Volume 656 Week 19 - Tuesday 28 July 2009 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 656 Week 19 - Tuesday 28 July 2009 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5139. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 28 July 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Karakia 
. 
Visitors 
Tonga Kingdom—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Tu’ilakepa Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Tonga is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon Tu’ilakepa accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Obituaries 
Hon Herbert Elmer Lorraine Pickering QSO 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 25 July 2009 of the Hon Herbert Elmer Lorraine Pickering QSO who represented the electorate of Hurunui from 1961 to 1963 and Rangiora from 1963 to 1972. He was Associate Minister of Finance in 1970 and 1971 and Minister of Education in 1972. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Complex—Use of Facilities 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek to raise a substantive issue with you relating to the order of the House and I ask that rather than ruling immediately you take the opportunity to reflect on the points that I make and provide the House with a considered ruling. 
Last Friday I received a letter from you advising that you had denied a request from three parties represented in this House to use a room in the parliamentary complex to hear submissions from members of the public on the multiparty inquiry into banking issues. There have been other recent examples of the same issue arising. Although I do not seek to relitigate your ruling Mr Speaker I believe that members of this House need some clear guidance on the factors you will take into account in reaching these decisions. 
Earlier this year you also denied requests to provide facilities for multiparty events to engage with the public on international aid policy and on youth unemployment. In each case you suggested that one party’s caucus room might be a more appropriate venue. I submit that in each case it would be highly inappropriate to use a particular party’s caucus room as this would give the impression that rather than being a genuine multiparty process these were the internal party processes of one particular party. In this specific example Mr Speaker we are seeking to provide a venue for members of the public banks and stakeholders to appear on ground that is as neutral as possible and for them to make their cases as fairly as possible. 
Engaging with the public on issues of public importance is a core function of members of Parliament and is indeed vital to the health of our democracy. It is a fact that the Government by weight of numbers controls all select committees. We submit that it would not serve our democracy if other venues around the people’s House were prohibited from being used for the proper pursuit of parliamentary business especially where it is on a multiparty basis and in this case where all parties have been invited to participate. 
Mr Speaker I note that a range of functions have been hosted in the complex this year that seem to be of a more social or personal nature. In the past I have attended meetings in select committee rooms for groups as diverse as for example the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament various parliamentary friendship groups lobby groups hosting briefing sessions and so forth. If the argument holds for select committee rooms surely it is even more true for areas of common parliamentary space such as the Legislative Council Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive my interrupting the member but at this stage I do not see the point of order that the member is seeking to have me address as Speaker. The matters he has raised are not matters of the order of this House. They are not matters of the parliamentary process. They are matters that certainly I as Speaker am very much involved with and I invite the member to write to me with his concerns but I cannot address them by way of a point of order. In fact I probably should have stopped the member a little earlier because it was not strictly a point of order. I accept the sincerity of the way the member is raising the issue but the correct way to raise it with me is either to come and see me or to write to me again on the matter. But either way I deal with those matters in my role as landlord if you like but not as Speaker and Chair of the parliamentary process here. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to assist in bringing this matter into context I say that the select committee rooms are rooms for committees of this Parliament. Therefore it is my view that there is a question of order. I accept that you have a dual role and your main role in this matter is as chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission or effectively as the Minister responsible. The member right at the beginning indicated his request for the use of a select committee room and I think that is probably a good way to hang that argument. I point out Mr Speaker that in the past I have noted that Government members presumably with your permission have used parliamentary facilities for multiparty events and therefore there is a question of equity. Certainly some announcements between the Maori Party and the Government have been held in the buildings I note to the Leader of the House. I announced the 1996 Labour Party education policy in the Legislative Council Chamber and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must ask the member to stop. I do not disagree with the arguments members are putting forward about the reasonable use of select committee rooms. The point I am trying to make is that they are not matters I as Speaker can address under the points of order process; they are not matters of the order of this House. There must be no further raising of those matters by way of a point of order. Members are certainly at liberty to raise with me the issue of whether select committee rooms should be used for a multiparty purpose. That is perfectly reasonable. If members wish to question my decision on that issue there is no problem with that. I have no problem with members questioning my decision and asking me to reconsider but it cannot be done by way of a point of order because it has nothing to do with the order of this House. No one has been able to establish that what they are seeking to have me address today has something to do with the order of this House so I cannot hear any further points of order on that issue. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be helpful. My point is that two parties three parties or four parties having a meeting is not a proceeding of Parliament. That is what is different about a select committee and that is why this matter is not a point of order; it is actually a question of the administration of the buildings. It is not a select committee meeting that is being discussed; it is a meeting of two parties which is not a parliamentary proceeding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I stress that I do not want to take more time on this matter because we have established that it is not a matter that can be handled by way of point of order. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: With respect Mr Speaker I disagree with the Hon Rodney Hide’s point of order because what jurisdiction can you have but as Speaker of the House? You do not have any private jurisdiction in respect of the offices that we all occupy; you have that role as Speaker of the House. I accept that these things are normally dealt with in an administrative way that does not take the time of the House because they are normally non-contentious but when contention arises it is in your role as Speaker that you resolve the disagreement. That is why I think my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe was proper to raise the matter in this forum. You might very well in response say: “Oh well there are some points there. Come and see me privately and we’ll resolve them.” but I do think it is a point of order that can be validly raised here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank members for the genuine way they have raised this issue but I actually cannot accept the point the member has raised. The Speaker has a number of roles at law and some of them are not directly associated with the Speaker’s role in presiding over Parliament. The Speaker has a number of lawful roles in relation to the Parliamentary Corporation and all sorts of things to do with the property on the parliamentary precinct which are not related to the Speaker’s role in the House. That is why the Speaker has a wider range of roles than just being a presiding officer in the House and points of order can relate only to the role of the Speaker as a presiding officer in the House and matters to do with the parliamentary process. There the matter will be left. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of your letter of 23 July regarding the use of a select committee room and by way of explanation if I could just briefly mention that in it you— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a letter from me on the use of the select committee rooms. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Infrastructure Investment Programme—Jobs 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: How is the Government’s infrastructure investment programme supporting jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 Very successfully. The Government’s multibillion-dollar investment is providing direct and indirect work for thousands of New Zealanders. Construction industry leaders told the  
Independent  
newspaper last week that the Government’s investment in building roads hospitals schools and prisons has been a lifeline for the sector. The investment is sustaining the construction sector through the recession and helping to keep contractors’ books full. 
Craig Foss 
: What projects have been recently announced as part of the Government’s infrastructure investment programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport earlier this month announced the successful tenderer for the Victoria Park tunnel project in Auckland. The 4-year project will cost $340 million and it is being put in place at least 12 months earlier than originally scheduled. It is estimated that 120 people will be working on the project within 6 months with that number rising to 340 workers by the middle of next year. I can also confirm that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport will tomorrow launch the $47 million Kopu Bridge replacement near Thames a project that will employ up to 50 people full-time. 
Craig Foss 
: What other areas of infrastructure investment are supporting jobs as part of the Government’s economic plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The list is quite long but I will give members a brief summary. The Government is looking at further investment in hospitals schools broadband and housing. In housing for instance the Government has brought forward $125 million of investment in order to upgrade State houses and to build extra ones. By the end of May work was under way on upgrades of 1227 houses with $31 million of fast-tracked housing work under way employing 1341 people. The Government had to fill a gap there because the previous Government directed all the deprecation money to buying new houses and not upgrading the houses the Government already owns. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: A e Te Kaihautu i te tuatahi me mihi ahau ki a koe mou i pai ai te whakahaere i o korero i te timatanga i roto i te reo Maori. Before I ask my question I would like to acknowledge that Mr Speaker used our reo Maori as part of today’s proceedings. It is testimony to the power of evolution. 
Is it not true that promised jobs have not materialised and that National’s smoke and mirrors show in February has finally been revealed for its lack of substance in relation to infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It may be the case that the Opposition regards the Victoria Park tunnel as insubstantial that it regards the upgrade of thousands of State houses as insubstantial and that it regards thousands of jobs paid for by the Government’s investment in infrastructure as insubstantial. We do not. 
Job Summit—Unemployment Levels 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What has been the impact of his Job Summit in addressing the increasing level of unemployment in New Zealand and what effect if any has this had on Treasury forecasts of the likely unemployment levels by July 2010? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I seek your forbearance because the answer will be quite long. Quite a lot came out of the Job Summit including of course the New Zealand cycleway and I announced the first seven routes yesterday. I am advised that the Warm Up New Zealand home insulation programme will provide about 2000 jobs over the next 4 years. The Job Support Scheme—which the unions identify as a priority—came out of the Job Summit as did increased flexibility for industry training organisations to help trainees find jobs; the issuing of a longer-dated Government bond and close examination of a bond bank to help reduce the cost of borrowing for local councils; an extension of the short-term trade credit insurance guarantee scheme for exporters; the 9-day working fortnight; the new business migration scheme which was announced today; and various initiatives relating to the fundamentals of the economy such as infrastructure spending improving regulations and the like. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many actual jobs have been created by the so-called three big ideas that emerged from the Job Summit and how does that number compare with the estimated 40000 jobs lost since the Job Summit was held? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a few things to point out. Firstly I would not put at 40000 the number of jobs that have been lost since the Job Summit. Secondly— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the number? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the exact number but I can say that out of the Job Summit came not only a whole range of initiatives which I have just detailed but also as Helen Kelly the head of the Council of Trade Unions has mentioned on previous occasions a format and a platform for unions businesses and the Government to try to work together to get us through this recession. The only people who are not on board are the miserable Opposition members. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How will his Job Summit or his cycleway proposal help the 190 workers who have lost their jobs at Winstone Pulp International Ltd and Cedenco Foods in Gisborne in the last 3 days alone? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is unlikely that the cycleway will help them. No one has ever argued that the cycleway is the panacea for a global recession. I can say that in the last 8 months this Government has been reducing regulation making New Zealand a more productive country and doing a variety of things to unwind the bureaucracy that 9 years of a Labour Government put on the business community of New Zealand. 
Chester Borrows 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. What report has the Prime Minister seen on reaction in the Wanganui-Ruapehu area to the cycleway project? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a report from the Mayor of Wanganui that says that it is very exciting news for Wanganui and the surrounding district and that it should contribute millions of dollars a year to our tourism economy. The Mayor of Ruapehu has also said that “It will be huge. It will definitely create the employment opportunities that we have been looking to have for some years.” 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say to the numerous businesses whose workers are currently working 4-day weeks when the Government’s 9-day working fortnight proposal is so constrictive that it is irrelevant to those businesses in trying to help preserve the jobs of their workers? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I would not accept the argument that it is. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that spending taxpayers’ dollars to create jobs just shifts people from profitable businesses to often unprofitable Government ones; and why will he not help all businesses by kick-starting the economy through tax reduction the removal of Resource Management Act barriers to growth and the removal of labour market barriers to job creation? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member has a point and that is that there is a limit to what the Government can do in relation to make-work schemes. Some can be of benefit and can take the sharp edges off the recession but in the end if New Zealand is to have an effective economy we need to have high levels of productivity and to do that many of the reforms the member is talking about need to be addressed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister promote the cycleway as one of the three big ideas that emerged from the Job Summit when by his own figures probably no jobs will be created this year or very few and when he estimates that 160 to 280 jobs will have been created 18 months out from the Job Summit which is about the same number of jobs being lost each and every day in New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I will say three things. Firstly I promoted the cycleway project because I think it is a good idea; it will be a tourist attraction both internationally and domestically. Secondly I promoted it because I think it will make a long-term difference to New Zealand. And thirdly I promoted it because I personally think a cycleway across New Zealand is a hell of a better idea than welfare for millionaires. 
Eric Roy 
: What reports has the Prime Minister seen on the reaction in the Southland and Queenstown areas to the cycleway project? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a report from the Destination Queenstown chief executive officer saying that the announcement of the Around the Mountain Rail Trail was “fantastic news for Queenstown” and that “The benefits of a cycleway to this region will be significant …”. The Southland District mayor said: “It’s a win-win situation for us all. The trail will be great for economic development throughout the region and will bring more tourists who can visit the many attractions that Southland and Otago are well-known for.” 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did Bill English’s comments on  
Q+A  
about not funding the cycleway reflect a cost-benefit analysis by Treasury that showed that it was a very ineffective way of creating jobs; if not is he prepared to release that advice to the public? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the first question no. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister accept that the first part of the Green New Deal programme—that is insulating houses—has been a successful job generation project and will he now move to implement other parts of the Green New Deal programme such as energy efficiency forestry riparian planting and a greatly expanded State housing building programme? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In relation to the last part of the member’s question no I do not think there will be a greatly expanded State housing building programme. In relation to the first part of the question which asked why I think the insulating houses part of the programme has been successful I think it has been successful because we know that around about 800000 homes in New Zealand are not properly insulated and 8 months into a National Government with the strong help support and encouragement of the Green Party progress is being made after 9 years of a Labour Government when no progress was made. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What reports has the Prime Minister seen on the reaction from local government to the cycleway project? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a report from the Local Government New Zealand president stating that the project announced yesterday “will create local jobs and a platform for economic development.” The project has been an excellent example of local and central government working together to deliver benefits and I would like to thank the councils for the support they have shown for the initiative. I will just make one final point: I am looking forward to election 2011 when National will be talking about extending the cycleway to even more parts of New Zealand and Phil Goff will be campaigning on ripping up the cycleway around New Zealand. Way you go tiger; give that one a whirl! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The Prime Minister was looking forward to the Mt Albert by-election! Why did the Prime Minister tell Local Government New Zealand at its conference yesterday that it should be spending more money on cycleways when in April he approved a paper from his Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide that would have declared that a non-core activity that it could not be involved in? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that paper is a review document and that is exactly what we are going to do—review the core services. 
Chris Tremain 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of a Minister dealing with increasing levels of unemployment? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I have seen a newspaper report about a former employment Minister which stated: “There was a widespread expectation that Mr Goff could somehow bring his optimistic touch to the growing disaster of unemployment. The dream did not work. Unemployment has continued to climb to ruinous heights from 54000 people 2 years ago to registered unemployment last month of 101770.” OK fair enough that report was from 1988 but it finished with this line: “Seldom now is he referred to as the bright young hope of the Cabinet.” 
Migration Business—Package 
3.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What new announcements has the Government made regarding business migration? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Today the Government announced a new business migration package which will help boost the New Zealand economy and support initiatives identified at the Job Summit. The new policy sets more realistic investment capital and English language requirements which will make New Zealand a more attractive destination for business and entrepreneurial migrants. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why were these changes necessary? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The previous Government’s business migration policy settings were too tight with unrealistic investment and English language requirements. Under the previous Government two of the three investor categories attracted a total of three migrants in 2 years. This has meant lost economic growth opportunities for New Zealand. It is a situation that has to be turned round. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How many new jobs will be created each year from this initiative? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well given that under that member’s Government two of those categories brought in three migrants in total I think we can safely say that it can only be upside. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am submitting that that question was not addressed. It was a closed question it was a straight question and it was not addressed and no attempt was made to address it which is outside the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point of order but I think in fairness given the Government’s announcement regarding business migration to expect the Minister to have specific figures on the expected impact on unemployment is a pretty big ask. What the Minister said in his answer was that he saw upside in employment; I think that was the language he used. To expect a more precise answer to such a supplementary question is a bit difficult. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may help your judgment if you were to reflect on the fact that this was a high priority issue coming from the Job Summit and secondly one of the investor categories requires the creation of at least three jobs. So the question around jobs is directly relevant to the press statement that the Government has put out. The Minister did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well he did indicate in his answer that he expected there to be increased employment as a result. The member has a further supplementary question with which to pursue that but I think it is a fairly tough one to expect the Minister to have a precise answer to that question. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What changes does the new policy make? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: For investors there are now two categories. Investor-plus requires $10 million of investment over 3 years and removes the English language requirements. The new general investor category requires $1.5 million over 4 years and sets a realistic language requirement for these investors. The new entrepreneur-plus category fast tracks residence for migrants who invest half a million dollars in their businesses and create three jobs. These are positive Job Summit initiatives that will enhance New Zealand’s economic development. 
Mothers Solo—Paid Employment 
4.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement “I will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. This Government strongly believes that a focus on work not welfare is the way forward for sole parents to improve outcomes for themselves and their children. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which of these statements is true: her comment in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today that these women are getting “a huge amount of support from the Government” and should “invest a bit of their own money” into training or National’s welfare policy at the last election which stated “National’s focus is on younger sole parents with dependent children because these are the families most likely to be in poverty.”; how can they be in poverty and have money to invest in training at the same time? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I may have missed the start of the honourable member’s question but I think she asked the Minister to compare two statements. The answer the Minister gave was “Yes.” I am not sure—I stress that I may have missed the start of the question—but I believe the honourable member did ask the Minister to explain two apparently to the member contrasting statements. The member and the House deserve a fuller answer than that. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Sorry I thought the member asked whether I stood by those statements and I said “Yes.” I think she asked which statement was true and I would say both. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What assistance is available to people on the domestic purposes benefit who are studying at tertiary level? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is an accommodation supplement of up to $225 a week there are childcare subsidies now of up to $181.50 per week for children under 5 and there are out-of-school care and recreation subsidies of up to $72.60 a week rising to $181 per week in school holidays. There is a disability allowance for some of those beneficiaries. There are special-needs grants. There is a voluntary bonding scheme that was introduced by my colleague and I think it will make a difference. There is the recoverable assistance grant and temporary additional support. There is a range of assistance available for those who are studying. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that she may have breached the Privacy Act in releasing confidential details about the income of the two women who went public complaining about the loss of the training incentive allowance and if she has breached the Privacy Act by either not telling them or not asking them whether she could make those statements will she apologise to those women forthwith? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I refer the member to the guidelines for Ministers on the Privacy Commissioner’s own website which show that people can give implied consent for Ministers to discuss their personal circumstances by going to the media. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Minister now release her own details of what she was paid by taxpayers when she was on the domestic purposes benefit having milked that fact on becoming Minister for Social Development and Employment so the public can determine whether she asked for more than she needed as she is implying some women are doing now and in light of her decision to release information on sole parents because they dared to speak out? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There has been no such implication at all and I make that point quite clear. I have never made a secret of the fact that I have been on and off a benefit and that I did receive the training incentive allowance. What I can tell those people who are looking at tertiary study is that it will not be easy but if they back themselves—and this Government will be backing them as well—then they can get off a benefit and they may even end up as a Cabinet Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Was the Minister advised that the individuals concerned had given implied consent to the release of their personal information; if so on the basis of what precedent; if not why did the Minister not take advice on that point? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I looked at the guidelines that were on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. Let us be quite clear: there are no new standards and this is not something we will be making a practice of. The standards that were set by the previous Government were underhand at best. I seem to recall a “lie by unison” call from previous Labour Ministers. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was very specific. It asked whether the Minister had taken advice on whether she had reasonable grounds to consider that the individuals has waived their rights to privacy; if she had not why she had not taken advice; and if she had what precedent she was relying on. None of that was addressed in the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer the particular question that the member has asked with respect— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding your invitation Mr Chauvel asked the Minister whether she took advice. The Minister then told him why she took the course of action she did. If that presumably was not some form of information offered by way of an answer then I do not know what was. What needs to be clarified further is beyond me. It is unfortunate that Mr Chauvel is of a mindset that no one can do anything in this country— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not use points of order to criticise another member. I think the member has clarified why there is a bit of a problem with the answering of the question: it is because Ministers are not at liberty to answer a different question. If the question asked had been “What approach did the Minister take to going about this?” then that would have been a perfectly acceptable answer. But there was a specific question about advice and I think the House deserves to be given an answer on whether or not advice was received. Certainly one part or the other of the question needs to be answered. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I stated in my answer I certainly referred to the guidelines for Ministers that are on the Privacy Commissioner’s website. I felt that that was adequate. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What steps did the Minister take to ensure that the information she released was accurate complete and not misleading to the public; for example did she make any inquiries in relation to payments under the Child Support Act? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I took big steps to check that the information was correct. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I asked the Minister what steps she took to make sure that the information she released was accurate complete and not misleading particularly with reference to one Act. The answer simply did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said if I heard her correctly that she took steps to ensure the information was correct and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that was the third time the Minister was asked about what steps she took not whether she took steps. Members on this side of the House have been taking your advice to try to tighten questions up and make them very specific but I think the quid pro quo from that is that the actual questions are answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member is making but members need to listen to the answers that are given. I believe the Minister has already told the House what steps she took to check out certain information. I think she has made that fairly clear to the House and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —no I am still ruling on the matter—the Speaker cannot judge the quality of the answer. I accept that the answer may not be exactly what members wanted but they have further supplementary questions in which to chase that up if they are not happy with the quality of the answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is clear that members on this side of the House and you have heard different things. Can I ask that the Minister repeat her answer to that supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will accept that. Would the Minister remind repeating her answer please to that particular supplementary question? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Steps were taken to ensure the information that we held was put out there and that is all the information I had available to me. That is the information we put out. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was very specific asking “What steps did the Minister take …” and the Minister has said steps were taken to check the information. It should be possible to tell the House what those steps involved. That should not be difficult. That is what is being asked. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With all due respect you have just extended the question that was asked. The Minister was asked what steps she took and you have now asked that she chronicle those steps. Her answer was that she looked into it and found the information was accurate. Labour members believe it was not accurate; they should produce that information. That would be like Mr Goff last week— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable Mr Brownlee. I have not extended the question at all. I listened very carefully to the member’s question because he was concerned about whether his previous question was answered. I think the member was very careful in the way he asked the question. He asked what steps were taken etc. to check the information. I believe that to simply say steps were taken is not in anyone’s language an answer to that question. I think it is reasonable that the Minister should be able to tell the House what steps were taken. It is not difficult. The Minister may not have the information. I accept that absolutely and if that is the case I am sure the House would accept that. But if the Minister has the information about what steps were taken it would be an answer to a reasonable question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: At the end of the day I presented the information that was available to me. I took steps to get the information that was available through my own ministry and that is what I presented. I cannot present information that I do not have. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Specifically did the Minister make any inquiries of her officials or anyone else as to the existence of payments under the Child Support Act in this case? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. 
Eating Disorders—Services in Northern Region 
5.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received regarding new services for eating disorders in the northern region? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Earlier this year the Government announced the provision of an extra $26 million over 4 years to improve services for eating disorders. I am pleased to announce now that I have received a report laying out how most of this new money will be spent in order to get proper in-patient and residential eating disorder services up and running in the top half of the North Island. This Government is determined to turn round the woefully inadequate eating disorder services we inherited in this region and we are doing it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What are the details of the Government’s new plans to lift eating disorder services in the northern region? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The plan proposes that by the end of this year additional workforce will be employed by the Auckland District Health Board enabling Starship Children’s Hospital to provide five dedicated beds for children under the age of 15 who need in-patient hospital care for their eating disorders. By the middle of next year the plan provides for a new Auckland-based residential service with up to nine beds for adolescents and adults with eating disorders. The plan is a good example of district health boards working together with services being available to patients in district health boards ranging from Northland to southern district health boards including Lakes Taranaki and Tairawhiti. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did the Minister do nothing to protect the health target of improving mental health services a target that has now been scrapped; and why did he do nothing to stop the cut in this year’s Budget to the amount of money going into the roll-out of the mental health blueprint? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: With regard to the first of those points on the issue of health targets I say that when we talked to people in the area of mental health care we found that that specific target was a bureaucratic target that did not improve patient care. So they were quite glad for it to go. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What further details if any can the Minister advise of with regard to this positive plan to assist people with eating disorders in the northern region? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: This plan outlines well-coordinated health services for people with eating disorders regardless of the type of treatment they may need. The addition of a residential treatment facility will provide a home-like environment for patients where they can spend time with their families. I should caution here that until these new services are fully operational patients will continue to be sent to Australia for treatment when it is appropriate and agreed with the patients. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How is the Associate Minister’s commitment to eating disorders backed up by his decision to have pies and candyfloss in and apples out of schools? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I am very surprised that the member wants to politicise this argument. The fact is that when it comes to eating disorders Labour had 9 years but it could not get its act together; we have had 9 months and we have done it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not even attempt to address the question. He made an interesting political point but he is required to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot support the member on this occasion because I think her own colleagues showed the political nature of the question by immediately barracking at the— 
Hon Annette King 
: At the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No—the member had barely finished asking her question when there was a barrage of noise from her own colleagues. I am afraid that if the question was meant to be serious then her colleagues should not have interjected en masse in the way they did. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: So if there’s barracking they don’t have to address the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance on this. To me it was very plain that the member’s own colleagues did not take the question seriously because there was a barrage of noise. I nearly intervened at that time to make the point that if members wanted to hear the answer they should not carry on like that. The Minister answered the question in the way that he saw appropriate and under the circumstances I felt it was appropriate. 
Overseas Investment Act Review—Reports from Te Puni Kokiri 
6.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha nga ripota tetahi ranei kua whiwhi i a ia mai i ana katipa i Te Puni Kokiri mo nga whakahounga kei te whakaarohia e pa ana ki te Ture Haumi i Tawahi? 
[ 
What reports if any has he received from his officials at Te Puni Kokiri on the proposed changes to the Overseas Investment Act? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
A tena koe e Te Kaiwhakawa tena tatau te Whare. Kai te whai whakaaro te Kawanatanga ki etahi whakarereketanga ki te ture. Kaore ano kia tae mai etahi purongo i a Te Puni Kokiri engari kai te wananga tonu ratau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us the House. The Government is currently considering changes to the Act. I have yet to receive a report from Te Puni Kokiri; it is still consulting. 
] 
Hon Shane Jones 
: A ki te Minita mehemea kua puta nga whakatau o te Kawanatanga he aha te wariu o nga ripoata e wananga tonutia ana i roto i tana tari? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To the Minister if the Government has published its findings what value is there in these reports still being consulted over in his office? 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mehemea kua puta he ripoata i te Kawanatanga he aha te painga o nga wananga ka waiho ki muri rawa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
If a report has been published by the Government what good will come out of consultations that are left for afterwards? 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. Taku mohio ko tera patai kua oti ke e te Minita te whakautu. I korero a ia ana kei roto i nga ringaringa o te Kawanatanga ko ta te Minita me te ahuatanga o tenei patai me tana Tari kati kai roto i Te Puni Kokiri kaore ano a ia kia kite.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you. To my knowledge that question has already been responded to by the Minister when he stated that the report is in the hands of the Government and Te Puni Kokiri. In terms of this question and his office he has not sighted it yet. 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously members are perfectly entitled to repeat their questions with slight changes in emphasis in them and I believe that is what the Hon Shane Jones has done. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Ki taku mohio kei te haere tonu te arotakenga o te ture nei. Kare ano kia puta te purongo ki a matau. Kei te noho tonu te komiti i tenei kaupapa. Kare ano kia puta mai te purongo ki te Kawanatanga otira ki te iwi whanui. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To my knowledge this Act is still under review. As yet we have not received the report. The committee is still considering this matter. The report is unavailable yet to Government and to the general public. 
] 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Tena koe. Ki te Minita mo nga Take Maori me pehea ranei e whakapumautia ai nga panga o te iwi Maori ki o ratou wahi tapu. E pai ana ranei ia te whakamarama mai ai me pehea ranei te ngaronga o te whenua Maori e whakakatia ai ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you. To the Minister of Maori Affairs how will Maori interests in their sacred places be sustained? Is he able to explain as well how the loss of Maori land can be rectified? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: A waiho ma te komiti me te purongo e whakamarama mai tena ahuatanga o te kaupapa engari ko toku tino kaupapa ko te tiakitanga o nga whenua katoa nga rawa Maori me nga wahi tapu o te iwi whanui. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
That aspect of the matter should be left for the committee and the report to explain. My real thrust is really to protect all Maori land and resources as well as places sacred to the public at large. 
] 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 7 April 2009 from the Office of Minister Sharples saying that neither he nor his office had had any correspondence with the Prime Minister the Minister for Regulatory Reform or the Minister of Finance about the proposed review of the overseas investment rules particularly as they relate to the foreshore and seabed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a second letter from the honourable Minister Sharples’ office dated 12 May 2009 again stating that no reports or correspondence had been received by his office from the Prime Minister the Minister of Regulatory Reform or the Minister of Finance over any proposed review of the Overseas Investment Act and those provisions relating to the foreshore and seabed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Roading—Kamo Bypass 
7.  
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on advancing roading projects in Whangarei? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report progress on Whangarei’s Kamo bypass one of six upcoming roading projects designed to enhance safety and support economic growth in and around Whangarei. The New Zealand Transport Agency announced last week that construction on the bypass will begin at the end of this year or early next year. The $23 million bypass will run from Kamo Road roundabout to connect with the existing State Highway 1 at Western Hills Drive. This will come as a huge relief to businesses and those in the residential streets that have been congested until now. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe e Te Kaihautu o te Whare. Ko koe tena e whakairi i te tahuhu korero mo Te Reo Maori i te timatanga o to tatau ra. Ko taku i tenei wa koinei te kaikorero tuatahi me whakatika i te kupu Kamo. Kamo koina te whakahua tika ne? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Greetings to you Mr Speaker. You demonstrated to us at the beginning of our day how the Maori language is to be used and spoken. My point of order at this point Mr Speaker is that this member is the first speaker to mispronounce a Maori word and I respectfully draw your attention to it. Kamo not “Ka-moh” is the correct pronunciation yes? 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think all members are aware of the need to try to pronounce each other’s names correctly and certainly in Maori Language Week to try to get Maori names as correct as we possibly can. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: What benefits will the Kamo bypass bring to Northland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The bypass will ease congestion decrease transportation times and costs and support continued growth in Whangarei and Northland. During the 2-year construction period it is estimated that the project will create up to 80 jobs directly and support even more in the wider community. The majority of suppliers and subcontractors working on the project will be locally based and their communities will benefit from the increase in work. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: What feedback has he received from locals on this progress? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have received many letters of support from locals including one from the Mayor of Whangarei Stan Semenoff. He stated: “We write to express the gratitude of Whangarei and Northland for the extremely rapid progress we are now making on the transportation issues which had vexed us for so long under previous Governments.” And of the New Zealand Transport Agency he stated: “The cooperation is the best it has ever been in my many years in politics.” The Government is pleased to be able to make a real difference to regional communities and economies like that and we will continue our infrastructure and transportation development around the country. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question has been the subject of a lot of discussion this morning and I submit that it presumes or implies that the Minister of Education should have taken some action based on a speech given by the Secretary to the Treasury. That implication is perfectly unreasonable. It would lead to the House’s dealing with questions every day about matters speeches comments or otherwise for which Ministers have no direct responsibility. It was insisted that this question go to the Minister of Education. I accept that the question has made it through the system but I make the point that the Government would like the Standing Orders to be applied as they have been for the last 9 years when the Government has been asked questions. I freely accept that the question will now be answered. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Just picking up on a related point for you to consider in respect of this question I struggle to see what possible ministerial responsibility there can be for a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury. It is his speech; it is not a speech made by the Minister or the Government. It is a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury; I could understand that the question may be directed to the Minister of Finance. But the question asks why the Minister of Education does not exclude something following that speech. Well a lot of speeches are given by different people up and down the country and it is a bit odd that a Minister would be responsible for excluding something because of that speech. There is no ministerial responsibility in that question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this issue up because it was the subject of enormous discussion through the morning. The discussion was mainly around whether the Secretary to the Treasury had called for the privatisation or contracting out of core State services as was the view of the Opposition but not of the Government. There was a lot of negotiation around this question and my submission is that you properly accepted the question because it first of all went to the role of the Minister of Education as to what is going to be privatised and what is not. The reference to the Secretary to the Treasury was really just a timing one; we were not asking what the Minister had done in the entire time she has been a Minister but just following Mr Whitehead’s call for privatisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s last point was totally outside the Standing Orders because he made an assertion about what the Secretary to the Treasury may or may not have said. I happen to have his speech right here. I am aware of the discussion that took place this morning. I am aware of the very careful wording of this question: it does not make any allusion to a call for privatisation by the Secretary to the Treasury; it refers to reports of such. 
The Minister in my view—and I do not want to pre-empt her answer—could give a range of answers. In response to the point of order made by the Hon Rodney Hide there would be nothing wrong with the Minister saying she has not even considered the Secretary’s speech because she does not have to. So there are a range of possibilities in answering it and that is why I considered that overall the question came within the Standing Orders. It was my judgment that it falls within the Standing Orders. 
Education State System—Parts Excluded from Privatisation 
8.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Which parts if any of the State education system has she excluded from privatisation following the Secretary to the Treasury’s speech which was widely reported as a call for privatisation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I suggest that that member does not blithely believe everything that is reported and actually reads the secretary’s speech which does not even mention privatisation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister regard the contracting out of core education services or other social services as recommended by the secretary as privatisation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I point out to that member that there is currently significant private involvement in education. The Government does not own the buildings of about 2500 early childhood centres. The Government does not own the buildings of about 300 State integrated schools. The Government does not own the buildings of about 100 independent schools. And guess what! The sky has not fallen. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister rule out the transfer of any State school land and buildings to public-private partnerships? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. As the member himself said in 2006 “this is a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about use of public private partnerships (PPPs). We recognise that there can be advantages in bundling finance with construction and service provision of infrastructure into one package.” 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki te reo rangatira o Aotearoa me Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. I acknowledge the first language of Aotearoa and Maori Language Week. Does the Minister support the views expressed by her colleague Heather Roy at Bunnythorpe on 18 July: “I see no impediment to the Government contracting private organisations to provide education”; if so which educational services that are currently publicly provided does she think are suitable for privatisation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I remind that member of my previous answer: 2500 early childhood centres are not owned by the Government yet we pay for the services they provide. The Government does not own about 300 State integrated schools yet we pay for the services they provide. One hundred independent schools get some funding as well. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice as to whether that question was answered by the Minister. The question directly asked what services that are currently publicly provided she believes could be privatised. She did not address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a fairly big ask for me to ask the Minister to answer the question more precisely than she did. The question is obviously fairly controversial. It has already been ruled that the Secretary to the Treasury was part of the primary question and that that question did not actually talk about privatisation at all. There are a range of difficult issues around the question. I believe that the Minister has given a reasonable answer. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was the Minister who referred to privatisation in her answer to the primary question. She has happily referred to and responded to other questions on this issue. The question my colleague asked was very specific. Instead the Minister refused to answer it and simply repeated an answer to a different question. I do not quite see how she can be excused now for not addressing this particular question when she herself raised the issue of privatisation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the member repeat the question to me. 
Metiria Turei 
: The question was about which services that are currently provided in the public sector could in her view be privatised. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That was not the question that was asked. Two questions were asked. The first part of the question related to a comment made by the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy. That is the question I addressed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Well then I seek your advice Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address that question either. She could address either of the two questions that my colleague put to her but she ought to address at least one of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When a member starts a question: “Does the Minister support the views” of another member there is no way I as Speaker can force particular answers to that question. That was what was troubling me. I want to give members a fair chance to make their case to me but when a member asks a question about whether a Minister agrees with another member the member asking the question cannot expect a precise answer. I have made that very clear in the past. I do not think I am departing from previous practice. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which services currently provided by the State does the Minister believe could be privatised? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I have your ruling on how that supplementary question relates to the primary question if in fact the mention of “privatisation” was not contained in the speech by the Secretary to the Treasury. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The word “privatisation” was allowed by you Mr Speaker in the substantive question when we asked the Minister what she could exclude from privatisation. It is her responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that. The primary question asks which parts if any of the education system the Minister has excluded from privatisation so I believe that follow-up supplementary question is in order. I am sure the Minister can answer it. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I agree with the member when he said that we want to see more action and that there is “a more important issue than whether new construction is privately or publicly funded. The Government is open-minded about use of public private partnerships”. I agree exactly with the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule whether that answer in your opinion address the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that she answered it. It was my impression that the Minister made it clear that public-private partnerships might not be excluded from future provision possibilities. She referred to the honourable member’s own past reference to that being something he would support. I believe that that has answered the question. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister in Maori Language Week support the kohanga reo movement which is all about contracting out education services to the great benefit of Maori and the country? Is it not better to focus on results rather than on the ideological concerns about who provides the service? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government absolutely supports kohanga reo. In fact this Government is extending the 20 free hours’ early childhood education to all kohanga reo. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Economic Benefits 
9.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What are the economic benefits of Treaty settlements? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Treaty settlements can provide a regional economic stimulus that boosts investment creates jobs and lays the foundations for future economic success. Ngai Tahu for example have built up their 1998 settlement of $170 million into an asset portfolio of tourism property fisheries and investment that is today worth around $609 million with equity of almost $500 million. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What recent milestones have been reached in Treaty settlements that will see significant economic benefit flowing into New Zealand’s regional economies? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: On Saturday 4 July the Crown marked the transfer of title to 90 percent of the Kaingaroa Forest to eight iwi. This transfer included almost $450 million in land and Crown forest rentals and that represents a significant boost to the regional economy. The settlement provides certainty for the future of forestry in the central North Island and will hopefully increase productivity as iwi progress and diversify into value-added manufacturing activities. Other economic opportunities could also open up as iwi develop other resources in the region such as sustainable geothermal energy. 
Forests—New Plantings 
10.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: How many hectares of new forestry have been planted since the election and how many hectares of new forestry does he expect will have been planted by November 2011? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 For the benefit of the member I tell him that new planting activity is a winter activity and therefore official statistics for this winter’s planting will not be available until they are collated later in the year. As to the second part of the question a number of variables such as ultimate climate change policy and log prices will determine planting rates between now and 2011. I am not prepared to speculate at this stage. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister concerned about reports from forest owners that say that delays to the emissions trading scheme are preventing them from selling credits domestically further discouraging investment in new plantings; and how does he reconcile this with his comments that the emissions trading scheme “means foresters can invest with some certainty”? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am concerned that the current situation creates a degree of uncertainty for foresters. I have made that comment to foresters. However it is far more important that this time we get the emissions trading legislation right and bring back to the House something that will get widespread support from the politicians in this Parliament. 
Shane Ardern 
: What reports has the Minister seen on deforestation rates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The most up-to-date complete figures I have seen are from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and are for 2007 the year that is now referred to as the year of the “chainsaw massacre”. In that particular year New Zealand experienced the worst deforestation since records began in 1951. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen comments from Professor Euan Mason and David Evison of Canterbury University’s School of Forestry that “in order to avoid a serious problem in our future national greenhouse gas accounts we need to increase the rate of new planting right now”; and how does he expect this to happen given reports that the Government is incorrect in saying that its plans to water down the emissions trading scheme will somehow encourage new plantings? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have not seen the comments to which the member refers. I do believe it is important that we get more plantings to help meet our commitments to Kyoto. But it is most important to get climate change legislation back into the House as quickly as possible and it should be legislation that will be signed up to by a good proportion of this Parliament so that we finally get certainty not only for the forestry sector but for every other sector in the economy. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Instead of referring to the irrelevant record of previous Governments does the Minister not think it is time nearly 9 months into his term of office that he takes responsibility for representing the forestry sector and fronts up about how he will ensure that the emissions trading scheme provides strong incentives for foresters to plant new forests? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have difficulty understanding the logic of that member when in one question earlier he acknowledged the importance of tree planting to meet Kyoto obligations and then attempted to suggest that the record of the previous Government is irrelevant in that regard. 
Clinical Leadership Ministerial Task Group— 
In Good Hands 
11.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his support for  
In Good Hands 
 the report which outlines the importance of clinical leadership in health decision-making? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. I commissioned the report  
In Good Hands 
 as part of the new Government’s drive to engage doctors and nurses in the running of the New Zealand public health service. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why then has the Minister removed the previously agreed requirement for district health boards to consult with health professionals before making decisions to contract out services to the private sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Under the National Government district health boards do not need a protocol to talk to their staff. We expect them to be working closely with their clinical teams to share problems and solutions and that direction underpins all arrangements in the public health service. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why did the Minister choose not to consult with the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists before making his changes to encourage more contracting of surgery to the private sector; is it because he knows that they would oppose his moves to undermine public health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The public is very clear on what this new Government campaigned on: improving access to elective surgery smarter use of the private sector and giving doctors and nurses more say. What is very clear in the protocols that the new Government has approved is a commitment that public hospitals must ensure that when harnessing the resource of the private sector the long-term viability of their own resource is not to be undermined. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked about consultation with the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists. The Minister has not addressed that point at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to actually answer that part of the question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I discussed this policy several times with members of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists before the election. I think everyone was well aware of National’s policy; that is the reason why we got that endorsement during the election. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What feedback has the Minister received in relation to his promotion of the  
In Good Hands 
 report and why is it important? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The feedback from the public health sector including the representatives of the senior doctors has been incredibly supportive. The reason the Government places such high importance on that report is that it promotes clinical leadership. The greatest challenge facing the public health service today is workforce workforce and workforce. Our drive to clinical leadership is about engaging and involving doctors and nurses in the public health service to give them greater job satisfaction and to improve retention. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is it not true that the Minister is deliberately weakening public health care to force New Zealanders to take out private health insurance so that he can cut the health budget in the face of expensive new technologies an ageing population and epidemics of chronic disease? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No that simply cannot be true. The new member has been writing newspaper articles saying that the Government’s plan to increase the number of publicly funded publicly owned elective surgery theatres is madness. Yet at the same time he says that we are privatising them. It does not make sense. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If the Minister is so committed to clinical leadership in the health sector what does he say to Professor Boyd Swinburn former medical director of the National Heart Foundation who described the National Government’s dismantling of anti-obesity policies as “descending into being a ‘ninny state’ ” where the food industry controls politicians? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I say to Professor Boyd Swinburn that what is needed is a more balanced approach. This Government reflects the views of New Zealanders. If that member and her colleagues did so well in their 9 years why do we find the situation that we do with unhealthy weights in the community? 
Adult and Community Education—Benefits for Maori 
12.  
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Ka tu a ia i runga i tana kauhau ki te Hui o nga Kareti Hapori i te Hotera o Grace i te ra o Wenerei rua tekau o te marama o Mei me tana i whakanui ra i nga painga o te Matauranga Hapori me te Hunga Pakeke mo nga tangata Maori; mehemea kaore he aha ai? 
[ 
Does he stand by his speech to the Community Colleges Conference on Wednesday 20 May 2009 where he praises the benefits of adult and community education for Maori; if not why not? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Ae ka tu pakari ai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Yes it will endure. 
] 
Kelvin Davis 
: Does the Minister see the irony in the fact that just a week after he had sung the praises and benefits of adult and community education for Maori to that group in Australia he voted for a Budget that slashed those same programmes that benefit Maori? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kare au e tautoko ana i te aukati i nga putea mo nga akoranga pakeke engari kai roto i to matou kawenata tetahi kaupapa e whakaae ana kia kore whakaae. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I do not support cuts in funding for adult education but there is scope in our party manifesto to agree to disagree. 
] 
Kelvin Davis 
: Has the Minister checked with the Minister of Education which of the courses he praised for their benefits for Maori are hobby courses and was he offended by that description as most Maori would be? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kei te kaha au ki te tautoko i nga akoranga pakeke mo nga Maori a kei raro i taku mana nga wananga. Kei te pai ratau na te mea ko taku he arahi i a ratau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I am a strong supporter of adult education for the Maori people and universities come under my portfolio. They are well because my role is to lead them. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kua ngaro katoa ki a ngai Maori nga huarahi e taea ai e ia te whai atu i roto i te wahanga matauranga a-pakeke a-hapori ranei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Have the Maori people lost all opportunities possible for them to pursue adult and community education? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kao i te mea ara ano nga huarahi ki a Maori ma ki te tono kia noho hai puna matauranga penei i etahi atu ropu. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
No because there are many opportunities for Maoridom to seek to become adult education providers like any other group. 
] 
Kelvin Davis 
: How can the Minister hand out praise about the benefits of adult learning with one hand then cut funding to the Skill Enhancement fund which funded Rangitahi Maia with the other hand? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kua oti ke taku whakautu ki tena patai engari nga mea kua aukatingia 
i te putea tono mai ki a au maku e tono atu ki te Minita matua me te Minita Putea ki te kimi awhina mo ratau. Kare ano kia mutu ki tenei take. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I have already answered that question but those denied funding should send their request for assistance to me and I will send it on to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance. This matter is not over yet. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ki te Minita ka pa ano nga whakahounga nei mo te matauranga mo te hapori me te pakeke ki te ki nga whare wananga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To the Minister do these changes in adult and community education apply to universities? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kahore. Naku i tono ki te Minita matua kia waiho nga wananga ki waho o te kati. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
No. I sought assurances from the Minister of Education that universities should be exempt. 
] 
Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
 Later on I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 November 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
The purpose of this motion is to bring forward the report back of the bill to ensure that the bill can be enacted before Christmas. The reason for that is to ensure that financial institutions that are affected by measures contained in the legislation will have the time they need in order to implement the changes by 1 April next year. 
At the outset I tell the House that this bill will not be as complex in its size as the similar bill that I introduced last July 2008. In the future we will have two tax bills a year if required. One will be essentially a remedial matters bill and the other will be a major policy bill. The Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill comes into the former category. 
Although most of the changes and updates it proposes are in the nature of good housekeeping together those changes and updates are designed to give clarity and certainty for taxpayers particularly when dealing with the recent changes to the personal tax rates. With this in mind the main feature of the bill is the alignment of the resident withholding tax rates on interest and portfolio investment entity tax rates with the personal tax rates as they currently apply and the 30 percent company tax rates introduced in 2008. 
The alignment of resident withholding tax and portfolio investment entity tax rates with the new personal and company tax rates was deliberately delayed to allow time to consult with the financial institutions that have to implement changes to their systems as a consequence. The resulting application dates that are contained in the bill reflect the outcome of the consultation process and are designed to give banks and other financial institutions enough time to update their systems. 
The new resident withholding tax rates on interest paid to individuals as introduced in the bill are 12.5 percent 21 percent 33 percent and 38 percent depending on a person’s income. The bill also introduces a new default rate of 38 percent for people who do not choose a rate with their bank. This new default rate will apply to accounts that are opened on or after 1 April 2010. For those who already have a bank account at 1 April 2010 and who are on the current default rate of 19.5 percent the default rate will move to 21 percent from 1 April 2010 in line with the new personal tax rates. Those people will then be given 1 year in which to contact their bank to confirm that 21 percent is their correct rate or if it is not correct to choose another resident withholding rate. If they fail to confirm either the 21 percent rate or to choose another rate their resident withholding rate will automatically go up to the 38 percent default rate from 1 April 2011. 
The idea behind setting the default rate at the highest personal tax rate is to motivate people to contact their bank or financial institution and to choose a resident withholding tax rate for their interest income that aligns with their correct personal tax rate. Using the highest rate as the default rate is the same approach we have used for investors’ portfolio investment entity tax rates since 2007. It has worked well for investors and for managed funds and I am confident it will work equally well in this instance. 
In a tandem measure the bill also introduces a new 30 percent resident withholding tax rate on interest for companies that invest in financial institutions again to reflect the 30 percent rate for companies introduced in April 2008. This new rate will be optional for financial institutions for 1 year from 1 April 2010 and after that time the 30 percent rate will become compulsory. 
Similarly the bill brings the portfolio investment entity tax rates into line with the new personal tax rates so that investors in portfolio investment entities are not disadvantaged compared with those who invest directly. Those rates will also apply from April 2010. Again this is designed to give portfolio investment entities sufficient time to update their systems. 
To complete this suite of changes a new 12.5 percent secondary tax code and a new 12.5 percent withholding tax rate for extra pays are being introduced to be consistent with the new personal tax rates structure. These changes are the cornerstones of the bill. Together they will give greater certainty both for earners and for payers of interest income and will ensure that the correct amount of tax is paid on that income. 
As I mentioned earlier the bill also introduces several measures of a housekeeping or technical nature. The first of those measures is designed to support the Inland Revenue Department’s drive towards greater administrative efficiencies by moving much of its current paper-based communications with taxpayers to electronic means. Under the current tax rules taxpayers must consent for the department to provide a communication electronically. The bill introduces changes that will allow notices to be sent electronically to taxpayers if the department has reasonable grounds to believe that the communication will be received by the taxpayer. That will clearly allow better communication between the department and the taxpayers involved. 
Another measure will give the department the discretion to allow taxpayers who have made a minor error in their return that involves $500 or less in tax to correct that error in a subsequent return. This taxpayer-friendly change will result in lower compliance costs for taxpayers and will certainly reduce their exposure to use-of-money interest. 
Reducing compliance and administrative costs for taxpayers and the Inland Revenue Department is also behind a new measure to give the department more flexibility when it comes to issuing personal tax summaries. Currently the department is required to automatically issue end-of-year personal tax summaries to several categories of taxpayer including those with more than $200 of employment income withheld using certain tax codes. Changes proposed in the bill will remove this requirement so that the department will not have to issue as many personal tax summaries. 
Again in the interests of smoothing the administrative functions between the department and taxpayers the bill addresses a longstanding difficulty for tax agents in the timing of distributing income to the beneficiaries of trusts. Under current law trustees have a fixed 6-month period after the balance date to allocate income to beneficiaries. For tax agents this timing requirement can create undue pressure at a time when their client’s business tax requirements must also be met. To help alleviate this pressure the bill introduces changes that will allow tax agents more time to allocate beneficiary income. 
The remaining measures in the bill cover a range of technical changes to clarify the rules for taxpayers and to correct minor errors in the Income Tax Act 2007 as recommended by the Rewrite Advisory Panel. Among these measures is a change to clarify the tax treatment of expenses incurred by participants in the climate change - related Permanent Forest Sink Initiative so that they receive the same tax treatment as other foresters. A further technical change clarifies the GST treatment of the new waste disposal levy that was introduced on 1 July this year. 
Those and other changes in the bill are described in detail in the separate commentary on the bill which I understand has been distributed to all members. On that basis I commend the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 We thank the Minister who has just resumed his seat and wish the House to note that Labour will be supporting the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. The bill contains consequential changes to tax rates in line with recent tax rate and threshold adjustments and it includes a number of other remedial and technical measures that are sensible and that in some part follow from work streams initiated by the previous Government. Indeed the previous Minister was much better than the current one which just shows that it is how one holds the pen that counts. 
Of course this is also an opportunity to reflect upon the context within which these changes are being made and the broad shape of the Government’s tax package introduced on 1 April this year. The context for that discussion is the deep recession that the country now finds itself in and the fact that we can expect between another 60000 and 79000 job losses and that 1300 New Zealanders are joining the dole queue every week—1300 every week. In other words the expected jobs created by the cycleway account for 1 day’s worth of new unemployment. I will say that again. The cycleway provides 1 day’s offset against the wave of unemployment we face. 
This is a serious situation and it causes us to reflect upon the changes to the tax system that saw incentives removed from KiwiSaver and from research and development tax credits in order to fund the lowering of the top personal income tax rate to 38c in the dollar and to reflect upon the threshold changes which overwhelmingly provided benefit to upper-income earners. 
It has been a matter of debate in this House that across the whole of the Government’s proposed tax reforms one-third of the tax cuts would go to only 3 percent of taxpayers. It is on record in this House that the Opposition has criticised that on two principal grounds. One ground is that at a time of recession and stress in the homes of ordinary hard-working New Zealanders making sure that 97 percent of the population does not benefit from a third of the tax remission is hardly appropriate on social equity grounds. 
But secondly at a time when every penny of fiscal stimulus counts and when we are getting lectures about how scarce the Government’s access to capital is it is essential that every cent is effective and well spent. Sadly the tax changes that require this consequential legislation are not effective. The truth is that National has delivered $120 a week to somebody on say the Prime Minister’s salary and nothing to someone with children who is on the median income. That can be neither fair nor good economics. You can bet your bottom dollar that people with kids who are on the median income will be spending every cent of tax remission they get and someone who is on the Prime Minister’s salary can probably afford to squirrel some of it away thus taking it out of circulation. 
Let us spend a minute talking about KiwiSaver in the context of the Prime Minister last Wednesday giving a major signature speech on economic policy to show us the plan and on Thursday Fitch Ratings putting us on negative watch. The timing was probably not accidental because Fitch Ratings like the rest of us had been waiting with bated breath to see what the plan actually was. It was like an old Holden that when we lifted the bonnet we found had no engine. There was no “There!” and that is why Fitch Ratings decided to place us on negative watch. Fitch Ratings like Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s the other two rating agencies drew particular attention to two deficits—the savings deficit and the external deficit. It was in order to cover the savings deficit that they have insisted that the Government either run surpluses or limited deficits on its books. But that is a patch not a resolution of the fundamental problem. 
In that context it really does beggar belief for all the reasons that we have discussed that the Government would withdraw half of the value of the incentives in the KiwSaver programme—the single most successful programme in our history for getting New Zealand’s savings rate up—and use those funds to give a tax break to upper income earners. It beggars belief and it will not have done anything to encourage Fitch Ratings Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s as they keep this economy under review. It is just simply not sensible economics and I think the Minister of Revenue knows that. 
If that was true of KiwiSaver is it not also perhaps even more true of the issue of innovation? We know that we are a primary-producing country with an external deficit. We are not paying our way in the world. It is really quite simple. What we make from our exports plus New Zealanders’ investments overseas is less than we pay for our imports and the returns we have to give to foreigners who have invested here. That is the current account deficit—both the trade balance and the financial balance. It is simple. Moody’s in particular stressed in their review of the New Zealand economy that New Zealand will never get out of the hole it is in unless it produces and exports more. There is an element of communality between the Government and the Opposition on that issue. We both think productivity matters and I think we both think the export balance matters. What we disagree on is that the Opposition believes that in order to improve those things we need to get innovation up and in order to get innovation up it has to pay for businesses to innovate. 
Businesses respond to incentives. I think even Roger Douglas would agree with that point. One of the strongest incentives is the tax system. There was almost universal support within the business community—the “Mood of the Boardroom” survey stated it was well above 80 percent if I recall correctly—for the research and development tax credits and it is a real shame that they were scrapped to fund these tax write-offs for upper income earners. We do not need to be cushioning upper income earners at a time of recessionary crisis. We need to be fuelling the engines of exporting and productivity and we do that by innovating by creating a competitive business environment and by the Government lending some sense of direction and strategy so that private investors can make their capital investment decisions their hiring decisions and their production decisions alongside those of the Government. It is therefore in that context that this bill is important. 
There are some supplementary measures in this bill—not only the tax rate changes but also the threshold changes and in particular the PIE or portfolio investment entity rates. No that is not a new Government initiative for healthy food in schools; far from it. We have had enough of that today. They are the rates that prevent New Zealand savers from being overtaxed. It is an initiative of the previous Government that has been I am pleased to say adopted by the new Government. It is designed to avoid the prior situation where people’s savings were taxed at the top marginal rate in the savings institution regardless of their own personal rate. We are pleased that the Government has adopted the far-sighted proposal to look through the savings rate of the institution to the tax rate of the beneficiary and adopt vehicles like portfolio investment entities that allow that to flow through. 
Having said that the devil is always in the detail. It is very important as the Finance and Expenditure Committee members know that the structure of the tax law surrounding portfolio investment entities is simple it is principled it is difficult to rort it is not too complex and it does not create undue compliance costs. We need to monitor the application of these rules to ensure that the original policy intent which is shared across the House is in fact borne out in its application to day-to-day policy. 
There are other changes in this bill. There is the correction of some errors and some remedial matters to do with the permanent forest sinks initiative the beneficiary income rules and so forth. But for the public listening to this debate today although it is true that the Opposition is supporting the bill and although it is true that it makes important and sensible consequential changes without which the tax system would be a mess it is also true that the context within which we are debating this is in our view an inappropriate one. The context is that two-thirds of the money goes to people in the 97 percent of the population who are in the middle and the lower income brackets and one-third of the money goes to the top 3 percent. That is not a good idea when capital is starved and it is especially a bad idea when we have to wind back KiwiSaver to do it. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Surprisingly I find myself in agreement with a couple of the last comments made by the previous speaker David Cunliffe about the need for clarity and a robust framework around taxation issues. I appreciate those sentiments. I think he is right in that across the House generally in the precincts of this place and across the community there is a general acceptance of the need in our taxation system for clarity modernisation and alignment in order to make it as simple as possible and to make compliance as easy as possible. 
I say one big “Kia ora” to the Minister of Revenue who in his speech noted that this bill is nothing like the bill introduced in July last year by the previous Minister of Finance. That bill was about 850 pages long and I think we have about 50 pages here and again do I look forward to that structure. Because of that process we have discovered that there will be maybe two bills per year—there is bound to be an exception to that along the way I am sure—on policy and remedial matters. At least the professionals downtown will appreciate that we are trying to provide some structure around our legislative programme and provide some certainty. I acknowledge the previous Minister for the intent there. 
The Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill is very similar to this ambitious National Government in that it is taxpayer-friendly and I will come back to some of those matters in a moment. But to feed off the previous speaker I say it is very important to note for those listening the hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer assistance tax relief and fiscal benefits that this new National Government has brought in after only 9 months in office as opposed to 9 years for the previous administration. It is very important to note—because it sometimes seems to be forgotten in the speeches made by members on the other side of the House—that this policy was laid out before the election. So the New Zealand public very heavily endorsed the policies and processes of this new National Government. 
This bill clarifies modernises and tidies up many many matters. It aligns certain investment tax rates with income tax rates bringing clarity certainty and simplification to all facets of our tax system. This bill is not contentious—at least not at this stage. I do not think anyone has raised any contentious issues during the first reading but some issues may arise during the select committee process. 
Stuart Nash 
: It’s another Labour bill! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: That member has found something contentious in it and we look forward to discussing the contentious issues he is thinking of. We can discuss those issues at the Finance and Expenditure Committee if we vote to send the bill there this afternoon. I am sure the hard-working members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee will discuss those matters and hopefully come to an arrangement whereby hopefully this bill can be reported back as scheduled as the Minister alluded to in his speech. 
I appreciate the Labour member Mr Cunliffe noting that Labour is supporting this bill—other members on that side may want to note that as they write their speeches—and I freely acknowledge the professionalism with which the member is approaching issues in and around tax. There is politics but the intent to have a better tax system is generally accepted across the House and I am grateful for that. I look forward to the continuing professionalism and cooperation of all members of the select committee as we facilitate the bill through and if we look at the dates we see that there is a pretty tight report-back time. As chairperson of that select committee I am sure we will have some discussions in and around that. Hopefully we can facilitate that and again it is noted that the previous member said that Labour would be supporting this bill and will also be in discussion with other parties. 
The main features of this bill as the Minister of Revenue outlined are the alignment of resident withholding tax rates—they are the tax rates paid on interest income—with the new primary rates that this Government brought in in previous legislation prior to Christmas. It goes without saying that those rates should be the same. We are trying to make the tax system as neutral as possible and to disincentivise any one particular form of investment over another to allow our economy to grow. 
Most important the bill brings in one new rate. The current marginal income tax rates and the present resident withholding rates of 19.5 percent 33 percent and 38 or 39 percent will become 12.5 percent 21 percent 30 percent 33 percent and 38 percent and the application dates on those are all 1 April 2010. However there is a caveat to the 30 percent rate and taxpayers can opt in earlier. That is being taxpayer-friendly and that is recognising their circumstances. Taxpayers can take advantage of new and lower tax rates which were voted for the last election and are now being brought in by this very ambitious National Government. 
On that note I will end and I look forward to the next speakers as they continue the endorsement of this very good bill. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speaker Craig Foss is correct in saying that the Labour Party will be supporting the technical provisions of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I will deal with a couple of the specific changes to the legislation proposed by this bill before dealing with what is not in the bill which I also think should be highlighted. 
First of all the previous speaker was correct in saying that the default resident withholding tax rates are being changed. When people earn interest in this country it has tax deducted from it before it is paid to them by the person who is paying the interest. The rate at which interest is deducted is set out in law and that is the resident withholding tax rate. This bill adjusts the resident withholding tax rates to update them for recent changes in income tax rates so that the amount paid by way of a deduction from the interest one earns corresponds with the amount of tax one is likely to pay as a taxpayer. One of the most major changes in recent years has been to the corporate tax rate; it was reduced from 33c in the dollar to 30c in the dollar. This bill adjusts the resident withholding tax rate the default rate at which tax is deducted from interest payments that are earned by companies. It decreases the resident withholding tax rate for companies from 33 percent to 30 percent. 
It is worth reflecting on why that is necessary. It is because the previous Labour Government cut the corporate tax rate. At times we have heard from National Party members that they are the party of business. They like to pretend that they are the ones who know how to grow the economy when in reality many people in New Zealand know that it was the previous Labour Government that had the better handle on economic policy as reflected in the fact that we cut the corporate tax rate from 33c in the dollar to 30c in the dollar. 
By way of contrast I say the effect on resident withholding tax rates being changed in this bill as a consequence of National Party policy is in the main to change the top personal tax resident withholding tax rate from 39 percent down to 38 percent. Rather than giving a leg-up to the most productive parts of our economy—encouraging companies to save more so they have more to invest having a lower tax burden so that companies have more money to reinvest in productive enterprises and improving the productivity of our companies which is what the previous Labour Government was achieving through reducing the corporate tax rate—the National Government has focused its tax cuts on those who already earn the most in a personal sense in New Zealand by reducing their tax rate at the margin from 39c in the dollar to 38c in the dollar. 
 The effect was that the highest-earning people in New Zealand who were already in a better position economically than everyone else in New Zealand were given another tax break in order to make them even better off. Whereas a middle-income family with children a family that might be struggling to pay a mortgage rising power prices and other costs got nothing from the Government’s tax package those who were the highest earners had a tax reduction and that tax reduction is now being reflected in this consequential bill which changes their resident withholding tax rate. 
Therein lies one of the differences between Labour and National. We understand it is important to have a strong productive economy. In order to encourage that we do not need to reduce the tax rate for the highest earning people in the country but we do need to make things easier for companies. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What happened to exports in the last 5 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I had an interjection there from someone who was saying Labour never reduces taxes but of course we did reduce the corporate tax rate. It is an interesting fact of history to reflect on which Government before the previous Labour Government reduced the corporate tax rate. Does the member know the answer to that question? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: We’re talking about exports. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh he is talking about exports but he does not know the answer to that question. It was actually a prior Labour Government that last reduced the corporate tax rate before we did it again in the last term in Government. That is somewhat ironic—[ 
Interruption 
]. The National Party voted against the Budget that reduced the tax rate for companies from 33c to 30c in the dollar. 
It is also time to reflect on what has happened since the election. Of course by the time of the last election the writing was already on the wall as to the effect of the downturn in the world economy on the New Zealand economy and the fourth estate was already on to it. During the last election campaign the media asked the then National Opposition how it could promise its tax cuts given that the world economy was declining so sharply. By that time the IMF was warning that a very sharp international contraction was already occurring and New Zealand was already in recession as the Hon Bill English continually reminds us from day to day. Yet at the time of the election he was willing to ignore those realities when he was promising unaffordable tax cuts. Not only was the IMF issuing those warnings and New Zealand already in recession but also by that time one of the big international banks Lehman Brothers had failed. We had an IMF warning New Zealand was in recession and Lehman Brothers had failed yet at the time of the election the National Party pretended that these things would not have any material effect on its ability to fund its election promises. 
Well we all know now that that was untrue. Since the election we have seen the National Government resile from some of its tax cuts. It left tax cuts in place for the most wealthy in New Zealand whose personal tax rate it cut as is reflected today in the cuts in the resident withholding tax rate for those highest income earners but it cut most of the other tax relief it had planned for low and middle income people. That left a terrible disparity whereby most of the tax relief was given to the people who needed it the least. In addition because of National’s reckless promises in the election and its belief that it had to keep at least some of its promises to cut taxes—and as I have said it did that for the most well-off—the Government had less money in the kitty than it would have had it not made those rash promises. That is why the Government had to cut the pre-funding of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. One consequence of those changes to the tax rates for the highest-paid people in New Zealand was the inability in the Government’s view to properly pre-fund New Zealand superannuation. 
Currently about 500000 people in New Zealand are reliant on superannuation. That number doubles over the next decade or so or it may be over the next 2 decades. I am unsure of the exact number—forgive me for that failure of memory—but over the next period that figure doubles from 500000 to 1 million people. That figure as a proportion of the workforce changes as well. The proportion of people who are reliant on Government finances for their superannuation as a percentage of the labour force increases very substantially. It is a real challenge for future Governments to fund that and that is why there appeared to be at the time of the last election virtual unanimity across the major parties that there was a need to pre-fund some of the cost of that through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This was to avoid an intergenerational inequity. Subsequent generations would otherwise be carrying the burden of paying superannuation to an increased pool of superannuitants despite a relatively smaller proportion of working-age population in employment. That is why there was apparently almost universal approval for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund across both the National and Labour parties. But of course we all know that was a fraud. In reality that was not the case and when National came into Government it sacrificed the pre-funding of superannuation in order to fund its tax cuts for those who were already the best off. 
Further the National Government did away with the research and development tax credit and I absolutely agree with my colleague David Cunliffe in saying that change was inappropriate. New Zealand has to invest in more high-value products for export if we are to overcome our current account deficit and become wealthier as a country. There are two essential ingredients to that. One is encouraging savings which I will come to but the other is providing appropriate incentives for business to invest. One of the ways that most countries in the world incentivise investment in the appropriate capital equipment and new products is through a research and development tax credit. We need only to look across the ditch at our closest economy and our biggest economic competitor in these areas Australia to see that Australia has a research and development tax credit. It is also clear that at one stage the Australian Government cut its research and development tax credit and lo and behold the research and development spend by its corporates went down. The Australian Government addressed that by introducing another variant of its research and development tax credit. 
New Zealand has neither of those provisions. We do not have any research and development tax credit. We are a glaring anomaly when we compare ourselves with most OECD countries and that anomaly coincides with our under-investment in research and development and therefore our poor performance relative to a lot of overseas countries in lifting our productivity so as to improve the wealth of our nation and improve our ability to fund health services and responses to environmental things like climate change etc. Abandoning the research and development tax credit was a real mistake by the National Government and this bill does not fix that. 
Similarly if we have a deficit in savings—and New Zealand certainly does—we must have appropriate interventions like KiwiSaver which was also cut. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We did not support the original set of tax changes. These consequential changes flow out of that original set so we continue not to support them. 
The reason we do not support them is that they are bad policy and they are wrong policy. They are bad policy for a number of reasons. If we are to try to deliver a stimulus package giving very large tax cuts to the very well-off is not the best way to deliver it. In fact it is the worst way to deliver a stimulus package. If we were to design a tax system for a recession and we wished to deliver a stimulus to our economy to try to keep people in jobs giving large tax cuts to the well-off would be exactly the wrong thing to do. That is why we are not voting for this bill and why we did not vote for the original changes. It is bad policy. 
It is also wrong policy. It is ethically wrong. It is wrong to give tax cuts to those who are already the wealthiest. That is just wrong. There are no two ways about it and there is no other way to look at it. We have a society that is racked by inequality. New Zealand is a society that has gone through enormous inequality as a result of the changes started in the 1980s that have made us more and more unequal. In fact we are a world leader in inequality. Thanks to the policies of the 1980s and 1990s New Zealand is a world leader in inequality. We have become unequal faster than any other country on the planet and that is something we should be ashamed of. 
Carol Beaumont 
: It is a great shame. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It is a shameful thing. In one of the most unequal countries in the OECD to give very large tax cuts to the well-off while giving absolutely zero—nothing—to those who earn under $40000 is immoral. It is not just poor tax policy; it is immoral. It is not compassionate conservatism or God-fearing conservatism; it is wrong and immoral. To give very large tax cuts to the very well-off is the wrong thing to do. It is the unethical thing to do and that is why we will not vote for it. I call on Labour not to vote for it either. Why would Labour vote for this bill? It does not even support it. 
The bill is also bad policy because it means that the stimulus package we are delivering now has to be borrowed from future generations. The tax cuts one way or another have to be paid for by borrowing. We are taking from future generations to pay for the stimulus package or to pay for the tax cuts whichever way one cares to look at it. Our Government borrowing will be much higher by the order of maybe $10 billion over the next 10 years or more as a result of these tax cuts. Because of the tax cuts we are giving to the very wealthy we have to borrow more from future generations to fund either those tax cuts or the stimulus package whichever way one looks at it. It means that future taxpayers have to carry a higher level of debt as a result of these stupid tax cuts—tax cuts that are bad policy. 
Mr Cunliffe quite rightly said earlier that when we give tax cuts to the very wealthy they tend to save them. If we give tax cuts to those at the bottom end of the income spectrum they simply spend them. That is why tax cuts targeted towards those at the bottom actually have a much greater stimulatory effect than tax cuts delivered to those at the top. So it is not only wrong policy because it is immoral and unethical and it is not only bad policy because it means that future generations will have a higher level of Government debt as a result of this but also it does not even give us the stimulus we want. 
This is dumb policy not only because of what it is but also because of what is not there. What are not there are measures to address the fundamental problems in the New Zealand economy such as the housing bubble. We all know that the housing bubble and the misappropriation of investment funds into investment properties in New Zealand is a major problem. Everyone talks about it. Everyone says it is a major problem but no other party in this Parliament has the guts to stand up and ask what we are going to do about it. 
We know what we have to do about it: we have to change taxation rules so that they target investment properties. Currently taxation rules favour investment properties. The taxation rules say to people with a bit of extra money to throw their money into investment properties because it is a great thing to do. Accountants from the top of the country to the bottom are telling people on middle to high incomes that they should put their money into investment properties. That is what they advise people day in and day out. The reason they do that is that the tax system rewards people for doing it. We are stupid. We have a tax system that rewards people for doing exactly the thing we know is the wrong thing to do in our economy which is to throw billions of dollars into investment houses. 
If we are to address this major problem we need to change the tax laws. We know what has to be done. We have to ring-fence the losses around investment properties and we have to introduce a capital gains tax excluding the family home so that we start to target the capital gains that come out of investment properties so that investment properties are no longer as tax-friendly as they are currently. That law change will provide a disincentive for all of those billions of dollars to get thrown into investment properties. None of the other parties in the House are willing to grasp that nettle because they are frightened of telling the people of New Zealand the truth which is that we have to change our tax system if we want to save our economy. It is a simple truth. We all know it is true but no one aside from the Greens is willing to stand up and say it. Gutless! So we need to change the tax rules. 
One of the of the other impacts of the current policy is that as the Reserve Bank does its damnedest to try to target the housing bubble it wrecks the entire rest of the economy in particular the tradable sector because it increases interest rates in order to try to suppress the housing bubble. That is what it is trying to do in order to try to stop inflation but all it does in the process is increase interest rates and increase the New Zealand dollar right across the board so that the entire tradable sector is at a disadvantage against imports. Because we will not adopt the basic policy measures that we should adopt to target the housing bubble the entire New Zealand productive sector has to suffer. 
We say we will have a high - interest rate high - exchange rate policy in order to try to suppress inflation coming out of the housing bubble. What a brilliant policy! We will wipe out the entire productive sector. What a brilliant economic strategy! We will have a high-currency high - interest rate policy in order to try to suppress the inflation coming out of the housing bubble. We could not possibly have policies that target the housing bubble—no that would be too smart! We do not like doing stuff like that! We want to have the dumb policy that suppresses the entire productive sector rather than target the housing bubble which is the cause of the inflationary pressure in the New Zealand economy! Everyone says it; everyone knows it is true. We cannot possibly have a policy that targets the cause of the inflationary pressure in the New Zealand economy—no! We have to have a high - interest rate high - New Zealand exchange rate policy that suppresses the entire productive sector! So we have a trade deficit. It is a brilliant strategy! We have a trade deficit we add it to our current account deficit—it gets incorporated every year—and we are doing a great job adding to our debt. 
When we say to the people who had just been laid off from the sawmill in Gisborne that the reason they are getting laid off is we will not have a capital gains tax they might scratch their heads and wonder what on earth we are talking about. But of course the connection is quite straightforward. One of the reasons the New Zealand productive sector is doing so poorly is that we have a high New Zealand dollar. One of the reasons we have a high New Zealand dollar is that we have high interest rates in this country so we are an attractive place for money to come. It is a stupid policy. Right now as a result of that policy people in our country are being laid off and we should change it. 
I want to touch on just a couple of other things that should be in this tax policy but are not. The thing is whether or not we like it tax is not just about raising money for Governments to spend; it also influences behaviour. Not only does it influence behaviour in the housing market and investment properties but also it needs to move our economy in a more sustainable direction. We need to adopt policies around taxation that explicitly say we have to move our economy in a more sustainable direction—that is tax policy that targets waste pollution and resource use. Only by changing relative prices will we transform our economy to be much more sustainable. The way we change relative prices is using targeted taxation. That is just a simple economic fact and we need to incorporate that fact in our taxation system. If we are serious about making the economic transformation then we need to make our economy a sustainable one—that is sustainable environmentally let alone sustainable economically. Currently we do not have an economically sustainable economy which is why our current account deficit is 8 percent of our GDP and is completely out of control. Our overseas debt is completely out of control. Our overseas debt is the second worst in the world after Iceland. Well I say to wake up guys because Iceland just went under. We will be next unless we do something about our overseas debt and our current account deficit. That is called a sustainable economy. 
So we will not be voting for this bill because it does not address any of the core issues. It is a bad bill it is an unfair bill and it does not address any of the key problems in the New Zealand economy. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau katoa i tenei Wiki o te Reo Maori.  
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of us in this Maori Language Week. 
]  
Franklin D Roosevelt once said that “Taxes after all are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” Koina tana korero. Ma te pire nei e whakahouhia ai nga paearu whai turanga i runga i nga rerenga ketanga ki te Income Tax Act 2007. He pire tenei ki te whakatika i nga ture e hangai ana ki nga reanga take e puritia ana kia orite ki nga reanga take o naianei. Ko te pire nei he hangai ki nga rereketanga i mahia ai i mua; he whakahou hoki i nga ture take. 
[ 
That is what he said. With this bill the membership form is updated and the organised society gets a facelift as consequential changes are made to the Income Tax Act 2007. This is a catch-up bill one that makes the necessary changes to certain withholding tax rates to ensure they align with recent tax rates and threshold adjustments. The bill catches up with earlier tax changes as well as making changes to update tax law 
.] 
So amendments are made to the Income Tax Act 2007 and also to the Income Tax Act 2004 the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 the Tax Administration Act 1994 the Income Tax Act 1994 and the Maori Trustee Amendment Act 2009. 
E hoa ma e toru nga wahanga motuhake nei o tenei pire hei aro tahitanga ma te Paati Maori. Tuatahi ko te whakamaramatanga o tenei mea te pakihi ngaherehere kia tapirihia ko nga mahi permanent forest sink initiative me ki ko te permanent forest sink initiative ae kia orite tonu te utu take ki nga kaimahi ngahere katoa. Kei roto nei te kupu whakamahukihuki kia ahei ai te hunga permanent forest sink initiative ki te tuhi i ana utu hei “utu pakihi” i roto i te kaupapa take. Kei te mohio tatou o te whare nei ko tenei mea te permanent forest sink initiative he mahi tiaki i te taiao. Ma te whakatipu ano i te ngahere e whiwhi ai te tangata i nga piro whai-ao. E ai ki nga ture take o naianei ahakoa e riro mai ai te kamupene nga piro whai-ao ehara i te mea ka whai mana hei pakihi ngahere. Ko te raru ia he pai ake nga hua take o nga pakihi ngahere i o era atu pakihi. No reira ko te rawekeweketanga e kitea ana i roto i tenei pire he whakaae kia noho ai nga permanent forest sink initiative hei pakihi ngahere i raro i ture. Na te mea e tika ana kia orite te utu take o nga permanent forest sink initiative ki ta nga pakihi ngahere kua tinihia te tautahi o te “pakihi ngahere” i roto i te wahanga YA 1 o te Ture Taake 2007 kia noho tau ai te permanent forest sink initiative i roto. Koina te ahuatanga tuatahi. 
Ko te ahuatanga tuarua ko nga rawekeweketanga ki te ture Take Hokohoko 1985 kia utuhia te take hokohoko o te kaupapa paranga i raro te ture Whakakore Parahanga 2008. He kaupapa nui tenei e whakatumeke mai i a matou na te mea 27 ra noa iho tona pakeke a kei te rawekewekehia ano. Kei te hiahia ki te whakarongo ki nga korero o te Minita mo nga take e whakamarama mai ana he aha i kore ai ia i aro atu ki nga ahuatanga GST i mua i te whakamana i te Waste Minimisation Act hei ture. 
Hei kupu whakamutunga ko te take tino whakaharahara ko nga rereketanga e pa ana ki te take pupuritanga. Na te uaua ki te whai i nga tohutohu maha o te take i etahi wa he ngawari ake te mahi moni tuturu i te whakakiki i nga tono take. Kei roto i tenei pire nga reanga take pupuri hou i runga ake i tera ka utua ki ia tangata kia orite ki nga rereketanga ki nga take ake a-tangata. Hei ta te pire nei ki te kore te tangata e whaki i te utu take tika ki te peke ka 38 pai heneti te rahi o te take e utua. E ai ki etahi he huarahi nanakia tenei ki te akiaki i te tangata ki te tuku i te utu take tika mo te huamoni ka riro mai i nga peke.  
He pai tonu ki a au nga korero a te mangai take o te Deloitte ki Otepoti a Peter Truman. E ai ki a ia ki te whakaturehia tenei pire hou ka nui atu te utu take ki runga i te putea tuku. Hei ta Mr Truman i tatari ai kei te patua-a-pukoro e te Kawanatanga te hunga e ngoikore ana ki te tuku i te reanga take tika ki nga peke ana ko ihu mangere raua ko ihu wareware tera. E ai ki nga wheako o tenei matanga take o Te Tai Tonga ko te rahinga o te tangata kaore i te tuku i te reanga take tika ki o ratou peke a ko tera te hunga ka patua e te pire nei. Na runga i tera me noho whakahirahira te rautaki whakatairanga o te Tari Taake kia tae marama kia tae tika nga tohutohu ki te hunga mahi huri noa i Aotearoa. No reira kei te tautokona e matou te panuitanga tuatahi o te pire nei i runga i te mohio hei te wa komiti whaiti e puta mai ai te matauranga me te maramatanga. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
There are three features of this bill in particular that the Maori Party wants to comment on.  
The first aspect is the new definition of forestry business to include permanent forest sink initiative activities so that all foresters receive the same tax treatment. Basically it clarifies the state of play so that the expenses of participants in the permanent forest sink initiative can now be treated as forestry business expenses for tax purposes. The permanent forest sink initiative as the House will be aware is a climate change initiative in which a person intending to reforest can in exchange for meeting certain conditions receive emission units. Under current practice the earning of these emission units may not always constitute a forestry business under the Income Tax Acts whereas forestry businesses are entitled under the Act to more favourable tax treatment than other businesses. So the simple change introduced in this bill is that the reference to forestry business is now amended to include initiatives under the p 
ermanent forest sink initiative. Since permanent forest sink initiative foresters should receive the same treatment as foresters who carry on a forestry business the amendment defines “forestry business” in section YA 1 of the Income Tax Act 2007 to include permanent forest sink activities.  
The second area of interest relates to the proposed a 
mendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 to provide that GST is payable on the waste levy imposed by the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.  
This is particularly of interest in that it has been only 27 days since the new waste disposal levy was introduced and already we are changing it. It would be interesting to hear from the revenue Minister how the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 could have been passed into law without the necessary adjustments such as GST being taken into account. 
Finally the last—and probably the most significant—of all the changes is that related to the resident withholding tax. Sometimes it appears as if more brain and effort are required in understanding all the tax compliance requirements in order to complete the income tax form than is required to make the income in the first place. The bill introduces new resident withholding tax rates on interest paid to individuals to bring them into line with recent changes to personal tax rates. In particular the bill introduces a new default rate of 38 percent for people who do not notify their bank of their correct tax rate. The changes to the default rate are being described as a type of perverse incentive to motivate people to use the correct tax rate for the interest they receive from their financial institution.  
I was interested to read the analysis of Dunedin Deloitte associate tax director Peter Truman. It was his opinion that the tax changes being proposed by the Government would catch investors unaware leaving them paying more tax on their investment income. According to the analysis by Mr Truman the Government is increasing its tax take from those who are not motivated or organised enough to advise financial institutions of their correct tax rate. In the experience of this Te Tai Tonga tax director many New Zealanders did not get around to notifying their financial institutions of their correct tax rate and so may be unfairly penalised by the change in law. It is for this reason that we think it is really essential that the Inland Revenue Department plan out a top-notch communications strategy to ensure the message gets through to all New Zealanders. We will support this bill at the first reading and look forward to views about how effective the proposed changes will be at the point of select committee 
.] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
:  
He mihi tenei ki te tangata whenua a e tautoko ana i tenei reo o Aotearoa. 
[ 
This acknowledgment is to the people of the land and I endorse this language of New Zealand 
.] 
I am pleased to rise today and take a call in support of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. As speakers before me have already discussed it is appropriate in this debate to take a moment to reflect on the wider tax basis and the reason for this bill because we all accept that this bill brings into place consequential and necessary steps as a part of that tax programme. 
It is worth reflecting back to the state of the economy that this Government inherited when we came into power on 8 November last year. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Here comes a piece of fiction! 
AMY ADAMS 
: Whether or not the Labour Opposition wants to acknowledge it—its members had their heads in the sand for 9 years and we are not expecting that to change—we had an economy of declining growth. Our export sector which will lead us out of this recession had been in recession for 5 years under the previous Government. We had a rising current account deficit high inflation and rising unemployment. The very simple reason for that situation is that the Labour Government was absolutely fundamentally incapable of celebrating success. It could not bring itself to do it. It refused point-blank to do anything that would incentivise hard-working New Zealanders and that would reward people for hard work. It was anti-profit and anti-business. That is a big part of the reason we inherited the economy we did after that Labour Government squandered 9 years of lost opportunities. 
The National-led Government will not make that mistake. This Government understands that it is the hard-working taxpaying New Zealanders who keep this economy going and that they deserve to be supported. That is why this Government delivered personal income tax cuts after a mere 6 months in Government not after the 9 long years that the Labour ex-Government—and I emphasise “ex-Government”—made hard-working New Zealanders wait for their tax cuts. It could not accept that people should be incentivised for being productive or rewarded for getting off their backsides and going out and helping to build an economy create jobs and create wealth. Members opposite think that “profit” is a dirty word but we do not and we will support taxpaying New Zealanders. That concept might seem radical to the Labour caucus but the National Government supports people who work hard create wealth and create the standard of living that New Zealanders aspire to. In a nutshell that is why this Government acted quickly to bring in personal tax cuts and why we now have before us the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
As we have already heard the major policy item in the bill simply aligns various tax rates with the new primary rates for active income that were recently set for personal and company taxpayers. The main areas that that change applies to are the resident withholding tax area and the portfolio investment entity area. We are ensuring that we do not allow overtaxation where the appropriate rate for personal income has been reduced and that those taxpayers are able to elect an appropriate equivalent rate for both their resident withholding tax and their portfolio investment entity income. Similarly we see consequential changes in the retirement scheme contribution rates and secondary employment rates among others. Just looking at the portfolio investment entity rate for a moment we see that it is important that those who choose to invest through a vehicle like that are not put at a relative disadvantage to taxpayers who invest directly. 
The other things I want to touch on briefly are some of the consequential matters that have not perhaps received as much discussion time. They are obviously not the main focus of the bill but are worthy of mention. I want to mention one in particular because I have had some involvement with it in a past life—that is the change to the beneficiary income allocation rules. Put very simply the beneficiary income allocation rules require that for trust income there is an election as to whether that income can be retained within the trust or allocated to the beneficiary who would then pay tax on that income at his or her own rate. Up till now the income must be allocated within 6 months of balance date. This bill will enable those trustees to make a decision to allocate the income to the beneficiary not within an arbitrary 6-month time frame but at any time up until the tax return for that trust is required to be filed. It may not be a world-moving tax change but members should believe that it is a very sensible and practical change that will enable trusts properly to allocate their income as they work through their trust return processing. They can see what their returns for the year were and they can work out the most beneficial way of setting out their incomes. I definitely support that change. 
Another taxpayer-friendly change is very simple. It enables taxpayers to make minor corrections in their returns. Again that is very simple and taxpayer-friendly. There is every reason to support the bill and I am very pleased to see that support across the House. 
I have gone over some of the main parts of the bill. The bill is worthwhile it is necessary and it aids the general overriding tax policies of clarity and consistency. For that reason I am very pleased to support this bill. I commend it to the House. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I support the bill because I recognise we need a tax system that is simple and easy to understand by as many people as possible. I also support the need to align rates across investment class because that is very important. I also support the bill because it is a Labour bill. Like the vast majority of good bills passed by the House it is a Labour bill but we all know that the Labour Party is the party of tax efficiency without a question of doubt. After all what party last cut the company tax rate? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: Who? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: I tell you what what was the party before that? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Labour. 
STUART NASH 
: The last time that Labour cut the company tax rate the Nats voted against it. Those guys voted against cutting the company tax rate. That is unbelievable. National calls itself the party of business but it is not. The vast majority of good bills that have been passed by the House since I have been here in my limited time have all been Labour bills. When we look at the big National bills they are bills to build thermal power plants the 90-day “fire at will” bill the Auckland governance legislation and the Budget which has cut adult community education and the training incentive allowance. That is hardly building a productive economy I must admit. The irony is that the training incentive allowance was cut by a Minister who by her own admission dug her way out of adversity through education by accessing the training incentive allowance and adult community education was cut by a Minister who was an adult community education tutor in Napier. That irony has not been lost on many New Zealanders. It is dreadful. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tell us which classes. 
STUART NASH 
: I was in a class last night where the ages ranged between post-retirement to just-left-school. That was a night class that will be cut and they could not believe it. They were learning a very important skill. They were socialising. For a lot of them the class was the highlight of their week. The government is getting rid of it; it is cutting it. We tried to find a logical argument. We could not find any logical argument for cutting it. This is a Government of cut; it is cutting it all. But do not worry; if people are wealthy enough to send their children to a private school then they did get a boost. They got a $35 million boost because that is what the Government gave to private education. That is unbelievable. In fact people who are lucky enough to send their children to private education were probably in the top 3 percent who got 33 percent of the tax cuts. I repeat: 3 percent of taxpayers got 33 percent of the tax cuts. Is that fair? 
Kelvin Davis 
: No way! 
STUART NASH 
: That is not is fair at all. It is a travesty. [ 
Interruption 
] Talking of equitable I challenge the ACT member Mr Boscawen who holds himself out to be a people’s person in the financial regulation area the man who will solve it all to come on board for Labour’s investigation of the banking sector. He has done it for the finance sector; he should come across and help us be part of this. He wants to do it; he is an independent MP within the ACT Party he acts independently he should come across and be part of the banking inquiry that ordinary New Zealanders want to see happen because they are hurting. I tell Mr Boscawen to come across—no do not come across be independent voice your will; you are one of us I know that. When it comes to the banking sector Mr Boscawen wants to know what is going on with the banks. 
But let me tell members a little bit about this. I think the Nats find it quite confusing because they keep talking about “stimulus”. Let me tell you about stimulus. There is something called Keynesian economic theory. Sam Lotu-Iiga might have studied this at Cambridge; I am not too sure. He is on the wrong side of the Chamber and he knows it. He should come across here. Keynesian economics is mirrored by such philosophers as Hyman Minsky for example and echoed by Paul Krugman for example—he was the winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize for economics—and by Ben Bernanke in the United States. Do you know what they said? What one needs to do is stimulate supply by creating demand! How do we do that? How do we create demand? We give money to those who spend it to those who desperately need it. What should not be done is to give money to those who have a whole lot of money—the top 3 percent of taxpayers—because they tend to save it or they tend to retire debt. At this stage of the economic cycle what we do not want is people taking this so-called stimulus package and taking the money out of circulation by sticking it in the bank. That is called supply-side or Friedmanite economic theory—what used to be known as the trickle-down theory. And it does not work. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Neoclassical! 
STUART NASH 
: Sam knows that. You sat around that National caucus table when they announced these tax cuts and you must have been shaking your head thinking: “The people in Maungakiekie will crucify me when they see this.” I feel sorry for you mate. If you are a New Zealander and you earn under $40000 and you are a taxpayer you received nothing. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wish to raise with you that it seems rather often that you find yourself drawn into this debate at the moment. I wonder whether you might remind the member that the use of the word “you” brings the Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite correct. The member is making reference to “you” and “your”. The Speaker in the Chair is not responsible for Keynesian economics or a range of other things and the reference should be indirect. I invite the member to continue. 
STUART NASH 
: Mr Assistant Speaker is right of course because he is a believer in Keynesian economic theory as is anyone who has a social conscience in this country which I do not think many people on the other side of the House have. But that does not matter because hard-working tax-paying New Zealanders who earn under $40000 a year did not get a tax cut. In fact one would have to be in the top 3 percent to get 33 percent. But it does not matter. John Key received $120 a week in his tax cut. Someone on a medium income with children received nothing. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Sam was there—we asked Mr English— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the first occasion that I noted that the member was using only part of one of the member’s names we let it go. But the member is still using the member Sam Lotu-Iiga’s name incorrectly. I ask you to remind the member of the convention of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member’s point of order is quite correct. Members are to be addressed correctly and their names are to be used in full. There are no short-cuts in this matter. Although we like to be familiar on occasions this is not one of those occasions. 
STUART NASH 
: As I was saying at the Finance and Expenditure Committee we asked Mr English whether given the state of the current economic climate which all the financial commentators from around the world are saying is getting more dire by the day he will implement the tax cuts. Mr English said yes he will because it is what the people of New Zealand voted for. I wonder whether the 190 people on the East Coast who lost their jobs today voted for that. I very much doubt it. Seventy-five percent of people in the Napier electorate did not receive a tax cut. I wonder whether they voted for that. 
It is bad luck for the owners of high-tech businesses. National cut the research and development tax credit to fund tax cuts. What is the vision? Where is the aspiration? The New Zealand biotechnology and agricultural sectors have been left behind. We pass free-trade agreements in this House yet we do not support our businesses with research and development in order that they may take up the opportunities and optimise their potential. 
I will give members some startling figures. The National members talk about aspiration research and driving growth. Let me tell members that as a percentage of GDP Australia’s spend on research and development is 1.15 percent Japan’s spend is 2.62 percent the UK’s spend is 1.1 percent and the US’s spend is 1.89 percent. The OECD average spend on research and development is 1.56 percent of GDP. New Zealand’s spend is 0.51 percent of GDP. We talk about productivity. I wonder what Dr Brash had to say about that when he cut the research and development tax credits. 
The KiwiSaver incentives have been cut for workers. Now a worker has to earn over $50000 or contribute more than the current 4 percent before he or she gets the maximum Government allowance. This is a time when savings rates are shocking. There is a dilemma: we want people to save and we need people to spend in order to stimulate demand. However the National Government gave no money to those who need to save and not a dime penny or cent to those who would have spent it. It is a backward step. It is unbelievable. Where is the logic? Where is the plan? 
Another 60000 to 80000 job losses is the prediction. About 1300 people per week are joining the dole queue these days. Businesses are struggling and families are stretched. So what will this Government do to help people? It failed to deliver when it mattered. It failed the people of New Zealand. During the 2008 election people turned blue whilst holding their breath waiting for a vision promised by the Nats. But now people are turning red with rage. Like Mr Key I cannot wait for the 2011 general election either. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was not intending to take part in the debate on the first reading of the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill but I will answer the challenge of Mr Nash. Mr Nash said to come and join the debate to go and join his side of the House because I am one of them. 
We have two classes of citizens in this country: the privileged and the underprivileged the haves and have-nots. Once upon a time the Labour Party would stand up and fight for the underprivileged. What did we hear from Mr Nash? We heard criticisms of the amount of funding that is going into independent schools and education. A very small number of people have the privilege of an independent education which is an education that is paid for by parents. An independent education is an education that the privileged in society can afford. This country needs a form of funding where the funding follows the child. The Government needs to put funding into the hands of parents who live in South Auckland to give children the capacity to go to independent schools. Let us give the people in South Auckland and the underprivileged access to quality independent education. When I hear the Labour members standing up for the rights of children in South Auckland to go to the best-quality schools we have and to give them the best chance in life that is when I will consider supporting Labour. 
We have also heard a lot about savings. I give credit to the Hon David Cunliffe. He had the courage to say last week that this country needs to recognise the fact that we cannot afford to continue to provide superannuation to people at the age of 65. Mr Cunliffe had the courage to say that we need to look at raising the age-limit to 67. He was not talking about people who are 64 right now; he was talking about people who are 54 giving them 10 years’ notice to plan for the future. The reality is that we have a two-class society. We have the privileged and underprivileged; we have the haves and have-nots. We have the people who can look forward to their retirement with sufficient money saved and not depend upon the Government. But we also have two-thirds of society who retire fully dependent upon the Government and upon politicians providing their miserable pension. How can we expect a family to live on $20000 a year? That is the pension for a family. 
I support savings and another thing I give credit to the Labour Party for is KiwiSaver. Mr Nash talked about KiwiSaver incentives. Who is saving in KiwiSaver? 
Stuart Nash 
: Hard-working Kiwis. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I tell Mr Nash that the well-off are saving. Once again incentives for people to save are giving money from people who cannot afford to save but still have to pay taxes to those on higher incomes who are in a position to save. If Mr Nash is concerned about shifting resources from low-income people to people on higher incomes who are in a better position to save then he should not provide incentives to save. I congratulate Labour on setting up KiwiSaver. It was set up with an incentive of 4c in the dollar. That incentive has been reduced to 2c in the dollar and it should probably be 0c in the dollar. If I had my way saving would be compulsory. I said that before in my maiden speech. 
I conclude my comments here but I come back to the fact that we have a two-tier society. We have two classes of citizens: we have the privileged and the underprivileged the haves and have-nots. When the Labour Party is prepared to consider ways of funding education that will allow people on low incomes with low wealth to get the best in education then I will consider its offer seriously. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Following that speech about— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Remind us what he said about tax cuts. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members are yelling out something about tax cuts. We had an economics lesson earlier from the social conscience of the Labour Party Stuart Nash. He was telling us that the Labour Party’s agenda is that it will give money to people who will spend it. Labour thinks that for New Zealand to get out of the economic recession the Government should give money to people who will spend it. How about giving money to people who will invest it? Why do we not actually support the productive side of the economy rather than the spending side of the economy? 
The whole reason our economy is in the position it is in now—of having a high current account deficit—is that we spend more than we earn. That is the fundamental problem. The Labour Party wants to see more spending and less investment. It does not want to see a productive economy that will deliver the results we want; it just wants to live for now and give money to people so they can spend it. The Labour Party sees one great big money-go-round. That is what Labour has always seen and that is what it saw when it was in Government for 9 years. The previous Labour Government thought that if it just put the money in the economy it would come back around and everything would be fine. Well the chickens are coming home to roost in Labour. People are realising that we need a productive economy. We need an economy that can resist the world challenges out there and deliver some results. That is what the National Government will build: a productive economy that delivers a firm and secure economic base for New Zealand. 
I think that the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill is a good stepping stone. It aligns some of those rates in investment with what we have in our taxation system. If we want our people to invest then we want people to save and to have tax rates that respect those savings. This legislation aligns those tax rates with the tax cuts that were brought in earlier. 
Labour talks about how it is a party of taxation and how it is a party of tax cuts. The reality is that it had 9 years and did not give any tax cuts to hard-working New Zealanders. Labour had its chance in the best economic conditions for a commodity-producing country but it did not deliver. It is a bit rich for those members to come into Parliament now and try to be seen as the most taxpayer-friendly party in this Parliament when the reality is that New Zealanders understood that that was not that case. 
This legislation is a matter of aligning tax rates with the rates that were given in the tax cuts earlier in the year and deals with things around the interest rates. The resident withholding rates will be consequentially amended to reflect those changes in tax rates. The change is good for investors it is good for the New Zealand economy and it is good for delivering a stronger future for New Zealanders. Labour cannot understand that and will never understand it. It still votes for legislation because it wants to be seen as being politically correct as it has been doing for the last 9 years. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 The Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill is a technical bill that continues one of Labour’s work streams and makes some necessary changes. Tax cuts have been made to the individual and company tax rates. The bill introduces new resident withholding tax rates on interest income to align them with the new tax rates. The new rates for individuals will be 12.5 percent 21 percent 33 percent and 38 percent depending on their income. The bill introduces a new default rate of 38 percent for people who do not notify the bank of their correct tax rate. The new default rate will apply to accounts opened from 1 April 2010. That change has raised some concerns and I will come back to that matter later. 
Other changes in the bill include firstly aligning tax rates on portfolio investment entities with the new personal tax rates. Secondly the bill introduces a new 12.5 percent secondary code and a new 12.5 percent withholding tax rate for extra pays. That brings the withholding rates on employment income into alignment with new personal tax rates. Thirdly there are other changes concerning forestry and climate change and tax returns and trusts. 
It interests me that this bill is a good reminder of some important issues. The first issue is in relation to the magic words “tax cuts”. The National-led Government came into office with grand promises of a tax-cut programme that would benefit everyone. Many will recall that at the end of last year this honourable House was put into urgency to pass legislation to enable the National-led Government to implement tax cuts. Not long ago this honourable House was put into urgency again so that the Government could cancel those tax cuts. In other words in its very first Budget in May the National-led Government broke its No. 1 election promise which it campaigned on tirelessly and cancelled the next two runs of tax cuts. Sure it did pass a tax cut package but that gave one-third of the tax cuts to only the top 3 percent of taxpayers or to borrow Mr John Boscawen’s word to the top 3 percent of the “privileged” taxpayers. The April 2009 changes to personal taxation affect only people earning $40000 or more so 71 percent of taxpayers or again to borrow Mr Boscawen’s words those who are “underprivileged” received no tax cuts at all. It is regrettable particularly at this time of the economic downturn because there would otherwise be ample opportunity for the Government to redirect its tax plan to ensure that the tax cuts would benefit those who needed them the most and who would have spent them. This would also have served to boost the economy and save jobs. 
Secondly another magic word or I should say magic name is Dr Don Brash who has recently been appointed by the National-led Government to lead the productivity task force. This naturally brings us to the issue of productivity. It is deeply regrettable that the research and development tax credits were scrapped by the National-led Government. It appears that the sole reason the National-led Government scrapped the research and development tax credits was to fund its tax package. It is illogical because as I said earlier the No. 1 grand promise of a tax cut programme benefiting everyone was broken. Moreover to fund the No. 1 election promise—which was broken anyway—at the cost of innovation and productivity recalls the ancient Chinese idiom “killing the hen to get the eggs”. New Zealand business expenditure on research and development is one-third of the OECD average namely 0.51 percent of GDP. Treasury considered that figure a drag on New Zealand’s productivity growth and competitiveness and advised the Government to retain the tax credit. That advice was given on the basis that the credit offered a more effective means of incentivising business research and development than discretionary grants as the credit was more driven by business and could reach many more firms. 
The main disparity between New Zealand and other countries is in the low research and development spending from business as a percentage of GDP. Total research and development spending in New Zealand as mentioned by my colleague Stuart Nash is only 0.51 percent. That is low compared with spending in Australia of 1.15 percent in Japan of 2.62 percent in the UK of 1.1 percent in the US of 1.89 percent and the OECD average of 1.56 percent. International evidence shows that well-designed research and development tax credits can and will have a positive impact on productivity growth. Treasury advised the incoming Government that the research and development tax credit should be retained. Therefore a sensible move by Dr Don Brash would be to advise the National-led Government to reinstate the research and development tax credits. 
Furthermore it is equally regrettable that by cutting the incentives for KiwiSaver the National Government is decreasing the amount that New Zealanders will save. The low savings rates and the spending habits of New Zealanders are two obvious reasons behind the KiwiSaver scheme. The Government’s move has created huge uncertainty for the over 1.1 million New Zealanders who have already signed up and it takes opportunities away from future generations. 
The fourth issue is related to the changes made to the default rate. The bill introduces a new default rate of 38 percent for people who do no notify the bank of their correct tax rate. We have heard concerns that those tax changes being proposed will catch investors unaware and may see them pay more tax on their investment income. Mr Peter Truman was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 as saying: “many New Zealanders did not get around to notifying their financial institutions of their correct tax rate … Therefore we have the Government increasing its tax take from those who are not motivated or organised enough to advise financial institutions of their correct tax rate.” 
As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I look forward to submissions on this bill. Thank you very much. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka whakanui au i te reo o te tangata whenua ka whakanui au i te reo o Aotearoa. Tihei mauri ora. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. I celebrate the language of the people of the land and of New Zealand. Behold the sneeze of life 
.] 
I acknowledge that this is Maori language awareness week and it is pleasing to me personally that people have made an effort to acknowledge one of our official languages in this country of Aotearoa New Zealand. 
I rise to support the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill. I will not get into the detail of the bill. It is really a bill that is about aligning certain tax rates and it is as many of the prior speakers have alluded to part of the wider tax package that this Government is putting in place. Suffice to say that the major policy item in the bill is the alignment of those various tax rates with the new primary rates that the Government has set out in its tax cut policy. 
Many of the prior speakers have alluded to the fact that this measure is part of a wider initiative to increase the productivity of our country. Increasing New Zealand’s productivity of course increases job opportunities and increases the standard of living that we are used to in this country and it is certainly something that all parties in this Chamber support. Of course taxation reform is part of a wider programme of regulatory reform that aims to remove red tape and other such regulatory compliance as well as to remove other barriers to increasing productivity. It is also part of the Government’s programme of investment in infrastructure. That infrastructure is not just physical infrastructure as in roads schools and other buildings and the like but also infrastructure like broadband which the Government will roll out in the next few years. The Government also sets out to improve productivity within the public services. We have been quite clear in our direction and policy setting that the public services need to be improved. We are also setting out an agenda on education and upskilling those who want to upskill themselves in order to produce the jobs—the value-added jobs of tomorrow—that will improve the productivity of this country. Many prior speakers touched on innovation and having a world-class taxation system is just the icing on the cake. 
Many of the speakers opposite me referred to productivity yet despite the very favourable economic conditions in the last 9 years all that the previous Government had to show for that was an annual productivity growth rate of 1.1 percent between 2000 and 2008. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: 1.1 percent? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: The figure is 1.1 percent I say to Mr Calder. That is staggering given the favourable economic conditions. The biggest show in town was Government spending—not the productive sector not the export sector but Government spending. 
This Government inherited quite a mess. We inherited rising unemployment high inflation a rising current account deficit and an export sector that has declined for 5 years in succession. That is right; the export sector has declined for 5 years in succession. But guess what! This Government has a plan. This Government is about improving productivity. This Government is about delivering $1.68 billion to be spent on education. What are we doing that for? To increase the productivity of our economy. What is that needed for? To increase job opportunities in this country. Yes this Government has a plan. It is spending over $1 billion extra over 3 years on the State highway network. Guess what! Business confidence has remained positive. Guess what! We have had an upgrade in our credit rating which will save the taxpayers of this country in respect of interest rate increases. It will save us money on our mortgages; it will save us money on our borrowing costs. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is here to listen to this because he does not listen during question time. But he will listen to a colleague—a colleague from the central Auckland region. 
So I speak in support of this bill. It is part of a wider package of reform that this Government is pushing forward with. I say we should look out for productivity in the future look out for increased job opportunities and look out for stability. I reiterate that I speak in support of this bill. It is only a minor part of our reform but it is an important part. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Revenue 
: I move  
That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the Taxation (Consequential Rate Alignment and Remedial Matters) Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 November 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 I move  
That the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill be now read a first time. 
 The Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions that require legislative implementation to enable New Zealand to ratify the convention. The convention was adopted in Dublin on 30 May 2008 and was signed by New Zealand in the company of 93 other States in Oslo on 3 December 2008. It establishes a wide-ranging prohibition on the use of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian harm. 
Cluster munitions are canister-like weapons that encase a large number of smaller explosive devices that are dispersed over an area. They are designed to explode on impact but many fail to do so and remain on the land killing and maiming civilians for years following their use. This can be witnessed at present in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic where people are still dying as a result of cluster munitions used decades ago. 
Clause 11 of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill is the key provision of the bill. It prohibits the use of cluster munitions and other activity including the development production acquisition possession retention stockpiling and transfer of such munitions. Clause 11 also prohibits any person from assisting encouraging or inducing the prohibited conduct I have just described. The maximum penalty on conviction of a clause 11 offence is a prison term not exceeding 7 years or a fine of up to $500000 or both. This penalty is in line with similar existing legislation. 
Further and in line with the convention clause 11 of the bill prohibits certain additional conduct involving cluster munitions by members of the New Zealand armed forces when engaged in operations exercises or other military activities with the armed forces of a State that is not a party to the convention. This specific prohibition combined with the general prohibitions outlined earlier implements article 21 of the convention which was one of the more contentious issues during its negotiation. That important article outlines the obligations on State parties to promote the norms that the convention establishes. They must also make best efforts to discourage States that are not party to the convention from using cluster munitions. The armed forces of States party to the convention are not barred from engaging in operations exercises or other military activities with the armed forces of States that are not party to the convention. However they may do so only if while so engaged they do not undertake any of the specified prohibited conduct. 
Clause 9 of the bill extends the reach of the clause 11 prohibitions to certain acts or omissions outside New Zealand in line with the intent of the convention. This means that in certain circumstances a person can be prosecuted in New Zealand even when he or she commits these offences abroad. 
Clauses 12 and 15 provide a limited set of exceptions to the general prohibitions. These exceptions include where a decision is taken by the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control to allow the importation of the minimum number of cluster munitions that will suffice for the purpose of developing and training New Zealand Defence Force personnel in cluster munitions detection clearance and destruction techniques. Members of our armed forces have certainly been involved in that activity particularly in Lebanon in recent times. 
Clause 17 of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill requires people who acquire possess retain or transfer cluster munitions to provide information and keep records as specified and it creates applicable offences for failing to comply and for false disclosures. Clause 17 is required so that New Zealand can meet its reporting obligations under the convention. 
New Zealand has a profile on disarmament and arms control issues far above our size and place in the world. We have taken a strong position on the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions and I am extremely pleased to continue that tradition with this bill. The convention is an excellent example of what New Zealand can achieve on the international stage. New Zealand took a central role in the development of the convention as a member of the core group of countries—along with Austria Ireland Mexico Norway the Holy See and Peru—that led the negotiations. New Zealand also hosted the penultimate round of negotiations in Wellington in February last year and I acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff who is in the House this afternoon who no doubt was influential in those negotiations as well. It is fitting that we now work to ratify the convention and take our place among the first 30 State parties required to bring the convention into force. 
I also pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that have had an active role in the negotiation of the treaty. Their commitment to this convention continues and they are now also working to bring the convention into force. I know they will be pleased to see that this bill is having its first reading here this afternoon. 
I note that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee during its examination of the convention earlier this year called for the House to progress this bill expeditiously. The Convention on Cluster Munitions represents a significant development in international disarmament and humanitarian measures. I too urge swift passage of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill to enable New Zealand’s ratification of this important convention. This urging is entirely consistent with our country’s reputation as a strong proponent of international disarmament and of arms control more broadly. Most important a well-supported convention has the greatest potential to help prevent the unacceptable and unspeakable humanitarian harm caused by the use of these weapons for which there is no place at all. 
I move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration and I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports and warmly welcomes the introduction and passage of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. As the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has acknowledged this legislation implements the outcome of an international process in which New Zealand played a pivotal role under the previous Labour Government and in which I as Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control had the privilege to be involved. I thank Georgina te Heuheu for acknowledging that fact. 
I in turn pay particular tribute to the enormous and effective role played by New Zealand’s ambassador for disarmament in Geneva Don MacKay. Don is one of the finest civil servants whom I have had the pleasure of working with. He is held in such respect that he was appointed to chair the critical committees during the negotiations that took place both in the Wellington conference and in the Dublin conference. 
I also acknowledge the critical role played by non-governmental organisations in this. They worked under the umbrella of the Cluster Munition Coalition. In particular I acknowledge the role played by Mary Wareham of Oxfam as the convenor of this process. I believe that the non-governmental organisations helped give real momentum to it. I was hugely impressed with the determination and enthusiasm they showed worldwide in pushing this cause forward at a time when countries around the world through the United Nations process were incredibly reluctant to move forward on it. 
Cluster munitions as the Minister has pointed out are effectively unexploded sub-munitions that act in very much the same way as landmines. There is a high rate of failure to detonate on impact they then lie dormant in the soil and they can lie there for decades still causing a threat to civilian life long after the conflict in which they were fired. In that sense they are very similar to landmines and indeed this treaty that we are moving to ratify by legislation today is the biggest advance in the area of disarmament since the Ottawa Convention on landmines. 
The tragedy of lost lives and horrific injuries is evident right across the world in the Balkans South-east Asia Africa and the Middle East. But the event perhaps more than any other that stimulated us to move against cluster munitions was the conflict in south Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Israel Defense Forces. It is estimated that a million sub-munitions lay in the soils of south Lebanon after that conflict resulting in casualties of more than 200 maimed and killed; a very high percentage of those casualties were children. 
I was enormously proud of the role played by the New Zealand Defence Force in helping to clear those sub-munitions. We made the decision to send it up to Lebanon. It did an excellent job as indeed I had witnessed it doing beforehand in places as diverse as Laos Cambodia and Mozambique. But it occurs to anybody who watches the painstaking clearance metre by metre of those sorts of munitions that it is far better to have the fence at the top of the cliff than the ambulance at the bottom. We saw the need to deal effectively with the phenomenon of cluster munitions. 
For 5 years in Geneva the countries of the world failed to effectively solve this problem. We worked through the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Countries with vested interests that controlled used and stockpiled cluster munitions blocked the consensus process. We were getting nowhere. A group of seven countries all of them small nations came together to find an alternative path forward. They were Norway New Zealand Ireland Austria Peru Mexico and to its credit the Vatican. We set up what was called the Oslo process and we set out to create a treaty that would outlaw the use of cluster munitions which have such an unacceptable effect on civilian life. That Oslo process was significantly advanced when New Zealand itself early in 2008 hosted the Wellington conference. I had the pleasure of hosting delegates in the Grand Hall next to this Chamber. That conference laid the framework for creating an agreement that in Dublin would lead to a treaty to outlaw cluster munitions that would bind the signatories to it. Again I pay tribute to the role of Don MacKay in Ireland in playing an integral part in that process. 
What we achieved was a huge number of countries I think in excess of 90 signing up to the Dublin convention which bans cluster munitions causing harm to civilians and 99 percent of all sub-munitions - based weapon systems. It requires stockpiles of cluster munitions to be destroyed within 8 years. It requires contaminated sites to be cleared within 10 years. It sets out clearly the rights of cluster munitions victims and with the obligations that States have towards them. It requires States to provide international cooperation with and assistance to those countries affected by cluster munitions where they are in a position to do so. 
In Oslo in December of last year 93 countries signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. They did not include countries such as the United States Russia China Israel India and Pakistan which have used and do stockpile cluster munitions. But I believe that the impact of this treaty will be very much the parallel of the Ottawa Convention. It will create a stigma around the use of cluster munitions which will mean that even those countries that have not signed this treaty will feel constrained from using the weapons. Therein lies the importance of this treaty and this convention that this legislation will enable us to ratify. 
We need to pass this legislation to implement certain obligations under the treaty. I think that will be relatively straightforward for New Zealand. We do not have we do not use and we do not stockpile cluster munitions. We have no plans to acquire them though there is a provision in this legislation that allows cluster munitions for the purpose of training our Defence Force which may be again deployed to disarm those munitions in countries around the world. That makes sense. Nor are there any areas under our jurisdiction and control where we have the obligation to clear such munitions. There are interoperability provisions that would enable us still to work with countries like the United States that possess cluster munitions. The treaty nevertheless puts us under an obligation to encourage non-State parties to sign up to the treaty and to use our best efforts to discourage countries that have not signed up from using cluster munitions. I see no difficulties in New Zealand fulfilling those obligations. 
I support this legislation as a necessary step for New Zealand to ratify the cluster munitions treaty and convention. This is a step forward for disarmament and for humanity. It is a clear sign of the world moving forward in an area in which for the last decade far too little progress has been made. This treaty will protect tens of thousands of people whose lives would otherwise have been constrained or blighted by the future use of such weapons. New Zealand can be truly proud of the role it has played again in the field of disarmament. I feel personally privileged to have been able to play a part in helping to achieve a ban on the use of these weapons. The world will be a better place in the absence of cluster munitions. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 As Minister of Defence I specifically asked to speak in this debate. I acknowledge today that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Goff in his former role as Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control and also as Minister of Defence was as we heard in his speech fully and passionately committed to the effort by New Zealand to lead in the banning of cluster munitions. 
It is important that Parliament on behalf of the people of New Zealand reinforces not just for our own country but much more important for other countries the need to reduce the terrible effects of war. This is a moral issue and it has impelled New Zealanders across the political spectrum and most important amongst non-governmental institutions in particular the Cluster Munitions Coalition. They lobbied individual members of Parliament intensely and ensured that when this issue came to Parliament all parties were part of it. I recall full well the negotiations that were held in Wellington at that time under the leadership of Mr Goff. New Zealand took a leading role in this issue which conformed to the position we had taken previously on the landmines convention as well. As has been noted by both the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control and Mr Goff the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill follows directly from those negotiations. 
As was also noted the use of cluster munitions in Lebanon in 2006 primarily by Israel was the spur for action. More than 1 million sub-munitions were used. Many of those were used in areas occupied by civilians and it has taken years and years to clear them. Even now fewer than half have been actually cleared: 195000 have been cleared to date in one-third of the area. Even today civilians continue to be killed and maimed by those munitions and those civilians particularly include children. They are amongst the principal victims of those munitions. As with the Ottawa Convention that fact compels an urgency of action by us. 
I note that as Mr Goff acknowledged the New Zealand Defence Force was deployed for 12 months during 2007 when he was Minister of Defence. In fact he answered a question in Parliament on this deployment. The New Zealand Defence Force which is highly trained in this area cleared 1800 sub-munitions. I should also say that this treaty was negotiated in such a way that it tried to embrace the concerns and interests of the States that have cluster munitions. It is worth noting that parties that sign up to it will want to put pressure on States that use and have stockpiles of cluster munitions to sign up to it; their concerns are specifically addressed within the convention. I for one certainly hope that the United States will be able to see its way clear to accede in due course to the convention. 
It is hardly worth stating that the 20th century perhaps more than any other was beset by war that affected civilians most particularly in the latter half of the century. Much of that damage was caused by landmines and cluster munitions that were specifically aimed at people whether they were in uniform or were civilians. Because of the persistent effects of both landmines and cluster munitions civilians become a particular target—not necessarily because people intend that to be the outcome but because of the nature of the weapons themselves. The weapons remain in the place of conflict long after the conflict has ended. Many parts of the world decades and decades after the conflict has ceased still have live minefields. There are still cluster munitions in southern Lebanon and it will take decades to clear them. The objective in the convention to clear all of those cluster munitions in 10 years can perhaps be achieved but I suspect it is something of an aspirational goal. It will take a great deal of effort to achieve it. 
I specifically acknowledge the members of the New Zealand Defence Force who make clearing munitions their profession. We can hardly imagine a more dangerous thing to do than to clear cluster munitions or landmines. People put themselves at literally daily risk. New Zealanders have been deployed for two decades now to clear out munitions which are the after-effects of war. In the Balkans Kosovo and Afghanistan in the 1990s and in relation to landmines in Lebanon in the 1980s this has been an enduring commitment. The New Zealand Defence Force has made it part of its kaupapa to build its skills in this area. In a contemporary era when people are looking to defence forces to assist civil society this is greatly valued. 
I want to speak on that point in particular. The modern ethos of the New Zealand Defence Force is to assist States in trouble. There is much less inter-State conflict and there are many more States in internal turmoil. Of course some of that internal turmoil can then spill over to the rest of the world. We only have to look at the effects of al-Qaeda basing itself in Afghanistan to understand that. It is worth noting that eight New Zealanders have been killed in terrorist incidents that had their direct origins in al-Qaeda. Three New Zealanders were killed on September 11 three in Bali one in London and now most recently one in Jakarta. Each occasion was directly sourced to al-Qaeda. That is why New Zealanders are engaged in assisting those troubled countries: because it is in our interests to do so. 
I think New Zealanders across this House have expectations that the New Zealand Defence Force will undertake this kind of work. Our Defence Force has gone through enormous training in the understanding of failed States their peoples the populations and their cultures in order to be able to play our part in doing this work. One particular facet of that training is our expertise in de-mining. The convention makes provisions to ensure that our skills are maintained in that area but that they are maintained ultimately to assist other peoples so they can build their societies and live life as we would wish to live ours. Thank you. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. No reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. It is both a privilege and a pleasure to be able to stand in this House this evening to discuss and promote the issue of disarmament as that is what we are doing. First of all I want to acknowledge those who played a part in the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill: people such as the Hon Phil Goff of course when he was the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control. I want to acknowledge his contribution and dedication in pursuing this issue for New Zealand. Also I acknowledge Don MacKay who was our ambassador for disarmament in Geneva and the leadership he provided in putting our case on this issue. Also there is Mary Wareham and I acknowledge the work she did with the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition. Then there are the many luminaries far too many to name here who have been involved in this whole issue. 
Cluster munitions cause unacceptable harm to humanity and often those who are harmed are innocent civilians: people who are going about their everyday business whether it is walking across a field or going to see a friend. Those are the people who often end up being mutilated. There are too many deaths disfigurements and lives destroyed because of the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions. As a senior member of the international council of Parliamentarians for Global Action which is an international non-governmental organisation based in New York that works with the United Nations and as a former chair of the council of that organisation I take a great interest in this issue. We held a number of forums in places as diverse as Georgia in the former Soviet Union and the Philippines and cluster munitions were high on the agenda. Having come back from there we had a forum here last year and I remember Alyn Ware being there. That was to do with the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition and there I met up with a colleague from Sierra Leone member of Parliament the Hon Ibrahim Sorie. He related to me stories of cluster bombs the damage they have done and the economies they have wrecked in Africa. 
It is unacceptable that the major producers and buyers of cluster bombs the United States Israel Russia and China continue to wage war by using these maiming cluster bombs. Of course they are not the only ones. Another 76 countries are major holders of cluster bombs and it is time that there was a change. The United Nations has estimated that 40 percent of the victims are children and that in anyone’s language is abhorrent and unacceptable because the innocents suffer. There is an old saying that when the elephants rumble the little people get hurt but far too many little people are being hurt by these types of munitions. It is also estimated that between 10 and 40 percent of the bomblets released by cluster bombs just above the ground fail to detonate. That is a major concern because it poses a threat to civilians in the area potentially killing or maiming civilians for years following their use. These munitions are totally unacceptable in the 21st century and it is time that people recognised that peace is the only way to go. 
During the last Parliament I was fortunate to be involved with the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. We conducted an international treaty examination of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and appended to the report was the national interest analysis prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The executive summary of that statement stated: “The Convention on Cluster Munitions … which bans the use of cluster munitions by States Parties is a significant development in international disarmament and humanitarian measures. The Convention was concluded in Dublin on 30 May 2008 and opened for signature at a ceremony held in Oslo on 3 December 2008. New Zealand was one of the 94 states to sign the Convention in Oslo.” As a nation we can hold our head high. 
I remember reading about that great Liberal legislator William Pember Reeves. He said that New Zealand was an edifice for radical experiments for the rest of the world. I guess this bill is not a radical experiment but we are leading when it comes to the elimination of cluster munitions. We continue to lead with countries like Norway Austria Peru and Mexico as well as the Holy See and Ireland. We determined that it was necessary to take the process outside the United Nations inhumane weapons convention because no progress was being made. Again we stood up for what we believed in. 
The national interest analysis goes on to say “The new Convention’s central purpose is to prohibit the use of all cluster munitions which are canister-like munitions that encase a large number of smaller explosive devices.” It adds “The Convention also prohibits the development production acquisition stockpiling retention and transfer … of cluster munitions;” and clarifies that the convention includes a provision on interoperability. It goes on to say: “There are strong reasons for New Zealand to proceed to ratify the Convention. Most important among these is that a well supported Convention will have the greatest potential to help prevent the unacceptable humanitarian harm caused by the use of cluster munitions. This National Interest Analysis concludes that the benefits to New Zealand from ratifying the Convention outweigh any associated costs. There are no significant risks or disadvantages identified that would argue against New Zealand becoming party to the Convention.” I commend the Government for continuing to take forward this legislation. 
When the Hon Phil Goff was in Oslo to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions which bans the manufacture possession and use of such weapons he had this to say: “Cluster munitions have left a deadly legacy maiming and killing thousands of civilians a great many of them children often long after the war in which they were deployed was over … The tragic consequences of a million unexploded bomblets in Lebanon as a result of the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict spurred us to tackling the issue of munitions which have unacceptable consequences for civilians … It is essential to bring the use of cluster munitions to an end.” That is important. 
I support our ratification of this important convention to reduce the incidence of this weapon of destruction for it is the biggest advance since the Ottawa Convention on landmines. It is a step towards disarmament democracy freedom peace and the rule of law. As a member of the international council of Parliamentarians for Global Action I welcome this bill for it is something we have long campaigned on. It is always important that I carry with me the views of New Zealand in attending such meetings for we are recognised for the contribution that we make as a small nation State to disarmament the rule of law better Government and democracy. Kia ora. Tihei mauri ora! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Let me state from the outset that the Green Party supports the general thrust of this proposed legislation to ban cluster munitions and we will be voting for the referral of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill to the select committee. We have some views that we should like to share with this House and we encourage the Government to consider amending the draft as it proceeds through the House to adoption. We look forward to the opportunity for discussion in select committee but in this first reading it is appropriate I believe to advance a few broader reflective points. 
The ban on cluster munitions as with the ban on landmines is an important part of humankind’s move towards making military conflict more civilised or at least a less uncivilised activity than before. The treaties on these two types of munitions strengthen the normative framework to that end. The treaties are the twins of two parents in positivist humanitarian law: the Hague convention of a century ago which addressed the possession of certain weaponry and the Geneva Convention of half a century ago which addressed the treatment of combatants. Both treaties broke new ground in this respect. A quarter of a century ago another convention within the same normative framework banned the use of certain conventional weapons that might be excessively injurious or might have indiscriminate effects. By the 1980s we were getting more serious and specific about what was permissible and what was not. Nonetheless the corollary is that in the area of armed conflict certain other weapons that are selective in their application and whose injurious effects are not excessive but simply lethal grace our contemporary level of civilisation. So our relatively enlightened world of international law co-exists with our relatively benighted world of armed conflict. 
Be that as it may we painstakingly plough our way towards a more humane means of controlled carnage among nations. In force since 1983 the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons banned five categories of weapons but failure to reach universal agreement on banning all landmines prompted some countries to take an alternative negotiating route resulting in the seminal agreement on landmines at the initiative of Canada. This latest treaty banning cluster munitions followed the same route this time on the initiative of Norway. The political significance of these two treaties goes beyond their own subject focus for the means through which they came into existence reflects the new trend in international relations and the strengthening of global security. This involved the perhaps unprecedented phenomenon of the formulation of international law on the initiative and through the leadership of the middle powers leaving some of the major powers ensnared in the 19th century mindset of following when they are ready. 
This is novel. It used not to be this way. That trend will reach its apotheosis when a nuclear weapons convention is negotiated and brought into force by the non-nuclear weapon States thereby introducing a new norm of international relations that will be accepted and respected by the pariah nuclear weapons States themselves. When that happens it will be not only the meek who inherit the Earth but also the enlightened presuming there is a tolerable Earth to inherit. 
The process of negotiating the Cluster Munitions Convention was purposeful and swift. Following their indiscriminate and indeed irresponsible use in the Middle East in 2006 negotiations commenced in February 2007 and were completed in May 2008. I commend our New Zealand diplomats and in particular Ambassador Don MacKay for their skill and devotion in sharing the leadership with Norway Ireland and others in this complex and sensitive process. That included the successful fourth negotiating session in Wellington in February 2008. Now we must move expeditiously to implement the convention in domestic law. The convention was signed by some 100 States and will enter into force when ratified by 30. Some 15 have ratified already and it is important and appropriate that New Zealand ratify as one of the 30 to bring it into effect. 
I ask the House to allow me also to advance a point pertaining to the international treaty on which the bill rests. It is our conviction that there is no place in the 21st century for withdrawal clauses in contemporary disarmament treaties. The international community of States is slowly but surely transforming into a global community of peoples. It is they who are demanding progress and making the global community safer more secure and more predictable. That is not achieved by allowing States’ parties to withdraw from treaties that ban inhumane weapons at will. The days of untrammelled national sovereignty of the Westphalian kind when States could enter and withdraw from any treaty on a whim or pretext are gone. Today we have a hybrid system of international relations where the vital interests of all countries and the vital interests of humanity are inextricably married. 
Weapons of this inhumane kind are now regarded as unacceptable in customary international law. Prohibition of such inhumane weapons may perhaps be seen today as a peremptory norm of the global community. The social fabric of the global community today imposes natural obligations upon States that cannot be shed. Such obligations derive purely from membership of the global community and they cannot be revoked. When acknowledged in treaty form in the 21st century there should be no pretence of any right of reservation or of withdrawal. 
There are a number of questions and possible suggestions for improvement pertaining to the bill that in the Green Party’s judgment it may stand to benefit from. These include issues of transit divestment definition training and interoperability. It is our intention to pursue these in the select committee and we look forward to cooperating with colleagues in the Government and other parties to that end. We support this bill being sent to a select committee for consideration. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be in the House this afternoon engaged in a dialogue between parties in which everyone agrees on the issue and on the direction in which we are headed. I think that is because everybody in this House shares a vision for a just secure and sustainable world. They also know that cluster munitions have inflicted unacceptable harm on civilian populations and many many countries have seen their deadly effects. 
The legacy of contamination resulting from cluster munitions failing to detonate is huge and it is civilians who are killed and injured by unexploded cluster munitions. For a period brightly coloured cluster munitions were dropped and these bright colours were attractive to children who fiddled with them and then lost their lives. Decades after the use of cluster munitions in battle people are still being killed and maimed by them. The tragedy of lost lives and of horrific injuries is evident right across the world from South-east Asia to the Balkans and from Africa to the Middle East. Unexploded munitions also represent a huge obstacle to post-conflict communities seeking to rebuild their lives. Economic reconstruction and social recovery cannot take place until the explosive ordnance is cleared and destroyed; the task of clearance is a huge and daunting challenge. 
In relation to New Zealand’s involvement in this exercise I particularly commend the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff for his work in this process when he was the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control because the reality is that if the Minister is not pushing an issue the resources will not flow to deliver this sort of outcome. I commend the team of people—because it will have been a team of people—in the ministry in which I used to work the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for its excellent work. The whole ministry engaged at all posts across the globe and in many of the divisions in Wellington will have pushed this issue to the outcome that has now been achieved. 
I think this exercise shows that New Zealand’s commitment to working with others to stop the human cost of cluster munitions has not been inhibited either by our size or by our remoteness from the problem. Out in the field New Zealand has sent teams of clearance experts from our Defence Force to help clear the estimated 1 million cluster sub-munitions that littered southern Lebanon after the 2006 conflict. Earlier our Defence Force personnel worked for many years in Laos Cambodia Mozambique Angola and Afghanistan clearing landmines and unexploded ordnance. The aid agency NZAID has provided support to rehabilitation programmes to assist the victims of unexploded ordnance including unexploded cluster sub-munitions in affected countries in South-east Asia. 
But now in this House we are putting a fence at the top of the cliff by referring the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which I chair and by the fact that we have signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The committee looks forward to receiving this legislation; it will process it as quickly as it can. We are doing so to put a fence at the top of the cliff not an ambulance at the bottom. 
We need to eliminate the use of cluster munitions where they have an unacceptable effect on civilian communities. When these bombs are dropped—and people tend to overlook this—they have a very wide spread. A cluster bomb can cover an area the size of roughly two to three football fields. That can cause a huge amount of damage. They cause particular damage to civilian communities first because of that big spread and second because the unexploded bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict. Nobody in this House will support the sort of damage that these weapons do; in today’s 21st century the damage is just unacceptable. We have to stop the production of these weapons the spread of these weapons and the use of these weapons. 
I think that this legislation will progress very quickly through our Parliament and through the select committee process and as the chair of the select committee I look forward to pursuing that objective. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this very sobering Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. Cluster munitions have dealt a horrific toll on many people in many countries especially over the last 30 years. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Prior to the dinner break I was saying how excellent it is that the House is unanimous in supporting this very important and sobering bill known as the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. It is appropriate to acknowledge the part played by the Hon Phil Goff in the proceedings leading up to this bill. I understand that prior to both the Dublin and the Oslo conventions a large international meeting was held here in Wellington and that was very useful in ensuring that the technical aspects of this bill were worked out. 
I think it is important and possibly salient to think back as far as the First World War the famous “war to end all wars” when mustard gas was used indiscriminately. One might say that undoubtedly these cluster munitions indeed have an indiscriminate effect on the population not only immediately but for many years to come. It is almost ironic to think that it was during the First World War that that famous novel  
All Quiet on the Western Front  
was written a novel that was one of the first to deglorify war as a way of sorting out humankind’s differences. It was only after that war during the Second World War that the spectre of bacterial warfare and other forms of equally horrific ways to hurt humanity arose. 
Of course the antecedents of cluster bombs occurred as far back as the Second World War. It does not say much for the evolution of our species to sort things out if this is the way that we have gone although I think we can celebrate the very fact that today Parliament is unanimously supporting this bill. It will indeed enable New Zealand’s ratification of the Cluster Munition Convention which was adopted in Dublin on 30 May 2008. The bill establishes a wide-ranging prohibition on the use of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable humanitarian harm. 
As has been pointed out these cluster munitions usually go with aircraft and there is a whole spectrum of size. I understand that they can cover up to 18 square miles of area. The whole of Wellington could be covered in a particularly indiscriminate way. But the Convention on Cluster Munitions is a new international treaty that bans the use of these munitions that cause this unacceptable harm. In addition it prohibits the development production acquisition stockpiling retention and transfer of the munitions. It requires stockpiles of the munitions to be destroyed within 8 years although there are certain exceptions and it requires State parties in a position to do so to provide international cooperation and assistance to State parties affected by these munitions. 
I think it is important to point out that on being ejected from the aircraft or the missiles they can scatter into literally hundreds of smaller bombs—sometimes the size of lemonade bottles—and create incredible damage. The International Movement of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent has called it a “persistent humanitarian problem”. Most of the cluster bombs’ bomblets are meant to explode on impact but again a credible estimation of the proportion that does not do so comes to about 30 or 40 percent—again according to the international Red Cross movement. That means unexploded bomblets lie scattered across the target area often exploding only when handled or disturbed. Again I understand that one of the widest areas of use was in Laos after the Viet Nam War and that today it is extraordinarily difficult to travel through a huge area in that country without fear of losing limb or life because of these cluster bombs. 
In early 2008 a US State Department representative called it “an absolute moral obligation” to rid a battlefield of unexploded ordnance after the battle. I note that that was one of the points that my colleague the Hon Wayne Mapp made—that in many respects this is a very important moral issue. In rebuttal the Acting Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs for the United States Department of State Stephen Mull said that the US was attempting to solve the problem through a disarmament body called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons—or the CCW—which meets in Geneva and comprises major military powers and military trade producers. Unfortunately at this stage of events I understand it has not made any significant progress. He defends the United States’ position by saying that at this stage cluster munitions are regarded as an important part of its defence strategy. But undoubtedly as other speakers have mentioned these munitions were used in the 34-day war in Lebanon in 2006 where it is estimated that Israel dropped in the order of 4 million bomblets—1 million of which have probably not exploded. 
I will end by saying that New Zealand has a very strong record in terms of similar complementary legislation that it has supported. On the other hand with regard to this convention we are supporting many countries like Australia Canada the United Kingdom and many of the NATO countries but notably at this stage the United States Russia China India Pakistan and Israel have not yet signed up. Today’s bill is the start of a process that does need to be completed hopefully by the full international community signing up sooner rather than later. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the first reading of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. Labour supports the bill because it will save lives because it will prevent civilians from being maimed and because it will add another valuable international humanitarian law. It will set the rules of war that protect civilians and make war a less barbaric thing than it otherwise is. We support the bill with pride because it was New Zealand that played a leading role amongst a group of nations that spearheaded the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It was the Hon Phil Goff the then Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control who led that effort. 
Cluster munitions are blights on the planet. When used in populated areas they do not discriminate between civilians and military and their unexploded spawn lie on the ground for decades maiming and killing thousands of civilians. According to the UN 40 percent of the victims are children. Consider a firsthand account of a young man in Laos: “One day in 2003 I took my two boys down to the river to go fishing. I found a cluster bomb in the water and picked it up because I wanted to use it as an explosive to blow up in the river so that we could catch more fish. But it went off in my hands and blew off my arms. Now we are getting poorer because I lost both my arms and I can’t work to support my family. I’m lucky at least because they sorted me out with one artificial arm. My right arm was blown right off by the explosion and they had to amputate my left arm twice because it was infected after the first amputation …. The bomb also blew up right in my face and eyes. I couldn’t see anything. My sight was blurry until I went to hospital again in 2005 when my relatives had saved up enough money again to pay for the operation. My wife and the family earn all the money to support us now. One of my sons had to leave school so that he could help my wife. He’s only 15. I help as I can. I look after the vegetables and sweep the house. I help my wife in the fields a bit but I am not much use.” 
What are cluster munitions? They are weapons that scatter explosive submunitions across a wide area. Concerns have been raised about cluster munitions since the 1960s and 1970s when in the space of a decade the United States dropped millions of cluster bombs on Viet Nam Cambodia and Laos. In Laos over 260 million cluster submunitions were dropped. An estimated 80 million of them remain active and continue to claim victims four decades later. 
Since World War II cluster munitions have been used in 33 conflicts—most recently by the Russians and Georgians in South Ossetia. Large numbers of cluster munitions were used by France the US and the UK in the first Gulf War and by the US and the UK in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2006 Israel dropped more than 4 million sub-munitions into southern Lebanon in the course of a few days. 
I do not propose to reiterate the effect of this bill and its various clauses; colleagues who have spoken before on the bill have done that. I think it is interesting to ask whether the bill will make a difference and whether the Convention on Cluster Munitions will make a difference. Cynics might say that the convention is just a bit of paper that war is war and they might ask how the convention can make a difference. But I believe that there is reason to think that the convention and the bill will make a difference. Already 96 countries have signed up to the convention 35 of which are countries that have used produced stockpiled or exported cluster munitions. Of 28 NATO members 20 have signed up. Fourteen of the signatories are countries that themselves are affected by cluster munitions. 
The convention is off to a good start and there is every reason to believe that like the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty the Convention on Cluster Munitions will significantly reduce the use of cluster munitions. It will stigmatise their use so that over time this development in international law will lead to the complete elimination of cluster munitions. 
Over the past decade under the Mine Ban Treaty the use of landmines has dwindled to use by a handful of non-State actors rebel groups and one nation State Burma which continues to use landmines against its own people. When as activists we began to campaign for an international treaty to ban landmines in the mid-1990s that kind of success was unthinkable. 
It is sometimes said that politics is war without weapons. The inverse is probably true too. War is intensely political especially so in the modern era when wars are fought and broadcast on live TV. The power of international law rests as much on its ability to articulate the ethics and morality that guide human behaviour as its ability to provide an enforceable code. 
During the Israel and Hezbollah conflict in southern Lebanon in 2006 my colleague David Shearer was the UN humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon. David recalls the political storm that broke out when the United Nations emergency relief coordinator Mr Jan Egeland publicly referred to Israel’s use of cluster munitions and its indiscriminate bombing of southern Lebanon as “amoral”. The Government of Israel was outraged and the world was outraged by the deed being referred to. 
We talk too much perhaps wishfully of New Zealand’s ability to punch above its weight when it comes to foreign policy but New Zealand’s contribution to the Convention on Cluster Munitions is an example of a small nation working strategically with others both nations and civil society to achieve its ends. 
Under the leadership of the Hon Phil Goff New Zealand was an early supporter of diplomatic efforts to achieve a ban on cluster munitions. When the UN’s consensus approach failed the idea New Zealand and 25 other nations called for an international agreement to outlaw cluster munitions. Norway led the charge hence the Oslo process and New Zealand was one of seven nations in the core group that led a series of negotiating conferences. One of those conferences was hosted right here in Wellington in February 2008 and 106 countries took part. It was the last and the most contentious of the diplomatic conferences leading up to the Dublin negotiations. The Hon Phil Goff and Ambassador Don MacKay stared down a group of recalcitrant nations including the US and the UK our former allies who wanted to water down the text. Finally all views were incorporated in a compendium text and over 2 months between Wellington and Dublin a clear consensus emerged in favour of a strong and comprehensive prohibition on cluster munitions. 
One of the features of the Oslo process like the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty was the active partnership between civil society and like-minded Governments. The Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition brought cluster bomb survivors and de-mining experts to Wellington to take part in the events around the negotiations. They injected real-life experience into the process. Civil society brought the conscience of global public opinion into the diplomatic negotiations. They helped to make it happen. 
Labour looks forward to discussing the bill at the select committee. There are several textual matters we would like to address. We would also like to see a provision inserted in the bill to prohibit investment in the manufacture and sale of cluster munitions in line with the decision of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. But those are relatively minor matters in the scheme of this bill which Labour supports unreservedly. 
Finally I acknowledge the Hon Phil Goff for his leadership in this matter; my friend Marian Hobbs former MP and a former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control; the work of Ambassador Don MacKay and the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mary Wareham who is in the gallery today—a New Zealander a campaigner and an activist for Human Rights Watch Oxfam New Zealand and other organisations—and who coordinated the work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition; and the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for her commitment to bringing the bill expeditiously to the House. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai ano tatau. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tatau katoa kua hui mai i roto i te Whare kia ora tatau katoa. Tatau ma mo era o tatau kei te rapa haere i tetahi kaupapa kia taea ai e ratau te poti mo tenei pire ko taku ki a ratau me korero ratau ki nga morehu ara ko era kua noho a-kiri mate kua noho a-whanau pani ranei na te pakutanga o te mata ko era ka noho i raro i te kakahu o mauiui o mamae mo te wa roa kia tae atu ki te ora ko era ahakoa kei te ora he rahi nga mate taumaha a-kikokiko a-hinengaro hoki kei runga i a ratau. I te tau 2007 na te Ropu Haua o te Ao i tohu na te pakutanga o nga mata whakawhaiti e 13306 nga tangata i mate kia hemo. E hoa ma katahi nei te kino mai o enei momo pahu. Ka pakaru mai nga kongakonga maitai ka werohia ko te tinana o te tangata nga ringaringa nga waewae nga whatu ina te kino o te weriweri. Ka ngaro te kaimahi o te whanau. Ka noho ngoikore te hapori i te mea e kore taea e te hunga whara te whai wahi ki te mahi i tana mahi i mua. Na i tua atu i tena ka pirau haere te whenua te wai hoki na enei momo mate. Na ko nga pahu kare ano kia paku mai ka noho huna i te akau a ka kitea e te tamariki. Ko tona mutu mai ko mate. 
Ko ta Te Pati Maori he titiro he wananga he aha te pai te kino ranei ka tau ki runga i a tatau te tangata. Koinei te take i puta ta matau tono kia whakaiti nga whenua katoa i o ratau utunga a-putea nei mo nga mahi hoia. Ko tetahi o nga tohu whakahe pakanga i mau ki runga i nga kakahu he kupu na Lyndon Johnson. Katahi te tangata nei. Koia tera ko te Perihitini i Amerika i te wa i piki haere te kaute o te hunga i haere ki Whitinamu. 
A kati ka hangai te titiro o tenei pire ki te tohu takanga he o te tangata o tenei whakatipuranga. Me ki ko ta tatau i nga whainga ki te Convention on Cluster Munitions i tohungia ai i tera Tihema. E 94 nga motu i haina i taua tiriti. Ko ta nga whenua ka kore ratau e awhina i tetahi ake hai whakapaku enei momo pahu ko ta ratau ko te akiaki kia kore ai tetahi e tuku kia pahu ai enei pahu. I roto i tera kahui ko Tiamana ko Wiwi ko Hapani a me Afghanistan. He mea miharo tonu tenei. Na David Miliband te hekeretari o te Manatu Aorere o Ingarangi i whakatakoto he kaupapa hou ao whanui mo te tiriti. E hoa ma he tino aria tenei. Ko te pai i tenei wa ko te tautoko a Niu Tireni i tenei kaupapa hou mo te ao whanui. 
Ka maumahara tatau ki te marama o Hepetema i te tau 2007. I taua wa e 137 nga whenua o te ao i haina i te whakapuakitanga o nga iwi taketake o te ao. Mai i taua wa he nui noa atu nga whenua kua whakatinana i taua kaupapa. Kua hanga hanganga ture wetahi. E tumanako ana matau kei te haere mai te wa ka whai kaha a Niu Tireni te haina i taua Whakapuakitanga kia Orite ki te Nuinga o nga Whenua o te Ao kia tutuki hoki nga whakaritenga mo te ao. Ko ta matau o te Pati Maori kia kaua e herehere i te mea nei tukua kia haere. Kei te whakaae ake matau kia korero tahi nga hoa haere o te Tiriti o Waitangi mo nga o te whakapuakitanga. A tena koinei tetahi o nga kaupapa o te whakapuakitanga. Me tika te whakapuakitanga i roto i te ahuatanga o nga matapono o te tika o te manapori o te mana taurite o te pono o te mana kawanatanga o te whakaiti me te rangatiratanga mo nga ritena o te tangata. Koinei te ahuatanga o nga ritenga o te ao. He taumata tenei e whakaaea ai tatau katoa o te ao. Kua whakaae mai nga whenua nei kia mutu katoa te whakamahi i nga taonga patu tangata nei. 
He mea whakahihi ki a matau ko Aotearoa tetahi i para te ara kia puawai tenei kawenata. Ko taku noa he whakanui i nga mahi i timatahia ki Aotearoa nei i te hui i tu ki Poneke i tera Hui-tanguru ki te wananga i tenei take. Neke atu i te 120 nga whenua i tae mai a 137 nga ropu a-iwi hoki i tae mai. E ai ki nga korero he pekanga tino whai tikanga te hui ra he painga i roto mo nga whakahaerenga mo te Tiriti o Waitangi. I whakanuia nga mahi a John Vernon Head i te hui ra koia tetahi i kokiri i te kaupapa nei. I mate a John i te marama o Pepuere i te tau 2007. I whakarewahia e John Head te kauhanga kore-pahu tona kaha ki te akiaki kia kore ai nga Motu o te Moana Nui a Kiwa e whakaae ki aua pahu whenua. Nana ano i whakahau ki te whakakore i te mata pahu whakawhaiti. Na ka haere a Deborah Morris-Travers raua ko Thomas Nash ki te akiaki i te Minita o te Manatu Aorere. I muri mai i tera i korero raua i mua i te komiti Manatu Aorere me te komiti o te Manatu Kaupapa waonga i whakarite i etahi hui mo te motu kia korero te tohunga a John Rodsted. He tangata matatau a John ki te kaupapa nei. I te tau 2007 ka whakaturia te ropu e karangahia nei ko te Ropu Whakawhaiti Pahu mata hei tautoko i te karanga o te ao ki te whakakore i aua mea weriweri rawa atu i patu nei i te tangata. 
A kati e te Whare kua roa tonu nei taku whakamarama i te ara i takahia ki Oslo kia mohio mai tatau na nga mahi na nga kokiritanga o Aotearoa kua kitea ai na tatau na Aotearoa nga wawata i whakatinana. Mai rano matau o te Pati Maori e whakahihi ana mo te tu o Aotearoa ina a Aotearoa Karihi-Kau. Kei te kite matau ka whai mana tenei Kawenata a kia panuihia ko ta tatau he kokiri kia aio te noho i tenei ao. Engari i tua atu i tera he whakahihi no matou anei a Aotearoa e ki nei kua whakamanahia e ratau te kaupapa hou mo te ao whanui. Na i muri mai kia mutu motuhake nga mamae o enei mata pahu taonga weriweri. Nga mamae ka noho ki runga tangata i te wa ka maringi mai i te rangi ka whakarerea ranei ka noho huna i ro i runga whenua i mua o te pahutanga hei patu tangata. Ahakoa kare a matau mata whakawhaiti kai te hari koa matau ki te whakapuaki i o matau whakaaro. No reira e te Whare koinei te tautoko o te Pati Maori ki tenei o nga pire. Tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all gathered here in the House. Greetings to us all. I say to those of us searching for a reason to vote for this bill talk to those who survived cluster munitions incidents—those who remain victims of skin ailments who have lost a loved one due to mine explosions those destined to a life of long-term treatment and rehabilitation and who live with severe physical injury and psychological trauma. In 2007 Handicap International confirmed 13306 deaths and injuries due to cluster munitions. The devastation created by the cluster bomblets was lethal. Fragments of jagged steel released were impaled in the body of the person and caused injuries to hands feet and eyes with the outcome being severe disabilities and families deprived of their breadwinner. Communities become vulnerable as surviving victims are unable to play the role they formerly played. If that is not enough farmland and water sources can deteriorate due to submunition contamination. Unexploded bomblets become hidden killers submerged around coastlines just waiting for innocent children to discover. Death is the outcome in the end.  
The Maori Party’s role is to examine and debate what good or evil tidings will come upon us as people. This in essence was the rationale behind our call for nations to decrease their expenditure of GDP on military activity. One of the anti-war badges that seems to say it all highlights a quote from Lyndon Johnson: “The guns and the bombs the rockets and the warships are all symbols of human frailty.” Lyndon Johnson of course was speaking from a position of authority. It was during his watch as US President that the numbers of Americans enlisted in the Vietnam War escalated.  
This bill then seeks to target the latest symbol of human failure in implementing New Zealand’s obligations to the Convention on Cluster Munitions signed last December. Ninety-four countries signed that treaty and vowed not to assist others to use cluster munitions but rather to discourage their use. In that cluster of countries were Germany France Japan and Afghanistan. That indeed is quite remarkable. At its signing the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband set the treaty a new global norm. This is a great concept made better this time by New Zealand stepping up to support a new global norm.  
We well remember another time in September 2007 when 137 countries agreed to set a global norm to advance the human rights of indigenous peoples. Since that time many Governments around the world have engaged with indigenous peoples to bring the vision to life. Some countries have gone as far as to introduce legislation. We are hopeful however that the time is approaching when New Zealand can rightfully step up to the mark and sign up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to meet the global norm. We of the Maori Party urge that this signing will be without caveat without qualification. Of course we accept that discussions between the partners of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be required about many aspects of the declaration. Fortunately the declaration itself anticipates this process. Every provision must be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice democracy respect for human rights equality non-discrimination good governance and good faith. Global norms are exactly that. This is an acceptable benchmark for global norms. These countries have agreed to a prohibition on the use of cluster munitions which cause unacceptable humanitarian harm.  
We are proud that New Zealand has played such a key role in the work relating to cluster munitions. I want to particularly acknowledge the work spearheaded here in Aotearoa particularly the conference on cluster munitions that took place here in Wellington last February. That conference attracted delegates from more than 120 countries and 137 civil society representatives. The conference was described as a critical crossroads in getting through the treaty process as the draft text was the basis for discussion. During the conference the legacy of long-time disarmament campaigner John Vernon Head who had passed away in February 2007 was honoured. John Head had founded the New Zealand Campaign Against Landmines. He lobbied tirelessly for the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty to be accepted across the Pacific region. And significantly he initiated the campaign for cluster munitions to be banned. The campaign convenor former MP Deborah Morris-Travers and Cluster Munitions Coalition coordinator Thomas Nash then went on to lobby the disarmament Minister . Their next step was to appear before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and to organise a speaking tour of a cluster munitions expert John Rodsted. The Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition a group of New Zealand non-governmental organisations was subsequently established in 2007 in support of the international call to stop cluster munitions from harming civilians. 
And so to the House I have taken some time to outline the steps that led to Oslo because I think it is so important that we take time to celebrate the difference that Aotearoa is making on the international stage. The Maori Party has always been proud of the distinctive position we have taken globally in being proud to be a nuclear-free Aotearoa. We see this latest legislation in ratifying the convention as promoting a peacekeeping role for New Zealand defence personnel in the world. But most important we are proud that Aotearoa is able to meet a global norm to put an end for all time to the suffering caused by cluster munitions. And although we ourselves do not hold stocks of cluster munitions we are proud that we have been active in the debate. And so to the House this is the Maori Party’s support of this bill. Greetings and thank you. 
] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou katoa. As Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson it is my pleasure to rise in support of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. It is rare indeed in this House to have consensus from all political parties over a piece of legislation. The viewers and listeners of Parliament today will have heard representatives from all political parties rising to support this legislation. That is a statement about New Zealand and how New Zealanders across the political spectrum feel about the impact of these perfidious weapons on people. 
Somebody just tuning into Parliament TV would wonder why in the midst of an economic recession and the many great affairs of State that a country a faces all of New Zealand’s politicians are rising regardless of their political party to support this bill and are taking every one of the speaking spots available. The reason is that New Zealanders care passionately about peace and about the protection and safety of people particularly children. We have a long tradition of being a country that has a moral foreign policy. In this particular area of the banning of cluster munitions New Zealand has a proud record. 
Like my friend Phil Twyford from the Labour Party who was speaking a few minutes ago I want to acknowledge some people in this Parliament and people who have recently been here who have played a very important role in the passage of this legislation and this international agreement. First of all I acknowledge Labour Party leader Phil Goff who as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade was a very active campaigner for international action on cluster munitions. I particularly want to acknowledge my old friend and now departed colleague Marian Hobbs the former member for Wellington Central. The Hon Marian Hobbs was a passionate advocate for this issue. She spoke about it often in this House and she played a very important role in the conference that was held in February last year which several speakers have made reference to. That conference was attended by representatives of over 100 countries and it had over 500 delegates. It was very important in terms of setting the scene for the Oslo conference which led to the establishment of this international agreement. 
I will take a few minutes to read a motion that Marian Hobbs put to this House on 8 November 2006. She moved that the House “acknowledge the unacceptable toll on civilian lives caused by cluster munitions and the lasting legacy of these weapons in postwar situations;”. Phil Twyford who spoke a short while ago read an account of an individual who had suffered personal loss through these weapons. Marian Hobbs also moved that the House “denounce the indiscriminate use of cluster munitions and their use in areas where civilians are likely to suffer disproportionate casualties and call upon the international community to set binding standards of reliability to decrease the persistent threat to civilians caused by unexploded bomblets;”. She also moved that the House “confirm that New Zealand does not currently maintain stocks of cluster munitions has no intention to do so …”. Sadly that is not the case internationally. As Mary Wareham who is sitting up in the gallery and who has been a passionate advocate and crusader for this issue would no doubt be able to tell us there are 56 nations in the world at the moment that stockpile these weapons and another 33 that produce them. 
What do these weapons do? A number of speakers including Te Ururoa Flavell have talked about the effects of these bomblets. The bomblets do three different things. The steel fragments which are at the core of the small bombs target people and can kill them at up to 152 metres from the impact. The shaped charge inside the small bomb fires a molten slug that can penetrate 5 inches or 13 centimetres of steel. Members can imagine what that does to the body of an individual. Finally the other part of the bomb a zircon wafer has an incendiary function that spreads little burning particles which not only burn trucks and vehicles but do terrible things to people’s bodies. 
These weapons with their three different destructive mechanisms are incredibly dangerous. They have quite a history. They were first used towards the end of World War II when the fishing port of Grimsby in Yorkshire was bombed by the German Luftwaffe with the first cluster bombs ever used. Interestingly enough those first cluster bombs were a forerunner of the issues and dangers we face with these munitions. They caused chaos for weeks after the bombing raid. Some 76 people had been killed in the bombing raid but more were killed clearing the new German-designed cluster bombs from the streets and buildings of Grimsby. It was a sign of things to come. 
As Mr Twyford talked about in his presentation cluster bombs have been used in a lot of places since the bombing of Grimsby in the 1940s. The Viet Nam War was when the cluster munitions were used in absolutely great quantities and new and more effective designs—looking at it from a bomber’s view—were developed. Laos is a really interesting country to look at to see the long-term effects of these bombs. Laos was probably bombed as part of the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail—the Assistant Speaker Rick Barker and I well remember protesting about that bombing in our youth. Some 80 million bomblets were dropped on Laos to try to stop the flow of supplies reaching South Viet Nam from North Viet Nam. 
Today some 40 years later some of those unexploded bombs are still going off and killing people in Laos. That is the great danger of these munitions. They do not cause just mayhem and havoc when they are first used; they have an insidious legacy. For example 40 years later in Laos the bomblets are still going off periodically as children go to look at a shiny object that a monsoon has revealed in the muddy rice fields or that has been washed up on the river bank. Of those young people and people who do not know what these bombs represent—and I imagine many Laotians do—there will always be some who will be attracted to this. These bombs are still going off still killing people still blowing up limbs and crippling and blinding people. 
The Gulf War the war in Kosovo the Russian use of these weapons in Chechnya the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia the war in Afghanistan Lebanon—in all of those conflicts cluster bombs and cluster munitions have been used with a lasting legacy of death destruction and chaos. 
The international community is to be absolutely commended for showing initiative in this area. New Zealand is to be commended. We are a country with a proud nuclear-free heritage. We have held our heads high internationally. We have played a responsible role in many international conflicts and in the great issues of peace disarmament and being nuclear-free. These are all things that New Zealand can be proud of. We are a small country of just over 4 million people. We are in many ways the most remote land from the world’s great land masses of Eurasia North America and South America and Africa. But because of the tradition this country has held for over 100 years in terms of having a population and a society that really cares about issues that affect all of mankind—all of humanity—this legislation and the leading role that our country has played in its development is something that all Kiwis can be very proud of. 
If we could only reach a consensus on a carbon trading system we could show leadership on climate change as well. I will just finish my speech today by making an appeal to all parties in this House. This issue is an important one in terms of its impact on people. Nothing could be more important for all of humanity on our planet than global climate change. Let us see whether we can reach a consensus on that as well. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in very strong support of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill which when signed will add this country’s name to the list of those that have ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Hopefully if the bill has a speedy passage through the House we will be one of the 30 nations that will bring the convention into force. New Zealand was one of the 94 nations that signed up to the convention in early 2008. 
As many others have mentioned the bill when passed will provide for sanctions on those who develop use distribute or possess cluster munitions and also for reporting requirements in record-keeping obligations. I do not want to get into a history spat with my colleague Chris Carter but my information tells me that cluster munitions actually pre-date World War II. They have been around for a long time but the Soviet Union in the 1930s deployed what were then known as “Molotov breadbaskets” which scattered incendiary bomblets around Finland. The cylinder of the main bomb was really large—it was probably over 2 metres long—and it contained more than 100 incendiary bombs. The main bomb itself did not have an incendiary device but it had a very large tailfin which when dropped through the air caused the bomb to spin thus spraying the smaller incendiary devices right around the Finnish continent. 
In 1939 the Soviet Foreign Minister Mr Molotov claimed that the Soviet Union was not dropping bombs but merely airlifting food to starving Finns—hence the nickname “Molotov breadbaskets”. The Finns being a resourceful bunch developed improvised incendiary devices used to counter Soviet tanks that were invading their land and called it after a drink to go with the food—hence the famous term “Molotov cocktail” was born. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Thank you sir. Thank you—very erudite. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The member is most welcome. The Leader of the Opposition Dr Mapp and others have talked about configurations where munitions devices have been used. Certainly Lebanon in 2006 was a nadir in that respect. But the sad fact is that there have been a large number of conflicts where cluster munitions have been used. The list is a long and sad one going back to Viet Nam and Korea the first and second Chechen wars Yugoslavia Afghanistan Georgia and Sri Lanka—the list goes on. 
Between World War II and the end of the 20th century the technology of cluster munitions has become extremely advanced in terms of the volume of the devices and the width of the field across which the devices can be spread. The capacity to cause death and injury is increasing. Sadly although necessity is widely credited as being the mother of invention so too is war. The world sadly has become pretty damn good at its ability to kill and maim. 
One of the other things that has happened over the last 20 years is the influence of television on war. As a younger man watching the first Gulf War in 1991 I well remember how visible and visual the conflict became. I recall General Colin Powell saying at a press conference in respect of certain intelligence information that CNN had acquired the information as quickly as he did. 
Then in subsequent wars we followed munitions as they flew through the air and landed on buildings and so on. The result of that is that we in peaceful nations that are not normally exposed to the horror that war generally and these munitions particularly can inflict on people were exposed successively to news footage and documentaries following people like Princess Diana other celebrities and also aid workers doing great work bringing the horror of what these munitions can do into our living rooms. 
The passage of this legislation will not in and of itself eliminate the scourge of cluster munitions but when a group of civilised peace-loving nations with one voice says that even when belligerent nations come into conflict there are rules around that conflict and that those rules preclude such indiscriminative weapons then the world might just be a bit safer. Fewer innocent civilians particularly our young innocents will end up disfigured dismembered or dead from these devices. 
I applaud and congratulate those on both sides of the House who have worked on behalf of New Zealanders to achieve the progress we have made so far. But I particularly applaud those groups individuals and non-governmental organisations who have worked so tirelessly for many years to draw the world’s attention to the evil that cluster munitions bring. I also applaud those brave men and women of our military and others around the world who risk their lives to disarm these weapons. The number of these munitions is simply incalculable and they will be around for many many years after the effect of the convention is brought into play if ceasing the use of these munitions is even possible. I congratulate those who are involved in the bill. I thank them for bringing it to the House. I support the bill. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Building Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 23 July. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
:  
E te Manatu o te Whare. Ka whakanui au i te reo o te tangata whenua ka whakanui au i te reo o Aotearoa. Tihei mauri ora. 
[ 
Mr Speaker of the House I celebrate the language of the people of the land and of New Zealand. Behold the sneeze of life 
.] 
I rise to continue my speech on the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). It is good to see that the theme of the day is one of speaking about bills that are supported across the House and this bill is another one of those bills. The intention of this bill is obviously to simplify and speed up the processing of multi-use building consents to reduce unnecessary red tape and to make housing more affordable and therefore more accessible for hard-working New Zealanders. This bill is similar to the Parliamentary Rugby Team which played so successfully on Sunday as the bill was initiated by the Hon Shane Jones but it was picked up and will be taken over the line by the Hon Maurice Williamson. This legislation is a vital part of the Government’s programme and I am pleased to commend it to the House. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. E nga reo e nga mana e nga rangatira tena koutou tena koutou katoa. It is with unalloyed delight that I rise to speak in support of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Unalloyed. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Unalloyed delight. At this juncture I acknowledge the excellent work done by members from all sides of the House to progress this bill both through the Local Government and Environment Committee and the House. This bill has risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the legislative wasteland of the final days of the lost limping listless lethargic last Labour administration. Initially having been nurtured by the Hon Shane Jones—who was sorely missed in the tight five of the Parliamentary Rugby Team on Sunday—and more recently passing through the select committee helmed by Chris Auchinvole this bill is of benefit to all New Zealanders. This principled pragmatic National-led Government wants New Zealanders to have a decent wage packet so as to have real choice in their lives and a genuine sense of opportunity. We are working towards a New Zealand where all New Zealanders are inspired share a sense of purpose and a feeling of belonging and are drenched with exhilaration at the opportunities and possibilities open to all of us through hard work and commitment. 
As Prime Minister John Key observed in a speech recently “As a nation the income we generate enables us all to enjoy world-class public services—like health care and education” protect the vulnerable in our society and “strengthen our national institutions.” Simply put if we imagine the Government is New Zealand’s baker then we must grow the economic cake bigger so that there are enough slices to go around. This is even more crucial in these times of global financial turmoil. This humble bill the Building Amendment Bill (No 2)—some may say it is small but it is perfectly formed—will help us to do just that. 
In an earlier speech to the House I alluded to the fact that any growth in GDP New Zealand experienced under the leaden hand of the previous introspective torpid Labour administration was built on an increase in consumption a debt-fuelled housing boom and large often spectacularly ill-directed increases in Government spending. It was these influences along with working longer that drove GDP growth—not real improvement in productivity of high value internationally desired goods in the tradable sector. The tradable sector of course includes agriculture fisheries manufacturing tourism and forestry—the tight five for New Zealand’s future prosperity. 
The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) by reducing costs associated with constructing new plant in all these sectors will directly aid our competitiveness on the world stage and help us grow the all-important economic cake. This bill is yet another example of this principled administration keeping its promises and honouring a pledge that we made at the last election. The pledge was to cut burdensome compliance costs and red tape. This Government’s scalpel is finely honed for extirpation of further burdensome legislative verbiage where required. I urge the House to support this bill. Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Firstly I offer my greetings to Te Ururoa Flavell. I share his concern about the absence of the relation of the great Peter Jones from Awanui on the rugby field at Rotorua. That will be rectified in future games. 
The Building Amendment Bill (No 2) was something that was driven as a consequence of the effective working relationship between the Labour Government’s Minister for Building and Construction and the building sector. In fact I recall members of the sector threatening to create statues not of clay or bronze but of gold as a consequence of the good work done in this particular bill. We know that prior to coming into this House the member Cam Calder who has just resumed his seat has created a career around optical illusion. The rhetoric if not the CV reflects that he has a long way to go before he can emulate the deeds of the previous Government in working effectively to maintain unparalleled economic growth until such time when a side wind of international character blew us off course. 
Let us look at what we have done. We have enabled the rats and mice that have bedevilled everyday applicants going to the council to be put aside because a schedule in the new Building Act includes a host of usages that people want to be able to proceed with without being bedevilled by bureaucracy in local government. That is now law. Secondly those people who are investing in housing will be able to gain national multiple-use approvals. There is very little investment by the State in State housing at the moment. Despite the best efforts of my colleague from Whangarei he is actually shrinking the number of State houses that are being created. But those houses that will be created if they are of a uniform character will be able to gain a national multiple-use approval. This bill provides a chance for people who are on a limited income or who have been beaten down by the largely rightist-oriented local government bodies which have let local government bureaucracy flourish. This bill strikes it down. This bill reminds local government bodies that their writ would not be permitted to carry on in that unfettered manner. 
I look forward to the seeds in this bill being advanced. It may annoy a few of my colleagues that there is a bipartisan spirit in this regard but at the end of the day the people out there in the sector realise that this bill enjoyed its beginnings and support from members on this side of the House. The underlying message is that the building industry will spend less time ensnarled in red tape and bureaucracy none of which has been reduced as a consequence either of Mr Hide’s rhetoric or of Mr Williamson and his colleagues’ loud voices. It is only when one passes legislation that that is achieved. To the newer members opposite I say that they should study this bill. I will not take all the credit but this is how one gets it done. Thank you very much. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora e te Whare. I welcome this opportunity to add my voice in support of the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill (No 2) although my voice is not as reliable tonight as I would like it to be. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Feel free to lose it. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I thank Mr Cosgrove. I appreciate his advice but as in all things I will not be taking it. 
I especially welcome the knowledge that there is multiparty support in this House for the bill’s progression through to enactment. As has been noted there were 17 submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. Submitters were overwhelmingly supportive of what is proposed as a result of which only minor changes were required. As the Minister for Building and Construction did in earlier stages I acknowledge the preliminary work on this measure that was undertaken by the former Minister for Building and Construction the Hon Shane Jones. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Which one? There were 11 of them. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Well I am particularly acknowledging the Hon Shane Jones. He is paying me the compliment of sitting there and listening attentively to what I am saying— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure the House that there is only one Shane Jones not 10 of them. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: What an outstanding point of order that was; I am positively stopped in my tracks. As I say it is good to have the former Minister the Hon Shane Jones sitting and listening attentively and appreciatively to this speech tonight and it is good to follow him in this third reading.  
As I understand I am the final speaker in this debate. I simply want to reiterate and endorse the main purposes and expected benefits of this bill. In fact I gather there may even be one more speaker which is exciting beyond measure. I want to endorse the main purposes of this bill which will be widely welcomed by representatives of the construction industry developers property owners and one would hope local authority officials who are charged with processing building consent applications. At a time when New Zealanders are crying out for action to cut unnecessary red tape and compliance costs it is heartening to debate a measure in this House that should substantially realise those objectives. My only regret is that it did not happen a long time ago. 
Last week the Hon Maryan Street lamented a perceived lack of focus in speeches made by members on this side of the House on the issue of housing affordability. That is more than a little surprising given that this Government has identified that as a priority issue and that I am standing here tonight beside the Minister of Housing who is working outstandingly hard and with tremendous and inspiring success on these measures. He is working very constructively if the Minister will excuse the pun to promote tangible measures that will achieve that goal. I simply say to the Hon Maryan Street to watch this space. It seems to me that Ms Street was struggling to find controversy where it does not exist— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: And Maurice Williamson. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: —and as the Minister of Housing so rightly observes the Hon Maurice Williamson. 
The initiatives in the bill may have only a modest impact—it has to be admitted—on the total cost of building. However and this is what is important they are also expected to reduce the time and transaction costs that the building consent process involves for homeowners developers and builders and for building consent authorities. The bill will also make the building consent process more responsive to different levels of risk and this of course is something that the industry is really looking for. 
As has been noted the bill addresses in particular low-risk building work such as building designs that are replicated on scale. Given the way things have developed in the construction industry in New Zealand in recent times we are probably seeing more and more construction projects of that type. This is certainly true in my own city of Hamilton where affordable housing is very important but also where there is considerable development. There is great growth and great demand as a result of our population increase. Hamilton is after all the most vibrant and exciting city in New Zealand in which to live as a result of which everybody is migrating to our fine and delightfully weather-reliable city which is totally free of fog and all sorts of other impediments. It is a very noticeable feature that these scale projects replica projects are becoming more and more apparent and it therefore makes abundant sense obviously to ensure that they can be constructed with the minimum of bureaucracy the minimum of red tape— 
Katrina Shanks 
: The minimum of regulation. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Absolutely; as my fine colleague Katrina Shanks has mentioned reducing regulation will enable people to get on with the job to construct these properties. This is what our city is crying out for. This is what we can do as one of the measures to promote housing affordability to ensure that more New Zealanders can realise the aspiration of homeownership that we as New Zealanders see almost as our birthright. 
The bill also addresses the important need to be able to make changes to building consents that do not affect compliance with the New Zealand building code. Finally the bill addresses the issue of building projects that do not benefit from the information provided in a project information memorandum. 
These are welcome and worthy objectives. I am sure they will be broadly welcomed and before my throat gives out altogether I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill for the third time. First of all let me start by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Shane Jones for his work on this bill and of course for the very fine contribution he made just a few minutes ago. 
When I and my colleague Maryan Street spoke on this bill previously we talked about it in the context of its being one of a range of initiatives about affordable housing under the previous Labour Government. Affordable housing is a key challenge for us all. Mr Macindoe mentioned the aspiration of New Zealanders to have their own homes. We need to focus on this issue. It is a very difficult one for us. Housing affordability is very very difficult for many New Zealanders. 
The previous Government put in place a wide range of initiatives to try to help people to get into their own homes. Those initiatives included provisions in KiwiSaver to help people to save for a deposit for their first home enhanced first-home buyers provisions in the Welcome Home Loan programme and shared-equity schemes. We looked at the rentals charged for State houses. We looked at a whole range of initiatives around finding places where we could have affordable housing built. 
The previous Labour Government had many many initiatives in place because for Labour housing has always been a very important policy plank. That is because housing is not just about houses. Housing is about providing people with homes. Having a home is about having a place where people can live with their families a place where they can get a sense of community and identity a place that provides them with security a place where they can ensure they are warm and safe and a place that gives them some sense of ownership in their community. Housing is not just about houses. In fact housing is about people and their homes and I think that is important to realise. 
Housing is an important issue and affordable housing has become an increasing challenge in recent times. As Maryan Street noted in her contribution a couple of weeks ago it became a particular challenge for the last Government with the massive increase in housing prices. Houses became a lot less affordable. I believe that the last Government rose to the challenge and I am very keen to see what the current Government has planned in this space. I acknowledge to members that it is a challenge. It is not an easy thing to do and the Government needs to rise to the challenge. 
I will reinforce the main provisions of the bill we are talking about. This bill addresses three main areas of concern. It looks at national multiple-use consents and that is because 40 percent of all new homes in New Zealand are built by volume builders. It talks about achieving efficiencies by providing a system of national multiple-use consenting. But I stress at this point that the bill is very much associated not only with those efficiencies but also with retaining quality in this regard and that is very important. 
There are some who seem to think that regulation always gets in the way of efficiency and productivity. Regulation is often in place for very good reasons and in the housing area I do not imagine anybody in this House could fail to recognise what happens when there is an inadequate regulation. First of all the bill looks at national multiple-use consents. Secondly it covers how we deal with amendments to building consents and the types of small variations that occur during the building process and so on. The third area concerns the project information memorandum or “PIM” which is intended to provide a one-stop shop for all information regarding building work requiring a building consent. Only a minority of project information memoranda were being applied for prior to a building consent application being made and consequently the full benefit of that was not being realised in most cases. Those are the main areas covered by this bill. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee received 17 submissions on the bill and a number of the issues that were raised were incorporated in the bill we now have before us. A couple of areas that were not able to be covered included submissions made by the Historic Places Trust which raised particular difficulties around the fact that making project information memoranda voluntary may make it more difficult to monitor building projects that adversely affected historic places. 
I will finish by focusing on some recent comments made by the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson. He was talking about this bill recently at the annual general meeting of the Building Industry Federation in Auckland on 16 July. He said that the Government is committed to cutting red tape in the sector and getting rid of unnecessary rules and regulations and that this bill will speed up the consent process and reduce costs. Hopefully that is something we are all in agreement on and hopefully that will be a very positive outcome of this bill. But he did go on to say that he thought it was a start and that it did not go far enough in addressing compliance issues. 
As I mentioned earlier in this speech for some people the whole issue of regulation seems to be a negative thing from start to finish. I hope that that is not what the Minister is saying in this case because we need to ensure that our buildings in this country are of good quality and that we do not have a repeat of some of the dreadful experiences people have had. Mr Williamson talked about the fact that the Government will be reviewing the Building Act 2004 to drive down the regulatory costs associated with building. To give him credit he did go on to say that the Government wanted to do that without compromising building quality and that the terms of reference are currently being finalised. 
I read the Minister’s comments with interest and one of the things I thought was very interesting was the risk and liability framework in the sector and what concerns he was raising about the behaviour of councils. I know that this gets us into the territory of the Resource Management Act and other things that are going on around council regulation. He also talked about a number of other non-regulatory ways to improve performance and I think that is an interesting area to focus on. The area that really jumped out at me is around getting better outcomes from the increased investment in trade training and I think that is a good thing. The Minister talked about the proliferation of qualifications the absence of good qualifications for some lower-level trade skills and the different funding and assessment models for apprenticeship training. 
I doubt that anybody in this House would have a problem with those issues per se but I thought it was a little bit rich for a National Minister to be talking about trade training when trade training took a nose dive under the previous National Government. In fact the current National Government has got off to a very poor start in this area. We are finding that the investment in adult education industry training and tertiary education generally is either flat lining or in some cases being severely cut. So I thought it was a little bit interesting that the Minister was talking about the desire to get better outcomes from increased investment in trade training and I am looking forward to finding out what that increased investment is because I do not think we saw it in the current Budget. Clearly we would have to agree that increasing investment in trade training would indeed be a good thing. With that I commend this bill to the House and I again acknowledge the work of the previous Government in getting this bill into the House. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time. 
Inquiries Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 May. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Inquiries Bill another bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government that now seems to have attracted support from both sides of the House. I suspect that at some stage in the next 2½ years the Government having been elected at the last election will work out that it has a responsibility to write some legislation of its own but there does not appear to be any risk of that happening anytime soon. The House continues to debate bills introduced by the previous Labour Government. 
It is probably fair to say that although this is a Labour bill and we support it it is not something we would be debating in the House had Labour been re-elected. A re-elected Labour Government would have been focusing on the major issues of the day. It would have been focused on what Kiwis are really concerned about which is jobs. We would have been looking at what the Government could do to create jobs and save jobs. Unfortunately this Government does not seem at all interested in people’s jobs. 
The Inquiries Bill aims to reform and modernise the law relating to inquiries. It is another good example of some of the excellent work the Law Commission is doing to modernise some of our laws. It creates some new forms of inquiry that are less formal than for example a royal commission of inquiry. That is a good thing. In the modern era there is more pressure for us to be open and transparent and to look into a variety of issues. The creation of additional forms of inquiry is very welcome. 
I thought about some of the inquiries that have come before the House in the past. Perhaps the most famous and notable inquiry that I am aware of that Parliament was ever involved in was the wine-box inquiry. It was investigated by Winston Peters. I was much younger back then and I recall watching on TV Winston Peters coming into the House. He was blocked several times from tabling all those documents in Parliament but finally he managed to table the documents that triggered the wine-box inquiry. Of course it was not Winston Peters who carried all of those documents into Parliament. He had a very loyal servant following behind him carrying those documents. Who was following Winston Peters with all of the wine-box inquiry documents? It was none other than Tau Henare. I know that was probably three or four political parties ago and he cannot remember as far back as that but it was Tau Henare who was carrying the wine-box inquiry documents into Parliament—one of the biggest inquiries we have had. 
A more recent inquiry was the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The commissioners produced a very substantive volume of reports on governance in Auckland. A large number of the recommendations produced after all the hearing of submissions and all the scanning of research—a whole chunk of those recommendations—were simply ignored by the National Government. Rodney Hide John Key and Bill English said “No we will do whatever we like. We will come up with something completely different that bears no resemblance to what the royal commission recommended because we are the Government and hey we can do whatever we like now.” They basically ignored the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and simply came up with what they had wanted to do in the first place. When one comes to discuss the Inquiries Bill it begs the question as to what is the point of an inquiry if the Government will just turn round completely ignore the recommendations and do whatever it wanted to do in the first place. What is the point of having an inquiry where people can come in make submissions and have their voices heard if they will be completely ignored by the Government? That is what this Government seems very willing to do. 
I thought that by way of illustration we might consider some of the things that could be considered by one of the new forms of inquiry: a public inquiry or a Government inquiry. Those are slightly further down the pecking order than a royal commission of inquiry but none the less they are important. 
I think we could have an inquiry into Paula Bennett’s clumsy and vindictive release of the personal information of individual beneficiaries in order to silence her critics. That is the disgraceful behaviour that we have seen in the past few days and it was appalling to watch the Minister try to justify it in the House today. She admitted at question time that she took no advice before releasing that personal information. She looked at a website. She did not check out the legal ramifications of releasing the information. She did not consider the Privacy Act. That is why we should have an inquiry into why Paula Bennett did that using the new forms of inquiry in this bill so that people can have their say on it. They can come along and say to Paula Bennett “Actually we do not think you should be abusing your position as a Minister to get people’s personal information and release it to the news media.” That was exactly what Paula Bennett did. She should not be using that information without the consent of the individuals involved. That is also why we should be having an inquiry into that matter. It is extremely poor judgment on the part of the Minister to do such a thing and to completely compromise the individual privacy of the people concerned. 
We could have an inquiry into the Government’s lack of action on jobs because 1200 extra New Zealanders—that is a net increase of New Zealanders—are joining the dole queue every week. That means the dole queue is growing by 1200 more people per week and the Government is not doing anything about it. We should have an inquiry into that and we could have an inquiry using the new powers provided by the Inquiries Bill. In that inquiry we could ask why the Government’s Job Summit did not come up with anything more than a few very small initiatives which are creating very few jobs. John Key promised the people of New Zealand that his Job Summit would be a “do-fest” not a talkfest. In fact we have seen very little evidence of that because 1200 New Zealanders are still signing up for the dole queue each and every week. The Government is doing very little to help those people or to keep people in jobs. We could have an inquiry into that issue and I think that would be a very useful thing for this Government to initiate because it certainly does not to seem to have any ideas of its own about how to deal with that particular problem. 
We could have an inquiry into tax. That has happened before. We could start with the National Party’s pre-election promise to give New Zealanders tax cuts could we not? Did the National Government deliver on that promise? No it did not. It legislated for the tax cuts and then took them away again. That is a reason why an inquiry on tax could well be a very useful thing. It would also highlight the fact that the National Government’s tax cuts took tax relief away from the New Zealanders on the lowest incomes and gave it to those on the highest incomes. It was a disgraceful move by the National Government to do that. We could remind National members of some of the comments they made when they passed tax cut legislation in this House in November. They talked about giving people certainty when it came to personal income. Well people do not have certainty any more because increasing numbers of New Zealanders—40000 I think it is—do not even have jobs now. They had jobs when National became the Government and now they have lost those jobs. We could have an inquiry into the National Government’s lack of action on jobs its broken promise on tax and all of the other broken promises on the National Party’s pledge card. For example the National Party spread a massive hoax around the country saying it would cap not cut the Public Service yet 1500 public servants have found themselves out of jobs already. We could have an inquiry into National’s other big hoax at the last election: that people could have all of the things that National was promising them with no cuts to social services. We know that is not true. 
This is a good bill. I commend it to the House but I would like to see something from the Government that focuses on the things that really matter to Kiwis at the moment. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 We have just heard 10 minutes of drivel. Maybe we could have an inquiry into why it is possible for this Parliament to be held up by such a lot of absolute arrant nonsense. I point out to the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins the motto of the New York Yacht Club is that youth and enthusiasm will always be outfoxed by old age and treachery. 
Let us have some inquiries. Let the first inquiry be into why that member’s Government last year paid $200 million more than it should have for KiwiRail. Let us have an inquiry into why we bought a lease of St James Station for $40 million when it was valued at less than $15 million. When we buy a lease we buy only the value of the improvements on the property. The State already owned it. That was outrageous and there should be an inquiry about it. We could have another inquiry into why we found a black hole of $200 million in the budget of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) following Labour’s stewardship. What about the mum and dad investors who lost heaps of money because of the way you managed Auckland Airport? If you want some inquiries— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to say. I just remind members that they cannot bring the Chair into the debate so “yours” and “your” and “you” are out of order. 
JOHN HAYES 
: That member who spoke previously could face quite a number of inquiries. 
Let us come back to the purpose of the Inquiries Bill. The intent of this bill is to modernise and reform the law while providing for flexible effective efficient and fair inquiries. We need to do that because the legislation has been in place since 1908. The previous Government had 9 years to change this legislation and it did nothing. The current law that governs these inquiries is the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. 
In 2006 the Law Commission—and it always does a good job—was invited to review the law relating to public inquiries. The review focused on commissions of inquiry as well as royal commissions and non-statutory ministerial inquiries. The report that the commission produced which people listening to this debate can find at www.lawcom.govt.nz identified quite a number of problems with the 1908 Act. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Come on spice it up a bit. 
JOHN HAYES 
: First of all like that member’s hair it is over 100 years old. Some parts of the Act are seen as antiquated and some provisions are outdated. The amendments made over time have generally been in response to circumstances of a particular inquiry. This means they may resolve a very specific part of the existing Act without taking the whole context into account. 
Other problems identified included the cost and duration of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions normally assigned to the legalistic process those commissions often adopt. This resulted in very high costs and long delays in getting work completed. There was also a lack of a flexible statutory inquiry for Ministers. For example a flexible inquiry might have been made into former Labour MP Taito Phillip Field and his actions in the immigration area. Inquiries appointed outside the statutory framework lack the powers of protection of those appointed within the statutory framework. 
This bill is designed to replace for the most part the 1908 Act. There will be two types of inquiry. We will retain the royal commission and there will also be public inquiries. These will be appointed by the Governor-General on major issues of concern to the public or the Government and they will be a substitute for the commissions of inquiry. The reports from public inquiries will be tabled in Parliament. The bill also provides for Government inquiries. These will be appointed by and report directly to Ministers. They will deal with smaller and more immediate issues where a quick and authoritative response is required. The Law Commission also recommended that the ability to appoint royal commissions should be removed but the previous Government decided to retain them as the public views them as very important where matters of significant public interest are involved. All the provisions of the public inquiry will apply to royal commissions. 
Other provisions will include an express power for inquiries to be postponed or suspended where an investigation into circumstances may be undertaken or where the inquiry may prejudice the investigation of interested parties. It will also provide improved powers for obtaining evidence and information for the inquiry and it will allow a maximum fine of $10000 if a document order or information is refused to be given to the inquiry. The legislation will also formalise the role of the Department of Internal Affairs in administering all types of inquiries. 
With those words I thoroughly support this legislation and commend the Minister for his actions in promoting it here in this House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I am pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Inquiries Bill. In doing so I note that once again we are debating a Labour bill. This bill was introduced just prior to the election by a Minister in the previous Government who is now an Assistant Speaker Mr Rick Barker. So Labour did the work on this bill and it is pleasing that the National Government has had the sense to pick it up. It is fascinating that this bright shiny new National Government—although it is now starting to look a bit faded after 9 months—appears to have struggled to come up with new legislation of any substance especially after it had to own up to the inconvenient truth that tax cuts are not the answer to everything. In National’s case tax cuts are the answer to nothing except more money for the better-off. 
The bill reforms and modernises the inquiries law and follows a Law Commission review. The new forms of inquiry will replace commissions of inquiry but royal commissions will be retained under the new law recognising that the public sees those commissions as having I suppose more mana. The Inquiries Bill establishes two types of new inquiry. Public inquiries will be appointed by the Governor-General to inquire into matters of significant public importance. Government inquiries will be appointed by and report directly to a Minister and will be used for smaller and more immediate issues. Public and Government inquiries will have the same legal powers and protections. Royal commissions of inquiry are retained as a necessary measure to provide assurance to the public that a matter is being given serious independent consideration. The bill sets out the criteria for public access to inquiries and documentation. It provides for funding for legal representation for those participating in inquiries if this is seen as warranted by an inquiry and its overseeing department. It provides a range of sanctions to improve the ability to control behaviour surrounding inquiries and to avoid abuses of process. 
As I said Labour obviously supports this bill. We support the opportunity to modernise the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 which is outdated and has been amended many times thus making it confusing and difficult to administer. We support the chance for the bill to go to a select committee for consideration and have public input because that process is an important part of our democracy. It makes a nice change from some of the bills we have seen this Government ram through the House under urgency. We support this bill because public inquiries are an important and vital part of our democracy. After all New Zealand is recognised as one of the most corruption-free nations in the world and long may that continue. We support the bill because it creates more avenues for official inquiries particularly into the undemocratic behaviour of this National-ACT Government. 
I think the bill is particularly relevant at this time for the people of Auckland. I find it ironic that the Government is seeking to reform and modernise a law relating to inquiries when clearly it has little regard for the process. As my colleague Mr Hipkins has mentioned the most recent inquiry we have had is the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The Government might as well have and probably has shredded the months and months of work and the millions of dollars spent on careful analysis of what needs to happen to take my city Auckland forward. The Auckland governance reform is the biggest change in the history of local government in Auckland and probably in our country. It is important that we get it right but as Labour has said on other occasions it is equally important that the people of Auckland have a say on their future. I do not think the select committee process substitutes for that. The process the Government has followed is undemocratic especially when the people of New Zealand were led to believe by the National Party in its manifesto at the last election that National would consult with Aucklanders once the royal commission’s findings were known. I ask again as we have time and time again in the debate over Auckland governance what the rush is. Why could the people of Auckland not have a say? We were only 3 months into the term of this Government when the report of the royal commission came out but National ignored what it promised in its manifesto. I find that incredible only 3 months into the Government. 
Everybody in this House knows that for consultation to be meaningful and genuine it must happen before the key decisions are made. But what happened? The Government came out with a very speedy response to the royal commission. It was not prepared to honour its promise to go back to the people across Auckland and acknowledge to them that it is their city that they need to be involved in the decisions about the restructuring of local government and that they would be given the opportunity to have a genuine say. That is the most recent example of a royal commission. I hope that in supporting this bill today the Government does not intend to treat other inquiries with the same contempt. 
Like my colleague Mr Hipkins I can think of many inquiries that we could be conducting under this bill. We have talked today about the extraordinary events when the Minister for Social Development and Employment breached the privacy of beneficiaries because they dared to comment on Government policy. I am absolutely gobsmacked by that breach. It is scary because it says to New Zealanders that if they criticise this Government they will be punished. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who’s next? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Exactly. Who is next? There has been an extraordinary turn of events today. A Minister cannot take public criticism of her decisions so she vindictively sets out to intimidate those who dare cross her path. 
Despite all of this the public are conducting their own inquiries into for example the adult and community education funding cuts that are taking place across New Zealand. More than 100 angry people gathered in North Shore City last week—a traditional National stronghold—to oppose these cuts; likewise 500 people gathered in Christchurch last night where National MPs at least turned up but embarrassed themselves in the process. Up and down the country the opposition to these stupid cuts is gathering steam. 
We could have many other inquiries under this bill. I would like to see an inquiry into the appointment of Dr Don Brash to lead the so-called high-level advisory committee into productivity and closing the income gap with Australia. In fact I would like Don Brash to be on permanent notice of a public inquiry so that we can keep his radical right-wing agenda under permanent supervision. We do not want a Dr Don Brash prescription. We do not want it. We have had it all before: removing the rights of workers privatising assets and slashing the public sector. Did it close the trans-Tasman gap? No it widened it. It led to wage decline high unemployment and social dysfunction. I would like to see an inquiry into the secret privatisation agenda of this Government and the Trojan Horses that have been set up to achieve it: Don Brash John Whitehead Mark Weldon and the Business Roundtable. They are all chiming in and chorusing loudly together about the need to sell off New Zealand. 
I would like to see an inquiry into other things like the cuts to workplace health and safety training under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. How many lives will be lost as a consequence of those cuts? I would like to know that that will not happen. I would like to see an inquiry into the State Sector Act and whether John Whitehead crossed the line last week when he made a speech in which he made threats to the State sector and State sector workers. I would like to see an inquiry into the Maritime Transport Act and the potential consequences of the decisions of this Government to cut funding for safety courses for recreational boaties. Will the Government guarantee that there will not be any more accidents? I do not think so. One can think of so many inquiries that could be held under this bill. How about an inquiry into why so many hundreds of jobs are lost every day while this Government sits on its hands? 
Labour supports this bill. It is a good bill; it is a Labour bill. The question in the next months will be whether the National-ACT Government will act on the recommendations of John Whitehead Mark Weldon Don Brash and the Business Roundtable. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Inquiries Bill; it is important that we update the procedures. The royal commission legislation is about 100 years old and it is good that we are modernising it. The Greens are a little bit concerned that the legislation might not sufficiently guide the public inquiries that are set up under this new legislation. Just going through the bill briefly clause 3 stating the purpose is very general regarding what the public inquiry can be about. It basically just says that the bill provides for “the establishment of both public and government inquiries to inquire into matters of public importance;” which is obviously very broad ranging.There can be two quite different types of inquiry that inform this legislation and perhaps the select committee will go into this in a bit of detail. One is an inquiry into a more specific incident where there are clear parties to the incident such as the inquiry into the sinking of the  
Mikhail Lermontov 
 a few years back where we were trying to get at the essence of what exactly happened and who might be responsible. Then there are other inquiries on matters of broad public interest. The 1976 royal commission of inquiry into nuclear power was a case in point and about 5 years ago there was a royal commission of inquiry into genetic engineering. Those are quite different because they are matters of very broad public interest. 
Let us look at the powers of a public inquiry commission under this bill. It has very broad powers to decide whether to conduct interviews; whether to call witnesses and if so whom to call; whether to receive oral or written evidence; and whether to allow restricted cross-examination of witnesses and presumably to decide who does that cross-examination—whether it is the commission or whether other people are allowed to do it. So it has very broad powers and there should be a bit more guidance in the bill in terms of whom the commission might hear from and whom it might allow to do this cross-examination. Clause 18 of the bill provides for the concept of core participants who are defined as those who have “played or may have played a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the inquiry relates:”. Clause 18(2)(b) states that consideration must be given to whether that person “has a significant interest in a substantial aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates:”. I suppose the first one about a person having played a direct or significant role relates more to inquiries that are on a specific thing like as I said before the sinking of the  
Mikhail Lermontov 
. Paragraph (b) might relate to a more general inquiry like the one on genetic engineering—that is parties that have “a significant interest in a substantial aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates:”. 
Possibly that definition needs to be specified a bit more because it may be that if it is a bit too loose certain people who have a genuine interest in a topic like genetic engineering or nuclear power to use those two previous examples might not be fully recognised in terms of their role. In fact there was a lot of contention on the royal commission on genetic engineering about who had standing—I think the term used at the inquiry was “standing”; they could be there permanently. Some of those who were recognised as having standing had certain rights of cross-examination. There was quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on who had that standing. So possibly the select committee could give some more specific guidance in respect of these public inquiries so that no one gets left out. Because a position taken by an interested party may not really be an establishment one for some on the commission it could be a case of: “Oh well you’re just fringe protesters.” or whatever. But often these people represent a significant amount of public opinion and should be given full rights not only to give written and oral submissions and to be subject to cross-examination themselves but it is often very useful for them to be participants in the cross-examination of others—perhaps others with different views. With those few comments I say that the Greens will be supporting this legislation and we look forward to the select committee consideration. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will also be supporting the nuts-and-bolts non-controversial Inquiries Bill arising as it does from a Law Commission report entitled  
A New Inquiries Act 
. I will not repeat what others have said; that is a waste of time. The members on the Labour benches especially Mr Hipkins and Ms Fenton have come up with a number of mythical or theoretical inquiries we could have but we have actually had a very good example of a non-inquiry that illustrates very neatly the need for a review of this area of the law. That non-inquiry is the Taito Phillip Field inquiry conducted by Noel Ingram QC at the behest of the previous Prime Minister Ms Clark. It was a ministerial inquiry— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that that matter is currently before the court and what the member says must be taken very very seriously with that in mind. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker; I am aware of that. The Taito Phillip Field inquiry highlights the many faults of a ministerial inquiry as opposed to a more formal inquiry. Ministerial inquiries have narrow terms of reference and most crucially no power to compel testimony. What can result in inquiries of that kind is something stage-managed for political purpose whereby the motions are gone through to obtain a result. 
The bill before us allows for public and Government inquiries. Government inquiries are not ministerial inquiries. Government inquiries will be inquiries in which witnesses can be compelled and can be offered immunity and in contrast with non-statutory ministerial inquiries Government inquiries will be inquiries with real meat. 
The changes the Law Commission has recommended are largely contained in the bill. I am a little bit surprised by Mr Hipkins in the language of his generation dissing his own party’s bill. It is as if anything that has any sense is supposed to be abandoned the day there is an election. The other implication in his speech was that the only thing that can create jobs and solve economic problems is more laws. We saw that approach in the 1970s with job creation laws of varying kinds which led to railways being staffed by 90000 people when 6000 would have done at the expense of the rest of us. It is not just laws that create jobs or solve problems. 
It is heartening for me anyway to see this bill which is not anything magic or high profile and probably will not be reported in the newspapers tomorrow. It is a sensible measure but it is overdue as my colleague Keith Locke has just said by 100 years. It is sensible. Yes it was started by the other side but so what. I am quite happy to support the bill on behalf of the ACT Party. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau katoa. E Te Manatu o te Whare ki te ata titiro ki te Komihana Karauna o te tau 1988 katahi ka kitea atu te hohonutanga o nga Komihana Pakirehua. Na tenei komihana i para te ara i nga tau e rua tekau ma tahi kua taha ake.Na taua komihana i ki me aro ake te Karauna ki nga kaupapa o te Tiriti o Waitangi. I puta nga whakatau e toru kaupapa e toru ara  te mahi ngatahi te kaupapa tiaki te kaupapa kia whai wahi te katoa—i reira i whakaturia ai kia noho te Tiriti hei putake korero ma rua tekau tau neke atu. 
Engari i puta mai tetahi korero whakahirahira i taua Komihana. Na te ahorangi nei na Meihana Durie i whakaputa. E tika ana kia ata tirohia taua korero me tana panga ki tenei pire hei ara putanga e whai ake nei nga korero ra: 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all.If the 1988 Royal Commission on Social Policy were examined the significance of commissions of inquiry would be understood better. It was this ground-breaking commission 21 years ago that declared that the provisions of the Treaty require that the Crown must respect the principles of the Treaty. 
The enunciation of these principles—partnership protection and participation—helped set the foundation for the Treaty discourse for the next two decades and more.  
But there was a particular statement reported back from the Royal Commission on Social Policy by Professor Mason Durie that is so remarkable that it must be considered in this Inquiries Bill as a model of the quality of outcomes we can expect and I quote: 
] 
“The Commission believes that the Treaty is always speaking and that it has relevance to all economic and social policies. Not only must the past be reviewed in light of its principles but the Treaty’s promise must also be seen as fundamental to those principles which will underline social well-being in years to come.” 
He motuhake te noho a te komihana mo nga take a-iwi a te Karauna na te whanui me te wharoa o tona titiro. Mai i taua wa tae noa ki enei ra ka kitea ona tapuwae i te whanuitanga o nga kaupapa ahuatanga a-iwi. Ko te mea miharo i whakairia ai e taua komihana i hangai tonu te Tiriti o Waitangi ki nga kaupapa ahuatanga a-iwi ki nga kaupapa ohaoha ano hoki. Koia nei tetahi kaupapa kua whakahaerehia ara ki te whakarongo ki te whanuitanga o nga tumanako o te Maori a kia whakakohatia ki runga pepa. 
Engari ehara i te mea he tauira motuhake taua Komihana Karauna 
.  
Ara ano te Royal Commission on the Electoral System 
i whakaturia e te Karauna nana tonu i whakatakoto i te korero kia whai a Aotearoa i te MMP i te tau 1986 i te 11 o Tihema ara o Hakihea. No te tau 2001 i puta te purongo a te Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 
me wa ratou kupu awhina ko ta ratau me tupato wa tatau raweke haere i te whakapapa o te tangata me ata tatari i nga raruraru ka puta. A ka mutu e kore e taea e te tangata kotahi i tenei Whare te aro kore ki te Komihana a te Karauna mo te whakahaeretanga o Tamaki-makau-rau. Mena e pokaikaha ana koutou e te minenga e te Whare koutou ma mo nga korero kua whakaputaina e au me hoki pea nga whakaaro ki te hikoi i Takaparawha i te 25 o Haratua i tenei tau. Ki reira ka kitea te whanui o te whakaoreoretanga o te hinengaro o te tangata whenua.  
Na i runga i tera kei te ahua noho tumeke tonu te ngakau ki ta te Aka Matua a te Ture me tana tono kia whakarerekengia kia whakahoungia te ahuatanga o te Komihana Pakirehua. Ki taku mohio ko tana hiahia ki te whakakore i nga Komihana katoa. Ko ta ratau kia rua anake nga momo pakirehua ko tetahi he pakirehua a-iwi ko tetahi ma te Kawanatanga—ma nga minita—a me whakakorea nga Komihana a te Karauna me tona momo. Hoi ano ko ta te Kawanatanga whakatau me noho tonu te Komihana Motuhake o te Karauna na te mea ki ta te Tari TaiwhenuaTe Tari Ture o te Karauna me te Ratonga Tumu Whakarae me pupuri tonu na runga i te mea ki ta te titiro o nga hapori he painga i reira. 
Ahakoa i whakakorengia taua tono kei te aro tenei pire ki etahi ake o nga whakataunga a te Aka Matua o te Ture. I kitea e ratau ko te putake o tenei pire—Te Ture o te tau 1908—he hanga tawhito he rangirua karekau he hua o roto he rahi rawa te utu a ka kutia nga mahi pakirehua. Na ko te ahua nei ko nga Komihana a-Kawana nei ahakoa ka oti wawe he ngawari te utu ko te raruraru ke karekau he mea tiaki i nga tangata ka tu ki mua o te Komihana. Kare pea ratau e marama i nga tikanga me nga whainga arotake ki te Official Information Act ranei me te panga ki a ratau. 
A no reira anei te pire hou hei awhina. Ka tautoko Te Pati Maori i te tono mo nga kaupapa papai kua ata whakaarohia. He whakaaro pai tonu. Ka taea e nga tari kawanatanga te awhina a-putea i nga tangata kei te hiahia ki te tu ki mua i nga Komihana Pakirehua. A ka tika hoki kia tu motuhake nga mema kia orite ta ratau whakawa i tena i tena. He whakaaro pai tera kua whakatakotohia ara me whai te Komihana Pakirehua i tona ake ara engari me whai i te turee mahi engari me mahia i runga i te pono me te tika. Kare au i te kite i te tika o te kaupapa kia utaina nga whaina taumaha ki runga i nga ture kia hangaia e tenei Whare. Kare he painga i roto i tenei. Ko te whiu a te pire kia piki nga whaina mai i tona taumata o te tahi mano taara ki te taumata hou o te tekau mano taara. Ko etahi o nga mahi whaina ko enei.Tuatahi mena kare te tangata e hanake ahakoa te tono kare a ia e whakaputa nga whakaaturanga e mohiotia ana e ia a he mahi tauwhati whakaporearea i te hui. Ahakoa ena taumahatanga kei roto i te pire tetahi ake ahua ka taea e te ropu pakirehua te tono kia noho nama te tangata mena i whakaarohia na nga mahi porearea tinihanga ranei kare e wawe oti nga hui a ena ka nui ake te utu. Engari kia mohio mai koutou tera pea me uru mai tetahi kaupapa ki roto i teWhare Paremata. Kei konei hoki tetahi kaupapa hei mahi whakaroa i nga ture.Te kaupapa e kia nei ko te filibustering  
Ko ta matau mo tenei pire he tapiri atu he mea whakatikatika a-ture kia mana ai te Tiriti o Waitangi i te wa e whiriwhiria ana nga Komihana Pakirehua. Anei etahi whakaaro hei tirohanga kia whai mana te Tiriti o Waitangi: kia whai mana nga ropu Maori i runga i ta ratau motuhaketanga.Kaua e tatari kia tukuna te tono ki te tangata kotahi; me whakataungia nga mema Maori i runga i to ratau ake matauranga i roto o te ao a-iwi nei. Kaua e whakatu i runga i te kaupapa he iti noa iho te toto Maori kei roto i a ratau; me titiro ano nga whakataunga i raro i nga kaupapa o te Tiriti; me haere nga mema o nga Komihana Pakirehua ki nga hui a te Maori kia marama mai ratau ki te ao me nga whakaaro o tena iwi o tena iwi. 
Hei ta Moana Jackson i a ia e titiro ana ki tenei kaupapa ko tana ko te titiro ki te ahuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi he ahua rite ki nga kupu e whai ake an exquisite politeness. Ko enei kupu na Simon Upton. Nana i ki “Maori have been listened to with exquisite politeness and cosmic tact and then basically passed by.” 
A no reira tera pea kua rere te wa mo nga kupu waha huka hei arai hei whai mana te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
Me kore e tukuna te Tiriti kia noho ngoikore ki tahaki. He tino tikanga hei whai mo te kaupapa a-ture kei te whatumanawa e titi ana. He kaupapa a-tangata a-ohaoha ranei. Me rangatira te whanaungatanga i waenganui i te Karauna me to tatau iwi. No reira ko tenei pire tetahi wahanga mo te rarangi take ka wanangahia mo te kaupapa a-ture. Ka tautoko matau i tenei pire i tona haeranga tuatahi a kei mua tonu nga korero hei whakawa i a ia. Kia ora tatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Social Policy was unique in the breadth of its coverage and the impact of its scope. The obvious reflection of this is the fact that to this day its conclusions remain of profound influence across the widest social policy settings. In particular the commission was distinguished by its recognition that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was as relevant to social policy as it is to economic policy. It was also one of the biggest exercises to hear from Maori communities to listen to the aspirations articulated by Maori and to have those documented for the record. 
Of course that royal commission is not an isolated example. The Royal Commission on the Electoral System which first recommended New Zealand adopt the mixed-member proportional voting system was submitted on 11 December 1986. The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which reported in 2001 recommended that New Zealand should proceed with caution on genetic modification minimising and managing risks. And of course no one in this House can ignore the interest provoked by 
 the Royal Commission 
on Auckland Governance 
. 
If there is any doubt about what I am saying I would suggest that the hikoi that took place on 25 May Bastion Point Day gave a pretty sharp steer as to whether that particular royal commission has generated much interest for the people of the land. 
Given this background it is rather surprising to learn that the Law Commission proposed to reform and modernise inquiries law by doing away with royal commissions of inquiry. Its recommendation was that there should be only two types of inquiries: public and Government—ministerial—and do away with the third type royal commissions as a distinct form of inquiry. Against this recommendation the Government has instead decided to maintain the royal commission concluding upon advice from the Department of Internal Affairs Crown Law and the Cabinet Office that they should be retained as they are perceived by the public as having added gravitas. 
Notwithstanding the rejection of this key recommendation the Inquiries Bill does respond to most of the other important findings of the Law Commission. The commission found that the very foundations of this bill—the 1908 Act—was in itself antiquated confusing and brought unnecessary and costly constraints to the process of inquiries. It also considered that ministerial inquiries while they are often quick and cost-effective have little protection in place for those taking part or even help in understanding how processes such as judicial review or the Official Information Act apply to them. 
So now we have this new bill to make the difference. The Maori Party supports the commitment to what seem to be common-sense improvements.  
It makes good sense that relevant departments can grant legal assistance funding for specified persons to appear before an inquiry. It is a thoroughly sensible expectation that members must act independently impartially and fairly. And it is a good idea that unless there are particular terms of reference an inquiry can be conducted as an inquiry sees fit—as long as it complies with rules of natural justice.  
I do not see any value in the addition of hefty fines in the laws created by this House. There isno benefit in that. The bill recommends that penalties for disobedience in regard to an inquiry’s orders are pushed up from a maximum of $1000 to a maximum of $10000. 
The various offences that earn this fine include failing to attend or give evidence or disrupting proceedings. If that is not Draconian enough the bill now provides that an inquiry may make an order awarding costs against a person if it is thought that person has unduly lengthened or obstructed the inquiry or added undue cost to the inquiry. Mind you the idea of fining members in this House for the practice of filibustering—that peculiarly parliamentary practice of obstructing legislation by a range of delaying tactics—has some appeal! 
During the passage of this bill we intend to support the intention to modernise and reform inquiries laws by tabling an amendment that will require all inquiries to recognise the Treaty of Waitangi in their deliberations. Some of the considerations that might be reviewed in establishing a Treaty framework could be: Maori collectives should be considered part of the inquiry as of right rather than waiting for an individualised invitation; Maori members should be appointed on their knowledge base not merely by virtue of having whakapapa Maori; the findings of the inquiry should be reviewed from a Treaty perspective; members of inquiries should be required to attend public hui or meetings associated with the inquiry to assist them in refining their understanding on the views relevant to Maori. 
In his paper reflecting on the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification renowned Maori academic and lawyer Moana Jackson described the way in which the commission responded to Maori views as the redefining of the Treaty of Waitangi as akin to “an exquisite politeness”. This phrase itself came from a comment from former MP Simon Upton that “Maori have been listened to with exquisite politeness and cosmic tact and then basically passed by.” So perhaps the time for politeness—exquisite cosmic or otherwise—when it comes to protecting and honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi has run its course. 
The Treaty requires more than being passed by. There are critical constitutional issues at heart as well as social and economic imperatives that any issues affecting tangata whenua are dealt with in the context of a meaningful Treaty relationship between our people and the Crown.  
This bill then is another component of the constitutional review agenda. We will support it at this its first reading and look forward to the subsequent debates. Greetings to us all. 
] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak in support of the Inquiries Bill. It is the third bill that has been before the House today that has been supported across the House. I am sure New Zealanders will be pleased to see that this House works together incredibly well in putting forward bills that will benefit all New Zealanders. It is a bit of a recurring theme today. It feels like there should be a group hug by the end of the day but I am not sure the members over there will be that way inclined. 
Let us have a look at this particular bill. The current law that governs inquiries is the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. It is a little out of date and needs a bit of work. We all know that public inquiries have always played an important role in New Zealand society for much of our history but it is interesting that commissions of inquiry have a much earlier history than 1908. Their introduction goes back to the signing of the  
Domesday Book 
 in the 11th century. The creation of the  
Domesday Book  
was the first time the Crown had examined its own workings and modified its powers. The  
Domesday Book 
 was the result of research and recommendation by agents of the Crown and is referred to as perhaps the first royal commission. That is enough of a history lesson on how commissions of inquiry came about. 
In 2006 the Law Commission reviewed the current law regarding public inquiries and published quite a lengthy document in May 2008 which called for and in fact was entitled  
A New Inquiries Act 
. It identified some of the issues with the 1908 Act including its being over 100 years old and antiquated and that many of the provisions are outdated. The need has been to make this legislation come into this century and to look at some of the problems that were identified. One of the issues is the cost and duration of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions. It is important at this time—at any time—that we be looking to be efficient in terms of both time and money and commissions of inquiry are not exempt from that. One of the other issues the Law Commission identified was the lack of flexible statutory inquiry for Ministers. Those were a couple of the problems that the report from the Law Commission came out with with the intention of solving. Many members have spoken on the bill today and given a whole range of examples of inquiries. The one that stood out for me was the Erebus royal commission which was about Air New Zealand and headed by Justice Mahon. That one stood out for me of all the list of inquiries I looked into. 
The Inquiries Bill will make some important changes so that there is an express power for inquiries to be postponed or suspended where an investigation into the circumstances can be undertaken and where the inquiry may prejudice the investigation or interested parties. There is also the inclusion in the bill of a maximum fine of $10000 if somebody does not provide the evidence or documentation that he or she is required to by an inquiry. The bill also formalises the role of the Department of Internal Affairs in administering all types of inquiries. 
There has been a lot of discussion. There is not a lot more that I will add at this point but I will just say at the first reading of the Inquiries Bill that I commend it to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to support the Inquiries Bill. As others have said this bill is about modernising a very important process in our system—the inquiry process. I will start by acknowledging the Hon Rick Barker and by noting that this legislation is yet another piece of work undertaken by the previous Labour Government. 
I want to look at some of the aspects of the bill. First of all the bill establishes two new types of inquiry: public and Government inquiries. Public inquiries would be appointed by the Governor-General to inquire into matters of significant public importance. Government inquiries would be appointed by and would report directly to a Minister and would be used for smaller and more immediate issues. The bill also reforms and modernises the inquiry law and as others have mentioned follows the Law Commission review. That review recommended replacing royal commissions but the bill ensures that they are retained under the new law. The bill sets out criteria for public access to inquiries and their documentation. It provides for funding for legal representation for those participating in inquiries if this is warranted and provides a range of sanctions to improve the ability to control behaviour surrounding inquiries and to avoid abuses of their process. 
As a number of people have commented the Law Commission report  
A New Inquiries Act 
 identified three broad problems with the existing inquiry structure. First of all the current Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 is antiquated and has been amended many times sometimes in response to one-off situations. Some provisions in there are quite confusing. The view was that a thorough re-examination was needed. The report also noted that royal commissions and commissions of inquiry are very costly with legalistic procedures. Thirdly it was noted that there has been an increasing preference for non-statutory ministerial inquiries but those currently take place outside of a statutory framework. 
The Law Commission proposed a number of new provisions for a new inquiries Act and I want to talk a little more about them. One of the things noted in this whole process was the importance of inquiries. I think it is worth noting why they are important. Inquiries play a key role in our democratic system. They provide an independent response to matters of public importance that cannot be adequately dealt with by permanent investigatory or statutory bodies. They can be essential tools for reassuring and obtaining public confidence. I think that is really important. They provide a sense of accountability find out what happened and develop new policy proposals. The fact that by nature they are one-off means that they can be adapted to suit unique issues by way of the terms of reference the composition the budget and so on. 
I think the debate about royal commissions was a very interesting one because the Law Commission itself felt that royal commissions should go. It concluded that they were adding an unnecessary complexity to the inquiry landscape. The alternative view and the one that prevailed was that the new Act should apply to royal commissions in a similar way to the 1908 Act. As has already been mentioned a royal commission is seen to give added gravitas. One of the purposes of inquiries—as I have just said—is to assure the public that the matter is being given serious and independent consideration. Probably there are situations where only the appointment of a royal commission will provide that assurance. 
Other speakers have mentioned some royal commissions that have taken place and it was an interesting process looking through them. I thought I might add a few to the debate as well. The 1966 Royal Commission on Workers’ Compensation undertaken by Justice Woodhouse was a very important one. I hope it will not be undermined over the course of this term of a National Government. We will wait and see. 
The 1975 Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report upon Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion was another very significant inquiry in New Zealand’s history. I think Ms Upston has already mentioned that in 1980 there was the Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report upon the Crash on Mount Erebus Antarctica which is one that I know many people in this House will remember. They will remember that tragedy. That same year there was the Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report upon the Circumstances of the Convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas for the Murders of David Harvey Crewe and Jeanette Lenore Crewe. 
The 1985 Royal Commission on the Electoral System ended up being very important and it created the system we now have. Most recently as my colleagues Chris Hipkins and Darien Fenton previously talked about there was the 2007 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. It is very interesting to look at some of those royal commissions and I think probably all members in the House can recall how significant those royal commissions have been in our history. 
We are in the middle of seeing what happens as a result of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. I would be remiss not to reinforce the fact that as others have mentioned that royal commission did a great deal of work over 18 months and much of it was overturned over a week by the Government. We are now in the process of seeing what the Government will make of the very very important issue of what governance in Auckland should look like. 
My colleagues have talked about areas requiring inquiry and I thought I might add one because I feel very strongly that there is an issue that we should be inquiring into immediately. It is the complete and utter disservice that has been done to New Zealand and our people by the Government’s lack of action on lifelong learning and skills development. I will talk about the need for an inquiry in that area. 
This afternoon the Prime Minister made various statements in this House about his platform to work with unions and business. He talked about his supposed desire to make New Zealand more productive. Well that is all very interesting but there is a complete lack of action to really reinforce that. I am thinking particularly of some very very sad things going on at the moment in the area of adult education. Let me talk to members about one project called Learning Representatives. It was endorsed by business and supported by Government. It was run by the union movement. It involved the creation of elected worker representatives in an enterprise to play a leadership role in encouraging workplace learning. Those people would be trained in that role that would make sure that their colleagues were aware of training opportunities looking at possible career paths ahead of them and dealing with literacy and numeracy problems. They would make sure that the workplace had a lifelong learning culture. That sounds like something that might be in the area of the Prime Minister’s interest in working with unions and business. It might be something in the area of his interest in making us all a bit more productive. It all certainly sounds pretty good. But what did we see in the Budget? We saw that its funding had been slashed. Funding for that programme—a very very constructive programme—was slashed so it will not be nearly as successful as it might have been. 
Talking about slashing successful initiatives in the learning and skills area let me mention the issue of adult learning. This surely should be the subject of an inquiry. It seems to me that something as cost-effective as adult and community education something that makes such a huge difference in people’s lives and something that gives adults the opportunity to engage with learning in order to develop new skills in areas that are really central to our economy should be the subject of an inquiry. 
I have here the programme for the adult learning centre at Onehunga High School and One Tree Hill College. What are the areas we are looking at? Business and careers computing English literacy and numeracy languages self care and personal development. There are arts and crafts and various other things but those are the big-ticket items. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to take a quick call on the Inquiries Bill. 
Before I do I want to just touch on a few things that young Mr Hipkins said at the start of his speech. In typical Labour fashion he kicked off by saying that this was a Labour bill and he took credit for it. But he added another dimension to that theme by saying that if Labour was in power that would be exactly where the bill would stay—languishing on the Order Paper. Why? Because according to Mr Hipkins a Labour Government would introduce more important legislation. He tried to stop himself but he actually used those words. He said that Labour would be focusing on the things that matter. Where have we heard that? 
What would those things that matter to Labour be? Perhaps last year’s efforts by the last remnants of the previous Labour Government are a guide to what those members would have done this year. Those members rammed through legislation on electoral finance under urgency which was described by all commentators as an affront to democracy; passed a completely unworkable emissions trading scheme which had more than 700 amendments that had never gone near a select committee; delivered a Budget that emptied the coffers in a futile attempt to gain the electorate’s favour on— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are on the Inquiries Bill. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Mr Hipkins opened the door. Well if that is Labour’s idea of focusing on the things that matter then it is a good thing that the public focused on its members and threw Labour out of office. 
Let us talk about inquiries. We heard Darien Fenton talk about what sorts of inquiries she would have liked. There was a long list of others that we could have had in the last 9 years such as “Doone-gate” “paintergate” “Dover-gate”— 
Amy Adams 
: “Speedgate”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —“speedgate”. There were more gates than on Amy Adams’ farm. But it is important that we focus just for a little bit— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That was witty. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The member may feel free to laugh. Mr Deputy Speaker I am sure that you are chuckling on the inside. 
I will touch on a couple of things that Mr Flavell raised in terms of the gravitas of this and the fact that the royal— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You wouldn’t know what gravitas is. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I did; I learnt a very good word. The Law Commission mentioned that these inquiries did not need the strength of a royal appointment. The legislation as it was introduced by the previous Government did not agree with the Law Commission on that point and I support that. Also I think that the fines that are introduced certainly add to the importance of the commission. Commissions are very costly and it behoves those who participate in them to take them seriously. I think the fines regime is something that the select committee might work on. But I support the bill and I look forward to it going to a select committee. Thanks. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in the dead of night as it were as we move to close at 10 o’clock. I will touch on the comments of the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse when he said that his Government would focus on the things that matter. 
This is an Inquiries Bill. Inquiries are very important to the general public especially when they do not get their say. There are matters of controversy whether they be political criminal or constitutional that this bill will address in terms of modernising the inquiry function. Let us focus on one of the things that matter. 
Tonight I propose an inquiry. The inquiry would be a very good one on one simple matter: the $2.5 million that has been gutted out of the special-needs budget. This affects mostly children. One in particular called Brittany Graham I will speak about a little later on. [ 
Interruption 
] That $2.5 million as National members chip away over there to children—[ 
Interruption 
] They do not like it of course. They do not like it now. Let us focus on the things that matter. That is what that pompous individual over there said. The sum of $114000 has been taken off Addington School where there is a group of children some of whom who are able to walk for the first time with the aid of a ladder. They cannot control their bodily functions because they suffer from cerebral palsy. 
The mother of one of the children a constituent of mine said to me that the previous Government kept her daughter alive for the last 9 years. She was a premature birth. The previous Government kept her daughter alive. It has spent a vast amount of taxpayers’ money helping this child. The funding is now being taken away—$114000 which is a drop in the bucket in a Government’s Budget—and that will probably force that mum to withdraw that child from school. Those are the mum’s words. The mother said a very interesting thing. She said that if her daughter is withdrawn from school “All the money that the taxpayers generously spent on my daughter will go down the toilet.” because the costs— 
Amy Adams 
: How’s this about the bill? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Because we will have an inquiry on that. That learned lawyer did not even have the intestinal fortitude to turn up at Papanui High School last night to face 500 people whose adult and community education funding she had gutted. She did not turn up there. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Inquiries Bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We would have had a great time having an inquiry last night. 
I say there should be an inquiry with the stature of a royal commission. That mum said that for the amount of money that would be required to deal with her daughter’s health problems which were being addressed through conductive education funded by the State every year for 9 years— 
Hon Members 
: Talk about the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sure that Julie Baker would relish an inquiry as to why the rug has been pulled out from under her 12-year-old daughter’s feet. Her 12-year-old daughter has been able to walk through therapy. Her mother would love an inquiry. Up until now her daughter has not been able to control her bowels but as a result of the therapy that she has been getting because of the previous Government’s funding she now has some dignity. I met that girl last week. 
As those members chirp on and bleat over there about the things that do not matter I say to that pompous member who has been here for 5 minutes that he might want to stand up and answer questions at an inquiry to be called to give evidence to an inquiry as to why his Government cut $2.5 million for those children. That would be an interesting inquiry would it not? I think it would. I think at the very least yes those members won; yes they have the numbers; and yes they have a right to govern but I think it was John McCain who said that elections have consequences. My word do elections have consequences! 
Louise Upston 
: “Thank goodness” the public are saying. Thank goodness we have got the ability to do it! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I invite that genius from Taupo to go back to her electorate talk to the parents who are involved in conductive education and find the— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is getting out of hand. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even taking into account “Mini-Mike’s” limitations this speech is simply too far wide of the mark. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Although members can give examples of inquiries and I have given some latitude to all speakers tonight I ask the member to come back to what the bill is about. I want quietness from the Labour side of the House. Interjections are fine but that last outrage was unacceptable. The member will confine his comments to the bill please. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. I will do what every other member has done tonight and that is refer to a list of inquiries. I take no offence at “Tinkerbell’s” intervention from over on that side of the House. He can call me names. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When we are referring to members we refer to them by their names. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well he can do the same to me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am saying to all members that we refer to members by their names. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. You have to be able to take it I say to Mr Finlayson if you are going to dish it out. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has been here long enough to know that as Mr Hipkins would say on a point of order one cannot say “you”. The member has his limitations but he really must sharpen up. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The point is taken. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to that learned gentleman who could not even become a Queen’s Counsel after being a senior partner in a law firm. What a genius that member is. 
I really look forward to the passage of this bill. As we go— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: “Mr Comb-over.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh there he goes again—old “Tinkerbell”; poor old soul that he is. All he can do is chirp from the sidelines. It would be really nice if Mr Finlayson got up and as a Cabinet Minister addressed some of the points I have made about an inquiry into conductive education. It may be that as a learned lawyer he in a past life was called upon to represent some of those parents in an inquiry. Maybe he has perhaps in a court of law advocated for some of those parents. I doubt it but maybe he has. If he has I would be grateful if he would tell us. I would be indebted to him. But it would be very interesting for the Cabinet Minister who made that decision to be on the sharp end of an inquiry— 
Hon Member 
: Go on! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—it would be a sharp end too—and to be forced to give an explanation to the people of New Zealand for his actions. 
I support this bill. It is very interesting to elicit the colourful responses because they are called guilt they are called shame and that is why those people get so upset. These issues are sharp issues they are the issues that matter and I invite some of these very gutsy members to get up front up to an inquiry or otherwise and explain how they have cut the parents of this country off at the knees. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I support the Inquiries Bill and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.