Volume 655 Week 16 - Thursday 25 June 2009 
Volume 655 Week 16 - Thursday 25 June 2009 
[Volume:655;Page:4655] 
Thursday 25 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 30 June it is the Government’s intention to complete all remaining stages of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Forestry Sector) Amendment Bill and to make progress on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill the Road User Charges Amendment Bill the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. Following agreement by the Business Committee Dr Cam Calder will make his maiden statement on Thursday 2 July 2009 at approximately 5.45 p.m. or when the time is convenient to the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for his ambitious update for next week and I ask him about Government notice of motion No. 2 which follows on from the recommendation of the Privileges Committee and sets out a definition of a New Zealand court. I ask when the House might be able to deal with that notice of motion and complete that process. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the shadow Leader of the House for raising that issue. The matter will be discussed by the Business Committee on Tuesday. The notice of motion itself concerns fairly important protections that are afforded to members of Parliament when they speak in the House and it relates to the freedom of speech that the House enjoys. Therefore it should have the full cooperation of the House when it is dealt with and it is our intention to negotiate some time to do that. 
I appreciate that the Opposition expresses that this is an ambitious programme but this is an ambitious Government. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Current Account Deficit 
1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government doing to address the current account deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The near-record balance of payments deficit is a symptom of 9 years of poor economic management by the previous Government. At the start of the decade the balance of payments was relatively balanced. It has grown steadily to between 8 and 9 percent of GDP and has been there for 3 years—one of the worst in the developed world. Many factors contributed including out-of-control Government spending households encouraged to borrow excessively and an export sector that struggled with policy that made it difficult to be an exporter. The Government’s strategy is to reverse all that bad management and to focus future growth on exports quality investment and jobs that are sustainable not jobs based on borrowing like the job growth under Labour. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why when 88 percent of New Zealand’s current account deficit is made up of the investment deficit would the Minister want to liberalise the Overseas Investment Office rules or does he think that flogging off more of our land and infrastructure amounts to a sustainable strategy for growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Overseas Investment Office rules have become bizarre and it is taking up to 6 months for people to get approval for industrial sections next to a small creek. So as with a lot of the other things Labour did we have to get all the nonsense out of the process so that we can get decisions. Our main focus is on sustainable jobs and dealing with all those people who are suffering the pain of dislocation because they thought they had secure jobs but because they were based on excessive borrowing and Government spending they have now lost those jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why if the Minister is concerned about the current account deficit did his Government axe the research and development tax credits and reduce funding for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise both of which would have assisted New Zealand firms to innovate and gain new export markets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Government had the mistaken notion that a Government could buy its way out of economic problems by applying taxpayer subsidies to whatever the problem was. Actually those days are over. Overseas lenders will not lend us the money to do that. From here on New Zealand has to earn a living not pretend it is earning a living by buying it with taxpayer subsidies. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What imbalances did the Government inherit that contributed to the high current account deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: After 9 years of bad economic management the imbalances in our economy have been severe. The public sector was growing rapidly at the expense of the private sector. Over the past 5 years core Crown spending grew by 50 percent whereas the economy grew by 25 percent. The tradable sector has been in recession for 5 years. That is no way to run an economy. Unfortunately thousands of New Zealanders are suffering the pain of dislocation because of those bad policies. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why does the Minister’s Government continue to invest heavily in new motorways when as today’s current account figures reinforce New Zealanders are leaving their cars in their garages; and would it not be better in the immediate term to spend transport money on public transport services thereby relieving the overcrowding on our buses and trains? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government shares the Greens’ objective of an efficient transport system. We are investing in better roads because actually buses need roads. We are also investing extensively in rail. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why if the Minister is now ready to govern and if he is concerned about the current account deficit did his Budget reduce tourism promotion funding; or does he think it proper to build a cycleway even though there are fewer funds to promote it just so that John Key can show him who is boss? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a bit rich coming from a member of the previous Government which in 10 years of record fiscal surpluses did not increase tourism promotion funding. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is an inevitable point of order. The Minister in response to the primary question and all three supplementary questions spent at least the lion’s share if not all of the answers rehearsing his take on the previous Government and hardly any part of them talking about his own policies. It may be that he does not have any policies but New Zealanders would like to give him the benefit of the doubt— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have listened to the honourable member on his point of order and taken it seriously but I invite him to reflect on the supplementary question he just asked and on whether it was a fairly political question. When he asks a fairly political supplementary question he is likely to get a fairly political answer. I fear I cannot assist him on this occasion. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Tourism like other export sectors has suffered from 9 years of a Government that had no understanding of business that buried businesses in red tape and that collected their taxes and wasted them on ineffective spending. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What effect does overseas ownership of New Zealand companies have on the current account deficit and did the Government take that into account before inviting Mark Weldon to brief State-owned enterprise chairs on Government plans to privatise State-owned enterprises over the next 2 to 5 years which is what he did at Treasury yesterday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As usual no one can rely on what that member says. Mark Weldon did not brief any seminar on Government plans. Whatever he said about partial privatisation— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard put a question pretty directly to the Minister of Finance and rather than answer the substance of Mr Mallard’s question the Minister indulged in a personal attack on the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully to the question asked by the Hon Trevor Mallard. Indeed the first part of the question was a very straight question. The second part contained an allegation about a person Mark Weldon addressing a seminar yesterday. In his answer the Minister has disputed that. I believe that is a fair answer to the question. The Minister is disputing the information that the Hon Trevor Mallard built into his question. I think that is a direct answer to the question. He does not have to answer the whole lot. He is picking on the second part of the question which he is entitled to do and I believe he is answering it quite directly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you have suggested that Mr Weldon’s addressing the meeting was an allegation. Both the Minister of Finance and I know that it is a fact and he confirmed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order should not be used to raise issues about the quality of the Minister’s answer. I heard the Minister specifically address the issue of Mark Weldon addressing some seminar. That was in direct response to the member’s question. I believe to respond to the point of order raised by Darren Hughes that that was absolutely within the Standing Orders. The Minister specifically answered the second part of the question and I believe that it was a good answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister started his answer by saying that as usual the member’s word cannot be relied upon. That is an insinuation and we had that discussion earlier in the week. Maybe I did not put my point to you as clearly as I should have. The Minister has been asked a straight question about asset sales and he is free to answer about the substance of that. We do not need all the extra political stuff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the specific point the member is making. I ask the Minister in replying to this question to desist from that kind of comment. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member’s statement is incorrect and he knows it is incorrect. Whatever statements Mr Weldon made were in his capacity as the chief executive of the Stock Exchange. It is not surprising that he would like to see partial privatisation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Minister of Finance briefed by the Prime Minister before Mr Weldon undertook a briefing yesterday in which he indicated that State-owned enterprises should change their strategic planning to prepare for privatisation over the next 2 to 5 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a release from J P Morgan entitled “New Zealand’s current account deficit narrows due to plummeting imports” which makes it clear that petroleum and petroleum products and motor vehicle components experienced the largest decline in imports. It is dated today 25 June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who is this press release by? 
Metiria Turei 
: J P Morgan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a press release by J P Morgan. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand’s report on the balance of payments and investment position for the March 2009 quarter which was issued this morning and shows a continued deterioration in the international investment position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking to table a document that was made public this morning? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That is correct but it was not brought to the House’s attention. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statistics release from this morning. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Budget 2009—Decisions 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What were the main decisions taken in Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government inherited a New Zealand economy in recession because of 9 years of bad economic management. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the question was a Government question and was expressed in very straight and simple terms there can be no excuse for the Minister to begin his answer with a political soliloquy about the previous Government as he has done in every response today with either a personal attack or a strange recounting of history. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker the Minister of Finance had got about four words of the answer out before David Cunliffe jumped to his feet. What the Minister of Finance was saying was that the Government inherited a recession which I suspect was giving the context to the decisions of the Budget. I do not think there is any doubt that the Government did inherit a recession. I do not see how you could possibly prevent a Minister of Finance from saying what the situation was when a Government delivered a Budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s raising the point but I think that the point of order raised by the Hon David Cunliffe is a valid point. The question was very straight. It asked what the main decisions in Budget 2009 were. I think that the answer should start at least by addressing that question and not by rehearsing matters to do with the previous Government. They may be part of an explanation but the question was very straight. It asked what the main decisions in the Budget were. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government had to consider a very wide range of options in the Budget because it had inherited an economy in recession after 9 years of economic mismanagement. We focused on promoting jobs cleaning up the Government’s books getting debt under control and setting New Zealand on the road to recovery. In the Budget the Government decided to maintain public services despite the poor fiscal outlook maintain entitlements invest in a way that supported thousands of jobs clean up the reckless fiscal mess left by the previous Government and get Government debt back under control. 
Craig Foss 
: On what basis were Budget 2009 policy options accepted or rejected? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We asked officials to put a wide range of options on the table because of the difficult circumstances the Government inherited and we welcomed their free and frank advice. Treasury is this afternoon issuing the documents related to the Budget that set out those early options. These are all available on Treasury’s website and they confirm that if we had continued with the previous reckless growth in ineffective Government spending by the Labour Government debt would have spiralled out of control. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What does the Minister say to the 73 percent of New Zealanders identified in a Research New Zealand poll who think that his decade of deferrals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in Budget 2009 has jeopardised the entire future of superannuation; and does he agree with Bernard Hickey that generations X and Y need to wake up to the massive intergenerational theft that is happening before their eyes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would tell them that the intergenerational theft occurred when the Labour Government mismanaged this economy so badly that it left us with a legacy of 10 years of deficits and a doubling of public debt even after the best efforts of a competent National Government. 
Craig Foss 
: What were the main outcomes of Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The outcome of the Budget is that the Government has found the right balance between protecting New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of recession in the short term while setting New Zealand on the road to recovery in the longer term. The Budget will support thousands of jobs investment in infrastructure will clear economic bottlenecks and we will improve New Zealand’s international competitiveness and as a sign of external confidence in the Budget New Zealand is the only developed country that has experienced a mild upgrade in its credit rating. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen reports that the Superannuation Fund ironically made $587 million in profit for the month of May and is now back in the black and will he concede that his decision to strip the Superannuation Fund of Government contributions for the next decade was short-sighted? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports about the progress of the Superannuation Fund. I have also seen reported commitments by the Labour Opposition saying that if Labour is running for office in 2011 apparently it will borrow something like $6 billion in catch-up payments so that it can fill that hole. The fact is that when we have some surpluses to save we will save them. But partly because of the recklessness of the previous Labour Government which squandered 10 years of surpluses we do not have any. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
3.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has she received about the number of adult and community education courses that are unlikely to be offered in 2010 as a result of the Government’s funding cuts in this area? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The Tertiary Education Commission does not purchase adult and community education on a course-by-course basis. Providers determine the number of specific courses they deliver within an overall funding allocation by the Tertiary Education Commission. The member who asked the question used to hold the delegation for adult and community education so I presume that she would know that. The Government will continue to invest $124 million in adult and community education over the next 4 years. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Which of the following courses offered and supported by Tangaroa College in South Auckland does the Minister think should be self-funded by the participants: mathematics for Tongan parents volunteer training and financial management advice for the Otara Budgeting Service or making stepfamilies work a parenting course run by Family Works? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Over many days in this House I have explained to the member who has just resumed her seat the priorities for funding on adult and community education. The priorities are literacy numeracy and foundation courses. As Minister I will not decide anything. The Tertiary Education Commission will make the decisions as to what providers are funded and for what courses. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What hope does the Minister offer to her Maori Party colleague Te Ururoa Flavell who said in a recent speech to the Adult and Community Education Conference 2009: “It would be difficult to have too much hope when the so called ‘future growth’ of the foundation learning pool; adult literacy educator grants; literacy in industry training and employee one-to-one literacy provision has been removed.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat to that member that the priorities in the middle of an economic recession for adult and community education as have been explained to the Maori Party are literacy and numeracy foundation skills and courses that will lead to employment for people. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has the Minister seen of commentators misleading the public over adult and community education funding? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen the release from the Labour list member Lynne Pillay claiming that New Zealand Sign Language courses will be cut. That is absolutely not the case. New Zealand Sign Language will continue to receive adult and community education funding because it fits within the Government’s adult and community education priority. [ 
Interruption 
] The members on the opposite side of the House either want an answer or they do not. The courses will not be cut. That is scaremongering of the worst kind by the Opposition to members of those communities—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her answer but honestly I could not hear it. I think it is important to remember that if I cannot hear her answer I am sure other members of the House cannot. I am sure the House is interested in hearing the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask for a little bit more reasonableness in the volume of noise. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That absolutely proves the point that the Labour Opposition is not interested in the facts about what will be funded in adult and community education in the future. The members are more interested in producing another press release that is factually incorrect. New Zealand Sign Language will be funded; it will continue to be funded. If the members had asked the question they would have got the answer. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What is the Minister saying to the 1676 students who participated in an adult and community education course run through Whakatane High School last year and to the 800 who have enrolled so far this year who will not be able to avail themselves of this well-known parenting course for fathers and sons and many other courses besides; or are all such courses simply hobby courses in her book? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said to that member in answer to similar questions on Tuesday parenting courses throughout New Zealand are funded by a variety of means: by the Department of Internal Affairs by district health boards by the Ministry of Social Development—and some have been funded through schools. The best advice that that member could give as I have given to those students who are being funded through Whakatane High School— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance. The issue was raised in the House a couple of days ago of people moving to other parts of the House and then barracking and I would like you to note that people from Labour are sitting on the front benches who do not normally sit there and are barracking. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker I think you have seen from our exchange that the major volume of barracking was in fact coming from me. You corrected me for it. The member has not been in the House that often but I have been shifted on to the front bench again recently. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear further. I am sure the member’s benchmate Grant Robertson has also been interjecting with considerable volume. I think the rule is sometimes fairly unworkable. Members move around the House these days and it is unreasonable to expect them to stay in their own seats. All I would ask is that all members are reasonable with their interjections. Members should remember that the acoustics in this House mean that interjections from members at the front of the Chamber make it very hard to hear what is going on because the volume at the front here can be very loud. All I am asking for is just a bit of reasonableness. Has the Hon Anne Tolley finished her answer? 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that the rules have changed? For at least 19 years as far as I am aware the rule has been that if a member shifts seats to give himself or herself advantage the member cannot interject. That is the rule. If you are going to change it I think you should make it quite clear that you are changing the rule. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The rule in fact is that members cannot shift for the purpose of interjecting. There is a subjective test involved in that rule that only you Mr Speaker can decide. Even then your decision is likely to be challenged. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I think that is quite true but who in their right mind would otherwise choose to sit beside the angry one— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not acceptable—[ 
Interruption 
] That is not acceptable. I ask the honourable member to stand withdraw and apologise to the House for that abuse of Standing Orders. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we have had enough. I have heard quite enough on this matter. The Hon Trevor Mallard was absolutely correct that members cannot shift seats for the purpose of interjecting more effectively or more closely. I am not changing the rules; all I am asking is that the House be sensible and reasonable. A certain amount of interjection is good and healthy. Where Ministers give provocative answers there will be interjection. That is good and healthy; it shows the interjector is listening to the answer and that is good. But I just ask that it be a little bit reasonable. At times there it got so loud that it was difficult to hear. Had the Hon Anne Tolley finished her answer? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that the Minister had not in fact finished her answer when the Hon Tariana Turia raised her point of order. I thought she was mid-sentence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only the Minister can be the judge of whether she had finished her answer. 
Citizens Initiated Referendum on Parental Correction—Proposed Member’s Bill 
4.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe that a light smack for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence; if not why will he not pledge to support my proposed member’s bill to make that point clear thus removing the need for a referendum? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I believe the member’s first question is ambiguous and open to different interpretations. I note that the law already provides justification for smacking a child including in the course of good care and parenting so currently not all smacks are criminal offences. I will not be making a pledge of the sort the member describes because in my view the current law appears to be working. In any event the member’s bill is yet to be drawn from the ballot. 
John Boscawen 
: Will he have regard to the referendum results; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Citizens initiated referenda are an opportunity for the public to have their say; I support the referendum for this reason. There is nothing we can do about the ambiguity in the wording of the current referendum in relation to smacking. 
John Boscawen 
: Would he still regard the anti-smacking law as working if the majority of New Zealanders opposed a criminalisation of smacking? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has made it clear that if there was evidence that the law was not working then he would change the law. It is his view that up to now he has not seen evidence of that. 
Job Summit—Jobs Saved and Created 
5.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How many jobs will be either saved or created as a consequence of the six Job Summit work streams he is responsible for? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Associate Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: The six Job Summit work streams that the Minister is responsible for will collectively improve the environment in which business can prosper. For instance in the case of the advancement of the energy and environmental initiative with particular focus on housing 1 week ago the Government launched the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart campaign which will retrofit 180000 houses. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was directed to the Minister for Economic Development. Mr Brownlee has a role as energy Minister—although the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise just as I asked the Hon Rodney Hide to do. The member has sought to abuse a member through a point of order. That is totally unacceptable. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The six work streams that Mr Brownlee is responsible for as Minister for Economic Development do not include insulation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is litigating the quality of the answer. The member will sit down. He cannot use a point of order to litigate the quality of the answer; he can use further supplementary questions to dig into the quality of the answer. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Job Summit designated six work streams. They did not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. At the end of the Minister’s answer the member who is asking the question may claim that the Minister has not answered it. I will consider that if it arises. But he cannot raise a point of order in the way that he has because we are still listening to the Minister’s answer. I have not heard the Minister abuse anyone in the House. I invite the Minister to start his answer again; I want to hear the answer to the question. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister is responsible for six Job Summit work streams one of which for the education of the questioner is the development of an action plan to advance energy and environmental initiatives with a particular focus on housing. In respect of that particular initiative 1 week ago the Government launched a scheme called Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart. It will retrofit 180000 houses over the next 4 years. This will create not fewer than 2000 jobs. I wish the member would do his homework. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why in relation to his work stream to “actively manage regulatory approval process for complex and/or major projects” has it taken him 4 months to decide whether a ministerial task force should be established when his fellow colleagues have established 22 reviews or is he timing his decision to take effect in the next recession? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This particular work stream is quite wide ranging. It includes reforming the Resource Management Act and establishing an environmental protection agency and also in direct relation to the role of the Minister developing an infrastructure plan that is led by the Treasury infrastructure group of which he is part. Frankly this Government has done a great deal more regarding infrastructure than that lot did in 9 years in Government. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What criteria will he or his officials be relying upon in order to advance the policy to save iconic companies as reflected in the recent select committee discussion and the discussion that is under way in the Ministry of Economic Development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One of the work streams is redeveloping business assistance schemes which obviously relate to companies—[ 
Interruption 
] They are business assistance schemes for the information of those members who need to listen. This will involve establishing a new fund that will focus on providing greater and more targeted support for businesses that are seeking to internationalise New Zealand products and services. That is a very specific set of work which the Government has to pick up because frankly the previous Government left the economy in a shambles. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had difficulty in hearing part of that answer. Was the Minister if I could ask him to repeat his answer referring to business assistance schemes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the answer could not be heard the Minister has been asked whether he was referring to business assistance schemes. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Stream No. 4—and presumably the questioner has researched the six streams—directly relates to business assistance schemes. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How does cutting $10 million from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise budget help business assistance schemes? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The reductions in funding of course were almost invariably in areas that were unfunded. I might add that the Minister for Economic Development the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Research Science and Technology are working on a programme to improve business-facing assistance. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very pithy and lucid. Ten million dollars has been cut. Please invite the Minister to repeat his answer without saying it was unfunded. We cannot cut something if it does not exist. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty is for the Speaker to have specific knowledge on these things. The Minister did answer the member’s question although I accept it may not have been to the member’s satisfaction. It is difficult for me to arbitrate on an issue such as that. I believe I have to allow that the Minister did answer the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Although I fully respect that it is not for the Speaker to wade into judgments on the quality of the response or the satisfaction of the member I believe that my colleague’s point is a more technical one. It is not logically mathematically or indeed legally possible to cut something that has not been funded. That would mean there was nothing to cut. The whole point of a cut is that an allocation must have been in the Budget previously. I guess that is the point. On that technical point I believe my colleague is on strong ground. Could you ask the Minister to clarify his point? We would love to know what he meant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are relitigating the quality of the Minister’s answer. We cannot do that. Further supplementary questions are available to the member. If the member wishes to ask a further supplementary question I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s answer. I sense he does not wish to use a further supplementary question in which case we will move to question No. 6. 
State Houses—Sales to Tenants Scheme 
6.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports if any has he seen in support of the policy of sales to State tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports including a statement that the policy will “give long-standing tenants whose houses have become their homes the opportunity to buy the properties.” Additionally “The sale of those houses and the purchase of replacement properties will assist the Housing Corporation to house more applicants off the waiting list.” These quotes are from the one-time Minister of Housing Phil Goff. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other reports has the Minister seen in support of the policy of sales to State tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: One report I read noted that the policy would “allow the corporation to manage the rental housing sector better. The policy of the Government however will continue to see an increase in State house rental housing. It will not result in a reduction of State housing numbers.” This is sound policy and I thank the current leader of the Labour Party Phil Goff for signalling it so well in advance. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What criteria announced yesterday seem to have been given support by other parties? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It would appear that the sales being at the discretion of the corporation is also supported: “There would be restrictions on the sale of individual units in flats or blocks.”; for example if this was strategically important. I again thank Phil Goff. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What criticism has the Minister received of the policy of sales to State tenants? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I was intrigued and saddened to read yesterday that Moana Mackey was concerned that some of the replacement houses would be 10-year leases. Interestingly a parliamentary answer from the former housing Minister Chris Carter says that he signed up 572 new leases in 2005 and 468 new leases in 2006. Although buying only 268 houses in 2007 that year he signed up 420 leases. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Tim Macindoe. [ 
Interruption 
] Members must show some respect to their colleague seeking to ask a supplementary question. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Does the Minister have any advice for those wanting to know more about the policy? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Far be it from me to give advice; however I suggest that people who are confused about the policy seek a briefing from me— 
Hon Member 
: Or Phil Goff. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: —from Phil Goff or from the former Minister of Housing Chris Carter. I personally believe that a coordinated approach to housing policy might be quite useful going forward. 
Moana Mackey 
: If one of the Minister’s aims for this policy is to stimulate the building industry during tough economic times as he said yesterday when will the first replacement homes be built given that the scheme does not start until September and he has no idea what the take-up will be amongst the very small number of State tenants who can afford it and given the process that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will need to go through to identify or purchase land for the replacements? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Although I have the option to pass the answer on to Phil Goff or Chris Carter who support the policy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should answer the question. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: —I inform the House that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will be increasing the number of State houses by about 1550 over 4 years. As part of the increase which we have planned for we will build buy and lease houses to replace those bought by State house tenants who for once in a decade will have the opportunity to go into homeownership. 
Moana Mackey 
: Let us see whether he will actually answer this question. How does that policy help reduce Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting-lists address affordable housing issues or stimulate the building sector when the Minister is promising to maybe build an unknown number of houses sometime in the next few years yet on the other hand has stopped the building of 500 State houses and stalled the building of 500 affordable homes in Hobsonville? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have been very intrigued by the Hobsonville policy which was first announced in 2002 by the Labour Government. It was announced about a dozen times including three times in the 2005 election year and three times in the 2008 election year. When we came into Government do members know what we found? There were no consents no spade had hit the ground and no house had been built. Members will be pleased to hear that the National Government has obtained consents. We are about to start the earthworks and we will build some real houses in Hobsonville. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no way that anyone can hear the honourable member seeking to ask a supplementary question. I ask for a little bit of order from the Government benches please. 
Moana Mackey 
: It is interesting that State houses are not real houses. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families pay their mortgages? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Although the member could access it herself I would be happy to pass her the phone number of the Governor of the Reserve Bank who will mention to her that interest rates are actually coming down. 
Moana Mackey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We all appreciate the court jester routine but the Minister did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can understand the member’s concern. In fact in a roundabout way the Minister did answer it in that he indicated that lower interest rates make houses more affordable. I invite the honourable member to ask her question again because the House was so rowdy that it was hard to hear the question and I must say the Minister’s answer was not particularly well directed. 
Moana Mackey 
: Thank you. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families to pay their mortgages? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In the term of this Government mortgage interest rates have come down; so have taxes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again not wanting to go to the substance of the Minister’s attempts at a response it does appear that he is confused between rates and rates. Interest rates are set by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Tax rates are set by the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be silence. The member has made his point. I think in fairness the question related to affordability of housing—it was a fairly long question—and I think the Minister in his answer identified a couple of areas including tax cuts that he argues have made housing more affordable. I accept he has answered the question. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the new face of the Labour Party Phil Goff that is a quarter of a century old. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order should be made seriously and should not contain that kind of language. The Minister will not continue in that vein or he will not continue with his point of order. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table a document titled “Ban on Sale of State Houses to be Lifted” from the  
Evening Post 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What was the date? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It was 1986. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from 1986. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I seek leave to table the long list of lease deals done by Labour Ministers of Housing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a document? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is a document—parliamentary questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House get homilies when we attempt to do that and you have not given a homily on either the attempt to table the  
Evening Post 
 clipping or the attempt to table  
Hansard 
. I would like some evenness on this. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ignore that last comment. Can I just make certain for the benefit of the House that it is a document that the member is seeking to table? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The parliamentary questions or the  
Evening Post 
 one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member is seeking to table. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is parliamentary written question No. 10587 giving a list of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When was that parliamentary question asked? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Parliamentary written question No. 10587 in 2007. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well a parliamentary question is already on the record of the House. I accept that it is a few years back. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Moana Mackey 
: I seek leave to table the 2008 National Party policy promising tax cuts as an answer to housing affordability. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having sought leave for the Hon Phil Heatley’s tabling let me seek leave for that as well. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to address the issue of tabling documents that was raised as a consequence of the Hon Phil Heatley’s seeking leave to table various documents. I want to defend the right of Phil Heatley to do what he did. Mr Speaker yesterday when you addressed the issue of tabling documents you referred to the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Arising out of that report a change was made to the Standing Orders to require that documents be tabled when leave is granted for them to be tabled—and I congratulate the Speaker on enforcing it. Another way in which the Speaker has improved the tabling of documents is to make sure that the document exists rather than is going to be created and I congratulate the Speaker on that. 
But Mr Speaker in respect of your desire to dissuade members from seeking to table documents that are already a matter of public record I suggest that what the Hon Phil Heatley did was within order just as earlier practice by the Opposition was in order. I refer the Speaker to the report of the Standing Orders Committee because its wording was quite careful. It states: “The primary purpose of … seeking leave to table documents is to inform debate …” and that is why as a general rule we should not always be referring to documents that are on the public record. I think the wording of the Standing Orders Committee was quite careful. It referred to that being the primary purpose but it is not the only purpose. There is a proper political purpose around the tabling of documents. It ought not to be abused by members coming to the House with long lists of historical documents that are of marginal relevance but the Hon Phil Heatley did not do that then and the Opposition has not being doing it in previous weeks. 
Mr Speaker I think the balance to be found is that if people waste lots of time with long lists of documents then you should intervene. But where an occasional political point is being made the best way for the Speaker to handle it in my submission is to let it flow. Members have the right to refuse leave. It will be political but this is a political place. The business of the House should be allowed to flow. 
Hon John Carter 
: Mr Speaker although we would not disagree with the comment that has been made I draw the House’s attention to the very fact that your rulings on this matter have been very good. Indeed you put to the House the last application by Mr Heatley to table a document on the basis that it was a historical rather than a recent document. Your rulings have been that we are not expected to table documents that are newly created. It makes a farce of the parliamentary system if we seek leave to table documents that appeared yesterday. In that sense your rulings have been very even and very fair. You have not ruled out our seeking the leave of the House to table historic documents—I do not think I have seen you do that—but you certainly have suggested to the House that the last thing we should want to do is to table for example yesterday’s  
Hansard 
 as that brings the House into disrepute. 
Hon David Parker 
: Could I speak for just one further moment on the matter. What I am saying is that we in the Opposition find that some of the imputations that are being made as to whether our conduct is right in seeking leave are offensive. We should not abuse the privilege we have in this House by seeking to table a long list of documents and wasting the time of the House. It is proper that we do occasionally use the tabling process to make a political point. So with respect Mr Speaker I do not think that the criticism you made of Phil Heatley was justified. If he was seeking to table a great big list of documents and was unduly wasting the time of the House it would have been justified. That is my submission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable members’ points on this matter because it is an important issue. The tabling of documents is an important part of our House procedures. The Hon David Parker referred to the review by the Standing Orders Committee and I will quote from the report so that the members of the House are aware of what the Standing Orders Committee said. The review stated: “It is not desirable for members to seek to table documents that are already available as part of the House proceedings such as replies to questions for written answer parliamentary papers select committee reports  
Hansard 
 or the Standing Orders.” I have also made it very clear that I have considered it inappropriate for members to seek to table current newspaper articles or press releases that are readily available to members. But at the end of the day I accept that it is up to the House which is why I may at times express my frustration at certain things being tabled. I do not believe I criticised the Hon Phil Heatley; I just sought following on from the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard to establish exactly what the Minister was seeking to table. It seemed that it was a record from 2 years ago. I then put the leave. The House had a clear understanding of what the document was—it was a document we established. I then put it to the House for its decision on the matter. 
I accept the point the honourable member is making which is that I need to be careful not to make too much comment on these matters. But that was what the Standing Orders Committee said and I believe that it was sound advice from the committee. I also think it is unhelpful for members to seek to table press statements from current newspapers unless they are newspapers that the members of this House do not normally have access to such as foreign newspapers and that kind of thing. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The only point I will draw to your attention is that the paragraph you read from was the same paragraph I read from. The prior sentence in that paragraph states: “The primary purpose of the procedure … is to inform debate …”. The Standing Orders Committee was acknowledging that that is the primary purpose but there are other legitimate purposes. I am just trying to draw the line in a little less of a black and white manner than the Speaker has been drawing it. I have no further contribution to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. 
Prisons—Maori Focus Units 
7.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Corrections 
: Does he agree with the intention of the Maori focus units that through developing a personal commitment to tikanga Maori values offenders become less criminally motivated; if so what plans has he to ensure the Maori focus units will become even more successful? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou. Yes I do because the tikanga Maori programmes focus on manaakitanga which teaches offenders to care and share with each other; kotahitanga which creates unity as one group even over gang patches; and rangatiratanga which teaches them to respect individuals’ mana. So the Maori focus units are successful in that way. The guys are learning through their tikanga Maori. The basis of the report that has been produced will provide an opportunity to extend the services offered. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What actions will the Associate Minister take to address the increasing concern amongst staff that the pool of funds available for prisoner tikanga Maori programmes and staff training is diminishing? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have already met with the chief executive. We are using this report and targeting money in the best manner possible. I know that we have a lot of things we can do with the money that is there at this time. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: What advice did the Minister give to his colleague the Minister of Corrections in response to the container-room proposal? Will that approach aid prisoner rehabilitation or are containers intended to be the Government’s new-look Maori focus units? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I did not give the Minister any advice but I have seen the model based on containers. It is no better or worse than many cells that exist at this time. It is actually bigger than many of the cells in New Zealand’s prisons at this time and it is much better than a lot of them. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Can the Minister explain why yesterday at the Vote Corrections estimates hearing the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins said that she had not yet seen details of his Whare Oranga Ake proposal yet just hours later he was discussing the proposal on  
Close Up 
 or is this just another example of Cabinet Ministers not communicating with each other and keeping each other in the dark while they drum up support for their pet schemes? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is an example of the Minister’s confidence in her Associate Minister—me—to carry out this project. I have briefed her on it but in terms of the details the member is quite right she has not seen it. But officials up and down the country are working on it. Kia ora. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What does the Minister think are the key success factors in rehabilitating Maori prisoners to reduce reoffending? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: What seems to be applicable for Maori inmates in particular is programmes of healing where they face their crime what they have done and realise that they have created victims and so on. A lot of people go through the prison system without having to do that. The second one is training inmates to enable them to take up a livelihood when they leave. The most important factor is whanau mentoring support when they leave prison. Lack of that support is one of the main reasons for recidivism. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When did the Associate Minister brief the Minister of Corrections on the details of this proposal? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have spoken to her about it and brought it up a few times. She knows that it is different. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Now and again ever since I have been there. That is all we have done; we have talked about it. She said “Go ahead.” and I am going ahead and working with the departmental officers. Kia ora. 
Budget 2009—Research and Development Investment Initiatives 
8.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What initiatives were in Budget 2009 to increase private sector investment in research and development given recent reports showing business sector investment in research and development is at 0.51 percent of GDP—one-third the OECD average? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The key Budget initiatives in Vote Research Science and Technology were the increases in the Marsden Fund of $9 million $8 million for the Health Research Council and $10 million for the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund. The Crown Research Institute Capability Fund will enable Crown research institutes to better engage with business. But in addition to that there is also the Primary Growth Partnership under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry vote. That is $30 million this year rising to $70 million over the next few years. That will enable that ministry to engage very effectively with the primary sector. As the member knows the Minister of Finance the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister of Research Science and Technology are working on further improving firm-facing business assistance. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments at the Education and Science Committee yesterday that New Zealand is not at a competitive disadvantage compared with Australia as a result of the cancelling of our research and development tax credits and the expansion of Australia’s research and development tax concessions? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes I do. The problem with research and development tax credits—and this is well known amongst tax accountants—is that they are open to abuse. Essentially people can re-categorise their expenditure and make those claims. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Where’s the evidence of that in this case? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The evidence is actually accountants telling me that. That is the weakness of all tax-based claims of this nature. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does expenditure on the Marsden Fund and the Health Research Council support business development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One of the interesting things about the Marsden Fund which is primarily for fundamental research is how fundamental research can build businesses in ways that were not anticipated. A good example of that would be the BLIS Technologies example. In that instance the research came out of the Health Research Council and it led to the establishment of a particular company. It is the same with Syft Technologies which came directly out of the Marsden Fund. It is a very interesting example. The study was actually about extraterrestrial chemistry. No one would have thought that would lead to a business entity but in fact it did. That is the importance of fundamental research and it is why the Marsden Fund benefits private business. 
Moana Mackey 
: Who should we believe: the Minister who thinks that research and development tax credits are a bad idea or the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association chief executive John Walley who said that research and development funding in New Zealand is not working and “the majority of our OECD competitors including Australia the United States and the United Kingdom have incentives for R&D investment. R&D is an internationally mobile component of business so if firms can get better tax rules elsewhere then R&D activity is likely to leave.”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is precisely why the Minister of Finance the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister of Research Science and Technology are working on how better to get firm-facing support. For instance the Government recognises the importance of TechNZ and it has continued funding it. When money is spent through TechNZ we know that it is going towards supporting a particular project. The problem with tax credits is that they are so susceptible to re-characterisation by tax accountants. 
Employment—Industry Partnerships 
9.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing with different industries to support people into work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income currently has 78 industry partnerships and has committed over $10 million towards supporting people to get into work. I will name but a few of the organisations we are working with: the Marine Industry Association the Fire Protection Association of New Zealand Master Painters New Zealand the Motor Trade Association and the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The list goes on and on and over the next 12 months Work and Income expects to place a further 3500 people into work through these industry partnerships. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Can the Minister give us more examples of these partnerships? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. In the aged-care sector Work and Income has signed into six partnerships providing employment for around 60 people to date. These people are also being given the opportunity to continue to learn new skills and develop career paths that will have ongoing long-term benefits. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What is the name of the fund which she referred to yesterday at the Social Service Committee that is the alternative source of support for ill and disabled people who seek to get into paid work now that she has scrapped the health and disability innovation fund? What is the name of that alternative fund? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What we discussed yesterday at the Social Services Committee is the fact that a range of services and support is available to people who have disabilities and are looking at going into work. Work and Income is totally supporting them to get the services they need around them. Work and Income is working through a range of support services for them. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did the Minister tell the select committee that there is an alternative source of funding when there is not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There are enterprise allowances for those working through Work and Income. We outsource a number of programmes for those with disabilities so that they can get help with CV writing help with their interview skills help to get the range of available services and help to get them into work. Those programmes are there and we have actually just contracted $250 million worth of contracts for services to help people into work. There is certainly assistance available. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Will there be any training or upskilling involved with regard to these new partnerships? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. For people who are placed through this scheme we will continue to provide ongoing mentoring and training. In the case of McDonald’s a mentoring programme will be offered to youth referred by Work and Income. The programme includes up to 12 weeks’ pre-employment training as well as up to 12 months’ on-the-job mentoring to assist the trainee to achieve service industry qualifications with McDonald’s. This programme is being run jointly by Work and Income McDonald’s and the Hospitality Standards Institute and it will be piloted in selected stores by November 2009. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
10.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday 16 June. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that to date his handling of the resignation of Dr Richard Worth as a Minister has been spot on or does he think there might be room for improvement? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Spot on. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How many times has the Prime Minister changed his mind so far about whether he would or would not say anything about his loss of confidence in Mr Richard Worth as a Minister; and should he ever have the chance to decide this again would he try to change his mind on fewer occasions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Prime Minister avoided specifically answering questions for the past 2 weeks on the grounds that it is not in the public interest or is it more true that he does not have any additional substantive information to withhold and is therefore just avoiding answering questions in the first place? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an either/or question and it could not possibly be answered with a one-word rejection. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: It is quite clear that if the Minister is asked a question with two limbs he needs to answer only one of them. It is quite clear that that is what he did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is quite correct. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister think in retrospect that a better way to handle this issue might have been to say at the outset something like: “I have accepted Dr Richard Worth’s resignation as a Minister on the basis that he has repeatedly failed to keep me informed of matters he should have informed me on including a police investigation into matters of a sexual nature that may or may not be of substance and that my tolerance of his failure to respect my no-surprises policy has reached its limits.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister acted decisively and swiftly. Mr Worth is no longer a Minister and no longer a member of Parliament. This Parliament has been spared the shambles that used to occur under the previous Government where even people who were accused of breaking the law hung on for years collecting their salaries. 
Industry Trainees and Modern Apprentices—Numbers 
11.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What recent reports has she received on the number of industry trainees and Modern Apprentices? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have received a report on the industry training and Modern Apprenticeships statistics for the first quarter of this year. That report which will be released today shows that the number of industry trainees held firm from the December 2008 quarter to the March 2009 quarter. In fact there was a marginal increase. In addition we have seen a 4 percent increase in the number of Modern Apprentices. Previous economic downturns have seen business shed trainees which has stopped them from taking advantage of the economic upturn when it came. I am very proud of the fact that the report released today shows that this Government is giving industry the confidence to retain and in some cases to add to the 133454 industry trainees it has. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister received any further reports from the industry on industry trainee numbers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am very heartened by comments from the Industry Training Federation which stated: “By and large employers are actually responding quite differently in this recession than in the past. There is no doubt some firms are shedding labour but the general picture is the opposite. … they are doing their best to hold on to people;”. It is very important that businesses retain their trainees but it is also important that businesses continue to take on more trainees so that we grow our skills base. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister reconcile her statement in relation to those figures: “Good quality tertiary training is vital to improving the country’s skills base so we can take full advantage of the eventual economic upturn.” with her confirmation today that polytechs will have to turn away some 6000 aspiring students who will no doubt end up on the dole instead? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Easily and that member only quotes part of what I said in that interview. I said that I was hoping that polytechs would be prioritising the courses that are particularly aimed at young people Maori and Pasifika people who are the worst sufferers in a recession. They are the first people to be made redundant or to be unable to find education. I was asking the institutions to prioritise courses that led on to employment. That will take care of many of those people. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister received any reports on commentators using misleading industry trainee figures? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. I have seen a statement from the Hon Phil Goff where he alleges that 2800 trainees are out of work. Well Mr Goff conveniently forgot to mention two points about that figure. Firstly the figure was the number of trainees out of work in the building and construction sector across the 14 months leading up to March of this year. He was complaining about trainees being put out of work during 9 of the months when he himself was a front-bench Cabinet Minister which was a bit of a spectacular own goal. Secondly Mr Goff neglected to mention that in that same newspaper article that he plucked the 2800 figure from it was pointed out that already 1200 of those workers had found new training opportunities. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister imagine that New Zealand will emerge better skilled from the recession with her continual squeeze on polytechs which is foreshadowed to get worse next year and the continual knock-on effect on industry training organisations or is she relying on her investment in private schools to do the job? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is a ridiculous assertion by that member. We are in middle of an economic recession and that means that this Government has to set some priorities around funding. We have made some responsible decisions. I have asked tertiary institutions to prioritise the courses that will lead on to employment and that will deliver skills to people who are seeking employment. If that member is saying that we have slashed industry training then when Labour was in Government it must have done the same thing. It only gave the CPI funding increase to industry training for 1 out of 9 years. So if we have cut it the previous Labour Government must have cut it too. 
Roading—Transmission Gully 
12.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Can he confirm that the latest benefit-cost ratio for the proposed motorway through Transmission Gully is in the range of 0.36 to 0.50 and would he give the green light to build a motorway where the costs outweigh the benefits by up to a factor of three? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I can confirm that it is likely that the benefit-cost ratio for the Transmission Gully route is less than 1. It will be similar for the alternative coastal route as well. It is clear there are no inexpensive options here because of the very rugged geography north of Wellington which makes construction difficult. The member asks if I would ever give the green light to an infrastructure project with a poor benefit-cost ratio. I point out that benefit-cost ratios are just one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why would the Government consider building a new motorway on an active earthquake fault line a motorway that the Minister of Transport’s advisers say could take even longer to clear than the coastal highway in the event of an earthquake? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member makes some valid points around the Transmission Gully project but there are also lots of difficulties with the coastal route including some of the environmental concerns around it and some of the risks there in terms of route security. So there are no easy options as I said before. The Government will have to make a decision before the end of the year in terms of which one to promote. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the most optimistic assumption his officials have given him is that it would take 3 weeks for Transmission Gully to be reopened after a large earthquake; and does that not undermine the main rationale for Transmission Gully—namely that it would provide an alternative route out of Wellington in the event of an earthquake? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Sadly if we took into account only how long it would take to reopen routes once they were closed by an earthquake in the vicinity of New Zealand’s capital a number of roads would never have been built. 
David Bennett 
: Are there any infrastructure projects with poor benefit-cost ratios that the Government has given the green light to? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: One example that springs to mind is the electrification of Auckland’s commuter rail. The project has a benefit-cost ratio of around 1 to quote Treasury. But as I said in my answer to the primary question fortunately for that project benefit-cost ratios are one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration. Furthermore as research by the Motu group shows benefit-cost ratios can be boosted significantly when wider economic development effects are fully captured. This is especially relevant to an important regional project by the Wellington to Levin corridor which will serve the economy of the whole lower North Island not just Wellington. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the steepest section of Transmission Gully is a 3.3 kilometre climb that is roughly twice as long and half as steep again as Ngauranga Gorge that truck operators have indicated that it would be too steep for many of them to use and that escape routes and “arrestor beds” would need to be built for out-of-control vehicles? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can confirm that the gradient would be roughly similar to that of the Ngauranga Gorge and that it would be about twice as long. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What is the Minister’s funding preference for the building of Transmission Gully: entirely from the National Land Transport Fund through borrowing or via a public-private partnership? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We have not expressed a preference for the funding of Transmission Gully. First we have to make a decision on the corridor priorities for the whole of the Levin to Wellington corridor. Those decisions will be made prior to the end of this year. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that Transmission Gully is expected to increase car trips in the morning by 20 percent and in the evening by 25 percent while simultaneously reducing rail trips by 13 percent; and why on earth would the Government support a motorway that is predicted to increase congestion and reduce public transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not convinced that increasing the use of one mode of transport over another will necessarily cause further congestion. It may just mean that the particular mode is easier to use. I do not have those figures to hand for the member but I will follow them up for her. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that in summary the advice that he has received from his officials confirms that Transmission Gully is a lemon with an uneconomic benefit-cost ratio which will create greater congestion around Wellington and will be of little or no benefit to the region in the event of an earthquake; if so why on earth would the Government consider building this lemon? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If Transmission Gully is a lemon then I am afraid the alternatives have a certain citrous smell to them as well. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the advice to the Minister from the Ministry of Transport which identifies the flaws in Transmission Gully that I have outlined. It is dated 10 December 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Members 
2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation—Progress of Consideration 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The committee began its consideration of the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation on 29 May 2009. It reported to the House on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2009 on 8 June 2009 has referred a number of examinations to other subject select committees for review and report and has heard evidence in relation to its examinations of Vote Finance Vote Audit Vote Revenue and Vote SOE. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When does he expect those subsequent reports will be reported to the House? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The committee is required to report its examinations for the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation to the House by 28 July 2009. 
Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill—Progress of Consideration 
2. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The committee considered the bill at meetings held on 13 May 2009 27 May 2009 and 3 June 2009. The matters discussed are proceedings of the committee and are therefore confidential to the committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Are any other bills currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee; if so when does he expect that they will be reported back? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am advised that it is not in order to ask that supplementary question because the primary question was in relation to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill and supplementary questions should relate to that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to dispute the effect of your ruling at all; I think it is correct. But I think it is also relatively important that you take responsibility for the ruling and say that the question is out of order rather than that you were advised; otherwise you are putting the ruling on the Clerk and that is not very fair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the honourable member’s point. I was just being honest about the fact that I was not 100 percent certain about it myself. 
Banking Practices—Inquiry 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: When will the Finance and Expenditure Committee next give consideration or make a decision on the proposed banking inquiry? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 The committee is scheduled to consider this matter at its next meeting. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why was insufficient time provided to the committee to allow it to give full consideration to the matter this week as he indicated to the House would be the case in response to my oral question on 18 June 2009? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I am sure the member knows it is a very busy committee. Yesterday we dealt with an 830-page tax bill two estimate reviews and two sets of audits. It is a hard-working committee that makes its best endeavours to work its way through the agenda. I am sure that member will participate fully. 
Vote Health—Progress of Consideration 
4. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of Vote Health? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee) 
: 
 The committee heard evidence from the Minister of Health and ministry officials at its meeting on 17 June 2009. Standing Order 328(2) states: “All committees must report to the House on their examinations of the Estimates within two months of the delivery of the Budget.” The committee clerk is currently preparing a draft report. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Given that Vote Health is the only vote for the committee and there is no legislation before the committee why did the committee resolve not to conduct an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but the chair of the committee is not responsible for the resolutions of the committee. They are matters that the committee decides and they are not the prerogative of the chair. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I would be delighted to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I invite the honourable member to ask a supplementary question within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: When the committee has finished consideration of Vote Health will it have time to reconsider my proposal for an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people? 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again that is a matter for the committee and not a matter specifically for the chair. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The chairperson of the committee sets the agenda for the business before the committee and that is what the question goes to the heart of—will there be time for the chairperson to put that on the agenda? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I rule on the matter I will just check with the member asking the supplementary question whether that is an item of business before the committee. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not see how the chair of the committee can therefore be asked to answer on the matter. I have allowed the member two supplementary questions. I think I have been perfectly reasonable on the matter. We must now move on. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have had examples of several questions that go to the heart of select committee processes rather than the substance of decisions and members on this side of the Chamber are fully aware that they are not within the Standing Orders to ask. I seek some clarification on your ruling. The question asked by my colleague was essentially whether there would be room on the timetable for a potential item of business. It would not be logically possible to ask that question if an item had already been scheduled. It cannot be out of order to ask whether it would be possible to make time; that would go to the question of whether there are too many other items of business and that was exactly the point my colleague sought to make. I ask you to explain why it was out of order to ask whether there would be time to ask a further matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I like the honourable member’s attempt to bring the question within the Standing Orders but obviously a question to a member must relate to a matter for which the committee has charge and that is in front of the committee. I suppose that a question could be asked as to whether the committee has any spare time in the future but a member cannot ask the chair of the committee about the possible consideration of a matter that is not before the committee. I think I have allowed the member two supplementary questions. I really need now to move on. I think that is only fair and reasonable. The House has come to the end of questions for oral answer. 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought you were inviting me to rephrase my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No; I allowed the member two tries at a supplementary question and I think I have been reasonable. 
ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Tariff Act 1988 
JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area was signed by New Zealand Australia and ASEAN parties on 27 February 2009. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee considered the treaty and reported back to Parliament on 8 April 2009. New Zealand is a small export-driven and trade-dependent economy. This is the source of much of our current and future prosperity. Improving market access for New Zealand firms through a progressive trade agenda including through this agreement will stimulate economic growth and help to create and safeguard the jobs of New Zealanders. The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area represents a significant economic and strategic achievement for New Zealand. One needs to look only at the statistics to get a sense of the scale of the commercial opportunities this free-trade area creates. New Zealand - ASEAN two-way trade was worth more than $12 billion last year which was 85 percent greater than New Zealand trade with China for the same period. Meanwhile New Zealand exports to the ASEAN region grew at a staggering 24 percent per year over the past 3 years. The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area eliminates tariffs on New Zealand exports to this important market facilitating even further export growth. Amendments to the existing New Zealand legislation are necessary and they prepare New Zealand for this agreement’s entry into force. 
The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill seeks to amend the Tariff Act 1988 and the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Amendments to the Tariff Act 1988 are required to allow for the application of preferential tariff rates and to provide for traditional safeguard measures to be applied in certain circumstances to imported goods under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. Amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 are also required to create a system for issuing bodies to be able to issue the necessary certificates of origin. In summary these amendments will allow New Zealand to grant its ASEAN and Australian partners preferential access to the New Zealand market once they have opened their markets to New Zealand exports. 
Hon Member 
: That’s wonderful John. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I thought so. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill a good bill because it fits very well with this Government’s agenda of having a focus on growth and trade. The bill will enable two-way trade between New Zealand and ASEAN countries. This is good news particularly for our agricultural exporters. The whole-of-Government approach is also good news. This approach is focused on productivity and growth and it has turned attention to the provisions and requirements that the enactment of this legislation will have on various entities. 
Firstly I want to talk about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. Minister Groser indicated to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise would have a strong focus on enabling trade between New Zealand and its free-trade partners. Most pertinent to that is the legislation before us today but it also pertains to our free-trade agreement with China. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise will be tasked to enable trade and that is good news. 
I also turn my attention to the New Zealand Customs Service. The excellent honourable member Maurice Williamson appeared before the select committee this morning and indicated that there would be a strong focus on behalf of the New Zealand Customs Service on implementing the provisions of this bill. It is all very well for Parliament to consider this legislation and put it into force and excellent work has gone on behind the scenes for many years to bring this legislation to the House but it is what happens next that is most important. It is very encouraging that submissions in support of the legislation were brought to the select committee from organisations such as Fonterra the chambers of commerce the Seafood Industry Council and other industry groups. 
Part 1 of the bill amends the Tariff Act 1988. Those amendments were necessary to bring the Tariff Act up to date to meet the requirements of this legislation. The amendments to the Tariff Act enable the application of preferential tariff rates under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area and the application of transitional safeguard measures where appropriate. That is most important and the select committee gave it good consideration. The application of transitional safeguard measures where they are appropriate—they are not always appropriate but in some industries and sectors they are—are on imports originating from ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area party countries. Of course this free-trade agreement is a two-way arrangement. It deals not only with exports from New Zealand and on behalf of exporters but also with imports into New Zealand. That being the case with tariffs being reduced it is considered vital that there are transitional safeguard measures to protect New Zealand manufacturers and producers where it is deemed necessary. Part 1 also adds definitions to the Tariff Act relating to the agreement including a definition of a specified ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area party. It is a lot of words but this legislation will have far-reaching benefits for New Zealand and in particular for the primary production sector which is under some pressure in the current economic conditions. Thank you Mr Chairman. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement is much more exciting than we have been led to believe by listening to the two previous speakers. Although the acting Minister John Carter is in the chair and I acknowledge that a little bit of enthusiasm is justified because this is quite an extraordinary achievement. I understand that the Minister in the chair is acting for the Minister in charge of the bill but really and truly it is hard to imagine that something could be made to sound as dull as he made it. 
However the ASEAN free-trade agreement is hugely significant for this country. It is one of a kind. It is has set a benchmark I think for multilateral trade agreements in the rest of the world. It establishes an architecture around free trade that is novel and for New Zealand it is of particular benefit because of the speed at which we arrive at zero tariffs. That is one of the things that is most significant. 
I will give just a word on the ASEAN countries and New Zealand’s relationship with them. New Zealand’s exports to the ASEAN countries have increased by some 121 percent since 2000 to around $4.6 billion in 2008. This really is a free-trade agreement to get excited about. Over the same period imports from ASEAN countries have increased by 244 percent to almost $7.6 billion in 2008. This builds on what was already a dynamic relationship but it secures for New Zealand some significant advantages over previous agreements. With the passage of this legislation and with the passage of legislation in participating countries we will be able to access a market of more than 566 million people and that region accounts for some US$1400 billion of global trade. That is total trade not trade with New Zealand. That is $1.4 trillion if anybody can get his or her head around those sorts of numbers. 
Suffice to say that it is an extraordinary market. It is nearer to us than our traditional markets which is an advantage and these countries despite the recession have a growing and developing middle class that will be interested in the three things this free-trade agreement delivers. It delivers results in goods it delivers results in services and it delivers results in investment. In addition to that some sort of people-to-people flow mechanism will also enhance our trade relationships. This is an exciting development and it is something we can be very proud of. 
Even in this Committee stage—I know this has been done before—I commend the Minister Tim Groser for bringing this agreement to a conclusion. I also commend his predecessor Phil Goff and before him Jim Sutton who also contributed to the development and building of what I have referred to as this free-trade architecture. That is indeed what it provides for the future. 
One of the things that New Zealand will benefit from within 12 years is the elimination of tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the four key export markets in the ASEAN grouping: Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Viet Nam. That may be able to be said quite quickly but the important thing about it is that when this agreement is fully implemented there will be a saving of approximately $50 million based on current trade alone—$50 million to New Zealand exporters based on current figures alone. Of course I anticipate that we will do much better than that. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 This is my second opportunity to take a call as this important ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill continues its passage through this Committee and as the Hon Maryan Street has just acknowledged it is good to speak on a matter that enjoys such broad multiparty although not entirely unanimous support in this House. 
Part 1 focuses on the requisite updates to the Tariff Act 1988. Clauses 3 to 10 among other matters amend the principal Act and add definitions relating to the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area to section 2. Importantly the amendments in Part 1 create the legislative means to designate preferential tariffs for goods that are produced or manufactured by the agreement’s parties. 
From New Zealand’s perspective the practical effect of all this will be far-reaching and full implementation in 2020 will see the absence of tariffs on 99 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the four key markets mentioned a moment ago by the Hon Maryan Street of Indonesia the Philippines Viet Nam and Malaysia. In turn this development based on current trade levels will provide a total saving in duties to our country of NZ$50 million and will no doubt escalate in value to our producers and exporters over succeeding years. 
There will be near-immediate benefits from the enactment of this measure in that tariffs will be eliminated on $429 million worth of current New Zealand exports to Indonesia Malaysia and the Philippines as early as next year and a further $435 million worth of exports to those countries with the addition of Viet Nam will have tariffs removed between 2011 and 2020. There are comparable benefits to our ASEAN trading partners in the provisions of Part 1 which will ultimately see all New Zealand tariffs on ASEAN products phased out altogether by 2020. 
The bill provides for longer phase-out periods—and this is an important safeguard in the agreement—for sensitive sectors such as but not restricted to clothing footwear carpets some textiles and some manufactured products such as steel wooden furniture and plasterboard. 
The overall impact of the enactment of Part 1 will be far-reaching and immensely valuable to this country especially in this very difficult economic climate when we must do all we can to increase the volume of our exports and as my excellent colleague from Otago said in her comments create in our economy the conditions for growth that will see an export-led recovery out of a global recession. 
Stuart Nash 
: Well Tim why did you cut $10 million from the NZTE budget? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I had absolutely nothing to do with that measure as I am sure Mr Nash is aware. It is a great shame that Mr Nash—who I am sure will stand up in a moment and speak eloquently in support of this bill—wishes to raise red herrings at this point. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He hasn’t learnt collective responsibility—what are the whips doing? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: This bill is a significant development I tell Mr Cunliffe for a new Government that is determined to support our productive sector and to facilitate significant and lasting growth in our economy. I can only assume from the fact that the Opposition members are barracking so loudly that they really do not have a clue how to achieve that or how to overcome the obstacles to trade—I emphasise: the obstacles to trade—that hinder our exporters and drive up the prices paid by New Zealanders for our imported goods. Perhaps the Labour members might like to reflect on that benefit as well and listen to what is being said. 
I would like to return to the more magnanimous approach that was adopted a minute ago before the cherubs of the Opposition started to chirp and acknowledge the outstanding leadership of the Hon Tim Groser. He stands foremost and pre-eminent right around the world and he is highly regarded on the international stage for the superb work he has done over many years as a trade negotiator and now as our Minister of Trade. That is no mean achievement. He is an outstanding New Zealander and we are so lucky to have somebody of that talent and experience in this House. 
I acknowledge as did Maryan Street the former Ministers in the previous Government and the officials who have done such outstanding and challenging work. They have shown such tenacity in bringing this agreement to the stage where we have the opportunity to bring it into enactment. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of this bill. It is not before time that we are concluding this agreement with the ASEAN countries—the 10 ASEAN countries plus Timor-Leste another country that wants to be a member of ASEAN and of course Papua New Guinea which is an observer country for the ASEAN region. I am really pleased that at long last New Zealand is concluding this agreement with ASEAN because I have seen development in the ASEAN region for many many years. 
It was 30-odd years ago that I first travelled to the region and a country like Singapore was pretty poor in those days. As the British would say it was pretty much a coolie State. But I have travelled through Singapore for 35 years and seen it develop almost every year from a Third World or Fourth World country into a First World country. Its standard of living has now gone ahead of New Zealand’s and the whole region—like Singapore Malaysia and Thailand—has made many strides in development and progress. I have had the opportunity to travel to most of the countries in the region. I think I have travelled to all the nine countries except Burma and I have seen progress in all of them. 
It is tremendous that we have this free-trade agreement and there are over 560 million people in the region. It is to New Zealand’s advantage that we are developing an economic relationship but it will also further promote people engagement like diplomatic arrangements. In many different ways the two regions—New Zealand and Australia and ASEAN—will develop into a major economic bloc similar to the European Union and other regional blocs. It is important for us to see the economic development. There has been a 24 percent annual growth in trade. In the last few years there has been tremendous growth; it is more than our trade with China in our agricultural products. From my experience in agriculture in terms of growth in the standard of living of those countries their annual growth in educational requirements and all the amenities they have New Zealand has a lot to offer. Over the years those countries have sent many students to study in New Zealand and we started that with the Colombo Plan. In those days we used to give scholarships to those Third World countries and it is interesting to see the development in those countries. A lot of students came from Singapore Malaysia and Thailand. Now Singapore is offering scholarships not only to the region but also to New Zealand and to the countries surrounding Singapore. 
There has been huge change but if people have not travelled to the region they will not appreciate that or know what is going on. I have had the opportunity to see the development in many of those countries and to do some work over the years on behalf of Massey University as a consultant on agriculture. This free-trade agreement is not before time and it is nothing to worry about. Often people worry that it will adversely affect a lot of things in New Zealand. But I do have one personal reservation. We have to be very mindful that a lot of our people have not travelled to those countries and they often worry about the potential problems if a lot of people from those countries are travelling around New Zealand. They worry about the possibility of diseases being brought here and about quarantine issues. We have to make sure that we educate our people particularly on our side of the equation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. It was great to see Maryan Street so excited by this bill and it is most unusual for the Hon John Carter to ever be remarked on as being unexcited. This bill is a sign that New Zealand is getting better and better which is exactly what the Hon John Carter’s answerphone says. 
As the Hon Maryan Street pointed out this is an exciting bill. It is an extremely exciting bill for New Zealand because it broadens our opportunities for trade enormously. The region has 12 countries 566 million people and overall a GDP of $700 billion. I am not too sure again where the Hon Maryan Street got the trillions from but undoubtedly within the next few decades there will be trillions of dollars of trade within this free-trade agreement. 
I too will mention those who have been responsible for the genesis of this bill and the culmination of it going through Parliament today. Obviously the Hon Tim Groser has been incredibly instrumental and it is quite right that he is given appropriate praise for his professionalism and skills. Before him of course there was the Hon Phil Goff and Jim Sutton. As I mentioned the other day the real antecedence was the work of our current Speaker the Hon Lockwood Smith who spent a lot of time in the ASEAN region sowing the seeds for this agreement to finally come about. It was great work and it finally has come about. 
One of the quite impressive things about this bill is the work behind it which was done I understand so that there would not be any amendments to the bill. It was unanimously agreed on by the select committee— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What’s the bill about? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well I hope Mr Cunliffe knows. After all it is absolutely pivotal to New Zealand’s future. I would hope that he of all people would know. If the Hon David Cunliffe does not know well the leadership bid will be in a bad way. However I wanted to mention that the national interest analysis was done extremely well. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it quantitative? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is actually. Several of the things that were pointed out were the areas where New Zealand would have opportunities that we do not have now. For instance some countries do not have a sophisticated infrastructure in the electronic commerce area but New Zealand under an excellent National Government is expanding broadband so that we will be poised to take advantage in that area. As well as that the area of trade in services is something that will give New Zealand great opportunities for the future and that has been widely commented on by the submitters. 
I was quite interested to hear from the Seafood Industry Council. It said that we were not ambitious enough in terms of what we could do with our potential seafood prospects here in New Zealand. Unfortunately our proportion of seafood trade worldwide is very very small—it is less than 1 percent I think—yet we have a vast economic zone with enormous potential to expand trade in the ASEAN region and this bill provides the framework for New Zealand to do exactly that. 
Undoubtedly this bill will help New Zealand towards economic recovery in the short medium and long term. After all there has been great concern about the present situation and this legislation is one instrument that will help us to recover. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill for many reasons. I would like to make it clear that we should give credit where credit is due—as should Mr Macindoe and Mr Hutchison. There is no doubt that Mr Groser knows a little bit about trade. I have never heard him speak on trade in the House but I am sure he knows a lot about it. But let us face facts: this deal was negotiated by the Hon Phil Goff. The great thing about that is that the next Prime Minister of New Zealand will be Phil Goff. I should correct myself there: the next Prime Minister of New Zealand will be Bill English but the next elected Prime Minister of New Zealand will be Phil Goff. Phil Goff understands the true value of international trade because he is the man who negotiated this deal. He also negotiated the free-trade agreement with China and opened up the first step into a whole lot of other markets that New Zealand will have free-trade agreements with. 
I ask those members to please give credit where it is due. Their smiles say they know it is true and the public know it is true and good on them. We also know that not just free trade but all trade is vital for the growth of New Zealand without a question of a doubt. Trade is the only way that New Zealand will achieve sustainable economic growth. The last time we were in a recession we got out of it by trading our way out. We are a trading nation; we always have been and we always will be. 
We face barriers to successful trading in the global economy. One of the problems is the tyranny of distance so we must seek new markets with countries that are close to us. Unfortunately the countries we are talking about and those within the ASEAN region have different languages different business cultures different legal systems different ways of doing business and a different mentality. That is why free-trade agreements that allow the opening up of those areas will make us so successful. Trade is the only way we will get into the top quartile of the OECD. 
Let us get back to the bill. Without a question of a doubt it is absolutely fantastic. The figures speak for themselves. Here is a market of about 500 million people who are entering the age of consumerism. That means they have discretionary money to spend on the products and services that New Zealand produces. As my learned colleague Dr Ashraf Choudhary mentioned education is a huge portion of New Zealand’s export and import industry. 
The ASEAN region is vital to New Zealand’s trade. It accounts for around 10 percent of all our exports at the moment before this bill goes through or about $4.7 billion which is a hell of a lot of money. We also import about $7.5 billion worth of products and services from the ASEAN region and $3.1 billion is in crude or non-crude oil. This bill will be good for the consumer because hopefully the tariffs on oil will drop and petrol prices will be cheaper. 
There are also some other surprising things. We bring in $42 million worth of caviar—Todd McClay will be happy about that; his caviar may come down in price which will go down well—and the value has increased by over 50 percent. The people of Rotorua will be happy to know about that. As Mr Cunliffe said this is one of our largest trading blocs and it is very very important to us. That is why this bill is so important. 
I have to say that $2.2 billion of the products we export to the ASEAN region are dairy products. We all know that the dairy industry is vital to New Zealand’s economy and that it is the backbone of our economy. The industry is innovative geared up incredible and has good leadership and it will really benefit from this agreement. One thing that worries me ever so slightly is that as a country we need to diversify. We need to get hold of our competitive advantages outside of dairy and agriculture and diversify. The problem we have is that 97 percent of New Zealand businesses are small to medium sized enterprises. The vast majority do not have the ability money or resources to hire an international market development manager. They rely on the New Zealand Government through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next call I remind members that this is the Committee stage. It is about the nuts and bolts of the bill; it is not a general debate or a second reading. I remind members that we are on Part 1 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I would like to set the scene of Part 1 by going through some of the background to how we got here today. Today is an exciting day and the bill is a very important and exciting one for New Zealand. Anything that does more for our trade is important. A previous speaker from the other side of the Chamber Maryan Street suggested that the acting Minister should be showing a bit more excitement when it comes to the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. From where I was sitting the acting Minister could hardly control himself. In his electorate as in my electorate there are many excellent dairy farmers. They will benefit directly from this bill because from the moment the agreement enters into force there will be some $50 million worth of savings for the dairy industry for exports to the ASEAN countries. The reduction in tariff rates is a great thing for dairy farmers. The acting Minister is well aware of the importance of this agreement to rural parts of New Zealand. In rural areas excitement is often understated but the smile on the acting Minister’s face suggests that he realises how important this bill will be for his farming community. 
This is a very important day. I pay tribute to the many people who were involved in moving us to this point. We have heard about Minister Tim Groser and the Hon Phil Goff when he was Minister and of course Minister Sutton. I will use the free-trade agreement as an analogy with a rugby game. All three of the people I mentioned have played a part. The Hon Jim Sutton when he was Minister was late to the game of rugby and therefore had to rush. At half-time Phil Goff as Minister had a little discussion with him and said “I think we’d better do a bit more work here. It’s not looking good. I don’t know how much longer we’ll have our jobs.” Minister Groser of course is the man who has kicked the ball between the posts and scored the winning points for New Zealand. Indeed Mr Nash made mention of this. 
Some of the changes in Part 1 are around rules for intellectual property. I say to Stuart Nash that I am not sure the part of the bill that looks at intellectual property applies to him. He suggested that the next elected Prime Minister of this country would be Phil Goff. There is not a lot of intellectual anything in that statement. It is important to recognise that all three of those people as Ministers played an important part in what is very important legislation and a great agreement for New Zealand. I pay tribute to former Minister Sutton previous Minister Goff and now Tim Groser who has a lot more work to do in this area. 
I will also talk a little bit about the officials. I have had the duty—I would like to say I have had the pleasure—to attend many trade negotiations over many years. They are not as much fun as they sound and certainly not as enjoyable as a 5-minute speech in this House. The officials directed by their Ministers do the day in day out work in the discussions. It is the detail that they put in and their hard work that gets us to where we are today. 
Part 1 in particular looks at preferential tariff rates and sets up changes to the Tariff Act. It is important that preferential tariffs can be applied because not all countries we trade with have the same tariff rates applied to them at the same time. Indeed when we look at the substantial increase in New Zealand’s export trade to these countries we see that there has been a 121 percent increase—from memory—over 9 years and over the same 9 years there has been a 244 percent increase in goods exported from Asian countries to New Zealand. For goods being exported to those countries the tariff rates and the elimination of barriers will not be lifted to the same degree at the same time in all countries. But by 2020 over the next 12 years our access will be much better. 
When we look at some of the detail around preferential trade access and changes to it we see there will be significant benefits to New Zealand businesses. I will focus for a moment on the agricultural industry. The debate on this very issue last night was interesting. I remember the many submissions we received from people in the agricultural sector and traders of primary products as a whole that without exception fully supported the bill and asked us to get it in force quickly because they know they can benefit from it quickly. I remember a member on this side of the Chamber suggested that compared with the Opposition National predominantly represents the agricultural sector of New Zealand. I did a little bit of work when I got back to my office and found that with the exception of the odd farmer in Queen Street and down in Christchurch where cows occasionally run around the airport the people who have an interest in the agricultural sector are represented by members on this side of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member I will reiterate my point that speeches are to be about the Committee stage not a general second reading speech. Therefore if I hear more second reading speeches I simply will put the question. Members are not complying with rules the members have themselves set for the House. This is the Committee stage. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will direct my comments to some of the very specific provisions of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill and to the very specific benefits that will accrue to New Zealand exporters as a result of this legislation being passed. But I will first say as a number of people have said before that this bill has significant benefits for New Zealand producers and the New Zealand economy. We are talking about over time the elimination of $50 million in tariffs that are currently being paid by New Zealand exporters and strengthening our relationship with a very significant market of 566 million people that accounts for $1.4 trillion in global trade. Whichever way we slice it this bill is significant. It is not a panacea but it is a very useful building block in the long-term engagement of New Zealand with that incredibly important regional market. 
I will talk about some of the specific benefits for New Zealand and our firms. If we take for instance the dairy sector by 2010 tariffs will be eliminated on whole-milk powder butter ice cream and cheese in Indonesia and on casein milk powder cheese and buttermilk in the Philippines. 
Hone Harawira 
: Our next Prime Minister. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I would expect members on the other side of the Chamber to realise just what a significant benefit that is for New Zealand producers. It is not only the trade in dairy products. Let us talk about the meat and wool industry. Tariffs on key beef exports will be eliminated in the Philippines by 2012 and in Indonesia in 2020. Tariffs on sheep meat for the Philippines will be gone by 2010 and in Viet Nam by 2016. Let us talk about forestry. Over a 12-year period from 2010 tariffs on key products will be eliminated including tariffs on fibreboard and paper in Indonesia and on less-processed wood products for the Philippines. It is not only dairy meat wool and forestry; a wide variety of horticultural products will benefit with some global exports subject to early tariff elimination. For instance apples and kiwifruit will benefit from the removal of tariffs in 2010 in Indonesia in 2011 in the Philippines in 2012 in Malaysia and in 2016 in Viet Nam. In relation to manufactured goods a key benefit of this agreement is that for our manufacturers the rules of origin can be met on a regional basis. This means that New Zealand manufacturers will benefit from not only improved direct access but also the ability to include New Zealand materials in the origin assessment of goods manufactured and traded within the region. The trade in services also has important outcomes for New Zealand producers. This agreement will greatly assist in the expansion of trade and services between New Zealand and our ASEAN partners. 
The free-trade agreement includes a trigger for negotiations on improving services commitments. If after this agreement comes into force any of the ASEAN partners negotiate a subsequent agreement on trade in services at some stage in the future those benefits over and above this agreement will automatically be passed on to New Zealand. In addition to that clause Viet Nam has committed to provide most favoured nation treatment to New Zealand for certain higher education services including distance learning and Internet-based education services. Any improvements that Viet Nam provides to a future partner will be passed on to New Zealand. Those are valuable benefits to New Zealand exporters. 
New Zealand business services that will benefit from this legislation include legal services for Indonesia and Viet Nam accounting services for Malaysia Burma and the Philippines and taxation services for Malaysia. The list just goes on and on: computer and related services and research and development services with Indonesia. We are also talking about communications such as telecommunications in Brunei Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Thailand. It is very significant and includes construction and related engineering services and educational and environmental services. The other important area in this agreement is investment. The agreement delivers some fantastic protections for New Zealand investors. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon Tim Groser to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Customs and Excise Act 1996 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I address Part 2 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill as is a requirement of this debate and it will be easy to do so because the provisions in this part are exciting even though they deal with amendments to the Customs and Excise Act. I have to say that a distinct lack of excitement has been shown by Labour members in this debate. That might well be explained away by the fact that not one of them represents agricultural interests whereas the members on this side of the Chamber are good provincial electorate MPs— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I point out that this is a serious bill and the Opposition is taking it seriously. We are not engaging in passionate debate about it . 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Points of order are about order. That was about the tempo. It is not a point of order. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I am seriously proud to belong to a party and Government that represents rural and provincial New Zealand amongst its ranks of MPs. That is why it is so exciting to have the opportunity to speak on Part 2 which amends the Customs and Excise Act. 
The provisions of Part 2 allow the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies that are authorised to issue a New Zealand certificate of origin for goods to be exported to ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement parties. The reason this is so exciting is that the New Zealand Customs Service will be focused on delivering good service to our exporters. I mentioned this in my Part 1 speech but I think it needs to be said again: the New Zealand Customs Service will be focused on implementing Part 2 because it has a very important role to play in relation to the certificate of origin provisions and the certification bodies that are authorised to issue a New Zealand certificate of origin. 
What our exporters and our primary producers need—those people who produce the goods at the farm gate whom we represent—is a smoother process through the New Zealand Customs Service so they can take advantage of the excellent provisions in this bill. Part 2 creates criteria that the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service must measure applications for certification against. Again those criteria are very important because the applications must be measured against them before a body is certified to issue certificates. 
I want to address a submission made to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by Fonterra who note with regard to Part 2: “To ensure smooth implementation and maximise any tariff opportunities of the agreement lessons need to be drawn from our experiences with the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement in particular in regard to the operational and certification procedures.” I believe that the new provisions in Part 2 if implemented—and I am sure they will be—by the New Zealand Customs Service will make the way through the New Zealand Customs Service process smoother for our exporters. That is entirely consistent with and in line with this Government’s desire to create growth and jobs. 
Further Part 2 enables the creation of regulations that will set prescribed terms and conditions for certification set the criteria and set the application forms and fees. Speaking of application forms and fees I say that again there was a great deal of discussion at the select committee over application forms which must be the bugbear of many New Zealand small businesses many New Zealand producers and many New Zealand exporters. So it is good news that focus and attention have been given to the matter of application forms and fees which one might think is minutia but is not. I understand that my time is nearly up so I commend this part of the bill to the Committee. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. As my colleague Jacqui Dean so aptly put it Part 2 is about amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996 which are absolutely crucial to the smooth running of the new free-trade agreement. Indeed the amendments will enable the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies that are authorised to issue a New Zealand certificate of origin in respect of goods for export to countries that are party to the agreement. A certificate of origin will identify the goods and certify that they are of New Zealand origin in terms of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. It is also important to point out that before designating a certification body the chief executive must be satisfied that the body meets any prescribed criteria and a designation may be subject to terms and conditions prescribed by regulation or imposed at the discretion of the chief executive. 
It is interesting that there were no amendments to this very well-crafted and well-drawn up bill. I must say I congratulate the Parliamentary Counsel Office on that. It is quite rare that we have a bill that has no amendments to it whatsoever. As the bill’s explanatory notes states regulations may be made that prescribe “criteria to be met by bodies wishing to be designated as certification bodies: forms and fees and the manner in which applications for designation as a certification body must be made: terms and conditions of designations.” 
This morning at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee we had before us the Hon Maurice Williamson. He pointed out to the select committee that modern technology was hugely important both to the importation and exportation of our goods. We have unfortunately over the last 12 years or so not kept up with the technology that is available worldwide. That technology will free up people by ensuring that the very important aspects of their jobs in ensuring the legality of both exporting and importing is right at the top. By embracing new technology we will be able to free up those agents. It is very important that New Zealand does lead the world there because some of the members of this free-trade agreement do indeed have far less sophisticated infrastructure. Countries like Singapore which Dr Ashraf Choudhary was talking about before are at the pinnacle of this technology and trading with them will be extremely easy. We must keep at that peak performance otherwise we will find that we will lose our edge. 
There is no doubt that New Zealand farmers are now required by European countries to be right at the top of traceability. Indeed those requirements will more and more be imposed by the Asian countries that are involved in this free-trade agreement. I note that Fonterra in its submission said this: “We welcome the objective of the agreement to create customs procedures and practices that are predictable consistent and transparent and facilitate trade.” Surely this is indeed the very core of where this new National Government is going. Fonterra went on to say: “An excellent rules of origin outcome was achieved which gives exporters the flexibility of choosing between “co-equal” rules to qualify for tariff preference. However to ensure smooth implementation … of the agreement … lessons need to be drawn …”. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I am speaking in favour of this ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill—that I have made clear. I find myself in the very unusual situation of actually agreeing with everything that the last two Government speakers have said. 
Hon Member 
: Very unusual. 
STUART NASH 
: It is very very unusual. In fact if I had not had a big lunch I think I would probably find myself falling down in my chair and fainting. 
This is a very important bill and Part 2 is a very important part of this bill as well. It sets out the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996. If we go through a clause by clause analysis of this bill we find that the first clause of Part 2 which is clause 11 states that the bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996. It sets out the regulatory environment that updates what is happening and brings us forward to the 21st century. Clause 12 sets out the purpose of Part 2. The purpose is “to amend the principal Act to provide for a system of issuing New Zealand certificates of origin in relation to goods being exported to countries”. When we talk about certificates of origin rules of origin etc. we bring in the Customs Service. 
The member who just resumed his seat Dr Paul Hutchison talked about our need to have a very robust Customs Service and I could not agree more with him. He said that this was a priority for the National Government. Well I say that having a robust Customs Service has been a priority for every Government and it has to be the priority of all Governments. When we think that our economy is based upon agriculture forestry and a lot of the time monoculture we realise that if our Customs Service and our phyto—whatever that big long word is— 
Todd McClay 
: Phytosanitary protection. 
STUART NASH 
:—I thank Mr McClay—our phytosanitary protections are not up to date then the harm that can be done to our economy is absolutely huge. It is a priority to have a robust Customs Service which is what we do have by the way. It is very efficient and is one of the best in the world. In fact it had to be after 9/11. I think the Chairperson the Hon Rick Barker was responsible for turning our Customs Service into one of the best in the world. I fully support that as well. 
If we look at the rules of origin we see that Part 2 is very important. The inclusion of robust rules around certificates of origin allows New Zealand exporters to effectively take advantage of the preferential treatment and conditions offered under the free-trade agreement for trade of goods without undue compliance costs. A free-trade agreement is about getting rid of undue compliance costs; in fact it is getting rid of most of the compliance costs. The phrase “undue compliance costs” is almost an oxymoron is it not? But we all know that there needs to be a certain level of compliance in order to allow for the provision of free trade to make sure that we get it right and to make sure that our laws and the host laws are obeyed. 
This agreement also provides a mechanism through which originating goods can be cumulated across the parties. The export opportunities under this free-trade agreement are expanded not only through direct access to New Zealand goods for ASEAN markets but also through the ability to include New Zealand materials and origin assessment of goods manufactured and traded within the region by Australian and ASEAN manufacturers and exporters. 
As we have said before one area that we really need to improve within New Zealand is our manufacturing sector. This legislation helps those involved in the sector without a question of a doubt. It allows them to set strategic plans and strategic goals. We have heard about the fantastic Hawke’s Bay company called Future Products Group run by a guy called Robert Darroch. He is the sort of New Zealand manufacturer who will do incredibly well out of Part 2. It means that he can plan with certainty. He can look at his markets he can put together a strategic plan and he can know with a high degree of certainty that on certain dates tariffs will be removed from the products that he is sending to all these ASEAN countries. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: It’ll have the level of origin there as well. 
STUART NASH 
: Absolutely; the level of origin is most important. This will also allow other manufacturers who are perhaps not in the export market at the moment but who want to get into those markets to plan with certainty as well. It is very very important that the New Zealand economy grows and reaches the top half of the OECD as that will take us forward to 2011 when the next Labour Government will take over. 
This agreement also provides co-equal or alternative rules for the majority of product lines. This means that manufacturers and exporters can choose between a change in tariff classification approach and a regional value content approach with about 40 percent free on board. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and talk on Part 2 which amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996. I think that the Customs Act 1966 was already amended so when I talk particularly about Part 2 it is the 1996 Act that we are looking to amend. 
I think that Stuart Nash the member who has just resumed his seat is right. I think there is consensus in the Chamber because this free-trade agreement is a good thing for New Zealand. I think there is consensus on both sides of the Chamber over the importance of the New Zealand Customs Service its rules and the job it does which is sometimes done in extremely difficult circumstances. 
There are a couple of things that I want to pick up on before I look directly at Part 2. One of them is the role that different bodies within New Zealand play. The Customs Service is there to control the importation of goods collect revenue through tariffs where tariffs are in place and stop the importation of illegal goods. 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry looks at sanitary and phytosanitary issues to do with goods. The ministry looks particularly at food but also at other types of goods that might be imported into New Zealand and could do some of our industries a lot of harm particularly our agricultural and horticultural industries. 
The amendments to the Customs and Excise Act do not lessen the importance of the work that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry does—which is probably more important when I look at my electorate. Let us keep collecting the revenue. It has certainly stopped the importation into New Zealand of illicit goods and goods that could be used to make drugs. There would be great harm to many many producers in my electorate of Rotorua if we flouted our sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and requirements and disease and pestilence were imported particularly for the kiwifruit industry. 
Part 2 amends the Customs and Excise Act by allowing the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to designate certification bodies that are authorised to issue a New Zealand certificate of origin to goods to be exported to ASEAN countries. This is extremely important because we have a number of barriers to trade. Some of them are direct barriers and some include tariff rates. 
But there are indirect barriers to trade—or non-trade barriers. In cases where 
we do not have appropriate rules as to the origin and certification of our goods and the goods arrive in another country the officials on that side receive paperwork saying: “This good is of New Zealand origin.” and that is not accepted or is not accepted quickly then that becomes a non-trade barrier. 
That means that our exporters our manufacturers and our producers either have to wait longer until their goods are released to their markets or they do not get in there. So that is a barrier to trade. 
The certificate of rules of origin will identify goods and certify that they are of New Zealand origin. This is important when we are exporting a finished good or a food product. We know that the 10 countries in the ASEAN bloc are growing economies. They will become much larger economies in the future. From memory the ASEAN bloc is our third-largest trading group of countries for exports so it is very important to us. 
We know that as the incomes of those countries increase on a per capita basis their desire to consume the many good products produced by our farmers will increase also. Therefore good rules of origin—rules that certify that products leaving New Zealand and going into those countries are from New Zealand—will allow us to sell products to them not only to consume but also to manufacture change and produce further. That is because once this free-trade agreement comes into force our goods can go into one ASEAN country and can then be transformed changed and exported to another and the origin as far as tariff rates are concerned will largely and eventually remain the same. 
Why is this important? Let us look at dairy products for instance. Certainly some dairy products could have much more value added to them in New Zealand but in many cases they do not. A milk powder that is exported to Viet Nam for example could be turned into any number of other products. Without that country having to show that it has substantially altered the product from New Zealand the sub-tariff line is changed automatically so that it can continue to trade with its neighbours. That New Zealand product would be treated as if it was of Vietnamese origin and there would not need to be any other work done around the rules of origin. I think that New Zealand producers will benefit directly and greatly from this. 
I congratulate the Minister and the officials on the work they have done. To my knowledge these are some of the most flexible and liberal rules of origin. Thank you. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of and to focus my comments on Part 2 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. Unlike most of the other Government and Opposition speakers on this particular measure I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as this particular agreement received detailed consideration and as the committee heard from those who had made submissions on it. But it was interesting to hear my colleague Dr Hutchison a highly respected veteran of the committee report that some submitters felt that the bill may not go far enough. That is probably understandable given the perspective of the submitters but it seems clear that there is pretty broad agreement that the bill—and in particular Part 2 of the bill—represents a job very well done and a great step forward for our country. 
As we reflect in detail on the provisions of Part 2 of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill I acknowledge again the fine work of Ministers past and present and officials that has culminated in the agreement on this part which was reached in Thailand in February this year. As has been noted by previous speakers the purpose of Part 2 is to amend the principal Act to provide for a system of issuing New Zealand certificates of origin in relation to goods being exported to countries that are parties to the agreement that establishes the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area. They are important safeguards not only for New Zealand’s producers and exporters in authorising the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service to facilitate the authorised issue of New Zealand certificates of origin to goods that will be exported to our ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area partners but also for those who will import those goods. This part of the agreement gives them the security and assurance of knowing that they can rely on the quality and origin of those products. 
As an export-dependent nation our reputation for quality and reliability is obviously paramount. We can stand up in our corner of the world and be very proud of our long-established record as an honest and quality-focused exporter of goods. Clause 13 of Part 2 of the bill focuses specifically on the issuing of New Zealand certificates of origin currently designated for goods for export to China. The value and projected future value of our exports to China is almost incalculable and tremendous work has been done on developing those arrangements in recent times. Indeed the Prime Minister led the mission to China just a few months ago thereby underlining its continuing importance. I salute everybody involved with that mission for the development of the agreement. The provisions of clause 13 demonstrate how rapidly our trading arrangements are advancing and improving from our perspective. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is there anything the member disagrees with in this bill? Any science to add? Criticisms perhaps? Why is the member here? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I say to Mr Cunliffe that I absolutely adore this measure. I am delighted to be here to speak in favour of it. I am so thrilled that he too is enjoying my speech and I invite him to continue listening while I continue to explore the hidden depths subtleties and intricacies of this important measure. 
Clause 13 of the bill amends the heading to section 64A of the existing Customs and Excise— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is good to see the member enjoying himself anyway. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I am having a great time. I am glad that Mr Cunliffe is also enjoying my speech. It is heart-warming as we come close to rising at the end of another sitting week to know that the House is in such a degree of unanimity and agreement. Excitement about an important measure is definitely stimulating and rewarding for me. 
We are amending section 64A of the existing Customs and Excise Act 1996 by omitting “China” and substituting the words “a party to free trade agreement”. I am sure that listeners in the crowded public gallery at the moment will be heartened to learn about the evolution of this aspect of the agreement. It creates the criterion that the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service must measure applications against before the Customs Service can certify a body to issue certificates. That is a very important provision. It also enables the creation of regulations that will set prescribed terms and conditions for certification set the criteria and set the application forms and fees. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of the Hon Tim Groser to the schedule be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to.  
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Tariff (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill and the Customs and Excise (AANZFTA) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper28. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 June. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to sum up the comments I was making last night on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and my main point related to the question of priorities. At a time when 1100 people every week are losing their jobs the most important thing this Government wants to bring before the House is a bill that reduces the compliance costs for used-car salesmen. That is more important to the Government than a plan to create jobs it is more important to the Government than a plan to make sure people can pay their mortgages and it is more important to the Government than any plan to close the wage gap with Australia which was one of the centrepieces of the National Party’s pre-election rhetoric. Instead Government members think the most important thing the House should be giving its attention to this afternoon is a bill to reduce the compliance costs for used-car salesmen. As I said last night that sums up the National Government. 
There is a heck of a lot in common between dodgy used-car salesmen and the National’s approach. Dodgy used-car salesmen will tell people whatever they want to hear and make all sorts of false promises in order to make the deal even if they do not intend to keep any of them after the sale. It is a lot like National’s pre-election rhetoric. National members went around the country making all sorts of promises that they had no intention of keeping. They promised tax cuts and they legislated for tax cuts under urgency. They then went back into urgency and undid them all. They are a lot like a dodgy used-car salesman. They knowingly gave the public of New Zealand false information about the product they were asking them to buy with no intention of actually delivering it. 
One of the things this bill does is remove the requirement for someone who is privately selling a used car to have a consumer information notice. I think that is probably quite a sensible change and it is one of the reasons why the Labour Party will support this bill. But is it not interesting that the National Government wants to do away with that requirement? Once again we can draw an analogy between the consumer information notices on used cars and the National Party’s pledge card at the last election. The reliability of the information is probably about the same. We could not necessarily trust the consumer information notice on somebody’s car to know what we are buying just like we could not trust the National Party’s pledge card. Three of the promises on its pledge card have already been broken. After only 6 months in Government three of the National Party’s key pledges at the last election have already been broken. It is kind of symbolic that here we are doing away with the requirement for someone selling a used car to provide information about exactly what it is he or she is selling just like the way Government members do not seem to think it is very important that they stick to the promises they made at the last election to the public of New Zealand. 
The public voted for National on the promise that a National Government would deliver on those 11 pledges including the tax cuts but that was a broken promise. The pledge to cap the number of public servants was a broken promise because the Government is sacking them. The pledge to keep the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation at 65 and increase the amount of superannuation paid to people is another broken promise. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the first reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. The first thing I would like to do is to thank the Hon Heather Roy for the work she has put into bringing this bill to the House today. But I think it is probably timely that I also acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by the Opposition member who has just resumed his seat. This Government is focused on making business happen in a smarter way on cutting compliance costs on making sure loopholes are closed and on doing things that really matter to New Zealanders. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Where’s the plan to create jobs? 
JO GOODHEW 
: It seems that the Opposition simply does not get it. This bill is about a number of things. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Where’s the plan to create jobs? No plans to create jobs. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I will get to those soon. Underpinning the bill is a sense of reducing the compliance costs closing loopholes—otherwise called “unintended consequences”—and making the law better and smarter. Who can seriously contend that that is not a good thing to do? 
This bill is a real priority for this National-led Government and we are joined with our partner the ACT Party in bringing the bill to the House after some considerable time has been spent on its genesis. At this time of recession and of having to focus on fiscal prudence it is important that we display a determination to get rid of unnecessary compliance costs loopholes and laws that do not achieve what they set out to achieve and hence we have this amendment bill. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 and to improve its effective operation. The bill is all about promoting and protecting consumers’ interests. It seeks to create an environment that is about informed choice about confidence and about being able to do the things one intends to do when they relate to motor vehicles. It makes vehicle traders accountable and that is truly a worthy purpose of the bill. It also provides consumers with redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and slightly alters the range of that tribunal. The bill enhances those functions. The Minister when she introduced this bill told us that the legislation should be achieving its stated intention and that there should not be what she described as “unforeseen side effects” or “unintended consequences”. National members certainly agree with her here. 
Following a review of the principal Act in 2003 by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs this amendment bill suggests changes to the registration procedure for motor vehicle traders. The issue is about information disclosure and again as I have already said about the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The review of the Act was tabled in the House in March 2006 and more than 3 years later we finally have the opportunity to address the bill and in doing so to amend to the Act. Again I say the core elements of the principal Act are a requirement for those who trade in motor vehicles to be registered requirements for information disclosure around used motor vehicles and the provision for consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
The bill makes some specific changes to the Act. They include amending the process for traders who are renewing their annual registration. You see traders have to do that every single year which is an unnecessary compliance cost for them when there have been no changes to their original registration. So it seems absolutely appropriate that we require those annual statutory declarations as part of registration renewal only when there are changes to the details. There is also a loophole that needs closing which is about preventing the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed but who are subsequently convicted under the Act for conduct while they were registered. 
As well there is an opportunity to remove the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. This is about eliminating unnecessary compliance costs and that also applies to removing the requirement to display those same notices the consumer information notices where the transactions are between traders or between traders and wreckers. 
This bill increases the financial limit at which cases will be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the limit takes quite a substantial rise from $50000 to $100000. Another part of the bill allows the tribunal to award costs for the non-attendance of either party to the dispute and allows the publishing of tribunal decisions. This is all good smart stuff when it comes to giving consumers confidence because right now we want anyone who is buying a used car to have consumer confidence and to know that the rules are wrapped around by this legislation. This amendment bill certainly brings them to Parliament for discussion. They are rules that allow consumers to have confidence. 
In relation to motor vehicle trader registration I tell members that at present after supplying the statutory declaration with the initial application to become a director of a motor vehicle trading company as I have already said the director has to keep on supplying an annual declaration. Why would directors need to do that unless something has changed? That increases costs. What is the purpose? It seems to me that there is no clear purpose for that. It is unnecessary so in fact it will be dealt to in this bill. The registrar has the information on the register and it is important that we know that that information is up-to-date and correct. But it is also useful to know that a person does not just have to keep on unnecessarily filling out forms at a cost to that person or that director. That provision will be useful to those directors who currently live overseas because they will have reduced compliance costs as a result of this bill. 
There is also an issue at present about the fact that people can currently be appointed directors between annual registrations. That can happen without any check on their suitability. Of course we do not consider that to be suitable and this bill amends the Act so that when a new director or another person involved in the management of the company is appointed then that person’s notification has to be accompanied by a statutory declaration. That declaration is about that person’s suitability for registration. Once again we are talking about consumer confidence which is very important. It is only a small change but it really is an additional protection that we believe consumers will welcome. 
There is also a loophole in the current Act regarding automatic banning and it currently prevents the automatic banning of traders from future trading as motor vehicle dealers if those people are unregistered or have lapsed registration at the time of their conviction for certain offences or of their entry into bankruptcy. Currently such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to have them banned. That can actually take some months comes at a cost to the Government and of course does not create consumer confidence. Once again we get back to the issue of consumer confidence. So the bill proposes that those people can be automatically banned without being registered under the Act if they meet specific criteria. Those criteria I am sure will be discussed at the select committee but it is proposed in the bill that traders can be banned for convictions for crimes of dishonesty or for a second bankruptcy within 10 years of the first. 
Another aspect of the bill is around sales information disclosure which is about the consumer information notice or window card when sales are being made through a car market. These notices display a consumer’s rights when purchasing from a trader not a private seller. So the bill removes the requirement in respect of private sellers at a car market as it is confusing for consumers and can result in them thinking they have more rights than they actually do. The bill also removes the requirement to display consumer information notices where transactions are taking place between traders or between traders and wreckers because that is an unnecessary compliance cost. 
In relation to disputes resolution as I have said the financial limit for the operation of the tribunal will be increased from $50000 to $100000 which reflects the increased value of new and used cars. 
I will wind up my address this afternoon by reiterating that the core elements of the bill and the Act should be about the requirement of those who are trading in motor vehicles to be registered the requirement for information disclosure regarding used motor vehicles and the provision of consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I am sure that this bill will be well debated in the select committee process and I commend it to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I listened to that contribution with great interest but I gained no additional information other than that contained in the explanatory note at the front of the bill. In fact the speech was a very good reading of the explanatory note of the bill with a couple of additional pieces of information and that indicates that the member does not actually understand what the bill does. But that is OK because I do not either. I do not know why private traders are being asked not to display certificates when they are selling motor vehicles in a market. My understanding in this particular area is that a lot of car dealers are a little bit worried about people being car dealers under the table and about those people putting their cars into car markets and undertaking work that is not being picked up by the Inland Revenue Department or by the motor vehicle sales legislation. But this bill as I understand it is being referred to the Commerce Committee so we will be receiving submissions and obviously we will take some advice on it. 
I find it fascinating that the Minister of Consumer Affairs who has held that portfolio for several months now has given three speeches in her role as Minister of Consumer Affairs. She has given three speeches and the last one she gave was back in March. I am not including her first reading speech on this bill; that makes four speeches since she has been Minister of Consumer Affairs. 
The last speech she made really got to me because it is so relevant to this Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. The Minister was addressing the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand. Members might ask how that is relevant to this bill but I assure them that it is. In that speech she said and she has said the same thing in other speeches: “I am committed to simplifying rather than increasing the complexity of consumer law in New Zealand. My test for any existing or proposed legislation is a simple one: does the benefit to the economy as a whole outweigh the total economic cost of the regulations?”. I say that is a very very good thing and a very structured way of thinking around regulations. 
The Minister also stated: “I have directed Ministry staff to commence research on a simplification programme I have called ‘One Law - One Door’. The ‘one law’ refers to a goal of a single principle-based piece of consumer-supplier legislation to replace the raft of laws dealing with a variety of transaction types and which—in most cases—have been overtaken by marketplace and technological changes.” That is one of these bills. So we will get another bill later on after the Minister’s officials have finished doing this work to replace this Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and all the other bills— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It sounds a bit cosmetic. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It does sound cosmetic to me. That is why I wonder why this bill suddenly found its way so far up the Order Paper. I know that my colleague Chris Hipkins who was speaking earlier made the point as to why would this suddenly be such an important issue when the Government is struggling with massive levels of unemployment that are increasing daily. Why would it bring forward the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill which as the previous speaker said herself was the result of a review that was completed 3 years ago? The Government is rushing into it. 
In that wonderful speech made by the Minister she took a quote from the Revlon co-founder and adapted it somewhat: “In our factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope.” Guess how she reviewed that particular phrase. She said: “The same logic is true for politicians: ‘In our Party think-tanks we make policies. In election campaigns we sell hope.’ ” So finally we have it out on the table—“selling hope” was all that ACT was doing during the election campaign. 
How many commitments were on National’s pledge card? There were 11 but they were personal guarantees. I am just merely saying that on that list of personal guarantees I did not see the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I do not know why but there we go. It does seem to me there are some issues around the priorities that this Government is applying to this legislation. If the Minister of Consumer Affairs wants to be taken seriously on this matter one has to wonder why this bill is the first one she has brought before the House as Minister of Consumer Affairs. 
Let us look at what the Minister is attempting to do. There is a process in the bill that I think is very very good. I want to give total credit where credit is due. I always like to do that in this House and of course I am now going to give credit to the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs who in introducing legislation in December 2003 had provided for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs under a section of the Act to conduct a review of the Act following 2 years of its operation. 
That is a very good process. I am not saying that 2 years will be the right length of time in any particular issue. It may be that 5 years is an appropriate period; it may be that 10 years will be an appropriate period. It does not really matter what it is. It is the fact that under the legislation itself the ministry was required to conduct a review of the operation of the Act. I say that is a very good model and I think the House should think seriously about adopting that model for a number of regulatory frameworks that it is considering for adoption. The reason I like this particular model not that I am attached to the time frame that was chosen on this one is that often Parliament will go ahead with regulatory reform in this kind of area and not know how it will be implemented on the ground. It is a very good matter of practice to bring the legislation back to the ministry and to review its operation. 
Again in this case the Ministry of Consumer Affairs is to be congratulated on what was a model process. After 2 years of the Act’s operation the ministry was required to undertake this review. It put out a discussion document which it developed over a period. It received only 18 submissions on it which indicates a relative level of comfort with the legislation as originally passed. However there obviously were issues that were picked up on and in fact there are very minor amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act included in this Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I do not think that any of them will require any great analysis other than this one around the display of the certificate as it relates to private traders and the potential for the impact that it might have on the industry itself. I certainly will be asking questions about that level of detail. 
The previous speaker Jo Goodhew who unfortunately is not on the Commerce Committee any more so will not get a chance to ask all the questions that obviously she needed to ask in the circumstances said that this bill was to remove compliance costs. But then she failed to point out that the bill adds a new requirement for providing information to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles when there are new directors or persons involved in the management of a registered company. Far from removing the annual statutory declaration it simply allows for one person to make the annual statutory declaration on behalf of all others in the sense of saying that it would be particularly onerous when there are overseas directors. Therefore it enables one person to make the declaration on behalf of all others. But there still has to be a declaration and that point would not have been picked up if someone was relying on that address to determine whether this was— 
Chris Hipkins 
: She probably hasn’t read it! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I think she was reading from the explanatory note. Mr Hipkins may not have been there when I made that point but she did read the explanatory note very well. 
This is good process and it is good to see the bill before the House but we do not think it is a very good use of Parliament’s time when there are pressing matters before us such as an increasing rate of unemployment. We are losing 1200 jobs a week from our economy and the Government thinks that the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill is its top priority. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. As others have said the bill is fairly minor and makes a series of minor amendments. We support most of the amendments however although they are minor. It is a very good idea to increase the consumer redress to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. That is a very positive move. It makes sense not to require a full-blown motor vehicle trader to make an annual statutory declaration every year. 
Most of the other provisions in the bill are perfectly sound and sensible except for one which is that the bill removes the requirement for someone who is privately selling a motor vehicle to have to display a consumer information notice. The reason given is that removing the requirement will reduce compliance costs but I have a consumer information notice here and I cannot imagine the compliance cost of filling out this piece of paper. I think it would take about 5 to 10 minutes of time so to suggest that compliance costs are the reason for removing the requirement does not stack up. All people have to do is answer questions such as “Is there any money owing on the car?” “What is the make?” and “What is the distance the car has travelled?” and give the certificate of fitness expiry date and so on and so forth. The notice asks for very basic information but nevertheless it is information that is important for a consumer who is thinking about purchasing a car. 
Consumer information notices provide a small amount of consumer protection. We cannot see why we should remove that consumer protection when a consumer buys a car from a private seller. In fact we could argue the reverse. When someone buys a car from a private seller he or she wants even greater consumer protection because as others have mentioned we have some very fly-by-night people selling cars. How can a consumer be protected and know that the car he or she is buying meets at the very least the requirements of the Consumer Guarantees Act? The Act states that the vehicle must be of acceptable quality taking into account its age price and condition at the time of purchase etc. At least the Act provides some information and some guarantee for a consumer purchasing a car from a private seller. 
We cannot understand the justification for removing that requirement. We do not think this is a major issue but we think it can be addressed in the select committee. We have no problem with removing the requirement for a consumer information notice when a trader is selling to a wrecker. Interestingly someone pointed out to me that sometimes car wreckers sell cars. Apparently people become motor vehicle traders only if they sell six or more cars a year. So if a wrecker sells fewer than six or more cars a year he or she would not have to provide the consumer with information. That needs to be given further thought. We do not think the justifications stack up. However we support the other minor amendments of this bill so we will be supporting it. Thank you. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand tonight and speak to the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I say “Hello” to all those commuters in Wellington going home in their cars to the Ohariu electorate and I thank them for tuning in to Parliament tonight. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 to improve its workability and transparency. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act promotes and protects consumers’ interests and seeks to create an environment of confidence and informed choice. It makes vehicle traders accountable and provides consumers with redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
I was looking at the review of the Act. Section 163 of the Act requires the Minister of Consumer Affairs to conduct a review of the Act following 2 years of its operation and the review report was tabled in the House on 22 March 2006. This review of the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act gave the basis for the amendments in the bill that we are looking at now and was presented in March 2006 as per the legislation. I was having a read of the review to find out why some of the decisions were made and I came to an interesting section that I would like to quote. It is from the “Market Context” section of the review. It is slightly out of date and I apologise to the House for that. The review covers statistics only to 2005 but it puts into context how important the motor vehicle trade is in New Zealand and how big it is. 
The review states that “The MVSA is an important piece of consumer legislation as New Zealand has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world. In June 2004 the total fleet size for New Zealand vehicles was 3668577.” Going back 5 years that is a significant number of vehicles in New Zealand. The review continues: “Car ownership is highest in Auckland at 33 percent of total licensed cars in the country. The second highest is Christchurch and Wellington third at 9 percent.” I apologise again for going back so far in history but that is when the review was based. It continues: “In 2004 New Zealand Customs reported 236096 imported motor vehicles to New Zealand: 67 percent were used cars and 33 percent new. There were 815252 cars sold and 38.35 percent of these were purchased from a motor vehicle trader.” That gives us a feel for the size and volume of car sales we are talking about and how big the motor vehicle trader industry was in New Zealand and it would have grown. 
According to the review “In the first 11 months of 2005 there were 151512 used cars imported and 77375 new cars … Statistics New Zealand reports that in 2003/2004 weekly household expenditure on motor vehicles was $49.20 compared to $37.40 in 2000/2001. The $49.20 includes $44.40 for the purchase of motor vehicles and $4.80 on credit costs which relate to the purchase of the vehicle.” I will give some final facts even though I know they are going back to 2004: “In 2004 there were 228787 first time car registrations on the Motor Vehicle Register. For the first half of 2005 there were 114908 registrations”. We know that the registrations have increased significantly since the review which the legislation was based on. If anybody speaking on the bill after me has some up-to-date statistics it would be really interesting to hear how much the sector has grown and how important this legislation is when we look at the volumes going through New Zealand. We have one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world. That is pretty significant. 
I cannot wait for the bill to get to the select committee process. The motor vehicle industry is going through very hard times and we are in a recession. It is one of the sectors that have been hit the hardest. There are some flow-on effects from the legislation that will affect the sector. I hope when the bill gets to the select committee—hopefully next week—and when we go to our consultation phase we go out very far and wide and touch the motor vehicle industry individual dealers and consumers so that we get a good balance coming in and so that the industry is well represented in the select committee process and we can hear their voices. The bill has significant flow-on effects into the sector. 
Part of the legislation is good. Some of it is about reducing costs for motor vehicle traders and by doing that it will be amending the process for traders renewing their annual registration and reducing compliance costs associated with making annual statutory declarations as part of the registration renewal process. That is a good thing. A controversial area will be removing requirements for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. I know that motor vehicle traders out there who are registered as Sue Kedgley said previously have to sell seven cars in a year— 
Sue Kedgley 
: Six or seven. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: —six or seven to have to be registered to sell vehicles. I know there is a huge market out there on TradeMe and a huge market for the sellers on the side of the road. Going round and talking to the dealers—and I have spoken to a lot of dealers over the last year—I learnt that one of their biggest concerns in the sector outside of the recession itself and the impact of it on their sector is about those who are selling private cars under the table in effect—dozens at a time on different informal lots around the cities. They are very concerned about that situation and about the impact of TradeMe with people repeatedly turning over cars on TradeMe and not being registered as motor vehicle traders. 
In the bill we are removing the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. That places the onus on those who are doing bulk selling under the table to not declare as much as they should be about the cars they are selling. That will be interesting. At the same time we do not want to take away the right of an individual who has a family car and who wants to upgrade to put it on TradeMe or sell it on the side of the road. It will be interesting to get feedback about that issue in the select committee when it comes. The bill also eliminates unnecessary compliance costs by removing the requirement for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers to display a consumer information notice. Once again that is reducing compliance costs which is a good thing for car wreckers. Sue Kedgley who spoke before me raised the issue of how some car wreckers will sell over six cars a year but I suppose we will always get that. We are trying to reduce the compliance cost of those who are genuine traders and who are trading within the law and between each other and not onselling the cars at the end. 
The two other things I will talk about are increasing the financial limit at which cases may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000 which will be fantastic for the consumer and allowing the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute and allowing it to publish its decisions. That will give accountability to the process and a bit of responsibility because there will be a consequence if either party does not turn up. It will also put a bit of transparency out there for those people who continually break the law. I look forward to the bill coming to the select committee. Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise this afternoon to support the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. This bill will amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 to improve its workability and transparency. Workability and transparency are good things but Labour obviously does not seem to understand them. 
The Act came into force in December 2003. It introduced a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders which not only serves to make traders more accountable but also offers more flexibility to participate in the industry. The legislation aims to promote and protect customers’ interests. It seeks to create an environment of confidence within an industry that I think earlier today Mr Hipkins referred to as being dodgy second-hand dealers which is a very bad reputation to have. The legislation makes vehicle traders accountable and provides consumers with redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
This bill seeks to enhance all those functions and more and it is right in line with this Government’s effort to reduce regulatory compliance costs. In these tough economic times it seems prudent that we do so. We are after all working against the backdrop of the worst global recession since the 1930s. Helping businesses—who employ people by the way—by promoting sensible legislation that reduces unnecessary compliance cost is a good thing. 
In addition to the initial review of the Act which was tabled in this House a discussion paper proposing amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 was released for wider discussion. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs received 18 submissions on the discussion paper and an open forum was held involving industry and consumer representative organisations. The motor vehicle industry and consumer groups have been involved in the development of these proposals. This bill suggests changes to the registration of motor vehicle traders information disclosure and the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
Let us start with motor vehicle sales information disclosure. The Act requires a private seller to display a consumer information notice when selling through a car market. The reverse of this notice displays the consumer’s rights when buying from a trader not a private seller. Are members confused? Well this bill will remove that requirement which can result in consumers thinking that they have more rights than they actually do. This bill also removes the requirement to display a consumer information notice on transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers. The requirement had no value for either party; it was another unnecessary compliance cost. 
In respect of motor vehicle disputes resolution this bill would increase the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000 reflecting the increased value of new and used cars. Transparency is important. Changes have been proposed in relation to the disputes tribunal’s reporting clauses to allow all decisions of the disputes tribunal to be made public. The bill provides for costs to be awarded against a trader who does not attend the disputes tribunal hearing without good cause. This bill will close the loophole in the current legislation whereby unregistered traders or those whose registration has lapsed at the time of their conviction or bankruptcy cannot be automatically banned from trading as a motor vehicle dealer in the future. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Jonathan Coleman wrote this speech. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Perhaps Mr Hughes would like to register himself as a motor vehicle dealer. Currently such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the Registrar of Motor Vehicles can take a case to court to ban them. That takes months and incurs costs to the Government. This bill proposes that a person can be automatically banned without being registered under the Act if that person meets specific criteria such as conviction for crimes of dishonesty or a second bankruptcy within 10 years. 
The changes to this bill make sense. They protect consumers’ interests creating an environment of confidence and informed choice. Making vehicle traders accountable is definitely a good thing and making inroads into this industry to reduce compliance costs is definitely a good thing. 
Let us look at the registration of motor vehicle traders. At present people can be appointed as a director between annual registrations without any checks on their suitability. This bill amends the Act so that when a new director of a company or another person involved in the management of a company is appointed his or her notification must be accompanied by a statutory declaration of suitability for registration. It is a very small change but it brings with it adequate protection for consumers that unsuitable people are not legally able to become motor vehicle dealers. 
This bill also amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 registration renewal procedure to allow a company secretary to confirm to the registrar that the information held on the register about the company is correct. This is very useful for overseas directors who will benefit from reduced compliance costs. The current annual statutory declaration as part of the registration renewal process is time consuming is costly and serves no purpose if details have not actually changed. 
Protecting consumers is a good thing. As a consumer I am sure that I and the rest of New Zealand will be glad that we will have an environment of confidence and informed choice. This bill is a step forward. It removes red tape and compliance costs from the sale of motor vehicles. The National Government is standing by the promise it made before the 2008 election to tackle regulatory impediments and we are doing that. 
This bill is similar to the bill I spoke on last night the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill which mops up—yes it mops up—what the previous Labour Government failed to do. It did not finish it and we are mopping up its mess. I commend the Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy who must have had a heck of a hard time deciphering and cleaning up the mess that Judith Tizard left behind. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting this bill to a select committee. The bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act that was passed by the Labour Government in December 2003. The Act sought to introduce a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders and make them more accountable to action but also to offer some degree of flexibility to participate in the motor vehicle industry. The policy underpinning this Act had several core elements to ensure accountability. These included the requirement for those trading vehicles to be registered more disclosure concerning used motor vehicles and the provision for consumer remedy through the Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal. Contained within this sensible law reform was the requirement for a review after 2 years; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs completed this review which was tabled in the House on 22 March 2006. 
Although I believe that this bill is important I ask whether it will address the primary concerns that are facing most New Zealanders right now and why National is prioritising this bill when the House should be using its valuable time to consider measures to protect New Zealand jobs. The motor vehicle industry has been heavily hit by the recession. Should we not concentrate on jobs for New Zealanders? A survey in January by the Motor Trade Association highlighted that over 200 people had lost their jobs in that industry alone. In Wellington which mostly I travel to weekly I see the effects of this recession through the empty lots that were once Williams and Adams. Empty car yards are now appearing in Dunedin and I imagine across the country. A release from the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association has shown that a fifth of New Zealand’s used-car dealers have closed down in the past 6 months. 
This bill intends to reduce the compliance costs on traders currently associated with requiring an annual statutory declaration to be made as part of the registration renewal process. But what about dealerships that have already closed down? The recession blues that used-car sales employees are feeling are very concerning. As quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 25 February this year “Industry groups say the closures and cutbacks at surviving dealerships have wiped out at least 10000 of the 50000 jobs in the used-car business.” Some have reported that used-car sales are down 44 percent yet here we are concentrating on amending the industry rather than supporting those who have lost their jobs. 
There is no doubt that the economic recession has hit this industry hard. The only doubt that lingers is New Zealanders wondering why the Government does not have a plan to protect New Zealand jobs. The Prime Minister promised back in February that his Job Summit would save or create thousands of jobs but the evidence is that he has not delivered. The truth is that the Job Summit was little more than a talkfest and a gimmick. Over 1000 Kiwis a week are joining the dole queue. New Zealanders are crying out for more action from the Government to preserve jobs but the Prime Minister is not listening. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecast this week that 60000 Kiwis will lose their jobs over the next 12 months. New Zealand needs focus. It needs fresh ideas and solutions to tackle unemployment but the National Government does not appear to have any. 
Since the Budget the Government has gone silent on preserving and creating jobs. John Key has released 13 statements since Budget day. Just one—the statement on the Green Party’s home insulation fund—was linked to jobs. The Minister of Finance Bill English has been even more reticent. One of his two statements dealt with jobs. Ironically it defends National’s cuts to adult and community education which will cause hundreds more job losses. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Thousands. And they can’t become used-car dealers. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: That is right. Last is the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett: none of her three media releases relate to jobs at all. Since the Job Summit 16000 New Zealanders have joined the dole queue and 4000 have joined that queue since the Budget. To date the Job Summit has saved just 345 jobs. 
The review that triggered this amendment to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act considered how the registration process banning provisions information disclosure process and Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal were operating. The review concluded that some minor changes could be made to reduce unnecessary compliance costs but that overall the registration aspects of the regime are functioning well. They are functioning well yet the Government has targeted this legislation in the midst of a global recession. This bill will add a new requirement for providing information to the registrar when new directors or persons are involved in the management of a registered company and it closes a gap in the present legislation. That is important as disclosure in the industry has always been a goal for consumers. 
The consumer information notice is also updated under this bill. The consumer information notice has been designed to provide information clearly to consumers and for ease of completion by traders. The bill removes the requirement for private sellers to display a consumer information notice at car markets but traders using car markets will still have to display the notice which is important. Although car sales are down there is hope in the industry. Websites such as TradeMe have attracted the more price-conscious buyer. Making use of new technology is very important. The quality of finance companies in the car industry has taken a dramatic turn with the gap left by GE Money and GMAC which has been only partly filled by other companies. Designing law that protects consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales is important. 
As mentioned in the press release of the Minister of Consumer Affairs the bill is a step toward removing unnecessary red tape and compliance costs from the sale of motor vehicles. But how much red tape will this bill actually cut? That is a very important question for an industry that is struggling as many other industries are. This Government has promised to tackle some of the so-called regulatory impediments so I look forward to further discussion on how this bill will achieve that at the select committee. 
Although this bill is a start to making informed choices with confidence there are still further discussions to be had. This bill increases the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. That may be important in the luxury car market where the recession is in fact providing bargains. Todd Hunter General Manager Marketing at Turners Auctions says that sales of luxury cars are definitely up—some from finance companies and some from repossessions. At a recent auction a 2005 Ferrari with 1000 kilometres on the clock sold for $250000. That was down from the original price paid of $640000. Crikey! 
One recommendation from the original review that triggered my attention was the recommendation that consideration be given to amending the inspection powers in sections 124 to 129 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act to also include the Commerce Commission in order to allow appropriate enforcement of the information provisions and that this should be explored in conjunction with work already in progress regarding similar powers under the Fair Trading Act 1986. I hope to discuss this recommendation further at the select committee. 
This bill will also allow the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party at disputes and to publish its decisions which makes sense especially in consumer law. As mentioned the objective of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 and will improve its effective operation. Labour will be supporting this bill to select committee and I look forward to further discussion on it. 
Although this bill amends an Act that is designed to protect consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales which is important it has to be said again that it does not address the primary concern of New Zealanders which is keeping their jobs. It is time that the Government announced initiatives that will protect the jobs of hard-working New Zealanders and initiatives to stimulate the economy and create jobs. 
One of the central policies that this Government took to the election was its $1.5 billion pledge to deliver ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealanders where they live and work. This policy was central to the National Party’s economic stimulus package. Well 7 months later we are no further advanced. The Government constantly talks about delays and the need to get it right. It is time that it started showing New Zealanders that it has a plan that it can deliver jobs and that it will stimulate the economy and lead us out of the recession. I am not holding my breath. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I really enjoyed the Opposition member’s Budget debate but today we are looking at the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. We all love cars; we are a country that loves cars. We are a nation that is filled with long roads and we enjoy getting in our cars and driving around our nation of New Zealand to enjoy the sights. Most blokes like a car that has reasonable power and looks good and smart. The problem is that we can rush out and buy something just on a whim if we have the spare cash. A lot of people go out and buy vehicles and later regret it because they have bought something that is not exactly what they thought it would be. They may have bought the car because it was a good colour a good shape or had a powerful engine. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 brought regulation and confidence regarding motor vehicle sales into the New Zealand market. There was then a 2-year review which was completed and reported back to the House in 2006. Here we are 3 years later bringing those recommendations to the House as an amendment bill. Although the process has taken a tremendously long time—an amount of time that we think is far too long for a review to be sitting around doing nothing—we are aware that the industry is looking for the review to come into play and to be legislated as an amendment bill so that improvements to the original Act can be seen. 
The bill brings a number of changes. It closes a loophole in order to ensure that traders who have been convicted under the Act will receive an automatic ban. That is very important. We need confidence in our nation; we need confidence in order for people to feel that the investment they make in assets that cost a lot of money will be as safe as possible. When people are unscrupulous and have not been banned from having registration it brings a lack of confidence into the industry. The motor vehicle salespeople who do a fine job and have integrity need to have these amendments in place to enable New Zealanders to have confidence in them. The bill shores up people’s confidence when they realise that a dealer who is registered is a reputable person and can be trusted. 
A lot of people just go out and buy a vehicle because they like the colour shape or sound of it. Some people might go and kick tyres and look down the line of a vehicle. They might want to negotiate and look at the market to see what is available around the place. But a lot of people do not do that; they see something they like and if they can be convinced that the best thing for them to do that day is to buy that car then they might go home owning a car. But it could be a vehicle that has a lot of serious problems later on. When one buys from a registered salesperson one should have confidence in their integrity and confidence that the salesperson will stand behind his or her product. 
Simon Bridges 
: Does this bill achieve all that? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: It does indeed. The bill ensures a regime whereby there is registration and when salespeople do not comply with the registration—and especially when people are convicted under the Act—they will receive an automatic ban. It is always important I believe when people are going to be purchasing a vehicle for them to check out whether they are buying it from somebody reputable. 
The bill also removes the requirement for a private seller to display a consumer information notice when selling a vehicle. That might seem a small thing but it is very important. That consumer information notice usually says that the person selling that vehicle will stand behind it and he or she is obligated to offer protection to the purchaser. The reality is that a private individual who might at present need to display that notice actually does not have that obligation so it actually misleads the purchaser. Also that consumer information notice gives a sense of confidence that motor vehicle salespeople wish people to understand that they offer and which they offer of course at some expense in terms of backing up the product they sell. 
The bill removes car market operators from the definition of “motor vehicle trader”. It increases the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. It also amends the annual renewal registration to remove the current requirement for an annual statutory declaration. These measures will bring improvements to the Act. They may not be huge measures but they will fine-tune and make the Act more usable and more applicable. 
One of the things that National has committed to doing as a Government is removing unnecessary regulation and the compliance cost of it. We do that in this amendment bill in order to create an environment that is more financially viable for people who work in the motor vehicle environment. 
Confidence is an essential commodity when it comes to trading and never more so than in times such as these when we are in the midst of a financial recession of proportions not seen since the 1930s. Having confidence in the regulatory regime is critical for the purchaser but also for the seller as people are more willing to purchase when there is confidence. These amendments which lift the level of confidence in the industry will serve both the purchaser and the seller well. Added to that the bill seeks to put in measures as I said before that will reduce regulatory compliance costs. 
Changes to the motor vehicle trader registration regulations will benefit the industry. They will benefit the industry with the compliance aspects and they will bring a reduction in costs. I do not think anybody out there is happy about unnecessary duplication and the cost of it. We want the Government to be more efficient in times of stricture and finance so if there is unnecessary duplication—and with that associated cost—it makes perfect sense to reduce it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will keep it going till 6; don’t worry. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: The member will keep the debate going till 6. I thank Trevor very much. When it comes to purchasing a vehicle—especially a second-hand used or as many people say a pre-loved vehicle—people purchase a vehicle for many many different reasons. Truly discerning buyers show no emotion exude no trust are disinterested and will probably look down the side of the vehicle. When they become interested it will be by stealth. They will check through all the other dealers within a 300 kilometre radius to see what prices and mileage the other cars have. When they eventually return to the original salesperson they will have the engine checked by an independent person. They will probably walk away for another day maybe 2 days perhaps even a week and go cold on the deal because there are another thousand deals to look at. It is a bit of a game. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why does this story have such a sad ending? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I’m with him. Why does it have such a sad ending? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: The sad ending is that probably like many other members of the House here I have bought and sold many vehicles and I have had my share of vehicles which I will not tell stories about lest I embarrass myself. 
Hon Member 
: What’s the best car you’ve had? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I will tell members what the best car that I had was. The best car that I purchased and the one I loved the most cost me the most because I did not buy it prudently. I did not buy it in such a way that I had confidence in the person who sold it to me. Unfortunately the actual cost of the vehicle was the lowest cost. 
Hon Simon Power 
: What sort of car was it? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: It was a Renault R25. 
Hon Simon Power 
: They saw you coming. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: They saw me coming. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am sure we would all like to hear the rest of that story. Is the car still running? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I would like to hear Trevor Mallard’s story about the worst car he ever bought. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to tell us. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I hope members will forgive me for following on in a slightly personal manner. Last week I was sitting here with Doug Graham on my right and hearing Kennedy Graham speak from the end of the Chamber. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Stereo. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Frankly that is exactly right. One would have sworn from one’s experience that it was Doug Graham who was speaking. They were saying more or less the same thing and their voices were indivisible. But in this particular case at midpoint in Jonathan Young’s speech my eyes started to drift somewhat and I went back 25 years. It could have been his father speaking. His father was a member of Parliament when I was first a member of Parliament. His voice was very similar. I think his father had slightly more enthusiasm later in his career than Jonathan has now but it was the same solid tradesman-like “we will get through this speech” type of approach. I congratulate the member because—to make a serious comment—I think Venn Young was one of the institutions in this Parliament and someone whose integrity and solidness were well known. I was then going to work on the segue into talking about Jim Bolger and his wonderful comments yesterday about wide boys and flash financial people who lose millions of dollars or billions of dollars for countries around the world. There is a parallel between the image of the used-car salesmen of the past and some of them currently and the image the world has now of the people who have been leading the financial markets around the world. 
Jim Bolger made comments to and about Mark Weldon as someone who criticised the State-owned enterprises and said in a speech made on behalf of the Prime Minister that they should be privatised. Jim Bolger gave Mark Weldon his beans. From my understanding of what happened Jim Bolger was absolutely right. The idea that John Key’s policy of privatising over a 2 to 5-year period the State-owned enterprises—as Mark Weldon said yesterday at a meeting with Treasury on behalf of John Key—is reminiscent of some of the things that the old-fashioned snake-oiled car salespeople used to say. 
I have one final comment in this area for the member for Tauranga. I ask him whether his favourite car is a Mercury—a Mercury Cougar. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.