmother were the main reason for me to stop by in China in 2008. These human tragedies prompted me to ask the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to work with the Office of Ethnic Affairs to launch the intimate partner violence project in ethnic communities. My vision for ethnic New Zealanders is for them to be confident equal and proud. 
The Office of Ethnic Affairs links up ethnic business people with mainstream businesses and relevant Government departments so they can be part of the solution for New Zealand’s economic growth. It is important in a modern multi-ethnic society that Government departments adopt an ethnic policy framework to ensure that policy development takes into account the interests of today’s composition of New Zealanders. New Zealand can be proud that for 2 years in a row it has been named the most peaceful country in the world because we celebrate diversity in faith and ethnicity beyond tolerance. We play an active part and are well respected in the world for our initiatives in interfaith dialogues. Our country has tremendous human resources as long as we ensure that we see our ethnic New Zealanders for what they can add rather than for how they should conform to be Kiwi. 
In my short 2 years as the first Minister of Women’s Affairs of Asian ethnicity I have come to appreciate the international reputation of the status of New Zealand women on the world stage. It was exciting to lead a delegation to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women’s conference of 9000 attendees. New Zealand played an active and effective part in fast tracking the establishment of the streamlined UN women’s entity; it should bring sharp focus to promoting gender equality. I also had the pleasure of presenting New Zealand at the APEC Women Leaders Network forum in Japan and the women business leaders forum at the Shanghai expo. 
Those two forums coincided with the relaunch of the celebration of Suffrage Day in New Zealand when 117 years ago New Zealand women were the first in the world to gain the right to vote. We should do more to celebrate acknowledge and leverage our proud history. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs nowadays is sharply focused on increasing the number of women in boardrooms especially in listed companies. It is time that the New Zealand Exchange followed Australia’s lead and introduced a gender disclosure requirement for listed companies. International literature and research findings have established that having more women on boards improves business performance. 
Women in the economy is another area in which I look forward to seeing progress by having more women in trade flexible work-practice templates and pathways for moving from low-paid jobs and by tracking the income differentiation between graduate men and women. All those work streams contribute to the closing of the gender pay gap. I am pleased to observe that this year the gender pay gap between women and men dropped to 10.6 percent the lowest level since the first annual income survey in 1998. I am proud of the continued relentless Government efforts of introducing legislation as well as actions to eliminate violence against women. It is important that ethnic women are included in the task force because it is unacceptable for any woman to be a victim of domestic and sexual violence. 
Mr Speaker I acknowledge you for restoring the decorum of the debating chamber. I came in as one of the class of 1996 the first MMP Parliament and I acknowledge the remaining seven of that class. To the many supportive parliamentary colleagues thank you for your goodwill and friendship. To the Clerk of the House the Cabinet Office the staff of Parliament Ministerial Services and Bellamy’s and the ministerial drivers thank you all for your services and a special thank you to both my electorate and parliamentary office staff. To Jimmy Anderson I wish you a happy and well-earned retirement from the VIP Transport Service. 
My privilege and opportunity to be the first New Zealand MP of Asian ethnicity was due to the foresight of the National Party leadership. Nowadays it is accepted that ethnic New Zealanders can and will become parliamentarians. I am indebted to our Asian advisory groups and members of the Botany electorate—your support and commitment has enabled me to sustain the demand of public service. I am pleased to be labelled the Kiwi daughter of the dragon by media in China in playing a role in the fostering of relationships between New Zealand and China as well as Asia. The journey has been remarkable and it is time for me to exit the political life. Sammy I am coming home. 
Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: I move that the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just seek a little advice because this is quite an important procedural motion. While the Minister of Finance is in the House I believe he should have moved it. If it is possible I think we should just stick to the correct procedure 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Say “I so move.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that. If the Hon Bill English could just move the motion again I would appreciate that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2009/10 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 Hon Heather Roy be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Service Commission in place of Hon John Boscawen. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I thought I would take an initial call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Obviously it probably would have been more convenient to deal with the three pieces of legislation at once because there are some particular issues that relate to all three bills. When we get to the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill I think that will be dealt with relatively quickly since we were not able to join them up together. 
The two major issues in respect of the electoral finance legislation are in relation to the question of third-party limits on expenditure. It was very important to this side of the House that some movement was shown in that regard. There was some debate at the Electoral Legislation Committee about whether advertising made a difference in terms of the outcomes of elections and we were referred to a number of pieces of research that have been done in this particular area. The statement that the royal commission made back in 1986 I think is as valid today as it was then. It said that the question is not so much whether third-party expenditure is entirely responsible for the result of the vote; the real issue at the end of the day is whether there is the perception that the use of vast sums of money in order to influence the outcome is sufficient. Is the perception sufficient to give the impression that the outcome of the election has been affected by the spend and does that lead to a lack of confidence in the integrity of the electoral system itself? I am very strongly of the view that it is important to have third-party expenditure caps because it does not make it effective for the caps that apply to political parties and to candidates if a third party can simply enter into the fray with negative advertising against the other side without any limitation on what it is that it could do. 
We had quite a lengthy debate about what the cap would be and not many submissions on this bill related to third-party expenditure. It was interesting because the real debate was around the lack of a cap on the third bill which is why it would be more convenient to debate all three bills together but there you go. I think the reason that the focus of the submissions was on the referendum legislation rather than on the electoral finance reform legislation was that in the referendum situation there is access to television advertising. That is where that uncapped expenditure would come into play. I think it would not take much for people to work out how much association between the political party advertising and the referendum advertising could be made to look like an extension of a political party’s campaign. When we think about it in terms of some of the interests of those who will be entering into the debate on the electoral system itself we see that obviously some parties have a greater interest in the MMP outcome being retained. 
Moving back to why it is important to have spending caps on registration but more so on third-party expenditure we need to go back to the 2005 general election. That is one that obviously I campaigned in and it was one that I found to be an extremely unpleasant election campaign. In fact in all of the election campaigns that I have stood in that is the one that really will go down in my memory as the most misogynist and self-interested campaign. There was the promotion of self-interest that I never came across on street-corner meetings in all the years that I have stood. I have been a member of Parliament for 20 years this year and I have never apart from that election had people on street-corner meetings asking what was in it for them. That was the only time. 
It was generated out of a campaign that had been run on three different levels. The first level was designed to make sure that the campaign expenditure fell outside the regulated period. That was number one. They were the billboards. I do not know whether colleagues remember the billboards but the one that sticks in my mind—sticks in my throat actually—was the one headed up “Iwi/Kiwi”. All of the billboards were designed to send a message to the public of New Zealand to create a sense of division—“them and us”. Everyone was exposed to “them and us” all the way through that year and it started at the beginning of the year with the campaign billboards. Who designed those? Was it Steven Joyce before he came to Parliament? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and who were those people from Australia—Crosby/Textor that is right. They were responsible for developing this campaign which set off the year with a real antagonistic view—“us and them” and the “Iwi/Kiwi” one was designed to cause the most racial division in our country that I think we have seen for a very very long time. 
We had the photoshopped image the very nasty photoshopped image of the Prime Minister of the day up against this very warm and engaging image of Don Brash—we all remember Don Brash looking warm and engaging—and that was the dichotomy set up through the billboards. That was the groundwork done and it was done deliberately. It set the stage for the rest of the campaign but it was designed to take us into the election campaign period where the expenditure would start to count. National spent a fortune millions of dollars on this campaign all around the country in order to set the scene for what was to come. What was to come also included another deliberate avoidance of our electoral finance laws and that was about National’s engagement with the Exclusive Brethren. We know that because of  
The Hollow Men 
—and I recommend that people read that book again. I have been recommended lately to read it again and I am going to do that over the summer holidays. We need to be reminded about who knew what when how and why and it is very explicit in terms of the trail of emails exposed in that book. 
That is exactly what happened. The Exclusive Brethren went to the Electoral Commission with a design for their pamphlet which had Don Brash’s face on it promoting him as the next Prime Minister of New Zealand. When they found out that that would have to have National Party approval and that it would count against National’s campaign expenditure they went away and designed something that never mentioned National never mentioned Don Brash but attacked the Greens and attacked the Labour Party for its health policies and its defence policies—and it was untrue. But worse than that the names of the people at the addresses given for the promoters of these pamphlets were illusory. These people did not exist; these people did not live at these addresses. I went to one of the addresses in Christchurch; it was an empty house. So the Exclusive Brethren even used—or abused—the existing laws by not being upfront and honest about who they were and what they were trying to do. They were part of a pattern of behaviour in that election campaign that I do not think bodes very well for our country. 
I would be prepared to say that the Labour Government did not get it right with the electoral finance legislation we put in place and it is welcome that the House is now moving into a space where we have general broad agreement. Although Labour does not agree with the whole thing we are supporting a package of reform here. I think that perhaps Labour did go a bit too far with its legislation but it was in response to an extreme example of behaviour. I guess we tried to cover off all of the loopholes that we knew that people would drive a bus through if they were given an opportunity. So I think it is important that we have expenditure caps and that we have legislation that can be enforced to ensure that that practice never happens again. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take a quite brief perhaps call on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. These issues have been canvassed a great deal in the past with the Electoral Finance Act a few years ago and now with this bill. I thank all of those who worked on this legislation and all of the officials who did a very good job dealing with three lots of bills at the same time. We had the MMP referendum bill this electoral finance reform bill and the Parliamentary Service bill at the same time—so there was a range of officials doing various parts of the work and the advice in the Electoral Legislation Committee was excellent and very helpful. The process itself was very interesting. We had some interesting clauses such as the wood clause in this legislation which means that the wood used for putting up billboards is no longer considered to be an election expense. There was lots of passionate discussion about where the wood for particular hoardings comes from. Sometimes these processes get just a little odd on occasion—that being one example. 
I make particular note of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Green Party has put forward on Part 1 to reduce the donation disclosure limits currently in the bill. The donation disclosure limit is the threshold at which parties and candidates are required to disclose to the public who has given them donations. In previous times it was $1500 for a candidate if I remember rightly—I might have that wrong—but in any event this legislation has increased that threshold. It is now easier for candidates and for political parties to hide the source of the money donated to them for their election campaign. The only argument put forward as to why it was necessary to make it easier for political parties to potentially engage in more corrupt practices—frankly that is what that is—is all of the other financial limits in the rest of the bill like the limit that a candidate could spend for example went up. The logic that everything else went up so why not put this one up as well is ridiculous. It is absolutely irrational. 
The purpose of having a low disclosure threshold for donations is so that the public know who is giving money to candidates and political parties so they can assess whether there is some form of payback likely or possible in the party or candidates’ policy should they be elected to Parliament. It has nothing to do with whether candidates should be able to spend more. We can have that argument over here. It has nothing to do with the fact that the public are entitled to the highest levels of transparency and to a system that is always striving to be the least corrupt that it can be and to have the highest levels of integrity that it can have. What this legislation is doing amongst a number of very good things such as the spending cap for third parties which the Greens support is enabling candidates and political parties to engage in a greater level of potential corrupt practice and that cannot be acceptable. It is not acceptable to the public and it should not be acceptable to this House; we should not be passing legislation that allows this to happen. This is a very very serious concern that was dismissed in large part by the members of the select committee across the board as far as I understand particularly those from ACT and National. Obviously they do not mind that we have a less transparent system and they do not mind that we have a system that has a great deal less integrity particularly when it comes to transparency for the public about where political parties are getting the money from. 
We have also seen recently the same issue being raised at local government level. My colleague Russel Norman has legislation that would require the same levels of disclosure at local body election level as is required for MPs and for parties so that the public know who donates money to local government local body election campaigns and candidates. It is quite right that that happens. I say again that we cannot allow or continue to allow political players to seek and to receive donations from interests that may in fact be paying this money in order to get policy kickbacks later on. That is the threat. That is why we have a significant regime that protects the integrity of the system. We need that in local government as well as at central government level and as I said the Green Party has a member’s bill that will do that. We hope that in time it comes up in the ballot and we can have that debate. 
It makes it very difficult to look at making those changes at a local government level when even at this level in terms of the general election some of the parties in this Chamber appeared to have allowed this change to happen. So the Green Party has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to reduce the disclosure thresholds from $1500 to $1000 for a candidate and from $15000 to $1000 for a party. We sincerely hope that other political parties support this amendment and make a stand in favour of transparency of honest healthy politics and of a situation where the public can continue to have faith in the integrity of our system. As members of Parliament and as political parties we continually seek to improve the integrity of the system. Unfortunately this legislation fails to do that. It erodes the integrity of the system and erodes the faith and trust that the public have in us to set the rules for how we operate and what benefits us in a way that preferably benefits them more. That is not what we are doing with the change in this legislation. 
I sincerely ask and hope that MPs and parties across the House support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper to lower the disclosure thresholds for transparency of donors to political parties and to candidates. Thank you. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be opposing the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill at the Committee stage but I will start by acknowledging that there was a proposal that the three bills to be discussed today should have been debated together. Although the Hon Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that she and Labour would have preferred the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill to be discussed together I will put on the record that the ACT Party was the party or one of the parties that objected to that. We see a very big difference particularly between the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Electoral Referendum Bill although there are some issues that relate to both bills. 
The first point we would like to make is that we congratulate National and the Hon Simon Power on the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Let us acknowledge that absolutely up front because the provisions in this bill are a very very far cry from Labour’s original Electoral Finance Act. Let us not forget the history of the Electoral Finance Act; I noticed that Lianne Dalziel was happy to talk about the unpleasant 2005 election campaign which I will come back to later but the genesis of this bill was the moves by Labour prior to the last election to put in place a new regime on electoral finance and the conduct of elections. We should not forget the fact that one of the fundamental provisions of the original Electoral Finance Bill when it went out to the public for submission was a requirement that if any single person or organisation other than a candidate or a political party wanted to speak out in opposition to any other political candidate before they so much as spent a single dollar they had to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. That is hard to comprehend but that is what the Labour politicians in this Parliament prior to the 2008 election voted for when they voted for the first reading of the then Labour Government’s Electoral Finance Bill. They said to the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to have any right to free speech and to participate in the election they had to make a submission. The Labour Government said that as a very minimum it wanted those people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace. There was a very significant demonstration of objection to that bill. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You were there. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am reminded by the Minister of Police the Hon Judith Collins that she was there marching down Queen Street with me when I was simply a member of the public speaking out about an issue that was very important to me and many many other New Zealanders. 
Let us look at some of the provisions of this bill and contrast it with what the previous Labour Government proposed—and in actual fact did. I acknowledge that as a result of that widespread public opposition the requirement for people to sign a certificate before a justice of the peace before they so much as spent a single dollar was modified and I think the limit was increased to $5000. So the legislation as passed was not as bad as promoted but certainly when it was put out for public discussion it showed the contempt—the complete and utter contempt—with which Labour treated the people of New Zealand when it first promoted the legislation. 
The Electoral Finance Bill as passed prior to the last election had a regulated period that applied from 1 January. For practical purposes that could have been 10 or 11 months. We all know now that the election was in November 2008 and the legislation put restrictions on New Zealanders to speak out and criticise the Government of the time for 10½ months. One of the significant changes provided for in this bill is that that regulated period will be approximately 3 months. That is a very significant change. However this bill still carries across the provisions from the previous Labour Government’s electoral finance legislation that restrict the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to participate in the election by limiting what so-called third parties can spend. Lianne Dalziel this afternoon talked about the use of vast sums of money. In her second reading speech she talked about “paid speech”. She talked about how people can go out and spend their own money and buy advertising. 
Let us put those restrictions in context. This bill seeks to restrict the right of ordinary New Zealanders either by themselves or in organisations to spend no more than $300000 running a campaign or being involved in an election campaign—that is $300000 for a third-party organisation. I do not care whether it is the Exclusive Brethren the Catholics the St John Ambulance Family First the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions or the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; it restricts the right of those individuals to spend no more than $300000 of their own money. But let us put that in context. Under this bill the two major political parties and their candidates are able to spend more than $5 million. In fact it is about $5.5 million. But ordinary New Zealanders are restricted to spending less than one-sixteenth of what political parties reserve for themselves the right to spend. 
I notice that Lianne Dalziel talked about the very very unpleasant election campaign in 2005. Well she may have unpleasant memories of 2005 but I have my own unpleasant memories. I recall as I am sure many New Zealanders do the very condescending remarks of the then Prime Minister Helen Clark as she looked down her nose on national television during the final debate of the election campaign and said goodbye to Mr Hide. She was trying to tell New Zealanders that the ACT Party was beaten for all money and would not be returning to Parliament. Mr Hide proved to Prime Minister Helen Clark and a lot of other members of the Labour Party how very very wrong she was. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about the perception that vast sums of money can influence an election. Once again I put that $300000 limit in the context of what we the politicians and political parties reserve to be able to spend ourselves. We are happy to pass legislation. Today we are passing legislation that will increase what a political party can spend—it will actually increase it. A formula currently set down in legislation allows a political party to spend just over $1 million plus $20000 for every electorate in which it stands a candidate. That amount is being increased to $1032000 plus $25000 per electorate in which it stands a candidate. So for National and Labour with their broadcasting allocations the figure will rise to some $5.5 million. Later on in this debate ACT will be moving amendments to increase third-party spending limits and I look forward to discussing those later in the debate. 
I conclude by summarising what I have said on this part. The ACT Party strongly opposes the restrictions on third parties and certainly the restriction that means they are allowed to spend only $300000 or less than one-sixteenth of what the major political parties have the right to spend. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $500000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 12A to raise the expenses limit to $750000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21(1AA) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21(1AA) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of Metiria Turei to omit clause 21A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Transitional provision and consequential amendments to other enactments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members who will be making a contribution to debate on this part that it is about the nuts and the bolts of the bill. Some speeches have bordered more on being second and third reading speeches but I have been tolerant today. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in particular on clause 27 of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill. Clause 27 deals with the transitional provisions relating to donations. We had a contribution from Metiria Turei from the Green Party on the issue of donations; this clause raises the issue of why we actually disclose donations at all and as a consequence why we need clause 27 or any provisions relating to donations. 
I am surprised that National members did not take the opportunity to speak on the first part of this bill because in the last week we have seen a classic instance relating to donations. We are arguing whether a party should have to disclose donations of $10000 or more or of $15000 or more. But what have we had from the Labour Party? Its candidate for the Auckland mayoralty has disclosed in the last week that his funds were paid into a separate trust and that trust wrote a cheque. It was not for $10000 or $15000. How much do Labour members think it was for? It was for half a million dollars. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No! Big business. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We would not know whether it was big business. We would not know whether it was 100 people putting in $5000 each. Who knows? It could have been that Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $500000. Perhaps Mr Owen Glenn wrote a cheque for $250000. How do we justify that? 
Let us put on the record the fact that the ACT Party believes in privacy. The ACT Party believes in people being able to spend their own money. The ACT Party believes in political parties being able to raise money and it believes in the right of third parties to go out and raise money. 
Let us look at the justification. What did Mr Brown say when he was asked about the cheque for half a million dollars that was written from his trust? One of his staffers was reputed to have said that their support has come from across the political spectrum—some left some right—and they all believe in the vision of Mr Brown and they would like privacy. They want the right to donate money to Mr Brown’s campaign. They do not want to be disclosed; they want that right. 
The reason I raise this issue is that clause 27 specifically deals with the issue of donations. You may not have read clause 27 Mr Chairperson—you have a big job—but it talks about transitional provisions for donations. Essentially in voting against this clause the ACT Party is saying that it should not be there at all. We actually support the spokesperson for Mr Brown. We support Len Brown the Mayor of Auckland selected by the Labour Party whose spokesperson said that their supporters come from across the wide political spectrum and they are entitled to their privacy. That is what he said. He said that they were entitled to their privacy. They went out and raised that money and paid it into the “Support Len Brown for Mayor” trust and the trust wrote a cheque. The ACT Party does not disagree with that. In fact Mr Banks did the same thing—let us acknowledge that. Let us acknowledge that both Mr Banks and Mr Brown had supporting trusts that wrote cheques for a substantial sum. 
I am very conscious of Labour. It often puts up speakers who say: “There is a word for that. One cannot say it in this Parliament but it starts with ‘h’.” That is what we object to in this bill. Yes there are restrictions on donations and there are restrictions on what one has to disclose but the ACT Party makes this point. The supporters of Mr Brown believe they should be able to support Mr Brown whether they are from the left or the right because they believe in Mr Brown’s vision for Auckland and we think other New Zealanders should have the same right. If they support the vision of the Labour Party they should be able to support the Labour Party and have their privacy protected. It is the same for those who support the vision of the Green Party the National Party the ACT Party or the Maori Party. People are entitled to their privacy. 
We will be voting against this part—[ 
Interruption 
]—and for the same reason we will be voting against the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have not called the member again. I say to the member that despite my request for people to focus on the bill the member ranged over a whole range of things. Yes the member mentioned clause 27 but even I can see past that. I say to the member that I will give him the call again if he is going to focus on this part of the bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I conclude by saying that the ACT Party is opposed to this part of the bill as it is opposed to the whole bill. 
We acknowledge the work that Mr Power has done and we certainly acknowledge quite genuinely Mr Power. I am sure Mr Power is well aware that this bill is a million miles away from what Labour at the last election inflicted on the people of New Zealand and he is to be congratulated at least on that. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take only a very brief call on this clause. By way of introductory comment I will say that it is a mistake to view as anything other than something procedurally useful to the Committee the sensible suggestion to deal with the three bills as a single question because the bills raise the same issues. It does not mean that we do not get to vote separately on each bill; it means that we just have a single debate to cover the three of them. Anyway that was not to be. For the life of me I do not understand why that was not accepted by the ACT Party. It is beyond my comprehension but there we go. It was suggested simply as a way of being helpful. 
The only thing I want to say about this bill which is why I did not want to take calls on separate bills is to say how pleased I am that we have managed to get the definitional provisions aligned so that we are absolutely clear-cut that taxpayers’ money is not spent on election advertising that there is no crossover point now and that during the regulated period the rules are absolutely clear-cut. That will enable us to be absolutely sure that when we look our masters in the eye our taxpayers we are able to give them a cast-iron guarantee that the rules have been written so that there can be no crossover. There will be no taxpayer money spent on electoral advertising and that is the way it should be. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make a brief comment. I first acknowledge that the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill deals with some issues that have been difficulties for Parliament for quite some time. I think it is fair to say there has been no attempt to rort systems but there has been a series of rules in place that were somewhat unclear. So the clarity that will come from this legislation is very very welcome. 
I acknowledge the Electoral Legislation Committee which worked on this bill. Its membership was pretty much equally split between members who have recently come to Parliament and those who have been here for a longer period of time. There were people on the committee who had not gone through an election where they were personally elected and therefore a situation of having had their use of funding questioned. There were others who had some 34 election experiences between them. So there were fresh sets of eyes coming in plus those who had gone through this experience over a period of years. I think for that reason we can have quite a bit of confidence that this bill gets to the heart of the matter. 
My only concern if I had one was that there is a provision in the back of the bill for the recovery of amounts that were validly paid by Parliamentary Service to members through their entitlement but which can be recovered subsequently upon another body the Electoral Commission determining that those payments for advertising or whatever it was did not comply. I think what we have put there is a fair check and a fair balance in terms of the provisions. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said in the speech that preceded mine we do now have the basis for much much clearer rules. So I congratulate the committee on that work and particularly Amy Adams on her leadership of the committee. She is a new member herself who was looking at legislation that hopefully she will have many many occasions to resort to. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Clause 3A agreed to.  
Clause 4 agreed to.  
Clause 5 agreed to.  
Clause 6 agreed to.  
Clause 7 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Electoral Referendum Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 2A agreed to.  
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call on the Electoral Referendum Bill. The Green Party was very pleased with the discussion at the Electoral Legislation Committee about how the referendum was to be structured. There was a lot of discussion about the nature of the ballot paper itself and ensuring that the language used was readily understood. We used an English for speakers of other languages process to test that it was easily understood and that simple language was used to help those for whom English is a second language or who have difficulties with literacy. Some good work was done on this bill. 
The Green Party was also very pleased to see caps on spending by the various players involved in the referendum campaign. Of course at the last referendum we saw extraordinary amounts of money thrown at an attempt to keep first past the post—and the same people will attempt to return us to it this time actually. They fought very hard last time for first past the post and used vast quantities of money. So we are very pleased to see the caps notwithstanding the fact that I know that other parties disagree with it. 
The issue we had with the bill however was the question of the point at which MMP will be reviewed. The provision in the bill as it stands is that if MMP wins the first referendum in 2011 there will be a review of MMP at that point. It will concern a number of factors and the bill sets out some of those. That is good; we should continually review our electoral system to see what is working and what is not. MMP is still comparatively young in this country. It has been in use only since 1999 so it is important to— 
Hon Member 
: 1996. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: —1996 sorry. It is important to look at it and in light of the experience we have had to decide what changes need to be made. When the public are asked about MMP they have lots of ideas about what could be changed and that is an important discussion for us to have. But the Greens say that that discussion should have happened before the proposition of a referendum was put forward. Voters the public citizens are entitled to a structured and resourced discussion on the kind of electoral system they want. If MMP was going to be put to the vote again there should have been a chance for the public to engage in a discussion on the flaws and benefits of the current system of MMP before going to a vote on it. That would have been a way to ensure that our community had the best information available and were able to participate in the kind of system we should have. That did not happen because of some strange electoral promise that it appears National made to somebody although nobody knows whom. It came out of the blue that there would be a referendum. So now we are to have one. It is always up to the public to decide to vote on the electoral system and that is fair enough. 
As I said MMP will be reviewed after the 2011 election if it is successful in the referendum. But if it is not successful then the system we will have during the period 2011 to 2014 in the lead up to a runoff between MMP and a new system is the old form of MMP which has not been changed since 1996. It will be compared with a very new system that will have been developed in light of our experience of MMP and in light of different electoral developments internationally. It will be a system that has been devised according to the best practice that we know of at the time. So it will not be a fair runoff. It will not be a fair runoff. Not only that; because of the process for constructing the new system and what it will look like information about it will have been made very clear and available to the public. There will be a lot of discussion about the way that a new system might work and a lot of public engagement in that process. But there will not be a lot of discussion about and engagement in the MMP system that we use now because so much focus will be on the new system. So the public discussion on the two different options they will be asked to vote for will be very very different. The level of knowledge and information available to the public about the two systems that they will have to choose from will be very very different. Because MMP will not have been reviewed there will be the same level of public discussion about MMP and how it could be better. 
The Green Party says there should be a review of MMP regardless of the outcome of the 2011 referendum. We say the public is entitled to have a say on and make changes to the MMP system regardless of the referendum result so that should MMP not succeed at the next referendum the public will have the best choices from which they can make their decision. They will have available to them the most information about the benefits and the disadvantages of both systems. That is only right because the voting system is a system that belongs to the people it is a system that belongs to citizens and citizens are entitled to make decisions based on the best possible information. There will not be that opportunity for our community to have the best possible information and to be able to make a choice between the two best types of systems because the old creaky MMP that we know could do with a little bit of looking at will be set against the brand new shiny version of something completely different and we do not even know what it will be. There is a real disincentive here and I think the Government has set up the referendum in such a way to make it more difficult for a proper set of choices to be put to the electorate in 2014 if MMP does not make it through the 2011 referendum. 
I know there are lots of concerns about the nature of this discussion but in my view no matter what our views are about how we construct electoral law the No. 1 most important thing is that the public have the best access to the best possible information so that they can make the best decision in their interests because the voting system belongs to them. The Government in constructing the referendum as it has done in this legislation has taken from the community and from citizens the ability to have access to that best possible information and that is wrong. We should not be doing that in legislation and we certainly should not be mucking around with that principle when it comes to the most important question of all which is not what Government one elects but how one goes about electing a Government. That has got to be the most critical constitutional electoral decision that any community will make—not who is elected but how they are elected. 
What we want in this country is the fairest most transparent and most representative system for electing people to Parliament who are therefore represented in the formation of the Government. That is what MMP does. It is a much fairer system than the one we had in the past. We should always be looking to improve and make fairer and more representative our electoral system so that the public can have confidence that when they go to the ballot box their vote will count which happens under MMP—people have two votes and both count—and that they are represented in this House of Representatives first and foremost; that their voices will be represented in this House by the people whom they most prefer to speak for them which is part of what representative democracy is all about. But also when we make laws about how that process works we must have first and foremost in our minds the need for our people to have a fair system that they can have some faith and trust in. 
I have already said in the earlier debate on the electoral finance law that I have concerns about the integrity of our electoral finance system. On this matter I think there is an issue of integrity too. We are not ensuring that we have the most integrity in the process by which we are to choose our electoral system. I am not sure whether the Labour Party has put up the Supplementary Order Paper that it was intending to put up to make this change but I want to highlight for the community that a real concern is that people will not have the opportunity to make changes and to discuss and consider the MMP system in the way that they ought to should it not be successful in the referendum in 2011. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this part because this part is not particularly relevant to the issue that Metiria Turei just raised but I thought I should foreshadow that yes we will be moving an amendment to remove clause 54 from the bill which is in a later part. I will talk to the reasons why we will do that at the appropriate time because I am sure the Chair will rule me out of order if I was to try to discuss it now. He is nodding his head very sagely. 
I will talk about clause 3 “Purpose of Act”. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for an indicative referendum to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the commencement of this Act in order to provide electors with the opportunity to express an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives in New Zealand.” I think it is worthwhile to reflect in the Committee stage on why the purpose has been written in that particular way. As a country we did not know that we would be having a referendum on MMP despite the very widely held misbelief that we had been promised one when MMP was first introduced under a National Government in 1996 but we did have a very strong signal from National in this regard. 
I have a quote from the coverage of the announcement made when Mr John Key then the Leader of the Opposition announced in the lead-up to the 2008 election the 10 election pledges that the National Party was taking to the election. One of the pledges—in fact the very last pledge of that list of pledges—was a promise for a referendum on MMP. I will come to this point later on when we get to the provisions relating to the caps on expenditure for third parties but it is important to remember that we already have provisions in law on citizens initiated referenda. This is a citizens initiated referendum. It is masquerading as a Government one and the deal was done in the lead-up to the 2008 election. Here is the quote from the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Mr Key who made the referendum one of 10 election pledges in his speech to National’s annual conference today said he believed voters would reject MMP. ‘I think the country may well vote MMP out’ ”—that is a split infinitive if ever I saw one but there we go—“ ‘but I think they will vote in another proportional system’ he told reporters. ‘I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.’ But after 12 years of MMP it was important to give voters a choice he said. ‘I do think voters thought they were going to get an opportunity to kick the tyres and we’re giving them that opportunity.’ ” I hate that expression; in fact recently he has used it very inappropriately in relation to the Pike River disaster as well. On this particular occasion he is making it sound as if kicking the tyres is a very casual thing but actually it is not. This is quite deliberate and we know exactly who is behind the desire to have this referendum. 
We also know that this statement: “I don’t think they’ll go back to first past the post.” was put there deliberately because the target is the supplementary-member representation system. The target is to get rid of MMP and replace it with the supplementary-member representation system which is first past the post with a winner’s bonus. That is all it is. It is nothing more than that. It is not a system of proportional representation. Of the 120 seats in Parliament only a small number—30 of the MPs—are voted in under the supplementary-member representation system so it does not make the result proportional at all. 
I think it is important when looking at the purpose of the legislation in clause 3 that we are talking about people expressing an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives. This was a deliberate strategy to get this in front of the public eye. It has nothing to do with kicking the tyres; it has everything to do with the predetermined plan—well I was going to quote that wonderful expression from Justice Mahon from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Air Disaster but I will not use that language because I might be held up for a breach of the Standing Orders for that as well. 
When we get to the other provisions of the bill I will certainly talk about the amount of the cap and why it is important. I will also talk about the amendment that I am moving by way of Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will respond to the comments of Lianne Dalziel and Metiria Turei but before I do so I will place something on record. The Hon Lianne Dalziel keeps asking why we are discussing these bills individually and not as a group of three. Let me advise her and the rest of the Committee that the ACT Party had no objection to discussing the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill together. All we asked was that they not be discussed at the same time as the Electoral Referendum Bill which we saw as a totally separate bill. We wanted it discussed in a totally separate debate as had been proposed prior to 2 o’clock this afternoon. 
Let me come back to the comments of Metiria Turei. Lianne Dalziel referred to the fact that Metiria Turei had used the opportunity of speaking on Part 1 to engage in quite a wide-ranging debate. She related the history of MMP. I will come back to the history of MMP and the reason why we are having this referendum but this afternoon Metiria Turei made comments that simply astound me. I cannot believe what she has said. 
Metiria Turei said that there would not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. Those were her words. She said that there will not be the opportunity to have the best possible information. She said that we have taken from the community the chance to have the best possible information. What she asked is more important than informing people about and voting on the system that elects their politicians—not so much the politicians themselves but the options for our electoral system. She criticised the fact that people will be denied that information. Well the reason I find those comments absolutely astounding is that I suspect the Green Party and other members of this House are voting for provisions that will restrict that very information and deny groups the opportunity to pull together and form organisations to stand up and speak for or against a particular electoral system. 
The reason this bill is so flawed is that it restricts the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to spend more than $300000 promoting a particular system. They can spend no more than $300000. Metiria Turei should be taking a good hard look at herself and at her party’s position. She criticises the fact that the people of New Zealand will be denied the opportunity to have the best possible information yet Metiria Turei and other members of this House are doing exactly that because they are restricting the right of third parties to be involved in this debate. 
I come now to the comments of Lianne Dalziel. I think she made some very important points. Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Party are another group of people who have argued that we need to restrict the rights of people to put their position. I think that the Hon Lianne Dalziel has explained very well this afternoon why we should not in fact put on that restriction. She has just quoted a statement that our Prime Minister made when he was the Leader of the Opposition. She said—and I have no reason to disbelieve what she said—that John Key who is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand said that he thinks people will vote MMP out and that they will not vote for first past the post but for a new proportional system. 
The reason I make those points is that the Prime Minister was making a comment. He was giving the public a steer. He was indicating that maybe it is not such a good idea to have MMP but that if we are to vote out MMP then perhaps we need to vote in a new system that is proportional—or as Lianne Dalziel would argue only slightly proportional. The Prime Minister’s view has huge weight. Just by the very manner of his position his view has huge weight. If one takes the position of the Labour Party and is opposed to what the Prime Minister is saying then one will find that we are restricting the right of ordinary New Zealanders to stand up and speak out against the Prime Minister. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And spend $300000. How many ordinary citizens have access to $300000? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Yes they have $300000 but they have $300000 in the context of a general election where the Labour Party will spend close to $5 million and the National Party will spend close to $5 million. The Green Party spent $1.8 million at the last election so we have no reason to believe that it will not do the same thing again at the next election. So in the context of political spending whether it is $10 million $12 million $15 million or maybe millions more dollars people who want to put the alternative view to the Prime Minister’s—and I am not saying whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong—are restricted to spending no more than $300000. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: So is the Prime Minister. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I say to the Hon Lianne Dalziel that the reason why it is important not to have those restrictions is that the Prime Minister is in a very powerful position. He can make comments which are carried in the media that favour one particular voting system and he can steer the public in a particular way. That seems to be what Lianne Dalziel is criticising. 
So if people strongly support MMP—and there are people in this country who do—how do they counter the Prime Minister’s comments? How do they counter the free publicity the Prime Minister gets when he goes on national television and says: “Look these are the faults of MMP but we’ve got a better deal for you.”? The only way people can counter those comments is to try to get into the media to try to get a campaign going and to try to put up arguments so that the people of New Zealand are informed and can be in exactly the position that Metiria Turei wants them to be in—informed and with very best possible information. 
The ACT Party will be supporting the Electoral Referendum Bill. We think that the people of New Zealand should have that opportunity. It is a very very sad day for New Zealand when we pass a bill that restricts the right of New Zealanders to participate in this referendum and denies New Zealanders the ability to get the best possible information in the way the Green Party says they should be able to. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I start by asking for your assistance Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that we are still on Part 1—is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. 
AMY ADAMS 
: One would not know it from the tenor of the speeches— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We have strayed a little bit broader than I would have hoped actually. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Yes. I thought that was the case. 
I will make a brief contribution to the debate on Part 1. I will focus on clause 3 “Purpose of Act”. It is worth summarising the purpose of the bill. New Zealanders understood—the Hon Lianne Dalziel mentioned this in her contribution and she acknowledged that it is the case—when they voted to switch to the MMP system of voting in 1993 that there would be another referendum on the matter. In this House we all understand that that technically was not correct. I talked in my earlier contributions about how the small print at the bottom of that very clearly stated that it was if Parliament agreed. None the less there is a strong feeling out there that New Zealanders thought they would have another say on this. That is why it has always been the National Party position that we would give New Zealanders a chance to have that second say on MMP. 
That is exactly what this bill does. It says to New Zealand that we are now 14 years into an MMP system of voting and this is a chance for people to come back to the issue to turn their minds to it again and to decide whether it gives them the system that they thought they were getting. If it does then we can move into a review of that system so the issue can effectively be put to bed. These things are never finalised of course but it would be nice to think that if out of this process New Zealand elects to retain the MMP system of voting—I should say “keep” because that is the language we adopted with the paper—then that will certainly put to bed the issue of whether there should have been a second referendum. I think it is just worth commenting on that. 
When there was a select committee inquiry into MMP in 2001 the issue of whether there should be another referendum was hotly contested. I know I was not here but I have certainly read through all the papers. It was very interesting to me that even then it was decided by only a very narrow vote that there would not be a second referendum. The only reason why a second referendum was not supported was that it was thought to be a bit too soon. 
If 2001 was too soon—and arguably it was—I think the time has come. It has always been the policy of this Government to deliver on it. That is why we have the bill before us and that is why the purpose of this bill as set out in clause 3 is to give New Zealanders the chance through an indicative referendum to once more comment on the system of voting that they want to use to elect the House of Representatives. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are amendments in the name of Hilary Calvert to clauses 5 12 and schedule 1 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 but they have been ruled out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill.  
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding was that that amendment would not come up in this particular part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have a running sheet here and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert are on it. I tell the Committee that it has been ruled out of order in connection with Part 1 of the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper refers in part to clause 5 and clause 5 is in Part 1 so therefore I had to deal with that amendment now. I have made that explanation so I will now put the question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Provisions relating to referendum 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The debate on this part includes schedules 2 and 3. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32A to raise the expenses limit to $500000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of Hilary Calvert to clause 32A to raise the expenses limit to $750000 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Advertising 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 3. This part deals with the total referendum expenses of a registered promoter in respect of the regulated period not exceeding $300000. I presume that there are also amendments to this part from the ACT Party—it just seemed odd to be dealing with them in respect of Part 2. 
The only point I want to make is that the citizens initiated referendum limit is $50000 and as this is a citizens initiated referendum masquerading as a Government referendum I think the amount should have been the same. This however was a negotiated settlement as it were between the political parties. We have swallowed some dead rats on both sides and we are not going to have a debate about who swallowed the bigger rat—the Minister in the chair is looking vaguely uncomfortable. The reason this figure was settled on was that it represented the lowest end of a range that represents a medium-level campaign spend in the retail sector. We are talking for example about something that would include some television advertising print media advertising in the newspapers and brochures being delivered to people’s houses. That seemed to be an acceptable level at which to resolve the matter. 
Access to television was the one area where I felt there was an incredible sense of disquiet and that was the reason there were so many more submissions to the Electoral Legislation Committee on the third-party campaign expenditure limits in the Electoral Referendum Bill as opposed to the other legislation. Everyone knows that television advertising is very powerful. Companies would not use it if it were not as powerful as it is and it can be used in a way that I think is unfortunate in that we could see a campaign of deliberate misinformation about the effect of the supplementary-member representation system. 
I know that every speech I will be giving between now and when we hold the referendum will refer to the supplementary-member representation system as first past the post with a winner’s bonus because that is what it is. I will just put on record how that would have worked in the last election and fortunately the  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist John Armstrong put it all together in a nice little piece. I will quote that into the record: “And before anyone mouths the words ‘supplementary member’ let’s beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing. No doubt those wanting a return to those dark ages will seductively offer the supplementary member system as a halfway house between FPP and MMP. That system is in part proportional. It might look like a compromise. It is not. It is nothing short of snake oil elixir. Had last year’s election been fought under that system with a Parliament made up of 90 constituency seats and 30 list seats National would have won 67 of them compared with its current 58. That party would have had an absolute majority of 14 seats with just under 45 per cent of the vote. The Greens’ current entitlement of nine seats would have been slashed to just two. So much for proportionality.” 
I wanted to read that into the record in Part 3 because I want the public of New Zealand to know that they are not being offered a straight choice between proportional representation and a non-proportional system. They are being offered proportional representation in exchange for a version of first past the post which looks as if it might be a compromise but which is nothing of the sort. I think that with the campaign expenditure limits we have some hope for ensuring the public education campaign run by the Electoral Commission has some chance of success in respect of ensuring the real messages get out there and ensuring people understand what the choices are. 
The last point I make is in response to one of the comments made by the ACT Party: this is not a debate about freedom of speech. It is not about free speech; it is about paid speech. That ACT member said that he is championing the ordinary New Zealander who wants to speak out against the Prime Minister’s position on supplementary-member representation or against MMP but that member is not championing their cause at all. He is not championing their cause one bit. Which ordinary New Zealander has access to $300000 in order to promote their particular view? There are those of us who will continue to express those views and the expression of opinion is perfectly valid. But paid advertising should be accurate and it should not misrepresent the importance of this referendum to the people of New Zealand. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I will respond to those comments from the Hon Lianne Dalziel because like the Hon Lianne Dalziel I was expecting a debate about the expenditure limits—the limits on the amount promoters will be able to spend for or against any particular electoral system—specified in Part 3 of the Electoral Referendum Bill. I was somewhat surprised that the Chairperson put the amendments from Hilary Calvert to the vote in the previous part. The ACT Party promoted an amendment that would allow third parties to spend up to $750000; if we could not get Parliament to agree to a $750000 limit we suggested $500000. 
It is interesting that Lianne Dalziel criticised the fact that we put forward an amendment that would allow a third party the ability to spend $500000 because she would call that paid speech. Yes it is paid speech: it is buying advertising. It is what political parties do. Earlier this afternoon we voted on a bill that would enable the two major political parties in this Parliament to spend over $5 million—$5 million in paid speech I tell Ms Dalziel. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Five million dollars. Yet we will restrict the right of an organisation that wants to be involved in this referendum to try to sway the votes of New Zealanders one way or the other to the sum of no more than $300000. 
That is not the only thing Ms Dalziel misrepresented. She derided my contribution by asking which ordinary New Zealander has $300000 to spend. We are not talking about individual New Zealanders; we are talking about organisations. We are talking about organisations that want to get involved in this election campaign. 
I sat on the Electoral Legislation Committee that considered this submission as did Ms Dalziel. She will be well aware that an organisation came along and submitted on this bill—an organisation that had formed to promote the MMP option. It was not one person; it was a group of people who purported to represent a much larger group of people and they sent their spokespeople along. I do not know the name of the organisation; I cannot recall it—it may have been “Promote MMP” or “Pro-MMP”—but certainly an organisation had formed for the purposes of promoting MMP. That is right: it is not one person but a whole series of people an organisation—a grassroots New Zealand organisation. So for Lianne Dalziel to stand up and suggest that the ACT Party is talking about one New Zealander having the right to spend $300000 misrepresents our position. Worse than that she actually knows that she misrepresents our position. 
The other point Lianne Dalziel made was that under the provisions of this bill third parties—organisations such as the one that appeared before our select committee—will have access to television. They will have access to television to promote their view one way or the other in support of or against one of the four different systems that are being put forward. 
It is interesting that she finds the use of television particularly obnoxious. The reason Labour finds television obnoxious is that it is powerful. One can actually persuade and influence people through television. We know that one of the reasons Len Brown’s committee put down for their success in Auckland was the early use of television. 
Television is also denied to the smaller political parties in this Parliament; they are denied the chance to spend their own money on television. Another major failing of this Parliament is that it has not taken the opportunity to correct that problem. 
Amy Adams 
: This is the referendum bill; it’s not the finance bill. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: This is the referendum bill and I explain to Ms Adams that under the referendum bill people can form organisations for or against one or more of the electoral systems that have been promoted. They can spend their own money they can spend it up to $300000 and they can spend it on television. It is a pity that parties in this Parliament are denied the opportunity to do that. 
Notwithstanding the fact that the limit is set at $300000 the ACT Party will be voting for this bill. We support the right of New Zealanders to have a say on their electoral system; we think it is important. But also we think it is important that the people be informed and that they understand what is being offered to them. It is a tragedy that by putting limits on organisations such as the one that appeared before our Electoral Legislation Committee in Wellington—I think it included academics from Victoria University—we deny New Zealanders the opportunity to be fully informed. 
I note that Lianne Dalziel referred to the supplementary member system. She called it first past the post with a winner’s bonus. I could take issue with that description of it too but I will not do so. 
The other amendment that Hilary Calvert put before Parliament this afternoon was to do with the actual voting form that appears in schedule 1. I thought that I might have had an opportunity to speak to that before it was put before Parliament. Earlier this afternoon the ACT Party put forward an amendment that would have provided for a vote in the referendum on the existence of the Maori seats. We did that because in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System the commissioners in recommending MMP also said that once there is a proportional system there is no longer any need to have electoral seats set up on a racial basis. 
Hone Harawira 
: They were joking. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Mr Harawira may well say they were joking but they were not. The record shows that the royal commission in recommending MMP said if there is a proportional system a system where every vote counts there is simply no need for the Maori seat option. It is a pity that Parliament took the opportunity of voting down that amendment this afternoon. Thank you. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4 Review and miscellaneous provisions 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have a very brief call to make simply to alert the Committee to my amendment to the Electoral Referendum Bill which is to remove clause 54. The effect of removing clause 54 would be to require a review of MMP to occur after the next election and it would occur regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. Clause 54 currently requires the review of MMP provided for in Part 4 of the bill to come into force only if in fact the first referendum decides that an alternative to MMP is preferred. That then means that the second referendum if National were to be re-elected would be held on the basis of a flawed version of MMP which people agree is flawed. Rather than actually fixing what is wrong with the system and putting that up against a new system a flawed system would be allowed to go up against a brand new version of whichever system is preferred out of the four. 
The one point I make is that if I had been writing the rules for this referendum I would have ensured that MMP was reviewed before the first referendum but I was not so obviously Labour has had no influence in that regard. It was a Government decision to put the flawed version of MMP up for consideration without fixing the problems with it and then to put it up for reconsideration. But given that situation the Labour Party will make a pledge at the next election that should we become the Government we will ensure that the second referendum is held after the MMP system is reviewed and any of the flaws in it are resolved so that it will be the reviewed MMP system that goes up against the preferred option at the 2014 general election. We are committed to the same timetable that the Government has set out but we will review MMP and we will fix any of the flaws that we find in that system as evidenced from the input of the people of New Zealand. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First I will take this opportunity to simply say that the ACT Party will be voting against the amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I assure the National Government and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice that we will be voting against this amendment. 
A couple of comments from the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel need to be responded to. Given that none of the National members took the call I will respond to those comments. 
Amy Adams 
: Give us a chance. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Amy Adams said to give those members a chance but National has taken just one call I think in this debate—one call since quarter-past 3. We have heard from Lianne Dalziel that MMP is flawed. Well who says it is flawed? Yes some people say it is flawed but I ask what right the Labour Party has to pronounce that MMP is flawed. Who says so? Where is those members’ evidence? Where is the overwhelming evidence it is flawed? 
Lianne Dalziel talked about fixing the problem. Well there is no need for a review and the ACT Party will be voting against her amendment. However Lianne Dalziel raised a very very good point. She has just told the public of New Zealand notwithstanding the consultation and the extraordinary effort the Minister has made to reach agreement—and he has conceded a number of points not least of which is a $300000 limit on the right of free speech—that if Labour wins the next election all bets are off. All bets are off. She said: “We have reached consensus we have reached agreement but if Labour wins the next election we will screw you.” That is exactly what she said. She said that if Labour wins the next election in 2011 Labour will not proceed down the second referendum road unless the Government goes and fixes the system—the system that we do not even necessarily know is broken. 
I put it to National members in the Chamber this afternoon that Mr Power is a gentleman. Mr Power is a gentleman. He has gone along to the Labour members and has consulted with them but I say to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber that they have been screwed. They have been screwed because they are being told this afternoon that rather than trust their judgment allow third parties to campaign for what they believe and put the Minister’s bill through in the way that he had originally presented it they have fallen for a trap. That is one of the reasons the ACT Party strongly opposes the $300000 limit. Let me simply say to Mr Mallard and Ms Dalziel that a further reason for the National-led Government to be re-elected in 2011 is so that it can give effect to the compromised agreement that this bill represents. Thank you. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To conclude this debate I make a couple of comments in respect of Part 4 and in particular the amendment by Lianne Dalziel to delete clause 54 from the Electoral Referendum Bill. That was well signalled to the Government and we were quite aware that that was Labour’s position. National will oppose Ms Dalziel’s amendment on the basis that we think it is important that the vote on the question of the electoral system that the New Zealand public chooses is between two systems that they have experienced and worked under. Essentially that is the difference between the two positions. 
To say that the negotiations between all parties have not been done in good faith is probably taking it a step too far. To be fair to all parties present in the Committee stage since 3.15 p.m. I have not seen any evidence of that; each party has done what it said it would do. In fairness that is what we are ultimately trying to achieve by Part 4 and these three bills. There may be aspects of Part 4 the rest of this bill and the preceding two bills in Committee that each individual party would rather have done another way. I can assure members of the Committee of the whole House that indeed we would have done some things differently as I know other parties would have having listened to their contributions to the debates this afternoon. 
In the end Part 4 and the rest of this legislation has to do one thing—that is to endure beyond the change of Government where we get ourselves as a Parliament and a country into a situation where a winning political party forms the view that its might makes it right. The concluding point about the Committee stage of this legislation is to ensure that at the very least there is a consistency of approach to how we conduct elections in New Zealand whether it be an MMP referendum or for that matter electoral finance legislation. There are many aspects of this legislation that parties would do differently but the nature of broad consensus for this sort of work to endure is that we all have to come slightly short of what each party regards as an ideal position. To that end National will not be supporting the amendment as tabled by Ms Dalziel. I am looking forward to the conclusion of this debate the third readings tomorrow and Christmas. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill with amendment the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill without amendment and the Electoral Referendum Bill without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion notice of which was lodged this morning relating to the adoption of the changes to the Standing Orders recommended by the Standing Orders Committee for the registration of members’ pecuniary interests. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I move  
That Chapters 3 and 8 and Appendix B of the Standing Orders be read as if amended in the manner set out in Appendix 1 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests (I.18A) with effect from 1 January 2011. 
 The Standing Orders Committee has reviewed the Standing Orders relating to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament and has recommended a number of changes to these provisions. The motion adopts the committee’s recommendations by way of a sessional order with effect for the round of annual returns due in February next year. 
The referral of this review followed a unanimous recommendation of the Privileges Committee in September 2008. The Standing Orders Committee heard evidence from Dame Margaret Bazley Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament who made a number of suggestions for improving and clarifying the requirements for the declaration of pecuniary interests. After presenting her submission Dame Margaret was appointed to advise the committee on the review. The committee also heard from Lyn Provost Controller and Auditor-General. 
The register is a public record of specified financial and other interests that are personal to each member. It provides information of any interest or other material benefit that a member holds or may receive that might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions as a member of Parliament. The purpose of the register is to strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process by improving transparency openness and accountability. The Privileges Committee’s report emphasised such principles and the Standing Orders Committee’s recommendations incorporate them more fully in the House’s rules. 
Some new requirements have been recommended—for example members will now be required to declare an interest in trusts of which they are trustees without having a beneficial interest. Members must also declare a beneficial interest in a trust regardless of whether it is a fixed or discretionary interest. Recommendations also clarify requirements for the declaration of real property and paid activities. The committee’s recommendations mean that some additional areas of interest may be declared that are not strictly of pecuniary or financial benefit to members. For this reason the committee has proposed that the name of the register be amended to “Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests”. 
A significant new development is the introduction of a new procedure for members to request that the registrar conduct an inquiry into a member’s compliance with the obligations to make returns. On receiving a request the registrar will then consider whether to conduct such an inquiry. This means that the Speaker will no longer be involved in the consideration of such matters. After conducting an inquiry the registrar will have the ability to report to the House that a question of privilege is involved but that outcome would result from only the most serious situations. In many cases matters may be resolved through the correction of returns. That is a course not currently available to the Speaker when considering matters of privilege. 
The registrar’s new inquiry role replaces that previously accorded to the Auditor-General. It is worth noting that the Auditor-General never exercised that function as there were doubts about whether there was sufficient statutory power to do so. However the Auditor-General will support the registrar when required. 
In recommending this new procedure the Standing Orders Committee was concerned to prevent its use for the making of frivolous or vexatious requests for inquiries into members’ interests. A member wishing to make a request must have reasonable grounds to do so. A member who makes a request without those reasonable grounds will risk being held in contempt of the House. 
The sessional order will have effect for the 2011 returns. In the light of experience from the returns process the Standing Orders Committee will consider how these recommendations should be adopted as permanent amendments to the Standing Orders. 
In addition to those notes I point out that the process of members recording their pecuniary interests has been in place for just a few years. I think it is fair to say that some members in fact a large number of members have been overly cautious about what they put in there to the point that we now get registers of “interest” as opposed to necessarily “pecuniary interests”. So in many ways the changes codify what has become a practice for members anyway. It is fair to say that most members have erred on the side of caution when making their returns to the extent that some members appear to have interests far in excess of the actual benefit that may come from them simply because they felt that some association with an organisation real property or any range of other financial instruments might somehow be required to be recorded under the provisions. This arrangement effectively confirms that so that there can be no doubt in the public’s eyes about who has what interest and where. 
The registrar’s right to inquire is good because in most of these cases MPs will have made just simple omissions without any desire to hide stuff. I suggest that if any large pecuniary interest was being concealed or if there was even a hint of that New Zealand is a small enough country for people to know about it and for that matter to make its way into the system and for there to be considerable concern expressed about that. But there will be cases where people do not declare things simply because they do not know about them. A case could be perhaps of a defunct insurance company that had small residuals left over. People may not even remember owning a particular policy but at some later point they are contacted by an investigating organisation to see whether they are the person named on that policy and then a small payment is made out to them. That policy may not have been declared in the register but it was not deliberately concealed. That is the sort of thing that can be very easily sorted out by the registrar. But if it is a bigger matter then the Auditor-General stands by to assist in that process and ultimately everything comes back to the House for the Privileges Committee to deal with. I do not want to make any further comments. 
I believe that it is a positive move for the House to adopt this sessional order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I rise to support the Leader of the House on this particular change to the sessional order which will effectively be a change to the Standing Orders on matters relating to the pecuniary and other interests of members. It is fair to say that over time we have made some progress in this area. I think there is an ongoing debate but generally members are favouring transparency more and more in order to avoid doubt. The exercise that we are undertaking here will take some reasonable steps in that regard although it will still not be as clear as some of us would prefer. But it is certainly a step in the right direction. 
As well as the points made by the previous speaker the Hon Gerry Brownlee I would like to emphasise the point on timing. One of the problems with the declarations at the moment is that if people perform an activity and are not paid in the same year it could be up to 18 months after the activity is performed well beyond a general election well beyond the period of conflict before it becomes apparent and this change helps with that. The area where there will be some debate and unhappiness with members is the arrangement with trusts—at both ends of it. It is fair to say that agreement is not unanimous on the question of people who are trustees of trusts in which they do not have beneficial interest. In some cases they would be people who are lawyers who as part of their previous business became trustees. This will require a decision on the part of those members of Parliament who might for example be trustees for family trusts for more distant parts of their family where there is no question of being beneficiaries. People will have to make a choice as to whether they are open and transparent about their role in those family trusts or previous professional trusts or whether they resign as a trustee as a number of us have done in the past with directorships and other arrangements. I think that is fair. 
The other area around trusts will be known to some on this side of the House as the “Bill English clause”. The decision is to take a wider view of beneficial interest so we will take into account not only those who have a fixed beneficial interest but those who have discretionary interests. In the case of the English trust arrangements we saw changes in those arrangements that took the Minister of Finance from being a fixed beneficiary to being a discretionary beneficiary when in fact the actual position did not change at all. It is important and as well as thanking the Privileges Committee of the previous Parliament for referring it I think we should probably thank Mr English for the work he has done to help us clarify our rules in that particular area. 
There is a clear warning to be given to members on the question of vexatious complaints. There is an expectation that members will not complain vexatiously on this question and that is important to make sure that the system has integrity and we do not put the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament in a position where she gets caught up in what is essentially a political argument. It is probably inevitable if there is a real complaint that it is political but it should not be an unnecessary political argument or too frequent. The punishment for members who make vexatious complaints is that they are themselves treated as in contempt and therefore a breach of Parliament and that should serve as a warning to people to take this process seriously. 
I thank all members who served on the Privileges Committee. It is fair to say that there was almost no politics in this that different views came from different sides of the House and that members added their various experiences in order to get something that is I think about as good as would be acceptable to the House at this time. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to address this report from the Standing Orders Committee on the pecuniary interests of members. The report reflects a considerable body of work I think on a very important subject. I have followed through this issue in the Standing Orders Committee and have been actively engaged in it in recent months. Like the preceding speaker Trevor Mallard I thank colleagues for what has been a fairly cooperative exercise within the committee. 
I am satisfied that the committee has returned a useful report. We shall be supporting adoption of the report and the changes to the Standing Orders that the report recommends. It is worth recalling that the review emerged from a recognition by the 48th Parliament that a particular affair in 2008 had caused public concern and had perhaps eroded confidence in this nation’s legislature. The previous Speaker had requested the Privileges Committee to examine the rules surrounding the financial interests of members and to make recommendations to ensure that the House was “not brought into disrepute” and impeded in its functions. Although I agree with Mr Mallard that the Standing Orders Committee succeeded—and rightly so—in keeping the review depoliticised I think it is important to recall that it was highly sensitive political issues that provided the genesis for this whole exercise—namely the Owen Glenn affair in 2008 that involved the leader of New Zealand First the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
I recall the report of the Privileges Committee which stated: “We recommend by majority that the Rt Hon Winston Peters”—I repeat the Rt Hon—“be censured by the House for knowingly”—I repeat knowingly—“providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests. We recommend by majority that the Rt Hon Winston Peters be ordered to file within seven days of the House so ordering amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006 2007 and 2008 covering any gifts debts or payments in kind that he has not previously registered.” So it is a reminder of the degree of sensitivity that prevails around this thing—this same gentleman is now struggling below the watery surfaces of public opinion to re-enter this House—to ensure that the House is no longer brought into disrepute. Let us continue in hope. 
For its part the Privileges Committee believes that the Standing Orders Committee of the 49th Parliament has reviewed the rules for the declaration of pecuniary interests; this is what we have been doing and this is the fruit of our endeavours. We considered of course the purpose of the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and found it to be sound. We went through a gamut of issues which have been touched on by Minister Brownlee and Mr Mallard such as beneficial interests in trusts the issue of real property the issue of interest rates legal fees paid on behalf of members if they are involved in litigation pertaining to their parliamentary activities airline upgrades and other things. We in the Green Party are happy with the outcomes of all those issues. 
But in my opinion the most important development coming out of the report is the agreement we have reached concerning the scope of what we mean by “pecuniary interests” and Minister Brownlee touched on that. In short there is a need to broaden the scope beyond the strict meaning of the word “pecuniary”; I think that was fairly clear. We discussed the possibility of omitting the word “pecuniary” entirely from the name of the register and just having it as “register of interests” but it was very clear that that would go way too far for the purposes of the House. We would end up being obliged to declare whether we were influenced in any way by the Church of Scientology the Climate Science Coalition the doctrine of creationism or maybe the Flat Earth Society. It would have been ridiculous. So I think it was the correct balance to make it explicit that members are required to declare some interests that may not be pecuniary or financial to them but that are limited to certain specified interests. I think we got to the right conclusion. 
I do not want to go into any more detail on the provisions of the report but I will make three broad points before I conclude. The first is that the Privileges Committee expressed a number of principles that support the approach of transparency. I think the Standing Orders Committee endorsed that and we in the Green Party certainly embrace it. The first principle is that the onus is on members to make an honest attempt to recognise and declare all pecuniary interests—that is fine. The third principle—I am skipping the second principle for the moment—is that all distinct interests must be declared regardless of whether they are channelled through a trust or third party and that is fine. The fourth principle is that the approach in declaring interests should be if in doubt to declare them—and that is critical and fine too. 
The second principle I think is more complex. The second principle says that the House’s decision to administer its own regime for declaring interests places a strong moral imperative on members to comply with the requirements in the spirit of the House’s own rules. I think with respect that that is one huge understatement. Administering one’s own regime when it comes to pecuniary or financial interests is always going to be problematic. I have personally always been somewhat apprehensive over any organisation—whether it is the New Zealand Law Society today’s FIFA or last century’s Ku Klux Klan—that decided to administer its own regime of self-behaviour. Although I think that all members of this House are acting with integrity and good intent when they undertake to administer their own regime and to place upon themselves principles and standards of the highest level I think that in the normal course of human events we nonetheless fall short. So I personally am always pretty apprehensive about self-administration of one’s own financial regime. When it comes to MP expenses we have seen in the last few months a move away from self-administration towards the administration of the independent Remuneration Authority and I wonder whether in due course we may want to reflect on this within that context as well. That is the first point. 
The second broad point is to remind the House that we have had a register of pecuniary interests for the executive I think for the last decade and a half or thereabouts and we have had one for the legislature for the last 4 years or so. In each case it is for the protection of individuals both in the executive and in the legislature. But we lack comparable protection for the judiciary and recently the saga of the resignation of former Justice Bill Wilson has prompted a member’s bill on my own part to record a register of judges’ pecuniary interests. That looks as if it may be well-received by both the Government and the Labour Opposition and I look forward to collaborating with them in pursuing it later. 
The final point is the relationship between public sector and private sector funds. I believe it is right and proper that public funds be open and transparent in terms of accountability and scrutiny. The public has a right to be assured that public funds are properly spent and that public servants—in this case elected MPs—are not in any way influenced through a conflict of interest. I think this report goes some way to meeting that goal. 
But the same standards in my view need to be applied to private sector funding. If we have learnt anything from the global financial crisis of the past 2 years it is that there should be no difference between the standards we proclaim for the handling of public funds and those there are for private sector funding. I myself do not discriminate between the taxpayer and the consumer and I would be interested to learn whether ACT the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers shares this view. I ask why the individual New Zealander should insist on the strictest standards of transparency and accountability for public funds but should tolerate a veil of opacity and secrecy for private corporate funds. We are all affected equally by both; we are all in this together. 
The pure obscenity of the public bail-out of private corporations that have failed through corporate and individual greed which masqueraded between the mythological walls of the free market commercial risk performance-based bonuses and executive leakage will stand as an abomination of the past two decades. It is time to insist on the same levels of accountability the same standards of transparency and the same threshold of behaviour between the public and the private sectors. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call specific to the clause that relates to members of Parliament with interests in Maori land and Maori land trusts. During the course of the review of the Standing Orders there was debate on the concept of Maori ownership and on whether such land should be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. This longstanding issue is unique because of the complexity associated with a declaration of interest in jointly held Maori land. 
If we look through the register of pecuniary interests we might come across the names of many Maori MPs associated with various Maori land corporations and land trusts. If we were to look at Mr Horomia for example we would find that he has a beneficial interest in a wide range of trusts—for example “Panikau H2 Mangatuna 3 4 5 7 8 Mangaheia 1B37 Rakiura Maori Land Trusts Tokomaru K4A and K4B1— … Other Maori land incorporations and trusts on the East Coast Wairarapa and South Island—”. I ask how we would extrapolate from such a wide list the beneficial interest that is specific to Mr Horomia as opposed to perhaps hundreds of other beneficiaries. For some of our MPs there might be an additional problem in completing declarations as they may not even know that they have an interest in a Maori land trust. Even when the information is known it can be onerous to identify blocks of land held by such trusts. 
In responding to the review Dame Margaret Bazley concluded that although she could understand the difficulties unique to Maori MPs with interests in multiple-owned land she did not consider that it relieved them of their obligation to declare such an interest. Therefore her recommendation was that Maori land would not be exempt from the declaration but by the same means it was not necessary or reasonable to expect members to identify each individual piece of Maori land by its Maori Land Court block number. 
The Maori Party is therefore happy to support a somewhat compromised position. We agree that an interest in jointly held Maori land should be declared under this clause but we are also pleased to note that it is sufficient to give only the general location of the land as for other real property rather than the specifics of an individual block. 
Motion agreed to. 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee. 
New Zealand has a highly effective biosecurity system to manage the risks posed by harmful organisms including the risks to our very important livestock industries. Actively managing those biosecurity risks maintains or enhances New Zealand’s already high reputation for quality animal products and our access to premium markets. Other countries are increasingly moving to mandatory individual tracing systems for their livestock. We cannot afford to lag behind our competitors. 
It is vital during an animal disease outbreak to quickly find out the extent of the problem and start to manage it. This requires good knowledge of where infected animals are and the other animals they have been in contact with. The National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme—or NAIT as it will be called—will meet that need by collecting information on animals their location and movement history throughout their lifetime. That means we can more quickly and effectively target our resources to contain and manage a biosecurity or product contamination event and provide evidence to reassure our trading partners. The scheme will also improve consumer confidence by providing more background information about the source of food products to support general trade and high-value niche markets. It will support management of adverse events such as drought. 
The scheme will benefit both the country as a whole and the industries and individual farmers involved. The scheme is a partnership between industry and the Crown that started in 2004 in recognition of the growing need for better animal identification and tracing systems. The livestock and animal products industries continue to be key partners in developing and implementing the scheme. I pay tribute to their involvement and to their constructive approach. I also know that there are members on the opposite side of the House who approved the development of the scheme in its earlier stages. I would like to thank them too for their contribution. The scheme will begin with cattle and deer which already have some identification and paper-based tracing systems in place. The scheme will however introduce radio frequency identification tags and a computerised database to accurately record the details of individual animals and their movement histories. 
The bill sets out the basic requirements needed to make the scheme work. They include the governance arrangements and the powers and functions of the organisation that will run the scheme. The scheme will need to be flexible to allow for changing information needs. The bill will enable regulations to prescribe the detailed requirements for the animal sector or sectors covered by the scheme. People who are in charge of animals covered by this bill such as farmers saleyard operators and meat processors will be responsible for recording and updating information on the National Animal Identification and Tracing database. 
But the value of the scheme goes beyond the information that this bill will require. The national animal identification and tracing infrastructure provides industry with a much more efficient way of holding its own animal-related data such as genetic history and production data if it so chooses. Improving on-farm management will help New Zealand farmers expand their comparative advantage. 
This Government is conscious of the need to protect personal and commercially sensitive information from misuse. Although people will be able to access their own data the Government agencies responsible for biosecurity and food safety may access personal data only for the purpose for which it was collected under the bill. The data needs to be protected but at the same time it represents a valuable source for research and statistics. Permission may be granted to access non-personal information if it is in the interests of the industry and the public good. 
Many dairy farmers currently use commercial organisations to complete their herd-recording and herd-testing requirements. This approach will continue under the scheme. After the scheme becomes law the emphasis will be on educating people on the new requirements. But we are dealing with important measures to improve our biosecurity and maintain our international markets. We must have sanctions against people who deliberately evade their responsibilities and put the integrity of the scheme in doubt. The bill includes some offences and penalties. The highest penalties are appropriate for knowingly accessing or disclosing information about an individual or commercially sensitive information. 
The industry and the Crown will share the running costs of the scheme with the bill setting out the principles for industry cost recovery. Other regulations may be made to help implement the bill. They include a mechanism to add or to remove species from mandatory scheme coverage following a proper process. The type of animal identification and whether it is for individual animals or for groups of animals such as herds will be assessed for each species in consultation with that industry. 
In conclusion this bill establishes a scheme that will provide accurate and timely identification and tracing of livestock at least cost. This will protect New Zealand farmers in the market place bring us into line with most other agricultural producing nations and strengthen our already excellent biosecurity system. In commending this bill to the House I wish Mr Kris Faafoi the very best for his maiden speech. Thank you. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will not take all of my time as I know the good people of Mana and Porirua probably did not come to listen to a debate on the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme but none the less they along with the rest of New Zealand will be really pleased to know that this is a very important bill and it was with much pleasure that I listened to the Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter say that. 
If we go back 2½ years we see that the current Minister of Agriculture and his friends in Federated Farmers campaigned absolutely against the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme. It is nice that the Government has had another road to Damascus experience. This is very very important because once the Primary Production Committee has carefully scrutinised this bill we will have that system. Federated Farmers and others were I guess rightfully concerned that the system may bring in a huge bureaucracy. I will not go into the detail of some of the clauses other than to say that they specify right down to the kind of levies that might be imposed the search warrants and what might or might not happen with ministers of churches. So it is very very prescriptive legislation. 
The principle of this legislation was laid down by the previous Labour Government in 2008. I wish that my colleague the Hon Jim Anderton was here to hear the Minister’s speech because Mr Anderton as the previous Minister of Agriculture put this measure up to the industry. He said that we needed animal identification and traceability to convince our trading partners that we have the safest food of the highest quality for them to buy and that if there was any outbreak of a disease then we had a sound and robust system of identifying animals tracing them and knowing where they were so that we could minimise the spread of any disease such as—and I do not even like to say it—foot-and-mouth disease. It could be something like that—yes I said it. That would be a potential cost of $10 billion to this economy. That is why it is so important to have the highest-quality biosecurity systems. Unfortunately the Minister failed to say that he had dumbed down biosecurity by cutting 54 front-line positions which has put New Zealand at risk. But this bill is putting in place a system of identifying animals from birth right through until their death and knowing where they are. If there is any problem with disease then we will know what the possible impacts or contacts with other animals or other farms might be. 
When the previous Labour Government originally proposed this bill we made a commitment of $10 million to do our part in this programme. At that time National encouraged Federated Farmers to oppose the system. It opposed the system on some vague line of not knowing whether high-frequency or low-frequency receivers were the best way forward. That was the most sensible thing it said. A less sensible thing it said was that we did not need it. Mr King said the same thing. All of the National members said it. We need traceability of our animals so that we can convince our trading partners of the quality of our stock of our food of everything. Yet for shallow political reasons National and Federated Farmers opposed it. The Minister of Agriculture shakes his head but he knows it is true. National now expects Labour to support this bill. We will support it because it is the right thing to do. We knew that in 2008 and we were progressing this legislation. 
I will not say too much more. The detail is in this big bill. It will effectively put in place soon we hope an electronic system. Animals will be tagged; initially it will be beef and deer but I think sheep farmers should be warned that they need to be part of this system too—there is no doubt about that. Although we claim to be one of the best producers of quality food in the world the reality is that most other pastoral and livestock - producing countries have traceability systems in place that are far better than ours so we really are playing catch-up at the moment. I know that the Primary Production Committee under Mr Shane Ardern—who probably should be the Minister of Agriculture and he knows that—will deal with this bill very quickly and enable the system to be put in place. 
A number of people on the stakeholder reference group that is guiding this legislation opposed the initial roll-out of this scheme. Ian Corney the Federated Farmers representative at that time was part of the organisation that opposed the legislation but is now heading the stakeholder reference group and is passionately committed to having an animal tracing system in place. 
I hope that the technical issues of low-frequency and high-frequency eartags and how best they might work into the future can be resolved. Although the regulation-making powers in the bill will determine ultimately the technical system Labour will support the system in the meantime. 
I personally would like to see the next step that backs this up. I know the Green Party will support us in the call for country-of-origin labelling so that when we do impose the cost of $2 to $3 on farmers they know they will get more than that value back through identifying their stock as quality stock and safe food when it goes into the market place. 
Labour supports this bill welcomes it into the House and acknowledges the great work done by the previous Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton to get it this far. 
Debate interrupted. 
Maiden Statements 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Te Atua alofa ma te agalelei fakafetai fakafetai fakafetai lahi lele. Tokelau toku atunuku pele fakafetai fakafetai fakafetai lahi lele. Mana toku kaiga i Aotearoa malo fakafetai. Taloha Ni Mr Speaker. 
I am humbled honoured and proud to join this Parliament as the member for Mana and as a member of the Labour caucus. To the people of Mana I say thank you. It is an honour to serve such a diverse and strong community. It is also an honour to be the first Tokelauan MP to serve in this House of Representatives. We are a small and proud nation who have the privilege and are proud of being New Zealanders. 
It is also an honour to have my parents in the House today. They came to New Zealand to be Kiwis and to give their children the opportunity to live the Kiwi dream. To Mum and Dad I say thank you—another dream has come true for your children. 
This is not the first time I have spoken in this House. In 1994 Jim Anderton chose me as his Youth MP. That September day I arrived not knowing that I had to give a speech. Flustered and nervous I scrambled to write something on the spot. I also recall a young well-spoken ginger-headed Youth MP from up the line. He spoke enthusiastically and seemed comfortable in his surroundings. I am going to break my first Standing Order because I say that Darren Hughes is not here today but 16 years on nothing has changed. 
To say that the Mana electorate is diverse is an understatement. At most street-corner meetings during the by-election campaign we saw different slices of life. From the well-established communities of Paekakariki Cannons Creek Titahi Bay Pukerua Bay and Raumati to the emerging areas of Aotea and the growing suburbs of Whitby and Camborne Mana epitomises the catchphrase “It’s got it all”. I again say thank you to the people of Mana. Their diversity of culture needs and opinions makes it a formidable challenge to serve as their voice in Parliament—one that I am determined to meet. 
I thank my predecessor the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. Winnie’s devotion to Mana and her hard work has made it a better place. I thank her and Peter for the support they have given me and my family during the journey that has led me here today—ia manuia. 
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the other candidates in the Mana by-election. In particular I acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata and Jan Logie. On the whole the mood on the hustings was genuinely friendly. Mana is one of the few electorates where spontaneous Pacific Island dancing is not an uncommon happening at campaign events. I am sure we are all glad that my former TV colleagues did not make it to many of those events. 
I have not taken the well-trodden path to Parliament. Many others who sit in this House today from right across the political spectrum have been heavily involved in politics from a young age. I have not. Despite that I have been a strong advocate for social justice. As a youngster I was given the job by my father of delivering Jim Anderton’s pamphlets. There were hundreds of them—and I read them. 
My mother who worked in a factory for most of her life was a proud member of the Engineers Union. Dad was the president of the Hoon Hay Working Men’s Club where opinions flowed as freely as the beer. I was not scared to offer my opinion to those whom I disagreed with even though they were much older and much wiser than me. Dad was also a long-time chair of the boards of trustees at Rowley primary school and Hillmorton High School. I had the pleasure of being the student rep with him in 1994. That was where I learnt the value of community involvement. 
My parents came to New Zealand to invest in the potential for their family. As teenagers my Mum and Dad left the tiny Tokelauan atoll of Fakaofo in the 1960s. My father Amosa was one of the first scholarship students to leave for New Zealand. He went from a carefree lifestyle on a tiny Pacific atoll to a boarding school in Masterton. Dad I do not know how you did it but when I went hunting through your Wairarapa College yearbook I noticed your nickname was Romeo so I gather that you did OK. My mother Metita left as part of a repatriation scheme. She did not know she was leaving Tokelau until the day she left. 
My parents departed their homeland at the age of 16. They left their loved ones their culture and their religion to seek a better life in New Zealand. Through hard work and sacrifice and with some help from the State they toiled to make sure their hard work counted for something. 
My parents wanted to ensure their three sons and daughter were raised as New Zealanders. They also wanted us to hold on to the important aspects of their life that they brought from the Pacific. For me the Tokelauan custom of inati—sharing on the basis of need—is something that is ingrained in my DNA. I saw it firsthand in 2003 on my first visit to Tokelau. The men of the village set a large net to catch fish for all the families. It was then divided up to ensure that no family would go without. 
That concept lies at the heart of Labour Party values. It is about the many not the few. I believe in strengthening communities. I believe in equal opportunities. I believe in strong social services. I believe in a fair and decent living wage. I believe in building a strong economy. 
I know that education is the game-changer. It provides opportunity as it did for me. I grew up in an area not unlike Cannons Creek. It was rich—mainly in spirit. 
For me university was an extension of high school: I was expected to go. But when I got there I did not enjoy it. It was foreign. I was not prepared for it and what with having just a handful of mates from my school studying alongside me I bailed. That forced me to think seriously about the future that I wanted to lead. I contemplated an internship at the factory where Mum worked and where I had worked during uni holidays. The ladies on the production line told me not to take it and that was some of the best advice I have ever been given. 
There were other jobs but instead I enrolled in a journalism course. To get me through my studies I worked as a cleaner and I think you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat the cleaner. I am looking forward to returning to my old workplace—to catch up with those who took the time to get to know me. I also hope that some of those who did not bother are there too. 
Only 2 years ago I was sitting in this House of Representatives upstairs in the press gallery. I saw it as a huge honour to be a member of the press gallery and I still do. But now I have really jumped the fence. The dynamic has changed but I look forward to having a cordial relationship with all members and I acknowledge those members who I worked with closely. 
This might come as a surprise to many but journalism is a noble trade. It is the pursuit of truth to inform citizens. The press gallery acts on behalf of New Zealanders to ensure transparency and accountability. But I needed to take a step in another direction—to get closer to those values of social justice. I found that as a journalist I was increasingly highlighting problems issues disputes and at times trivialities. And after 10 years I wanted to be part of finding some solutions. 
Serving the people of Mana in this Parliament is one half of that goal; the other half is ensuring that I work hard to make sure its communities grow stronger. Those communities are diverse and so have diverse needs. But as I have said before we all want the same things. We want our workplaces to be fair. We want safer communities. We want our children to have the education and opportunities to succeed in jobs that we have not even dreamt of yet. We want access to quality health care and transport systems that suit us. 
I want New Zealand to be an even better place for us to live in and raise our children. Our job as politicians is to keep them healthy. Our job is to inspire and stimulate their minds through education. Our job is to shelter them from harm. Our job is to encourage them to speak their minds. 
During the campaign I had the pleasure of calling in to see the staff and students at Postgate School. It is decile 4 with about 300 students all from varying backgrounds and ethnicities. While having a cup of tea in the staffroom one of the teachers told me that their school band—named TMI for “Too many Islanders”—had been placed second in the battle of the bands competition just the day before. At the end of our tour as we got closer to the school gym we started to hear some music. It sounded pretty good and I thought that someone was blasting some tunes out of a stereo. But no it was the kids—it was TMI. They blew me away. They are so young and have such raw talent. It was exciting to think how far they could go if given the right guidance investment and encouragement. I was so impressed that I asked them to play at our election night celebration. They were one of the treasures we discovered during the election campaign. 
Postgate School for me was a microcosm of the Mana electorate—diverse in its make-up. We do not rate up there as the richest electorate and the people of Mana face their own challenges. But we are a community full of exciting potential that when invested in could grow into something amazing. 
There is much to be proud of in Mana. There are small volunteer community organisations like Pregnancy Help which works out of an office in Cannons Creek to support new mums with the basics like nappies clothing and bassinets. There are large businesses like Whittaker’s in Elsdon which is committed to the area to its workers and to producing a world-class product Whittaker’s chocolate that many Kiwis will be overindulging in this Christmas. There are the Norths rugby club and the Western Suburbs football club and both know what it is like to be champions. There are the staff and students of Whitireia Community Polytechnic. That institution serves well not only its students but also its community from its Maori and Pacific nursing courses to its specialised drivers’ training school. The focus on shaping students to meet local business and community needs has a lot to do with its success and I look forward to Friday’s graduation ceremony. 
Although there is much to be proud of there is also much to be done. We must make our State homes in Mana better places to live in and ensure there are enough to go around. The social and health problems caused by cold damp houses in Mana and elsewhere in New Zealand need to be addressed. It is not good enough that Porirua East is the rheumatic fever capital of New Zealand and it is not good enough that we have rheumatic fever in New Zealand at all. 
We must roll up our sleeves to work with the many smart and determined local businesses and training and community organisations to find work for the 3000 people in my electorate who do not have a job. We must find innovative ways to encourage them to take on those workers but not at the expense of fundamental workers’ rights. We must look at ways to encourage more parents to feel comfortable about taking a larger role in their children’s education. We need to ensure that communities like Raumati have the public transport options they need and deserve and that are well overdue. 
We must also make sure we reduce the harm that alcohol does in our community. One of my enduring memories of the campaign will be of a father who had had a few too many and who approached me after a street-corner meeting. He said that the booze was too cheap that it was too easy to get hold of and that he did not want his kids to do what he was doing. I could see the irony but I could also see that he was right. 
I am proud to be a member of a caucus and a party whose fundamental values are to make a commitment to and investment in New Zealanders. I take this opportunity to thank the many volunteers who dedicated a lot of their time and exhausted a lot of their energy during the by-election campaign. By-elections are different beasts. They attract a higher level of scrutiny and attention. So I say to those who were there every day that each day was a privilege. I say to Carol Hicks Ferila Betham Deborah Mahuta-Coyle David Talbot Litea Ah Hoi Murdo McMillan Andrew Beyer and Shane Laulu that words struggle to express how thankful I am for their efforts. To Caroline Mareko and Elia Sefo I say thank you. I send the love and the prayers of the Labour Party family to them both. 
To those who came from outside Mana I say many thanks. I also thank Young Labour especially the crowd who made the big drive up from Dunedin. I say thank you to John Ryall and the team of Service and Food Workers Union members who gave us so much support. Meaole’s Marauders and Marlins our hoardings team needs a special mention. Everyone in Mana is glad that the hoardings are now down! 
Thanks go to Andrew Little and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. A special mention must go to Paul Tolich Mark James and Damon Rongotaua. I say to the general secretary Chris Flatt and the staff of the Labour Party that we could not have done it without them. 
To my new caucus colleagues I say thank you for helping me become part of the team. To Phil Goff I say that it was a privilege to work for him and to now to be a member of his caucus. Anyone who has worked for Phil knows the commitment and passion he has for New Zealand. I thank Phil Goff and Annette King for the support they have given me and my family. 
To my family I say thank you for your love and support. I say to my parents to my wife Gina and my son George to Lance Jenny Jessicah Jason Anna and my sister Maria and to the many uncles aunties cousins nephews and nieces who supported me—many of whom are here tonight—fakafetai lava. Only those who have sat in this House know the sacrifice joy and angst that families go through to get us here. So my thanks and love goes out to you all and in advance my apologies. 
Last week I received a letter of congratulations from Ward Clarke my high school principal. I have two vivid memories of Mr Clarke. He espoused the value of the afternoon nap and each year he delivered us this quote from William Penn which always inspired me and which I would like to share as I come to an end. “I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore there be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do to any fellow being let me do it now and not defer or neglect it as I shall not pass this way again.” 
No reira ka nui te mihi ki nga rangatira o Ngati Toa ka nui te mihi ki nga whanau katoa o nga moutere. No reira tatou ma huri noa i to tatou Whare rau rangatira ma e te whanau tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Therefore much appreciation to the chiefs of Ngati Toa; all Island families appreciate the chiefs. So to us all throughout our House the many chiefs and particularly the family greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all 
.] 
Waiata 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Primary Production Committee. 
Looking forward the biggest economic opportunity for New Zealand to grow the economy in the way that the National-led Government wants to grow it is to export high-quality protein products from our agricultural industries. One of the bottom-line criteria in achieving that outcome is to have traceability. We must be able to tick all the environmental social and economic boxes and traceability is a key to that if we are to maintain integrity in the markets. I look forward to the debate on how we will do that when the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before the Primary Production Committee. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I will be taking a very brief call as well. The work on this bill started in 2004. Like many bills that have come before Parliament in the last 2 years this bill originated with Labour and this Government is slowly getting around to bringing such bills into the House. 
This issue is very important for the New Zealand economy going forward particularly because overseas customers want to ensure that the food they get from us is of high quality and that the animals can be traced back to the farms. They want to make sure that they are getting the real stuff. 
I know there are concerns. Some farmers are particularly worried about cost increases as a result of this legislation but I am sure that as technology becomes more affordable and is of better quality it will be very important to make sure that the animal can be identified with an ID in the market place. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Last week in a debate I spoke to my colleagues from the ACT Party about some of Adam Smith’s conditions for markets to operate correctly and for competition to deliver the best mix of price and quality. One of those conditions is information. For a market to deliver the best mix of price and quality all consumers need perfect information about each of the competing products. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is about meeting that consumer need for greater information at least in part. There is more and more evidence that consumers around the world are seeking more information about the quality of the products that they consume. That is both quality in the conventional sense—whether this thing does what it says it does whether this particular piece of food tastes the way we want it to taste and whether it lasts as well as we want it to—and also aspects of quality like safety; animal welfare which is one of the qualities of the products that we sell overseas; and environmental considerations which include whether a product is free-range in the farming sector and its GE content or otherwise. 
Distance is increasingly an important consideration for many consumers. Consumers ask how far a product has had to travel to get to them and many consumers are choosing to consume only foods that are grown or produced within a certain distance of where they live. All of those aspects are important and the need for consumer quality is well served by the provisions of this bill that allow animals to be tracked back from paddock to plate if you like. 
In the regulatory impact statement for the bill we learnt quite a lot about the situation that the bill is addressing. I was particularly struck by the situation that occurred in February 2008 when the European Union banned Brazilian beef imports due to deficiencies in the Brazilian tracing systems. That came at a cost to Brazil of $430 million. This measure is really important for our economy. The bill has very important biosecurity implications and it should also be supported for that reason. 
We have a concern about the development of the bill—the process that was used—because it certainly appears from the discussion in the regulatory impact statement that there did not appear to be consultation with the organics sector in the broader agricultural sector. That is of concern to us. The organics sector is a very important part of the New Zealand agricultural scene. It is also a sector that particularly stands to benefit if the system is well developed because the organics sector has a good story to tell for those consumers overseas who are specifically seeking quality. Certainly in the consideration of the bill by the select committee the Green Party will be specifically encouraging and looking for submissions from the organics sector and from those farmers who perhaps are particularly pursuing that high-quality niche marketing for their products. 
I also raise a concern about one aspect of the bill and again we hope that this issue will be well considered by the select committee. It relates to the enforcement powers that will be given to those who are implementing this law. The legislation’s enforcement powers include search and surveillance powers and detention powers—a sweeping range of powers that represent a significant imposition on the human rights and liberties of people. We will certainly be looking hard during the select committee process to see that the imposition on people’s rights and freedoms is justified by the evil that the Government seeks to avert. There is a related concern which again we will be paying particular attention to. That is the fact that these sweeping powers are vested by this bill not in an arm of the State but in something else. I guess that the body that will be exercising these tasks is almost a quango. Again that is a major alarm bell for our party because we believe that substantive powers that impose on the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders ought to be exercised only by the State and under this bill they will not be. That creates a particular problem. 
Lastly I come to the flip side of this legislation and my colleague Damien O’Connor alluded to this point before the dinner break. What we are doing in this bill is creating a system by which consumers in other countries will be able to track back in some detail the history of the foods that are produced for them by New Zealand farmers and growers. I ask when it will be time for New Zealand consumers to have that same right—when it will be time for New Zealanders to know where their food comes from what it contains. When will they know whether it contains genetically engineered organisms or ingredients whether it is grown organically whether it is free-range and whether it contains trans fats or palm oil? When will New Zealand consumers have those same rights that this bill is intended to satisfy for overseas consumers? 
I was pleased to hear Damien O’Connor saying that it was his intention to develop a member’s bill on country-of-origin labelling. It does represent a very substantial shift from the position that he and Labour took in Government. But we recognise change and it is part of the Green mission if you like to export our ideas. So we will be very pleased to support that bill. We call on the Government having introduced this bill to introduce that companion bill if you like to give New Zealand consumers those same rights to know what is in their food and where it comes from. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and speak to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill otherwise known as NAIT which brings the New Zealand primary sector up to speed with most other agricultural producing nations that already have such a scheme in place. I am delighted to see this bill coming to the House and I look forward to its progress through the Primary Production Committee. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I also rise in support of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. Labour supports this bill because it has its origins in Labour policy—we set the ball rolling. It is good to see the Minister of Agriculture David Carter bringing this bill through the House. I acknowledge that this is the second bill we have seen from this Minister in the last few days. He managed to wrest $25 million from Government coffers for the kiwifruit industry. I would like to see him in charge of the Canterbury earthquake recovery because he is so good at extracting money from the pocket of Bill English. 
This bill is good regulation and it is good to see. It is a shame that the member’s colleague the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman does not adopt some of this regulatory approach. We need to see some light-handed regulation to make sure we get the best out of our economy. I rise in support of this bill and I look forward to seeing it at the Primary Production Committee. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I also commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House. I would just like to point out to the House that the apple industry has been doing this exact procedure for quite some time over many many years. In fact if members look at a tray of New Zealand apples over in Europe somewhere and if they look at the barcode they will actually be able to see which forklift moved which pallet of apples and in which packing house. 
Hone Harawira 
: That’s amazing! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Traceability—that is what it is all about my friend. I commend this fine bill to the House. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is interesting to see that the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is before Parliament. I am sure that this is an essential development and a progressive innovation towards having our produce received in high-value countries. However in saying that I think it would be a crime not to say that one needs to bear in mind some of the difficulties our farming system will have to consider in respect of implementing this legislation. Although Parliament might set this all up one can think of those high country farmers or farmers in parts of the North Island where there is very broken bush-covered landscape and where there is the possibility of losing tags and suchlike. 
The Primary Production Committee will certainly be looking forward to receiving a range of submissions especially from farmers and the industry so that we get this structure right—it is very essential. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee. 
Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 November. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure on a Tuesday evening to speak in support of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The reason it gives me pleasure to speak at this time is that the National Government is committed to certainty and security for older New Zealanders. Indeed we have been working hard over the last 2 years to cut red tape and reduce regulations. We are easing the burden for older New Zealanders so that they can get the assistance they are entitled to. After 2 years of a National Government this bill is further evidence of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners receive their full entitlements. We are making sure that older New Zealanders especially following bereavement are not forced to fill out application forms and go through more bureaucracy or bureaucratic processes. We are making sure that older New Zealanders receive their full entitlement so that they do not suffer unnecessary financial hardship. I know that all of the members in the House believe that this is good news. 
Over the last 2 years the National Government has delivered an extra $71 a fortnight into the pockets of New Zealand superannuitants and that was completed this year. It has already delivered a double boost of tax cuts to superannuitants this year by both increasing the amount of and cutting the tax on New Zealand superannuation. 
In my electorate office we have a number of superannuitants who come to us. Often there is concern because they are not sure what they are entitled to. In many cases we are able to provide them with assistance. But the good news in respect of this bill is that for people entitled to a living alone allowance it will be backdated to the very day they should have received that entitlement rather than from that date only if they apply within 28 days. When pensioners or those on a veterans pension lose their loved one that is a time of difficulty when they would certainly have many other things on their mind. When this bill enters into force those people will be able to receive their full entitlement from the day they are eligible for it not just if they apply within 28 days or otherwise from the day they apply for it. 
This is very good legislation and I am glad that many parties in this Parliament have committed their support to it. Indeed I hope that all members of this House will support this legislation. It will get out of the way some unnecessary red tape it will certainly remove some of the uncertainty that many of our pensioners suffer from and it will deliver them financial assistance when they very much need it. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. The bill amends three main aspects. The first—as has been set out by the member who has just spoken Todd McClay—is that it replaces the living alone payment and the current rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension for single superannuitants with a new single living alone rate of superannuation and the veterans pension. 
This amendment will remove the requirement for superannuitants to make an additional application for a full entitlement at a very distressing time which is usually when there has been the death of a partner or a spouse. At the moment when that happens they are required to make a special application to receive it. In addition they have to do it within a given time period of 28 days in order to get it backdated. This can be a real burden on older New Zealanders who are really finding it hard at the moment and are really feeling the pinch. 
I note that the member who has just spoken talked about the additional assistance to superannuitants. I believe that if he has been seeing his constituents as I have been seeing mine he will know that even with some additional help in the Budget they are still finding it very difficult with increases in power charges increases in their rates increases in food prices and so on. This change makes it better for a group of people who find themselves in awkward circumstances upon the death of a spouse in particular. 
The second part of this amendment bill aligns the definition of a dependent child in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act with the definition provided in the Social Security Act. This amendment is a response to a decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority in a case relating to decisions made by the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development in May and June 2008. 
The third part of this amendment bill updates the definition of a boarding house so that it is brought into line with the definition that refers to a licensed boarding house. This is a new definition that has recently been amended in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The Labour Opposition supports this bill. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I first thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for her consultation with the Green Party prior to the introduction of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I advise the House that the Green Party will support it in all its stages. 
It is pleasing to see the Government’s commitment to rectifying two longstanding anomalies with regard to New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension. The first of these is that the living alone payment payable to New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners who live on their own or in some cases with no one other than a child who is still dependent is technically a separate benefit from New Zealand superannuation or a living alone payment itself. That previous sentence did not make a lot of sense to me but I think it makes sense in the long run. 
Hon Member 
: Sing it. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I would sing it because I have a fabulous voice but I think I would make everyone else feel a little bit weak if I sang it. I will sing when I have finished. 
However the Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic— 
Hon Member 
: Sing of good things. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Here I am supporting the bill and now everybody is giving me a hard time. That is so unusual. 
The Green Party agrees that this is an unnecessarily bureaucratic state of affairs which is so surprising with regard to Work and Income! It has resulted in a small number of people who were entitled to the living alone payment missing out on receiving it when for example their partner has died and they have transferred to the single rate of New Zealand superannuation. No one at Work and Income has told them they also need to apply for the living alone payment. As a former beneficiary advocate I can say that that was the norm. Unfortunately Work and Income New Zealand often did not tell people what they were entitled to hence the need for clarity. 
The other anomaly this bill corrects is the provision under which the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners cease to be classified as dependent when they reach the age of 18 whereas children of working-age beneficiaries continue to be classified as dependent until the end of the year in which they turn 18 as long as they are still undertaking study. The bill will apply the same more generous definition of dependent child to the children of New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners as is currently applied to those of working-age beneficiaries. 
The Green Party welcomes both of these changes as they correct anomalies that although they affect only a small number of people impact on those people quite severely. It is pleasing to see this Government’s continuing commitment to fairness and social justice for those eligible for State social assistance as a result of their age or of their incapacity due to military service—and military service only in many cases. 
However the Government’s approach with this bill is in stark contrast to its treatment of working-age beneficiaries who are incapacitated for employment for reasons other than military service: those whose ability to participate in the paid workforce is restricted because of their childcare responsibilities and those who want to work but cannot find a job because our economy does not provide enough jobs to go around. 
The Government has recently enacted Future Focus legislation—or as I like to call it future unfocused legislation—that introduces anomalies into rather than removing them from the benefit system. It increases the likelihood of people falling through the cracks in our welfare State being wrongly assessed as having the capacity for work when they clearly have not and losing part or all of their benefit entitlement under the sanctions regime that the legislation has introduced. 
Further down the Order Paper there are more bills like this one. They purport to rectify anomalies but because some of them deal with accident compensation they take an exactly opposite approach to the approach of this bill. 
Hone Harawira 
: Come on Catherine we want to go home. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I know Hone wants to go home. I want to go home too but I have a passion for social justice. 
This bill addresses legislative anomalies by taking a fair and generous approach which is a contradiction of the approach in many other bills such as the accident compensation legislation and such as what has been done to students in recent legislation which is much worse. 
I have had the opportunity to read the Government’s Welfare Working Group report and its options paper. Interestingly bigger-picture issues relating to New Zealand superannuation were outside the terms of reference for the Welfare Working Group. One of the most significant issues of our time is outside its terms of reference. That I guess reflects the Government’s commitment to treating that group of New Zealanders fairly and with compassion! 
The Welfare Working Group launched into a wholesale attack on working-age beneficiaries. It set out four options for strong signals to discourage the semi-permanent use of the benefit system. 
Hon Member 
: Too long. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: I have to talk about this because somebody has to talk about it. It is really really important that somebody cares about the vulnerable in society. I know that Hone agrees with me when I say that we have major problems with the benefit system. I am afraid I am just going to carry on until there is recognition of the problems that the benefit system has created. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am one person who does want to hear what the member is saying. Can we just quieten it down slightly please so I can hear Catherine Delahunty. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Thank you so much Mr Deputy Speaker; I am now inspired to talk for a whole lot longer. 
There are increasing conditions with benefit duration including work-for-the-dole regimes for longer-term beneficiaries strict income management for long-term beneficiaries time-limited benefits and benefit step-downs under which components of the benefit are removed when a person has been on a benefit for a period considered “too long”—the Welfare Working Group suggests a year. These suggestions are appalling. 
The Welfare Working Group put forward only four options to discourage semi-permanent use of the benefit system. That is what they called it. It is a shameful description for what was once a proud country that committed itself to looking after the vulnerable. None of these suggestions are acceptable in a caring compassionate and fair society. 
Although we support this bill we say that this Government exhibits a double standard in its treatment of those in receipt of State social assistance. As shown by this bill it treats those who receive assistance on account of their age or their incapacity due to military service with fairness and compassion. On the other hand working-age beneficiaries are victimised and harassed under this Government’s policies. 
With that statement of the contradictions I will finish this brilliant speech. It is very important that members show their appreciation because somebody has to stand up for the poor in this bloody Parliament—and that is me. Kia ora. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I have much to say about the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and I am very grateful to the whips for allowing me to take my full 10 minutes on it! I think all members will be better off because of that. In commending the bill to the House I just mention the same point that the member Mrs King talked about and that is the 28-day backdating. I have had a couple of cases come through my office involving challenging situations of deceased spouses and people not really wanting to do those sorts of things within 28 days. This bill is a very good victory I think for common sense and I commend it to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very very brief call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know you have been waiting for this call; you told me that earlier. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It is nice to know that when a bill before the House makes as much sense as the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill does it can be supported by members with the shortest speeches possible. This is unlike the situation when members on the other side of the House throughout Friday and Saturday took very short calls on very very important bills. I am happy to commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I seek leave to amend the date for the Social Services Committee to report the bill from 28 February 2011—as indicated in Minister Bennett’s speech of 24 November—to 6 May 2011. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that change from 28 February to 6 May 2011. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Services Committee consider the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 6 May 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 





Motion agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 In accordance with discussions held this afternoon at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to now rise until the next sitting day. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 8.01 p.m.