Volume 611 Week 35 - Wednesday 3 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 35 - Wednesday 3 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8315] 
Wednesday 3 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Ringing of the Bell 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members there was trouble with the bells earlier today. It is hoped that this antiquated system will soon be replaced. It is about 50 years old but I am assured it will be all right for the next day or two. 
Questions to Ministers 
Pharmaceuticals—Dispensing 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What has been the reaction to changes to dispensing of pharmaceuticals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The reaction has varied from consumers who are delighted by the changes to pharmacists who are concerned about the loss of income and to Opposition spokespeople on health like Lynda Scott who said on 1 July this year that 2000 jobs would be lost if the proposal went ahead. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has she received any subsequent advice on changed attitudes towards the dispensing of pharmaceuticals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. I have received a copy of a letter from Lynda Scott to Pharmac dated 29 July this year stating: “I think it is a sensible decision based on good clinical advice. The modification of your original proposal has gone down well and shows the modified results must have been approved by a large percentage of the population.” I was delighted by the support from the National Party. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What does she have to say to the 90 pharmacy fourth-year students who are dejected and distressed because they cannot now get an intern placement to complete their pharmacy training because under this Government’s stat dispensing proposal pharmacists say it costs them more to dispense medicines for the Government than they receive so they can no longer take on an intern? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Considerable work has been done with the Pharmaceutical Society to find placements for interns. However the issue is not just about a change to stat dispensing which that member wrote to Pharmac and supported it is also about the fact that for the first time we have two schools graduating pharmacists this year going from 100 to 170 so it does mean that a lot more work has had to go into finding placements. I met the Pharmaceutical Society this week and I am very pleased with the progress that has been made. 
Pita Paraone 
: Is the Minister aware of any pharmacists particularly in the rural areas who are now struggling to meet salary and other costs to remain in business because of the drop in income as a consequence of the new dispensing regime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because stat dispensing does not commence until 1 October so they are continuing to receive the same income. However the member will be interested to know that district health boards are working with pharmacists to ensure that we retain rural access and the money they receive from the saving from stat dispensing will go back into providing pharmaceutical services. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What will happen to the many pharmacy interns who are having great difficulty finding a placement because pharmacies are saying they cannot afford to place interns after the introduction of bulk dispensing and given that a placement is a requirement for completing their degree? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I answered that question to Lynda Scott in that a considerable amount of work has been done with the Pharmaceutical Society including looking at other places to place pharmacists from district health boards into Medsafe and Pharmac itself; and I am pleased with the progress that has been made. 
Heather Roy 
: Can she guarantee that she stands by her repeated assurances that the cost of prescription medicines to the poorest patients in the country all of those enrolled in Access primary health-care organisations will still drop from $15 to $3 on 1 October this year; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In the near future I will take to Cabinet a package of measures that includes the co-payment area and looks at reducing the cost to those over 65 years of age. It will mean a much better provision for many more New Zealanders and I will announce a decision on that in the near future. 
David Benson-Pope 
: In light of the positive responses following modification of the original proposal—responses like Lynda Scott’s—has the Minister received any further reports of changed attitudes towards the dispensing of pharmaceuticals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do happen to have another report dated 28 August from Lynda Scott who said that pharmacists are reeling under what has happened to them due to Pharmac. I am now dismayed at the change in the National Party’s approach to stat dispensing. I suggest that the House tunes in next month for the next episode in shifting National Party policy. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table the Pharmaceutical Society magazine that states the society has grave concerns about the ability for community pharmacists to offer intern placements because of stat dispensing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection. I want to say that the answer to the last question went too far. I think the Minister should restrain herself in future. 
Pita Paraone 
: How will the reported savings from the new dispensing regime be spent? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The estimated saving of $132 million over a full year will go back to the district health boards. It can be spent on pharmaceutical services paying for what pharmacists actually do rather than paying them because of the amounts they dispense. That money can also go into projects relates to diabetes primary health-care and a range of other activities that the district health boards wish to spend it on. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does she believe that her inept handling of the pharmaceutical issue is the reason that in the latest publication of the medical magazine 8 percent of general practitioners voted for her as the preferred health Minister compared with 43 percent for National’s Dr Lynda Scott and is that the reason that 83 percent of general practitioners surveyed rate Labour’s performance as poor? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not think that is the reason. After all we are talking about pharmacists and not general practitioners. However I am aware that 86 pharmacists were surveyed for that poll which is probably what the National Party would like to happen when opinion polls are done of those who support it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would anyone have confidence in her word that $132 million will go back to the industry as a result of the changes in respect of Pharmac when the last two changes that brought significant cuts to the cost did not go back to the industry and in fact led to people in this country getting second-class drugs in a claimed First World health system? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer the member’s question because I was not responsible for the last two changes to stat dispensing. Stat dispensing was removed in 1996 under the previous National Government when it brought in monthly dispensing. It did not happen under this Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not true. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is absolutely true. If the member wants the information I can give it to him. In fact I am sure that Lynda Scott will confirm that stat dispensing was removed in 1996 by a National Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a copy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the warning today. There will be no comments during points of order and no comments during the asking of questions. The next person will leave and that is a promise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the poll from  
Doctor 
 magazine headed “Great Scott Lynda ahead”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Maori Television Service—Chief Executive 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Was he correct yesterday in the House when he answered “Yes” to the question “Was the chairman of the Maori Television Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement binding Mr Fox?” and what action has he taken to assure himself that the Maori Television Service Board properly investigated the truth or otherwise of the complaint that led to the investigation into the “human resources issue”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 As I later clarified to the House yesterday Mr Walden did not seek an agreement. However I am advised that there was a term in the agreement between the parties that confidentiality be maintained. Ministers do not have a copy of the document but they agreed with Mr Walden that he seek Mr Fox’s consent for that section of the agreement to be released. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of Dr Cullen’s answer to a supplementary question to question No. 8 on Tuesday 26 August that the matter “could well be a police matter” can he assure the House that his Government has checked that the Maori Television Service Board is not an accessory in covering up a crime; and if he has not checked does that not make him an accessory as well? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has just been a direct accusation of criminal offence on the part of the Minister—a direct accusation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I said that the next person to interject would leave so he leaves. That is a warning to everybody. I am hearing the point of order and I have heard the comment from the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard can make the statement as much as he likes but that is not what was put to the Minister. The Minister was asked whether the Government knowing that the matter might be criminal has colluded in covering it up and whether that does not also make it an accessory. That is a straightforward question that I would expect the Opposition to be able to ask. One of the things we want to do is make sure that our Government is not colluding in covering up crimes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the question—having listened to it and having sought advice—asked an opinion that is in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling but with respect there has been some clear public information that suggests that the allegation that the Government is aiding and abetting in this case is serious. Secondly the so-called and only potential complainant in this case has said that she is happy with the outcome. Now that being the case there cannot be a crime in the way that is being alleged in the question. That is why I say the question is out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Far be it for me to question my learned colleague in the law but he will be aware that just because a complainant in a criminal matter withdraws it does not mean that no crime has been committed. Indeed if she has received a payment to withdraw there could in fact be a cover-up. If some of the rumours that are circulating regarding this matter are correct there has been a crime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The only thing that cannot be done is to accuse any member of this Parliament of a criminal offence. However the point is that no charge relating to an offence has yet been laid. There is nothing in the question as it was originally asked that is out of order. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It seems to be speculation. My understanding of criminal collusion is that it is a matter between the parties and the board for the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth when the Minister was first asked this question did he not give the answer that he just gave—in short that the board and other parties were not in a position to inform him of the nature of it due to the confidentiality clause—and more important why has he left someone to hang out in the public eye accused of serious misdemeanours when if he knew the facts as he surely should have it was thoroughly improper that the allegations that I have heard in this House and that he has heard were made in the first place? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not as advanced as my learned colleague over there in the sense of serving time here but certainly it is a matter for the board—and I stressed that at that time—and not for the Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In respect of his answer to the primary question today why did he give the exact opposite answer yesterday? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I did not. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that the Minister is personally able to interfere in what are actually commercial decisions regarding broadcasting platforms for the Maori Television Service for example yet when we ask fundamental questions about its leadership and recent personnel departures it is “an operational matter for the board” for which the Minister conveniently has no responsibility? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The matters on platform are policy and agreement between the Government and the Maori Television Service. Those other matters are operational matters—the board’s business. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that it suits him and this Government to have these allegations swirling around Mr Fox with his Associate Minister Dr Cullen talking about the police and fuelling the fire because Mr Derek Fox came within 600 votes of beating this Minister in his own electorate and if it were not for these allegations swirling around he would clean him out at the next election? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. At least I had the strength to run for the seat and get voted in. The further matter that of being scurrilous and spreading speculation is a matter for voyeurs not Ministers. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the question for oral answer from last Tuesday in which Dr Cullen says that the issue could well be a police matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you have ruled out behaviour that is not becoming to the House but surely you do not wish to rule out applause which rarely is given when somebody scores a palpable hit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not and if I ever thought I was going to get to that stage I would be giving up this job. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Environment Minister 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When she said in relation to the Environmental Risk Management Authority yesterday “if there are issues to do with genetically modified organisms coming directly into our food chain as a result of any release … I would consider that probably a serious enough matter to do it for them.” did she mean that she will use her call-in powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 to determine any applications to release food and feed crops or animals; if not what did she mean? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Any decision to call in an application would be done on a case by case basis. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she said in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 28 August that if Monsanto “comes down to New Zealand and says we want to do a full release don’t think they have got a hope in hell of being able to get that” but that a conditional release of genetically modified pine trees “might go ahead” because “It ain’t food” what clause in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act does she think that the Environmental Risk Management Authority might use to treat food differently from other releases? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The context of those quotes was a seminar to journalists in which the question asked of me was: “When is call-in likely to be used?”. I gave examples of when call-in might be used and also of considerations that the authority might take when it took economic circumstances or health circumstances or environmental circumstances into its consideration as it is required to do under the Hazardous Substances and Other Organisms Act. 
David Parker 
: Are we likely to see applications for release of a GM crop or a GM herd bred for human consumption in the near future? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Not for many years and if such an application were made its first-time nature might well provoke a call-in response from the Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did the Minister receive a memo from Dr Basil Walker Chief Executive Officer of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 27 February 2001 marked “Urgent—in confidence” on GM contaminated grain stating: “The interim protocol is based on a testing standard which although very strict will allow low levels of GM contamination. In essence inadvertent releases at very low levels will be tolerated.”; if so how can she possibly maintain the pretence that the Government had a zero tolerance approach? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: First of all I want to say that that is right outside the line of the original question but I will— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister is objecting to the question the proper procedure is to take a point of order and ask you to rule. You have allowed the question. It is her job to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do this job Mr Hide not you. I listened to the question. The Minister can make the comment she made. It was perfectly in order to make it. However I do not want to be ruling out every single question that comes in. As far as this was concerned it was wide but the Minister can say that it is wide. I think she was going on to say that she might not have that information with her. That is up to her to say. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Mr Speaker you are exactly right as usual. I was going to add the word “but” at the end of that. Having said that it was wide of the original question asked if we are back to the argument of yesterday—and I am doing this completely from memory—I have not got that memorandum in front of me but I know exactly what is being referred to. It is the very old argument which we have gone over many times in this House of the confusion between tolerance of contamination and tolerance of the confidence of testing. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister further explain to the House how she and her Government can maintain a zero tolerance claim when that same briefing paper from Basil Walker the head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority dated 27 February addressed to the Minister for the Environment and marked “Urgent—in confidence” went on to add after the words: “In essence inadvertent releases at very low levels will be tolerated.” the words: “There is no way that this can be construed as simply a continuation of existing policy. It represents a shift in policy which in my opinion will probably require legislative change to formalise.”; how does the Minister explain that? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Quite easily. I think the answer lies in the last part of that quote. This Government never made any legislative change to change any policy because there was no change in policy. That is ministerial servants talking to each other and not to us. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the “Urgent—in confidence” memo. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Larry Baldock 
: Returning to the main question does the Minister believe that the ministerial call-in power provides a better precautionary backstop than the continuation of the moratorium and a Luddite response that would leave us scientifically behind the rest of the world? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I do. To continue the moratorium as some members in this House would have us do does not allow New Zealand to access any of the possible benefits that new technology might offer. It is a blunt approach. Implementing a case-by-case framework allows benefits to be assessed against costs and risks and the inclusion of the ministerial call-in power allows closer scrutiny of applications with significant effects. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If she really believes as she said in answer to a previous question that there will be no applications for release for years then what would be the problem in maintaining a moratorium until there is more known internationally about the economic environmental and health effects of these organisms? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Quite simply because a moratorium is a very blunt instrument. This Government is going ahead with what the royal commission advised which was to do things on a case-by-case basis and to proceed with caution. Case by case is cautious. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If she intends to call in applications that are perhaps politically inconvenient does that not contradict the assertion that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is an independent quasi-judicial scientific authority and the decision should be left to it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I know of no time when I have said that I would use a call-in power for a politically sensitive decision. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did any of the Prime Minister’s staff have any communication with her or with Mary Anne Thompson about which “corngate” documents would not be publicly released; if so what was the content of that communication? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am advised there was not such communication. 
Hon Bill English 
: Whether or not the Prime Minister was advised can the Prime Minister herself tell us whether any of her staff had any communication with her about which “corngate” documents would not be publicly released? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to that is no they did not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister going to take disciplinary action against Ruth Wilkie who wrote a memo referring to discussions she had with Mary Anne Thompson and Mark Prebble that quoted the Prime Minister’s expressed wish or did she make that up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mary Anne Thompson has said that she did not have such a conversation with me. She did not have such a conversation with my staff. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did her staff advise her that in fact it was not four documents that were withheld; it was 184 documents that were withheld as set out in this schedule—that is documents that were promised before the election but not released before the election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That has come to my attention only in the last day. In November I found out that Dr Prebble had not released the four documents relating to my own department. My understanding is that when Mr Price’s request came in then there was a very detailed look around and more documents came to light. They were for a great range of departments. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that that “detailed look” 12 months after the election uncovered this document from Michael Wintringham to every Government department chief executive with this quote from a public servant and I quote from the email: “The appearance may be that these public servants”—who were at the press conference—“are no more than political puppets especially since what they are now saying is different to what official papers at the time said”; and can she tell this House that if that document had got out in the election campaign it would have been bad bad news for her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My instruction was that all documents were to be released. As I recall at the time Mr Wintringham had a concern that civil servants were being drawn into the campaign. That was no reason however for anyone to deliberately hold anything back. Nothing should have been held back. I understand that officials went to very great lengths to assemble as much information as they could before Mr Carbon and other officials saw media on I think Thursday the 11th. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to total openness on this issue is it not remarkable that a politically damaging email was in the hands of the top 30 civil servants in this country—the chief executive of every Government department—on 12 July 2002 and that none of them thought to include it among the 1800 pages that were released and is it not equally remarkable that it has surfaced only now; and what action will the Prime Minister take about a civil service indulging in calculated deceit? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two questions can be answered. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is no person more frustrated than I am that all documents were not released instantly but I will not have it said that there was calculated deceit by officials. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that this highly incriminating document was in the hands of every chief executive and that the Prime Minister had directed that all documents should be released how does she describe the behaviour that meant it was held back if it was not calculated deceit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not clear whether the member is accusing Mr Wintringham of calculated deceit; I most certainly would not accuse him or other senior civil servants of that. My understanding is that they made their very best endeavours to get all relevant information out. Clearly not all was. Eventually it did all come out. The information that the member has for example went to the select committee back in April and I imagine that the Opposition has just got round to reading the file. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that were it not for the fact that those documents were withheld she would have lost the last election thereby belying the view of certain sycophantic reporters in this country that she is unbeatable? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think that for a moment given the absence of Opposition. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a list of the 184 documents on “corngate” that were withheld prior to the 2002 election. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table an email from Michael Wintringham the State Services Commissioner to every chief of a Government department setting out the concerns of a civil servant about civil service behaviour. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Solomon Islands—Regional Assistance Mission 
5.  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What reports has he received on progress being made by the Regional Assistance Mission in the Solomon Islands? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Progress has been reported on a number of fronts. Weapons handed in now number 3580. The removal of corrupt and criminal elements from the Solomon Islands Police Force is currently under way with seven officers having been arrested over the last 10 days. Action is also being taken to remove corrupt personnel from other departments. Finally financial advisers in in-line positions have begun work with the Solomon Islands Government to establish a credible budgetary process. 
Tim Barnett 
: What role are New Zealand personnel playing in this process? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand Police personnel have been active in four areas: the special response group community policing intelligence and investigations. I want to pay particular tribute to two officers: Acting Superintendent Tony McLeod who managed the successful arms amnesty and Acting Commissioner Tony Annandale who personally arrested the high-profile allegedly corrupt Solomon Islands Superintendent of Police James Kili. Military personnel continue to provide essential transport logistic and engineering support. The infantry company that arrived last week is currently settling in and in due course will assist police operations if and when required. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Now that Harold Keke has been detained what steps has the mission been able to take in terms of breaking up the remnants of his supporters and also their influence on affairs in the Solomons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Not only was Harold Keke arrested but also a number of his lieutenants some of whom have been charged with murder. There are now policing stations placed on the Weathercoast. Work is continuing there but it is not yet considered sufficiently stable to return the approximately 1000 refugees who are in camps just outside Honiara. 
Immigration—Third World Diseases 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In her answers to yesterday’s oral question No 3 why did she say “As I understand it there is a screening for a disease like tuberculosis.” and “Whether the rules are different for refugees I do not know.” in response to the matter raised about the number of tuberculosis and other Third World diseases within hospitals in the North Shore and Auckland region and how does she justify her confidence in her Minister of Health and Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The member asked a question without notice on this yesterday and he cannot expect detailed answers. I have confidence in both Ministers because they are both hard-working and conscientious. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why after 24 hours can this House not expect detailed answers to information already partially released in this House and available to her Minister of Health; how is it that the Minister of Immigration has let thousands of immigrants into this country every year since she has been there without first checking them abroad but having the checks later done here when it is far too late; why does the Minister of Health not know about this and how can she tolerate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is four questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am getting to the finish of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only two will be required to be answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she tolerate—without laughing irresponsibly—a fact that has New Zealand now subject to significant Third World disease in our hospitals? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When members ask questions I allow them to ask two. But when there are four—and the last one was by far the longest—that is not really on. I am allowing it this time Mr Peters but those are the rules and members cannot ask questions in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that but when we have Ministers’ responsibilities— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. I have made a ruling and I have been generous to the member although I need not have been. Any comment about answers and what have you is not my job. My job is to make sure that questions and answers are in order. This question can be asked and the Prime Minister can comment and I will ask her to do so. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Tuberculosis screening was introduced for quota refugees in the 2002-03 year. It did not exist when the member was Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would the Prime Minister make a statement that is totally refutable and untrue when she knows full well that hundreds of thousands of immigrants came here with full certification from their countries of origin including X-rays and evidence like that having regard to the fact that her own Minister of Immigration admitted during the last campaign that during her time people were coming in without the required clearances in respect of disease and without the correct TB X-rays and evidence of their state of health; why would she just make it up as she goes along? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two questions can be answered. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that offshore screening for quota refugees was introduced for the first time during 2002-03. There has been health screening for all other residence applicants for a long time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking her about refugees alone; I am asking her about immigration which last year was 72500. Why is she seeking sanctuary in a small category? Even that has expanded four times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a direct answer to one of the questions the member asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a document that shows that a poor woman—a New Zealander of course—went to a hospital on the North Shore and was told that she would have to have her baby and be out of there within 2 hours. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Annette King 
: What has that to do with it? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking leave to table a document from the  
North Shore Times Advertiser 
 and she shouts out: “What has that to do with it?”. She is so dumb that she does not understand why that woman was kicked out of hospital early. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did interject and I ask her to leave the Chamber. Objection has been taken to the tabling of that document. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No it is all right I am asking the Prime Minister today not her. Sorry my mistake. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just concentrate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If we are to concentrate on the facts how about asking the Minister to leave right now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She is still here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. He should not overdo it or he will leave too. I am not having that sort of nonsense. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You asked her to leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: She has. 
Annette King withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She has now but not when you asked her to. Usually in this House people leave when you ask them to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I judged that the Minister was gathering her papers. She was doing that satisfactorily and I judged that she was doing as she was asked to. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the Minister is not there. [ 
Interruption 
] He will do! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a Minister. As the member is a new member I must warn him that in future that comment would lead me to carry on with the next question. He must ask the question if he wants to. 
Education—Export Initiative Risks 
7.  
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that the export education industry is “proving to have its risky and volatile sides.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Education 
: Yes. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is he concerned that the impact of the downturn in the number of foreign fee-paying students will hit schools hard in the light of a recent study that showed that 40 percent of secondary schools are already unable to balance their books and only do so if they rely excessively on locally raised funds parental donations and fee-paying students; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Schools are paid adequately through their operational budgets to run their schools. Many of them have decided to take on international students and they need to be very careful about how many they take on for that reason. 
Jill Pettis 
: What has been done to strengthen the quality of educational provision and pastoral care for those international students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In order to continue the success of the export education industry in New Zealand it is essential that very high quality education is provided and that students leave New Zealand better off than when they came. The Government is actively working to foster a culture of continual improvement—something our own domestic students benefit from. We recently released a strengthened code of practice for the pastoral care of international students which reinforces the safeguards in place for the welfare of international students. We are strengthening the powers of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to protect the quality of the educational environment. 
Jim Peters 
: Does the Minister agree that focusing predominantly upon the growth of the export education industry rather than upon the quality of the product including the lack of adequate pastoral care was really the issue and is still the issue with regard to the import of students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes quality is the only thing that matters when we are talking about export education. People who put anything else first will come a cropper so as the member knows we have focused very much on pastoral care through the code. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: In the light of the current volatility in the export education industry and the Minister’s concern that international students have positive experiences what would he do to assist those students who may be left without an education accommodation or their fees if the Modern Age Institute of Learning closes down since his ministry has already pocketed a levy of between $600 to $900 per student to promote pastoral care? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is working with the owners of the institute and others in the sector who are involved with it. They tell me that at the moment the exact shape of the organisation that will emerge will become clear in the next few days. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that the current downturn in the export education industry will make it more difficult for tertiary institutions to hold to the Government’s fee-maxima policy without cutting staff or jeopardising quality; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I cannot because it appears that the major downturn in the number of students is in the English language area rather than throughout the tertiary education sector. For example Massey University is enjoying a lift in the number of overseas students at the present time. I cannot confirm what the member has just asked. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister concerned that the current volatility in the export education industry is also related to the relative ease of acquiring student visas in other countries such as Australia and Malta where educational institutions can make bulk applications on students’ behalf and is he working with the Minister of Immigration on that particular problem? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is an issue for all countries to properly smooth the way for students to get visas. As the Minister responsible for the tertiary area I myself have been in China talking with immigration officials to ensure that visas are available and operating smoothly so that Chinese students can come here. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Contamination Reports 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How does she reconcile her statement on National Radio on 11 July 2002 that “ERMA was in with MAF advising Ministers from the outset and the advice we got was that there was no GE contamination.” with the statement by Dr Basil Walker Head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority on 12 July 2002 that “I should make it clear that at no stage have we said categorically there was no contamination.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I was referring to the advice Ministers had received which was that there was no reliable evidence of contamination. Presumably Dr Walker was making the point that unless one destroys every single seed one can never be 100 percent sure. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister for the Environment in giving evidence to the select committee said that there was a significant difference between saying that there was no contamination and saying that there was no evidence of contamination does she now concede that what she said on National Radio was incorrect and will she be re-examining her conscience? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do have the transcript from that particular  
Morning Report 
 where I said: “Firstly I can state categorically that the tests confirmed there was no evidence that there was GE contamination.” I later went on to leave out the words “no evidence” but I really think it is neither here nor there. As the member knows unless we destroy every seed we will never know. I note that on 11 July and in other places where Dr Walker was interviewed he said: “The conclusion we reached”—that is the Environmental Risk Management Authority—“was that there was no reasonable case for assuming that genetically modified contamination had occurred.” There was no evidence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of her admission to the House today that her earlier claim that documents were not withheld was incorrect and in view of her false claim on National Radio on 11 July: “The advice we got was that there was no GE contamination” will the Prime Minister retract her invitation to the Hon Nick Smith to examine his conscience—as requested by him—and instead look in the mirror and examine her own conscience? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Most certainly not. I have yet to be presented with any evidence that that corn was contaminated. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In that same National Radio interview she said: “I am sitting here Sean looking at the sampling sheet that came back. There is no positive test revealed. Every inquiry we have made of officials confirms there were no positive tests”. How does that compare with the fact that there are 38 documents from different agencies referring to positive tests and having gone through 1800 pages of documents I cannot find the sampling sheet that she was referring to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice is that there was no credible evidence of positive tests. I well recall the slip of paper I was looking at. There were two columns and one had to have presence proved in both to go on to run another test as I recall to show conclusively a positive. There was never such conclusive evidence. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With the advantage of hindsight and after reading again the memos that were written at the time will she now agree that the evidence from the corn tests—which included some positive and some negative indications—was inconclusive rather than that it proved no contamination? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is not my understanding. My recollection is that we had to have a line-up of positives. It was not just enough to have one indication; one had to have matching indications. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table 38 documents that refer to positive tests. I also seek leave to table the transcript in which the Prime Minister said there were no positive tests. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is next sought to table the transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unclear—Mr Mark Peck—I want to be clear as to whether I can table the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard an objection quite clearly twice. Objection was taken. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In view of the case that this inquiry is hinging centrally on the nature of the testing that was done in Melbourne and the nature of those preliminary positive results from tests that were never quite completed can the Prime Minister offer us any help at all in getting the seed company responsible and the testing laboratory to give evidence to the committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the member asked me a similar question last week. I do not have the power to make them appear at all. 
Business Law—Coordination with Australia 
9.  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What is she doing to progress business law coordination with Australia? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Last week I attended the closer economic relations 20th anniversary joint ministerial forum in Sydney which was also attended by Senator the Hon Helen Coonan the Australian Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. We issued a joint statement on business law coordination between Australia and New Zealand that highlighted an agreement to explore ways to improve the coordination of our competition regimes preliminary agreement on detailed proposals for mutual recognition of securities offerings measures to facilitate the efficient enforcement of trans-Tasman insolvencies and an agreement to establish a joint working-group to develop trans-Tasman accounting standards. 
Mark Peck 
: How does that trans-Tasman work programme relate to the report that was issued by the Australia - New Zealand Business Council at the closer economic relations ministerial forum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Australia – New Zealand Business Council report that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was commissioned to undertake is entitled  
Stepping Towards a Borderless Market 
. Given the focus on competition policy in that report and the Australia – New Zealand Business Council’s view that in a borderless market it would anticipate only one competition body and one set of rules I am sure that the council will be pleased with the signal both Governments have given in that regard. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Document Disclosure 
10.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Noting her statements that she wanted full disclosure of all documents relating to GM-contaminated corn will she and her office and department release all such information and communications including emails memoranda and briefings received or prepared by her her office and her department since 11 July 2002; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am not aware of any fresh requests for such information. However I do not see any reason they would not be complied with. 
Hon Bill English 
: Could the Prime Minister reassure the House that all documents were released and why would the House believe that reassurance when 184 documents were held back prior to the election even when she said on the Sky television leaders’ debate: “People got a full account. Not only a full account they are getting the whole bucket-load of documents landed. This is a Government that is accountable doesn’t cover things up.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is asking for an assurance that he obviously does not want to get. The reality is that a lot of the documents in his list of 184 relate to after 11 July in any case. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the House believe the assurance the Prime Minister has just given that all emails memoranda briefings and communications received or prepared by her her office or her department on “corngate” since 11 July 2002 will be understood by Dr Mark Prebble and that he will comply fully with the assurance and not hold back any documents according to phoney conventions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would expect so. It is a mystery to me why the first instruction was not followed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the Prime Minister’s admission today that she now has new information surrounding the release of documentation is she prepared to accept an invitation from the select committee to attend the select committee to assist it with its inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have made it clear if the threshold for a Prime Minister being summoned to a select committee is that low there would not be a policy issued before the Government where I would not be held accountable. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s statements about full disclosure by the Government and the current lack of full disclosure by private companies does she believe it is adequate for the Government to rely for its evidence of safety testing of any kind on documents owned by those companies and passed on at their discretion? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a matter for biosecurity officials. It is not something that I have the technical expertise to answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that among the 184 documents withheld prior to the election 170 of which are dated 10 July or earlier are 32 individual communications from or to her personal adviser in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on this matter; and can she confirm that those 32 communications were withheld precisely to make sure that no one found out how much she knew about what had been going on? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I cannot confirm any such thing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Instead of telephoning news editors in the gallery yesterday and saying: “The Prime Minister is aggrieved they are telling lies about the Prime Minister” would not a popular and competent Prime Minister have apologised for telling the country that all documents had been released prior to the election and would not that popular and competent Prime Minister now front up to a select committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not said to anyone in the gallery “I am aggrieved” because I am not aggrieved. I am absolutely confident of what my involvement was and it was so minimal that it would hardly register on the Richter scale of involvement in any issue. 
Rod Donald 
: Can we interpret Marian Hobbs’ earlier statement that there will not be genetically engineered crops in New Zealand for years coupled with her statement that she would call in the first application for any such release as a Clayton’s extension of the moratorium? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. 
Ministerial Confidence—Health Minister 
11.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Health; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Ron Mark 
: How can she have confidence in her Minister of Health given that in 2002 mentally ill patients drained police of 26000 hours of their reported time spent in responding to 6175 reported incidents and given the hundreds of mentally ill patients inappropriately serving prison sentences; and should not the Minister of Health be responsible for these people instead of her leaving it to the unfortunate victims to find them and the police the courts and the Department of Corrections to pick up the pieces? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What the Minister of Health can take pride in is having secured in the Government’s first Budget almost one-quarter of a billion dollars extra over 4 years to implement the mental health blueprint. She can also cite figures that show that in the years from 1970 right through to the year 2000 which is the period over which the deinstitutionalisation of mentally ill people occurred the proportion of homicides committed by people with serious mental illness actually decreased. The services are better but we can never rule out that a person with mental illness will commit a crime just as we cannot rule out that a person without mental illness will commit a crime. 
Ron Mark 
: If everything is so wonderful and if all the plans are working so well why in the last few weeks have we had a young woman who was known to have mental health problems throw herself in front of a train in Porirua a man wandering the Wellington motorway brandishing a replica firearm an incident in Masterton that had the armed offenders squad hunting a man in relation to an axe-rage attack and yet another incident in Northland again involving a man who attacked the police with an axe? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: All those incidents are very sad and regrettable but unless we detain every person with any diagnosed mental illness for 24 hours a day we cannot guarantee they will not happen. 
Ministerial Confidence—Maori Affairs Minister 
12.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Maori Affairs; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I do because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: As the Prime Minister is personally responsible for the Government’s foreshore policy would not a popular and competent Prime Minister go herself to the foreshore huis instead of sending an obviously sick man who we all know had no role in formulating the Government’s foreshore policy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is quite incorrect. The Minister of Maori Affairs has participated fully in the formulation of the Government proposal and he and the other Ministers who have worked on the proposal with colleagues in the Maori caucus will be taking it around the country. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I apologise for not doing this earlier. I seek the leave of the House to table the joint statement on closer economic relations by the closer economic relations 20th anniversary ministerial forum and associated communiqués as well as the Australia - New Zealand Business Council report  
Stepping Towards a Borderless Market? 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a statement from Mike Moore former psychiatric social worker and Prime Minister: “We have closed down hospitals now planning to rebuild similar wards inside prisons”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK 
: In respect of my question to the Prime Minister I seek leave to table a report in which the Prime Minister Helen Clark promises to take a hard line on accountability—all the way to including the sacking of incompetent and bungling Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Urgent Debates 
Report by Secretary of Labour—Immigration Service 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the release of a report by the Secretary of Labour into allegations with regard to the Immigration Service. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I am persuaded that it does require the immediate attention of the House and the Government. I therefore accept the application. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Today the Secretary of Labour has made available to the public a report into matters in the Immigration Service that have recently troubled some members of this House. Two matters in particular cause difficulty. 
The first is a memorandum that appeared to indicate a conspiracy to lie. On 17 December 2002 a memorandum was circulated to we know now approximately 300 officials and it said these words: “I was let down badly. … Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” Mr Speaker in the 16 years I have been in this House and no doubt in the somewhat larger number of years you have been in this House I doubt that any of us have seen words like that committed to paper by officials in the New Zealand public service. Three hundred officials we are told today received that memorandum on 17 December and there were no repercussions. The first question I ask today is how it can be that such a memorandum could circulate amongst 300 officials some of whom are very senior officials in this country and absolutely nothing happen. That is a matter that causes me very serious trouble indeed. 
That might be regarded by some as insufficient by itself to cause concern but the difficulty that then arises is that several events occurred that tended to give some credibility to that particular statement. A week before that statement was circulated amongst those officials the  
New Zealand Herald 
 approached the Immigration Service spokesperson to ask about the alleged detention of a particular individual. The spokesperson from the department said this to the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Normally if there is anything untoward they would let me know and I haven’t heard anything.” We found out subsequently that that statement by the Immigration Service official spokesperson was wrong. A barefaced lie was told by the spokesperson of a department of State to a major newspaper. When we put that alongside the statement made in the memorandum circulated amongst those officials it tends to put it in a somewhat different light. 
We then look upon the fact that the Ombudsman was asked to investigate under the Official Information Act the existence of certain information that related to the Zaoui case—in particular the media logs that were associated with those exchanges. Over some months the Ombudsman acted upon the New Zealand National Party Opposition’s request to find that information and he in the end was asked—and I have the quote here—to find “the daily media logs and associated commentary or remarks from employees regarding the Ahmed Zaoui case”; in other words to find the clearest possible indication as to what it was that the Opposition had heard rumours about the clearest possible indication to the Ombudsman that maybe there was something there that he should find. 
The Opposition was cognisant of the fact that this was a matter in which some national security issues arose and for that purpose we were happy to rely upon the good judgment of the Ombudsman who is always asked to find a counterbalancing interest between the public interest and issues of security in such matters. We were happy for him to exercise that judgment. But the difficulty we have was that the Immigration Service officials—and this statement was made personally by the general manager now of the Immigration Service to the Ombudsman—said that no such material existed. 
This is not a normal matter. Normally as members would know an Official Information Act request being pursued by the Ombudsman’s office is pursued by an investigating officer and normally the approach is made to a middle-level official inside the department. But here those actions having occurred initially the Ombudsman felt it was such an important matter that he personally spoke to the general manager of the Immigration Service and said: “Look I know what your guys are saying to my guy but I want you to look me in the eye and tell me the material that has been asked for does not exist.” Put on notice in that way the general manager of the Immigration Service Mr Lockhart gave an answer to the Ombudsman that was wrong an answer that could only have been calculated to mislead an answer that can only be described in this House today as a lie. I want to know how Mr Lockhart amongst 300-odd others could receive an exclusive memorandum that is truly mind-blowing in its character then when asked by the Ombudsman some weeks later whether it did exist have an attack of amnesia. All the officials in the Immigration Service who were asked by the Ombudsman’s office seemed to have “amnesia in unison” when asked to respond on this matter. 
 Not only do we have a memorandum that states on the face of it that officials had an agreement to lie but we have a lie being told by the official spokesperson of the New Zealand Immigration Service to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and we have a lie being told not only by the underlings in the Immigration Service to the staff of the Ombudsman but also by the person who is now the general manager of the Immigration Service to the Ombudsman personally. I have never heard or seen anything like it and frankly I did not believe I ever would hear of or see such matters in the New Zealand public service. 
Today we have been treated to the report of the Secretary of Labour who is the last person on earth who should be investigating this matter because the Minister of Immigration herself had told us that there could have been an agreement to lie only if she were in on it. There could have been an agreement to lie only if the Minister of Immigration were a party to it. Who does the Secretary of Labour who prepared this report report to? The Minister of Immigration. So the Minister of Immigration was cleared—actually she was not even investigated—by a person who has her decide whether he gets a bonus and her decide whether he is reappointed. What a surprise! 
We do not even know from this report whether the Minister or her officials got a copy of the original “lie in unison” memorandum. It states that 300 people got a copy but it is silent on whether the Minister or her staff got it or knew anything about it. Those are the sorts of questions that should have been asked. Those are the sorts of questions that any reasonable sensible diligent professional independent inquiry would have asked. They are questions that were clearly not asked by the flunky who reports to that Minister—the Secretary of Labour. 
This report shows contempt for the New Zealand Parliament and for the New Zealand public because it leaves unanswered more questions than it does answer. I want to know how in a significant public service organisation a memorandum that stated: “[we] had agreed to lie in unison” could reach the eyes of 300 staff—many of them very senior officials indeed and some of them officials in other Government departments—then nothing happen. Surely someone would have said that was unacceptable conduct and not the sort of thing that the New Zealand public service can tolerate. Surely someone would have taken it up with a senior person in the Immigration Service in the Department of Labour or with the State Services Commissioner. But nothing happened. The memo states in black and white: “[we] had agreed to lie in unison”. Three hundred people got a copy and absolutely nothing happened. How can this be in the New Zealand public service? 
The second question that arises is how it could be that those 300 people received this memorandum yet when the Ombudsman in the course of making concerted diligent inquiries over many weeks had his staff ask the appropriate question of the staff of the Immigration Service his staff were told that due to a series of misunderstandings due to a series of miscommunications they had no intention of doing any wrong. We are told that the remark suggesting an agreement to lie was “intended as a sarcastic and humorous response to media criticism of Departmental staff failing to answer media questions about Mr Zaoui.” That just does not wash. The memo stated: “[we] had agreed to lie in unison” but that was a sarcastic and humorous response to media criticism! Give me a break! Nobody in the House or the media believes that. Nobody in the New Zealand public believes that yet that is the result of the allegedly independent and professional investigation by the Secretary of Labour who just happens to report to the Minister of Immigration. Well blow me down! 
Then we have to explain how it could be that all those officials in the Immigration Service and the Department of Labour could have had “amnesia in unison” when the Ombudsman came knocking on the door telling them to hand over the papers because he needed to have a look at them. When he asked the most specific questions—when he asked for the daily media logs and associated commentary—the official story in this document is that they did not know what he was talking about. Dr Buwalda the Secretary of Labour says that they were “talking at cross-purposes”. The fact is the Secretary of Labour was eyeballed by the Ombudsman personally something the Ombudsman did because he knew that there was something very serious indeed that lay behind this Official Information Act request and the person who was the general manager the person who is now the most senior public servant in our Immigration Service—the service that decides who gets to be a New Zealand citizen and who does not—the person who sits in charge of that service told the Ombudsman a barefaced lie. 
I never thought I would see that sort of behaviour and I do not intend to let the matter rest. This report is a shabby little whitewash designed to clear the Minister who by her own admission has said that the only basis for that memorandum to be true could be if she were a party to any agreement to mislead. I say to that Minister that her setting up a new Secretary of Labour to do her dirty work and to give her bogus clearance on this appalling matter just will not wash with members of the Opposition with members of the public or I wager with the Ombudsman who knows that he is being done and is being lied to. If I know Mr Mel Smith the former Secretary for Justice he will want to hold someone to account. 
Well that may be fine but I say to the Minister that to leave those matters to the Ombudsman is no answer here. This goes right to the very heart of public confidence in our public servants it goes to the very heart of public confidence in the Minister and it goes to the very heart of public confidence in the Government and this shabby little report—this little cover-up and whitewash—will get the Minister nowhere.  
 I say to her that on the face of it that memorandum looked bad enough; viewed in the light of the subsequent lie to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 it looks terrible and viewed in the further light of the barefaced lie told to the Ombudsman by officials in the Immigration Service and by the person who is now the general manager there is no adequate explanation of it in this document. Members of the Opposition will not rest until they get to the bottom of it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Mr McCully’s speech is a classic example of a member yet again trying to denigrate the integrity of a senior public servant who investigated a very serious allegation and produced a report and just because it does not support the conclusions Mr McCully wanted he is playing politics instead of looking at the facts in the report. Mr McCully is always trying to shoot the messenger by distorting the facts in an attempt to undermine the public’s confidence in its public servants. Once again the chief strategist for the National Party’s re-election team fails to understand the facts and fails to analyse what is in the report. 
The reason the public can have confidence in Dr Buwalda’s report is that he has produced a report that relies upon facts and not fictions. Mr McCully implied when this investigation was being announced and in his speech today that it was not worthwhile because Dr Buwalda was neither independent nor impartial. I can say that the chief executive of the Department of Labour is entirely the appropriate person to investigate matters of staff performance and departmental systems and processes. Mr McCully has yet again launched a personal attack on a public servant without justification. The report’s conclusions are clearly supported by the investigation process and as the State Services Commissioner himself says Dr Buwalda has “not only established the facts of the matter in question but also identified areas of improvement”. 
The question for the public is whether the conclusions in the report—namely that there was no conspiracy no deliberate cover-up and that there were serious deficiencies in the way in which the official information request was handled—are supported by the evidence in the report. This whole Zaoui issue came to the fore through the following serious allegations made in the media on 29 and 30 July this year. Those allegations were that a media adviser in the New Zealand Immigration Service claimed in an internal memo that officials agreed to “lie in unison” about the presence in the country of a suspected terrorist; and secondly that officials lied to the Ombudsman about the existence of this internal memo. The department’s new chief executive at that time—he had taken up the job only 5 days earlier—undertook to ensure that these allegations were to be thoroughly and openly investigated and to deal with any issues that arose from them. 
It is important for this House to understand exactly what process was followed. What the chief executive did was first identify importantly what questions were to be answered by his inquiry. The two most important ones for our purposes here are: was there a conspiracy to deceive among officials in relation to the Zaoui case? The second question was: was information managed by the department in relation to the Zaoui case in accordance with the Official Information Act; if not why not? Subsequent questions were also asked relating to those matters. Dr Buwalda then followed the established process in these matters—that is he asked the department’s internal auditor to establish the facts of the matter who was involved what happened and why. It was that internal auditor whose task it is to undertake reviews and inquiries of this nature who then went about the task of doing precisely that. Once those findings of the internal auditor were made they were presented to the chief executive who then on that basis formed conclusions about whether there were possible breaches of the Official Information Act or breaches of the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 or whether there was any evidence of the allegations about lying in unison. The chief executive Dr Buwalda having considered all the evidence made his conclusions which are in the report and also undertook to take what reviews and disciplinary investigations were required. 
I think it is important to concentrate on what was in the report not on what was speculated to be in the report as we heard from the previous member. The chief executive’s report fails to find evidence to suggest that departmental officials colluded or conspired to lie in unison or that officials deliberately misled the Ombudsman regarding the existence of the “lie in unison” memo. To have a conspiracy there must be more than one person involved. There was no evidence in the documents examined or gained during interviews that points to a conspiracy to deceive or any intention to deceive in relation to the annotations made in the media log on 17 December by Ian Smith. I agree that the media log was a very unlikely vehicle for recording or communicating details of a conspiracy as it was distributed to a relatively large number of people—over 300 we have heard; a very weird way to conduct a conspiracy. Rather I agree with the chief executive’s analysis and conclusions—namely: “On the face of it the annotation made by Mr Smith seems to display poor judgment a lack of professionalism and a lack of respect for the media. Mr Smith himself acknowledges the annotation was inappropriate.” That was the conclusion contained in the report and that is the conclusion I would argue that is borne out by the facts. 
Just as important if not more important for the integrity of the public service and confidence in it was the second question relating to the way in which the official information request was handled by the department. In this respect the report identifies several areas where the standards and behaviours demonstrated by the Department of Labour staff seem to fall short of the levels that could be reasonably expected of public servants. Of principal concern in this regard is that the department must consistently demonstrate high standards and behaviours in order to deserve and hold the public confidence needed for it to carry out its work effectively. 
 That is acknowledged by the chief executive; that is supported by the Minister myself who is responsible for the department. The department must therefore address standards and behaviour issues identified in this report as a matter of urgency. The chief executive is currently engaged in disciplinary action relating to possible breaches of acceptable conduct and behaviour. I will make no further comment on that because it is a matter between an employer and an employee and fair process must be followed in that regard. However I note that the chief executive has undertaken to reinforce the standards of conduct and behaviour expected from all staff in the Department of Labour. 
The chief executive has also identified deficiencies in the department’s record management practices and as a matter of urgency the department has initiated an internal review of its guidelines for responding to official information requests. The chief executive has made it clear that departmental managers are personally accountable for ensuring that guidelines are followed and for ensuring that staff understand their responsibilities under the Official Information Act. This particular case shows the far-reaching effects of the Official Information Act and is a useful reminder to all those who are bound by it. In this instance the Official Information Act covered off-the-cuff remarks in an in-house email media log. Treating such logs as official information is a very high standard for our public servants to maintain but this Government believes that high standards are necessary for a strong public service and commends the chief executive for the way he has gone about the conduct of this investigation and for the transparent and honest way in which he has identified on the facts those matters that do need attention while at the same time establishing quite clearly that there was no conspiracy to cover up or lie. 
Let me finish by reiterating for the benefit of Opposition members who seem to be fixated on conspiracy theories that there is no evidence that officials lied or conspired to deceive anyone. Nor did they deliberately shield themselves from scrutiny under the Official Information Act. Nevertheless the investigation found that the high standards expected of our public servants were not met in this instance and therefore action has to be taken. It is useful to be reminded that in real life as opposed to the fantasy world in which the Mr McCullys of the world live conspiracies are rare and explanations are more likely to lie in poor judgment and systemic failure which is exactly what happened in this case. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a matter that reflects abysmally on the Immigration Service the Minister of Immigration the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister and it has a sense of déjà vu and a ring of familiarity about it. We are talking about a dysfunctional department and a dysfunctional Minister. I remind members of the background to this issue. It happened members will remember in the Minister of Immigration’s office. Everybody remembers but her. This is a person who day after day in the House disowned all the facts and now seeks to make a virtue out of a crime against the public where disclosure is important. 
The background to this issue involves a so-called asylum seeker who should never have been allowed into this country and who has already cost us over $100000 in legal aid and penal costs to have him here. Meanwhile we cannot service our own people in our schools in our social welfare system and in our hospitals. It was all about hushing this issue up so that the people of New Zealand would not know what was going on. We have a suspected terrorist in our midst and this Government does not believe that New Zealanders should be told about it. Just the other day an Afghan refugee shot a woman while she was hanging clothes on her clothesline. Where did he get the firearm? Who brought him here? What is he doing here? He was on release when he committed that crime. It is not the task of the Immigration Service to tell the people primarily; it is the task of the Minister who stands condemned today for the incompetent Minister that she is. I want to know where she fits in in respect of the background of this subject. It all happened in her office but strange as it might seem she claims not to know—just like the Prime Minister claims not to know despite all the documentation. 
Every day in the House when the Prime Minister is asked: “Why have you got confidence in the Minister of Immigration?” she says: “Because she is a conscientious and hardworking Minister.” What a joke! We have 20000 overstayers in this country. We have no idea who is here what is here what diseases they are carrying and what their social welfare costs are while New Zealanders cannot access hip operations cataract operations and all the normal expectations that we have of the social welfare system. 
Jill Pettis 
: I bet they don’t suffer from dipsomania. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There goes the fishwife again—it must be market day. Why is a civil servant taking the rap? This is a case of an in-house snow job on Parliament and on the public of this country. Why is no Minister in Helen Clark’s Government ever responsible when things go wrong—whether it be corncobs or an alleged terrorist? On 20 February shortly after the 1999 election the Prime Minister promised a hard line on accountability. She said she would go all the way to the top—including sacking bungling incompetent Ministers. 
Ron Mark 
: Yeah right! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yeah right! When are we going to see that happen? By gee there is a tonne of evidence for it. Did Helen Clark tell the caucus at the time that Cabinet was elected that everyone was there on performance and there were plenty of others waiting to take their job? Quote: “ ‘They will tell you it’s true’ she says.” 
Dail Jones 
: Yeah right! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yeah right! What are the offences? Well here they are. Immigration officials had poor standards. On numerous occasions they breached the Official Information Act. They withheld information. They would not even give it to the Ombudsman. In fact when it first went off they deleted these comments from the PR man communications adviser Ian Smith who said this: “I was let down badly. Everyone had agreed to lie in unison but all the others caved in and I was the only one left singing the original song.” Deceit and lies. Do members know what he told Dr Buwalda—who had been the head of the labour department for a matter of days and who conducted an in-house snow job? He said that it was “intended as a sarcastic and humorous response to media criticism of departmental staff failing to answer media questions about Mr Zaoui.” What has happened to him? He is still working for the department but he is not handling media inquiries any more. If a person is involved in a cover-up for his boss and his Minister and if he does not tell the public that the Minister knew and that therefore the Prime Minister had to know then that person gets his job preserved in this rotten corrupt venal Labour Party administration. 
Dail Jones 
: Like “corngate”. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes it is just like “corngate”. No one ever gets fired. As bad and as damaging as this in-house report is we are told that it was all a matter of levity and humour. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The member should stick to water at lunchtime. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I tell the member what I will stick to—I will stick to not taking Valium as she does. I am not a person with a problem handling stress as she has. I am not a person who had to take leave for months as she did. We can handle the truth in this party unlike her—and if the Minister wants to go there she can go there and see how painful it is. [ 
Interruption 
] The fishwife from Wanganui can go there and find out how painful the experience will be for her and her colleagues. That is her last warning because we do not muck around with people who want to be clever and personal in this House. 
Jill Pettis 
: Get up earlier. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is obvious who has been getting up early in her family. It shows does it not? The reality of it all is that this is a rotten venal corrupt report from a rotten venal corrupt administration who when they are caught telling lies blame someone else. All of this happened in the Minister’s office but she gets up in this House and says: “I know nothing of it. I was not part of the conspiracy.” Do members know what a conspiracy is? A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more to break the law and on this matter they did. They hid the circumstances of a terrorist because the heat was on this Minister. But she is doing it over and over again. In the North Shore Hospital right now there is a man there with a disease that no doctor knows about in this country—it is usually associated with horses. So inexperienced are our doctors with this matter—[ 
Interruption 
] No not mad horses; not mad mares either—it has to do with horses. So inexperienced are the doctors that they are feeding him an equine cure in the hope that it might work and the staff have been told to tell no one. These incompetent people put at risk the health and security of New Zealanders. They think they will get away with it but they will not. I make a commitment to this House that we will carry on exposing their incompetence day in and day out until they are gone from service to this country. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is a very important debate about whether senior civil servants tell lies. It is a debate that goes to the heart of the integrity of our public service of our Government and of our Parliament. It is a question about whether senior civil servants will tell lies to cover up wrongdoing and corruption. Today I have received information that proves that senior civil servants have told lies to cover up corruption have seen their Minister tell lies to this Parliament and this Government knows about it. 
Ron Mark 
: Not another one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes another one. With the Helen Clark administration we have a pattern of deceit of evasion of half-truth and—when push comes to shove—total lies. Let me walk members through what lies have been told. There can be no greater crime for a civil servant than to take payment in return for favours. There is no greater crime than to take payment for financial favours and that is what has happened under this Government. Not only that but when questions have been asked the Government has lied to cover up. 
This is the issue. On 13 February this year I asked the Minister of Maori Affairs whether any officials of Te Mangai Paho had received cash from Maori Sportscasting International. It was question for written answer No. 257. Here is the answer that the Minister of Maori Affairs gave— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that this is a debate as agreed by the House and announced by Mr Speaker. I will read it again if the member wants me to. The debate is about the report by the Secretary of Labour into allegations in respect of the Immigration Service and I warn the member to keep to that subject. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In fact this debate is on a report into the question of the integrity of the Government. I listened to the speech made by Mr Peters and you did not once pull him up although he put it into a wider context. Now Mr Hide is doing the same thing. With your having set the rules we cannot have one set of rules for the New Zealand First Party— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes we can. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Well Mr Peters says we can and I know he would like to have a different set of rules. In my view what Mr Hide is putting to the House is relevant. He is saying that this report fits into a systematic way of behaving by this Government. I assure you that that is most certainly relevant. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am ruling on the point of order. The previous speaker did not get into the specifics. This is about the specifics of another Minister. So I ask Mr Hide to continue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
:I have ruled on this point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know what you have done Madam Speaker. You have ruled on my point of order but I am entitled to put it without you prejudging the issue before I open my mouth. I have in my hand the State Services Commissioner’s press release from this day on this very matter. He puts it into a wider context and that is why Mr Hide is entitled to do so likewise. I invite you to read his press statement before you rush to judgment like you just have. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As I said when I ruled on the matter members can put it into a wider context but they cannot debate the questions put to another Minister—namely the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am responding to the claims made by the Minister who spoke earlier saying that under this Government everything is hunky-dory. I notice it is all right for her to talk in a general sense about how things are all OK but when one gets down to the specifics this Government is in trouble. 
Let me not refer any longer to the Minister of Maori Affairs’ answer to this House but let me talk about the responses of civil servants. I received this document today and it talks about how civil servants lie. This civil servant did not lie in unison; he just lied. Here is the reply from the Minister of Maori Affairs—and I have to do this to put it into context—“I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Maori Sportscasting International to any employees of Te Mangai Paho.” That is fairly straightforward is it not? No cash was paid. Well Te Mangai Paho said: “Te Rangi was specifically asked by Trevor Moeke”. Trevor Moeke is the Chief Executive of Te Mangai Paho—or was. He asked in an email to Mr Tame Te Rangi on 20 February to which Mr Tame Te Rangi replied on 21 February: “Yes I was paid cash.” But this goes on to his report on 6 June which states: “Te Rangi admitted only to very few—hence reply.” So what we have within this Government—and its members know it—is a chief executive asking his senior manager: “Did you receive cash because the question has been asked in Parliament?”. The senior official went back to the chief executive and said: “I have received cash.” The Chief Executive of Te Mangai Paho Mr Trevor Moeke answered—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The comments made by the senior Government whip are a disgrace and disorderly. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise. Both allegations are uncalled for. Perhaps he should have a modicum of courage which I do not expect him to have and say it outside the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite correct. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I want to remind the House of these facts. Did a senior manager of Te Mangai Paho receive cash payments in return for financial benefits from the taxpayer? Yes. Did the chief executive ask the senior manager whether such cash payments had been received? Yes. Did Mr Tame Te Rangi reply that cash payments had been received? He said: “Yes”. Yet this is the answer that was given to this House: “I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Maori Sportscasting International”. Why was that? It was because Trevor Moeke the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs and this Government concluded: “Te Rangi admitted only to very few—hence reply.” I say they either got cash or they did not. 
We are discovering—and members of the Opposition parties know this—that there is a 0.5 percent tolerance for lying to this House because yes he received cash but only a few payments. So it is OK to say that he received none. By the Minister’s own documentation we have established that yes officials do lie yes— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: A sleazy Government! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a sleazy Government because officials do lie. The Minister knows it and his officials know it. They lied to this Parliament. What they were lying about was not just a few corncobs but corruption in the heart of the Government. That is what it is if a senior official is being paid to hand out benefits and contracts. That is what was happening. 
Do people remember when Helen Clark promised a better Government and a new standard of accountability? Here is the standard—lies a pattern of deceit and corruption that is covered up. We have talked about this sort of corruption. Ministers come into this House and they lie. The Minister received this report on 6 June. On 6 June this Government was advised that Mr Trevor Moeke had lied because he had received payments—but only a few! What happened to Mr Moeke? He got a 9-month paid holiday. He got a golden handshake because it is claimed he was a model civil servant—one who lied to cover up for a Minister. That is what this Government expects of its senior civil servants. Dr Mark Prebble is another model servant so is Mr James Buwalda so is Mr Michael Wintringham. Why is that? It is because they go along with the pattern of deceit that is practised—from Helen Clark through to each of her Ministers and down through the senior civil servants. They do it in order to cover their backsides. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Department of Labour investigation found that there was no evidence of conspiracy to lie or to deceive but from the Greens’ point of view the bigger issue in this case has been the entire management of Ahmed Zaoui’s case and his refugee status. It demonstrates that the whole process has been a deceptive and prejudicial process. 
This report is simply another piece of the puzzle that shows that the Zaoui case is being processed in a discriminatory way. It is a further indictment on the Immigration Service and the Minister’s failure to manage the situation effectively. The report’s identification of official information cover-up is the tip of the iceberg in this case. It is a deliberate attempt to deny Ahmed Zaoui the respectful humane treatment that any migrant or refugee is entitled to in this country. A further demonstration that immigration is a mess and that the whole process is failing is shown in the recent immigration legislation the failure of the Immigration Service to manage its caseload which has meant a lapsing of 20000 applications legislation that deprives individuals and new migrants of their human rights and the rights to appeal in the immigration process and legislation recently discussed in this House for the indefinite detention of immigrants who are subject to removal order. In our view this is bringing the Labour Party perilously close to a New Zealand First position on immigration. 
In our view the management of Zaoui’s case has been a continual and total failure. First the initial step was the staff member who when interviewing Mr Zaoui completely misunderstood his accent through a failure of training and held that he was a member of an organisation when his answer when asked was “No”; despite the fact that he denied that he was a member of that organisation he was listed as being so. So from the beginning Mr Zaoui has been treated in a prejudicial way. 
He is still in prison awaiting the final process on his refugee status with the security risk assessment. He has been in jail for nearly a year waiting for this process to be completed—a year of waiting for the Immigration Service to do its job and to do its job properly. This report is simply another indication that that service is failing not even necessarily because the processes are not in place but because there has been a prejudicial and discriminatory attitude to Mr Zaoui’s case in particular. 
The Refugee Status Appeal Authority which considered Mr Zaoui’s application for refugee status has found in fact that Mr Zaoui is safe his case his safe he is a legitimate refugee and he is entitled to be treated so in this country. The Refugee Status Appeal Authority was so appalled with the way Mr Zaoui had been treated by the Immigration Service that it went so far as to seriously criticise the information provided by the Security Intelligence Service the essential organisation that is supposed to provide information to this country to enable it to protect its borders. 
That authority found that the Security Intelligence Service information was not sound and that it was discredited and that the Security Intelligence Service had sourced its information from the dictatorial Algerian regime from whence Mr Zaoui was seeking his refugee status—the same regime that wants to imprison and torture Mr Zaoui if he returns to that country. Of course they will provide prejudicial information about him because they do not like him but the Security Intelligence Service which is responsible for finding secure and good-quality information completely failed to do so. The Refugee Status Appeal Authority has entirely discredited the Security Intelligence Service and its information. 
This report is just another indication of that complete and utter failure to deal with Mr Zaoui in any kind of respectful or humane way. The Green Party calls on the Minister of Immigration to reconsider in the light of this information and the trail of information that shows that this case has been managed badly from the start the security risk assessment process and to give credence to and respect the decision of the Refugee Status Appeal Authority that Mr Zaoui is a legitimate refugee and to ensure that there is a clear and transparent process for managing his case and cases like this to make sure that people who come to this country seeking refugee status are not treated prejudicially but given the respect and humane treatment that is their due. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report of 6 June 2003 relating to parliamentary questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs which I received today. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 It is interesting that wherever there are people we will always face challenges. In Government as in the private sector we are basically dealing with people and that requires great wisdom at times and also when one is dealing with people one has a leader. We are dealing with a chief executive who has given us a report. May I add that he is a new chief executive dealing with this particular party. I would like to comment briefly on James Buwalda’s report on the investigation into the Department of Labour’s management of the information in relation to Mr Ahmed Zaoui. 
In respect of allegations in a report like this United Future would be very concerned to ensure that the public service is run properly and with due respect for the law. That is what the public of New Zealand would also expect. But unfortunately when one begins to deal with issues like this especially in a political arena one can get people raising political points building a lot of emotion building a lot of flak and not dealing with the issues at hand; because again where there are people one will have challenges. That is what we are dealing with. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Like you guys! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Not like us guys—we are here to help. In this case we are dealing particularly with the Official Information Act. Now for a democracy to function properly the public service must be fully accountable to the law to the Government of the day and to the public. The accusations that brought about this report particularly the comment that officials had “lied in unison” give me great cause for concern on the face of it. However in the overall conclusions of the chief executive’s report he states: “I believe my investigation has found no evidence that Department of Labour officials involved in handling official information relating to the Zaoui case lied. My overall conclusion in relation to the original allegations is as follows: Officials agreeing to ‘lie in unison’ ” he says: “I found no evidence to suggest” and continued on under the heading “Officials lied to the Ombudsman about the existence of the ‘lie in unison’ memorandum”: “I found no evidence that officials deliberately misled the Ombudsman.” 
I think the most telling evidence that there was no conspiracy is the reference to the conspiracy that was recorded on the department’s media log which is distributed by email to up to 300 people. Well I do not think one needs to be a rocket scientist to work out that if one wants to break a conspiracy at top level one would not send the information out by email to 300 people and bring them into the loop. Because I have found that if 12 people are in a loop and one person tells the next person by the time it gets around the loop to No. 12 the story is not the same. So if 300 people are put into the loop I do not believe that that is deliberately trying to set up a conspiracy. 
That is not to say that nobody has a case to answer. There were several apparent cases of unprofessionalism and general misconduct by staff members and those are being dealt with through normal disciplinary procedures as they should be. Whenever there are staff there will be those who do not follow the procedure and they do need to be dealt with. But I have found that dealing with issues is becoming increasingly complex today not necessarily because of the difficulty of the situation one is faced with but because of the incredible complexity we have put into laws in this nation about following the correct procedure and it sometimes can be very difficult to get the correct result; ask any small-business man in this country and I am sure he will agree with me. 
There is also an apparent lack of staff knowledge as to the correct guidelines for responding to Official Information Act requests. The department has said that this situation will be remedied and United Future will be monitoring the process to ensure that that happens. I personally believe that the chief executive has done a good job and looking into a new department I believe he has taken leadership and responsibility. He has checked things out correctly and I wish him well. United Future will be watching this situation closely but to be honest I think that the chief executive has it well in hand and may his leadership continue. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the “United Apologist Party”—that is “Apologist” not “Apostles”. But one could be forgiven for being confused with that fawning idolatry in that speech towards the chief executive of a Government department. I have this message for that member: what we are seeing here today is a template for the way the public service in New Zealand is now behaving. I just ask that member to compare the “agree to lie in unison” scandal with what we are seeing with “corngate” right now. We have public servants saying “Release the information it’s what the Prime Minister said.” It is clear that there is divergence between what is being released and what the Prime Minister said. What do we find? Another cover-up involving the chief executive of the Prime Minister’s department! 
What is more the Leader of the Opposition Bill English today released an email from the chief of the public service—the celibate man who leads our public service—who in his email talks about the public servants commenting during the “corngate” scandal and the memo states that what they are now saying is different from what the official papers said at the time. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Table it! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It has been tabled. What is clear is that this report asks more questions than it answers. Why were the Minister’s staff not quizzed? Because the Minister said that the only way for this to be a conspiracy was if she was involved. But what about her staff? Did anyone go and talk to her press secretary who would handle these sorts of inquiries? Did anyone go and talk to her senior private secretary who may have been involved in this? Because the one thing “corngate” shows is that apparently we have senior public servants making decisions as though they were the Ministers themselves. So why was no inquiry made? 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the speaker but when I asked for the tabling of the document that the member is referring to he claimed it had been tabled. I have just checked with the Clerk and that is not the case. The member is clearly misleading the House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I warn Mr Peters that there will be silence during points of order. That is the final warning. That is not a point of order. That is a debating point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Table it Mr Ryall go on then. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. Is this a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: In this point of order the senior Government whip accused Mr Tony Ryall of misleading Parliament. It is totally unacceptable to use a point of order to accuse another member of breaching privilege. Secondly while I was giving my point of order the senior Government whip interjected on my point of order and I notice that when the Speaker is in the Chair that means an automatic ejection but for the senior Government whip I guess he has immunity under your Chairmanship. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for that last remark. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Madam Speaker— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like my two points of order to be ruled on. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have previously ruled on them. I will just make the point that I had not called the member before the senior Government whip spoke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think if you check the  
Hansard 
 you will find that to Mr Hide’s point of order you said: “The member will withdraw that last remark.” and that is all you said about it. Therefore you have not ruled on this point of order at all. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No Mr Peters I was not referring to that point of order at all. He was referring to an interjection that Mr Benson-Pope made previously. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will have to concentrate your mind on the proceedings of this House. If you look at the  
Hansard 
 you will see what was said. Mr Hide raised a point of order and he at the end added a comment that you found to be an aspersion on the Speaker of the House and you asked him instantly to withdraw it. That is the fact. That is what happened and we still have not had a ruling on Mr Hide’s point which was that Mr Benson-Pope interrupted his point of order and he said something else that I cannot repeat because it was unparliamentary. But the first point of order still stands not ruled upon. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Benson-Pope made that remark before I had called Mr Hide on his point of order. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister of Immigration said there could be no conspiracy unless she was involved. What has become clear in an analysis of the “corngate” scandal is that we have public servants accepting that they have decision-making power in what can and cannot happen with respect to official documents and actions. So why was not the press secretary of the Minister involved and quizzed? Why was there no interrogation of her senior private secretary? 
Rodney Hide 
: I know why. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Why? 
Rodney Hide 
: Because they would have had to tell the answers. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They would have had to tell the truth. But no one from the Minister’s staff was asked or interrogated as part of this inquiry. 
Ron Mark 
: How convenient. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: How convenient indeed! And no advice of whether anyone in the Minister’s office received one of the 300 memos from the public relations advisor at the New Zealand Immigration Service! It is inconceivable that the Minister’s press secretary is not on that list. We demand to know from that Minister whether her press secretary received that email. We want to know what involvement her press secretary and her senior private secretary had in discussions with any staff member of the Immigration Service on how they would deal with these inquiries. I suggest to the House that not asking the Minister’s staff is tantamount to closing one’s eyes and not wanting to know that information is available that could be sought. I find it inconceivable that 300 emails were sent out as a media log no copies were sent to the Minister’s office and no public servant did anything about the comments made by Mr Smith. 
I have doubts about the veracity of this inquiry based on this information. I want to draw attention to page 16 of the report. In the report the chief executive says that Mr Smith does not always keep copies of his media logs. Is it not suspicious that the media log that we wanted was for 17 December but Mr Smith had media logs for 16 18 and 19 December? The very one that the Ombudsman was seeking no one could find. Why did not the department go into the database of its email system and pull out the original that was sent? I am sure it is logged in there somewhere. Why was no effort made on that? 
This has been a very superficial once-over-lightly attempt to get to the bottom of this matter. No one has taken the forensic step of going on to the hard drive of the email system and getting what was sent out. Even though an email may have been deleted it still exists on the hard drive. Why did no one in the Immigration Service get a forensic computer specialist to go in and pull that document? For Mr Smith to say he does not always keep the media logs but has the media logs on either side of the date in question indicates a conspiracy to destroy a document. That indicates a conspiracy to destroy evidence after the fact that he knew that official authorities were seeking that information. 
It is outrageous that they would lie like flatfish to the ombudsman. Why I raised that point is that every day members of Parliament are asking officials and departments to provide information. I have been in a position myself on this. Before the last election the Government introduced crime statistics for the 11 months before the election saying crime was going down. I knew that the full 12-month figures to 30 June would show that crime was going up. I had two phone calls telling me that. It is inconceivable that I would know and the Commissioner of Police says he did not know and everyone in the Commissioner of Police’s office and the Minister’s office say they did not know. How come I knew? I am not the Commissioner of Police or the Minister of Police yet. But how did I know? I had people ring me. If I had people ringing me and they knew the information sure as heck someone in the police hierarchy knew the information. But we made the official information requests asked the written questions and everyone said: “We never knew. No one ever told us. In the commissioner’s office no one ever sought the information.” 
This raises questions about the veracity of answers from every single Government agency. What this report shows is that officials are taking an obfuscatory approach to the requests of Opposition members of Parliament and this culture permeates from the top. This is a Prime Minister who blames everybody else who says that she did not do anything but she did; who says that she never read this but she did; who says she never signed that but she did; and who said she was not conscious then but she was. This permeates from the very top.  
When it came to the “paintergate” disaster she did not sign it and she had not signed many but she had signed eight. What about ancestral landscapes? She had never signed that report but she did and had to admit it in the House. What about the OECD growth targets? The Prime Minister had never signed anything that said we would have growth by 2011 but she did and we produced it; she said she was not conscious. This goes on everywhere in this Government department every day and it comes from the top—the Prime Minister’s “blame and bluster” approach to honesty and integrity in Government. There must be a lot of pressure when one is a popular and competent Prime Minister but I would have thought the biggest pressure of all was to tell the truth. I cannot understand that when it comes to “corngate” “paintergate” and the immigration scandal everyone else is lying except the Government. Frankly New Zealanders do not believe that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 This debate actually begins with section 129T of the Immigration Act which states: “Confidentiality to be maintained—(1) Subject to this section confidentiality as to the identity of the claimant or other person whose status is being considered under this Part and as to the particulars of their case must at all times both during and subsequent to the determination of the claim or other matter be maintained by refugee status officers the Authority other persons involved in the administration of this Act and persons to whom particulars are disclosed under subsection (3)(a) or (b). (2) Compliance with subsection (1) may in an appropriate case require confidentiality as to the very fact or existence of a claim or case”. 
I never confirmed the fact that Mr Zaoui had made a claim for refugee status until the Refugee Status Appeals Authority made its determination public and the lawyers representing Mr Zaoui commented on it. That then enabled subsection (4) to kick in. Nor does subsection (1) apply to prevent the disclosure of particulars in relation to a particular claimant to the extent that the claimant has whether expressly or impliedly by his or her words or actions waived his or her right to confidentiality under that section. It was only at that point that I could confirm that Mr Zaoui had made a claim for refugee status. This section of the Act was introduced with a raft of amendments in 1999 by the then National Government. It brought in the rules that I am required to comply with today. 
The reason for confidentiality is twofold. One is to protect the individual and/or any family or associates who may still be in the country of origin. No one in New Zealand would want to be the cause of people dying because the identity of a refugee status claimant had been disclosed publicly in New Zealand. The other reason is to prevent the deliberate use of the media to provide grounds for a refugee claim. Certain members of the media need to contemplate very carefully what the Refugee Status Appeals Authority said in respect of Mr Zaoui’s case. The point I have made so often to the media is that they do not know whether the claimant is the one who is trying to get the publicity to advance his or her claim for refugee status. I have not been able to get the media to understand just how serious this is. I hope this case does allow the media to reflect seriously on what has occurred here. 
On Thursday 12 December a phone call was received by an employee of the Immigration Service. At the time he was in my office with over two dozen other officials from that department and other departments for my annual Christmas function. He discussed the call with me immediately after he had taken it. I have learnt from the Department of Labour report released today that I knew more than him about this particular case because I had been briefed on the subject and he had not been briefed. Until I received that report I had assumed that he had been briefed. I believe that this is a systems issue which has been identified in this report. No one had thought through the consequences of the media adviser who would be the first to be contacted if information did leak out being left in the dark. 
After the function and after I returned to Christchurch I had more than a couple of conversations with the Director of Security. As a result of those conversations it was agreed that I would be the only person to speak publicly on the matter. I spoke to a reporter of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and this is what was written in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the following day: “Ahmed Zaoui arrived at Paremoremo prison yesterday under a heavy police escort. It is understood a police helicopter was used to monitor his transfer to the prison. Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel said last night that she could not confirm any details except that a man was being detained under the Immigration Act which gives the Government power to hold him for 28 days. ‘We have security concerns and investigations are proceeding’ she said. Asked to elaborate on the level of her concerns the minister said: ‘They are of sufficient concern.’ Airport authorities say they have no record of a man by the name Ahmed Zaoui entering New Zealand in the past few days.” 
That serves to confirm the fact that the media adviser had related the question to somebody whom he believed had entered New Zealand in the past few days when in fact he had entered New Zealand the week before. 
The reporter told me the night before that article was published that not only was the  
New Zealand Herald  
going to publish that individual’s name but it was going to publish his photograph as well. I warned her of the dangers. It was very difficult to warn a reporter of the dangers without confirming that a claim for refugee status had been lodged. She said she would speak to the editor about the matter. I felt so concerned about the matter that I personally rang the duty editor that night but it was to no avail. I explained to him that people will do anything to get a claim for refugee status determined in this country and use of the media as an opportunity to have a whole lot of publicity of their case certainly assists them by adding another ground to a refugee claim. This is such a serious matter but my efforts were to no avail. 
The following week the newspaper’s editorial on 17 December was very very critical of this particular spokesman the media adviser from the Immigration Service. It stated: “A day later the same spokesman would not comment on the case and said he had not heard of Zaoui.”—that was true—“Yet on the same day Ms Dalziel after initially declining to confirm details of Zaoui’s detention was lauding the efficient handling of the case. The difference between saying nothing and telling untruths is clearly an elusive concept for some.” That was what led the media adviser who now had a good idea of what had been kept from him to write the now-famous “lie in unison” comment. He did feel badly let down; he had every reason to feel badly let down. There are disciplinary matters now associated with that individual and the code of conduct and I am confident because of the quality of the report we have before us today that they will be dealt with in a fair manner. 
It was not until July that this matter became an issue again as a result of the National Party spokesperson on immigration providing the  
New Zealand Herald 
 with a copy of the media log. I was not aware of it until I was called by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on the Monday evening. I spoke to the general manager and the media adviser about the matter that night. That was the last time I spoke to the media adviser. The Official Information Act issue did not arise until Tuesday evening. I recall calling the  
New Zealand Herald 
 just before 6 o’clock to ask whether it had any questions. I was told that there was something the reporter wanted to put to me but she did not want me making a statement to other media and told me to call back after 6.30. I was very concerned when I learnt of the allegation. I contacted the general manager and instructed him to investigate. The following day the general manager took over the investigation and expanded the terms of reference. 
This report by the chief executive is thorough and comprehensive. It is not tainted. He has adopted a thoroughly objective approach. He was not the Secretary of Labour at the time and I resent very strongly the comments that have been made about him. This is a chief executive officer who has been prepared to acknowledge systemic problems within his department and I am confident that he will address those. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debates 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. “Like sands through the hourglass so are the days of our lives.” That is a quote from the beginning of one of those tacky tasteless brainless soaps where people lurch from one crisis to another and hop from one bed to the next constantly changing partners; where backs are stabbed positions changed principles compromised and morals are a movable feast. I use it today because I believe that it sums up the National Party circa 2003. Like sands through the hourglass so are the shifting positions of the National Party’s principles. 
There was a time when the old National Party stood by its word. Its leaders stood by their principles—people like Sir Keith Holyoake Sir Jack Marshall and Jim McLay and perhaps even somebody like Don Brash. They were real leaders and their words were their bond. But then came the new breed aptly named the brat pack. They were bold brassy and belligerent; they are all sizzle and no sausage and they have no principles either—they could not even spell “principle”. Today I want to give just one example to illustrate why the National Party will never again be in Government. I will give the House one example of how it sold out its principles for 400 votes not once not twice but three times. 
It all started in 1998—June 1998 to be exact—when the then Minister of Health Bill English put up a paper to Cabinet entitled  
Removal of Ownership Restriction on Pharmacy and Optical Businesses 
; in other words pharmacy deregulation. Bill English stated in his paper to his Cabinet colleagues: “The effect of the proposed changes will be to increase competition in the retail of pharmacy. Increased competition is expected to lower retail prices of medicine.” I thought yes competition is a core National Party policy and principle. Mr English went on to state: “Such ownership restrictions are not necessary to provide public protection from physical harm.” Mr English said there were no safety issues here. He concluded: “There is no justification for unnecessarily delaying such a useful reform that has the ability to reduce costs to the public and provide more consumer choice through increased competition.” 
So far so good; the National Party’s principles are intact. But hang on a minute taihoa there were troubled waters ahead. There was an election coming up; it was coming up to the 1999 election. Mr English had a committee down in Southland that was unhappy about such moves so the National Party thought it had better put that little reform on hold put it on the back-burner put it out of sight and cover it up; it thought it ought to be hidden so that hopefully nobody would find out what the National Party had been going to do before the 1999 election. Four hundred votes could have been at risk so out went the principles and in came the puerile. 
The defeat of 1999 meant it was time to re-examine policies and principles in the National Party. There were lots of soul-searching hand-wringing blame-spreading and muckraking. The National Party said it had to get back to basics. For 3 years it lurched from one reactive policy to the next. 
Then we came to the 2002 election. I wanted to deregulate pharmacies. I thought Bill English was right. I told pharmacists that at their conference. Bill English followed me when I spoke at the conference. He told them in 2002 that his party opposed deregulation and that it could not be safe for the public—out went his principles and in came poppycock. 
Then we get to 2003. One week ago in this House Rodney Hide put an amendment to deregulate pharmacies and how did Bill English vote? How did the National Party vote? It voted to deregulate pharmacies. Suddenly there were no safety issues and suddenly there were no problems. 
Three different positions over those 4 years show the shifting principles of the National Party. It will never be in Government until it finds out what it stands for and who it stands for. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Government’s policy on genetic engineering is a shambles. It is beset by contradictions in the statements of Ministers. This Government has made it a bottom line to lift the moratorium on the release of genetic engineering and to allow its 
release into our farms and our environment and it thinks there will be huge economic benefit from doing that. But the Minister for the Environment 
says there will be no applications for years. It is hard to see where the benefits from lifting the moratorium will come from if there are not going to be any applications. 
The Minister says that if there are any releases for food crops then she will probably “do it for them” by which we take it to mean she will call them in under the Act and make the decision herself. But she confirmed in the House this afternoon that there is no policy on this call-in; it will be case by case decision-making. It is not clear whether this case by case decision-making will be because the Government does not actually have confidence in the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make those decisions or because of recognition that the commercial release of GE is a political minefield and might need to be managed politically. The Minister says that Monsanto’s crops will not get approval for general release but pine trees might because they are not food but there appears to be no policy on food versus other crops. She says the call-in will be on a case by case basis but assures us it will not be for political reasons. She knows that the public has huge concern especially around crops like corn wheat and potatoes. However this will not be a political decision. The Minister says that she has complete and absolute faith in the Environmental Risk Management Authority but it seems that she is not prepared to leave decisions to it if they are politically sensitive. She says that she has complete faith in the Environmental Risk Management Authority but the review of the authority’s capabilities found some glaring and gross inadequacies that now need to be fixed. 
The select committee that has just reported back the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill got a paper from the Environmental Risk Management Authority in which it had set out clause by clause its responses to the 49 recommendations of the review. It does not make reassuring reading. Let me quote: “There has been a reallocation of responsibilities between the authority and the board.”—good; that was overdue but to what effect for what purpose and with what result we are not told. The authority has overhauled its meeting procedures but what the purpose of that was we do not know either. The group has set up some non-governmental organisation consultative groups to address the problem that submitters do not trust the process or the agency but the minutes of one of those meetings show simply that there was a lecture from the authority on what its purpose role and functions were and the non-governmental organisations do not seem to be taking up the opportunity to go to those meetings. 
The prime answer on a recommendation about the standard of proof needed in decision making which is a key issue in the accountability of the Environmental Risk Management Authority was we were told that this was “a matter of continuing discussion internally”. The select committee was not a great deal the wiser as to how the Environmental Risk Management Authority has fixed those glaring problems on being told that it was “a matter of continuing discussion internally”! We are told that a new structure was recommended by the review team but not what it is going to achieve or how things have changed on the ground as a result of it. 
Finally in response to the serious concern of the review that reliance on agency relationships between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to deliver core services creates risks that the other agencies’ priorities might precede those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority—they also said this was the prime risk to the environment posed by the regulatory system—the Environmental Risk Management Authority simply replied: “These changes will further develop a cooperative arrangement that already functions very effectively.” We are not reassured. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I have been in this House for about 10 years now. The first year I spent desperately trying to get on select committees; the last year I spent trying to get off them. But the last few months on the Local Government and Environment Committee have been very very disturbing. Nothing in Parliament is more disgraceful disappointing and ultimately self-defeating than members who use inaccurate slurs and accusations in a select committee or anywhere in this Parliament. I have witnessed something I would never have thought possible in this House—an unholy unlikely and ultimately unsustainable alliance between the National Party and the Green Party. Collusion collaboration and cooperation have been taking place on that select committee and I am most disturbed by that. 
Another strange partnership has taken place in Parliament in the last couple of months. Two men who are well known to Parliament—one is Nick Smith and the other is Nicky Hager—have formed an alliance. “Tricky Nicky I” and “Tricky Nicky II” have formed an alliance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Reference to members of this House will be made by name and nothing else. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: “Tricky Nick Smith I” and “Tricky Nicky Hager II”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is just being silly. He cannot refer in that way to any member or the obvious conclusion can come. However comments about people outside the House are matters of taste. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Those two people—who are well-known masters of manipulation well-known Oscars of omission and artists of inaccuracies—make wild claims because they are desperate to seek publicity in whatever form it might take. Nick Smith has been referring time and time again to a book put out by Nicky Hager that is full of inaccuracies. They both share the same paranoia over the Gisborne corn inquiry. 
I came onto that committee as a new member and was amazed at the way it operated: the chairperson is delivered a set of questions—from her research unit no doubt—and asks them one after the other on and on and on until she runs out of time. She then passes notes to Nick Smith who I presume reads the notes and will ask questions on and on and on. That unholy alliance is something I would not have thought to see in this House. 
I would like to refer to one other issue. In making a personal statement to the House yesterday Nick Smith might have got it wrong. He said he had disclosed to the select committee a possible conflict of interest. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think our friend on his feet might be questioning a personal explanation. Mr O’Connor said that Nick Smith in his personal explanation got it wrong and in doing so Mr O’Connor was calling into question a personal explanation. I think he is going to do so again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think he had better leave that subject alone because of course I have received correspondence about it. I would prefer him to move onto something else. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. The only sound reason I can think of for Nick Smith being so desperate for publicity is that he wants to run for the leadership of the National Party. National members are desperate. We would welcome Nick Smith as leader but they are absolutely desperate. I hope that party gets the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I hope its members read the editorial last Friday. It talks about confusing signals from a party that is struggling in the polls. It goes on to say: “ It is a lesson that appears to have bypassed National MP Nick Smith. So intent is he on scoring political points from the `Corngate’ inquiry that he seems unaware his activity is putting potholes in the path along which his party wants research and genetic modification to proceed.” 
I want to ask in this House: does the National Party support genetic engineering or does it not? Is the National Party prepared to sell out its principles and go into a coalition with the Green Party just to score cheap political points? Let us get on record some of the things that are clear. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The member for Bay of Plenty wants to draw the House’s attention this afternoon to the performance of our Prime Minister. I want to say this: the halo is slipping. The arrogance of the Prime Minister will bring her down. She made this comment: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister.” Never have more arrogant words been spoken by the Prime Minister who has spent the last month hiding behind Dr Cullen’s coat. Dr Cullen is now freely referred to as the Acting Prime Minister even when the Prime Minister is in the country. 
Mr John Armstrong—hardly a friend of the Opposition—made this comment: “Corngate Mark II will have one consequence: erosion of trust in the Prime Minister.” He went on to talk about the fact that the memo from Ruth Wilkie was kept although Helen Clark promised full disclosure of all relevant documents. He said it was damaging because it centred on the Prime Minister’s trust. 
The fact is that this Prime Minister is a Prime Minister who plays the blame game. Everything is everybody else’s fault. She blames “corngate” on the Greens. She has no recollection of “paintergate” and blames the  
Sunday Star-Times.  
Do members remember the “ancestral landscapes”? She said she did not sign the Cabinet paper but she did and when she was found out she blamed her staff for not getting all the files. 
What about her anti-American comments during the Iraq war? She said she did not say them but when she was found out she blamed the media for goading her into saying them. What about the OECD growth targets? She said she had no recollection that the Government had had that policy and when Bill English provided the paper she signed she said she had no recollection of signing it and blamed her officials for putting that sort of piece of paper in front of her. 
What about the Gregory Fortuin mediation with the Alliance? Do members remember that? She had no recollection of it whatsoever but it was all checked with people in her office and she blamed her staff for not telling her. What about the Historic Places Trust payout? The Prime Minister denied it and said there had been no payout and when it was revealed that there had been a payout who was to blame? It was the staff—for not telling her what was going on. 
But here is the best one of all. Do members remember the Prime Minister campaigning before the 1999 election on State housing and saying that New Zealanders should welcome disadvantaged people having “halfway homes” in their own areas? The Prime Minister said we should welcome disadvantaged people into our communities. Then we realised that there was a letter to the Auckland City Council on official letterhead signed by Helen Clark saying: “We don’t want this halfway house in our neighbourhood because it is going to destroy the 18th century Edwardian values”—as though we could have 18th century Edwardian values—“of our neighbourhood.” Who was to blame? It was the staff—they used the wrong letterhead. The fact is that time and time again this Prime Minister blames everyone else. 
Why is she not going to Gisborne for the “hui-hopping” on the beaches issue? Micky Savage would have fronted on those marae. Peter Fraser would have fronted up on marae to talk about that issue. Norman Kirk would have had the guts to front up on marae to talk about the seabed and foreshore issue. David Lange the man she discarded would have had the guts to stand up on the marae and defend the Government’s position. Mike Moore would have had the courage to go to the marae to stand up for the Government. But where is Helen Clark? Nowhere! 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I would like to start by coming back to the central question that was originally behind the GE corn inquiry. That was the question of whether the Government allowed and covered up the growing of the GM sweetcorn crop. It seems very strange that that particular question has been lost amongst other arguments as to whether one of thousands of documents might not have been disclosed at the time but a little bit later. That is because the underlying issue here is that there was no GM sweetcorn crop therefore there was nothing to cover up and there was no cover-up. There are not many interjections against that—there is silence. I think there is general agreement within the House that that was the principle and the underlying issue and that is where the issue ends. 
This talk of a cover-up in the middle of 2002 is really not supported by the evidence which has been traversed by the select committee in recent times. One of the most telling bits of evidence that has come out is a copy of a memo that was sent in the middle of 2001—a year before the controversy erupted in 2002—from biosecurity at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to Greenpeace. Greenpeace is not backward about coming forward when it thinks it has evidence of some sort of cover-up but that Greenpeace memo was publicly read out in the Local Government and Environment Committee and it states what actually happened. An initial test gave concern that there might be GM in the corn crop but further testing disclosed that that was not the case. The original test by Crop and Food Research was positive but it was later discounted and therefore cannot be counted as a positive test. It was invalid for at least three reasons the most of important of which was that the negative control for the test also came out positive. The calibration of the equipment being used in that sensitive test was shown to be wrong as was the test result. All subsequent test results were shown to be negative. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Nothing in it. 
DAVID PARKER 
: There was nothing in it. On that basis what are we concerned about here? We have the self-appointed “searcher for truth” as he describes himself Dr Nick Smith. Look at his history! He pulled another scam a couple of years ago over at Meridian Energy. Freeze! It’s the rug squad! He went in there as a self-appointed searcher and performed a citizen’s arrest on a rug. His allegation was that those rugs were some sort of cover-up. Rugs do cover the floor but they did not cover his allegation. That bizarre exercise ended up with him having egg on his face. That is a man with selective amnesia. Not very long ago he criticised payments the Government was making to North Korea as part of the UN-mandated campaign to try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He forgot that those payments were authorised by his own Government when he was a Minister. 
That man has selective memory and that has brought about some strange alliances. He is in cahoots with the Greens and we should never forget that this is the issue on which the Greens have said they wish to bring the Government down. We should never forget that on the day after the election interview between John Campbell and Helen Clark on TV3 mysteriously pre-printed stickers started appearing on Labour Party paraphernalia. We should never forget that the publisher of Nicky Hager’s book was Craig Potton and that he was not only mysteriously on the list for the Greens but was out of the country on a surfing holiday during the middle of the election campaign. It is not credible to suggest that the Greens—or at least some Green members—did not know about the Hager book prior to it being published. 
Why is Nick Smith interested in this? What is he trying to deflect consideration from? It is certainly not the Budget because we have a surplus. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Recently in the Christchurch coroner’s court a Japanese woman told an inquest into the death of her daughter that she had come to this country solely to give birth and thereby obtain New Zealand citizenship for the child. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 in an editorial on 1 September indicated that the Government needs to get a better grasp of exactly what is going on. There are too many travellers in our maternity units for comfort.  
Today we have heard the Minister of Health Annette King and an Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor speak in this debate but neither of them has shown the slightest concern for those women in our country who are going to maternity wards and being told as was the case with a young woman at the North Shore Hospital that they will have to leave. After delivering the child that North Shore woman was told that she would have to leave in 2 hours. She was packed off and sent on her way 2 hours after giving birth. This was reported in the  
North Shore Times Advertiser 
 on Thursday 28 August: “A North Shore mother is upset after being asked to vacate her North Shore Hospital bed at 4.20 a.m. only two hours after giving birth.” The hospital tried to say that it did not want her to do that but in actual fact the hospital found a car seat for the couple to borrow and Ms Maire the mother was delivered by wheelchair to the car. That is what we are seeing happen in New Zealand today. Why is it happening? It is a fact it would seem that women are coming from overseas to take advantage of New Zealand’s hospital services. They are paying for it of course. Is that the difference? Those people come from overseas and the hospitals charge them for having their children in the hospital. The hospitals want overseas people to come to New Zealand so they can charge them for having children but when the mother is a New Zealander she has 2 hours and she is gone and this Government does not care two hoots about it. 
This Government has been asked by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and it is now being asked by New Zealand First: what is its policy on this issue? This is a North Shore matter and I am disappointed that no National Party members in the House have taken the slightest interest in the issue. I believe it is the most important issue facing New Zealand and especially Auckland at the present time. Do we not care about the birth of our children in New Zealand? The Minister of Health is a woman and the Prime Minister is a woman but we just get these fancy statements from the Prime Minister that she is the victim of her own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister. She should tell that to Ms Maire and Ms Maire should tell that to all the other women on the North Shore. There is now a concern in both the North Shore and west Auckland. The article in the  
North Shore Times Advertiser 
 states: “Ms Maire says she has a lot of pregnant friends who are now worried about giving birth at North Shore Hospital.” 
What is this country coming to? We cannot even deliver our children. New Zealanders cannot even get preference to be born in a New Zealand hospital and the Labour Party does not give two hoots about it. All we heard in the debate today was talk about “corngate”. We heard the Minister of Health have a go at somebody in the National Party about something that happened in 1999. We heard an Associate Minister of Health go on about something irrelevant as well. What is important is what is happening today and in fact what is not happening today. Our mothers should be spending more time in hospital than just 2 hours and they should not be given the boot at 4.20 a.m. by North Shore Hospital staff or the staff of any other hospital. Is it not also an irony—I have read this in one of our newspapers—that we do not have enough jobs for doctors in our hospitals? Members might ask why. It is because the Labour Party’s immigration system is bringing in foreign doctors to take jobs from our own doctors. 
There is absolutely no coordination in what the Labour Party is doing. It does not have the faintest idea of what is happening in our country and does not give two hoots. I am really staggered that in the House today the Minister of Health Annette King gave no indication whatsoever about her concern for the women of the North Shore and of Auckland or for the children. That kid was 2 hours old and he was off down the road. Jesus Christ was born in a stable but at least he had a bit more time in it. Now young New Zealanders spend 2 hours in the hospital and they are off. They are stuck in wheelchairs with their mothers and they are off down the road at 4.20 a.m. It is an absolute disgrace. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity afforded to me by this debate to talk about an emerging issue of great significance to the future prosperity of New Zealand families. I am referring to the reality that first-home buyers are increasingly being shut out of the New Zealand housing market. Almost daily at the moment our newspapers are filled with news of the housing boom and the press writes it up as though it were some kind of magical road to wealth for all New Zealanders. Yesterday for example we were advised that the average Kiwi household is now $13400 richer than it was a year ago because of the booming house prices but we are yet to see any in-depth analysis of the negative consequences—the flipside if one likes—of that reality. 
Statements that average household wealth is increasing overlook the reality that when it comes to homeownership we are now seeing our nation divided between the haves and the have-nots on an intergenerational basis. I can give members a figure just released. In the 10 years between 1991 and 2001 the number of homes owned and occupied in New Zealand increased by 20000 but the number of rented homes in New Zealand during the same 10-year period increased by 111000. That bears out my contention that an increasing number of New Zealanders are being consigned to the long-term rental of properties. On the one hand we have people in their 50s and 60s buying up their third or fourth investment properties whilst on the other hand an increasing number of first-home buyers are being shut out and consigned to long-term rental of homes owned by other people. 
I want to spend a moment looking at what that means for those young first-home buyers on whom the future of our society so fundamentally depends. A recent ASB Bank survey showed that at existing housing prices a 20 percent deposit which is normally required for a new home is now equal on average to two and a half times the average annual salary of New Zealanders. This is but one indicator that more and more New Zealanders are finding homeownership completely beyond their reach. Those young families who are able to scrape together a deposit for their first home are then faced with the stress of endeavouring to service a huge mortgage which greatly reduces their ability to meet their day-to-day living costs and to raise the kids. Never before during my lifetime have I seen so many young couples so heavily indebted. It concerns me that this is putting an intolerable financial stress on the very group in our society who most need our support—if only because they are doing the most important work that any of us can do; namely raising the beautiful children of our next generation. Faced with those realities Governments should not stand idly by. 
A Labour-led Government with its traditions of opting to offer a helping hand to the have-nots rather than to the haves should be prepared to grapple with this issue. We need to begin with some rigorous analysis concerning the factors that have led to this situation. I can identify a number of those factors. Firstly New Zealand interest rates are presently the highest in the developed world at about 5.25 percent but they are low in relation to the rates that New Zealanders have become used to paying since the reforms of the 1980s. This combination of circumstances readily enables banks to attract a flood of funds from overseas sources for on-lending to Kiwis. Banks make money only if they can lend and therefore have the strongest possible incentives to go right on making money while the opportunity exists to do so. They used to lend up to 80 percent of the amount for a house but now the banks are prepared to go up to 95 percent and sometimes higher placing the borrowers in a vulnerable position. It then only takes a redundancy or a job loss to mean that many of those households will be unable to keep up with the servicing of their debts. It places real stress on marriages even leading in some circumstances to separation. 
Secondly investment in residential rental property has never been more popular. I have already told members that it increased by 111000 in the 10-year period to 2001 and it is continuing to increase to this day. That is because of the favourable tax treatment that applies to those investments. However the popularity such investments enjoyed during the 1980s and 1990s has now been influenced by a new factor. I refer to the fact that company equities and fixed interest returns have dropped markedly in the last couple of years. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 What is the bet that United Future does not have that member on the hustings at the next election? He will not be anywhere to be seen when it comes to whipping up public fervour over various issues that this Government is putting through. Up until now this was a reasonably lively debate and I have come to the conclusion that the Labour Party members have worked this tactic out. When the Opposition starts to get on top of them they put up someone from United Future and that will kill the debate dead. I want to thank that member for reading to us newspaper articles that we have all read non-stop over the last 4 or 5 days. If the member is going to talk about first-home buyers then he should at least have the decency to get up and speak from the heart not from written notes or alternatively give the speech to Marc Alexander and let him have a crack. At least we know that when Marc Alexander gets to his feet he is likely to have a go at the Government. The more that we encourage Marc Alexander to get to his feet and have a go at the Government the better off we will be. We will be watching the Labour Party’s tactics of putting up Gordon Copeland when the going gets tough. 
I want to respond to David Parker the member for Otago. I was in Oamaru on Thursday. The local newspaper has a column that asks locals: “What was the one thing you would like your local MP to do?” What people say when they answer that question is: “Who is my local MP?” They do not have a clue who he is. That seat is marginal. David Parker goes to bed every night hearing “knock knock knock knock” as the National Party door-knocks in Otago. That seat is coming home after the next election and that member will have to find another job. He will not be one of the members following the Prime Minister as she makes remarks such as: “I sometimes wonder whether I’m a victim of my own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister.” What have we here? Could one get arrogance of any higher levels when dealing with the media? 
What I particularly like is the fact that this Prime Minister is now starting to refer to herself in the third person for example: “The Prime Minister is aggrieved.” “The Prime Minister believes … ”—blah blah blah—“who incidentally is me.” she said on radio earlier this week. It is almost like Margaret Thatcher saying: “We are a grandmother.” Remember when Margaret Thatcher said that? It will not be long before this Prime Minister takes herself far too seriously and backs herself with comments like: “I wonder whether I am a victim of my own competency and success.” Well we are crying buckets over here for the Prime Minister. 
Tony Blair the master of spin whom the Prime Minister bases her administration on fronts up to select committees. He fronts up to committees of inquiry. He fronts up every time he is called. What does this Prime Minister do when the heat comes on? She sends Michael Cullen in. She sends Michael Cullen into the House while she sits somewhere else in New Zealand leaving him to carry the workload when it all goes wrong. Will the Prime Minister be fronting up to New Zealand farmers tomorrow at 12.30 p.m. on the steps of Parliament? No. She stood in the House yesterday and said: “The Prime Minister has very pressing engagements in Auckland.” I bet she does. The last thing this Prime Minister wants to do is to face down the people who provide the wealth of this country and provide Don Brash’s—er Michael Cullen’s surpluses. The money that Michael Cullen is banking in his super fund is farmers’ earnings. 
Those farmers deserve to have Labour Party members front up to them tomorrow when they arrive here at Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] Is Darren Hughes going on the steps tomorrow? That member should front down those farmers. They are furious with what this Government has done. It is just not good enough. If it is good enough for Tony Blair to front up before committees of inquiry this Prime Minister should get down from being a victim of her own success and front up to “corngate”. She should get off her high horse and get in front of that select committee just like Tony Blair has done in the UK. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk about the GM issue that has been spoken about earlier. I am someone who can actually understand what the difference is between tolerance probability levels and detection levels. I have been sitting on the GM inquiry and I have sat on the Education and Science Committee while it has listened to submissions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I have read through hundreds of pieces of paper and I have not come across any papers suggesting there was any contamination of sweetcorn in Gisborne. [ 
Interruption 
] I have actually seen all the data that has been presented to the committee and I have not seen any data suggesting any contamination at all. All the relevant tests that have been presented show negative GM in those samples. The only test that suggested positive results was due to an equipment failure where the control negative is a positive which clearly suggests that we cannot trust that particular sample. 
I will talk about how I see the future of GM around New Zealand and around the world. There are 58 million hectares of GM crops grown in 16 countries and that includes corn wheat cotton canola and many other crops. So the genie is out if you like. The GM crops are out there; there is no way we can go back and the sooner we realise that fact the better it will be for us. I have sat on the Education and Science Committee and listened to submissions on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I have asked of almost every scientist who has given evidence: “Please give me evidence. Please give me a scientifically reviewed paper. Tell me whether there has been any evidence of an adverse effect of GM on human health or the environment.” Not a single piece of evidence has been shown in that committee at all. 
No scientist anywhere in the world has shown any evidence of an adverse effect on human health or the environment. However I can tell members that there have been positive effects. For example one-third of the cotton grown in Australia is now from a GE crop. In that situation it has been shown that pesticide use has been reduced by 50 percent by using a GE crop. In terms of our agriculture I feel that the use of pesticide is a more important issue than GM because excessive use of pesticides is destroying our land and our waterways. If there is anything we can do that will reduce the use of pesticides or herbicides it will be good for agriculture. 
What we need in this country is more informed debate. This country has gone through a royal commission of inquiry and I think we have done very well in that but we need a lot more informed debate. Members on the other side are suggesting that at least one sector of society is using really scary tactics. They are saying: “GM will do this and GM will do that.” but I have not seen any adverse impact because of GM crops. I believe that unless we do some research in this country and show leadership we will be left behind. I have been an agricultural scientist for 27 years and I know that the agricultural advancement we have made in this country has come about because in many ways we have led the development of agricultural science around the world. If we can do the research here and add value using the opportunities we have in this country to improve our agriculture rather than having patented crops coming from overseas then so much the better. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is good to see the Minister of Defence here today; I am just hoping he will take a call before the end of the day. We can probably help him out a little bit. The leaves are rustling and we are starting to hear some movement in defence. I hear that he is about to announce the purchase of a very expensive vehicle the Humvee and he may like to take a call to tell us about that. But what I would like to ask him to do is to cancel the motorisation plan go back to square one and let us have some sensible decisions. We have a better plan than that— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Do nothing! That’s all you want to do. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister should listen to his colleagues and do the right thing. The Minister from Taupo who leads a peacenik organisation is touted internationally as our Minister of Defence—what a joke! We have the founder of a peace movement leading our defence forces. 
Today I want to talk about another group of people who have been poorly treated in this country. Today I asked the Prime Minister whether she had confidence in the Minister of Health and the people responsible for running mental health services and she said she did. How can the Prime Minister have confidence—[ 
Interruption 
] They do not like it up them do they? How can this Government have confidence in a mental health system that spends 26000 hours of good police time chasing mentally unwell people in our community who should not be there? How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a health system where 6175 mental health cases are in the hands of the police force? How can we have confidence in a Government that shoots its mouth off in elections tells everybody it cares about people then locks up mentally unwell people leaving them to rot in jails? 
Former Prime Minister Mike Moore said: “We have closed down hospitals and are now planning to rebuild similar wards inside prisons.” I ask Labour whether it is proud of that. We have people all over this country whom this Government does not care about—people who suffer the daily trauma and rigours of watching their loved ones being subjected to the mental health system. An article entitled “Woman Wants Staff Charged Over Death” talks about a woman who asked that her son not be released. She asked that he be taken care of because he was suicidal. His brother also made representations and where is that young man now? He is dead—suicide. Failure! Who is responsible? Annette King is responsible. Who is responsible? Helen Clark who started the whole stupid total deinstitutionalisation plan which was supported by Jenny Shipley. What greater credit could the Labour Party bring upon itself than to get plaudits from Jenny Shipley on mental health care? 
What else is happening? In the last week—[ 
Interruption 
] Steve Chadwick is shooting her mouth off but it is her Government’s failure. In the last week a man in Masterton was involved in an axe rage attack; that man should not have been out in the community. In another case a young woman in Porirua threw herself in front of a train. And what do I hear coming out of the mouths of Labour MPs now? “Oh we don’t care. It’s just another one. We’d have to lock them all up.” What about the case of the man who was found walking the motorway with a replica pistol? Had it not been for the professionalism of the police force he would be dead. The police would have been justified in shooting him dead but they did not do that. They talked him through it because they know that this Government has turned nutters loose all over the streets of this country. This Government does not care; it just says: “We can’t do anything else.” 
This Government promises big but it does not deliver. It does not care about the trauma faced by the Burton family down south. Where is the accountability? Helen Clark was big in the mouth when she promised—she was reported as promising—a hard line on accountability saying she would go all the way to the top including sacking bungling Ministers. She was going to usher in a new standard of accountability. Where is it? People are dying in our streets and dying in community care and this Government does nothing about it. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There we have it the member whose party is so committed to defence that in 1996 it did not have a policy. Ten days after his colleague took umbrage at my saying it did not have a defence policy he sought leave to table it. Ten days later he tabled a paragraph—one miserable little paragraph—from a coalition agreement. There was no policy not a bean. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is interrupting a speech. It should be a genuine point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: Well I will raise it after his speech then thank you. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: After 10 days he produced one miserable paragraph. Now the member tells us his policy is to sum it up to do nothing cancel everything and condemn our men and women to have clapped-out equipment. It was clapped-out when that member was in Government. He would have us abandon our men and women completely. I say to the member that they deserve better than that hopeless useless— 
Ron Mark 
: Are you buying the Humvee? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: We will tell members what we are buying when we have made a decision. The decision is not made and the member should grow up. This is a great example of the sort of misleading nonsense that comes across the Chamber. We heard it from Mr English earlier on and what a desperate man he is. He has got his own colleagues chasing him. We saw the member for Manawatu try to take his chance after that appalling performance from the Leader of the Opposition. 
What is it about? It is about trying to create a beat-up around documents and trying to capitalise on the confusion that is now being created. The facts are absolutely different from anything we have heard from Opposition members. We have heard about documents that were not released at the time. Half the documents in question were released to Mr Price; a request was made under the Official Information Act in November-December. In fact half those documents relating to Nicky Hager’s book were published back in 2002. Other documents that they say were not released were actually duplicates of material that was released in July 2002. 
I want to go to a very specific thing that happened in here this afternoon. I take members’ tabling of documents somewhat seriously. The Leader of the Opposition in tabling a document this afternoon an email from Mr Wintringham the State Services Commissioner—someone who should not be dragged into debate but he was dragged into it this afternoon—gave the clear impression to the House that he was quoting the tone and the text of the State Services Commissioner’s email to chief executives. He gave the clear impression to members of this House in seeking to table it that the commissioner was concerned about the conduct and the appropriateness of a press conference that took place with senior public servants following the release of Mr Hager’s book. 
That clearly simply is not accurate; nor is it truthful. If members turn to the actual paragraph they will find that what Mr Wintringham said to a public servant who had raised with him what was appropriate: “Explaining the work of Government departments is a normal role for senior Government officials. You are right that this needs to be handled with particular care in a pre-election period and you’ll have seen that the State Services Commissioner provided the ‘umbrella’ for yesterday’s media conference. This was precisely to ensure that the briefing was limited to the provision of full and accurate but non-political information from the Public Service to the media and any other enquirers … . The briefing did not include the participation of any politicians nor did it defend or criticise any particular party policies. In addition …”. 
That is about as far as possible from the impression the Leader of the Opposition gave this House this afternoon. That is the depth to which the National Party has to sink. That is the sort of behaviour we expect from Nick Smith the rug rat. That is the sort of behaviour we expect from that member who makes up scams then falls flat on his face on the very rug he has been talking about. We all remember the Meridian Energy rug incident where he made gross accusations dragged all the media along and indeed we found out that all the accusations of extravagance and wrongdoing were wrong. He was absolutely wrong. He had made it up. He had no evidence and when the facts were produced he was found to be as wrong as Bill English’s appalling performance in this House this afternoon was. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I well remember the Minister of Defence running away from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee; he would not front. He turned up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee then ran away. He ran down to the Chinese Embassy to celebrate 50 years of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army rather than front up to Parliament. I have come to expect from that Minister that he will never front and will always run away. 
I have to say that although I disagree with Helen Clark on many many things I always thought she would front. I always thought the Prime Minister of New Zealand would front up to the 4 million people of New Zealand and give an account because that is what New Zealanders expect. They know that the Mark Burtons of this world cannot hack it but Helen Clark prides herself on being a plain-speaking blunt Prime Minister. What are we finding? She will not front up to Parliament at question time. Oh she is busy; she is a world leader; she is up there hobnobbing with the Europeans and too busy for the day-to-day cares of Parliament. 
We have discovered that this Prime Minister will not front up to a select committee. Why? This great Prime Minister who is a victim of her telling success who knows everything says: “Actually I know nothing about the one issue that drove the 2002 election campaign so I don’t have to turn up to the select committee because that is beneath me.” In fact she calls the select committee which is chaired by the Greens who support this Government a circus. She calls the fact that Opposition MPs are working together to try to get to the truth a conspiracy—compared with this conspiracy to lie and cover up. 
I can understand the Prime Minister not wanting to go along there because as she says she is the Prime Minister but what about this issue ladies and gentlemen? For the farmers of New Zealand coming to protest the fart tax— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use that term; I have ruled it out. He will use another term. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The flatulence levy. Mr Speaker you have sensitive ears. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have a regard for the Standing Orders and the dignity of the English language. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Will the Prime Minister front up to the farmers of New Zealand on the steps of Parliament? The answer is no. Will she front up to the Maori people of New Zealand whom this Government campaigned for? It said it represented the Maori people of New Zealand. The Maori people go to court they go through the court process in good faith to hear their claims and Helen Clark says: “We’re going to legislate over the Maori people’s rights. They cannot have the rights that every other citizen of New Zealand enjoys.” Does the Prime Minister front up to the Maori people? Is she turning up to the Gisborne hui to explain her policy? Is this issue beneath this great Prime Minister who is blunt and plain speaking and goes on the front foot? Is talking to Maori people beneath her? Who made that decision? It was the Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Attorney-General. Who is sent? The poor sick tired Minister of Maori Affairs—that is who. I say to this Prime Minister “Front up!”. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very grateful to the Business Committee of this Parliament that it has agreed to take this bill through all its stages today. Members have agreed that it is an important bill and that it is necessary for the Auckland War Memorial Museum to start its major renovation project which it hopes to start in the next month or so. As MP for Auckland Central I have been asked— 
Rodney Hide 
: Is that right? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes. Did the member not try to stand there once? As MP for Auckland Central I have been asked by the Auckland Museum Trust Board to promote this bill. I take particular interest in this bill also as the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. This bill will repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918 and replace it with new legislation allowing the lease of land within the Auckland Domain for the purposes of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and for extensions to the museum. It also corrects some mistakes that were made in that earlier legislation to describe accurately the present site of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
The museum is architecturally and spiritually significant to everyone in Auckland and indeed to all New Zealanders as well as to visitors to New Zealand. It is a major and respected repository of Maori taonga artefacts and information. It is trusted by the people of Auckland and the greater Auckland region to keep those treasures as well as being Auckland’s major war memorial. It is respected for its research and its educational role and it is the keeper of many of our treasures. It is a vital part of our cultural tourism circuit and therefore a major contributor to the economic well-being of New Zealand as well as being a vital link to New Zealand’s growing information network. The bill will enable the Auckland War Memorial Museum to expand and redevelop to meet the needs of the people of Auckland and of all New Zealanders and also meet the needs of the 250000 or so international visitors to the museum each year. 
I want to thank the Government Administration Committee for reporting this bill back to the House so promptly so that it can be passed to enable the museum’s redevelopment and expansion project to start on time. I particularly thank the chair of that committee Dianne Yates who conducted the examination thoroughly but in an extremely constructive way; as did all members of that committee. 
When completed the museum will house a much-needed and improved collection and visitor amenities befitting its role as one of New Zealand’s most important cultural institutions and Auckland’s major war memorial. Facilities will include new collection storage areas on site for the first time—indeed the whole collection will be on site for the first time. There will also be an enhanced learning centre a grand atrium and a new underground car-park. The car-park will start to address the parking problems associated with the popularity of the museum and indeed the domain almost any day of the week all weekend summer and winter. There will also be a new special exhibition hall an auditorium and improved refreshment and public facilities. 
The Government is making a contribution of $26.5 million over 5 years from the regional museums fund towards this redevelopment. That fund was set up to recognise the importance of Te Papa as New Zealand’s national museum and the vital national and internationally significant collections that are held around the country. Auckland and Canterbury museums have both had major contributions promised to them as have museums like Puke Ariki in New Plymouth Aratoi in Masterton and the Eastern Southland Gallery in Gore. The contribution towards the Auckland War Memorial Museum is the biggest and the total cost of that project will be double that $26.5 million raised by the museum board and the people of Auckland. The expansion project is scheduled if this legislation passes to commence on 1 October this year. 
As a Government we are making this contribution to the Auckland War Memorial Museum because we believe that this investment is required given the huge national and international significance of the museum’s collection and its programmes. The museum’s collection and in particular its Maori and Pacific collections are second to none in the world. They are part of New Zealand’s heritage and need to be conserved and protected for all new Zealanders to enjoy. The redevelopment project will enable the museum to house that collection much better to display it much better and to make it available to visitors to the museum as well as to scholars. 
Once completed the redeveloped Auckland War Memorial Museum will not only have world-class collections but it will have world-class facilities. It will be a tremendous asset to the people of Auckland and for New Zealand as a whole as well as engaging all those visitors. The passage of this bill is the final step to enable this project to proceed. 
Again I thank the Business Committee of the House for agreeing that this bill should go through all its stages today. I thank the Government Administration Committee all parties in the House that have agreed to facilitate the passage of this bill the Auckland Museum Trust Board and everybody who has been involved in the museum redevelopment and this bill. The Auckland War Memorial Museum is a key component in our country’s cultural framework and this bill will enable it to carry out its role for future generations. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party is very pleased to support this bill sponsored by the Auckland Museum Trust Board. We have also agreed to support the express passage of this bill to enable the redevelopment work to start. I must say I was somewhat surprised at that rather quick reading and flat tone used by the member for Auckland Central who is also the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. I thought she would feel a lot more excitement to see an icon in Auckland get a very much-needed redevelopment and facelift after 70 years. 
The Government Administration Committee had the opportunity to hold its hearing at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I think all the members who were there would agree with me that it was a very worthwhile exercise. The redevelopment project will cost $49.5 million and will make improvements on two fronts. First of all personally I was very impressed and moved by the staff at the museum who have to work in such outdated outmoded and very cramped working spaces particularly in the workshops and so on. It was almost sad to see people having to put up with working in such cramped spaces for so long. For the sake of the staff I am really pleased that they will have improved workshops where they do such innovative work in preserving one of the most prestigious collections of Maori artefacts etc. We had a conducted tour and saw that some workshops are actually in the courtyard of the existing Auckland War Memorial Museum. For the first time I had the opportunity to contrast the experience of a visitor to the museum which is a magnificent site and then be taken to the back room and see the types of conditions that the staff have had to put up with for so long. I am sure they will be pleased to see that their working environment will be hugely improved. 
 The other redevelopment phase concentrated on the new seven-level atrium where the museum will be able to showcase musical sessions and hold seminars so the public can appreciate even more the collections of the museum and the exchange of ideas relating to collections and other valuables kept in the museum. The trust board and executive enabled us to see a very impressive demonstration of the utilisation of modern technology and also the New Zealand culture which will be showcased separately in public areas in educational sites and in unique types of display. When the work is finished I think the public will be very impressed with that Auckland icon. 
I think most people will agree with me that car-parking has always been a problem whenever special events have been held at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Now we will have a covered car-park which is another major improvement. People will be sheltered which is really important for a site that exists in open space. I am sure that improvement will increase the patronage of the museum which Aucklanders take such immense pride in. 
We learnt something quite interesting during the select committee hearing. We were told that the legal description of the museum site is slightly different from the original legislation of 1918. So we need this bill to correct that matter and also to address the concern of some people that the museum is located on top of a volcano and whether activities need to be restricted. So this bill includes clauses to ensure that activities on the Auckland War Memorial Museum site will not be curtailed because of that concern. 
The National Party is very very pleased to support this bill and wants to see the redevelopment work proceed quickly. On a personal note I want to make two further points. The first is that in recent years as someone who now lives in central Auckland I have had the privilege of attending Anzac Day memorial services in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The dawn service and the open day at the museum later on have always made it a very special day. That particular site and the collection in the museum make the Anzac service a particularly moving experience for those who attend. The war memorial museum setting is very befitting and it is pleasing to see the increasing number of people attending the dawn service particularly the young people of New Zealand. I am sure that is a sign of us wanting to celebrate our shared history and shared losses and the spirit of unity as a nation in remembering the people who have paid a high price so there can be peace in the world. 
Secondly there is a certain sense of sadness for me. When I visited the Auckland War Memorial Museum at the beginning of the year to look at the redevelopment plan I raised the point that nowadays in Auckland one in five people are of Asian ethnic origin. The discussion was quite positive at the beginning of maybe having a corridor or space in the museum for a dedicated Asian display area. However I was saddened to learn that the museum board eventually turned down that idea. I hope that in the not too distant future the decision can be revisited because Auckland and New Zealand are becoming increasingly multicultural. The museum is where people see our history and our past being celebrated and displayed. I would like communities from all backgrounds to have a special place in the museum—our place—to celebrate their culture. I hope to work with the Auckland Museum Trust Board in the future to redress that issue. Certainly there is a special place for our Maori history for the Pacific Island community and for European history and it is a very proud part of our history. I want to see other communities also being allocated some special place in the museum. But despite that it is a very special place—it is our place. Today we are very happy to support the reporting back of this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak to the report back of this bill. As Pansy Wong has said this bill was unanimously and enthusiastically supported by the Government Administration Committee and I thank all members involved. When I say “enthusiastic” I mean that it was really good for us to meet at the museum to look at the plans and to be excited about them. I just wish that more members of the House could see those plans. If members want I have the DVD that shows how the whole atrium area—the seven storeys—will be developed which will expand the display areas the education areas the café areas and the theatre areas. Members from Auckland will be absolutely able to boast about this new facility that will be built. 
As someone who comes from south of the Bombay Hills I have looked upon the Auckland War Memorial Museum as an icon of New Zealand not just of Auckland but I have always thought when there that it is a bit shabby around the back. As Pansy Wong has mentioned the yard is a yard which as was explained to us is the size of nine tennis courts. It is that yard that will be turned into the grand atrium which will come up in the middle of the circular part of the museum. An exciting development is planned and as part of the Government I am pleased we are contributing to that new development. 
During the select committee process we had to look at things that perhaps were a little bit boring: is the land appropriate and has the land been measured appropriately? We found that there had been a little miscalculation of some of the figures about that land and we have cleared that issue up. As Pansy Wong has already mentioned an underground car-park is planned and we had to ensure that facilities were there for that. There is the matter of roadway access and that had to be clarified in terms of the description of the land. Then as Pansy Wong has also mentioned we had to make sure that everything was tightly and legally secure in terms of whether the museum was being built on a volcano and whether it fitted in with other legislation in that regard. So I thank the advisers to the committee who were also very careful to make sure that we got it right this time—that we had all the measurements right that the description of the land was right and that the development could go ahead. 
As Pansy Wong has mentioned the committee was quite shocked at some of the standards of the work facilities already there. The people who are doing tremendous restoration work on some of the exhibits and so on have very cramped workshops. The facilities for the library and so on were very very cramped. We were assured that not only will the new design be beautiful but it will also be utilitarian. It will allow for a development that will I am sure not only increase the pride of New Zealanders in that war memorial but also increase the number of tourists who will go through it as well as increase its educational facilities for young people. 
All in all it was a pleasure to work on this bill. I thank the committee and all those involved with the bill—Pansy Wong Judith Collins Steve Chadwick and David Cunliffe—for the work they put in. I also particularly thank the officials and the Auckland Museum Trust Board for hosting us so ably and for conveying to us their enthusiasm for the project. I am sure with such people behind it and with the Minister behind it with such enthusiasm it can only be a success. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As we know the Auckland War Memorial Museum stands on a commanding site and has stood there for 70 years. It is a very worthy memorial to those who died in the service of our country. It is therefore fitting that at this stage some 40 or so years after the last work was done this bill comes to the House. On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to offer our support for the expeditious passage of the bill. 
In so doing I recognise that we are correcting errors of the past. We have recently had retrospective legislation in the House and this is one such piece of legislation as well. It is perhaps an oversight but we all agree with it. This House recently considered an Act retrospectively and this is another such bill that when passed will correct the mistakes in a lease lasting over 70 years. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum has always been an educational place. It is quite fitting therefore to pay tribute to the past directors and staff. From the time that I had a brief teaching acquaintance with the museum right through to the present time there has always been a lack of space. Staff were always in the back rooms trying to put collections together. But for those of us involved in education the final effort—the actual work seen by the students who went through the museum and the collection boxes that were sent out—were first rate and gave many country children their first insight into the work of a museum. 
One of the things I found very hard to understand in the past was the lack of Government support for the Auckland War Memorial Museum. It makes quite a contrast to the taxpayer gift to the city of Wellington on the waterfront which incurred huge costs. Therefore it is quite fitting the Government has recognised that in the dollar for dollar funding contribution that has been set up. 
The fact that the museum had an educational impact is important because those of us in rural districts—and I mentioned this in the earlier debate—saw the Auckland War Memorial Museum as part of the former Auckland province. That is recognised in the names of those up there on the higher floor and of those who have passed on. It is recognised in some ways by some of the former county councils and borough councils that made financial contributions pre-war and up until after the war. But I said to the director when I met him recently that in recent years that overall response from the Auckland region which goes from Taupo north has not always been seen in the understanding that people in Auckland have of their museum. 
It was an Auckland provincial museum and that is particularly important for Maori who gave willingly to the collection that was put together in terms of their objectives. So it is probably quite pertinent to look very quickly at the role of the Auckland War Memorial Museum—namely the recording and presentation of the history and the environment of the Auckland region of New Zealand the South Pacific and in more general terms the rest of the world. In particular the collections for Maori and the South Pacific are first rate world class and unlike collections in any other museum in the world. In that way the museum is a world first and a world best as well. 
I turn now to heritage issues. Educational work in recent times has concentrated upon the heritage aspects of the museum being represented in a modern way and in a modern dress. The promotion of scientific and cultural scholarships is one of the issues for a museum in order to portray the past in a vital way and show that the technology of the past was important to people’s lives—to people living day by day 20 30 50 or 100 years ago. That is the sort of historical promotion that museums can do very very well. 
Hopefully museums can also promote themselves with prudent financial management but that has not always been one of the issues for them. If we look worldwide the prudent management of international museums of note in New York Boston London and so on is quite an issue at the present time. It is very difficult to maintain the overall services that a museum wishes to provide not only for those who are near but for those who are far and come to visit and to do that in a way that is efficient in a funding and financial sense. 
It is difficult most of all to give to the wider community something of our past in a way that I have to say as a teacher many of our young people just do not understand. They do not understand—as we did in our day because we had a limited range of resources—just how important historical records are and how important the visible record is in the museum. That record is one thing the Auckland Museum has always had. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to endorse the support that other parties have passed on. As I said earlier the prime role of this museum was to be a war memorial and that is still the hallmark of the place. Pansy Wong mentioned the Anzac Day services. Our family in our time in Auckland were there each year. The Maori Battalion made the annual Anzac parade one of its features of the year particularly for Maori. Unfortunately as my friend Bill Gudgeon knows those service people have passed on. Again we give our support for the bill and our support for its quick passage through the evening’s debate. May the board prosper in its endeavours. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It was my pleasure to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for this bill. I have to state that I love the Auckland War Memorial Museum. It is what a museum should be. It looks like a museum; it acts like a museum; it is a museum. It is also a war memorial and that is so important today 3 September which from my calculation is the 64th anniversary of the declaration of World War II when New Zealand was the first country as I understand it to declare war. It is very important. It is also one day off being the anniversary of the death of my father who was a veteran of World War II so I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill. 
I fully support the war memorial museum. I take my son there frequently and I love to go there. When the select committee went there to have a meeting and to have a look at the plans and the site I was thrilled to find out that after all my years of going to the war memorial museum and even as a little girl being brought up from the Waikato— 
Rodney Hide 
: Still a little girl. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say “thank you” to Mr Hide. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I was advising the House before the dinner break that when I was a little girl from the Waikato I was brought by my father and mother in the back of a car with no seat belts—we did not have them in those days; I am that old—to Auckland occasionally to visit the extended family and we would go to the Auckland War Memorial Museum. We would go to the floor where the war memorial is with the names of the soldiers—including my great-uncle Norman Fraei—from the Auckland province who died in World War I. In those days the Auckland province extended all the way down the top half of the North Island. After paying homage looking around the museum and looking again at the magnificent waka and the many treasures and taonga in the museum we would then trot off to the Auckland Zoo. I have to say it is still a wonderful zoo and is supremely better than it used to be in my days as a child. It is another of those Auckland icons that I have to say is a world leader. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I think so too. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I thank the Minister Judith Tizard very much for her support. When the Government Administration Committee went to visit the Auckland War Memorial Museum I was amazed to find a public library there. I thought I knew a lot about that museum and I thought that I had been everywhere in it. However I did not realise that the museum has a public library open to people to go and have a look at some of the magnificent books kept there. It is a huge research facility that I did not know about. So after all those years of going to the museum and feeling that it was utterly part of my New Zealand culture—part of who I am as a New Zealander and part of where my family has been and are—I felt that I had learnt something stunningly new. One thing I shall do during the next adjournment is go and have another good look in that library. 
A lot of people have said to me they are concerned about the extension to the museum. Everybody who goes to that museum looks at the site and the building and says that they hope no one will add any little bits on its side. But this will be the second major redevelopment of the museum. The first was back in 1960 when the back part of the museum—the round part which makes it a bit like half a cake tin at the back—was added on by an architect called Mr Draffin. He was involved in all sorts of buildings at the time such as the Bledisloe building in Wellesley Street and some that were not quite as well known as the War Memorial Museum. As someone who is interested in buildings I was interested to find that he was the architect of that extension. That is why the back part of the museum is much plainer in many ways than the front part. The front part was built in the 1920s specifically for what it is—a war memorial—but the back part had really more to do with the housing of the staff and collections in the museum and that is why it has different things on it. It is also the part of the museum that holds of course the war memorial for World War II veterans which is at the southern side of the museum. As has been explained by my colleague Pansy Wong that part houses a lot of the collections not on public display. 
The War Memorial Museum holds not only many Maori taonga but also a tremendous amount of Pacific treasures. Having been many times to Samoa the birthplace of my husband and also a part of my family I know that there are just not the facilities in the Pacific Islands to hold the sorts of treasures held by the museum on behalf of the Pasifika people. That is one of the other main attributes of that particular museum. All New Zealanders can be proud of this museum and certainly Aucklanders can be in particular. 
I will discuss again the extensions to the museum. People worry about them. They do not want extensions to be coming out the side with anything glitzy or dare I say Auckland-like. As an Aucklander of course I can say that. What will be built there will be inside the inner part of the extension from the 1960s in the vacant area with just a couple of ramshackle buildings including a smoking room for the staff. That will have to go if the Government gets its way! That area is the size of about seven tennis courts and is unused apart from those ramshackle buildings. The only other thing of note is that the area holds a piece of One Tree Hill’s pine which was cut down by the activist Mike Smith. That is really all it holds. One great thing is that the very extensive extensions to be made will not impede or in any way compromise the look of the museum and that is so important. After all it is a war memorial and a sacred part of New Zealand. 
What is also great about the extensions is that the underground car-park will be just that—underground. It will be at the back of the museum in the southern part— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Unusual for an underground park to be underground. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Benson-Pope might think that is terribly funny but it is a culturally sacred site and he should have a little bit of common sense and sensitivity to those of us who feel we have a cultural New Zealand even if he does not. Unfortunately he is a bad product of a very bad education system— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In particular that car-park has been designed so that it is not visually offensive to the grass area at all. We found that the part underneath the ground is part of the reservoir so that means there is an ability at some stage to extend out. It is just marvellous that that is being done in such a way that the integrity of the property and of that cultural icon—that absolute monument to those people who gave their lives so that people could come to this House and have democracy despite some of the behaviour that occurs occasionally—will be— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Running round telling porkies. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It will be kept and that is absolutely amazing. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think it is all right for a member of this House to accuse another member of dishonesty. David Benson-Pope just accused me of telling porkies to the electorate. 
David Benson-Pope 
: No I did not. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member says that he did not. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The work that has been done by the trust board of the museum is just wonderful. The people we met during the committee hearing were absolutely great and I congratulate them very much. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to support the second reading of the bill. The bill allows the Auckland War Memorial Museum to lease the land in the domain as well as including the planned extension to build a new underground car-park. It also ensures that the lease granted to the Auckland Museum Trust Board by the Auckland City Council in 1920 extends to the land included in the schedule and will be treated as if this had always been the case. 
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about how these plans will be affected by the work of the Government Administration Committee in scrutinising this bill. I certainly put on record my gratitude to the members of that committee for doing such a thorough job on the bill. I am an Auckland-based MP so I have a really keen interest in how the bill proceeds. 
The purpose of this bill is to validate the lease of land in the Auckland Domain to the Auckland Museum Trust Board for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and to increase the land area subject to that lease so that redevelopment plans for the museum can proceed. In doing so the bill repeals the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918. A sensible recommendation was made by the committee to clarify that the lease includes both the existing area and the proposed leased area. The difficulty with the bill as it stood was that it was unclear whether the description referred to the existing leased area the proposed leased area or both. I think the Surveyor-General pointed out this potential confusion and advised that it was more accurate to describe the original area as the lease by referring to the plan that defined it rather than to the latest plan outlined in the schedule of the bill because this shows the original area only as an abuttal. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to ensure that it referred to both the existing and the proposed leased area and this seems to me to be an eminently sensible suggestion. 
It should be noted that this bill also has a retrospective effect because it corrects anomalies between the existing location of the museum building and the legal description of the site leased to the board back in 1918 through the 1918 Act. In general I am not in favour of making retrospective law on principle. But in this case I can see that this would serve to correct an error and that act would not conceivably cause harm to anyone. Thus the bill validates the lease granted in 1920 by the Auckland City Council to the enactment of this bill. 
I think it is right for the Auckland Museum Trust Board to seek a new bill to tidy this up once and for all rather than deciding as was an option to amend or repeal the 1918 Act. That also shows in the council’s support for the bill during the submission process as it also supports the redevelopment of the museum. The land described in the schedule of the bill is also deemed to have been always covered by that lease. 
I was fascinated to learn that the discrepancy between the leased area in the 1918 Act and the actual location of the museum building was discovered only when the proposed car-park which will be a part of the redevelopment was surveyed. I guess that is what progress is all about—we find out little things like this. Given that the museum has been there for 70 years I see no reason that now when redevelopment is about to begin this legislation should not have retrospective effect. 
The other thing to remember is that the council already considers that the total lease area in the bill is largely within the area set out by the district plan for “museum purposes” within of course the Auckland Domain. It should be pointed out that any development in the Auckland Domain is also subject to extensive controls according to the district plan. The council has already issued a resource consent for the redevelopment and it should be noted that this has been supported by the Historic Places Trust. The council has also made it very clear that any development in the Auckland Domain will always be subject to wide public and expert scrutiny. This also applies to a rather curious element that applies most specifically to development in the Auckland area. 
Because the museum is situated on a volcanic cone it is included under a very old Act namely section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act of 1915 which restricts quarrying excavations terraces or cutting on the side or slope of volcanic cones or hills bounded by or abutting a public reserve. Because the museum site for the proposed car-park sits on top of the volcanic cone not on its side or on a slope then the 1915 Act on the face of it in any case does not apply to this very case. Indeed the 1915 Act was not an issue when the museum was extended on two occasions both in 1929 and 1960. Even so I think it was wise for the committee to have put this issue beyond any doubt and to have recommended an amendment that would exempt the lease from the requirement of the 1915 Act. 
Because the proposed lease area has been expanded from the original it does include existing and proposed roadways immediately adjacent to the museum buildings. I have found out that all roadways in the Auckland Domain fall under the provisions of the Auckland Domain Act which effectively means that all roadways within the domain remain in the ownership of the council with consequent responsibility for their upkeep and maintenance. I commend the select committee’s decision to amend this bill to make absolutely sure that all the roadways on the proposed lease area are subject to the Auckland Domain Act and therefore remain under the council’s responsibility. I note also that this has already been agreed to between the council and the board. Similarly the move to strike out reference to the 1918 Act—the very Act that will be repealed by this bill—means that a consequential amendment will be required to the Auckland Domain Act. This will exchange reference to the 1918 Act with reference to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act of 2003 particularly for the purposes of determining responsibility for the care and upkeep of the domain roadways. Once again I believe that this was a sensible recommendation by the select committee. 
I think at this point it is timely to remind members of what the statutory role of the Auckland War Memorial Museum is as defined by the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996 because we have to look at what this bill attempts in that context. The board is entrusted with the recording and presentation of the history and environment of the Auckland region New Zealand the South Pacific and in more general terms the rest of the world. It has responsibility for the institution itself involving conservation of the heritage of the museum and of global resources. Something that should definitely not be forgotten is the role of the museum as a war memorial which is something that I would like to talk about during the later stages of this bill. 
The museum celebrates the rich cultural diversity of the Auckland region and its peoples. It provides education that involves and entertains people to enrich their lives. It promotes the well-being of society and advances and promotes cultural and scientific scholarship and research. And not to be forgotten the museum is now committed to greater financial self-sufficiency through the prudent operation of compatible revenue-producing and fundraising activities that supplement public funding. The goal is to provide maximum community benefit from the resources available and that should be the watchword for the museum as it prepares to embark on a major redevelopment at a very significant cost. This bill facilitates that process and I hope that the goals I have mentioned remain uppermost in the mind of the board as it proceeds with its plans. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to join other members in supporting the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of living in Auckland for 43 years. One of the major sites in Auckland—a site that makes one feel one is an Aucklander—is the domain and the museum located on it. 
I believe that we now have a wonderful array of attractions in the Auckland area so much so that I think many Aucklanders should perhaps consider in their summer holidays taking a visit to Auckland for a change as I did one year. One of the first places they should go to is the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
 Too often people dash up north to Paihia or to Russell those who can afford it go down to Pauanui and others go to Hawaii or to Surfers but I think consideration should be given by Aucklanders to visiting Auckland. They should consider visiting the museum taking a trip across the harbour to Rangitoto walking up the volcanic cone and enjoying the view of the Waitemata Harbour and the Hauraki Gulf from the top of Rangitoto. It is quite an amazing sight to see the Hauraki Gulf from that viewpoint. There is also the Museum of Transport and Technology. 
There is another development on land. When we go down Meola Road—and those of us who lived in the Grey Lynn and Point Chevalier areas as I did in 1960 and thereabouts remember Meola Road as a tip site—we see how wonderfully that has been developed in recent years. Again there is the Second World War influence especially on Meola Road when we take the shortcut to go from the North Shore to visit people who live in the Point Chevalier and Mount Albert areas. Then of course the other thing people should do when they visit Auckland as an Aucklander is walk the harbour bridge. That is a wonderful walk as well. There is quite a nice package there for Aucklanders to have a look around Auckland itself starting as I said with the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
I take Dianne Yates’ point. It is very exciting to think that this museum is embarking on a $46.5 million redevelopment in October 2003. It is such a wonderful museum already. I take Pansy Wong’s point about the history of New Zealand and there not being enough of an Asian theme to it. On reflection I cannot recall anything in the museum about say the gold-mining days and the influence that the Chinese people had on the Otago gold mines at the time. 
Judith Collins 
: It was Otago? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes it was Otago but it was a New Zealand concept. If we look at the main legislation the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996 which created the museum we see that section 11(a) states that the objectives include the recording and presentation of the history and environment of the Auckland region New Zealand the South Pacific etc. 
Another aspect is the Middle Eastern viewpoint. Many people do not seem to realise the remarkable contribution that Lebanese people made to New Zealand in the middle of the 19th century. Dunedin used to be very wealthy and it was the Lebanese who made a significant contribution. There are still Lebanese families around the area. Perhaps their contribution is not as great as it used to be but they are in the background still. One thinks of perhaps the Corban family as in a more obvious way coming from Lebanon but that was in about 1901. But in the early days in the Otago area and such like the Lebanese made a significant contribution to New Zealand. So there is that thought as well—that the new museum could have an area set aside for the contributions made by people who have been virtually forgotten over time. We have taken where we are for granted. I recommend to the trustees that this development should take those early developments into account. 
I have been in New Zealand for 43 years. I came to Auckland in 1960. My first visit to the Auckland War Memorial Museum was in the 1960s. It was quite an eye-opener to see all the canoes and the various things from the Polynesian area and from Micronesia as well. I remember when I did History 1 in 1961 at Auckland University. I was asked to do an essay on the Maori Wars. I got an F for that because I could not find any information on wars in New Zealand for a start—nothing that really amounted to a war. So that was hard. Then finding information on Maori wars which I thought would have been fought amongst Maori was also a failure. Keith Sinclair wanted me to write an essay based on his thesis which was on the Maori Wars. That was fine. University lecturers always ask their students questions that relate to a book they have written. So finding anything on the Maori Wars was impossible for me at that stage. I ended up with an F but I had the great advantage of going into a tutorial with Mr Stone who was given all the duffers to handle—the ones who were totally ignorant on the subject. Professor Stone as he now is has written the book on Auckland. I always feel that I was quite lucky to take the view that I did and of course it seems that I am right now. People say that the Maori Wars were actually in the 1820s and 1830s and what we had in the 1850s and 1860s were the Land Wars. So I might get a better mark for that essay today on the New Zealand wars just to show how history can work. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Barnett can disagree with me but I suspect that I know a lot more about New Zealand history than that even more recent immigrant would know about New Zealand. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum was very helpful to someone like myself in the 1960s. I think there might be quite a few people who did what I did. When a man first meets a young woman he fancies he thinks of what he is going to do and how he is going to pass the time away. Of course that excludes some people all together. My then fiancée and I spent some pleasant times at the museum because I lived in Birdwood Crescent just around the corner. One did live in Parnell if one was a university student in those days and the Auckland War Memorial Museum was in the middle of our respective addresses. So I walked past the Auckland War Memorial Museum at about 4 and 5 o’clock in the morning quite frequently. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes quite frequently. It was very safe to do that in those days. People cannot do that today—not with this Government. However that is another matter. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum has played quite a significant part in my life. Members may also remember the Parnell Lawn Tennis Club. Those who played lawn tennis and I emphasise the words “lawn tennis” might remember that it was just on the museum site as well. It is extraordinary when I look back on it how the museum could play a part in one’s life without one fully realising it. 
My colleague Judith Collins reminded me that today was the date of the beginning of the Second World War when New Zealand declared war on Hitler half an hour before anybody else. There is a lovely piece of  
Hansard 
 to read if members bother to read it. There was a short debate members sang “God Save the King” and in the space of half a page of  
Hansard 
 we had declared war on Hitler before Britain did. That was the way we used to do things in those days. 
One of the best sections of the Auckland War Memorial Museum from my point of view is the Palestine section. Not many people appreciate the role played by New Zealand in liberating Palestine from the Turks and the Germans. I refer especially to the role of the Australian Light Horse Brigade which was really infantry on horseback. They would ride their horses to a certain point and get off and do a lot of fighting. It was a funny way of doing it. The Australian Light Horse Brigade and the New Zealand soldiers with the British force under General Allenby liberated Palestine in 1917. That section of the museum is the only place where I have seen something on the liberation of Palestine—something I had read about in those jingoistic very youthful books as a young person. 
There are these odd sections of the museum that are to be commended to people. If people including Aucklanders take a holiday in Auckland over Christmas that is one of the places they should visit. I really look forward with excitement to the way in which this seven-storey building is to be erected and the things that are likely to be going into it. I also look forward to more opportunities in the future to display the areas of the museum that are not fully shown today. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 As an Auckland MP I am very happy to contribute to the second reading debate on this bill. It is a bill that is certainly overdue in relation to the money that needs to be put into significant improvements to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and I congratulate the Minister with Responsibility for Auckland Issues the Hon Judith Tizard on sponsoring it. 
It is interesting that we found through the select committee process that there are discrepancies and previous speakers have aptly pointed to the discrepancies that need to be validated by this new piece of legislation. It is quite amazing that we have found that some of the decisions made long ago are now quite out of kilter in relation to the lease arrangements for the land and needed to be validated also in relation to the 1918 Act. It has been determined that the museum site is on the cone of the volcano instead of the slope and therefore the bill makes it clear that the site should be exempted from section 5 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915. One only hopes that we do not have an eruption of that volcano in the short or long-term future. Obviously if that occurs some of the valuable artefacts the heritage and history that we have in the museum may be lost. 
I want to congratulate the Government Administration Committee on its work. The improvement that we hope to see developed next month in October is a significant one and it is most apt that this legislation is going through the House tonight. The sum of $46.5 million has been dedicated to the redevelopment of the site which will mean a 60 percent extension to the facility’s interior space plus a new underground car park which will improve the facility—certainly from the point of view of visitors. The Auckland War Memorial Museum is still one of the most visited attractions in Auckland. It is very important in terms of various aspects—not only in terms of what museums represent and what is stored in them from an educational and heritage point of view but also in terms of the Pacific region. 
As some of my colleagues have mentioned the museum houses artefacts from the South Pacific that are very important and valuable for the region. I take up and support the points that have been made by my colleague Judith Collins in relation to some of the Pacific treasures and taonga that are in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. They are valuable not just for Polynesia and its history but also for Melanesia and Micronesia as my colleagues have mentioned. I am sure that the Pacific leaders who came to the Pacific Islands Forum recently would have been quite surprised at the treasures from the Pacific that are in the Auckland museum if some of them had visited the museum during their short stay in New Zealand. 
I commend the work done by the select committee on the bill. It is a bill that has the cross-party support of all parties and all members of the House. I believe that it is a very good bill and I congratulate the Minister who is sponsoring the bill and those who have worked to improve the legislation. We have a worthy bill that will inject a significant amount of money into improving the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is not just a museum but is also a tribute and memorial to those who have fallen in battle and paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom that we enjoy today. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (NZ Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to speak in relation to clause 1 “Title” of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. It was with some trepidation that I first looked at this bill because I was concerned that given the political correctness that seems to follow us around like a dark cloud this bill would have been named the “Auckland Museum Site Empowering Bill”. I was particularly concerned to make sure that under no circumstances was the “War Memorial” part of the title deleted removed or in any other way amended. 
In particular my concerns related to the fact that the museum is now marketed not as the Auckland War Memorial Museum but as the Auckland Museum. I know that the people who run the museum—who do a tremendous job—probably do not feel that they are doing any particular harm in marketing it in that way. But to me and to many New Zealanders who feel deeply about the war memorial that above all the museum is it is extremely offensive that the war memorial museum should have its name shortened simply so that the name is less difficult to say and more convenient. The soldiers gave up their lives so that we could live in a democracy today and the fact that we are speaking in this Chamber—which is itself a war memorial—tonight reminds us that we do that. They were not able to avoid going off to war because of the inconvenience. They were not able to say that they would not give up their youth as my father did or their lives as my great-uncle did because it was inconvenient to do so and I make that point whenever I get the opportunity to speak with the management and director of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. At no stage should we ever forget that that site is sacred. It is sacred in many ways and its full name must be used which is why I was particularly pleased to see that included in the title of this bill. 
Another possible title for the bill may be the “Auckland War Memorial Museum (Because It Is a Victim of Its Own Success) Bill because that museum is if nothing else a victim of its own success. It is so good and so powerful that 70 years after it began it is going into its third major renovation. When we spoke with the director Dr Rodney Wilson a man who has given a tremendous amount to the museum to Auckland and to the arts generally I could tell that he was thinking about the next extension and how that will have to be designed. He is a man who is so passionate about and committed to his work that it was a pleasure for us as part of the Government Administration Committee to be able to go there. That museum as I said is a victim of its own success. 
It is great to be able to say tonight that the Auckland War Memorial Museum will not have its name adulterated by Parliament. I will be extremely pleased when the day comes that I can convince the museum trust board not to market it as the “Auckland Museum”. That sounds awful. It sounds as though the museum is not the special and wonderful place—the sacred site—that it is which we can all go to and say that we are blown away by because it is an amazing site. Having now attended I think 23 dawn parade services there in a row until this year—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Worth—when as the MP for Clevedon I went to Papakura I love that site. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the member for Clevedon. I am sure she will take another call and have the opportunity to pursue her views. She made a very good point when she talked about the way in which the bill should be named. If one looks around at the amount of legislation that exists at the moment that includes “Auckland” and “museum” one will see that it becomes quite confusing. To clear that up in some members’ minds initially we are repealing the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918. That goes by the board. We still seem to have the Auckland City and Auckland Museum Empowering Act of 1924 and that might cause some confusion; and we also have the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996. The time should be coming when consideration should be given to putting all this legislation together into one piece of legislation—an omnibus bill or one bill that could be called the “War Memorial Museum Bill” or the “War Memorial Museum Act” at the end of the day. It does seem to me that there is room for improvement in the way in which this bill could be named. I am sure all members remember that this is a memorial essentially to the First World War but it does contain items from the Second World War as well. 
I was intrigued by the comments of the member for Clevedon about her great-uncle who was killed in the First World War. My grand-uncle—I am a little bit older than the member for Clevedon obviously—Clement Urban Leahy was in the Seaforth Highlanders having joined at about 16 in July or August 1914 and he was gone by November at one of the battles of Neuve Chapelle at the age of 16. He posthumously received the DCM for his trouble and is recorded in the Seaforths war diary for the battle that took place on 5 or 6 November. I was able to obtain this from the records which are now kept by the Queen’s Own Highlanders. We all have a link I would say in this Parliament with the First World War and one cannot help but recall the trials and tribulations of that time. I feel—and I would like the Minister to comment on this proliferation of legislation that we have— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I find the member’s speech particularly interesting and I apologise for interrupting him but there is an absolute gaggle of conversation over here on the Government benches. I certainly was struggling to hear the fine words that Mr Dail Jones was giving to us in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. It is hard when conversation is across like that and the member is sitting where he is. 
DAIL JONES 
: I appreciate Mr Shirley’s comments and the consideration that he is giving to this very important monument to the past and monument for the future of those who took part in the First World War and the Second World War. There is quite a lot of Second World War memorabilia in the museum as well. The ultimate name of the bill is the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill” and it seems that the Act will be called the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act”. I wonder why we need the word “empowering”. It surely— 
Dianne Yates 
: It is about development which you haven’t even mentioned in your speech yet. 
DAIL JONES 
: But why have the word “empowering”? What does “empowering” mean? It is just to give someone the power. Why not call it the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Act”? That is what it should be because this bill is all about the site. The fact that there was a slight problem with the dimensions of the site and the fact that when they reconsidered the site—and I see there is a diagram attached to the bill marked “SO”—survey order I suppose—70808 showing us the site; and it seems to me that the name will be so clumsy in the future for someone trying to get to this legislation and having to say the name and we have been saying it in this Parliament: the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act. The suggestion by the member for Clevedon that it should be the “War Memorial Museum Site Bill” or the “War Museum Site Bill” might perhaps be another version of it. This business of saying “empowering” is such an ancient view. It is the sort of thing one gets in an early 19th century – late 18th century piece of legislation to say that something was “empowering”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I would just remind members that the debate is on the title. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk about the title of this bill called the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill because it is very a important factor in the future plans for the museum. The future plans for the museum are what the bill is all about. The aspect of the title that attracts the most controversy is that it is a war memorial museum. Although Auckland’s first museum was opened in 1852 in a two-room farm cottage in Grafton Road—one room was used for the collection and one was for the custodian’s accommodation—it was not until 1929 that the Auckland War Memorial Museum was finally completed. The construction coincided with a desperate need to find new accommodation for the museum’s expanding collection and in 1920 it was decided to combine a new museum building with a war memorial. 
However the dual purposes embedded in the title of the museum as a war memorial has not been without its controversies. I remember well that for several years there was a gentleman by the name of Harry Corrin a veteran of World War II who fought to stop plans to build a restaurant on top of the museum claiming that this was indicative of the commercialisation of the institution. So it must be remembered that it was not just another museum. Since it was a very special museum and those who served the country were remembered in it it was called a “war museum”. This means that the major decisions relating to the museum must be handled with a degree of sensitivity—as its name implies to those who also see it as a monument to the fallen. 
Some have noted a reluctance on the part of the marketers to use the museum’s full and significant title in most public references and argue that it limits the institution’s appeal and it could cost it attendances. In my view this is a very regrettable development since as the generations pass it becomes even more important to remember the sacrifice of those who have gone before us. As this bill’s name refers it will enable further expansion of the museum complex and therefore the war memorial itself. 
I ask members to reflect on the title clause of this bill with this sensitivity in mind. To my mind there can be no doubt that the museum was intended to serve a dual purpose as a memorial to those who served in World War I. An architectural competition we know was held to design a new building to honour the New Zealand fallen heroes. Construction was funded by public subscription—raised particularly by women by the way wishing to mourn their loved ones; and returned servicemen on the other hand wishing to honour their fallen comrades. 
Richard Worth 
: What about Prime Minister Coates? What did he have to say about this? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: Prime Minister Gordon Coates laid the foundation stone—himself a returned serviceman. War memorials are very important to New Zealanders. Almost a third of the men killed in World War II have no known graves and the remainder are buried mostly on the other side of the world. War memorials acted as surrogate tombs to these families and were a way for communities to honour their fallen. The Greek-style neoclassicism of the building represents the heroic valour of the New Zealand soldier and emphasises the classical tragedy of battles such as at Gallipoli. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is a longstanding tradition in this House and indeed our Standing Orders reflect it that a member may not read his or her speech. A member may refer to notes but this member has studiously read his speech which is taken directly from the website. I would ask that you invite him to sit down because you do have the power to terminate this speech if he does not deliver a speech as part of a debate; but a member may not read a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member is just about to finish. 
David Benson-Pope 
: My understanding of the current Standing Orders is that the Standing Order cited by the previous speaker has not been part of the Standing Orders for some time so I ask Mr Shirley to actually quote the Standing Order if he is raising that sort of point and deliberately disrupting the speech of that person. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point; he is absolutely right. 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: In finishing I say that it is a travesty to try to avoid or obscure the fact that this is also a war memorial as the title clause indicates. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is with a sense of privilege that I looked to the Order Paper and found that this bill was listed on it. Without involving you in the comments that I seek to make Madam Chair I just say that in the context of your being a past Mayor of North Shore City you would also be aware of the debate that has raged about the appropriateness of the title for the Auckland Museum. There are those who have led a march to say that this should be called the “Auckland Museum Bill” and there are those who in my view have led a stronger march to say that it should be called the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill” which is the title I support. 
Looking across the Chamber and hearing the previous speaker I have been very heartened to see a politician seated beside him whom I hold in the highest regard who in the course of the speech made by his close friend saw it as his duty—and I think properly so—to read the newspaper. We have good speeches bad speeches and hopeless speeches in this Chamber and in the comments made by the previous speaker I think we have been hugely privileged to hear one of those speeches that did not really hit any of those thresholds—even the lowest one. The Hon Judith Tizard has laboured long and hard to see this bill passed through the House tonight and as a committed Aucklander I have worked determinedly with her; thus I speak in support of this bill. 
I am not for a moment put off by the comments of the MP for Dunedin North or Dunedin South—whichever it is. He is a newly arrived player in politics who in my view is yet to prove either his mettle or his worth and he is wise to remain silent as he generally does because the contributions he makes to this Parliament are unhelpful unwise and in many cases lacking in merit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to stick to the title. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: In dealing with the title—and I am very conscious of the fact that this is a very confined debate and I plan to speak in that light—I would like to pick up some of the themes raised by the previous speaker on the history of the founding and building of the museum. I will start by saying that the Auckland War Memorial Museum is situated on the hill known by Maori as Pukekawa. I am tempted to offer the balance of my comments on the bill in Maori but I will not do that—even though I see that the interpreter is here—because I think that those who are listening will get a better flavour of the sorts of issues I am talking about if I do so in the English language which is what I plan to do. 
It was as far back as 1852 that Auckland’s first museum opened in a two-room farm cottage in Grafton Road—and what a long time ago that was. There was one room for the collection and one room for the custodian’s accommodation. We then saw a significant change when the museum moved first into the provincial council building in 1867 and then again in 1870 to the old post office building in Princess Street. There were a series of strategic moves that positioned the museum for the pre-eminent role that it now plays in Auckland City. The museum moved into its first custom-built premises in Princess Street in 1876. 
I am conscious of the comments of the previous speaker; I am not going to repeat them but I will say that war memorials are very important to New Zealanders. Almost a third of the men who were killed in World War I have no known graves and the remainder are mostly buried on the other side of the world. If we look around this debating chamber we see a very fitting memorial to them on two levels. On the upper Chamber surround the particular theatres of war in which people served are depicted within emblazoned circles. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 1 consists of the commencement date the purposes of the Act and interpretation. An interesting point was raised by the Hon Ken Shirley when he said there is a convention in Parliament not to read a speech and I just remembered that that is what the Hon Judith Tizard does every time she makes a speech. This bill will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I reinforce the fact that the National Party is very pleased to facilitate the express passage of this fine legislation. We have agreed to cooperate so that the report back the Committee stage and the third reading of this bill can be fast tracked through Parliament. It is important to achieve that to enable the museum board to commence work on this exciting redevelopment project for this Auckland icon. 
Clause 3(a) states that the purpose of this bill is to “repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918;”. It is interesting to note that we retained the word “empowering” which was part of the 1918 Act. Like my colleague Judith Collins I am pleased to see that the words “war memorial” are added to this current bill because as I mentioned at the reporting back stage the Anzac Day dawn service and afternoon parade were very moving indeed. 
Jill Pettis 
: Let’s get moving. 
PANSY WONG 
: Why does Ms Jill Pettis not just stand up and take a call and say whatever is on her mind? I wonder why Labour members are not proud of this bill. On this side of the Chamber we are just so proud of the bill that we cannot contain ourselves from sharing with the public. The Labour Party just keeps wanting to shut down the debate. It is amazing how small-minded some members are. Anyway the other purpose of this bill is to empower the leasing of the land in the Auckland Domain to the board which of course is— 
Jill Pettis 
: Every day you delay it’s $300 extra in building costs. 
PANSY WONG 
: Oh I see. Is it $300? 
Jill Pettis 
: Over and above. 
PANSY WONG 
: It is $300 over and above the building costs. Is this member continuing to try to downplay the icon of Auckland City—our Auckland Museum? What is—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I want the public to share in and see what the Labour Party has stooped to—even to bringing my family and my deceased father into this debate! I ask how low Parliament has sunk to. If there is a convention in Parliament I would expect Madam Chair to take it up with members so that our families are not brought into the debate. It happens to be a very serious issue and it is very personal to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Jill Pettis 
: I will withdraw and apologise of course. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. She has not done that. 
Jill Pettis 
: I most certainly will. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise just to clarify matters. 
Jill Pettis 
: I did most certainly—without hesitation. I withdraw and apologise. 
Opposition Members  
: She has not said it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. She did. 
PANSY WONG 
: Madam Chair I will take your word that the member has apologised and withdrawn her statement. Let me reiterate that despite those interjections members on this side of the Chamber are still very proud of being able to assist the passage of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. But I also believe that the public want to know—apart from the title—what the purpose is of this bill. We mention first of all that it repeals a 1918 Act and also empowers the leasing of land. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 A couple of aspects of Part 1 need greater clarification. Clause 2 is the commencement clause which says “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I would like members to bear that in mind. Then clause 3(b) talks about a provision: “to empower the leasing of land in the Domain to the Board and to extend the area of the Domain subject to the lease;”. In clause 4 we have a definition: “lease means the lease granted by the Corporation to the Board dated 31 March 1920”. I am concerned about just what is being leased in this legislation. I take into account the Auckland City and Auckland Museum Empowering Act of 1924 section 12 which is headed up—and I think this becomes quite controversial now—“Contribution to foreshore road”. So I am concerned that this bill has something to do with the foreshore and I ask what Government members have to say about that. 
The provision from that other Act related to the leasing of the land provision that is in this bill states: “The Corporation and any other local authority or public body may out of their general funds respectively contribute such sum or sums of money as may from time to time be agreed upon for or towards the cost of the construction improvement or maintenance of a road or street proposed to be formed along the foreshore of the Waitemata Harbour alongside or as part of the embankment proposed to be made for the railway along the said foreshore as shown on a plan of such railway deposited in the Survey Office at Auckland as Number 21189 or in such other position on the said foreshore as may be determined by the local bodies contributing to the costs thereof.” 
That is part of the Auckland City and Museum Empowering Act of 1924 so we are looking here at something that is being leased which seems to be linked to the foreshore of the Waitemata Harbour. If we remember back we know that in the old days a lot of reclamation was done in Auckland. It went up as far as Shortland Street on the Queen Street side and it seems—as far as the domain is concerned when looking at Parnell—as if the foreshore is linked to this bill. 
I want to know from the Minister whether any inquires have been made or claims lodged with regard to that land and what effect this lease has. We have a lease here that is being repealed so I ask what the existing lease states and whether the members of the select committee bothered to have a look at the existing lease granted by the corporation to the board on 31 March 1920. Did the members of the select committee get any legal advice on that lease and what action is being taken? 
A provision talks of power to lease land in the domain in the next part which obviously I cannot talk about yet but I foreshadow that I will be taking up that issue. But I would like to know the story about the existing lease how it links to the foreshore as shown in the previous legislation and what future consequences there will be with regard to any foreshore claims and foreshore debates in respect of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Has the Minister given any thought to that issue? No one has mentioned it in the debate until now but in New Zealand First we are very sensitive to it as is everybody today and we want to make sure that all people’s rights and suchlike are clearly considered. 
If it transpires that there are some rights to this foreshore what thought has the Minister given to compensation for any possible claims that may arise? Members will notice that in the bill as it stands we have a plan No. SO70808—“SO” means “Survey Office”; and another plan No. SO21189 is referred to in section 12 of that other Act. Did the members of the select committee have a look at that? What consideration did they give to that plan in relation to this plan? What changes have been made to it and what are the consequences of the cancellation of that existing lease? Can the Minister assure us that the rights that are being given up are not in some way reduced? 
I have read the explanatory note of the bill which is interesting. As we have all said we are very excited by this development being taken up in Auckland and in the commentary there is a description of land subject to the lease but I am concerned just exactly where it goes. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I am not resident in Auckland I have a few comments to make on this bill. It is not my intention to take the full 5 minutes. I am aware of the fact that the Committee wants to shift this matter along and that it is important to the construction programme and various time-frames that have no doubt been laid down. I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague Judith Collins about the significance of the site as a memorial. Many of us will know that Anzac Day is one of the very few days in New Zealand when politicians put aside their partisan views on matters of policy and gather at various sites throughout New Zealand to pay their respects to those who went before us and died to give us the right to stand in this Parliament and make comments and policy and to speak freely about issues that concern us. I think we are in danger if we do not treat this bill with a bit of the respect it deserves on that point of making the whole process into one that perhaps does not accord sufficient significance to the site and to what it represents. 
I have a couple of comments following on from my colleague Dail Jones who made some interesting remarks concerning the area to be leased. I notice in Part 1 that one of the purposes of the bill—I am referring to clause 3(c)—is to set out the correct legal description. I always think that that is a bit of a plus. I always think it is helpful if the correct legal description is included in bills such as this. I found that the Government Administration Committee’s commentary on the issue of description of land subject to lease—and I will be interested in the comments that my colleague Judith Collins may make on this issue as she was on the committee—seems to be going slightly around in a circle in the sense that what we have to say is that there is an area of land that was occupied; there is an area of land that we want to be included in the lease; this legislation is a pretty blunt instrument to take care of that discrepancy. Really that is probably all the commentary needed to say—or words to that effect—once as my colleague Dail Jones points out those areas had been defined clearly and quickly. 
 I have to pass one further comment and that is on the retrospective effect of this bill. Whilst I understand the significance of the retrospectivity in this case it is becoming an unhappy habit of this Government to legislate in a way that is retrospective. I have to say that I am not altogether in favour of that. The committee rightly points out in the commentary in a very blunt way that the bill will have a retrospective effect. I am not that keen on legislation that is backward looking. I understand the reason for it in this case in the sense that as it states in the commentary the discrepancy between the lease area and the 1918 Act and the actual location of the museum building may have remained undetected but for a survey done latterly. In fact it became apparent when that survey was done that the museum occupies a site that differs from that one that was defined in 1918. There are other instruments available to deal with these types of discrepancies. Judith Collins and Richard Worth will know of these avenues far better than I. They practised law for a lot longer than I did. But to legislate for this type of thing although entirely appropriate in this case is not something that as a Parliament we want to encourage. 
Legislation of this sort is an extremely blunt instrument and it is an instrument that should be used sparingly. This is one of the few times that I would stand in this Chamber and be happy to support such a blunt use of statute on such an important issue as that that relates to a site that many of us consider to be extremely important to remembering those who have gone before us and those in particular who have allowed us to be in this Parliament making statements of the nature that we have heard over the course of the last 20 to 30 minutes. I encourage Mr Bernie Ogilvy to take another call on Part 1 or Part 2 only because I would like to hear him do it without the notes from the website. I would like him to give us a bit of view as to what he believes are the rights and wrongs of this bill and why his party United Future supports it. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Power to lease land in Domain 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I was refreshing my memory by rereading the bill just a moment ago. I am slightly concerned that we might have made an error and even more so that I might have made an error when we were looking at this bill at the select committee. Given the fact that I am a very passionate supporter of the recognition of the museum site as a war memorial I was slightly concerned to read in clause 5(2) that the land described in the schedule must be used exclusively as a site for the museum. But nowhere in that part does it state that it must be used as a site for the museum and the war memorial. The museum is in fact a war memorial and in front of the museum is the cenotaph. I was particularly concerned to check to make sure that our select committee had not made an error because if we had this would be the time to get it fixed. I know that all parties in the Committee wish the museum trust board well and want it to be able to get its work started and completed in a timely fashion. 
I had the assistance of my colleague Mr Dail Jones who happened to have a copy of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996. It is an Act that was popped through when National was last in Government. In particular I note that the museum trust board people told me that they particularly liked that Act because it worked. I had a look through it and I am now satisfied that the war memorial part is so much an integral part of the Act that it will be fine and I should not be worrying so much about it. But I do take this very seriously and I find it very hurtful in the Committee tonight that some members in the Labour Party—and fortunately not all of them—have been very disrespectful over this bill. I would like to exclude from that comment Taito Phillip Field who has been extremely helpful and considerate. I send him greetings and say malo. I very much understand that he feels as I do that this bill and the site itself are incredibly important not only to Maori New Zealanders Pakeha New Zealanders Pasifika people but also to all people who wish to be called New Zealanders. It is a huge building with massive amounts of taonga and treasures and it is something that should not be taken lightly. I am concerned that some people feel that because some of us feel deeply about this and wish to speak on it in some way this has been frivolous. It is not. This is a very important bill for people like myself who believe deeply in the culture of New Zealand and in the need for us as New Zealanders to respect that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As I said during the debate on Part 1 I am concerned about the lease provisions in this legislation. Part 2 quite clearly refers to a power to lease land in the Auckland Domain. One wonders whether this is perhaps meant to be a public domain an example of a public domain is that owned by the Auckland City Council—so it is a domain that is public and owned by someone. All I can say is that anyone trying to use the word “domain” to signify non-ownership of something will have some problems. However this part talks about the power to lease the land in the Auckland Domain and refers to the Auckland Domain Act and the council—meaning the Auckland City Council—having the power to grant a lease to the board in respect of the area of land described in the schedule. It is pleasing to note that the annual rent is only $2 per year. One wonders why one has to go to the problem of having a lease for $2 per year when the actual— 
Richard Worth 
: It’s a peppercorn rent. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a peppercorn rent—exactly. I am sure everyone in the Committee knows what a peppercorn rent is but I will leave that for Mr Worth when he takes a call. He knows a bit about peppercorn rents although I am sure that a peppercorn rent or charge is not something that would be familiar to his law firm. But I will leave that to Mr Worth to explain to the Committee. 
I ask the Minister what the timing of this is going to be. We note that this legislation will come into effect on the date it receives the royal assent. So what type of lease will this new lease be and what did the select committee do when it looked at this new lease to make sure that it complied with all the various legislation that exists around leases? One looks at say the Reserves Act which is a very important piece of legislation with regard to reserves. One would expect that the overall domain is well and truly regarded as a reserve of Auckland. When will the existing lease come to an end and be annulled? When will the new lease begin? Has the revocation of the old lease been prepared? Has the new lease been prepared and has it been signed? When will it be signed? 
 We would not want to have a situation where the old lease is cancelled and there is no lease taking its place and we have a vacuum and a period when there is no lease whatsoever. So I think the Minister should indicate that to us to let us know what physical mechanisms are taking place to make sure that the will of Parliament is properly carried out by those people who are given the authority to act in terms of this legislation. 
I note that clause 5(3) has been inserted by the Government Administration Committee and I think one has to be very critical of the way in which it has been drafted. It is always poor in my view to start off a clause with: “To avoid doubt” then say “(a) section 5 ... ” and “(b) section 5 ...”. It suggests that the legislation has been rushed through. New Zealand First is of course cooperating with this legislation going through this Chamber very quickly but whenever one says “To avoid doubt” one can be sure that a lawyer will look at it and say: “Now I think there’s a loophole here. We may have some means of overturning this legislation.” I am sure that would never happen in this case because no one would ever have the ill will to try to upset the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is such a wonderful building as I have already said and we are looking forward with such excitement to the development of $45.5 million of the site. I think the select committee could have perhaps worded that better. 
I wonder also what the provisions of section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 were to be because here we have an Act of Parliament repealing something that was passed in 1918 and which on the face of it might still have had something from a 1915 Act of Parliament applied to it—also we ask now to remove the effect of section 5 of the Auckland Domain Act 1987. I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to what all that means so that we are much better informed as we pass this bill through the Chamber and as we discuss it with various people in the Auckland area—nit-picking lawyers for example—who might want some ideas about it. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to talk about Part 2. This is an unusual bill and it is very short. In fact Part 2 has only one clause which is clause 5. So I do want to talk about the power to lease the land in the domain. And in that context I want to identify four people who in my view have been responsible for the passage of this legislation. The first is the MP for Auckland Central the second is myself the third is Rodney Wilson who is the director of the museum and the fourth person whom I want to dwell on for a moment is a man called Bill Laxon. 
Bill Laxon is a lawyer in a major Auckland City law firm called Brookfields. Brookfields has a very proud history. It has gone through a number of name changes as have many of these conglomerate firms. It used to be called Reed Bailey Towle and Cooper. It became Towle and Cooper then Brandon Brookfields which became Brookfields. In that firm is a man called Bill Laxon. He is one of those people who has been synonymous with local government in Auckland. He has acted for a number of local authorities. He is probably known to you Madam Chairperson in the context of your local government experience. He has given huge service to a number of elements of the Auckland community and he has given huge service to aspects touching the maritime industry. But he has also I think been president of the Auckland Institute and the Auckland Museum Trust Board but I stand to be corrected on this by the Hon Judith Tizard. It was his role as lawyer for the museum to draft this particular legislation that has come before the Committee tonight. I think that in a rare gesture of consensus and unanimity we will see we hope this legislation pass through all stages tonight which would not normally be the case. I would say of Bill Laxon who is not well at the moment and in the context of all the contributions he has made to Auckland City and elements associated with the city that he might rightly feel that the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill is part of his intellectual property. 
It is in Part 2 that we see the power to lease land in the domain. As the previous speaker has commented there are some aspects of interest relating to the leasing terms not the least of which would be the lease rental at an annual rent of not more than $2 per year. It is quite unusual I think to find in statutes these days certainly reference to peppercorn rentals of that amount. There is obviously a statement there of a relationship between the Auckland City Council and the Auckland War Memorial Museum that has seen it as appropriate that a council in the context of its obligation to fund public facilities has decided that a commercial rent should not be set. Instead the rent should be no more than $2 a year. 
But there is another aspect of this short clause that I think is worthy of comment. It is tucked away in clause 5(3)(a). The drafter records: “To avoid doubt—(a) section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 does not apply and is deemed never to have applied to the land described in the Schedule;”. This is the statutory quirk that for a number of years lay hidden from the view of many. It is a particular protective provision that touched the volcanic landscape of Auckland—the City of Volcanoes it is called. Section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act is concerned with protecting those volcanic cones. For those of us who follow the writings of Bill Rudman in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this has been one of his issues and an issue that I think burdened the Prime Minister for a short period in any event in the context of what was going on in respect of a motorway that was to be constructed through her particular voting district. 
I would like to say in commending the bill to the Committee that clause 5 is a well-drafted clause. I would also like to offer as a testimony a statement in support of Bill Laxon and all he has done for the museum and all he has done in connection with this bill. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Validation and repeal 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to share with the public that the members of the Government Administration Committee are all very excited about the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. Not only that; because it is a small bill the members under the chairmanship of Diane Yates applied ourselves to examine in detail every clause and every part of it. 
Even on Part 3 we came up with a unanimous amendment which has led to an amendment from the Hon Judith Tizard. The title of Part 3 was originally “Validation and repeal”; it is now to be “Validation repeal and consequential amendment” because it is a very important consequential amendment. It makes sure that the Auckland Domain Act includes the right reference; instead of the reference to section 6 of the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918 which this bill repeals the right reference to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Empowering Act 2003 is substituted. 
I want to dwell a little on clause 6 “Validation of lease”. This particular clause was mentioned by my colleague Simon Power who feels quite uneasy about retrospective legislation. We on this side of the Chamber particularly share his concern that legislation should always try not to apply in a retrospective manner. We have seen enough grievances caused by this Parliament particularly under the Labour Government rushing through a lot of retrospective legislation. A recent experience involved immigration legislation that lapsed 20000 applications and led to 40000-odd people suddenly having their applications invalidated. In this case as a member of the Government Administration Committee I say we need to make an exception. We think it is very important for the Auckland Museum to have a watertight position that nobody for whatever good intention—particularly lawyers—can challenge. Lawyers have a knack of challenging a clause that might not be watertight. We want to ensure that nobody can challenge any past activities. The fact that the description of the land in the original legislation was incorrect is the reason we have decided to support clause 6 which revalidates the lease. 
Clause 6 reads: “The lease is deemed to be and to have always been as valid and effectual as if all the land that is subject to the lease had not been that land described in the Schedule.” It sounds like a mouthful but I guess it is important to ensure that nobody in future can challenge the redevelopment work or using whatever technicality cast doubt on the intention of this Parliament to revalidate the description of the land that the Auckland Museum is situated on. It is certainly a major redevelopment worth about $40 million - odd. As a member from Auckland I certainly would not like to see that redevelopment project delayed or jeopardised by the lack of a watertight clause. I assure my colleague Simon Power that we certainly do not as a habit introduce or endorse legislation that has a retrospective effect but in this case we are making an exception for this icon in Auckland. 
Clause 7 is almost stating the obvious. It repeals the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918. I guess even reading the title reminds us how far we have come since 1918. I have to say the Auckland Museum has certainly stood the test of time. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to clarify clause 6 “Validation of lease”. It states: “The lease is deemed to be and to have always been as valid and effectual as if all the land that is subject to the lease had been that land described in the Schedule.” I wonder whether Judith Tizard could confirm—New Zealand First did not have a member on the select committee as I recall— 
Dianne Yates 
: That’s obvious. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is obvious; it is my job to clarify these things The lease that is referred to I presume is the old lease as shown in the interpretation clause: “lease means the lease granted by the Corporation to the Board dated 31 March 1920”. That is the lease being referred to rather than the new lease which is referred to in clause 5. I presume that clause 6 is there to correct any problems that may have arisen because the original lease did not cover the amount of land that as it transpired it should have covered. That is the point I wish to have clarified by the Minister. I cannot see any other purpose for the clause. 
I am sure that Mr Bill Laxon from Towle and Cooper whom I also know through my practice in Auckland would have made sure it was absolutely right and I am reassured to hear that he was involved in the drafting of the original bill. I congratulate him and thank him for his time and trouble in preparing the bill. It is greatly appreciated. It shows in many respects the work that lawyers do around the community in so many different ways not just for sports clubs golf clubs and places like that but also for places such as museums. 
Jill Pettis 
: Play it again Sam. 
DAIL JONES 
: The member for Whanganui is making me lose track of what I was going to say. It shows the remarkable amount of work that lawyers do generally around the place for so many different types of bodies. He is to be congratulated; I think the legal profession ought to be congratulated on its public spiritedness. 
I would just like to make sure that clause 6 is as I suspect talking about the lease mentioned in the interpretation clause. Part 2 seems to stand on its own and clause 5 talks about the absolutely new lease and what can be contained in it. There is obviously no need to validate the new lease because there is not anything to validate as yet. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise just to answer the questions that members have asked. I thank members for their interest. 
Mr Jones asked about the mention of the foreshore in the 1924 Act. That was a local Act that covered various matters relating to rating in the Auckland area particularly local body works that empowered the Auckland City Council to contribute to the cost of a road along the foreshore of Auckland harbour and also empowered the city to subsidise the building of the museum and its maintenance. In fact the whole of that Act was repealed in 1928 and replaced by subsequent legislation. 
I assure the Committee that there are no claims of any sort over this land. In fact I think probably the area of Pukekawa and the museum which make up the Auckland Domain is probably the only uncontested area in Auckland. I am assured by the Government Administration Committee that it examined the lease carefully and the lease is indeed to be negotiated between the Auckland City Council and Auckland War Memorial Museum board. The committee is satisfied in all aspects and has reported accordingly. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the heading to Part 3 and substitute the following heading: 
Validation repeal and consequential amendment 
. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the schedule to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. Members might be interested to note that the Government Administration Committee had to strike out the legal description in the schedule of the property being leased because it omitted approximately half the land covered by the museum. If it had remained it would have been slightly embarrassing for us given all the work that had been done. But it is an indication that the bill came into the House on 12 June 2003 had its first reading and referral to the Government Administration Committee on 25 June 2003 and here we are today 3 September 2003 about to finish it off; that mistake is what happens when things are rushed. 
My having said that it would have been most interesting if we had got rid of the old lease as my colleague Mr Jones has just said and had given the trust board a lease for the tar-sealed part outside the actual museum building which is currently used as a roadway and car-park but no lease for the building! It was one of those interesting little bits that lawyers find most amusing as Mr Jones has just indicated. It just goes to show that when we are drafting these things no matter how carefully they are done by the most skilled people with the most interest in them accidents do happen. 
 This was an accident that fortunately was found out before it was committed to an Act of Parliament which would have been hugely embarrassing not only for all the people involved the trust board and the Department of Internal Affairs but also for the select committee and this House. That is all I wish to say on that particular matter other than that accidents do happen and fortunately one did not happen in this case. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the expeditious way that it has dealt with this legislation and for recognising the enormous amount of work the Government Administration Committee did in a very short time. This bill will repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918 and will replace it with new legislation allowing the leasing of land within the Auckland Domain for the purposes of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and for extensions to the museum. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum is an exceptional place. It is a resource of enormous value and of enormous sentimental attachment by all Aucklanders and all New Zealanders. It has one of the biggest museum collections in New Zealand. It has spiritual historical cultural military architectural economic and educational significance for us all. 
The museum is about to undertake a significant redevelopment and extension project that will ensure its collections are conserved and protected for all New Zealanders to enjoy now and in the future. As the debate in the House has demonstrated the museum is widely supported and this has been further demonstrated by the very strong community backing for the redevelopment project with 80 percent of the nearly $53 million for the project already committed. The Government is committing $26.5 million over 5 years from the Regional Museums Fund toward the development of world-class facilities at the museum. When completed the museum will be a tremendous asset to New Zealand as well as to every Aucklander. The passage of this bill is the final step to enable that project to proceed. 
Again I thank the select committee for its prompt and thorough work on the bill which included a visit to the museum. I thank those who made submissions on the bill and the many people who have worked on the museum since 1918 when the idea of a museum on this site as a war memorial for all Aucklanders was first raised. In particular I mention Bruce Anderson who is at present the chair of the Auckland War Memorial board. There are many other board members too numerous to mention but we heard in the Committee stage particular mention of Mr Bill Laxon who is also as a consultant with Brookfields responsible for the drafting and presentation of the bill we are dealing with at present. But I particularly want to mention Barry Turley who was the chair before Bruce Anderson and who did an enormous amount of work on the development of the plans for the extension and other board members such as Lorraine Wilson Garry Law and many others who have contributed enormously over the many years that the Auckland War Memorial Museum has been a vital part of Auckland’s cultural and heritage landscape. 
I also want to express my thanks to the House. I acknowledge the work that Richard Worth has done as an Auckland MP and indeed before that as an adviser to the Auckland City Council on this matter when he was practising law in Auckland. But when I think of the Auckland War Memorial Museum I think of the contribution made by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt over many many years. He shares his passion for history and for the culture of Auckland with many people at the Auckland War Memorial Museum and his encouragement was a crucial part of the development of these plans. I also think of Sandra Lee my predecessor as MP for Auckland Central who took an active and enthusiastic interest in the legislation. And I think particularly of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham who as the MP for Remuera was the member for the area covered by this bill when he as the Minister of Cultural Affairs was able to persuade the last National Government to make a significant contribution towards stabilising the fabric of the building. 
So my congratulations go to the House the Government Administration Committee the Auckland War Memorial Museum trust board Dr Rodney Wilson who has been a source of inspiration and passion for this project all his staff and everybody involved in the museum redevelopment project. Their passion and commitment towards one of New Zealand’s most significant cultural icons is encouraging. Projects like this do bring us together as a nation. I look forward to the completion of this project which has been made possible because the Rt Hon Helen Clark as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage agreed to it. It is expected to open to the public in late 2005. I believe that it will make New Zealand a better place. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the comments of the Hon Judith Tizard I must say that it was a great experience to be part of the Government Administration Committee in relation to the bill. I take the opportunity to thank the chair of the committee Dianne Yates for the great job she did. I thank my colleague Pansy Wong who was as enthusiastic as myself in relation to this matter and David Cunliffe was also there. 
Some members might wonder why we are taking so long this evening to work through the bill. I note that the member for Whanganui Jill Pettis does not share the same passion for the bill and the work of the museum as those of us who have spoken this evening—I forgot to mention the passion that the Hon Judith Tizard clearly feels for this particular site. The reason we are not rushing this bill through tonight with a quick yes/no vote is that this is an important bill for an important site. Not only is this museum an icon but it is a war memorial. I have already said it but I will say it again: it is a war memorial and therefore it is extremely important that we give it its due. This is the anniversary of the start of World War II and as the museum is a war memorial to the fallen from the Auckland region in World War II it is even more important this evening that we pay our respects to those people—to those men and women who served our country so that we can enjoy democracy to the extent we do today. To give it anything less than its due would be disrespectful and that is important. 
I have so enjoyed the contributions from the speakers tonight. In particular Judith Tizard Dianne Yates Pansy Wong Richard Worth Simon Power Dail Jones Bernie Ogilvy and also Taito Phillip Field have contributed well and given sterling performances. That is what this museum deserves because it is a wonderful icon. It is something we can show respect for forgetting all our political differences across the House. We can be absolutely proud that this bill is going through the House with the support of all the parties. That is wonderful and it is a moment to be proud of. I particularly commend this bill to the House and to the membership. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the select committee I too want to thank all those who were involved in the preparation of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill particularly the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who ensured that the funding was adequate. It is the Labour Government that has to be praised for providing the funding to build this new facility. It will be a facility of which not only Aucklanders but also all New Zealanders will be truly proud. 
I wish to thank the House once again. It is not often that we have the House unanimously and constructively behind such a project and we look forward to when the building is finished so that we can all enjoy this facility. Once again thank you to all those involved and for the cooperation we had at the select committee. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is a wonderful example of how the people of Auckland for a start can get together and support a project. Auckland is so often criticised as not being able to put up a united front on a project or present such a united front in particular to Wellington but this is one of those occasions when Aucklanders have got together. When I say Aucklanders I mean those with a connection to this bill—the Rodney District Council which has one appointee to the electoral college; North Shore City Council which has two appointees; Waitakere City Council two appointees; Auckland City Council three appointees; Manukau City Council three appointees; Papakura District Council one appointee and Franklin District Council one appointee. 
One should also remember work done in the past—from Taupo right up to Cape Reinga I understand—in supporting the original concept of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I think it was a little bit churlish of the two Government members who spoke in the third reading to suggest that it could only have happened because we have a Labour Government. Labour Party people do know how to spoil a good occasion. The money for this building is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer. It is not coming from the Labour Government. The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for this project and for that we give as much thanks to the member for Whanganui the member for Rotorua the member for Hamilton East and such like as to anybody else. This money is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer and that is the thing that the Labour Party obviously does not understand. Labour members have no grasp of where the money comes from to run this country. Trust them to be churlish and spoil this debate! 
New Zealand First is delighted to support this legislation and wide and far all New Zealand First members will support it. I am sure that wide and far all members of this House will support it and I will not comment any more on that other matter. I hope that people from the rest of the country will come up to Auckland—or come down to Auckland as the case might be—and see just where their taxpaying dollar is being spent and the wonderful way in which this project has developed. 
This project is not just for the people of Auckland but as the objectives of the original bill show for the people of New Zealand as a whole as a proper war memorial to all New Zealand’s efforts in its many endeavours overseas. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I join other members in expressing what a pleasure it is tonight to take part in the third reading of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. The passage of this bill advantages New Zealanders but the redeveloped Auckland War Memorial Museum will be even more of a showcase to international visitors to New Zealand and especially to Auckland. As the National Party spokesperson on tourism I can say that we appreciate that international visitors always visit museums in the various countries they visit to gain a sense of the history and culture of that particular country. 
 The Government Administration Committee met and received submissions at the site of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the excitement the enthusiasm and the very creative ways of the board and its team convinced us that when the work has been carried out it will indeed do New Zealand proud and showcase the new site and the content of that site to our international visitors. 
It is indeed rare to see all political parties assisting the passage of legislation in unison so I hope the Labour Government takes note that given reasonable consultation Opposition parties will cooperate. I know this matter has been raised with the Business Committee and we have no hesitation in supporting initiatives that are constructive and important. 
Like all the other members I am looking forward to the completion of the redevelopment work. People will be able to visit a museum with sheltered car parks and other additional facilities. Above all I am very pleased for the Auckland museum staff who deservedly will be able to work in a facility that has space for their dedication. One cannot but have admiration for the type of creative work that has been carried out by the dedicated staff at the Auckland museum given the inadequate work space they currently have to put up with. 
On behalf of the members of the public who appreciate the wonderful presentation of the treasures we have in the Auckland War Memorial Museum I want to say that a better environment for the team will lead to added attractions. The team will be able to show even more of its creative powers and visitors will have more treasures to enjoy. It is a great pleasure to be associated with the passage of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 9.29 p.m.