Volume 645 Week 68 - Tuesday 4 March 2008 
Volume 645 Week 68 - Tuesday 4 March 2008 
[Volume:645;Page:14515] 
Tuesday 4 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Ann Hartley Labour 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Ann Hartley resigning her seat in the House with effect from the close of 28 February 2008. As a consequence of Ann Hartley’s resignation there is a vacancy in the office of Assistant Speaker. 
List Member Vacancy 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Louisa Hareruia Wall has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Margaret Ann Hartley. 
Members Sworn 
Madam Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Louisa Wall who then took her seat in the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the state of health care in this country when 13 members of the senior medical advisory committee at Waitemata District Health Board feel compelled to issue a public statement complaining about amongst other things treatment delays postponed operations and a severe shortage of beds; if the senior doctors working at Waitemata District Health Board no longer have confidence in the system why should the public of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As someone who has been a Minister of Health I know the demand for resources is infinite. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is not in the business of promising everybody everything they want—unless perhaps he is. 
John Key 
: Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question—these are the 13 senior members of the medical council at the Waitemata District Health Board who have gone public and said they have major concerns about their confidence in the health system; if she is not prepared to answer the question why does she not let someone else answer it because the people of New Zealand deserve to know whether they can have confidence in the health system? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member really wanted an answer to that question he would have put it down in a primary question. I invite him to do so. 
John Key 
: I take it that if the Prime Minister did not answer on two goes she will not answer on three. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! Supplementary question John Key. 
John Key 
: What does the Prime Minister therefore have to say to New Zealand women operated on unsuccessfully by a surgeon who was appointed by the Whanganui District Health Board without it doing the basic background checks? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That was an appalling state of affairs. I note the specialist also got registration through the totally autonomous Medical Council. 
John Key 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the people of Hawke’s Bay who are outraged that her Minister has sacked the democratically elected district health board promoting legal challenges from all five of the region’s local authorities? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is very important that the Government is assured that a board can deliver quality health services for Hawke’s Bay which clearly the dysfunction in this board and in its relationships with its staff have stopped it doing. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has exposed the political reality that district health boards exist to be a rubber stamp to the Minister of the day to take the rap when things go wrong and to be swiftly removed from office if they step out of line or challenge the Minister of Health in any way; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would not have thought such a conclusion could be drawn from the fact that one board has been dismissed and a good commissioner put in since 1989. 
Rodney Hide 
: How does the Prime Minister intend to allay the understandable concern that the Minister’s appointee Peter Hausmann was abusing his board position to arrange a sweetheart deal for himself and employed the Minister’s husband to help him out on that sweetheart deal and that the Minister has now sacked the entire board in order to cover up what is a stinking and corrupt mess? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I very much look forward to the release of the report commissioned by the Director-General of Health on this matter. I note that its release was held up because the last board took out an injunction against it. That was Mr Atkinson and other National Party friends who did not want the truth to come out. 
John Key 
: How can New Zealanders possibly have confidence in the New Zealand health service run by the Prime Minister’s Government when in just the last few weeks we have seen the following: a report released that shows the chance of having a medical mishap in New Zealand hospitals is one in seven; the Health and Disability Commissioner slam the Whanganui District Health Board; an independent external review of Auckland’s mental health unit document a string of serious failures; seven doctors at the Waitemata District Health Board go public about the state of their hospital; and the Prime Minister herself not even bother to answer questions about what is wrong with the health system? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I invite the member to look at comparative information about how the Kiwi health system stacks up. It stacks up very well against international comparisons. I will say without fear of contradiction that most of us have family members or close acquaintances who have been delivered lifesaving care by the Kiwi health system and long may that be the case. 
Marine Biodiversity—Reserves 
2.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Can she confirm that only 0.3 percent of New Zealand’s marine environment is protected in marine reserves compared to 32 percent of our total land area currently protected for conservation purposes; if so does she think this is sufficient to allow for the protection and recovery of marine biodiversity and ecosystems? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 No; that figure is not accurate because marine reserve legislation extends only to the 12-mile nautical limit. Within that limit 7.6 percent of the marine area is protected by marine reserves. We are currently working to further increase that figure through the Marine Protected Areas Policy which creates a network of protection of 14 coastal regions throughout New Zealand. 
Metiria 
 Turei 
: Why has the Government chosen not to implement the Marine Protection Areas Policy in the exclusive economic zone using the benthic protection areas as justification for this when these areas have been conclusively shown by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists to “coincide strongly with areas of low biodiversity …” and therefore these areas in particular offer worse protection than selecting areas at random? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I referred to that issue in my first answer but I want to mention also that benthic protection areas are only one of a range of tools that may be used to protect marine biodiversity and they are useful in protecting a range of seafloor habitats. 
Moana Mackey 
: What work is the Government undertaking to further improve protection for marine life off New Zealand’s coast? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: The Labour-led Government has added 15 new reserves since 2000 and a further two are currently being finalised. We have also created a network of marine protected areas in 14 coastal regions. Community groups are now working in four of these regions to identify what areas should be protected and how. That is great and it is under way right now. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister advise us whether she intends to make the West Coast area from Maunganui Bluff to Cape Egmont a marine mammal sanctuary and has she consulted Maori on this issue? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: At the moment the West Coast area is the first area that we have gone out on on the Marine Protected Areas Policy. There was a great discussion at the first meeting held in the last couple of weeks so we will wait until the end of those discussions with the community and with marine fishermen. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister concerned that the recent revision of the Crown Minerals policy with its aim to “minimise the regulatory impact on industry.” will further fuel the Government-promoted rush of mining permits in the marine area when we still have pathetic regulation to protect the marine environment including no oceans policy after 7 years of talk; and does she agree that the Government would do well to apply the theme of Seaweek—“One ocean—it starts with me”—to its own policies and practices? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am pleased the member mentioned Seaweek which was launched just last week; there are a range of activities going on over Seaweek this week. I think it is through consultation on the marine protected areas that we are going to see interest in the mining applications as well as in the areas around the country where we may be expecting further applications. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the protection of marine biodiversity includes the significant whale populations that migrate through New Zealand waters; if so will she take heed of the creative Sails for Whales petition signed by over 6000 New Zealanders which was presented to me and to her today on the steps of Parliament and which called for much more to be done to stop the continued unjustified slaughter of whales including the sending of a navy vessel to observe whaling operations? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes I was also on the steps to receive the petition. I think it is a great democratic tool for people to show their level of concern about whaling in the subantarctic seas and it will be a great support for my work when I go to the International Whaling Commission in June. I thank those who undertake those democratic processes to show us their level of concern. But no we will not be sending a vessel to the subantarctic seas as we have mentioned before. 
Metiria 
 Turei 
: I seek leave to table a photograph of the four large signed sails that were placed in Parliament grounds today. 
Photograph by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
District Health Boards—Tendering Processes 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What rules or principles govern the tendering process of multimillion-dollar contracts by district health boards and does he believe these were followed by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in relation to its community services proposal? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 District health boards are required to adhere to guidance provided by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General and Treasury the Ministry of Health’s operating policy framework and the district health boards’ own board procurement and provider selection protocols and policies. From the information currently available to me I do not believe that these processes were followed at all times by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. In his recent report the Auditor-General concluded that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s policies do not comply with good public sector practice. The Director-General of Health has commissioned an independent review of the governance practices of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and I look forward to receiving that report on 17 March. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister explain why that at the same time Annette King was telling Cabinet that Mr Hausmann should be appointed to the board and that he understood how to manage his conflicts of interest Mr Hausmann was colluding with the chief executive to make changes to tender documents in order to benefit his own company over all others; surely even this Minister must see that for the Labour cronyism it is? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I note that at all times the former Minister of Health followed the appropriate Cabinet processes for the appointment of that director. I suggest that the member wait until he sees the final report from the director-general before committing his own reputation in defence of certain parties. 
Lesley Soper 
: Is the Minister satisfied that all required tendering and procurement processes were followed in relation to the contract with Royston Hospital for elective surgery? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. Although I do not have access to the material that may be the subject of the director-general’s review I am aware of allegations of inappropriate governance processes that cause me great concern. Some of those allegations were contained in submissions made to me last week that have now been made public—I repeat some of them. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will the inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board reveal the extent of management mishandling of the contract tendering process as distinct from board dysfunction; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have not seen a draft or a copy of work in progress of that governance report I like the member will wait for the final on 17 March. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware of the email that shows that chief executive Chris Clarke instructed staff to send draft tender documents to Mr Hausmann—who had indicated he would be a bidder—some weeks before the tender process opened and before any other bidder saw the documents; and is this acceptable behaviour? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have already confirmed I do not have access to the material that may be the subject of the director-general’s independent review but I do note that the member seems to be labouring under some misapprehension that it is my role to defend Mr Hausmann which it is not. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is he aware of this email that shows that Mr Hausmann appointed by the Labour Government having received this confidential draft tender document proposed changes that would benefit his company and is that what he would expect of someone being appointed to the board of that very district health board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place may I reconfirm to the member and to the House that my decision of recent weeks did not turn on which parties may or may not have acted correctly but is predicated on the level of overall conflict and dysfunction at that district health board. In the second instance I wonder whether the member is drawing upon material that is covered by a confidentiality deed subject to lawyers’ undertakings in respect of the director-general’s independent process. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is he aware from this email that the chief executive agreed to alter the tender documents in precisely the terms proposed by Mr Hausmann at a time when no other bidder had such access and is that a proper and ethical process? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I think the public will find it very interesting when the final director-general’s report comes out just exactly what has been doctored by whom. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is he aware that the final document that went out to all tenderers incorporated the changes proposed by Mr Hausmann whose company was the eventual successful party and does he think that all potential bidders were fairly treated equally in this process? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: May I firstly confirm that I do not have access to the material that is in the director-general’s draft report and secondly may I reconfirm to the House that my decisions in respect of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board do not turn on the proprieties or otherwise of any one individual but rather on the overall level of conflict and dysfunction surrounding that board. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a standard in this House that when a Minister gives an answer it should be truthful. In successive answers the Minister has just contradicted himself. In this answer he said that he had no access to the draft material in the report being done by the Director-General of Health. In a previous answer he intimated that material was going to come out showing that someone had altered the minutes of no doubt some significant meeting. He cannot say both things to the House within 3 minutes—first that he does not know about the material and then on the other hand give details and quote from that material. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister clearly said he had not received details. In his previous answer he said he would welcome the report appearing and he would expect that the report would show exactly who doctored what. I note the highly sensitive reaction from the Opposition front bench on that matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Dr Cullen’s explanation is completely irrelevant. The fact is the Minister made two directly contradictory statements about his access to the material. The House has the right to know which one it should believe because it cannot believe both. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr English himself tried to cover his own butt by saying the Minister intimated certain things. What in fact happened was that members on the Opposition front bench inferred certain things which might imply certain knowledge on their behalf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a matter of debate it is not a point of order and undoubtedly there will be opportunities to do that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister recognise that the email from Mr Hausmann proposing changes to the tender document to his advantage is a smoking gun showing that there is something rotten and improper in the relationship between the management of this district health board and Mr Hausmann and does he condone this sort of activity within a public organisation? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: When the director-general’s review is finally published having been delayed by the board acting at the request of the chairman I think we will see which smoking guns are pointed at whom. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that this stench of cronyism all began because of Annette King’s foolish and senseless promotion of Mr Hausmann and does the Minister have any idea why Annette King was so keen to appoint this man? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Any appointments that may have been made before my time as Minister are of little concern to me in this instance. I have acted—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have set out the grounds of my decision in respect of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board upon taking careful advice and considering all possible options. Those grounds have nothing in particular to do with the appointment to which the member refers. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the emails and documents mentioned in my questions. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Electricity—Supply 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received in relation to projected energy supply for the coming winter period? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy 
: The Minister has received the latest hydroelectricity report which shows that lake levels are in a much better position this week than they were in last week. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he received about the state of energy generation in New Zealand that are less reliable? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Gerry Brownlee said that the Whirinaki plant is running “flat out”. By “flat out” did he mean 100 percent? If so he was 94 percent wrong. At that time during February the Whirinaki plant was running at 6 percent of its maximum output. Although 6 percent might be a high activity level for Mr Brownlee it is very very low for an energy system. When he was told he had made an error he said that Contact Energy was trying to put a bit of gloss on a very big turd. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that Origin Energy has recently stated that there is potential for large oil and gas discoveries in the Canterbury basin; and noting the Minister’s concern over fossil fuels will he advise whether he believes that to be good news for New Zealand and New Zealanders? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister is sorry that the Minister answering on his behalf has not been briefed on that matter and so is not aware of that detail. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that even if the southern lakes were now to fill the Cook Strait cable is not strong enough to take sufficient electricity across to the North Island to meet winter peaks and that there would have to be considerable expansion of thermal generation which his Government is so very opposed to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Absolutely not and anyone who has any knowledge of the area would know that that was the case. That question confirms what was said in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 about that member which was that he never checks his facts that he had claimed something that flew in the face of common sense and that it was a very poor effort for a would-be Minister of Energy. I would say something quite a lot stronger but it would not be parliamentary. I just do not understand whether that member is stupid or whether he plays but I think it is probably that he is just stupid. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table in order to enlighten the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister of Energy a copy of the press release issued by Origin Energy only a few days ago. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that in the interests of having certain standards in this House it is not appropriate for a Minister to call someone like Gerry Brownlee stupid. After all everybody knows he is doing his best. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the member misunderstood. The Minister was referring to Trevor Mallard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We know that was also not a point of order. Can we move on now please. 
Taxation—Australia - New Zealand 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he still stand by his statement: “If as some have suggested New Zealanders are fleeing as tax exiles to Australia one can only conclude that those individuals are functionally innumerate and we are probably better off without them.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The statement I made in July 2005 was correct in that respect given the substantial number of taxes payable in Australia that do not even exist in New Zealand. Of course if Mr Key got his wish when he said he would love to see New Zealand wages drop then the arithmetic would change considerably but not for the better. 
Hon Bill English 
: What would the Minister say to the Bunnings Warehouse staff who went on strike a couple of weeks ago because the starting rate in New Zealand is $12 an hour and for the same job with the same employer in Australia it is $18 an hour; and if he did talk to them does he agree with their union’s view that tax cuts would make no difference to that gap? [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have allowed that member up the back to interject on I think most questions through this question time. That is unusual. If we in National interject on answers we are brought to task. Apparently Government members are now allowed to interject on questions continuously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Minister the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer the question. That was a question and you raised a point of order. Members interject across the House all the time not only on the member who asked the question. I ask members to restrain themselves but I am sure that no member in this House would want there to be no interjections. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would have some sympathy with the Bunnings Warehouse staff but I would point out to them that $12 an hour is the minimum wage from 1 April that that reflects eight increases in 8 years that the National Party has opposed every one of those increases in the minimum wage and that the only time National increased the minimum wage when it was in Government was when New Zealand First forced it to. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What factors have led to the halt in the growth of the wage gap with Australia since 2000? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Labour-led Government has increased the minimum wage eight times in 8 years as I have said. We have invested heavily in skills training; we have cut business taxes which will allow businesses to invest in wages and productivity; we have helped more New Zealanders get into jobs than ever before; and there has been a 25 percent real increase in household income. During the 1990s the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia grew by some 50 percent. It has barely moved at all under this Labour-led Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Minister’s comment that New Zealanders who go to Australia are functionally innumerate and we are better off without them does he believe we are better off without the 13 nurses 10 teachers 31 managers 15 builders and five electricians as well as the other 600 people who are leaving each week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly one would like to keep those people. There are 48 people I would certainly substitute for any of those any day of any week. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the average number of people leaving per annum under Labour has been 19800 compared with under the previous National Government 9800? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware that every year National was in power the number of people leaving for Australia grew. I am aware that that number peaked out in about 2000 and I am aware that it turned around dramatically. I am aware that it has grown again and I am aware that the National Party has not announced a single policy that would have any effect on that growth because tax cuts cannot close the gap on real wages between Australia and New Zealand—it is an impossibility. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why under Labour New Zealand has lost more than the total number of registered voters in Mt Albert Dunedin South Wigram Mt Roskill Dunedin North and Rongotai—the seats of Labour’s front bench—as all have gone to Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I am aware of is that New Zealand’s net population has grown very substantially over the last 8 years. Indeed that is one of the reasons we have seen such a strong housing market for most of that period of time. I am aware that that contrasts significantly with the 1990s under a National Government and I am aware that National has no answers on these issues except apparently today to flog off our strategic assets to foreign control which Mr Key clearly supports. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of getting these New Zealanders to return to New Zealand what is the likelihood of that happening if they were to hear that a senior Opposition member of Parliament—namely Mr Key—is advocating a drop in wages? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think they would be appalled to learn that the Leader of the Opposition proposed that New Zealand wages should drop then tried to explain himself by saying he meant that Australian wages should drop then tried to say he did not mean it at all then tried to say he did not say it then got people to ring up the newspaper to try to get the reporter sacked. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I call question No. 6 I remind all members that an interim injunction is in place that prevents the disclosure of the contents of the first draft of the report of the inquiry being undertaken by an independent review panel constituted by the Director-General of Health into the management of alleged conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 32/4: “While members are not bound in the House by a suppression … order they should use their privilege to break such an order only in the most exceptional circumstances.” Members should take care never to abuse the privilege of freedom of speech. They should respect the position of the judiciary just as members would expect the judiciary to respect the privileges of Parliament. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. Although this is an independent process and I have not seen any drafts or been briefed as to details of any of the panel’s findings I have total confidence in this review process. I am advised that the review panel’s report which has been requested by the Director-General of Health will be available to me on 17 March. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the material revealing secret emails between Hausmann and the executive in which Hausmann changed the tender documents to his advantage was withheld from the inquiry by both parties and came to light only after independent forensic analysis in London of the back-up tapes; and what does that say about the balance of truth in this inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that I have not been briefed on material that is in the draft or final report or in any of its versions. That is for good reason and that is to preserve the independence of the report. We all look forward to receiving the report and we all look forward to seeing what it says about whom. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister retain his confidence in the executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board if he knew that documents were withheld and came to light only because of forensic computer analysis in Britain? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The primary question was as to my confidence in the director-general’s review process and I maintained that I have a high degree of confidence in that. As to the relationship between the executive and the board— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —that is now a matter I say to Mr English for the commissioner whom I have just appointed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister have confidence in the chief executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board if it was confirmed to him that this information was withheld and came to light only because of specialised forensic analysis in Britain of the back-up tapes which were mysteriously damaged? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat that the appropriate governance relationship here is between the board or in this case the commissioner and the chief executive. It is not for Ministers to interfere in the management of chief executives who are technically only the lead employees of boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why was the Minister happy to release material from Mr Hausmann and Mr Clarke in an attempt to mislead the public when Mr Hausmann and Mr Clarke had their collusion exposed only by forensic computer analysis? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That question is so full of allegations as to be almost impossible to answer but let me do my best. I took advice as to the proper process in respect of the public disclosure of both submissions tendered to me in terms of my public request. I acted upon that advice by making both submissions public. I note that both the parties that made submissions are likely to be the subject of the Director-General’s draft report. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that his commissioner has terminated the legal action of the previous board that was seeking to ensure all information was made available and can we take it that this is yet another step in the Government’s plan to cover up the stench that has been involved here? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am glad the member has asked that question because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate that my sole motivation here is to ensure the sustainable delivery of health services to the people of Hawke’s Bay. Regardless of whomever the Director-General’s review proves to be right and wrong my concern is that the people of Hawke’s Bay are not the casualties of the unholy mess that has surrounded this dysfunctional board. 
Overseas Trade Performance—Reports 
7.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Has he received any reports on New Zealand’s overseas trade performance? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Yes. Last week Statistics New Zealand released the most recent figures for New Zealand’s merchandise trade. The January figures saw our exports reach the highest-ever level for January. Merchandise exports reached $3.1 billion 24 percent or nearly $600 million up on the equivalent figures for January 2007. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister seen any commentary on overall trends in recent trade figures? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I have seen this report from the  
BNZ Economy Watch 
 entitled “Trade Picture Developing Nicely” dated 29 February. The report states that “The broad themes in recent merchandise trade releases have been of solid export performance easing import demand and—as a result—steady improvements in the trade balance.” The report goes on to say that “January’s figures out this morning proved no different with the annual deficit improving for the sixth consecutive month”. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What has been the impact of this export growth on New Zealand’s trade balance? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There has been a marked trend in the right direction. The year to January 2008 saw the deficit reduced to $4.8 billion an improvement of $1.2 billion on January 2007 and of $2.2 billion on January 2006. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to have this question held over until the Minister of Energy is in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Clean-coal Technology—Progress 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he stand by his statement made to the national power conference that “There is a degree of wishful thinking and exaggeration around how close clean-coal technology really is.”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy 
: Yes; and to complete the Minister’s quote: “If the Government was to apply the same brave assumptions to new technology renewables as are relied upon by some coal proponents we would be pilloried.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it the Minister’s usual practice to rely on  
New Scientist 
 magazine editorials to guide his thinking in energy matters rather than the advice of experts such as the chief executives of the Government’s own energy companies; and is that further evidence of the Minister having “less thirst for knowledge than his predecessor and a resistance to discussing matters of detail” which was stated recently by a former electricity commissioner Roy Hemmingway? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Although the acting Minister might have a different view of Mr Hemmingway’s very generous comments about him he thinks Mr Hemmingway was clearly wrong in this instance. The Minister of Energy has looked extensively at this issue and basically anyone who can read knows that we will not have full sequestration of carbon out of those plants in the next 3 to 5 years as has been predicted by some foolish people in the coal industry in New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister then tell us why his associate the Minister for State Owned Enterprises has approved so much funding being spent by New Zealand energy companies on exactly the issue of carbon dioxide sequestration from coal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that my colleague the Minister for State Owned Enterprises does not direct on operational matters but he has supported the purchase of long-term supplies of lignite in order to get in front of the changes that are occurring in energy in the world. One could be foolish and say we will just leave it there we will not secure the future and we will not get in front of the technology which is what the member seems to be implying or we could take a long-term approach and secure what I understand will be something like 400 years worth of energy supply in New Zealand when the technology is cracked. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the diesel-fired plant at Whirinaki had to operate six times during February burning over 1 million litres of diesel and does the use of this so-called reserve generator which is meant to be used in a one-in-60-year dry year event indicate the huge gap between the Government’s stated renewable energy goals and the very real increase in reliance on thermal generation that has occurred since the first day Labour became the Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am glad that the member has corrected his assertion from 1 million litres a day to 1 million litres in February. He cannot seem to make up his mind between a day and a month. It might just be a minor fact or trifle to that member but my view is that running the Whirinaki plant in the short term during peak periods in order to conserve water in the South Island was a wise thing to do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Electricity Commission was entirely the creation of the Labour Government and that it is staffed primarily by people with close Labour ties such as a former economist to Michael Cullen Peter Harris a former Labour deputy leader David Caygill a former Labour Cabinet Minister Stan Rodger and a former Labour candidate David Close; if so when will his Government apologise to the New Zealand people for telling them that this organisation would secure supply because their supply has never been more tenuous than it is at the moment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I can confirm that the commission was set up by the Labour Government. I can confirm that the general manager of the organisation is someone who is very close to the deputy leader of the National Party; if one was suggesting that there was cronyism that appointment certainly would not have been made. That member should go outside occasionally during the weekend in the South Island see the rain and know that the situation is not tenuous. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the answers to the earlier questions is the Minister aware that on a global basis 40 percent of electricity is generated from coal; if he is aware of that would he confirm that it is absolutely essential that we address the issue of carbon dioxide emissions from coal in order to solve the greenhouse gas problems? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is absolutely right. It is essential both internationally and for the long-term future of New Zealand. It is my opinion that New Zealand cannot be a leader in this technology. A number of other countries including Australia will have a leadership role in the development of the sequestration technology and the hydrogen fuel cell technology which will almost certainly also flow from the use of coal. We do not need to lead in that area but we will be major beneficiaries. 
Working for Families—Number of Families Benefiting 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many New Zealand families are benefiting from Working for Families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In total 370000 families received the Working for Families tax credit in the last tax year—that is three in four New Zealand families with dependent children—and by the end of this tax year we expect the number to be even higher. Alongside other Labour-led Government initiatives such as paid parental leave 20 free hours of early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds and reduced doctors’ fees and prescription charges Working for Families is enabling New Zealanders to make a choice about work and caring that best meets their family needs. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding support for the Working for Families package? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen some reports that appear to show confusion in the National Party about whether it has a policy on Working for Families. Firstly in May 2005 the leader of the National Party said: “The next National Government will redesign this complex bureaucratic and costly welfare monster” And again last year he said National will “take higher income families out of the Working for Families loop.” But then last week his revenue spokesperson admitted that National has so far failed to develop any policy at all on the Working for Families package. It is clear that the National Party has been struggling to develop policy in this area. It is less clear whether this is because its members cannot agree they do not understand or they do not want to tell New Zealanders what their real intentions are. 
Police Response—Graeme Burton 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied with the response of police to the threat posed by Graeme Burton before 6 January 2007; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: As determined by the Independent Police Conduct Authority report there was fault with police handling of aspects of the Burton case during November and December 2006. I am sure everyone concerned would wish to express their deep regrets for any shortcomings in the response on this occasion. I again express my condolences to Karl Kuchenbecker’s family. The police have responded positively to the findings of the report and they are working on putting the recommendations of that report in place. 
Simon Power 
: Has anybody from the police directly acknowledged the “failings in the system” that the Independent Police Conduct Authority identified in its report when police could have provided information to the probation service in November 2006 that would have led to the recall of Burton? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. The Minister of Police to begin with has made the comment that it is absolutely vital that the agencies learn what they need to do to try to prevent such a tragedy happening again. The Wellington superintendent has also expressed recognition that the criticisms were valid. Of course as the member knows well from former answers to questions in the House last year actions have been put in place including an amendment to the Parole Act to make sure that any systemic weakness in the system is addressed and the police have indicated that in accepting that criticism they need to do better in terms of following up warrants for arrest. 
Jill Pettis 
: What did the authority report on the actions of the police officers in arresting Graeme Burton? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Although the Independent Police Conduct Authority had some criticisms of police actions Justice Goddard had no criticisms at all about the behaviour of the officers concerned. Indeed she said that they put public safety ahead of their own safety. She found that in shooting Burton the officer was using reasonable force to defend himself and others and that there was no other option available to the police. I think in that respect of the police response we can all be proud that those two officers carried out their responsibilities in a way that reflected the exemplary conduct of police officers in these circumstances. 
Simon Power 
: Will the police take full responsibility for the handling of Burton when the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report appears to confirm the statement of Department of Corrections chief executive Barry Matthews back in 2007: “We got two warrants gave them to the police and nothing happened. And we are actually getting blamed for the fact that for some reason the warrants were not executed by the police.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There were two warrants issued and notwithstanding the fact that this was over the Christmas period given the seriousness of the allegations made about Burton it was unconscionable that those warrants were not acted upon earlier by the police. I think they accept that. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister followed the example of the former Minister of Corrections who personally apologised to the Kuchenbecker family for the failings of his department in this tragedy; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member would have noted that in my answer to his primary question I repeated that sense of deep regret about how that came to pass. We give our condolences to that family. I do not want to draw the family into this situation; they have suffered an incredible tragedy. I think everyone in this House would share those regrets that the system did not work as well as it should have and would want to join in an apology to them for the failure of the system. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Education and asks what action if any he is taking to improve resources and on-the-job training for trainee teachers following the release of a—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
DAIL JONES 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question is not a set-up; it is my question. I am quite capable of reading writing and asking questions. I would appreciate it if the members of the National Party Opposition did not intervene. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Would members please restrain themselves on points of order. In the interests of getting the question heard it will be heard in silence. 
Teachers—Training 
11.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What action if any is he taking to improve resources and on-the-job training for trainee teachers following the release of a Ministry of Education review that found a “significant minority” of teachers gaining full registration fell short of the required standard? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 There is no Ministry of Education review that made that claim but the Labour-led Government is always seeking ways to improve the quality of New Zealand teachers. In September 2007 the Government released a discussion document on initial teacher education entitled  
Becoming a Teacher in the 21st Century 
. One hundred and four submissions were received and I am expecting advice soon from the Ministry of Education about those submissions. I need to remind the House that the vast majority of New Zealand teachers are among the best in the world—as demonstrated by the high achievement of New Zealand students in the recent international OECD rankings where our students ranked highest in the English-speaking world in mathematics science and literacy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister’s response puzzles me somewhat. All of us know that we have to produce evidence to the Clerk’s Office for primary questions. The member’s primary question mentioned a review by the Ministry of Education but the Minister said there was no such review. That seems to me to be out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member is required to produce authentication which undoubtedly the member did and that authentication would have been a front-page story in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. But that story is incorrect as the Minister pointed out. It is not actually a review in the same way that when that paper described I think it was 42.9 percent of Maori voters as wanting to go with the National Party it was describing four people out of seven in its poll. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that addresses the question. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister concerned that the report  
Becoming a Teacher in the 21st Century— 
which was presented by the previous Minister of Education Steve Maharey and presumably is a report from the previous Minister—is considerably alarming and that as many as several thousand graduate teachers have entered the teaching workforce since 2000 after receiving this Government’s “variable quality” teacher education; and would he agree that if a “significant minority” of those new teachers have competency issues then parents should rightly have concerns about the quality of the education their children are receiving? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We have received 104 submissions on the report that the member quoted from. We are assessing those submissions at the moment. The  
New Zealand Herald  
seemed to cut and paste from the submissions which were on the website of the Ministry of Education and then purported that to be an exclusive which is rather an astonishing story. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What steps has the Labour-led Government taken to improve the quality of beginning teachers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It has taken a number of very important initiatives. In addition to reviewing the initial teacher education our Government has been very active in supporting beginning teachers. The steps that we have taken include a beginning teacher time allowance to release new teachers for professional development; the introduction of the specialist classroom teacher position responsible for the induction of new teachers; and the establishment of the New Zealand Teachers Council with a wide mandate to improve teacher standards. Just recently for example the council issued new graduating teacher standards for trainee teachers which are designed to lift professional standards. We have increased the allowances paid to tutor teachers which encourages people to become mentors for beginning teachers. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What action will the Minister be taking towards the recommendation from the Education and Science Committee that “Teachers should be awarded full registration after two years’ employment only if they have demonstrated that they are able to raise consistently the achievement of their students.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am looking very carefully at the inquiry that the select committee has done into making the school system work for every child. I want to assure the member though that we have in place already very good criteria for teachers to have their professional competencies checked. Every teacher in New Zealand every year undergoes a competency test. There are three levels: beginning teachers fully registered teachers and experienced teachers of over 5 years’ service. So there are lots of checks and balances in place to make sure that we get the very best quality of teaching and learning in our schools. As I said in my primary answer that is evidenced already by the very high scores that New Zealand students achieve in international comparisons. 
Dail Jones 
: Would the Minister consider introducing an even better scheme—namely a student loan abatement scheme—to encourage qualified New Zealand graduates to enter and remain in the teaching profession here in New Zealand and not go overseas as a means of reducing these problems; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is a very interesting idea and I myself was a graduate who was bonded under that type of system. We are looking at a variety of ways to encourage New Zealand graduates to stay in New Zealand. One very encouraging thing of course is that they do not pay interest on their student loans if they stay in New Zealand. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of the comments of Professor Mason Durie in describing the disparity between the achievement of Maori and non-Maori as a “long-term education debt” and what investment will the Minister be making into teacher training in order to rectify that debt and prevent it from translating into the wasted resource of continued poor outcomes in Maori education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Considerable investment has already taken place to try to lift the achievement of all New Zealand students—not least of all the extra $4 billion that the Government has invested in education in the 8 years that Labour has been in Government; and not least of all the 5000 extra teachers we have put into New Zealand schools the 55000 new classrooms the 36 new schools; and so it goes on. There has been a lift in the achievement of Maori and Pasifika students but the member is quite right: there is still a way to go to get all of our students particularly those from the Maori and Pacific communities to achieve their full potential. Schools Plus aims to do that. 
Social Development Ministry—Contracts 
12.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is she satisfied with the Ministry of Social Development’s system for awarding contracts? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied that the Ministry of Social Development has a system in place that is consistent with the Government’s best-practice guidelines. The document  
Guidelines for Social Services Contracting 
 sets out the standards and procedural requirements for the full contracting cycle including the selection process. I expect the Ministry of Social Development to follow these guidelines in all instances. 
Judith Collins 
: Would she expect Work and Income staff to check bankruptcy notices before they award wage or training subsidies to employers; if so can she explain why in 2002-03 Work and Income Porirua awarded a contract to Graham Carden to train 12 beneficiaries in karaoke over the Christmas holiday period even though he was an undischarged bankrupt at that time? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I cannot and I would expect that if the member had wanted such detail of an operational nature she may well have wanted to raise those issues in the primary question; but as she has raised them I will be happy to provide that information for her when I have it available to me. 
Sue Moroney 
: What are the principles for contracting social services set out in the  
Guidelines for Social Services Contracting 
? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Guiding principles for all Ministry of Social Development social services contracts are that these contracts will contribute to the achievement of Government outcomes and objectives; meet Government and public expectations of accountability transparency and value for money; be responsive to the needs of clients the labour market and the community; strive for quality outcomes for clients families and the broader community; and minimise risks associated with the services. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister explain why the Ministry of Social Development’s chief executive now says that all 12 signed agreement forms between individual beneficiaries Work and Income and Graham Carden’s company have now disappeared even though the Department of Internal Affairs began investigating Mr Carden in 2005 and he was jailed in 2007 for fraud relating to false grant applications—how is it that every single client application form and record has disappeared? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I refer the member to my answer to her previous supplementary question. 
Judith Collins 
: Why would Work and Income pay Graham Carden $50000 in wage and training subsidies when he was an undischarged bankrupt and had already pleaded guilty to two other charges of trading while insolvent; and what assurances can the Minister provide that the scheme which has paid out over $300 million since 1999 is properly monitored when contracts are awarded to undischarged bankrupts and when client records in relation to those contracts just seem to be disappearing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I refer the member to my answer to her previous supplementary question. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a bankruptcy notice for Graham Carden. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper report headlined “Former league boss traded while insolvent”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table the reply under the Official Information Act that that Minister’s chief executive gave to our office regarding this very case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Question No. 11 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 In my excitement and enthusiasm in outlining the many achievements of the Labour Government in education I said that we had built 55000 classrooms. In fact we have built 1500 but that is pretty good. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 20 February—Amended Answer 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I wish to make a clarification in relation to my answer to question No. 11 on 20 February. On that day I was provided with a summary of the total advance benefit payments. I incorrectly assumed that this information had previously been provided in answer to question for written answer No. 20337 in 2007. 
Urgent Debates 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Appointment of Commissioner 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received letters from Heather Roy and the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the decision by the Minister of Health to remove the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and to appoint a commissioner. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and does involve ministerial responsibility. Given the significance of the decision I consider that it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore give priority to the first application I received—that from Heather Roy. Before I call the member I remind members again that there is in place an interim injunction preventing the disclosure of the contents of the first draft of the report of the inquiry into the management of alleged conflicts of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I call on Heather Roy to move that the House take note of this particular case of recent occurrence. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Last week the Minister of Health David Cunliffe sacked unceremoniously the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board or to be fair the seven democratically elected members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. At that time he appointed a commissioner to run the board. The decision has created a prolonged public outcry in Hawke’s Bay. In fact the outcry had begun long before last week. People are understandably feeling aggrieved. They elected the members of the district health board. They know them they trusted them with their health services and now those members have been evicted for reasons that are far from clear and appear to be known only to the Minister himself—and he is making a very poor show of putting them forward in any clear way. 
The issues in Hawke’s Bay have been ongoing for some time. In fact they go back to early 2005. The then health Minister Annette King approached the now famous Peter Hausmann and asked him whether he would be interested in being one of her four Government appointees to the board. At that time the board members themselves and the Ministry of Health raised concerns about his appointment—in particular about possible conflict of interest situations with regard to his company Healthcare New Zealand. But those concerns were overruled by Annette King and Peter Hausmann was in fact appointed to the board. 
Since that time a number of issues have arisen. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board I would contend is one of the best performing—or it has been—boards in the country if not the best performing. That its members now find themselves in this situation of having been sacked and replaced by a commissioner is unprecedented under the district health board system and has raised many questions that must be answered. The Minister of Health should take his opportunity in this debate to address these questions. 
He wrote to the board on 20 February after some serious issues had been raised in this House. He said that the board had a rapidly deteriorating financial situation. In fact if those figures are looked at today people will find they are at only 1 percent variance with the projected position at this point in time. Not many boards would be able to say that they are as close to their projected positions as this board was so the description “rapidly deteriorating financial performance” is certainly questionable. Alongside that over the past 18 months the district health board had signalled three times to a variety of Ministers of Health that it was concerned about the way that the population-based funding formula was being administered and put in place particularly in relation to itself and it felt that it was being penalised. 
His second concern was the increasing lack of confidence in the board’s integrity. That boils down to one thing: this Minister is feeling that he is being personally attacked. That too is very questionable. If one looks at the media statements it is very hard to see how he could possibly have concluded that. If he is feeling that he cannot take the odd personal attack then perhaps it is time for him to look for not just a new job outside Cabinet but a new job completely come this election. 
The third reason he wrote to the board was what he called the dysfunctional relationships between the board and himself as Minister and between the board and management. A variety of letters have been put forward including some by the Minister himself in which contentions are made that management and the board do not get on. I think there very often are tense relationships between management and governance in any organisation but usually those are worked through. However his evidence has come from two sources it seems: firstly from Peter Hausmann who has some issues with the district health board that are now very well publicised; and secondly from Chris Clarke the chief executive who despite the fact that he was on 2 weeks’ stress leave was not quite so stressed as to not be able to write a letter to clarify his position at that time. 
The fourth concern the Minister raised was about the Auditor-General’s report of 28 January into the district health board. He said that it reflected very poorly upon the board. But having sat on the Health Committee and having seen Auditor-General reports into a wide variety of boards—in fact almost all 21 district health boards—I can say that the board’s results were not out of keeping with those of any of the boards. In fact the board did not receive the worst performance rating on any of the parameters. 
It is often very easy to confuse the roles of governance and management. I do not think that has happened at this board. The governance boards are elected to govern the process and management is meant to deal with the operational matters the day-to-day matters that a board undertakes. 
Two different reports have been talked about in the media of late. The first is the longstanding review into the conflict of interest situation. We eagerly await the second draft being released by the Minister on he said today 17 March. I understand that that process is under way at the moment. However one of the issues surrounding this review is the fact that there have been two drafts. The first and second drafts it now seems to be pretty widely understood are completely different. In fact the second draft takes a position that is almost 180 degrees away from that of the first draft. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What would that member know? 
HEATHER ROY 
: The Minister of Health will have his chance in a minute. I have not seen the drafts I say to Mr Cunliffe but neither have I made statements in this House that contradict the fact that I say I have not seen them. We eagerly await that draft but we also eagerly await the process—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague Heather Roy but the Minister of Health will get his chance straight after this speech. He has studiously avoided answering questions in the House on this matter and now when the Speaker gives an opportunity for a debate in this Parliament he is yelling out trying to stifle and shut down that debate. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to tell him to be quiet and wait his turn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for that Mr Hide. The reality is that people are able to interject but one would expect that they would do it in a manner that would not cause undue disruption to the House. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The fact of the matter is that this review is now so severely compromised by accusations of political interference of cover-ups and of questionable testimonies and by widely differing drafts of the review that there can be no confidence by the public by the Ministry of Health or indeed by this current Minister as to the outcome of it. There is only one viable option that should be taken and the Minister should have taken it long ago—and if he had any credibility at all he would have taken it. The Minister should have the review investigating the allegations of a conflict of interest at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board handed over immediately to the Auditor-General in order to ensure that the truth of the matter is exposed. No matter how well intentioned the 3-man committee conducting the review it is now operating outside its brief and Mr Cunliffe should immediately instruct the Director-General of Health to hand over the entire process to the Auditor-General. 
The reputations of good people are at risk and the Minister can take that any way he likes. The reputations of good people of good well-intentioned and capable people are at risk and have been compromised. That alone is reason enough for an independent review to be taking place. But most important the people of Hawke’s Bay should be assured that their health priorities are paramount and that past mistakes will not be repeated. 
A second report was highlighted at the weekend. It was an Audit Department report into another contract a completely different contract from the Healthcare one that the conflict of interest review is over. This conflict of interest allegation surrounds a Government-appointed board member—namely the same Mr Peter Hausmann. This time though it is in regard to the Wellcare contract. That organisation is a subsidiary of Mr Hausmann’s company Healthcare and the audit report looking into that particular contract listed 11 failings in the process. The board it transpires was unaware of the contract until a month after it had been signed by the chief executive Chris Clarke. If that does not raise alarm bells with the Minister of Health then he is well past his use-by date and should have gone some time ago. 
But I want to go back to the sacking of the board because that after all is what this debate is about. The Minister when he announced the sacking of the board was doing one thing and let us be very clear about it: the Minister was putting saving face over saving lives. He was saving face for himself he was saving face for his colleague Annette King—who sits not many seats along from him—for her wrongdoings as Minister of Health but most of all he was trying to save face for his Government. Well that will not wash in Hawke’s Bay I say to Mr Cunliffe because I doubt that his Government will get one single vote in Hawke’s Bay this election. Actually that is wrong; it will get three votes. It will get one from Russell Fairbrother one from Michael Cullen and there is probably one other person who will vote for it. 
Rodney Hide 
: Chris Clarke. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right—it will be Chris Clarke. Mr Hausmann cannot vote there because he does not live in the area. He lives in Wellington. 
The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board warned Mr Cunliffe about its worsening deficit position but he ignored it as had his predecessor Pete Hodgson. So that was not the real issue. What had happened at Hawke’s Bay was that Mr Cunliffe had set the board up to fail. Every other district health board in this country had four Government appointees put in place on 10 December last year. That allowed those newly elected district health boards to put in place the committees they are legally required to have to get on with their planning processes and to give the public confidence that their health services were respected and would move forward so that access to public health care was able to happen in this country. 
However the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has been made a scapegoat and I suspect that the decision to sack all of its publicly elected members was made well before the public announcement. In fact I know that because the Hon Parekura Horomia is known to have told people in Wairoa on the weekend before the announcement was made that Cabinet had already made that decision. So it was a farce; it was a farce that the Minister wrote to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board asking it to answer his four questions because Cabinet had already made that decision. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: You’re making it up. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I would tell the Minister to think very carefully about whom he spoke to that weekend because he told people that the decision had already been made. This just gets worse and worse. 
Being seen to criticise the Government is a cardinal sin to Minister Cunliffe—a problem that he feels must be nipped in the bud immediately. His fear is that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was allowed to speak the truth for far too long. How long would it be if that were allowed to continue before other district health boards—heaven forbid—followed suit? This announcement was a scare tactic. The Minister Mr Cunliffe was using the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board as an example to frighten away other district health boards from speaking out when they have concerns about health care for their patients. He has used his significant ministerial powers as a form of behaviour therapy. 
I tell New Zealanders to watch out because their district health board might be next. The Minister has a large number of questions to answer. He is responsible to the people of Hawke’s Bay and responsible to the people of New Zealand for public health services and those questions must be answered. One thing is for certain: the truth will out. I am certain that before much longer it will come out. As Minister Cunliffe nods his head and stands up to pretend yet again that he does not know what is in the draft I say that he should be very careful. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is appropriate that the House debates today an important juncture in the life of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. It is with sadness that during the last week I concluded after the most careful consideration that I had no feasible alternative but to ask a new commissioner Sir John Anderson who is to be supported by three deputy commissioners to run the affairs of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in order to stabilise a volatile situation and to address a range of serious governance financial and relational concerns. Throughout all of this process acting on advice I have done my best to uphold the interests of the people of Hawke’s Bay for the sustainable delivery of health services in that region. As Minister I also have responsibility for the overall well-being of the health care system including the relationship between that Crown entity and the Crown as a whole as vested in the office of the Minister and the ministry. 
All New Zealanders expect that our scarce health dollars are to be spent wisely on the best health services that we can afford not wasted on internal feuding and not allocated via processes that may lack transparency or proper safeguards. At the heart of the removal of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is a single simple issue—that is the public are entitled to have confidence in the health system. In terms of Hawke’s Bay this means that the services provided by the board are appropriate timely and of the highest quality possible. 
On 20 February I wrote to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board expressing my serious dissatisfaction with its performance and I asked for reassurance on a number of issues. I noted that these issues had led me to the consideration of urgent action in the public interest in order to maintain the highest standards of public confidence in the region and that such action could include the appointment of a commissioner under section 31(1) of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. Those issues included financial mismanagement. Whether we like it or not this board is facing a major budget blowout and at the time I made the point that the board had seen a significant deterioration in its financial position. It was among the worst-performing boards in terms of its deficit and it stood out as one that did not have a credible recovery plan. The real issue is about how the board would have addressed that deficit and its reply to me made no credible attempt to show how it could do so. 
This district health board also has a record of not achieving its own plans including those listed in its district annual plan. Indeed the chairman of the board had been quoted in the press as suggesting that the plan submitted had not been done so with the intent of carrying it out. 
Under this board’s watch the deficit had blown out from a projection of near balance to a projection of some $8 million deficit overall but interestingly it was closer to $11 million on its provider account. All of this was in a year when its funding had increased to around $380 million representing an increase of 109 percent since this Government took office. I therefore reject the assertions from the board that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is in any way underfunded. Health boards are funded using an objective population-based funding formula. It is precisely because we do not want to see favouritism that that formula applies evenly to all districts. The formula of course takes into account a range of factors such as the age of the population deprivation and ethnicity. I am advised that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is funded above average on every part of the formula except one. As I said under this Government the board’s revenue has increased by more than 100 percent. 
I answered in the House questions on Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s proposed use of the proceeds from the sale of Napier Hospital to fund its deficit. The chairman asserts that there was no intention to use capital funding to fund operations. Indeed to use capital funding in such a way would have been not only contrary to my predecessor’s instruction but contrary to established principles of financial management. [ 
Interruption 
] It is possible that members such as Mr Tremain may not have served the board well in that instance. 
There have been a number of conflicts at the governance level between the board senior management and clinicians. There is a long history of this and a whole range of claims and counterclaims that are themselves the subject of an independent governance review process that my predecessor asked the Director-General of Health to establish. However pending that reporting process—which was itself delayed by the actions of this board which in the week before my decision sought an injunction to delay it—we have a range of significant issues with which the district health board has been left to deal. We have had a board chief executive officer who has been on stress leave. Although it is the responsibility of any board to monitor its chief executive officer I would expect that monitoring and any performance concerns to be dealt with in a productive and appropriate manner. It appears to me that this may not have been the case as it is alleged that the board met with the chief executive officer to discuss his performance only once for 10 minutes in November 2006. 
Without taking a position on matters that may be the subject of the director-general’s independent governance review I was forced to consider a situation where the chief executive officer of a district health board was on stress leave and where there were clearly divisions between the management ranks and the board. There have also clearly been divisions within the board itself that have resulted in the expenditure of significant sums of money on legal fees. A read of the papers attached to my decision of last week—which were released on advice—will show an unsustainable level of conflict between the board members and the chief executive officer and a number of clinicians. 
We have reports and submissions of five of the seven senior managers on the point of leaving the district health board. We have divisions at senior clinical level with at least two of the senior medical officers Dr David Grayson and Dr Richard Tustin both feeling forced to go public with their misgivings about the board’s governance. It is interesting that the surgical senior medical officer said: “What the Minister has done here is to identify the real crux issues of good governance and I agree that it was the right thing to do at this stage.” Although I acknowledge there has also been comment from other clinicians in support of the board the mere fact of highly polarised views further suggests dysfunctional relationships. 
Let me turn to matters surrounding the integrity of the board and its relationship with the Crown. There have been what I consider—after due consideration and after receiving advice—to be consistently inappropriate patterns of behaviour with board members crusading in the media to reinforce their own positions. We have board members such as the Chairman Mr Kevin Atkinson arguing in an opinion piece in  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 on 10 December last year that his views on governance differed from those of the confidential review panel process. On Monday 18 December Mr Atkinson went on to say again in  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 that the health of Hawke’s Bay people was being jeopardised by the delay of the review—jeopardised by the delay of the review that only days later he himself sought an injunction to further delay. 
Hon Members 
: Why did he do that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: “Why did he do that?” my colleagues ask. 
In my letter of 20 February I asked the board to refrain from public comment on the process of submissions in order to depoliticise the situation and to allow for a fair and objective process. There have been many comments by the chair and other board members in the media since that time contrary to that request. 
In arriving at my decision I spent considerable time reviewing the submissions taking advice and yes searching my conscience on all of the options available to me. In the end my concerns for the Hawke’s Bay people and for the sustainable delivery of health services in that region led me to making this decision. I regret that the board’s own submissions did not satisfy my concerns. I repeat that there was no credible plan to fix the issues that have plagued this board. There was no substantive plan to deal with the financial deficit. There was no credible plan to restore or rebuild the key relationships that are essential to a well-functioning organisation. 
The solution was to put in place a commissioner with a fresh start a fresh approach and an ability to get on with the business of delivering high-quality reliable health services to the people of Hawke’s Bay. As the political editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 John Armstrong said in the weekend any partial solution would have been worse. He said: “The easy option—but the worst option—would have been some half-baked compromise that kept the existing board in place only for things to turn to custard at some subsequent point.” In addition the provincial newspaper the  
Manawatu Standard 
 noted that although it would have been easy to ignore the problem and throw a bit more money at it the decision made was “the right thing to do for the people of the Bay.” 
Since I have made my decision a considerable amount of new information has come to light and I have to say this has further reinforced my view. Questions have been asked however as to why I did not mediate. Why did we act against a board that had allegedly been in place for only 72 days? The vast majority of the board had been in place for far longer—most of them since 2001. I was appointed Minister of Health only at the beginning of November 2007 and I have attempted to bring to this new role an open and objective approach. I have considered the issue and the submissions provided to me and made my decision based on that information. Any claim that I am supposedly covering up for another Cabinet Minister or any other conflict of interest is just nonsense. All parties in this review process will be treated without fear or favour. I repeat that the director-general’s report will be made public on 17 March. I also make it clear that I have not seen the draft reports or been briefed in any way on their content which as noted by Madam Speaker remains confidential to the parties and subject to an injunction. I have made my decision without regard to that review. 
The member preceding me in speaking Heather Roy has suggested that my comments have undercut the integrity of the review process. I can only repeat that I do not have access to the draft comment and that I am as eager as any member to see the final version. I take it that the member’s comments are disparaging of a highly-respected and independent review panel that includes Mr Ian Wilson and Mr Michael Wigley. I call upon that member to apologise to those independent persons whose integrity she has impugned. The member has called upon the Office of the Auditor-General to mount a further review. Whatever decisions the Auditor-General might make are independent of me and are for the Auditor-General to consider but the Auditor-General has said—and I support this view—that that consideration can take place only once the director-general’s independent report has been tabled.  
Heather Roy 
: Well get on with it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes—would it not have been helpful if the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board had not attempted to injunct the process and had not attempted to slow down the report thereby requiring me to make a decision without access to its contents? 
Chris Tremain 
: You gave them 3 days. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is not true and the member knows it. 
Mr Atkinson the chairman of the board has alleged that I did not reply to correspondence and Ms Roy has said I ignored repeated warnings from the board. I have done a file search and I can confirm that the only letter—the only letter—received from Mr Atkinson by me was duly replied to as has been any correspondence to the Ministry of Health. That assertion does not stack up on the facts. As for the allegation of prejudgment by me or by Cabinet that was simply not possible. This was not a Cabinet decision. It was a ministerial decision of which Cabinet was informed. I told in writing the district health board that I was considering installing a commissioner and I also told them in writing the grounds for that. It can therefore hardly be news but I repeat that no decision was made until the afternoon on which the decision was announced because I had to carefully consider the material and the advice before making my decision. 
Mr Assistant Speaker I thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this serious matter. I seek leave to table my letter of 20 February 2008 to the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board setting out my grounds for serious dissatisfaction with the board and my consideration of installing a commissioner. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table my letter to the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board dated 22 February 2008 further specifying my grounds for consideration of that decision. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table my letter of 27 February 2008 to the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board containing a notice of the decision to dismiss the board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an article by Mr John Armstrong in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 commending the decision and warning against half measures. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a recent editorial from the  
Manawatu Standard 
 similarly commending the decision. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I invite members to get a copy of the Minister of Health’s speech and swap the words “Director-General of Health inquiry” for the words “Ingram inquiry”. David Cunliffe is the Minister who week on week stood up in this House and defended every word in the Ingram inquiry. He said there was no evidence of foul doing anywhere. He said there were no questions to be asked of the member Taito Phillip Field at all. What came out of the Ingram inquiry is that that member had no idea what he was talking about and unprecedented legal action has been taken against the subject of the Ingram inquiry an inquiry that that member opposite defended week after week. 
Let us be frank here. This Minister manufactured reasons to get rid of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. He wants to shut down the people who will criticise the way he his ministry and the people at the district health board have dealt with the smelly and murky goings-on within the management of that district health board. He is clearing away that board so that it is unable to defend itself and put its case to this inquiry. He knows that this board is on to what has been going on behind its back—the murky dealings and Labour cronyism some of which I revealed in the House today. 
Let us go through the sequence of events that brings us to the House today. Annette King was the Minister of Health in early 2005 and her husband was the chief operating officer at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Annette King appointed Mr Hausmann to the board of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. She was warned about the conflicts arising out of appointing a major player in the health system to a district health board at a time when a contract was being developed for which Mr Hausmann was likely to be a tenderer. No one knew at that time that Mr Hausmann was colluding with the chief executive to amend the specification of the tender process documents to advantage himself and in the end his company proposal was chosen. The tender was for a contract estimated to range between $2 million and $50 million. 
As the months carried on more discussions went on between Mr Hausmann and the executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Then eventually a whistleblower discovered that Mr Hausmann was in email discussion with the executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board about a multimillion dollar contract in complete opposition to the view and the parameters that the board had set. So this whistleblower raised these concerns with the chairman. She alleged she was intimidated by the chief operating officer Mr Lind and she was subsequently restructured out of her job. Meanwhile the board discovered what was going on and cancelled this contract and some months later Mr Lind quit and went to work for Mr Hausmann. An inquiry was launched when these matters came to light as the result of a number of Official Information Act requests and this inquiry has dragged on for months. Damaged computer drives have had to be sent to London to be forensically reinstalled. There have been claims that one board member sent the board a bill for $500000 for legal expenses. Then Mr Cunliffe moved to sack the board. 
Let us join the dots. This is all about protecting Annette King and the foolish decision she made against advice to appoint Mr Hausmann to the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Annette King has never answered this question: why appoint somebody whose conflict will be so intense? He was going to bid for one of the biggest contracts ever put out by a district health board so why would one insert him right into the middle of a conflict of interest? That is what she did. Annette King needs to explain why against the advice and the absolutely obvious information that he was going to tender for that contract she still recommended to Cabinet his appointment. While she was recommending to Cabinet the appointment of Mr Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board we now know that he was in discussions with the chief executive of the health board in Hawke’s Bay to get a copy of the tender documents. He then amended those tender documents to prefer his company. The specifications have been changed in such a way that his company would be the primary tenderer in that contract. That was going on at the time that Annette King told Cabinet that those conflicts could be managed. There is no way those conflicts could have been managed or were managed. Those conflicts continued in such a way that the whistleblower found those documents. She raised concern. She subsequently was restructured out of a job by the people whose double-dealings she had revealed. 
This is not good. This is bad. This is bad because it goes to the heart of the integrity of the public contracting process in New Zealand. We simply cannot have a health system that has board members with such an interest that they can collude with management to prefer themselves in contracts up to the value maybe of $50 million. We simply cannot allow that to happen in this country. That is why this solitary whistleblower got up and reported what was going on. What a brave woman—to be intimidated to be questioned and to be vilified. She still stood by what she said and what happened to her? She was restructured out of her job by the people she blew the whistle on after they promised her that she would be all right. This is unprecedented it is dreadful it is appalling and it is Labour cronyism at its worst. 
What should happen from here on is this. It is now very well known that the first version of this review which took 7 months to get is reported to be substantially different from the second version. What happened in the intervening 2 weeks? That is what Hawke’s Bay District Health Board members want to know because they are the people who have been trying to hold management to account throughout this whole affair. Instead of dealing with the concerns and the cronyism involved in this case this Minister has fallen into line. He released Mr Hausmann’s letter which contained confidential review panel documents. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How would the member know? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We know because it has been in the media that they were confidential review documents and we further know that he released a letter from Mr Clarke that was perfectly designed to be released. We can have all the huff and bluff from the members opposite but we know that this is a Minister who in his attempts to front-foot everything has stood in a pile of sharp glass. He is compounding the errors of Pete Hodgson and Annette King. In appointing Peter Hausmann Annette King inserted this man into a conflict of interest that could not be managed and Annette King stands indicted for her involvement in this. She has her colleagues and the full weight of the Ministry of Health and its officials involved in a cover-up to prevent the truth from being made available to the people of New Zealand. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 This is an important issue and it is going to remain so until there is some resolution. We all agree that the sacking of a democratically elected district health board is an absolute last resort. It is to be hoped that this sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and its replacement by a commissioner is not an indication of things to come in the health system and not something we will see repeated on a weekly basis. 
Two weeks ago the Capital and Coast District Health Board got into trouble for its perceived financial mismanagement for its failure to run a large and complex organisation while a new hospital was being built and for the running down of specialist services because of staff and funding shortages. Last week we had a report from the Auckland District Health Board about mental health services and those services did not get a very good report at all. Now the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has been fired and replaced by a commissioner. I think we have to realise that these are very drastic measures and this is very bad news that we are hearing about. In the short term this will result in a lot of upheaval for the medical staff and consequently for the patients. 
When we look at the situation we see that the people of Hawke’s Bay deserve the best possible health care they can get. This daily debacle we hear about means that something has to be done and it has to be done radically. No one is asking when we can expect to see some resolution to this whole mess that we find ourselves in. I can understand why the people of Hawke’s Bay are really aggrieved. It was an elected board it did not have an opportunity to perform to the expected levels and we know that it had been in place for only 72 days—72 days after the board was elected it was sacked. It is a very interesting scenario. 
This afternoon the Minister said that the organisation was dysfunctional and in a rapidly deteriorating financial situation. If we look at that financial situation we see that it is only $7.7 million in the red and within the target range of coming out plus or minus 1 percent of its revenue. The Minister may not have noticed but there is not a district health board in the country that has not had financial problems and the problems of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board are relatively minor when we compare them with some of the others. 
We will be very interested to read the report which we have heard today will be released on 17 March and the Minister has just emphasised this again. All we can say is that the level of confrontation that has arisen in this debacle has to be resolved as soon as possible and with the absolute minimum of trial by media. The Auditor-General needs to be very heavily involved and basically to lead this review if the Minister will not be involved in a hands-on way because it is only then that we will be able to have any confidence in the report and the investigation that is currently going on. 
We agree that the Minister needs to lead from the front on this particular issue. After all is said and done he is responsible for public health services and in New Zealand First we hold him so. We need some sort of assurance from him that the other district health boards will not have confidence in them eroded as has happened with the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board on a continual basis. It is not good enough. We need to trust our health system particularly given the amount of money that is invested in it. We know that other boards are also in dire financial straits and we do not want to see a repeat of this particular performance. 
We know that health service dollars have to be spent wisely in order to get the best possible value and the services must be appropriate and of the very highest quality available. I for one know that the long-winded purchasing procedure delays by years and years the modern equipment that many of our hospitals deserve and need here in New Zealand. 
We believe that Ron Paterson when he came to the Health Committee a few weeks ago had a very valid point when he stated that our district health system was unnecessarily complicated for the size of the population we have here in New Zealand. We have 21 district health boards. Often many of those boards are carrying out the same functions and it is more than likely that quite a few services could be amalgamated so that the best value could be obtained for the people of New Zealand. The health system needs some reorganisation but we do not believe that boards should be routinely castigated publicly because they disagree with the Minister or because they have funding challenges ahead of them. 
I was interested to hear the Minister adding that another reason for sacking the board which is that hospital clinicians were critical of it. When are doctors ever happy with a district health board? Very very rarely I would say. When we looked at it we saw that only two of the 120 clinicians at the district health board had ever publicly had a go at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Ironically one of those clinicians has since left; he marched with his feet. 
We know that the health portfolio is causing this Minister some grief and exposing the board in this particular way is a very interesting way of trying to get the health system back on track again. We also know that we need a well-functioning organisation that will look at the health boards with a lot of interest. We think that concerns need to be dealt with and dealt with quickly so that the people of Hawke’s Bay can get back on track with a minimum of trial by media which achieves absolutely nothing. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has extreme concerns about the summary sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board last week and as the days have gone by our concerns have intensified rather than abated. Frankly I am sad to say we find as I suspect the people of Hawke’s Bay find the reasons that the Minister has given for the sacking to be unconvincing. We believe that much of New Zealand including the people of Hawke’s Bay is unconvinced by the reasons the Minister has given for the sacking. We are also concerned that the summary dismissal of the board calls into question the role and purpose of district health boards and particularly publicly elected members. 
The first reason the Minister gave for the sacking was financial governance issues and deficits. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has a deficit of $7.7 million. Well the problem is that nearly half of the 21 district health boards in New Zealand have deficits. Ten district health boards have reported deficits for the 11 months to May 2007 and nine of those forecasting deficits were larger than had been anticipated. Can all those district health boards look forward to summary dismissal because of their deficits? That was one of the key reasons that the Minister has given. Can the Capital and Coast District Health Board which now has a deficit of $26 million—far more than that of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—look forward to summary dismissal? What about the Auckland District Health Board with a deficit of over $10 million? The Whanganui District Health Board is posting a deficit as are the Otago District Health Board the Southland District Health Board and the Waitemata District Health Board—I could go on. Why would we sack one district health board for having a $7.7 million deficit but leave all those other ones untouched? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member is making it up. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I am looking through all the reasons that the Minister has given and sometimes it looks as if he is clutching at straws. 
The Minister has talked of deep divisions and poor relations between the board and the staff with no clear plan for resolving divisions. Well I can assure members that in the Health Committee we became aware that there are deep divisions and poor relations between clinicians and board members in many district health boards around New Zealand not just in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board but noticeably in recent times in the Capital and Coast District Health Board. It is quite evident that there are poor relations between board and staff in many of these health boards but the Minister has not taken this drastic action and sacked those district health boards. Why has he singled out the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board in this way? 
I cannot help feeling that the real crime of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was that the chair spoke publicly and was critical in the media about some of the issues that were taking place in that health board. Just a few minutes ago in the House the Minister said that we had board members “crusading in the media … I asked them to refrain from public comment …”—and they did not. I cannot help but feel that this is the real crime that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is being sacked for. In other words the Minister is irritated at the chairman of the district health board for speaking up and speaking up in the media. He found this completely unacceptable and moved to sack him. 
This calls into question the whole purpose of district health boards. Why do we go through the expense and effort every 3 years of electing members onto a district health board? To do so gives the impression that these people are publicly accountable to the people of New Zealand but the moment they criticise the Minister or express themselves in the media they are censored by the Minister. What has become obvious is that the role of district health boards seems to be basically a rubber-stamp for the Minister of the day to take the flack when things go wrong—a convenient scapegoat to blame—but to be summarily dismissed if the district health board members do not toe the party line if they speak their minds and in particular if they challenge the Minister. 
There are even more serious allegations about the district health board and in particular about the role of one board member Mr Hausmann. Mr Ryall and others have today outlined some incredibly serious allegations relating to this board member. I have not been privy to the emails; I know they have already been released to the media. Obviously the National Party has these emails and they apparently show that Mr Hausmann was seeking to intervene in a contract to make it more favourable to his company which then subsequently bid for the contract and was awarded it. These are incredibly serious conflict of interest allegations. I hope the National Party is not right in its claim that the real reason for the sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was because of these very serious allegations that are swirling around and a desire to prevent the board from telling what it believes to be the truth. 
This matter raises the following question. Given the fact that this review of the conflict of interest allegations is taking place why would the Minister not have at least waited until this report—which comes out in 2 weeks’ time—came out before he sacked the board? Why did he not wait for the outcome of that conflict of interest before taking what is a very very serious action in summarily dismissing the board? I believe that the Minister’s action in summarily dismissing the board in the way that he has done for reasons that I believe are unconvincing and for reasons that I believe New Zealanders feel are unconvincing is eroding confidence in district health boards and in particular in the role of publicly elected district health board members. I believe that many publicly elected district health board members will be asking themselves why they have gone through this election only for it to be made clear to them that they cannot speak out and they cannot be publicly accountable to the people who have elected them without risking censorship and dismissal. 
I believe that this situation has seriously eroded confidence in the role of district health boards and actually in the whole way they have been set up. The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 states that a board may be sacked and replaced by a commissioner if the Minister is seriously dissatisfied with the board of a district health board but there are no criteria. It is completely left up to a Minister. It does not spell out how serious the concerns have to be and it is completely left to a Minister to decide whether he will sack a board. 
The Minister has released some select documents but he keeps referring darkly to other documents that he has not released. I challenge him to release all those documents because the reasons he has given so far are not what I would call hanging offences. They seem almost like excuses or rationalisations for why he has sacked the board. If serious allegations are contained in other documents that he has not released why is he not releasing them? I challenge him to release them all so all of us can make up our own minds. 
I believe that the people of Hawke’s Bay do not find the his reasons convincing and I believe that many people in New Zealand do not find his reasons convincing and the Green Party at this point in time does not find his reasons convincing. We are worried that there are other reasons other hidden agendas and other motives behind the sacking than the ones that have been given. If the reasons were simply the ones that he has given half the district health boards in New Zealand would be sacked. He has not explained why he has singled out one district health board for this drastic action and left in place other district health boards with greater deficits and with all of those problems of dysfunctional relationships. Why has he left them in place and singled out the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? It seems as they say that something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. It is just a point of clarification. I know that there is a 5-minute allocation to the Maori Party. Can you give me some indication about the time for wrapping up? Is it 1 minute or 2 minutes? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are correct. There is a 5-minute allocation for the Maori Party. For your benefit I will ring the bell with 1 minute remaining. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Three days ago a really comical press release was issued under the name of the Director-General of Health. The humour came in the statement from the director-general advising that the inquiry into conflict of interest issues in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board would be released in just over a fortnight. It said: “it is important to follow due process” and further “I have acted to protect the integrity of the process involved in the report’s release”. 
Due process and integrity are concepts that have been sadly lacking in this saga at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Other members have described the involvement of the former Minister of Health her husband and Mr Peter Hausmann. During the course of events as is now known that Government-appointed member of the board was found to have involved himself in a $50 million district health board tendering process that could have benefited his own company. Following yet another leaked email discussion the chairperson of the board discovered the contractual negotiations that were going on and an embarrassed Government was forced to call for an inquiry. 
One might have thought that things would quieten down give or take the odd employment dispute that ensued from the fiasco. Time rolled on and at the local government elections the people of Hawke’s Bay responded by universally re-electing the board and its chair. In rode the keen new Minister of Health Mr David Cunliffe determined to leave his mark. He sacked the entire board claiming that it was dysfunctional and that the concerns were warranted over the “rapidly deteriorating” financial situation. 
The Maori Party is one of the first parties to say that accountability and transparency are laudable goals—goals that every agent of Government should take seriously. If governance and management issues are at stake we would expect there to be support and investment to get any district health board back on to the right track. But—and it is an important but—such measures should never ride roughshod over the wishes and aspirations of the people. What did the people living in the rohe of Ngati Kahungunu have to say about their district health board? What did Maori health providers in the area think about the way that their district health board responded to the needs of their community? What does this action say about the respect for democracy? 
This was an election process in which the people voted and selected a board. It was extremely significant that all five mayors of the Hawke’s Bay joined in a joint letter supporting the chair of the board as having “the clear confidence of the community as the highest polling candidate in the October 2007 election”. Those members speaking on behalf of 150000 people should have been listened to yet just 72 days after the re-elected board took office the Government intervened and took actions on high against the people of Hawke’s Bay. As the Napier Public Health Action Group stated recently: “It illustrates the arrogant misuse of power and contempt for democracy that has be-deviled public health provision in Hawkes Bay and Napier in particular for years”. 
If it was good enough for the Minister to sack this district health board for financial management and governance issues let us be consistent here. What about the 182 serious mistakes involving patients? They are mistakes like one patient dying as the result of being prescribed another patient’s diabetes medication a baby dying after showing heart-rate irregularities during labour and a psychiatric in-patient committing suicide. Who would have expected such serious and sentinel events to take place? The problem extended across 12 district health boards with particular concern having been expressed about the Auckland Waikato Canterbury and Waitemata boards. Did we hear anything about the sacking of those people? No. What about the study by Professor Peter Davis who surveyed a sample of 6579 patients admitted to 13 hospitals and found that Maori were more likely to receive suboptimal care? What about them? 
Financial debts can be sorted out with the stroke of a pen. If we want to help out an airline or to quickly get some funds pulled out in order to win some votes in an election year the money does not seem to be very much of a problem then. The ongoing serious and sentinel events that have ended in death malpractice and negligence in the largest degree are things that we might consider to be sackable offences. As a Parliament we must insist on safety on quality and on transparency in the way that we run our hospitals. The Maori Party knows that to accept anything less is to compromise on the very quality of life. All of our people deserve to know that when they go to hospital every effort will be made to improve their health and well-being. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I advise the House that the speaker has 5 minutes and I will ring the bell for the member’s benefit when there is 1 minute remaining. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 This debate is underpinned by two concerns: either there is a heap of information unknown to most members of this House that supports the Minister’s decision or he has acted in haste. Uninformed debate is dangerous as are knee-jerk reactions to a few rather common problems. I have tried to track the situation just from media releases in order to see whether I could put together the pieces of the jigsaw. 
In June 2005 Mr Hausmann was appointed by Annette King to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board despite reservations by elected board members due to potential conflicts of interest on significant contracts he would be seeking through tender with the board—we are talking about $50 million worth. The chairman claims that he asked Ms King to delay the appointment until an upcoming tender was resolved. She denies that this approach ever happened. The ministry itself gave advice to the Minister that his appointment had public perception risks but in August Mr Hausmann attended his first board meeting. Early in 2006 a whistleblower suggested that the tendering process had been compromised by Mr Hausmann and a review was instigated. The whistleblower does not appear to have been given the protection she was promised. Is this the matter that is at the core of this problem or is it just a separate matter? 
In November 2006 the district health board wrote to Minister Hodgson concerned that the formula used to calculate funding did not meet the board’s needs and said that it might need to cut services in order to stay within budget. It received no reply from the Minister but it did get a response some time later from a director of the health ministry who said that the proposed cuts would be unacceptable. In September 2007 the board wrote again to the Minister with concerns about its funding. Then in October 2007 a new board was elected—or rather the old board was re-elected—and a month later a new Minister Minister Cunliffe was appointed. In December the board tried for a third time and wrote to the Minister again about its concerns about funding. The board does not appear to have received a response from him for nearly 2 months; from my understanding it was 30 January before the board heard from him. That appears to have been the last contact the board had with the Minister until nearly the end of February when the board was issued with a week’s notice requiring some clear signals from it that it planned to improve its financial management and to improve relationships between the board the management and the Minister himself. The Minister also wanted a response from the board to the concerns of the Auditor-General. 
Those issues are interesting because like previous speakers I am aware of the track record of lots of district health boards. I am not currently on the Health Committee but in the previous Parliament I did serve on that select committee. Certainly $7.7 million worth of deficit is not a huge concern. We reviewed boards that had substantially higher deficits than that but were still considered to be competent to govern. I have also been aware of other situations where senior staff were on extended stress leave and were extended a huge amount of grace in that situation. Some of those situations concerned relationships between themselves and the board yet the board was allowed to stay intact. So I assume and hope the Minister has some additional information that will justify the step he took. 
Unhappy with the board’s response—of course a week later we know the story—the Minister fired the members of the board. I heard him on TV saying he had taken legal advice on that. Currently local bodies are considering whether to take this matter to judicial review. That is an interesting fact. In Whakatane right now we have a situation where our district council is taking the regional council to judicial review over a decision that the regional council made. I was part of a focus group that helped work towards the decision as to whether to take a judicial review. We considered whether given the ratepayers’ money that would need to be spent on it we could be pretty sure of the outcome. It was decided that yes we had legal advice that there was every reason to believe we could win the judicial review. So I assume that the legal advice currently being received by the local bodies in Hawke’s Bay is such that they will be weighing up the taking of a judicial review very seriously. I hope the Minister’s legal advice holds up for his sake. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 On Friday— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I ask the member to start I advise the House that this is a split call. Both members will have 5 minutes each and I will ring the bell with 1 minute remaining. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: On Friday Craig Foss and I held a public meeting at the Taradale Town Hall in relation to the decision made by the Minister of Health to sack the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. We had over 300 people attend that meeting. The meeting room was stacked with people from all parts of society from all walks of life. Pensioners workers even former Labour MPs were at the meeting. There were health professionals at the meeting and I have to tell the Minister that his concerns over the sustainability and safety of the Hawke’s Bay health system were eradicated when nurses stood up and told us that regardless of what was going on in the upper echelons—at the board and ministerial level—the safety of the Hawke’s Bay health system was just fine thank you. They said they were doing everything they could to make sure that even better health care than normal was delivered. 
These people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. They unanimously moved a motion in support of the unprecedented position that the local councils have taken in moving that a judicial review be undertaken. People outside of Hawke’s Bay have said that the councils do not have a mandate to do that. It was clear from the multitude of people who were at that meeting that the councils certainly do have a mandate. Those people wanted transparency in what is being done by this Government. They wanted all of the information to be on the table. Why? Because the people of Hawke’s Bay are unconvinced by the reasons the Minister has given for his sacking their democratically elected board. 
Regardless of who is right or wrong I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people. The Minister has taken a position. He had alternatives. There was a local body election in October of last year. The conflict of interest review was already in the public domain; it had been well canvassed in the media—the whistleblower issue was already in the media. Despite that the people of Hawke’s Bay elected a new board. They went to the polls and elected a new board—including people like Helen Francis who had never been on the board before. They elected Kevin Atkinson who on two separate occasions had been appointed by the Government and had done a good job for it. He was elected again with a huge majority—above that of anyone else. 
The Minister says that one of the key reasons the board was sacked was financial issues. I will refer quickly to a letter from the office of the Hon Pete Hodgson in July of that year just before the elections in which he stated: “I am pleased to note that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has maintained the status of standard monitoring on the monitoring and intervention framework.” I ask members to listen to this one: “This is a reflection of your ongoing positive performance and is rewarded by the benefit of receiving early payment.” The board had a history of longstanding financial success but the Minister sacked that publicly elected board. 
On 10 December of last year the Minister said that he would not appoint a chair a deputy or Maori representatives. I talked to the Minister at that stage and said: “Why don’t you appoint the chair and allow governance to take place? If the review turns up negative findings that put the blowtorch on the board then sack it then.” At that point in time the Minister did not allow governance to take place. In the first instance he would not appoint those members because of the lack of a review but as we got closer to the sacking all these spurious reasons came out. 
The first reason was a breakdown in the relationship between the board and clinicians. Well that turned out to be a total red herring. Two gentlemen—just two—publicly came out against the board one of whom has now left the area. That is the first reason. The Minister stood up and told the whole of New Zealand that there was a dysfunctional relationship between the board and clinicians. Well that was patently incorrect. It was a red herring. He was casting aspersions that were purely wrong. It is no wonder Hawke’s Bay people believe that their democratic process has been thrown to the wind. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 What happened today during question time? What did we learn today? The Minister told us—again—in response to questions from the Hon Tony Ryall that he has not received any reports or had any briefings regarding the two draft reports on which there is lots of discussion. Yet the same Minister keeps offering his views on those same draft reports. He keeps hinting at reasons why we should all be worried. He keeps hinting at reasons why the truth will come out. I say to the Minister that he should have a look at his  
Hansard 
 from question time today. In one answer he said he had not seen the draft reports or had any briefings then in answer to the next question he started to try to put fear into the questioner about what was in the reports. I say to the Minister that he cannot have it both ways as he keeps on trying to do. 
We will all agree on this: all of the information is not in the public domain. But the Minister said to trust him that he knows what he is doing that he is running this show and has more information than we have. That is what he said during question time on a previous day yet that same Minister with all the information is using the full force of his ministry and of Crown Law which is funded by taxpayers to silence the truth—or at least to repress information. The way around that is to release all the information. 
He succeeded in one thing: our freely elected district health board members no longer have a united voice and they no longer have united legal representation. So it is hats off to the mayors and representatives of Hawke’s Bay who are going in to bat for them. I say to the Minister that that it is called natural justice—he should look it up in the dictionary. 
The Minister released selected documents last week on his announcement of his sacking the board. Included in those documents was representation from district health board members that had been given in confidence as part of the review yet the Minister released that as a part of that package of information. That same Minister has said he has not seen any part of the review. By the way I say to the Minister that he also probably released documents that legal action now surrounds—apparently there are some defamatory comments in some of those. Let me give notice that the Minister has set the precedent of leaking information that was given to the inquiry under confidentiality agreements. There is no natural justice here. There is natural justice only once all the information comes out. The Minister is being the judge the jury and trying to be the executioner and it is on dubious grounds. He is right. It will be found out; the truth will come out. 
The inquiry has been going on for about 6 or 7 months. It took 6 or 7 months to bring the first draft to the officials. That took 6 months let us say yet apparently it has taken only 6 weeks to show that the second draft is apparently totally at odds with the first. We learnt that today in the House. What has happened in the middle in between? Who has made representation? Whom is the Minister trying to cover up for if anyone? Otherwise he should give out all the information and we will find out. He should treat the voters of Hawke’s Bay who re-elected this board as grown-ups by giving them the information. They will then make up their own minds. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister told Paul Holmes on Newstalk ZB that all the information should be released. She said that all information should be in the public domain and that we cannot have selective leaks. I agree for once with the Prime Minister. I can give the Minister the transcript of that conversation. I tell him to follow the instruction of the Prime Minister and release all the information into the public domain and let us all make an informed decision. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I rise in support of the decision made by the Minister of Health to dismiss the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I do so with regret and with sorrow at the lost opportunities for the people of Hawke’s Bay. I recall the time when Kevin Atkinson was made Chair and he appointed a very bright new Chief Executive Chris Clarke. It appeared to be an exciting combination and the prospects for Hawke’s Bay looked very good. The district health board was full of ideas about how it would improve health services. It was looking at innovative ideas and new technologies. Sadly all of that has gone. We now have a board that is mired in disputes and litigation and that has a ballooning deficit. That clearly smells like trouble but despite that we have people who claim that all is rosy. So what is the truth? 
Firstly let us look at the finances. At the beginning of the financial year the board proposed a budget that was to balance. We have subsequently been told that the board never believed that the draft budget was achievable—in other words it was deceptive. We now have a set of accounts that show a $7.7 million deficit. To make matters worse the $7.7 million deficit is predicated on making savings worth $5 million. There is no real prospect of achieving those savings. In actual fact the district health board has a $12.7 million deficit which is proportionally greater than that of Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board claims it is well run the board manages its governance well and there are no significant issues. Those claims are made despite the fact that three reviews of governance and management have been held. One such review of a board would be noteworthy two remarkable and three extraordinary. There would not be a problem if the three reviews had resolved the issues but they have not. One of the critical responsibilities of the board is to govern and manage strategic relationships. One of its critical relationships is with the Minister of Health. The board largely manages that relationship through the media. It is the only district health board to do so and that is no way to manage a critical relationship. Consequently the relationship with the Minister can only be described as difficult. The board and board members have regularly made extraordinarily adverse comments about the Ministry of Health. They have accused the Ministry of Health of bad faith and of deception. The board’s relationship with the Ministry of Health is critical to its ongoing success in managing its responsibilities. That relationship is one of suspicion. 
If the failure of those relationships was the end of the matter it might have been managed. But that is not so. There is a toxic relationship between the board and senior management. There are many examples of that and here are a few. It is alleged that during the current review of the board staff members were offered the opportunity to speak confidentially to the inquiry team. That was hotly opposed by the board. The board did all it could to stop people from speaking with the inquiry—quite extraordinary! Staff members did however exercise their right to tell their stories and in confidence as they were entitled to do. The board was so incensed at this that the chair threatened the chief executive with disciplinary action for allowing staff members to talk to the inquiry team. That was beyond the pale. Not satisfied by having done that the board determined to find out what the staff had said. There were threats to the staff of court action. Whether or not this was intended it was certainly perceived by the staff that they were being threatened and they felt intimidated. I am sure all New Zealanders feel a deep unease about such threats. All people must have the right to speak freely and confidentially to an inquiry. Why was this board so hotly opposed to that? 
It is alleged that the chair of the district health board discussed the performance appraisal of the chief executive with another staff member before the chief executive had seen it in order to white-ant the chief executive. That is utterly unacceptable in any normal circumstance. The chief executive was under enormous pressure. He sought medical advice and his doctor prescribed him 2 weeks’ stress leave. Feeling sick and stressed he advised the board of that—and no doubt expected some sympathy from it. But that was not forthcoming. The news of his pending stress leave was immediately leaked by the board to the news media denying the chief executive the opportunity to tell his story in his own time and in his own way. In other words when a man was down the board kicked him. I am sure I speak for many people when I say that I find that sort of behaviour reprehensible. The board has undermined the effectiveness of the chief executive at every turn. 
But the heat is not only felt by the chief executive; staff members at the hospital have said that they are in fear for their jobs. They feel bullied they feel battered and they feel intimidated. The relationship between the board and its senior management is at a crisis point. The chief executive has revealed that many of the senior management team are considering resignation. Anybody in the employment field today knows how difficult it is to employ competent staff. Why should Hawke’s Bay lose such good people unnecessarily? Sadly and additionally to all of this some months ago doctors at the district health board passed a motion of no confidence in the board. 
To sum matters up we have a district health board whose relationship with the Minister of Health is difficult whose relationship with the Ministry of Health is one of mistrust and hostile accusation and whose relationship with the chief executive and senior staff is toxic. By any definition that is a crisis. But that is not the end of the matter. The district health board has been completely fixated on the allegation that Peter Hausmann had a conflict of interest in a particular contract. One would expect that people who are so intensely aware of conflicts of interest would behave impeccably themselves. That is not the case. 
Recently a contract worth $600000 was awarded by the board’s finance and audit committee to Royston Hospital. That was against the advice of the board’s management who said that work for such significant sums of money should be tendered for. The board’s management provided probity advice to the committee that such work should be tendered for but despite that advice the committee awarded the untendered-for contract to Royston Hospital. One member of the committee has a brother who has an interest in Royston Hospital; a second member of the committee has shares in the company that owns Royston Hospital. They did not excuse themselves from the deliberations or the financial decisions made by the committee. A third member of the committee has allegedly refused to sign a confidentiality agreement in respect of his work on the board presumably because he does not want to be constrained in leaking information. That person cannot even keep a confidence about his own bad intent. I have no problem at all with Royston Hospital being awarded contracts provided the tender process is open transparent and fair. 
The problems with the district health board do not end there unfortunately. Recently on the basis of a LECG report the management put up a proposal to rationalise pharmaceutical dispensing that had the potential to save the board millions of dollars. The board rejected that proposal with the assistance of a board member who has an interest in five pharmacies. The board preferred the more expensive current practice than a new procedure that would have saved costs. The net loss here is to the people of Hawke’s Bay who are on the waiting lists. Every dollar spent on pharmaceuticals from now on means there are fewer dollars available for knee and hip operations and other procedures for the people who need them. 
It is a sad but similar story about the process of rationalising laboratory processes. The chair of the district health board on his own initiative and without the involvement of the management commenced discussions about and drew almost to a conclusion a contract for laboratory services with Medlab. Those discussions about the contract were again not subject to an open tender process contrary to the advice of the management and the board eventually approved the chair’s proposal. Sometime shortly thereafter the chair’s proposal was struck down by the Commerce Commission which required the district health board to let laboratory services on an open tender basis. The tender was eventually awarded to another contractor Southern Community Laboratories. The time taken to run two processes meant that the potential savings available to the board were lost. Those savings again represent lost opportunities for the people on the waiting lists to have their much-needed operations. 
The issue about the district health board is about competence. Some have characterised it as being about democracy but it is about competence. We have a district health board that has a dismal relationship with the Minister of Health has a difficult relationship with the Ministry of Health has a toxic relationship with its senior management team has a ballooning deficit and is focused on litigious adventures. The cost of those litigious adventures is being paid for by the people of Hawke’s Bay in terms of forgone operations. Do I support the Minister’s decision to dismiss the board? I certainly do. The board is required to have a good relationship with all its stakeholders. The board is responsible for its failed relationships with the Minister the ministry senior management and management staff. It can blame no one else. The board is completely responsible for the deficit but more important the board had the opportunity to make significant savings for the benefit of Hawke’s Bay but instead chose to have contracts for more expensive pharmaceuticals that favoured the pharmacies. It chose to award significant works without tender where there are clear and demonstrable conflicts of interest. 
Board members have allegedly leaked information. That is extraordinary. The chief executive told the board that the National Party had 25 confidential papers in its possession. That is a clear breach of trust and integrity. Such behaviour is corrosive and it seriously undermines the board’s ability to do the job on behalf of the people of Hawke’s Bay. The information was leaked to the National Party whose members have used the district health board as a political football to kick around. I am opposed to any political party no matter what its colour using our district health board as a political football simply in order to gain the attention of the media. 
Our district health board has an important part to play: to provide the best-quality services to the people of Hawke’s Bay. Its challenges are significant; we have poor health statistics. In order to achieve a high standard for the people whom a district health board represents the board needs to manage itself well. It has to manage its relationships well and by any measure this board failed to do so. I support the Minister’s decision. The people of Hawke’s Bay deserve a district health board that is focused exclusively on the welfare of the people it is responsible for. It has to be vigilant and financially responsible get best value for money and manage key relationships. The former board failed on all counts; it was dysfunctional. The people of Hawke’s Bay deserve better than that. The Minister in siding with the interests of the people who look to the district health board for health care had no option but to sack the board. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Appointments 
Assistant Speaker 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Hon Marian Leslie Hobbs be appointed an Assistant Speaker 
. With the resignation of Ann Hartley who is now pursuing a mid-life career on the North Shore City Council the House of course has the need to appoint a new Assistant Speaker to replace her. A process of consultation has occurred with other parties on the basis of the Government nominating the Hon Marian Hobbs to be an Assistant Speaker for the remainder of the term of this Parliament. 
I gather that there was widespread support for her appointment and I think that that is well-based. Marian brings to the job some extraordinary qualities and a great background. She of course is best known in this place as having been a Minister in the Government for a number of years but previous to that she was a teacher and a highly successful principal of Avonside Girls’ High School in north-eastern Christchurch—an institution not unknown to me from my own journeys to that part of Christchurch as a teenage boy. And anybody who can succeed at Avonside Girls’ High School can certainly succeed in keeping this place under control. 
There is one thing I need to warn members about. My colleague Ross Robertson has established a strong reputation for his formulaic approach to calling members—that is “I call the honourable member Ross Robertson.” or in his case it should be “H V Ross Robertson” which I long thought was some kind of honorific title acquired from some strange German principality but subsequently found out was actually his first two initials. I have to warn members that Marian Hobbs may not actually achieve that. She is well known in our caucus for simply calling people “Tuppence” or “Thingummy” so it is possible that on occasions when a member hears “I call the member Tuppence.” he or she must recognise that it is he or she who is being summoned at that point and not one of the other many Tuppences who happen to be around the place at that particular moment. But I have every confidence that Marian will do the job exceptionally well and I warn people that behind that very pleasant exterior that very soft velvet glove there is a fist of steel. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the motion that nominates Marian Leslie Hobbs to be an Assistant Speaker and in so doing I will take a moment or two to consider just what the role requires. I will also indicate that it was the Government’s prerogative to make the nomination from its number or of someone in the House its members were prepared to give their support to. I guess that is where the Labour Party had some difficulty because we note that so far 12 of its number have said they are not coming back voluntarily another six have indicated they are thinking about it and 19 are actually terrified about the prospect of not being sent back. When we look at the situation that presents for the Labour Party now we see that the options it seems are somewhat limited. If we go through the list and look at who is likely to be returned in a seat—and please let me assure the House that we are not certain that any of these members will be returned in a seat—we see there is of course the Prime Minister. Assuming she does contest the election—and that appears to be somewhat in doubt—she would be returned in her seat but of course the Assistant Speaker position would not be open to her. 
Going down the list there is the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. Well he in recent days has become another “maybe” and is now in a very precarious dicey position. But he has also been elevated recently to the ministry and is now one of the great hopes for the Labour Party’s future. So to have him in a situation where his seat looks to be a little precarious cannot give anyone over there any comfort whatsoever—particularly those like young Darren Hughes. He was somewhat relying on Mr Cosgrove coming though as a sort of saviour for the Labour Party therefore giving him a longer political career than he might naturally expect. 
Mr Hughes himself was considered for the role of Deputy Speaker but recently he has been promoted into the ministry. He is now the Minister of Statistics and he takes that job very seriously. In fact members will see that he has on his desk a 24B exercise book. It is one of the ones he did not finish in his last year at secondary school—just a short time ago—in which he records all sorts of statistics usually about his colleagues. It saves him having to walk around with one of these volumes in his back pocket as he tries to calculate who will be the next leader of the Labour Party. 
There is also Ruth Dyson. She is a Minister so is no good for Assistant Speaker. Lianne Dalziel has been a Minister then was not a Minister then came back as a Minister. She also interestingly is in a seat that now looks to be under a little bit of pressure. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Ah well—members laugh over there and they guffaw. But Aaron Gilmore is out there day by day knocking on doors and people are coming out to him and saying “Aaron we just need you sir in Parliament to represent us because we are not getting the deal we need at the moment.” 
There are others like Pete Hodgson. He has a reasonably solid seat down there in Dunedin but Mr Hodgson is one of the six who is on the list of “Maybe I will; maybe I won’t.” There are others here like the Hon Annette King. Under the circumstances I think her seat is now looking pretty dodgy as well. That is a seat that has long long promised to be a National seat. It is only her commitment to the right of the Labour Party that has kept her there. And as Labour goes back to kind and becomes a lot more left going into this election then I think we can expect that she herself will decline this opportunity. 
One of the things I cannot understand though is that Labour had an opportunity to appoint Lynne Pillay to this position. Lynne Pillay has a very solid seat out there in the west of Auckland and no doubt she will be one of the contenders for Labour leadership positions should the Labour Party survive in reasonable sorts of numbers beyond the next election. But for some reason she has been overlooked. I do not understand that. That is another one that surprises me a little bit. Obviously with so many leaving—12 going six considering and others still thinking about it—they are going to have to work at it a little bit. And there is Lesley Soper for example. She was last in and will probably be first back in. But no no consideration was given there. 
I know that Labour has a little trouble in the Maori seats at the present time. And I would have thought they might have turned to someone like Mahara Okeroa to put him in the Chair here and to give him the sort of status and gravitas that he needs because I know that the Ngai Tahu voting base have deserted him. It is all over. They are not going for Mahara any more. He is a nice chap they say but no—“We can achieve more for Ngai Tahu by voting for the Maori Party.” So I guess they have said to him: “No you’ve got to go out all around that huge Te Tai Tonga area and round up a few more votes.” 
Mita Ririuni is a list member so he would have had the time to do it. But no they do not want to let someone like that get in there. No—there are inexplicable reasons for that and I do not really want to go into them. There is someone like Dave Hereora who has recently been dumped as the chair of the Maori caucus in favour of Shane Jones who would have made an excellent candidate—an excellent candidate—but they have put poor old Dave on the back of the cross benches. He is a very capable fellow but is shut down at the present time because anyone with a shining light in the Labour Party at the moment is not given any encouragement whatsoever. 
So we come to the compromise candidate everyone’s friend Marian Leslie Hobbs. I want to reveal in the House this afternoon that I have known Marian Hobbs or known of Marian Hobbs for almost 30 years. Throughout that time I have seen her in numerous situations. She was once a firebrand unionist with the Post Primary Teachers Association. I remember her giving an impassioned speech in the late 1970s in which she persuaded the gathering to vote in favour of a particular strike action which was a little unusual. When the vote was taken and the result declared and after the chair of the meeting referred momentarily to Marian Hobbs she simply stood up and said “Thank you darlings. I’m proud of you.” In the vein of Michael Cullen’s warning to the House about names like “Tuppence” and I am told by people who serve with her on select committees that “Blossom” is another one I think we need to say to her— 
Sue Moroney 
: You won’t get “darling” Gerry. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Every time I see Marian Hobbs in the hallways she is a very pleasant person. She always smiles and she always says “How are you going today darling?”. I have never misconstrued that perhaps because I am so used to hearing it from people—I am not sure. But I have never misconstrued that. I just think that in the heat of parliamentary debate it would be a little inappropriate if people were called to their feet in that way. So with that small warning that small hint of reservation can we offer our congratulations to Marian Hobbs and our assurance that we will give her the respect that is due to someone who holds this sort of parliamentary office. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was all very interesting. Finally the member got to the point of the Government motion. I was wondering whether I was in the right debate at one point. 
I would like to say on behalf of New Zealand First that we are supportive of the Hon Marian Hobbs becoming an Assistant Speaker. A question that we perhaps would put to her is whether she really knows what she is getting into. I imagine that the Chair is not a very comfortable seat to sit in from time to time. It will call on all of her expertise as a teacher and as a high school principal. She will need it all from time to time. 
She has been a hard-working member of this House. The New Zealand First members have known her since she came to the House. We all arrived at the same time—new boys on the block together. We know she has a great sense of humour and she will sit there with some trepidation and with a sense of fair play. It is fair to say that we believe that the honourable member has all the qualities to do a first-class job in the role but perhaps one quality will be tested. We know she has an abundance of tolerance but does she have the patience to deal with this House when it really shows its wild side? New Zealand First will support the member in her role. We will give her our best shot—that is a promise we make. But we also make another promise: that from time to time we will add a little bit of spice and make her life as interesting as possible. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes this Government motion for the Hon Marian Hobbs to become an Assistant Speaker. Unlike Mr Brownlee I did not know Marian Hobbs before I came to this House but ever since I have been in this House she has always been a very warm pleasant and very human person and that is a trait I particularly value in this place which can become pretty hostile at times. 
I have had a working relationship with Marian Hobbs only since the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill has been before the Local Government and Environment Committee. During deliberations on that bill she has made a very valuable welcome and important contribution based on her experience as Minister for the Environment and I thank her for that. Let me say that judging by the speech made by Mr Brownlee I think that a commitment to waste minimisation will be incredibly important as an Assistant Speaker. It will be most useful to try to minimise some of the waste in this House. Mr John Carter has often talked about resource recovery and I think Mr Brownlee’s speech in particular demonstrates the difference between the need for waste minimisation and the need for resource recovery. I am not sure that there was much resource to be valued or recovered from his contribution. 
We welcome this motion. We welcome particularly seeing another woman in the role of an Assistant Speaker. We think that is enormously useful and we wish her all the best in the role. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. When this Government notice of motion appeared on the Order Paper I noticed an increased interest in the proceedings of the House from the honourable member for Te Tai Tokerau Mr Hone Harawira. For someone who enthusiastically studies the Standing Orders I can say that Standing Order 30 really got him going. It describes the criteria for the appointment of an Assistant Speaker as being limited only by the constraints that no member who is a leader of a party or who holds office as whip is able to be appointed to this role. In the case of the Maori Party that meant we had only one potential nominee for the role Mr Hone Harawira. I come to the debate today obviously disappointed that the expertise of Mr Harawira has been overlooked but also on behalf of the Maori Party to express our best wishes to the Hon Marian Hobbs for the opportunity she has been given to hold office during the remaining term of this Parliament. 
In doing so I want also to convey our appreciation to Ann Hartley for the contribution she made to the Chamber when she negotiated cajoled conducted and directed the proceedings of this House. We wish her every success in her role as a North Shore City councillor. Her experience as a former Mayor of Birkenhead and her last 8 years in national politics will no doubt be of huge benefit to regional politics and we wish her and her whanau well. 
Regarding the motion the Maori Party is happy to support the proposal for Marian Hobbs to take the role of an Assistant Speaker. It is always interesting for me as a former school principal to see the influence of educationalists in this Chamber. As I understand it Marian has been involved in playcentre management she has been a principal of girls’ colleges in Christchurch and Wellington she was a co-founder of the Four Avenues Alternative School she has been a member of the Canterbury University council and has also been involved with countless community ventures. I believe that presiding over the debate in this Chamber will pretty much come as a breeze to anyone who has been charged with motivating secondary school students to stay awake during class. 
We have watched Marian working alongside Mr Mark Blumsky on Wellington issues such as the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary and hope that the capacity to put aside party political positions will be a priority for her in her role as an Assistant Speaker. We hope too that the varied life experiences she brings to the floor including her association with the Chippenham commune and the Quaker movement will be influential in encouraging peaceful and respectful debate in the House. 
Tena koe Marian. Nei ra nga mihi o te Torangapu Maori ki a koe kua eke ki tenei taumata o te Whare Paremata. Maku a Hone e korero kia tau tana wairua kia ngawari ai te ngau o mamae na tana kore whiwhi i tera o nga turu. Kia kaha ra. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Congratulations Marian. These acknowledgments to you from the Maori Party for reaching this pinnacle of Parliament House. I will speak to Hone to settle him down and to ease his disappointment at not securing that seat. Best of luck. 
] 
Finally Madam Speaker I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new list MP to this Chamber Louisa Hareruia Wall. Ko Tongariro te maunga ko Taupo te moana ko Tutemohuta te hapu ko te Pakira te marae. Ko Ngati Tuwharetoa te iwi ko te Heuheu te tangata. E te uri o Ngati Tuwharetoa o Tainui hoki nau mai hara mai. He kitenga kanohi ka hoki nga mahara ki to matua ki a Les ki o matua keke a Nick a Te Whakapumautanga ara ko ratou kua ngaro atu nei ki tua o te pae. 
Hoi ano waiho ratou kia moe. Ko koe tenei e whai nei i o ratou tumanako. E te uri o Tutemohuta e rarau nau mai. Nau mai e te Rau Hiriwa nau mai e te Rau Pango. Kua tau mai ki roto i tetahi kahui toa mo te hakinakina a he mema Paremata ano hoki. Ara ko Te Rangi Hiroa tera toa o Aotearoa o te motu mo te peke tawhiti. Ko Puti Watene kapene o te tima riki o te motu. Ko Ben Couch ratou ko Grahame Thorne ko Chris Laidlaw o te Tima o Pango. A Tutekawa Wyllie no te tima Maori a Paul Adams taraiwa motoka nei. Tae ra ano ki tenei Paremata ara ko Colin King toa mo te kuti hipi mo nga wa e toru. Ko Bob Clarkson o te tima hoki me te toa o te motu mo te taraiwa waka whiroki nei. Ko ahau hoki ara mo te tima o te motu o nga whare wananga tima o te motu mo nga kura mahita mo te whutuporo. Ko te tima hoki i raro o te tekau o Ngongotaha. Kei te mihi atu ki a ia kua eke ki nga taumata o te motu a-hakinakina nei kaua mo te wa kotahi noa iho engari mo nga wa e rua. 
No reira e te Whare koi nei te mihi o Te Torangapu Maori ki nga mea e rua ara a Marian Hobbs mo tana ekenga ki tera taumata otira ki tenei kanohi hou kua tau mai ki roto i te Whare Paremata. Tena korua tena korua tena korua. No reira ka hoki ra ano ki te kaupapa korero he mihi ki tenei ki a Marian Hobbs he mihi ano hoki ki tenei kanohi hou kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Paremata. Otira ki a Louisa Wall mo tana ekenga mai ki te Whare Paremata. No reira tena korua tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Tongariro is the mountain Taupo is the lake Tutemohuta is the subtribe and Pakira is the marae. Ngati Tuwharetoa is the tribe and te Heuheu is the man. To the relative of Ngati Tuwharetoa and of Tainui as well welcome welcome. To see the face brings back memories of your dad Les your uncles Nick and Te Whakapumautanga all of whom have passed beyond the veil. 
Enough leave them there to rest. It is you indeed who is present here pursuing their aspirations. Welcome the descendant of Tutemohuta draw near. Welcome the Silver Fern welcome the Black Fern. You have landed here amongst a band of former champions on the field of sport as well as members of Parliament such as former MPs Te Rangi Hiroa a New Zealand long-jump champion; Puti Watene captain of a New Zealand rugby league team; and people like Ben Couch Grahame Thorne and Chris Laidlaw all former All Blacks; Tutekawa Wyllie former Maori All Black; and Paul Adams a New Zealand Rally champion. And down to this Parliament to Colin King three times New Zealand Golden Shears winner; Bob Clarkson an Olympic hockey champion and seven times winner of New Zealand titles in dragster racing; myself included as well as a New Zealand universities and New Zealand teachers representative in rugby right down to being a Ngongotaha under-10s representative. My congratulations to her on achieving national status in sport not once but twice.  
So I say to the House the Maori Party acknowledges these two Marian Hobbs for becoming an Assistant Speaker; the new member as well taking her place in Parliament. Greetings to you two thrice over. Again I go back to the purpose for this address which was to congratulate Marian Hobbs and Louisa Wall. So greetings to you two greetings to the assembled and us 
.] 
Motion agreed to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: May I congratulate the Hon Marian Hobbs and welcome her to the position of Assistant Speaker. 
Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 February. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 After that extremely wide-ranging Government motion No. 2 we now come back to something that is somewhat more prosaic: the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. On the last day of the last sitting week I spoke for 1 minute on it and I made the point that National will be supporting this first reading. Now I have the opportunity to expand on that a little further. 
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 with a view to simplifying and modernising the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). The bill changes the method of calculation of the ALAC levy charged on each alcoholic beverage. ALAC is currently funded by a proportionate levy on four categories of alcohol—beer wine fortified wine and spirits—according to their volumes consumed during the previous year. The total levy collected for ALAC in 2005-06 was $13 million. The new method that this bill introduces is a levy per litre of alcohol content which is similar to the classification system used by the Customs Service to calculate excise duty. The result is that drinks with higher alcohol percentages will contribute a higher proportion of the levy so spirits will attract a higher levy than wine which will in turn attract a higher levy than beers. The levy change will advantage those beverages with high volumes but a low alcoholic content—such as beer and especially light beer—and low-strength spirits such as alcopops. 
A key factor in the Ministry of Health’s choosing the preferred option was its similarity to the current method that the Customs Service uses to collect excise tax. Industry feedback provided during consultation favoured rolling the levy into the excise tax. The Customs Service and the Ministry of Economic Development also favoured this option in order to reduce compliance costs. Only Treasury and the Ministry of Health favoured the proposed option. The ministry favoured it because it shows a direct link between the industry and ALAC’s work and Treasury favoured it because it makes ALAC’s costs transparent. 
One can see the logic that the Ministry of Health is following. Obsessive consumption of alcohol is harmful and ipso facto the higher the concentration of alcohol the greater the negative effects in terms of health and social impacts. However there are strong arguments that much of the negative impact of alcohol in New Zealand society may be attributed to beverages that are lower in alcohol but tend to be consumed to excess by at-risk groups. It is a fair bet that young people who get into trouble in whatever form through the abuse of alcohol are more likely to be drinking beer and alcopops than Pinot noir and I believe we will be hearing a lot more on that subject during the select committee process. There is no doubt that we have problems with alcohol in New Zealand society—problems that stem from our ingrained attitudes to drink. This issue is discussed regularly in different forms in this Parliament and it is pretty clear that alcohol abuse impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and their loved ones. 
ALAC fulfils an important role in encouraging the responsible consumption of alcohol and in minimising its harmful effects. It was set up in 1976 when a royal commission recommended its establishment following an inquiry into the Sale of Liquor Act. Its budget for 2008 is $12.5 million. Other sources for ALAC’s funding were considered including having a higher excise tax or funding it through Vote Health but these were dismissed by the Ministry of Health. ALAC is an organisation that deserves Government and industry support. Its education campaigns and research studies have helped to shape and change many New Zealanders’ views towards alcohol. None the less by no means is ALAC’s job finished which is why the alcohol levy is so important and why this legislation is needed. 
A recent Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting provisions found them to be outdated and not future-proofed against new types of beverage. They were found to be overly complex and it was noted that they are presently set by the Minister through a  
Gazette 
 notice which is inconsistent with the setting of the gambling levy. This review consulted the beverage industry widely and found support for adjusting the levy-setting mechanisms. Three options were given to industry stakeholders and relevant Government departments to consider. The first would have brought ALAC’s levy under excise and excise-equivalent duty and the second would have seen all funding for ALAC taken out of Vote Health. The third was the option we are now discussing: using classification bands to determine the levy. This option was seen by Treasury and the ministry as the best one because it lawfully addresses the problems uncovered by the Ministry of Health review. However the majority of industry stakeholders although not opposing this option as such preferred rolling the levy into the excise tax. 
The Beer Wine and Spirits Council and especially the New Zealand Winegrowers association favour the excise option because they believe the classification method will unfairly impact on their products which are by nature higher in alcohol content than many other alcohol products. To the Ministry of Health and Treasury the third option is preferable for a number of reasons. It updates the levy-setting mechanism by bringing it into line with current Customs Service excise-collecting systems it future-proofs against new kinds of alcoholic products it more easily takes into account any new types and it simplifies the system as the new levy-setting mechanisms are far simpler to calculate than the current ones. 
In addition the bill sets out new provisions to allow Cabinet a role in the process thereby bringing it into line with the same process as the setting of the gambling levy. An up-to-date simplified levy-setting mechanism is necessary for ALAC and the beverage industry for obvious reasons and it is the main reason why the National Party will be supporting this bill going to a select committee. 
I would just like to mention briefly three main provisions of this bill. Firstly there is a new definition of “wine”. This bill repeals all previous definitions of “wine” and replaces them with the following: “ ‘wine’ means the product of the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit … vegetable or honey and—(a) includes—(i) cider perry and mead; and (ii) fortified wines such as sherry port and fruit or vegetable-based liquors; …”. This classification simplifies the definition in the current Act which defines different kinds of wine rather than the concept of wine itself. 
The second important provision relates to the definition of “class of liquor” which is a new definition in the bill. This definition classes liquor into groups for the purposes of identifying the amounts of levy that will be taken out of any particular leverage—for example more than 1.5 percent but not more than 2.5 percent alcohol content and so on. 
The third main provision is in regards to the setting of the levy. This sets out the calculation that the Minister must use to find the correct figure for each class of liquor. Some of these rates may be variable in which circumstances the bill notes that the Minister must determine what these rates are. In addition as mentioned earlier the Governor-General may also fix the levy if directed to by the Minister. 
Although National essentially supports this bill at the first reading we take issue with it for a couple of reasons. Firstly the bill obviously advantages those beverages with low alcoholic content but high volume such as beer especially light beer and low-strength spirits—those sometimes referred to as alcopops. Whether this will see an increase in production of these alcopop products remains to be seen but it is an issue that may need to be addressed at a later stage and one that will no doubt be discussed at the bill’s hearing in the select committee. 
Secondly National is concerned that a number of the industry stakeholders as well as the Ministry of Economic Development and the Customs Service favoured rolling the levy into an excise tax rather than the option under debate here. We need to make sure that their concerns about the chosen levy-setting mechanism are heard and appropriately considered. Thirdly National strongly believes that an extra clause should be added to this bill requiring the Minister to consult with the sector if a levy increase in excess of the consumer price index is planned in any year. This will give the sector confidence in the administration of the levy and allow stakeholders to feel more involved in the levy process as a whole. 
So to sum up National will support this bill at its first reading and looks forward to the discussion of the bill at the Health Committee. We are sure this bill will attract a wide range of submissions and I think there will be some quite interesting debate in the committee. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise as the deputy chair of the Health Committee to support in a short speech the first reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill which as was pointed out on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor the last time the bill was before the House is a non-controversial and common-sense bill. The bill is largely a technical amendment bill and should be dealt with quite quickly in the select committee though there will be some interesting discussion. 
The prime objective of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) is to promote responsible drinking and strategies that will minimise alcohol misuse. The Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill amends the Alcohol Advisory Council Act which had its origins in 1976 to simplify the current mechanisms for setting the ALAC levy. The technical amendment provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair up to date and simple to calculate. It proposes calculating the levy for each alcoholic product according to a system using alcohol classification bands that is similar to the approach used by the New Zealand Customs Service to collect alcohol excise and excise-equivalent duty. Basically the system sets a dollar amount per litre for each alcoholic beverage according to its alcohol content or deemed alcohol content. So beverages with a higher volume of alcohol will contribute a higher proportion to the levy which seems fairly common-sense. The beer industry will be affected most by the proposed update to the calculation due to the high volume of imported and manufactured beer products in New Zealand. The spirits and wine sectors will contribute a lower proportion of the levy. Any effect on the price to consumers should be minor. 
The bill is also future-proofed against the emergence of new types of beverages that would not fit easily into any liquor class in the current system. For instance some hybrid drinks have a mixture of wine and spirits. The bill repeals a host of definitions and replaces them with one very straightforward definition of “wine” and inserts a new definition of “class of liquor” each class being defined by reference to the proportion of alcohol it contains. 
This bill as I said is relatively short and technical. I am looking forward to its swift passage so that ALAC can get on with the very good work it does in education programmes research dissemination of information and treatment programmes. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take a fairly brief call on the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. I think it has been made abundantly clear by my colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman that National will be supporting this bill and the reasons why we will support it. 
This bill is about a method of calculation of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy on alcoholic beverages. The method is a simplification of the current system. We are actually simplifying things for a change rather than making them much more complicated and bureaucratic and that is one of the reasons why National will certainly support the bill. 
As we all know ALAC’s role is to encourage responsible consumption of alcohol and minimise abuse. I want to briefly spend a moment or two on why it is so important that we not only simplify the method of calculating the levy but also maintain our funding of ALAC. We have a pattern of drinking here in New Zealand. We have a binge drinking culture but not only a binge drinking culture; we have a pattern of drinking that is quite damaging and costs this country quite a lot. I would like to quote very briefly from the  
Proposed ALAC Strategic Direction 2007-2012 
 which states: “This pattern of drinking results in a range of harms that is estimated to cost New Zealand in 2002/03 at least $2 billion …”. We know that that harm has escalated since then. ALAC also told us “It has been estimated that 22% of all injuries treated in hospital and the consequent ACC costs are linked to alcohol … New Zealand Police estimate 70% of their work is linked to alcohol and recent Alco-Link data equates this to Police dealing with 258 offenders per day”—every single day of the year—“who have been affected by alcohol.” Regrettably these numbers are not going down; they are going up. 
I want to spend a moment or two talking about the community action that is part of ALAC’s work and also the community action that is part of New Zealand communities working together to overcome the problems associated with alcohol. On many occasions in my previous job working for the Timaru District Safer Community Council and with other people within the Timaru district and Aoraki electorate I have seen ALAC and its partnerships at work. I have attended ALAC’s partnerships conferences and understand some of the ways it tries to lead communities to take action for themselves. I have worked alongside community and public health alcohol educators along with liquor liaison committees within a community where the industry the enforcement agencies and organisations like the safer community councils all get together to come up with good strategies to deal on a local basis with the local harm to local people. 
I tell members that I have taken part in controlled purchase operations commonly referred to as stings. They are part of the arsenal that helps us to address the harm caused by alcohol but those very same stings address only a small part of the problem—that is the sale of alcohol to minors. There is a very much larger problem of alcohol bought legally but then made illegal when passed on to under-18-year-olds to drink. Of course most of the problem around that is the fact that these under-18-year-olds are drinking an inappropriate amount of alcohol. That is in many respects why we have such a lot of harm. 
ALAC works a lot with the local councils with the territorial local authorities and works under the auspices—or I should say alongside—of the various Acts that come into play when we talk about alcohol and its regulation: the Sale of Liquor Act the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act. ALAC works in with communities to discover the very best possible arrangements for opening hours for monitoring host responsibility and for days and hours of trade—in fact all monitoring enforcement and indeed prosecutions of those who break the law within communities. 
I finish by touching on one rather more recent endeavour—or shall I say pathway—that ALAC is going down: CPTED or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. It is about councils designing their communities to be safe—safe from any criminals who are out there but also safe for those young people who are drinking alcohol. One example of how that works is when communities have safe lighting pathways. A young person who had perhaps fallen foul of alcohol and collapsed on a street would always be seen because there would not be dark and shadowy areas for him or her to fall into. That is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and it is one of the ways communities are looking to make their young people safer. 
Let me tell members that the ALAC helpline which is an alcohol and drug helpline had 15180 valid calls—that is up by 3 percent—in the last year. That is yet one more example of why we need to make the funding mechanism much simpler. National will support this bill’s referral to the select committee for a very good reason. ALAC’s budget for 2007-08 is $12.5 million. Let us make things simpler rather than more complicated for a change. The National Party supports this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the referral of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill to the select committee. It is a relatively short but technical bill and it is very timely to update and simplify the mechanisms for setting the levy because it is over 30 years since this was done. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) was established in 1976 by an Act of Parliament following the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Liquor. The commission recommended establishing a permanent council whose aim was to encourage responsible use and minimise the misuse of alcohol. There is still a long way to go; ALAC is a very important body. 
We were very pleased to see that the levy setting was going to be simplified. We in New Zealand First believe that this new procedure is more suited for the 21st century and we believe that the public will be keen to have a say on this bill and it is very important that they do so. No doubt there will be wide-ranging discussion at the select committee. A regime that is simple to calculate is important and that it should be aligned to the approach used by the Customs Service seems to be very sensible as the Customs Service actually collects this levy. We are also interested to see that this legislation was important to establish a mechanism for Cabinet to approve the final levy amount as happens with the problem-gambling levy. Again this seems very logical. 
The explanatory note of the bill emphasises that this levy needs to be future-proofed against new types of alcoholic products and drinks. In New Zealand First we wonder how many new types of alcoholic products we actually need particularly as alcopops unfortunately have changed the way our teenagers consume alcohol. It will be interesting to see what other developments there may be. We can count on the fact unfortunately that there will be other developments. New Zealand has changed since the original law was passed in 1976. The levy already encompasses beer grape wines spirits fruit wine and no doubt liqueurs even though they are not specifically listed in the bill. It is a fairly comprehensive list and I would have thought it would cover all the alcohol produced and imported for sale in New Zealand. 
ALAC plays a very important role in education research and advertising and I was very interested to check out the ALAC website and read its vision statement supporting the moderate use of alcohol and the minimising of harm. I again considered that we still have a very long way to go. The website shows the total amount of the levy payable for the year ending 30 June 2008. It is $12.5 million. The levy rates themselves are very clear on the website and I was very interested to see the rates set for the year ending 30 June 2008: beer 1.39c per litre; unfortified wine 5.02c per litre; fortified wine 8c per litre; and spirits 44.59c per litre which is quite considerable. 
We in New Zealand First consider that we still have a long way to go to achieve moderate and responsible use of alcohol despite the campaigns that have been running—very successful campaigns I might add. The latest campaign “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” really does make people look at what they are doing to their lives. The fact that so many days are lost from people’s lives is quite disturbing. 
I was very surprised that it was so difficult to find information on foetal alcohol syndrome on the website. I had really thought that the minimising of harm would extend to the prevention of birth defects. We know that foetal alcohol syndrome is the biggest cause of non-genetic mental handicap in the Western World and it is the only one that is totally 100 percent preventable. It is a sad fact that foetal alcohol syndrome is often undiagnosed. Problems in children intensify as they move into adulthood and this is when we see many of them involved with the criminal justice system. 
New Zealand First supports the referral of this bill to the select committee. We look forward to the discussion there and we are aware that there is a lot of work to be done in this particular area. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Hoino hakoa e rere ke ana taku mahi ki nga tikanga o te Whare nei e tika ana kia tu ahau i tenei wa hei reo mo te Pati Maori kia mihi atu ki to tatou tuahine a Louisa katahi ano kua uru mai ki roto i te Whare. Te mihi ano hoki ki tona whanau kua tae mai hei tautoko me te mihi ano hoki ki to matou tuahine a Georgina Beyer kua hoki mai ki te Whare. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
Although it is a little out of line with protocol I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of the Maori Party to welcome our sister Louisa to the House. We welcome her whanau who have come to tautoko her on this day and we also welcome our sister Georgina Beyer who has come back to the House for this occasion. Tena koe Georgina. Tena tatou katoa. 
Last August I was out on night patrol around the town camps outside of Alice Springs with the Aboriginal equivalent of the Maori wardens—people who have no police powers but are dedicated to helping whanau trying to help themselves. It was a sobering night in many respects: it was sobering to see the commitment and the patience of the night patrol it was sobering to know that these patrols and other initiatives were going to be disbanded under the racist Australian Northern Territory intervention plan and it was sobering to see the extent of alcoholism in indigenous communities. Although I have done the serious “party hardy” scene all over the country in my day I can tell members that I have never ever seen the level of alcohol abuse I saw that night on night patrol. It blew me away and it also opened my eyes to the way in which we are not dealing with alcoholism in this country. That includes this bill—good bill though it is—to amend the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. 
It is important that we as parliamentarians know that while we pitter-patter around the periphery of the problem of alcohol abuse with bills like this—we have already passed legislation to allow the sale of alcohol in supermarkets and the sale of alcopops to teenage kids and we have extended the opening hours of clubs and bars—we leave our poorer communities to deal with the trauma of the drunkenness the assaults the alcoholism the poorhouses the night patrols the soup kitchens the health problems the domestic violence and all the needless tangihanga. It is all fuelled by easy access to alcohol. Those liquor and alcohol outlets that we have sanctioned drain poor families suck out desperately needed food money and profit from the addictions of the poor. 
So today we come here to consider how best to support the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) in its job of encouraging the responsible use of alcohol and minimising its misuse. That has to be a good thing. ALAC has been around for about 30 years since the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Liquor. It has battled through the time since the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 deregulated the liquor industry increased trade flexibility removed restrictions on drinking alcohol and relaxed the sale and supply of alcohol all of which led naturally to greater consumption and abuse of alcohol. ALAC knows more than anyone the effects of alcohol consumption so when it calls for resources to deal with alcohol abuse in Maori society the Maori Party hears what it is saying. When ALAC calls for research on the impact of alcohol and liquor advertising on Polynesians we hear that call too. 
Today’s bill aims to provide ALAC with levies based on the level of alcohol in drinks which will enable it to continue with its work. Fifty percent of all 12 to 17-year-olds in Aotearoa—Maori Pakeha whatever—are boozing it up big time. This is a horrific statistic that we simply cannot ignore any longer. While surveys tell us that non-Maori kids drink more often they also tell us that Maori kids binge drink at two and a half times the rate of non-Maori. It is these kinds of statistics and these scenarios that challenge us in this House to take responsibility for the health of our nation’s future just like Sir Apirana Ngata did. He was petitioned by Ngati Porou women to use his parliamentary powers to stop the further sale of alcohol on the East Coast which unfortunately and unwittingly gave rise to the great haka “Poropeihana” opposing the prohibition of alcohol. Yet here we are nearly a century later still trying to deal with the destructive effects of alcohol in Maori communities. 
While we support this bill our greater interest is still in the changes we need in legislation to deal with alcohol abuse. More than half of all teenagers who binge drink say they get their alcohol from their parents and there are no adults around when these teenagers are getting off their faces. Maybe we should be expending less effort on banging the kids and more on sorting out the parents by focusing on efforts to turn whanau round by giving them positive options in life such as a decent education decent housing decent kai and a job rather than more police more laws more jails and more misery. Parliament can set an example by cutting back on alcohol at its own functions and by MPs being better role models than those dickheads who get drunk down town and make fools of themselves in public. 
Anyone who goes out on night patrol with the cops in Aotearoa will see cells filling up with over-intoxicated drunk people every weekend as if the police do not have better things to do with themselves! How many tangi could we prevent if we took a harder line on alcohol abuse? How many fights court referrals court cases and convictions? How much community detention preventive detention home detention and jail? These are the questions we need to consider and the targets we should be setting ourselves to reach. Yet we sit here and kid ourselves that we are serious about dealing with these issues while we allow the liquor industry to continue to promote its mind-bending products on national television for heaven’s sake. I am nobody’s hero but I do take pride in being a non-drinker a non-smoker and drug-free. I know that Maori people respect those who walk their talk. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’re a saint! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Thank you very much. I also know that 60 percent of Maori inmates point to drugs and alcohol as major factors in their offending. There is a lot we need to do. We need research to back up our fight against alcohol abuse but not too much research—there is heaps of it around already. We need to put restrictions on the availability of alcohol. We need to put the brakes on binge drinking. We need more focus on education sport and culture and we need to put more real energy into giving people positive life choices instead of the dead-end lifestyle that sees us lose 22000 people every year to Australia. Alcohol is still the most damaging drug in our society bar none. It is scary enough knowing that from the time one turns 18 it is legal but the really frightening thing is that 50 percent of our kids are already into it before they even make that 18th birthday. We here in this House have the power to change that; the question is whether we have the courage. Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. 
Debate interrupted. 
Maiden Statement 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. E nga mana e nga reo rau rangatira ma tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Ko Tongariro me Taupiri nga maunga. Ko Taupo te moana ko Waikato te awa. Ko Te Wherowhero me te Heuheu nga tupuna rangatira. Ko Ngati Tutemohuta me Ngati Hineuru nga hapu o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Ko Ngati Amaru me Ngati Tipa nga hapu o Waikato Tainui waka. Ko Louisa Wall ahau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker. Greetings to authorities languages and leading figures greetings and greetings to you all. Tongariro and Taupiri are the mountains. Taupo is the lake Waikato is the river and Te Wherowhero and te Heuheu are the revered ancestors. Ngati Tutemohuta and Ngati Hineuru are subtribes of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Ngati Amaru and Ngati Tipa are those of Waikato of the Tainui canoe. I am Louisa Wall. 
] 
Kia ora tatou. Madam Speaker I acknowledge the role you play in maintaining order in this House and that I will have the privilege of serving in this House with you. It is with a sense of deep pride and gratitude that I stand here today in this the 48th session of the New Zealand Parliament and as the 1323rd member to be sworn in. I am here today because I am a proud member of the New Zealand Labour Party and because of MMP. I represent the diverse membership of Labour which reflects the variety of communities that make up 21st century Aotearoa. MMP is a system that ensures that every vote is counted and that the will of the people of Aotearoa is heard. I am very honoured to represent the many peoples of this land. 
I want to acknowledge my mother Josie and my mother’s mother Nanny Linda from Tuakau whose korowai I am wearing and who are in the House today and my whanau from Waikato-Tainui. I also acknowledge my whanau from Waitahanui some of whom now reside in Wellington. Waitahanui is a community on the eastern foreshore of Lake Taupo where I grew up. It is the land of my Ngati Tuwharetoa father Les. As my partner Prue often reminds me it is part of Te Arawa waka. 
My entry to Parliament is occasioned by the retirement of Ann Hartley MP and I congratulate her on her service to the people of the North Shore and of New Zealand as a whole. I also state my gratitude to those many New Zealanders who over the last three elections have consistently chosen Labour as their party of choice placing Labour in a position to lead the government of New Zealand. I express my gratitude to the Labour Party membership for electing me into a list position to represent and promote the Labour philosophy of ensuring that no one is left behind and that all boats rise together in New Zealand’s harbour. 
I am Labour’s candidate for Tamaki Makaurau. I look forward to working with the Auckland Labour team in our quest for two ticks and a mandate to form the next Government of Aotearoa New Zealand. 
At this time I also pay my respects to the Labour Party branch members of the Mt Albert electorate who introduced me to the party. I am the 261st person to join the Labour team of MPs in the history of the New Zealand Parliament and I am the 96th woman the 86th Maori and the 6th takatapui to enter this House. 
I am proud to join a Labour team seeking to make history. Just like my old team the Black Ferns Labour is preparing for four successes in a row. We have the leadership to make this a reality. I believe New Zealanders could not ask for better leaders than the Prime Minister Helen Clark and her deputy Michael Cullen. It has been under their watch as the leaders of Labour successfully negotiating minority Governments that New Zealand has walked amongst the leadership of the world showing great courage and steadfast resolve. Without question Iraq would have been a war entered into if it were not for the Labour-led Government. 
We kept true to our international obligations and to the mandate of the United Nations. We remained committed to the Security Council decision when some of our traditional friends decided that they knew best. Consequently New Zealanders did not needlessly die in battles in Iraq because it was not the right thing to do and because Labour listened to the great majority of New Zealanders who did not want us to go to war. Labour will continue to listen to New Zealanders and remain committed to our principled position on international issues such as our Nuclear Free Policy and our protection of whales stance. There are also policy positions related to our role as a leader within Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa in support of our Pacific whanau which I support wholeheartedly. 
It was great to see the election of the Labour Government in Australia. I celebrate the fact that one of its first acts was to admit the reality that past deeds had been akin to the cultural genocide of Australia’s indigenous peoples and to apologise for the loss of language and culture that resulted. The New Zealand Labour-led Government is progressively working through issues of historical redress with indigenous peoples. As well there is much more appreciation and valuing of our indigenous language and culture as opposed to my dad’s childhood days when he was strapped for speaking Maori at school. Labour has done this by introducing a new generic education curriculum that maintains that all students should have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo me tikanga Maori and to learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
I am pleased with the support we are giving to Maori Television and with the extra $23 million in radio whose operational budget was increased by $4 million in the 2007 Budget. I note that when we launch MTV2 at the end of March it will be broadcast in te reo each night between 7.30 and 10.30. Initiatives like these are required to advance New Zealand’s Maori Language Strategy and to encourage the learning of te reo in New Zealand society. I am proud to belong to a party that values New Zealand’s indigenous language and culture. 
Labour supports two particular principles of intense interest to me. First we see the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand. Labour reaffirmed its commitment to that at the 2007 Labour conference in Auckland along with a commitment to consider entrenching the Treaty when the time comes in the future for a conversation about an Aotearoa New Zealand constitution. 
It is worth highlighting here the historical partnership and ideals that Labour shares with the Ratana movement. During the Christmas of 1929 at a hui at Ratana Pa the Treaty of Waitangi was discussed at length. This led to 26407 signatures being gathered by the following Easter requesting that the Treaty of Waitangi be embodied in the statute book of Aotearoa in order to ensure that the Treaty was operative and to preserve the ties of brotherhood between Maori and Pakeha for all time. The commitment to making this a reality remains a priority for Labour Ratana and Maori. 
A second Labour principle of intense interest to me is a commitment to human rights; that regardless of race sex marital status gender identity sexual orientation age or religious faith we New Zealanders will be free to express ourselves and have the support of society in doing so and that to ensure the balance between our collective rights and responsibilities we have open processes that enable New Zealanders to speak their truths. It is now my right and responsibility as an MP to listen to those who have truths to contribute to identify those absent voices and the barrier to their participation and to help them have a voice as we make laws and rules for the governance of our society. Politics for me is about being in a position of power to make informed and principled decisions of benefit to society that protect the rights of society’s most vulnerable members. 
I have been reading a book given to my father as a 21st birthday present in 1964  
Ratana: the origins and the story of the movement.  
This book documents the establishment of Te Haahi and recounts a promise by Harry Holland Labour’s first leader in 1925 that lands properly belonging to Maori would be restored as part of the Labour programme of redress. The process of redress continues today. Labour is as committed as it was in the past to addressing injustices under the Treaty settlement process. This reconciliation process is critical to moving our country ahead and I support the need to lodge all historical claims by September this year. 
Labour and Ratana formed a union during the depression of the 1930s. Both organisations gained the support of many during a time when unemployment and poverty were huge problems for our country. It seemed to Maori and Ratana that Ngati Kaimahi the Labour Party was the champion of the rights of the people as opposed to the perpetuation of class privilege espoused by conservative parties. Labour adheres to that position today. Issues such as unemployment the need for higher education and the employment of Maori youth in addition to the status of Te Tiriti have long been high priorities for Maori. Under this Labour-led Government the Maori unemployment rate has decreased from 16.6 percent in December 1999 to 7.7 percent with a reduction in Maori 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries from 28.2 percent in June 2000 to 21.8 percent in September 2007. 
Maori educational achievement is up with participation rates of Maori children at early childhood education increasing from 84.8 percent in 2000 to 89.9 percent at last count. The percentage of Maori school leavers with a university entrance qualification doubled between 2001 and 2006 from 7.4 percent to 14.8 percent; 85747 Maori are enrolled in tertiary education institutions and 2243 Maori are enrolled in post-graduate courses. Maori trade training has been reignited with over 23000 Maori trainees participating in Modern Apprenticeships and industry training schemes. In the arts culture and heritage area $23.9 million has been allocated in three new investment areas to better position Maori to build and leverage off their collective human financial and natural resources traditional and contemporary knowledge and skills in leadership capability. Maori are building a strong future with the support of Labour and our work together must go on. 
For those Maori like me who are on the Maori roll it is worth noting that Labour is committed to retaining the Maori seats until Maori decide that they are no longer required. At this time I would like to acknowledge a mate of my dad’s Tariana Turia who in the earlier stages of my political journey was a huge support when we were both members of the Labour team and also Sandra Lee who thought I should have a taste of life as a “poli” so she opened her ministerial doors to me. Mark Burton has known me since I was a child. I acknowledge the support that he and Carol have given me over the years. Maybe I will get to play rugby with my mate Trevor in the parliamentary team—I am sure I qualify. 
The remainder of my speech is about my parents Les and Josie Wall. My mother was adopted and times were hard in her early life but she managed to travel the breadth of Aotearoa meeting my dad in Tamaki Makaurau before they eventually settled in Waitahanui. My parents instilled in my brothers Robert and Brian and my sister Janice and I a work ethic of “what you sow you reap”. I am forever grateful to them both. Dad grew up in a house with a dirt floor. They bathed in the river and were fed by Lake Taupo which sustained us when we were children because dad got up at 5 a.m. to go fishing before he went to work. Education was very important to my dad. He wanted a better life for his children. On his headstone are the letters PHD after his name. He was not quite a doctor more a post-hole digger but my dad worked hard to improve the lot of his children every day of his life as a father. Dad would have enjoyed being here today. No doubt he will get an edited version from my mother when she visits him next at the urupa in Waitahanui. 
Finally to friends and whanau who have come to share this experience with me: you have humbled me with your presence. Thank you for making the effort. To my partner Prue I appreciate all your support and your commitment to sharing my journey which has now led to Parliament. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Kia ora.  
Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: 
 I move  
That the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 26 June 2008 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: I move  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time a motion will be moved to refer this bill to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
This bill is the outcome of a very substantial amount of work over a long period of time. The Minister of Maori Affairs has been concerned for a very long period of time that there is too much in essence dead or poorly used money that could be better used or more actively used to underpin Maori social and economic development within a range of agencies. 
The bill also leads to some major changes which have been under consideration for some considerable period also to the nature and appointment of the Maori Trustee. What will happen under this bill is that the Maori Trustee will actually have its independence further recognised and given greater powers but also it will bring together a range of moneys. For example as part of this bill a certain amount of funding within Te Puni Kokiri will be capitalised and brought forward and put in as part of the funding that will be under the control of the Maori Trustee. At the end of this process in bringing together a range of funding it is hoped that the amount of money that will be under the control of the trustee will be sufficient to have a real leverage effect in terms of Maori social and economic development. 
With those few words I am happy to leave the remainder of this debate to those whom I acknowledge have more information and knowledge in this respect although I have been involved to some considerable extent in the development of this policy. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate Louisa Wall on her wonderful party political broadcast. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Looked good too! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It looked good as well. 
We first got notice of the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill when it was included in a Maori Purposes Bill—something that is supposed to be non-controversial. The Minister thought that he might be able to slip this one through no worries and get it passed. But it was the National Party that saw through this. This is nothing more and nothing less than what should be called the “Maori Trustee Theft Bill”. Although I think that Dr Cullen has expertise in a lot of areas I wonder why he led off the debate and not the Minister of Maori Affairs. This bill is in the name of the Minister of Maori Affairs. It is not the Deputy Prime Minister’s bill; it is not the Minister of Finance’s bill. 
We have worked out that this is nothing more than the theft of $35 million. I will tell the community now and the members of the Maori Party if they are listening that I expect those Maori Party members to stand in the House tonight and do exactly what they did with the foreshore and seabed legislation which was promulgated by the same Minister—that is to vote against the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. This is money that does not belong to every Maori in this country. It is money that belongs to beneficiaries who are beneficiaries of trusts and who are owners of land that has been put in the hands of the Maori Trustee to look after. 
What we have in this bill is nothing more than the development of an old idea—a Maori bank. But this is not a Maori bank like the Poutama. The Hon Shane Jones used to be the chairman of the Poutama Maori Business Trust and not a skerrick of any of that money went to the community for the development of any business ideas or towards any development ideas. What is the Minister doing about Maori development? He is preparing to thieve $35 million out of the back pockets of beneficiaries and use it for Maori development! 
I have here a little piece of paper about this that was pushed through to us and it says that the bill will establish a new independent statutory corporation. Well it cannot be independent because all the appointees to this corporation are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Finance for goodness’ sake. It is nothing more than a Labour Party slush fund for Labour’s mates. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs has that little grin on his face that he gets when he has been found out. The Maori world is very small. There have been fellas who have come up to me and said: “Hey bro what’s this thing that Parekura is on about? You know this corporation—he’s asked me to serve on it.” One should not try to keep secrets in the Maori world because they get out. They dribble out now and then at different hui around the motu. So I asked this fella whether he knew that $35 million was being thieved out of the back pockets of Maori and given over to a corporation basically to do what is a State obligation. It is not a Maori obligation; it is a State obligation. The next thing we know Maori education will be being paid for out of the back pockets of beneficiaries who have a little bit of the 6 percent of land that is now in the hands of Maori. Up on the East Coast there is quite a bit of land that comes under the Maori Trustee. I wonder what those people would say about their money going out of their back pockets to fund some idea that this corporation has. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It’s his own people. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. They are the Ngati Porou people and the honourable Minister is a member of that tribal district. 
Mark Blumsky 
: He’s looking uncomfortable. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He always looks uncomfortable. It may not be this bill. He always looks uncomfortable. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will quote from a report that was done ironically by Richard Charters Annette Sykes and Tama Nikora way back when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Minister of Maori Affairs. The report states: “The Maori Trustee must not provide funds for the Maori Education Foundation philanthropic purposes or the Maori Council.”—that is anything else other than the beneficiaries of this money. It states further: “These activities are affairs of State not beneficiaries.” 
I also point to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General in his report of I think 2004 in which he said: “The Trustee’s main role is to manage Maori land on behalf of its owners mostly through leasing for conventional farming. … The trustee also disburses rental funds and invests client funds when requested.” The report of the Auditor-General goes on to state that the trustee’s purpose is to “protect the interests of Maori clients and their land …”. That basically says that this is not an issue about Maori development. That can happen; that is the State’s responsibility. This is about a property right and the use of a property right that does not belong to all Maori. It does not belong to me; it belongs to the beneficiaries. In the same way that the Maori Party was created out of the furore of a property rights issue—the foreshore and seabed—I would suggest that everybody including the Greens vote against—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Ms Turei that it is OK to have one view on one property rights issue but it is not OK to have another view on another property rights issue. 
At least New Zealand First has the principled approach of sending things to a select committee. It does not buy into this carry-on of having one view one day and the next day having another view on pretty much the same thing. At least New Zealand First sends things to a select committee and then things are discussed there. 
For the Government to put its hand in somebody else’s pocket is absolutely wrong. This is about property rights. This is about the theft of $35 million of beneficiary money. It is not for all Maori. It does not belong to all Maori. How dare the Government get up on its hind legs and say that this money belongs to all Maori. It does not. I cannot wait to get around the traps and say to Maori: “Here we go again.” A couple of years ago the Government tried it and the birth of the Maori Party happened. This time there will be more people who look at the DigiPoll and say: “Yeah I thought so. Labour isn’t doing anything for us.” 
Pita Paraone 
: The “Dodgypoll”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh that is right—the “Dodgypoll”. The fact of the matter is that Labour has been behind in every poll since March last year. At the end of the day that is all it is about. Whether we see this bill go to the select committee is another story. The fact of the matter is that it is not long to go before we see the back end of this Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable Minister Parekura Horomia. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter of order. The Minister was meant to take his turn earlier in the piece and I actually called you before he did. I am sorry—Dr Cullen took his call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise the member that it is not a race about who stands up first and gets the call. Dr Cullen rightly took the first Labour call and the Hon Parekura Horomia is taking the third Labour call which he is entitled to do. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the member who has just spoken Tau Henare. All of the things he has talked about are all of the things he did not do. 
The Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill is about doing something for the future of Maori. The changes set out in this bill provide the foundations for real and significant progress on key issues affecting Maori. The bill provides a new start for the Maori Trustee by setting the trustee up as a stand-alone organisation and making a number of associated changes. The bill also establishes a new statutory corporation to further Maori economic development for the benefit of the beneficiaries which will bring a more cohesive approach to realising the potential of Maori business. The new corporation has the working name of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand—or MBANZ. To reflect these changes the bill amends the title of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 to the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Act 1953. These initiatives will help Maori to make the most of opportunities for development and innovation. 
The bill amends provisions relating to the Maori Trustee’s organisational form and financial accountability. The Maori Trustee undertakes a range of important and valued functions set out in the Maori Trustee Act and other legislation. The bill does not amend these functions which include administering land where the owners have not been located or where the owners have asked the trustee to do so. 
At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri. The bill will establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation that is separate from Te Puni Kokiri. This will underline the independence of the Maori Trustee in carrying out the positions and fiduciary responsibilities. 
The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Maori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act 1989. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions to the Maori Trustee in respect of funding provided by the Crown while maintaining the Maori Trustee’s independence. The reporting requirements will include preparing an annual report with a statement of service performance. Many a time in this House there have been challenges to organisations that have not done that. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments enable the new stand-alone Maori Trustee to employ his or her own staff and appoint a deputy Maori Trustee. 
The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined and this is one of the key issues. The bill provides that the Maori Trustee must pay the amount earned by the trustee in interest less the management fee. The Maori Trustee will be required to review the amounts paid on a quarterly basis in light of appropriate market rates given the nature of the common fund and the conditions under which the trustee operates. 
Together these changes underline the Maori Trustee’s role and independence and enhance accountability for public funding while protecting and furthering the interest of the trustee’s beneficiaries. In August and September last year Maori were consulted on proposals to set up the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and there was a good turn-out at the consultation hui held around the country—owners turned out in their hundreds. There was broad-based support for the proposals I have just outlined provided that the Maori Trustee would be funded on a viable basis. 
The second major initiative in this bill is the establishment of a new statutory corporation. This will have the principal function of furthering Maori economic development by utilising the potential of resources available to Maori. The new statutory corporation has the working name of MBANZ—Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. It is the result of careful consideration of how to achieve greater synergies between development activities already being undertaken by Te Puni Kokiri the Maori Trustee the Government and potentially other organisations. 
During consultation with Maori earlier this year on the proposals for a stand-alone Maori Trustee a wider discussion emerged at hui about the possibility of the Maori Trustee taking more of a leadership role to promote Maori development. This feedback has been taken into account in the development of the new corporation. 
The board of the statutory corporation will be chaired by the Maori Trustee. The remaining members will be appointed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Maori Affairs with the Maori Trustee. The board will be able to undertake services that enable it to fulfil its principal functions. These can include business support services identifying opportunities for economic development and developing the capacity to make loans and other payments to help beneficiaries and Maori set up new or developing businesses. As with any new body of this nature key considerations for the board will include its strategic direction and the nature and extent of the services it will be able to provide within its statutory responsibilities as the corporation gets under way. 
The corporation will be responsible for a new fund to enable it to carry out its functions. The fund will be made up of a significant contribution from the Government and a contribution of $35 million transferred from the general purposes fund. The general purposes fund is one of the funds that the Maori Trustee is responsible for under the Maori Trustee Act and currently it can be used for some development activities. There is the potential also for contributions from other organisations and that issue has been discussed. There will be ongoing discussions to ensure that that happens. 
The bill has a number of provisions that set out the powers duties and responsibilities of the board. The bill sets out accountability requirements which include holding a yearly public meeting and commissioning at regular intervals an independent review of the corporation’s performance. 
Finally the bill provides for a new schedule dealing with the detail of the board’s operations. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to enabling Maori to realise their potential. It helps to ensure that the Maori Trustee is well placed to provide services to Maori in the future and this bill is about the Maori Trustee in the future. The new statutory incorporation chaired by the Maori Trustee will provide a cohesive focus for Maori economic development. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Thieves. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member chortles about thievery. Why are those members afraid of making the Maori Trustee stronger giving the Maori Trustee independence and ensuring that beneficiaries know where to go know how to go and know that they are continuously supported? There has been consultation on this matter and I want to share with the House that this bill will be one of the great advancements for Maori in this country. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a briefing note from the Minister about where the $35 million is coming from. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 2004 report of the Controller and Auditor-General. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the 1991 review of the Office of the Maori Trustee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill will be a good test of the position of the Maori Party the Greens and New Zealand First because they need to reflect pretty clearly on what this Labour-led Government is doing in misappropriating $35 million of identifiable Maori moneys. Therefore the consultation should have been with those identifiable persons and land trusts. So this bill will be a very good test of where the Maori Party the Greens Metiria Turei and New Zealand First stand in relation to a Government that seeks to misappropriate Maori moneys. That is exactly what is being done with this bill. 
Dr Cullen who hurriedly took a call because the Minister in charge of this bill was not ready to take the call gave two reasons for it. Firstly he said there was a lot of dead money or poorly used money sitting around. Secondly he said the Maori Trustee needed to be reorganised or reformed to face the challenges of the future. So what is the Government’s answer? Its answer is basically to set the Maori Trustee up on a funding agreement with the Government to make the Maori Trustee dependent now on the Government and also to set up a new corporation to be funded by and large by Maori moneys—$35 million—taken from the Maori Trustee and put into a new corporation that will be there for the development of all Maori. I ask the House whether the same thing would happen in the general environment. For instance would New Zealanders agree to the Public Trust’s funds being taken misappropriated put into another corporation and used for the development of all New Zealanders? I do not think so but that is exactly the same as what is happening under this bill. 
However much the Government wants to dress the situation up and say there is a general purposes fund that is available for development there is no getting past the point that the Government is misappropriating Maori moneys. The Government actually tried to do that recently with regard to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. That trust’s moneys are not necessarily all Maori moneys but it is likely that a fair proportion is. Last November to the Government’s discredit again through not understanding the responsibilities of trusteeship the Government tried to take to itself in the settlement with Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust moneys from that fund to put into this new corporation. But that was stopped by Maori through a court action. I hope that Maori do the same here. I hope that those who are discernible Maori beneficiaries will take court action—litigation—to stop the thievery or statutory theft that is about to take place. That is what is happening here. 
The Minister raved on about his so-called consultation hui. He wrote out to all Maori all over the country and he says he obtained approval for what he is doing. But nothing in the reports of the consultation says that the identifiable beneficiaries approve of what he is now doing—nothing whatsoever. The Minister should be ashamed to come into this House and take funds that largely come from Ngati Porou to Waiariki—Te Arawa mainly and some from the north I think; largely from three or four identifiable areas—and stand up as though he is doing something great for Maori. He is doing something that Pakeha would never condone. They would never condone the Labour-led Government taking funds out of the Public Trust and using them for all New Zealanders. But that is the same as what the Minister is doing. It is no wonder he was not ready to take his call earlier. He knows that he is doing the wrong thing. 
The other thing about this measure is the Government’s patronising attitude or condescension. It says poor Maori do not know how to use their money properly so it is going to take it from them. The Government is setting up a whole new corporation and says it will distribute that largesse as though it is the Minister’s to all and sundry because Maori do not know how to handle their money. That essentially is what the Government and the Minister are saying. We say the Maori Trustee cannot do his job; actually he has not done it. Although he has travelled a hang of a lot overseas in the last year he has not done the basic tasks that are required of that trustee. But if the Maori Trustee cannot do his job rather than this Government misappropriating these funds I say they should be handed back to where they belong. The Minister should consider doing that. 
The Minister should reconsider what he is doing in distributing largesse to all and sundry. First of all that is not right and secondly it is condescending to treat Maori as if they are of no wit and cannot handle their own affairs. But that is typical of a Labour Government is it not—absolutely typical of a Labour Government. Labour Governments have been like that since mai rano. They say: “Bring everything back to the centre; we know best.” 
That Minister actually runs a department. It is called Te Puni Kokiri. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He doesn’t run it; Leith does. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well right—OK it has a chief executive but this Minister is in charge of it. A colleague of mine Gerry Brownlee still does not know what that Minister does with his department. Actually some days we do not know that either. Sometimes we do not know either—OK? And the Minister has the cheek to set up a new corporation in order to progress development. His department cannot even use the funds it has properly. Te Puni Kokiri cannot even use the funds it has to do development properly anyway. 
As I say this is typical though of a Labour-led Government. This is a good test— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And that is how good you were. You made him the spokesperson on Maori Affairs. Shame on the National Party—when you were there and Tau was there putting down the spokesperson for Maori— 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course that member is bringing you into the argument and you held me up for doing that. So I wish you would do the same to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually calling the member to order. But please will the member now continue. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: As I said earlier this Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He is bringing in a bill in the last throes of a Labour-led Government—thank goodness for that—that in other circumstances and if he had reorganised the trustee office properly might have been acceptable. But in this case it is not. It is not acceptable because the Minister is stealing money from Peter and giving it to Paul Matthew and everybody and he has no right to do that. He is setting up a Maori corporation and we have done that before I tell the Minister. We have done that before and it did not work—it did not work OK? The Government can use its own moneys. Where else do we take money from identified people and give it to somebody else? 
I say to the Minister that he should concentrate on running Te Puni Kokiri properly because that department is pretty hopeless. It is pretty hopeless. And the other thing I say is that I will be very interested to see where the Maori Party puts its vote tonight because there is no doubt that this measure is absolutely wrong. What this Government is doing is absolutely wrong. It is tantamount to another “foreshore and seabed” and as I say I will be very interested to see where the Maori Party puts its vote. 
Ron Mark 
: Its coalition partner. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: And as for the New Zealand First members I tell them that they need to read the report my colleague referred to arising from the inquiry that Winston Peters set up in 1991. There was no doubt in the minds of those reviewers as to whom these funds belonged to. They do not belong to all Maori and why New Zealand First should be supporting this Government—who knows? 
In closing I ask the Minister seriously to withdraw this bill. 
Dianne Yates 
: No! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well of course it is only natural that some of his colleagues there would say “No!” because they do not bother about who owns property. They are not worried about who owns property. These assets are identifiable. They are owned by certain people and families these land blocks and this Minister has no right—absolutely no right—to misappropriate these funds. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh not again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have been booted out of this House on a number of occasions for interrupting on a point of order. I know that you have just ruled Mr Assistant Speaker but I suggest that Government members are accorded the same “privilege” that was accorded me on a number of occasions. My point of order is that during the Minister’s speech he motioned to me as if I was to ask a question. I therefore seek leave of the House to ask the Minister a question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny and the member is perfectly entitled to do that. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In 1921 the Government of the day created a position ostensibly to protect and enhance the interests of Maori clients and their resources. That position was the Maori Trustee. It was a position created by legislation to manage the adverse effects of fragmented multiple ownership of Maori land. Significantly the office of the Maori Trustee was expected to provide fair proper and prudent administration and management of clients’ assets within the principles and obligations of trusteeship and agency. 
Such a heavy investment in accountability and transparency was a logical expectation of the fact that the Maori Trustee was set up to take over the role of the Public Trustee. Yet 70 years after establishment how disappointing it was to read in analysis by G V and S M Butterworth that “Neither the Public Trustee nor the Maori Trustee and his administration exercised their responsibilities in the best long-term interests of those Maori whose land and revenue was vested in the trustee.” 
Pita Paraone 
: Who were the Butterworths? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: That is a good question. I repeat: “in the best long-term interests of those Maori.” Clearly 1991 was a turning point year for the Maori Trustee. In that same year Ngai Tahu made a number of allegations concerning the failure of the Crown’s appointed trustee to administer reserve lands properly. These allegations included failing to consult the owners failing to act as a prudent trustee failing to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands and failing to prevent land from being taken for public works. The Ngai Tahu report 1991 is mandatory reading for understanding how well the Maori Trustee meets the trustee’s statutory responsibilities—and they are sizable responsibilities. 
The Maori Trust Office currently administers more than 2200 properties and special trusts. It cares for more than 156000 owners and it manages some 115000 owner accounts. So when we read through background reports that suggest that the best long-term interests of Maori have not been given due and proper accord we have to wonder about this new bill. 
The Butterworth report also referred to large capital expenditure with little return problems surrounding the collection and distribution of rents inadequate consultation with beneficial owners in respect of these matters and other concerns. We remain unconvinced when we fast forward to September 2007 and read that the Federation of Maori Authorities has said: “Currently as an administrator of Maori land it is our view that any value added is limited.” 
Set against this backdrop of concerns and the longstanding issues and reviews that have taken place over the years one would be expecting a miracle to bring about the changes required to accelerate Maori development. Such a transformation is not inconceivable. Indeed Paul Morgan the Chief Executive of the Federation of Maori Authorities goes as far as to suggest there is significant potential and that this should be provided for in the legislation. 
Indeed as we know there have been many and vast improvements and achievements over the years which the Maori Trustee has helped to prosper. Sir Apirana Ngata during his parliamentary term drew on Maori Trust moneys to support the unemployed. The Maori Trust fund was a benefactor to support Maori into homes by using the funds as a second mortgage or even by authorising loans to enable the purchase of furniture for new homeowners. The trade training schemes would never have been as successful as they were had it not been for the hostels— 
Ron Mark 
: They were shut down. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: —which the Maori Trustee purchased to house apprentices—exactly—in both Auckland and Christchurch. The Maori Trustee made contributions to the Maori Purposes Fund Board to enable the publication of Maori literature and it also played a large role in supporting Te Maori exhibition that showcased Maori art forms and taonga to the world. 
Alongside of the then Maori Education Foundation the Maori Trustee also assisted in the establishment of the kohanga reo movement yet sadly much of this work has never been widely appreciated as the Maori Trustee was locked up and encased within the bureaucracy of the Maori Affairs department. 
The ongoing issues of independence of the Maori Trustee from the Crown will plague the new organisation proposed in this bill unless the Minister has the courage to invest in a strategic vision for Maori economic development. But here is the crunch. The legislation aims to transfer $35 million from the Maori Trustees general purposes fund to establish this new statutory corporation. This fund according to the Charters Sykes and Nikora review of 1991 is income derived from the beneficiaries and not the Maori Trustee. How this works is that the interest earned on the common fund—money held in trust available for loan—is credited to the general purposes fund owned by the Maori Trustee. Effectively the statute empowers the Maori Trustee to operate on beneficiaries’ incomes. If you like it is comparable to a solicitor using the interest on his or her clients’ funds to run the solicitor’s business. So we have $35 million of Maori money being put alongside $40 million of Crown money to establish a stand-alone organisation. Even from the viewpoint of the quantity of the investment this is an absolute investment in failure. 
In 2001 the Maori Affairs Committee report on the Maori Trustee drew the attention of the Government to the ongoing issue about whether the funding received by the trustee was at an appropriate level for the trustee to fulfil his role. If the solution to that question was meant to be this bill then it has got it badly wrong. The bill proposes the establishment of a new statutory corporation Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand founded on money that the Charters Sykes and Nikora review has proven to be in doubt. Even if the Maori Trustee has the right to donate moneys from the general purposes fund to this new incorporation the tokenistic amount suggested by the Government merely confirms more of the same old handholding paternalistic patronising behaviour of a Government destined to perpetuate dependency. 
I recall as a member of the Maori Education Foundation that the Government in establishing that entity provided a subsidy of 3:1. For every Maori dollar invested the Government would match it with $3. That is the type of foresight we would have applauded in this bill but instead we have insufficient funding to hope for success and legislative bungling that continues the apron-strings approach to Treaty justice. 
The proposal to establish Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand is constrained also by the decision to have a Crown-appointed Maori Trustee in the key governance role as well as in the management and implementation role. This is the classic behaviour of a Government that wants to continue benefiting from the puppeteer role manipulating all the strings available to it to continue to wield total control. What we have in reality with this bill is a Government that seeks to get its hands on Maori moneys the possibility of legal doubt being cast upon the validity of using beneficiary funds for establishing a new entity and then the risk that the Crown will jeopardise any independent status through influencing the making of political appointments. 
The Butterworth report concluded: “the Maori Trustee like the Public Trustee before had increasingly been used to serve the interests of others ahead of the beneficial owners of the land in his charge”. We support the view of the Federation of Maori Authorities that Maori should have a say in the appointment of the Maori Trustee not the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
It is also doubtful whether a trustee appointed by the Government of the day will be able to challenge the Minister’s directives to protect his or her clients’ interests. The conflict inherent in being an agent of the Crown and a trustee for Maori owners is simply too strong to achieve even the appearance of independence. 
The Maori Party will not support this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a very short call on the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting it— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Will be what? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: We will be supporting it; I say thank you to Mr Henare. 
We had very serious concerns about the legislation when the Government first raised it with us and initially we refused to support it. We have spoken to a few other people about some of the issues and sought more advice on it. After looking at it a bit more closely I am very firmly of the view that we need to crack this open and look at it. I agree that there is a serious issue here about the misuse of Maori Trustee money. I want to see where the levers are what is going on with this legislation and what the Government is intending to do. 
I think that the National Party in particular with the badgering it is doing is not really engaged in a practical process. If Mr Henare had wanted to provide me with further information about National’s position on the bill he was always open to do that but badgering me on the night of the vote is of course very unhelpful. We would like to see what is going on with it. I agree that there are really serious concerns and we make no promises to the Government or to anybody else about what our future vote on this legislation will be. 
There are members in this Parliament who have a great deal of historical knowledge about the Maori Trustee and its purposes and about the things that have happened in the past. What is not well known is the purpose of the Maori Trustee what it does and how it operates in the general public view and amongst Maori as well. This bill will give us a chance to crack the trustee open have a good look and make sure it comes under public scrutiny because if there are dodgy things going on with both the legislation and some of the other practices that this new development body might want to undertake then we will be able to find that out expose it and bring legislation down in the future. 
But at this stage I am very keen to look at what this legislation does and to expose it to the transparent view of the public particularly of Maori who have the closest association. If in the end it turns out that this is wrong and bad legislation—bad for Maori a misuse of money a misappropriation of property—then the Greens will not support it. But until we are clear and sure of that we are happy to support the bill at least going to the select committee. Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena ano tatou o te Whare nei. 
Firstly can I say that I take part in the first reading of this bill with some mixed feelings in the sense that it was not too long ago that I actually worked in the office of the Maori Trustee ending my term of employment with that office as the regional operations manager in Whangarei. In listening to the debate so far I empathise with the staff of the Maori Trust Office if they are listening to this debate. In the former Department of Maori Affairs when the services of that department were devolved there was a lot of anxiety amongst staff. I am sure that if Maori Trust Office staff are listening to this debate tonight their anxiety will certainly be heightened particularly by some of the comments that have been made. But having said that I suppose I do declare my vested interest in this particular bill because of my being a former staff member. 
I cannot continue without making some reference to the fact that the reading of this bill was commenced by the Minster of Finance. He said in his opening remarks that this was a very very important bill for the Minister of Maori Affairs and I was somewhat surprised that that Minister did not take the first call. However he did redeem himself by taking part when he did. 
I will reiterate some of the work that the Maori Trustee actually does. First of all the position is a corporation sole created by the enactment of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 and its role is to help manage Maori land. It is independent of the Crown but is subject to controls similar to those applying to Government departments. It reports annually to Parliament it has been in existence since 1921 and it is now governed by the Maori Trustee Act 1953. The Maori Trustee is responsible for acting either as a trustee or an agent for owners of Maori land usually in leasing that land collecting and paying rent and other income to owners investing trust moneys keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed and also looking after unclaimed moneys. As a consequence of that duty from time to time a list of unclaimed moneys is regularly published for distribution to organisations around the country. But the Maori Trustee also has the task of keeping landowners informed about how their land is managed and about the investment of trust moneys. 
I have to ask myself with this bill what new responsibilities will the Maori Trustee have? Can the intent of this bill not be implemented by way of any form of legislation other than separate legislation whereby this bill is calling for the separate establishment of an organisation called Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand? If we look at the acronym it is MBANZ; I just wonder whether it should be “rubber bands”. I ask this question: why are we doing this? In terms of those who have already contributed to this debate and criticised the Minister I must say that I would have to side with the Minister as his intent is to look at the economic development of Maori. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Can’t even do that properly. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well that is why we ought to be supporting any legislation that does that for Maori. The big question surrounding this legislation that has been raised by a number of speakers tonight concerns the use of the $35 million that is currently in the general purposes fund. I know that the Minister through his department has had a number of consultation huis around the country— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who with? 
PITA PARAONE 
: —with various Maori organisations and some beneficiaries. But I have it on good authority—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise members on both my left and right that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. There are members on my right and my left who do not have the call and therefore are not permitted to interject against each other. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a point of clarification my interjections were to comments that were made by the speaker not by another member of the House. I just want to clear that up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but the reality is that it has been going on all night. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Reference has been made to the sum of $35 million. At the present time I understand that that money is held in the general purposes fund of the Maori Trust Office. The big question is who actually owns that money. Although most of it is probably unclaimed moneys at the end of the day I believe that those still belong to the beneficiaries—whoever they might be and wherever they might be—or to their estates. However as I alluded to earlier on a number of consultation huis were held around the country. I am given to understand that no reference was made to the intended use of this money by the new organisation so I am not quite sure whether in fact Maori beneficiaries are aware of this. This is one of the reasons why New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill being referred to a select committee. We have always maintained that the select committee process gives the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have their say on legislation. I believe we will certainly hear from those who are affected by this bill and we will hear what their thoughts are on the use of this funding. 
The development of an old idea was what one speaker referred to earlier and he was making reference to a Maori bank. Perhaps this could be seen as a Maori bank but at the end of the day it can only be established at the behest of the Maori people of New Zealand. If they do not support it then what is the point of having something like this? 
Another question I would like to ask is why are we having a new entity? Why are we establishing an organisation a group that is alleged to be independent? I ask myself how independence can be had if the board in its make-up and the chairman—in this case the Maori Trustee—will all be Crown-appointed. I know that some members of the House have strong feelings about this and again I think that the select committee process will allow those who will be affected by it to express their views. And I ask this final question: why can legislative changes not be implemented outside the scope of this bill in order to achieve the aim that I am sure all members of this House want for New Zealand let alone for the Maori people? 
In conclusion I reiterate the stance that New Zealand First will be taking on this bill. We will certainly be supporting it going to a select committee. Kia ora. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I take the opportunity to take a brief call in support of this bill which is aptly titled the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. I also look forward to the bill being directed to the Maori Affairs Committee because that will provide the opportunity for public submissions on the bill itself. I think that is important at this stage because a lot of the comments I have heard made in this House by earlier speakers give me a feeling that they have not bothered to read this bill they have not bothered to take note of the number of consultation hui around the country and that they are simply just out of touch with what is happening in Maoridom in terms of Maori business and economic development. 
I would also make the comment that I feel a number of contradictions were made by earlier speakers who on the one hand are very very knowledgable in terms of the history of the establishment of the Maori Trustee and of the contributions the Maori Trustee has made to Maori social and economic development over a number of years but at the same time they have said in this House that they will not support this bill. I get the feeling that some people will support something when they are in receipt of the benefits but when it comes to a benefit that they themselves do not have the intellectual grunt to take advantage of they are totally opposed to it. 
Maori economic development is the way into the future for Maori. People cannot stand in this House and say that they want Maori to be independent and at the same time in their lifetime they have bled the Maori Trustee dry when it comes to a benefit that would elevate the status of all Maori. They are totally opposed to it. But I will give them one thing: they do know their history but they have very selective memories when it comes to recalling it. 
I want to speak a bit more about the consultation hui that were undertaken around the country. There is an assumption in this House that Maori who attend these types of consultation hui have no interest in the unclaimed moneys in the Maori Trustee. These are unclaimed moneys and they have been held in trust for beneficiaries in the hope they would come forward one day and claim them. That makes a lot of sense surely. So why are those members so opposed to that? 
I know of a number of people who did attend the consultation hui and wanted to know a number of things. Firstly they wanted to know why the functions of the Maori Trustee have been incorporated into Te Puni Kokiri and it has been difficult to understand. They do support the Maori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation with a wide range of services being provided to Maori and not just holding money for the sake of holding it because the only ones who are benefiting from that money being held in the general purposes fund are the banks; they are the only ones. Maori are getting no benefit from that. Why are they so concerned with the interests of the banks and not the interests of Maori? Listening to the debate in this House tonight it does not make a lot of sense. 
The people from my particular area in the Bay of Plenty who went to the hui want to see an enhancement of the acceleration of Maori economic development and they see the Maori Trustee playing an important role in that. They are not saying that funds should be set aside. They are saying that the Maori Trustee should play an active role. If it has been there since 1921 and it has been accumulating unclaimed moneys since that time it needs to be set free. It needs to be utilised for the benefit of Maori going into the future. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: It needs to go back to the areas it came from. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I listened to the Hon Georgina te Heuheu making her comments. Maybe she should go and have a good read of the bill. Maybe she should go and learn a bit from her people because a lot of the moneys that are unclaimed come from the Ngati Tuwharetoa area. Nobody knows why that is but there is certainly not a lot— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why don’t you leave it alone then? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Nobody knows where these people are and that is why the money is held there. Rather than letting the banks keep making money out of Maori interests we should let the Maori people themselves enjoy those benefits. 
I heard the Hon Tau Henare a former short-term Minister of Maori Affairs make a number of comments about this particular bill. I was a regional senior manager for Te Puni Kokiri at the time he was Minister and I do not recall anything passing over my desk from him suggesting any way forward for Maori economic development. In fact I saw the money going the other way back into the Crown bank account. People have very selective memories as I said earlier on. 
I did say that my call would be a very short one. I am looking forward to sitting down in the select committee and listening to what the people have to say about the utilisation of these unclaimed moneys. Unclaimed moneys—they do have this title even though they have been held in a general purposes fund. Georgina te Heuheu said there is a list of beneficiaries. In fact there is not. If there were the Maori Trustee would have the legal responsibility to ensure those beneficiaries received a return from the Maori Trustee. These moneys are unclaimed and have accumulated interest. The suggestion that the intention is to misappropriate those moneys is totally ludicrous. This money is going towards Maori development and what is wrong with that? Why is National opposed to that? Surely every Maori in this House—although entitled to ask questions about the technical aspects of this bill—supports Maori moving forward even if there are a couple of members who cannot bring themselves to support this bill. Once again I say I am looking forward to the select committee process to hearing from Maori from all around the country and to convincing those two members that this is good for Maori. Kia ora. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I listened very carefully to what the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone said about the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill because much of what he said made a lot of sense. The primary issue as I understand it from what he said is that there is a need to take a good look at the office of the Maori Trustee. I do not disagree with him at all for reasons I will explain in the course of this speech. When one goes through the history of the Maori Trustee one sees there are serious issues that need to be addressed. 
The point that makes this bill unacceptable to the National Party is Part 2 and the way in which the $35 million which has been referred to in debate is being filched from the general purposes fund and put into this new body to be used for general Maori development. I think it is one of those issues where although one would normally support a bill to the first reading so it can be properly addressed in the select committee one cannot do it here because the bill is odious in respect of Part 2. 
As I said some history is required. I noted in Dr Sharples’ speech that the genesis for him was in 1921 with the creation of the office of the Maori Trustee. Let me go back to 1882 and the passage of the then Native Reserves Act of 1882 which provided for the vesting of Crown administered Maori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee who was appointed. The trustee had power to lease reserves and collect and distribute the resulting rents to beneficial owners after deducting expenses. The board of the Public Trust Office was extended by the appointment of two Maori trustees. My reading of the history of the Public Trustee’s involvement indicates that it was all pretty unsatisfactory. The board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Maori members to represent Maori interests. In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882 as I said a few minutes ago; the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887; the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892; and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. Because of the concerns on the part of Maori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee the whole issue was looked at in 1913. There was a commission into the Public Trust Office that recommended that Maori reserves and their administration be vested in an independent body. That is how the Maori Trustee was born after the First World War in 1920. 
Then in 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. It seems that following that time there was the elimination of all administrative signposts of independence and a gradual dissipation of the pool of expertise in the office. From the point of view of the Maori beneficiaries the situation was very unsatisfactory. As Butterworth—to whom Dr Sharples referred—said there was little room left “for initiative or imagination and its ultimate effect was to turn the Native Trustee into a bureaucratic arm of the Department rather than a prudential financial institution and agent of his beneficiaries.” So there is no doubt that there have been concerns about the way in which the office of the Maori Trustee and its predecessor the Public Trustee have administered these funds for over 100 years and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed. 
I know that Mr Paraone correctly referred to the summary of the role of the Maori Trustee from Te Puni Kokiri’s website. He really emphasised the key points and I want to emphasise them as well. The Maori Trustee is independent of the Crown; accountable to landowners and the Maori Land Court; and as Mr Paraone said is responsible for acting either as a trustee or as an agent for the owners of land for collecting and paying rent and other income to owners and for investing trust moneys. The point that needs to be emphasised time and time again is that the Maori Trustee is operating an important prudential and trustee function. He or she is not part of the Crown or subordinate to the Crown in any way whatsoever. Then one has to look at the Maori Trustee Act of 1953. Mr Paraone correctly identified that in section 23 there are a number of accounts within the Maori Trustee’s account. There is the special investment account; the common fund which Mr Ririnui referred to; and the general purposes fund. When one looks at section 32 one sees that there are special purposes for which funds or moneys in the general purposes fund may be used and they are set out there—for example section 32(1)(a) states: “the trustee may advance money for the benefit of Maoris or descendants of Maoris upon such terms as to repayment as he sees fit; and upon such security (if any) as he sees fit”. Given the trustee nature of it it is not for the benefit of Maori generally but for the Maori beneficiaries. That is the way those sections have to be read. Let us face it: the Maori Trustee is a trustee who has to look out for in a prudential way and in accordance with the Maori Trustee Act the interests of the beneficiaries. 
So what does this bill do? I would be prepared to contemplate supporting Part 1 at least to a select committee but Part 2 renders the bill totally unacceptable. We say that the Government needs to go back and look at it again. Part 2 establishes a new organisation called Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. Its functions are referred to in new section 55 inserted by clause 15. There can be no objection to setting up a body such as this to further the economic development of Maori; it is the way it is done in new section 59 that immediately makes this legislation unacceptable. The objectionable section that we place some reliance on section 59(2) provides that the Maori Trustee must transfer as a contribution to the fund of this new organisation Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand the sum of $35 million from the general purposes fund. We say that that is an unauthorised appropriation of $35 million which properly belongs to the beneficiaries of the Maori Trustee. These funds are not available—or should not be available—to be filched by the Government. They belong to the beneficiaries and indeed they and no other persons are the ones who should be consulted. Sending out 49000 letters in a general kind of way as the Associate Minister referred to in his speech is unacceptable. 
A very important question was asked by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu when she asked what the response of New Zealanders would be if the Public Trustee’s accounts were raided to apply funds for the benefit of all New Zealanders. One simply cannot do that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s a very good analogy. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Thank you Dr Mapp. It is a good analogy. The point is that you cannot do it—and by “you” I am not meaning you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am using “you” in the sense of “one cannot do it” because I would not contravene the Standing Orders by referring to you in person. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The royal “one”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The royal “one.” So that is the objection of the National Party. This bill is badly drafted. Part 2 is odious. It cannot be referred to a select committee and tidied up because there is nothing to tidy up. It is one of those situations where the bill should be rejected at the first reading because what we have here is a misappropriation of $35 million out of the general purposes fund. 
Let me conclude by emphasising that the bill raises some important questions. I for one having gone through the Maori Trustee Act of 1953 and looked at the history of the Maori Trustee think there are some very important questions that need to be addressed particularly concerning strengthening the independence of the Maori Trustee separating the Maori Trustee from Te Puni Kokiri and so on. Those sorts of issues are worthy of consideration but Part 2 is objectionable. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. E te mangai o te Whare i te tuatahi me mihi atu au ki te uri o Tuwharetoa kua hou mai ki roto i to tatou Whare Paremata i tenei rangi. Ahakoa na tana iwi ia i hara mai na tana tuakana a Georgina te Heuheu ia i tautoko i tana hakari me tapiri e ahau enei kupu torutoru oku hei whakanui i a ia i te aroaro tana whanau i te nui o te honore kua whakawhiwhia ki a ia i tenei ra. Kia ora. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us once again. In the first instance Mr Assistant Speaker I should extend a greeting to the relative of Tuwharetoa who entered Parliament today. Even though it was her people who brought her here it was Georgina te Heuheu her peer who endorsed her at the feast for her; I should add these few words of mine to magnify her in the presence of her family because of the great honour that was bestowed upon her today. Thank you 
.] 
Apopo maku ano waku e hakamaori e hakapakeha engari e pai ana. Tena ano tatou katoa e te Whare. 
[ 
Tomorrow I will translate what I say in Maori to English but it is fine. Salutations to us all once again in the House 
.]  
This bill the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill will pass despite the actions of Dr Pita Sharples of the Maori Party in not conveying to this hardworking industrious very popular Minister to my right—the Hon Parekura Horomia—that they were withdrawing their support for this overdue example of institutional reform. This particular bill will ensure that the resources of the fund called the Maori Trustee are available to fulfil a modern purpose and able to be used to drive Maori into the future. Maori have a bright future but we must not allow future opportunities to be hobbled by legislation that is rooted in the colonial past and for those reasons it is a very very sad but predictable act that we have seen today from Dr Sharples. 
It is fair enough that the Hon Tau Henare should oppose this bill; he was born to oppose although he tried incessantly for the period of time he was the Minister. I have to confess he did some innovative things in his time although I cannot recollect one of them while I am on my feet. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Didn’t I put you on Poutama? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That reminds me—this bill will allow for any surplus funds in funds such as the Poutama Maori Business Trust or even the Crown Forestry Rental Trust to find a home in the future. That is why this bill provides an opportunity for future expansion. But of course all that lies in the future with the inevitable settlement of the claims which is why this is a brilliant vessel that has been modernised and through using the powers of this House the sovereignty of the House we are able to effect this overdue exercise in modernisation. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Wayne Mapp seeks a call. 
This bill simply picks up on the work that earlier reviewers wrote about wasting time and ink and as a consequence of Parekura Horomia’s extremely expansive view into the future and a willingness to go to Nga Hau e Wha not a single tribe was overlooked by the Minister of Maori Affairs as he has sought to drag the Maori Trustee into the modern world. Tena koe e te Minita. To kaha ki te whakahau i tenei kaupapa mo te kaitiaki Maori pupuri i nga toenga whenua. 
[ 
Well done Minister. You have imposed your will very strongly on this proposal relating to the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. 
] 
So all power to the Minister to care for the Maori Trustee modernise it and ensure that these increasingly fragmented pieces of land and ever increasingly smaller slivers of money can be brought together as we say in the Maori language whakatopu consolidated rationalised and brought together to fulfil a very strong purpose. Who knows? I have no doubt as perhaps Mr Henare and others fear it will grow and move away from the past when Maori were not able to exercise the right levels of accountability over this institution. This fund will inevitably grow through good stewardship which will reflect the quality of the decisions that the Minister makes. 
I commend this bill. Where it is capable of being refined I have no doubt that the fine minds of the select committee will effect that purpose. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 We certainly heard a confession tonight did we not. It was that the revised superior model Maori Trustee that the previous speaker referred to will be receiving funds from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. I want to examine the implications of that particular statement because it is fundamental to the reasons why National is opposed to this bill. 
Earlier today Louisa Wall of Tuwharetoa was inducted into this House. Much of the funds in the Crown Forestry Rental Trust actually belong to Tuwharetoa. So what does the Minister propose? He is going to put it into a general fund to benefit all Maori. What is that? That is expropriation. I am not surprised that many members of the Labour Party would think to expropriate assets that clearly belong to a particular group of people and then spend them for the general benefit. But I must say I am surprised that Mr Shane Jones with his understanding of private property rights and the rights that people accrue to property would want to do that. He was the only member today who confessed to the Government’s real intent here and I think that should make Maori people very concerned about the intentions of this Government. 
Shane Jones said that the bill would be passed into law. I have a prediction to make for members on the other side of the House: this bill will not be passed into law. Yes it will go to a select committee but is that select committee going to report back in the next couple of months? Will there be a passage into law by say July or August or September of this year? Unless the Government is going to shove it through with no consultation the answer is no. Therefore I predict that this bill will never pass into law. 
I turn to this issue: the whole concept of the Maori Trustee referred to by members across the House is a relic of paternalism. The whole idea that the Maori Trustee can get a general fund of $35 million essentially expropriated from beneficiaries to go into general causes absolutely reflects the paternalistic nature of the Maori Trustee as it was originally enacted. I know members will say “Ah but this is the modern trustee with modern purposes reflecting the needs of a modern community.” If that is so why is the Government passing a law that would effectively continue a paternalistic expropriation approach to Maori assets? When we on this side of the House say it is thievery the other side proclaims shock and horror that we would use such a term but we are using it because it means that the property of particular people is transferred to the general class of people at large. That is why we say thievery. Taking the property of an individual or group of individuals and transferring it to other people without their consent or will is not the modern way. 
Quite clearly the role of the Maori Trustee needs to be reformed. There has been an opportunity over the last 8 years for this Government to have done that very thing—basically to get back to the fundamental principles and work out why we have the Maori Trustee and what modern purpose it forms. How does something that essentially originates out of paternalism fit the modern and contemporary world particularly when so many iwi are getting substantial settlements and there is an opportunity to look at those assets and ask who they really belong to? Even if we cannot identify individuals we certainly can identify iwi groups. Surely in an age of modern settlements it would be appropriate to return those assets to those large iwi groupings that are now very definitely empowered to benefit their own members. That would be a much more sensible way. We could have respected the approach of the Government if it had done that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Denese Henare agrees with this. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member is not supposed to do so but I heard him refer to members of my family. I know full well that members of my family want iwi not Government agencies to be empowered. I know full well that when my wife reviewed the Maori Trustee back in the 1980s that was exactly the intent she had in mind. Frankly it is inappropriate to bring family members into the debate and I would have expected Mr Shane Jones to know better if he has greater aspirations. 
I draw members’ attention to this point: National believes that the role of the Maori Trustee needs fundamental revision. National believes that it is time to have a deep think about how Maori land should be reviewed particularly the assets involved with the Maori Trustee. It is fundamentally wrong to have this approach 8 years into the Government’s term which simply perpetuates paternalism. It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred to iwi back into a centralised approach. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: The power of modernisation. A modern Minister! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I hear the Minister say it is a modern approach. I say it is a paternalistic approach and frankly the Minister of all people should know better than that because of his particular experiences dealing with assets that belong to particular iwi. I ask whether the Minister has learnt nothing based on his commercial experience which members on that side of the House are always saying he brings to their side. All I can say based on the speech we heard him give before is that he has apparently learnt very little at all. I am not surprised that Louisa Wall will be breathing down his neck and the necks of his other colleagues because they need her to sharpen up their act. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Gone beyond Muldoonism. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes that is exactly the point Mr Minister. We have gone beyond Muldoonism. National believes that assets that belong to beneficiaries or to large groups of beneficiaries should be returned to those people. This is not an opportunity to expand on the paternalistic approach that this Government has. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They are deceased! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I say to the Minister that that is exactly what he is doing. Indeed that is one of the very questions being asked by New Zealand First members and frankly I am disappointed that based on the questions they asked they are voting for the bill. Based on the speech I heard from Pita Paraone the New Zealand First Party should be voting against the bill and giving a proper opportunity for a full and complete review of the role of the Maori Trustee. It should be a review that would respect the ownership rights of beneficiaries and large collections of beneficiaries and return assets to where they properly belong—that is not with the Crown and not with some Government agency but to the people who actually own those assets. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all there is an amendment in the name of the Hon Tau Henare that we have to vote on. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
To add to the referral motion the words “and that the committee finally report to the House on or before 7 October 2008”. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Children Young Persons and Their Families  Amendment Bill (No 6) 
First Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) be considered by the Social Services Committee. 
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 to give better effect to the Act’s objectives and principles. It will update the Act in line with best practice today and strengthen the application of its principles in the family decision-making model that underpins it. When the Act was passed in 1989 it was recognised as world-leading legislation. It has positively impacted on the lives of thousands of children young people and their families. It has empowered families in the formal process of resolving issues of child abuse and neglect and of youth offending. 
Our Government is committed to improving child welfare and reducing offending by children and young people. It is now 18 years since the principal Act was passed and we owe it to New Zealanders to ensure it continues to provide the most effective legal framework for safeguarding our vulnerable children and young people and promoting their well-being and that of their families whanau and family groups. In those 18 years there has been rapid practice development. Many countries have adopted key elements of New Zealand’s legislation. 
The Act pre-dates significant developments such as the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Care of Children Act 2004 and New Zealand’s obligations under international conventions. In April the Ministry of Social Development released a discussion document for consultation. It outlined ideas and suggestions from stakeholders for updating the Act. As part of the robust consultation process 98 submissions from key stakeholders practitioners and academics from across the care and protection disability and youth justice sectors were received. 
One of the key messages from those submissions and the various workshops and discussions held since was that our Act is fundamentally sound. Many expressed support for the overall intention and framework provided by the Act and there was no feedback that opposed the general framework. Practitioners were passionate about improving and strengthening the legislation. A significant number of proposals to update and improve it have resulted from that consultation and further policy development. 
Madam Assistant Speaker it is a pleasure to be the first member of Parliament to be given the call by you in your new role and I congratulate you on that. 
These proposals together amount to the most substantial and far-reaching improvements in child welfare law since 1989. To realise the benefit of all the changes in a timely manner and because they cover both discreet policy changes and significant redrafting I am proposing to amend the Act in two distinct phases. 
This bill represents the first phase of the suite of amendments required for updating. It contains the important additions and discreet policy changes that can and should occur at the earliest opportunity. It includes important changes to the general application of the Act and the care and protection child offending and youth justice provisions. Phase-two amendments will include redrafting and other procedural amendments so that the Act is expressed in plain language wherever possible and any unnecessary complexity is removed. Those changes require some time to draft and do not form part of this bill. 
So the changes that impact across the principal Act are firstly to increase the upper age in the definition of a young person to include 17-year-olds. This change will have considerable operational impact and the bill proposes that the upper age for care and protection and youth justice provisions can be brought into effect at different times. In youth justice this will ensure that we can tailor responses to offending by 17-year-olds and involve their families in addressing their behaviour. 
Research indicates that our youth justice system is better than the adult criminal justice system at stopping reoffending. The change of course also means that the Act will be consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which New Zealand ratified in 1993. The second point is that the bill will make clear when Government and non-Government organisations can appropriately share information about the safety welfare and well-being of children and young people and it will strengthen the participation of children and young people in all processes especially in family group conferences planning processes court proceedings and reviews. 
Thirdly the bill requires the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development to prepare and implement policies and procedures to promptly and appropriately address and resolve individual complaints by children young people and their families. Fourthly it ensures that the chief executive prepares and implements procedures for reviews of professional best practice. This amendment will support Child Youth and Family to rapidly and accurately identify areas for practice development or improvement. Fifthly it ensures that at all times an employee is appointed or designated as the chief social worker and it sets the functions of the chief social worker which will include providing professional leadership and conducting practice reviews. 
These changes are consistent with contemporary international improvements to child welfare legislation and with our Government’s desire to support professional practice and increase accountability and transparency in our child welfare system. Within the care and protection provisions the bill proposes to reinforce the important role of service collaboration and information sharing and to protect people who assist with inquiries about children under the care and protection provisions. It will also improve responsiveness to the needs of children and young people when concerns are reported. That includes the ability to undertake an assessment of child and family needs rather than a statutory investigation. This change enables children and families to access the support they need in a timely and appropriate fashion. It will ensure family group conferences are timely and well informed to achieve the best outcomes. 
The bill will improve support for young people leaving the care of the State as they move towards independence. It also contains changes to the provisions for the care of disabled children and young people. The amendments will ensure that other options are properly explored before agreements for long-term out-of-family care of disabled children and young people can be entered into. Where agreements for out-of-home care are required the changes will ensure more regular family group conference review and monitoring of placements. These amendments will align the disability provisions better with the principles of the Act. 
The Government believes that the provisions relating to child offending in the Act can be difficult to understand and overly complex. The proposed amendments simplify the process and the documentation required in responding to child offending. They provide greater commitment to the interests of victims and communities affected by child offending as well as asserting the importance of ensuring that offending behaviours are addressed. 
With regard to serious or persistent offending by children we need to ensure that measures are effective to reduce further offending. The bill proposes to improve the child-offending provisions by consolidating and simplifying them. It clarifies the applicable principles and options available for holding offenders accountable. It increases the flexibility of the Family Court in making custody orders and reviewing plans; it addresses the role of adults in child offending; and it strengthens victim provisions. 
The bill enhances Youth Court options by introducing two new Youth Court orders—an extended supervision with residence order and an extended supervision with activity order. These orders will support more intense programme involvement for serious and persistent offenders. It also reinforces our Government’s anti-tagging strategy. The bill enables the Youth Court to make orders when discharging proceedings against a young person and will subject the remission of supervision with residence orders to further conditions relating to the young person’s behaviour and adherence to his or her plan. It strengthens the role of victims in the youth justice process. 
These changes provide an important balance of accountability safety and assistance. They will help to better address and prevent offending and so achieve more effective outcomes for the young people involved their families and of course their victims. This Act determines how the State intervenes to stop child abuse and neglect and to prevent and address child offending. It also demonstrates how our society cares for and supports vulnerable children and young people. 
This bill ensures that we continue to provide an up-to-date and effective legislative framework for improving our response to victims and the well-being of children young people and their families. I commend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call the honourable member—sorry I forget—Anne Tolley. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I start by congratulating you Madam Assistant Speaker on your appointment to the job and I hope you will remember my name in future! 
The National Party will be not supporting the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6). 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You’ve never been asked to. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: In fact we have never been asked to. I have not been contacted at all to see whether we would support the bill. We believe that this legislation before the House today is a missed opportunity and I note that the discussion document that went out was called  
Safeguarding Our Children: Updating the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 
. 
I ask the Minister where in the legislation before the House today are there any major changes that will address the increasing numbers of children in our society who are being abused. The changes in this bill are largely technical. There is no major change that will prevent young children from having dreadful things done to them like being put in a dryer by people who think that that is fun. There is nothing in the bill before us today that goes to the heart of child abuse in our community. 
This legislation is about the system. It is about managing the processes managing the increasing number of notifications and ticking off the boxes. It is not about stopping our babies and our children from being bashed and abused—whether that abuse is physical sexual or emotional. There is nothing in here to stop that abuse and that is a tragedy and a missed opportunity. 
When the Minister stood and introduced this legislation she talked about the Labour Government being committed to improving child welfare and to protecting children from abuse and she said that this bill showed that commitment. I ask where we see that commitment. Where is the black and white here? There are some technical changes to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. Some of the deckchairs have been rearranged but the ship is still sinking. We still see increasing violence against our babies and children in our community. Every year the numbers grow. What I have seen from the Minister is some changing of technical stuff and some manipulation of figures but nothing concrete to stop the abuse. The National Party agrees with some of the technical changes to this legislation. We agree with a number of the changes and I will come to those. There are also some major changes that we object to and I will detail those. 
I find it very interesting that in the submissions on this discussion document 15 service providers—major providers of services to the Government who will be working with this legislation—talked about their issues not being with the legislation but with the interpretation and the practical application of the legislation. They talked about the individual interpretations that different officers put on the Act and the actual implementation of the Act itself. In particular they talked about the resourcing of the departments dealing with the Act. They talked about training and education in the detail of the Act and they talked about practice-related issues. In other words they talked about how the Act is used to ensure outcomes and that is what the National Party’s objection relates to. 
This legislation and these changes focus on the Act itself not on the outcomes of the Act. So we have sympathy with those service providers. It was very interesting that resourcing is a major issue for a large number of those providers who did make submissions. They were particularly concerned about the resourcing of some of the changes that this bill will require. I was interested to hear the Minister acknowledge there would be some resourcing difficulties and that various pieces of this legislation could be introduced at different times. That rings warning bells and I am sure that service providers up and down the country will be very concerned particularly in relation to the youth justice area that it means that some of the changes proposed in the bill we are talking about tonight will not be implemented because the resources will not follow the changes. That was not the deal. 
The National Party does agree with some parts of this bill. We agree that we need to be able to share information in a much better way and we hear that every time we talk to people in the community who are working at the coalface and using the Act on a daily basis. National members are not convinced that these changes to the Act will actually change the attitude of some of the bureaucrats in different ministries about sharing their information. It is absolutely vital that that information is shared if we are to change the living conditions of some of those children who are at risk. 
So changing the Act is one thing and it is great to see some small incremental changes but I note that we are still talking about “reasonable grounds for disclosure.” It is who decides what those reasonable grounds are that is crucial to sharing information. That can often depend on individuals and individual district health boards in particular sharing health information and of course on individual policemen and women and on individual Child Youth and Family staff themselves. So we agree with the moves being made in the bill to share information. 
We also agree that there needs to be a change in focus for victims both in the Youth Court and the family group conferences. I met a young boy in Wairoa who had been through a family group conference. He had been stealing from an old lady’s house. She was not even notified of his first family group conference. A second one was convened because she indicated she really wanted to have a relationship with this young man. As an ex-schoolteacher she believed she could reach out to this young man so she asked for a second family group conference so she could be involved. She got the second family group conference but it was in Auckland because that is where the boy had been moved to to another branch of the family. There was no way she could attend that family group conference. She felt that if she had been able to sit and eyeball that young man and build a relationship with him as his victim then she could have helped in his rehabilitation. That opportunity was taken away from her because it was more important that he was moved rather than that he actually deal with the realities of the victim. So we support a change in focus for victims. 
We also strongly support extending supervision with activity and supervision with residence. We believe that ongoing monitoring following supervision with residence and supervision with activity is a major part of this and of course John Key’s state of the nation speech at the beginning of the year elaborated on the National Party’s feelings on how important it is to not just put people into supervision with residence for a few months then let them back out into the community and expect them to have suddenly changed their lives. So we certainly agree with that part of this bill but overall National does not support it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speaker Anne Tolley stood up and said that National will not support the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) because it did not do anything. My friend the Hon Mark Burton asked what in 9 years National has proposed to do differently and of course she avoided that matter entirely. But it must have circulated down into her thought process because she then changed tack entirely and started to praise all aspects of the bill. Essentially the National Party is saying: “We will not support the bill because it is not our idea but we think the bill is a good thing to have because we do not have a better option.” National members will not support the bill because it is too good an idea for them to possess and therefore they will vote against it. That is the rubbish we are faced with on this side when a Minister such as the Hon Ruth Dyson brings into this House innovative forward-thinking legislation. 
Let us look at the challenge laid out by the previous speaker. She asked what this bill will do to stop our kids being abused in their homes and to stop children being put into clothes dryers. Well I ask the member to go to the explanatory note of the bill which will take her to information on new sections 17 17A 17B 17C 17D 17E and 17F which are to be inserted in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act by clause 10. In the short time I have I would say that sections 17 to 17F will enable a person taking an initial complaint or undergoing an initial assessment whether it be a policeman or social worker to bring the agencies together to develop a plan that is not bogged down by bureaucratic and privacy issues so that when a complaint arises there is an obligation to investigate and to coordinate. That is the total answer to the concerns expressed by the previous speaker who failed to get to section 17 onward in clause 10 in the bill. 
The member then went on to say that she had a person come to see her in a clinic in Wairoa once. This person had been the subject of offending by a youth and was unable to attend a family group conference. What the member forgot to say is that clause 15 makes quite a dramatic change to a well-established and very efficient family group conference practice. 
The family group conference practices that are followed in the Family Court are recognised worldwide as leaders in the field. Clause 15 takes away the ability of a child or young person who does not agree—or if the conference does not unanimously agree—with an outcome from stopping the conference’s recommendations from being enacted. So we get to a stage where a family group conference cannot be hijacked by an obdurate parent caregiver or youth and if the wishes or desires of the family group conference generally are for a course of action then it will be carried out. That answers totally the concern the previous speaker had about wanting to reconvene a second family group conference—she complained that the youth had then been moved up from Wairoa to Auckland—because the family group conference can be made to work. 
We find that this bill addresses many issues in the one bill. It covers the field of bringing agencies together and of preventing abuse and harm to children. It raises the age of those appearing before the Youth Court to 18 which happens to be consistent with the Government’s policy of encouraging and keeping young people in a form of education until they are 18. Raising the age of the Youth Court to 18 removes many anomalies in practice where children of 16 suddenly become adults at 17 when they should still be treated in a nurturing process. 
Interestingly as the Minister pointed out we have had greater success in the punishments and the jurisdiction of the Youth Court than we have had in our adult courts. What does that tell us? It tells us that when the agencies work together they provide an opportunity for rehabilitation that has a real impact. So lifting the age to 17 makes more effective the bringing together of the various agencies to make good the promise that our youth justice system already holds. 
This is a comprehensive bill. I wanted to move on in the time available—but I cannot—to the provisions that relate to 10-year-olds and 11 and 12-year-olds. Those provisions will have to remain for another speech. All I would say at this stage is that this bill reflects Labour’s commitment to helping young people who offend to get the best possible help and support in order to reduce future offending. This is no idle hope because the figures show that these provisions work. We are seeing in practice a significant change and improvement and this bill goes a long way towards doing that. 
Labour does care about how young people are treated and are committed and we care about eliminating child abuse and neglect. We need to make the changes in this bill as a hands-off approach is not the way to ensure a better future for our kids and our grandchildren. This bill helps to make clear when Government and non-government organisations can appropriately share information about the safety welfare and well-being of children and young persons. The bill will help improve responsiveness to the needs of children and young people when concerns are reported. This bill goes to the heart of the improvements needed in the children and young persons and youth justice area. 
As the Minister said the bill will eventually be in two parts. The second part will address many of the provisions in plain English and I look forward to the development of that. Needless to say at this stage this bill raises the age to include 17-year-olds which coordinates the many services that intersect into a young person’s life when they come across the Family Court or the Youth Court. This bill will build further on the very good results we already have from our youth justice system. I strongly support this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call on the member Anne Collins—Judith Collins I am sorry. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Obviously I have not made enough impression in my short time in the House! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You are very lucky you were not called “Tuppence”! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and of course congratulations on your elevation as an Assistant Speaker; and I will remember your name. I am very pleased to be able to follow bar one my colleague Anne Tolley who has set out some of the concerns the National Party has with this bill. I also listened with interest to the statements made by the Hon Ruth Dyson and by Russell Fairbrother and particularly I noted that Ms Dyson talked about anti-tagging and about how this bill was going to have some sort of relationship with anti-tagging provisions and would work in well with the Government’s moves. Well I have news for Ms Dyson. Those of us who live and work in South Auckland will tell her that we are well past anti-tagging now. Now we are into etching of glass and that is the latest response from the taggers in our area. Now they etch glass so that the tagging cannot be rubbed off. The only way to get rid of that is to remove the glass replace it and wait for the next etching. Perhaps we are going to ban the sale of razor blades— 
Anne Tolley 
: Diamonds! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Or diamonds which would be a terrible thing. Ban glass or anything at all because basically that is what is happening. They use compasses from maths classes and that is one of the problems when we try to fix a symptom without dealing with the real issues. 
We oppose quite strongly a couple of things in the bill and that is why we are standing against it at this stage unless there are substantial changes. Certainly the Government does not seem to need our support on it because it has never bothered to discuss the matter with either myself or with Anne Tolley who is in charge of the area of children young persons and their families from our point of view. 
One of the reasons we oppose the bill is that it raises the age of a young person from 17 to 18. That means young offenders aged 17 will now be dealt with by the Youth Court and will be treated as though they are still children. We think that is a shame because I would like to take the Minister and some of her people who have never been anywhere a bit rough around our area and out to visit some of the young people whom she would want to call “children”. They are about 6 foot 2 inches and upwards extremely strong and very very tough and they run by all sorts of street gang names. I will not call them child gangs. My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp mentioned one of those gang names but I think it is best not to because it just encourages them. 
These people would just laugh at this bill and think we are a bunch of wusses. They would say: “You people don’t understand what it’s like. We’re in charge of the streets and you people in Parliament don’t know what’s happening.” Frankly most of them do not because most of them have never been outside of the ivory tower. 
At the moment we have a youth justice system that is already struggling to cope with teenage violent crime and I suggest that the Minister just consider a wee bit the violent crime and the increases in youth violent crime and young people’s violent crime in South Auckland and just consider what that is doing for law-abiding people the vast majority of people who live out their lives there and what is happening particularly in parts of Clendon and Manurewa which is represented by the Hon George Hawkins and certainly I know that he understands these issues. I would say to the Minister to come out of Wellington come out of the Koru Club lounge come and visit the ordinary people of New Zealand and understand what they are dealing with and tell them that the person who mugged their mother and took her handbag and stole her money or hit her over the head was only a child and needs to be treated as such. I can tell him that some “young” people commit very adult crimes and we do believe that where appropriate those crimes should be treated in an adult way. 
It is all very well for the Minister to talk about these great rates of not offending and family group conferences but we all know that there are some children who go through 16 family group conferences. So time and time again the same people are dragged in to come and hear them say: “I’m a very naughty boy” or “a very naughty girl” and “Yes I’ll probably do it again.” That is pretty much what happens. Unfortunately Child Youth and Family deals with dysfunctional families dysfunctional children and often deals with dysfunctional parents and dysfunctional extended family and whanau and it is an extremely tough job. The last thing we need to do is try to belittle the efforts they make by saying: “Oh by the way you’re going to now have to deal with these 17-year-olds who are as tough as anything who in many countries and in various stages in our own country have volunteered to go off to war put their ages up and went off to war and killed people.” What we are dealing with is “kids” as in young people but who are tough hard brutal and they will think that this bill is the biggest con job ever. Of course it is. 
We heard from the Minister tonight what it is all about. It is all about the UN convention. It is about the ticking of the boxes to make sure that we have a UN convention all ticked off so we can all be happy. Well certainly the Green Party thinks that 16-year-olds should be able to vote and they will want to say that no 17-year-olds should not be held accountable for their crimes. This is the same Government that says that basically it does not really matter what parents do because it is young people who should have all the rights. 
Well I think it is time we took some account of victims’ rights frankly. I think it is about time we took account of the rights of good parents. I think it is extremely important that parents be encouraged to be good parents not given yet another excuse not to take their responsibilities seriously. 
This bill gives greater powers to children and young people by making it mandatory to take their views into account. That is utter rubbish; I almost said a bad word! Why it is utter rubbish is that these are kids who have been very very naughty. They are difficult they are very very trying. They cause difficulties for their parents for their neighbours for their teachers and for their fellow students. Some of these kids are very violent. That is why they are there. And here we are having to take their feelings into account! Well sorry I think it is time we took into account the feelings of the rest of the population who do not go around etching windows who do not go around snatching handbags off old ladies going to do their shopping who do not go and break into other people’s property who do not go and tag it do not steal cars do not smash those cars into people while they are drunk and on drugs and illegally driving. 
It is about time we did that but nothing in this bill does it. Also nothing in this bill addresses that other area of child youth and families which is the real cause of child abuse or youth offending. We all know that many of those children who go on to be young offenders have at some stage been abused in their own lives. We know that. However that is no excuse for that behaviour. At some stage people have to be accountable for their own behaviour. There are also many people who are abused as children who do not go on to commit crimes; who do not go on to perpetuate that cycle of violence. Those are the people whom we should be helping. Those are the people we should be encouraging. 
What we should not be doing is trying to say that a 17-year-old who smashes up somebody who takes a car who rams it into a child is just a child and is not responsible for his or her actions. We believe that the person is. We believe that this bill is far too lenient on young hardened criminals and actually does not do nearly enough to deal with the real issues around child abuse and child neglect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call on the next speaker can I just apologise to a former member of the House Anne Collins and to the current member of the House Judith Collins for confusing their names. 
Judith Collins 
: I am very pleased I do not have to be Mrs Michael Cullen! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I congratulate you Madam Assistant Speaker on your appointment. Frankly I would not have minded if you had called me darling—I know you do so every time I see you in the elevator! That is the way things are down in Canterbury; we get on together despite the fact we might have differing philosophical views. As a member of Parliament I have been well looked after by one of your former pupils from Avonside Girls’ High School—my electorate agent Heidi Ireland. I am fortunate to have one of your former students in that role. I am fortunate also to have one of your former students as my daughter-in-law. In fact your reputation throughout Canterbury stands very very high. Everyone down home will be saying well done—that is for sure. 
Unfortunately I wish I could say similar things about the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6). I will start by saying that the bill contains a number of necessary amendments to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. 
These amendments need to be progressed; New Zealand First will not deny that. Barbara Stewart who is our spokesperson on social welfare would be annoyed with me if I did not say that and I acknowledge that. 
I also say that some credit should have come from the Minister for Social Development and Employment from the ministry and from the Labour Government for the work behind the scenes of Judy Turner from the United Future party because some of us know where a lot of this work had its genesis. It did not lie in the offices at certain places around this Parliament. I tell Judy Turner that I think this House does her a disservice when it does not recognise the work and the vast amount of time in research that she and her staff in United Future have put in in this field. That is the difference between someone who comes here to make a strong and positive difference to the lives of New Zealanders and others who come here to seek and to politick. 
On that note having just listened to Judith Collins’ commentary I will compare her rhetoric this evening with this quotation out of her mouth on  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
 on 11 August 2007 when talking about kids in gangs: “Kids get involved in gangs because they are looking for fathers. They are looking for someone who cares about them. They are looking for someone who actually gives them some structure in their lives—and that is not romanticising it. The fact is we’ve got kids out there who think nobody has ever said anything good about them who have never belonged to anything except that everything they have ever done has been wrong. And basically the gang is their new home.” Well what is wrong with that? Members can compare it with this from John Key to the Police Association: “National will make criminal gangs a key target in our fight against crime. It’s a battle where we think the police deserve better legislative backing than they’re getting.” The point is that Judith Collins said on  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
 that she would not support lowering the age of criminal responsibility—that the National Party would not support it—but the top quote given by John Key 2 months later was given when the National Party remembered that in its 2005 manifesto it told the nation that it would lower the age of criminal responsibility. 
So I tell Judith Collins that if we want to talk about victims we should not forget the elderly people who were the victims of “no ifs no buts no maybes” the classic promise from a National Government that it would repeal the surcharge and give people back their money—[ 
Interruption 
]. National members do not like me saying that eh. And what about the victims of the nuclear tests who were given $250000 for a class action by the New Zealand First - National coalition Government? There was a lot of discussion on  
Morning Report 
 about that today. The moment that New Zealand First was out of the Government National took the money off the victims. Those members should never forget that because when we travel the country we talk about victims. 
Let us be honest: Judith Collins supports the victims one day if it suits her political agenda but will kneecap them the next day if it suits her political agenda. She is a hollow woman from a team of hollow people and we cannot believe a word they say. 
Coming to the bill— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member is saying that people cannot believe a word I say. But this is a man from New Zealand First and I actually take extreme exception to that. His whole speech has been an attack on me—which is quite flattering frankly—and none of it has been about this bill. 
RON MARK 
: Speaking to the point of order I thought  
The Hollow Men  
was well known and well documented and seen all over the nation—in fact it has been tabled in this House—and Judith Collins is quite often mentioned in the book—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh it should be “The Hollow Woman”—sorry. I will withdraw. She is a hollow woman. 
Coming to the bill which is where I really want to be I say that it has some strengths as we have said. I think that Anne Tolley tried to point that out. But we can see a classic weakness in raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18. In fact to say “18” is not exactly correct. The bill raises the age to 17 years 364 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds and miraculously when that one second ticks over suddenly that 17-year-old will be able to be held accountable for his or her crimes. 
We in New Zealand First are saying that that piece of the legislation totally undermines one of the key principles that we should all be upholding—that is the democratic right of New Zealanders to have a say in legislation of this type. We believe that it flies completely in the face of the support we have had for my bill the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. We believe that it flies totally in the face of everything we have heard from John Key in his state of the nation speech given after the Christmas holidays. We believe that it totally smacks the mouths of every parent whose child was assaulted over the Christmas break by young teenagers and of people who were attacked with baseball bats by young offenders. 
We believe that that one amendment under the guise of supposedly making New Zealand fit with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is a falsity and it is wrong. Let us remember—let us cast our minds back—what happened when New Zealand signed the UN convention. Did New Zealand and the people representing it do it wholly without reservation? No. I find it very annoying—and Anne Tolley is nodding because she knows—deceptive and wrong to refer to the convention. Those who do so completely forget to tell us that the people who signed that convention reserved the right of New Zealand to pass laws fitting New Zealand’s situation. Chester Borrows is looking at me. Never once did the advisers to the Law and Order Committee on my bill even tell us that—never once did they table a speech from the UN convention showing that New Zealand reserved its right to pass laws that fitted the New Zealand ethos and situation. No and now we get the convention thrown at us as if it is a holy grail that we must all bend down and bow to. Well that is wrong. We do not. 
Members should hear this: polls across the country are showing that between 82 and 92 percent of people consistently do not want the age of criminal responsibility raised. I do not know about some people who might have been brought up in other countries that Idi Amin might have led but this is New Zealand. This is a free and democratic state this is a place where the majority have the say and if there is one thing that I thought the Labour Government might be reflecting on given its polling right now it is that what is writing its doom is its persistence in socially re-engineering New Zealand along the views it holds. Well Government members should get this: not everyone holds their views. 
This bill has many good things about it. It extends care and protection to the Youth Court and the options available on sentencing are a good thing. New Zealand First does not disagree and I do not think there is a member in this House who disagrees. But why throw this piece in that raises the age of criminal responsibility? Why slap people back down and say: “Oh we know what’s better.”? It is like the smacking bill all over again—the Government knows what is better. 
I am sorry but New Zealand First does not think the Government knows what is better. Firstly New Zealand First would have appreciated some recognition for the work that Judy Turner did. Secondly we would have appreciated people listening to us. For the Labour Government to slip this piece in knowing how strongly New Zealand First feels about such things—we negotiated a provision into the confidence and supply agreement with the Government to get my member’s bill at least to the select committee where we knew the Government would reserve the right to vote against it—smacks of an arrogance that is unbelievable. 
I say good luck to the Government. I know that the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] Ms Collins cannot help saying “poodle”. I think Ms Collins will be told by a lot of vets around the country exactly where she sits but that is coming in the polls so we should not worry about it. I would say— 
Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
RON MARK 
: That manic sort of laughter only confirms one other thing. She should take a holiday. New Zealand First is sorry. It would like to be supporting many aspects of this bill and no doubt they will pass and we will say well done on those aspects. But this piece inside the legislation flies in the face of things we have stood for and we will not be supporting this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker I too would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your promotion and say we look forward to working with you over the next few months in your new role. 
I would like to take just a brief call tonight to confirm that the Green Party will be supporting the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) going to the select committee as we believe that on the whole it makes a series of very useful changes to the legislation relating to children young persons and their families. We are especially pleased with the increase in the upper age of the definition of a young person to 17 as that finally brings us into line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in this particular area. We are delighted that neither the Government nor a majority in this House has supported the reverse approach taken by Ron Mark’s Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill which sought to lower the age of criminal liability originally to age 10 and then to age 12. The Green Party believes it is important that New Zealand not only moves the age upwards in order to comply with the UN convention but also gives the Family Court and the Youth Court the power to deal more effectively and more pragmatically with young people rather than have many more of them forced into the maw of the mainstream justice system at an earlier age as Mr Mark advocates. 
One related aspect of the bill where we do have some concerns is around the move to extend to 14-year-olds the Youth Court’s power to convict young people and transfer them to the District Court for sentencing. Although I acknowledge that it relates to indictable offences only the Green Party is anxious about its implications and will listen with interest to submissions in this area. We also continue to have ongoing and deep concerns about the adequacy and availability of both care and protection and youth justice facilities. I hope that alongside the work on this bill the Government will continue to deal with the infrastructure problems that dog the system at present. 
Another area in which I have a particular interest is the whole issue of the transition from care to independence for children and young people who are in some form of Child Youth and Family care or jurisdiction. In the 1999-2002 Parliament I was responsible for a Green Party Budget bid that saw more resources go into supporting some young people who needed help in that transition period when they were very vulnerable once they had turned 17—an age group that has all too often been virtually abandoned once it has left the care and protection of the service. I am therefore glad that this bill expands the availability of extended care agreements both in terms of the range of young people eligible for them and in relation to possible extensions where those agreements are approved. 
This bill also contains a number of other modifications to the way that Child Youth and Family operates. I look forward in the select committee process to hearing from people and organisations who are directly impacted on by or involved in these processes as a lot of this bill is quite technical and we MPs can learn from their experiences. Meanwhile we will be supporting the bill to go through its first reading although remaining open during the select committee process to amendments that may be needed in order to improve it. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker like the others I offer my congratulations to you. It is good to see you there. 
There have been a few events in the last few days that have given me great room for optimism. One was the celebration of Children’s Day on Sunday at which we recognise how special and precious children are and that perhaps the most important gift we can give our children is time. We would be into making every day a Children’s Day—a special day. The second event was Cindy Kiro’s challenge that politicians perhaps should look across boundaries when they support events for children or issues relating to children. Perhaps we do not need to be bound by party boundaries. 
I guess the final crowning event in this group of three was confirmation of the growing confidence that Maori voters have in the ability of a strong and independent Maori voice to represent them in Parliament. Why this is so important is that 22 percent of the Maori population is under the age of 19 and we are passionate in our belief that these children and young people deserve the very best representation. In fact when one considers the fact that in 2005 28 percent of newborn New Zealanders were Maori it very quickly becomes obvious that Maori are the face of the future. Despite the tired old “play it again” lines of 2005 that Shane Jones loves to bang on about Maori are showing in statistically significant numbers that they are seeking representation in this House to give voice to their aspirations for the future. A vote for the Maori Party is a vote for a Maori voice—a Maori Party that stands consistently in this House to put forward the views of an independent strong and proud Maori voice which members all know. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That’s not what it sounded like. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No this is real representation of real Maori. 
I will not join the queue for an ever-present chorus of complaints about the faults and failings of our young. The adolescent health survey of 2003 surveyed over 10000 secondary school students and it found that over 85 percent of those surveyed are thriving and positively engaged with their families. In the Maori-specific component of that study whanau were shown to be a vital environment for taitamariki—for children—and a strong and positive influence on most of the 2300 participants. 
It is rare for parties in this House to be able to come to the topic of children’s policy and find studies that confirm a basis for hope rather than dwelling on deprivation dysfunction and deficit analysis. We must start focusing on the potential of our young people the hope that they represent our future. We have had more than enough of politicians posturing about the problems of youth—comparing children to snarling mutts—and the association that everything can be fixed by a good dose of boot camp philosophy. 
The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 compelled State child welfare agencies to consider issues of culture particularly in the context of their whanau hapu and iwi. In many respects it was legislation before its time in the way in which it recognised the centrality and importance of whanau to the care and protection of tamariki and to youth justice. We must preserve the intent of this legislation throughout all subsequent iterations including those on the Order Paper today. 
We are well pleased to see the initiative to raise the legal age of a young person to 17. Although in effect this makes our legislation consistent with international arrangements such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child our key interest is that it ensures that the benefits of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act will now apply to an age group that too readily slips through the cracks. We are also glad to support the purposes of this amendment today to strengthen the effectiveness of family group conferences. The family group conference has been described as the linchpin of our youth justice system. It receives quite a bit of criticism in this House but in effect it reconciles the two concepts of justice and well-being by making the young offender accountable while also involving the victims and their families in the decision-making process. Although it is renowned internationally it has not been without its challenges. The commitment to retain children within their families takes enormous effort time resources and the belief that family-based solutions are worth all of this work. 
The changes introduced in this bill are to ensure that representatives of victims at family group conferences can be accompanied by support persons that courts and lawyers encourage the participation of children and young persons in family group conferences and that family group conferences are advised of the health and education needs of children and young persons. These are all excellent enhancements to the original model and we hope that there will be sufficient investment to achieve optimum success. 
Findings of the research undertaken by Dr Marie Connelly who reviewed 15 years of family group conferences in 2004 revealed that although the original Act supports a family-led process in practice professionally driven processes have been creeping into the system. As someone who has been involved in many family group conferences I am greatly concerned that the original intentions of the process towards facilitating healing and restorative justice have been treated in such a way. 
I have particular association with Te Whanau Awhina which was established over 30 years ago by Maori welfare community volunteers. It began as a community group providing a forum for dispute resolution at a local high school. In time the police were brought in and they started referring people to us then the courts and then Judge Michael Brown started referring a range of offences and offenders to this forum. It was through the influence of Te Whanau Awhina that the family group conference evolved encouraging the mediation of concerns between the victim the offender and their families as a means to achieve reconciliation restitution and rehabilitation. I am proud to say that the family group conference legislation proposed initially by Judge Michael Brown drew from the Te Whanau Awhina practices. One of the most important paragraphs in the bill is the commitment to “ensure family group conferences are timely well-informed and managed to achieve the best outcomes for children and young persons:”. 
So here we are considering a host of consequential amendments to the Act in order to strengthen the responsibilities and the procedures for the care and protection of children and young persons including the care and support for disabled children and young persons and the prompt and effective response to reports of child abuse. There are however—despite a range of positive provisions and amendments to support victims in the area of children young persons and their families—some concerns and we are eager to hear the views of the community on that at the select committee stage. 
In particular we will be eager to hear views on the concept that the Youth Court can transfer young people to the District Court for sentencing a year earlier at 14 years old and that young people no longer need to give their consent to community-based orders. There is an anomaly in the current law that has the potentially negative effect of exposing 14-year-olds to longer sentencing options should the offending be proved. Although it is proposed that the power to convict and transfer young people to the District Court for sentencing be extended to include 14-year-olds who have committed purely indictable offences we are still very keen to seek clarity about what this will mean and the implications it will have for young people. 
I return to the idea of our young people as the face of our future. We need to create the optimum environment that invests in every child no matter what circumstances he or she is born into. We need to invest in children in order to develop their full potential. Then we can truly say we are making a difference for the future of Aotearoa. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and may I add my congratulations to those of others in this House. I am sorry that United Future was not present this afternoon during the speeches regarding your nomination because we are very supportive of it and look forward to your leadership of the House. 
The Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) is one that United Future feels particularly passionate about. In the 5 or so years that I have been in Parliament I do not think any constituent cases have kept me awake at night as much as the cases that have come my way involving Child Youth and Family. I have a file full of them. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment for the open door she has shown me on the many occasions when I have advocated for these cases. 
I am very very pleased to see that as a result of the passing of this amendment bill the chief executive officer whose role will be established more distinctly in the Act will also have as part of his or her job description a requirement to set up a complaints service for this department. That is the area that has been of greatest concern to me. I could cite case after case that I currently have on file in my office of families who have grievances about the way they were treated and the way their cases were handled and who have had no redress. 
Child Youth and Family has powers greater than those of the New Zealand Police and the burden of proof required for it to uplift children is much less than the police would require for a conviction. United Future is not critical of the powers given to this department but we say that if we give people the power to exercise outcomes for families that are at times quite dramatic they must be accountable for the decisions they make and there must be a process in place that is credible and that is independent enough to be credible. Parents child caregivers families and grandparents must be able to ask for a review of the decision that has been made or a review of the way their case has been handled. This is good news. What the chief executive officer chooses to set up is a debate for another day and I have my own theories about what I would like to see. 
I have looked very closely at organisations like the Independent Police Conduct Authority and how it operates. I think there are some things we could learn from the way the authority manages cases. I know there is some talk about offering an internal complaints service within the Ministry of Social Development for Child Youth and Family. I suspect that is where the Minister will start the process. I have some reservations about how credible that would be. None the less it is better than the current vacuum that exists for a complaint service. 
United Future is also pleased to see that in this bill the definition of a young person will be changed to include people up to the age of 18 years. There are some concerns around that and I think we have to remind ourselves that the changed definition of a young person applies to this bill; variations in other Acts will remain unchanged. There are several reasons why we are pleased about this change. Recently the Social Services Committee visited a youth sex offenders unit in Christchurch. We met with staff from Barnardos which has the contract to run this facility and we met with the young people themselves. One of the complaints that both the staff and the young people had was that there was a magical cut-off point at age 17 when Child Youth and Family no longer had responsibility for these young people. It did not matter where they were in their rehabilitation programme; out they went. The young people themselves were saying that they wanted to stay longer they had not finished and they knew they needed more help but they had a 17th birthday fast approaching and it would soon be all over for them. It is a crying shame to see them have to leave a programme that has measurable outcomes. These young people were noticing a difference in themselves. They have serious offending backgrounds—not just in the area of sex offences but that is one of the more concerning behaviours which the programme is trying to address. 
The other area that has come to our attention is under-age sex workers in New Zealand. When we passed the Prostitution Law Reform Bill we made it legal for 18-year-olds to be involved in the sex industry. We now have a group of 17-year-olds who are not captured by the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. No one from a care and protection position is able to intervene in these young people’s lives and ask some questions as to why they are out on the street dressed in their hoodies sniffing glue out of paper bags and offering themselves for very cheap sex behind grubby buildings. No one is asking where their mums and dads are who is looking after them and why they are allowed out unsupervised. Nobody has that authority because they are in this gap that exists. By lifting the age we can start to ask some serious questions and have some real opportunities for caring people to put in place some interventions that could help those young people at a time when they most obviously need it. There are a number of situations where young people are disadvantaged purely because their birthday clocks in and suddenly the services disappear. 
There is the issue of 17-year-olds still in high school who are in foster care and suddenly nobody is responsible for them. Quite often what happens is that caring foster parents at their own expense keep these young people in their homes as part of their families but there is no benefit and no remuneration. They can get unsupported child benefits but there are all sorts of gaps that these young people fall through yet we acknowledge that they still need to be in high school and learning for their futures. There are some real advantages in this measure and to United Future whether it makes us comply with the United Nations Rights of the Child is neither here nor there. It is just a sensible common-sense thing that needs to happen. These young people are falling through the gaps. That group of 17 to 18-year-olds are falling through the gaps in rather large numbers and we need to do something to stop that. 
From as early as 2003 United Future spoke to the Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson about the need to respond to the baseline review. It was pretty damning about what was happening in Child Youth and Family Services back then. One of the problems was that as the department drowned in notification numbers it needed to share the workload. The idea of a differential response model which we asked the Minister to look into has been piloted in New Plymouth and in Royal Oak in Auckland and I thank the Minister for her openness to that idea. My understanding is that the pilots have been very successful. So we are looking forward to the roll-out of that. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act does not allow for the work to be contracted out; we need a law change so that work involving medium to low risk cases and notifications can be passed on in a timely way to competent agencies within the community that can intervene before these cases deteriorate and become high-risk cases that need statutory intervention. 
United Future is very pleased with much of the content of this bill and we look forward to the submissions to the select committee. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.