Volume 633 Week 25 - Thursday 7 September 2006 
Volume 633 Week 25 - Thursday 7 September 2006 
[Volume:633;Page:5273] 
Thursday 7 September 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill the Standards and Conformance Bill and the Insolvency Law Reform Bill. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 4 to Minister 6 September 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On reading my response to question No. 4 in  
Hansard 
 yesterday I feel it is appropriate for me to clarify to the House the following. In answering— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order. You have to move. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Sorry I am moving that I make a clarification of a response to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You are seeking leave. Sorry. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to make a clarifying statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is seeking leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s trying to do what? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He is seeking leave as he said to clarify an answer he gave. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the member is asking for leave to correct a wrong answer then that is what he should ask for and he might get it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I heard him starting when I interrupted him. I am sorry. Would the Minister now please proceed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 On reading my response to question No.— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Point of order! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Madam Speaker should I proceed? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. Leave was sought. I asked whether there was any objection. There was no objection. Then you took a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But we’ve got a point of order! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Then as I recall events a point of order was taken. I clarified that point of order. Then I was proceeding to ask the Minister to make his statement. If there is any other point of order I am pleased to hear it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If it may assist I am happy to put— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister believes he gave the House false information yesterday that needs correcting then he should seek leave to correct an answer he gave the House yesterday. He should not try to fudge what he is seeking. I do not think he has made it clear and it is unfair to allow him to proceed if he has not made clear the leave he is seeking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Happy to do so? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct an answer from yesterday. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On reading my response to question No. 4 in  
Hansard  
yesterday I feel it is appropriate for me to correct for the House the following. In answering the first supplementary question I inadvertently confused two positions in the department. The director of the Pacific division is a “she” not a “he”. The group manager of service international to whom she reports is a “he”. It was the latter not the former who recalled attempting to pass the information on to the then Associate Minister’s private secretary on 9 June 2005 not 10 May 2005 as I therefore implied. Finally I also note that Dr Smith’s first supplementary question contained an apparent inaccuracy— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not your statement. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder what mechanism is available to the House to make sure the Minister corrects his other false answers to the House because if that was incorrect yesterday answers previously given have been incorrect as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. 
Points of Order 
Minister’s Comments—Law and Order Committee 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek some advice from you as to what remedies are available to members of the Law and Order Committee. Today a statement made by the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor to an addictions conference in Wellington indicated that the minimum drinking age will not be put back up to 20. He told the conference that the political reality is that New Zealand is stuck with the drinking age of 18. This matter is still in consideration before the Law and Order Committee which has not yet reported back to the House. Further this is a member’s bill and a conscience issue. It was an extraordinarily pre-emptive statement for the Minister to make in a public forum and I ask your advice about what remedies are available to those of us and the public who have spent weeks and weeks on submissions and hearing evidence on this bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is quite in order for members to make public statements on matters that are before select committees. Obviously if they are members of those select committees there would be an issue. [ 
Interruption 
] I have clarified that it is a matter of debate for members. The Minister is not a member of a select committee as I understand it and he is entitled to make any statement he so wishes. It is a matter of debate as to what happens after that. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question remains as to whether the Minister was speaking in his capacity as Associate Minister of Health and this is now the Government position on this bill or whether it does in fact remain a conscience issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not a matter for the Speaker. This is a matter of debate. 
Questions to Ministers 
Business Climate Change Dialogue—Cross-party Agreement 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What prospect does he see following this morning’s Business Climate Change Dialogue for a cross-party agreement on addressing climate change an agreement that would place a price on carbon to give investment certainty to business? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have in my hand the answer to question for oral answer No. 1 delivered to me by the Government earlier so I seek leave to table David Parker’s responses to Jeanette Fitzsimon’s questions. She may as well just read them given that we have them here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 We welcome the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s announcement this morning that the National Party now accepts that climate change is occurring and requires a Government response to help New Zealanders reduce emissions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Word perfect! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. This contrasts with recent statements made by senior shadow Ministers in the National caucus and we welcome— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister was not asked about National’s position or even—and you have ruled this may be asked—about what reports he had seen that might allow Labour to get into misrepresenting National’s position. That was not the tone of the question so the Minister is going way outside his ministerial responsibilities—albeit if it were the Minister’s wish I would be happy to take leave and explain National’s exact position on those important issues. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The question asked what prospect I saw of a cross-party agreement and obviously the answer I am giving relates to that prospect. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that is correct so would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: So we are pleased to see that the National Party now accepts that climate change is occurring and that a Government response to curb emissions is required. That contrasts with recent statements by senior shadow Ministers in National’s own caucus. We would welcome any party getting behind the comprehensive programme for responding to climate change that we have under way. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister see a possible way forward in the Swiss approach outlined by the Swiss Ambassador at this morning’s meeting—a system combining both a carbon levy paid back to the public in other ways which Labour has advocated in the past and a carbon trading system as advocated by Nick Smith and the National Party; if so how could that combined option be explored? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you would like to know what the supplementary question was so that you can rule on whether it is in order we have the bit of paper here. Clearly the supplementary question sent to David Parker’s office or perhaps from David Parker’s office to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ office is not in order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to table that document? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No they have got it. It is actually their document. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Then that is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well it is not a valid point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The question is not in order. We would like you to rule on it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is in order. Would the member read the question again please. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I can respond to that by informing the House that no questions passed from my office to the Minister’s office or from the Minister’s office to mine. I do not know which piece of paper the member has but it was not a communication written between the Minister’s office and my office. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We have had a clarification of that. We will now proceed. Would the member ask her question again so that I can assess whether it is an appropriate question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that there has been some question as to the authenticity of the document I seek leave again to table the question from Jeanette Fitzsimons and the pre-prepared answers from Mr Parker. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister see a possible way forward in the Swiss Government’s approach outlined by the Swiss Ambassador at this morning’s meeting—a system combining both a carbon levy paid back to the public in other ways as Labour used to advocate and a carbon trading system as advocated by Nick Smith and the National Party on various occasions; if so how could that combined option be explored? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do see possibilities in that. As the member is aware the Government is presently consulting on a range of policy options under consideration. Those include a variety of sectoral measures and the possibility of post-2012 price-based measures across the economy and I am sure that that particular idea can be considered too. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it true that the carbon dioxide equivalents that emanate from New Zealand are so low in total they do not even register on the global model? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is true that New Zealand’s emissions represent 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions because our population is less than 0.2 percent of the world’s population. It is also true that New Zealand’s emissions on a per capita basis are about the eleventh-highest in the worth. It is also true that for the world to get on top of climate change challenges every part of the world has to do its bit. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with Tom Campbell the chief executive of Comalco who said at this morning’s gathering that any new deployment of coal should be delayed until carbon capture and storage are fully commercialised; if so will he commit to climate change policy that allows no new coal combustion until carbon capture and storage have been proven to work reliably in the long term and are available on the market? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Final decisions on that have not been taken but I do agree with the proposition that if New Zealand wants to do its bit to help the world to overcome climate change problems it would be a strange policy outcome if our greenhouse gas emissions climbed as a consequence of large additional amounts of coal-fired generation. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister received any conflicting reports on the need to deal with climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have received reports that a member of the National Party has said that climate change is just a bit of climate variability and that he for one would like to see a bit more heat to make the grass grow and would not mind a bit more of a sea-level rise either. That member was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith representing the National Party at a Royal Society of New Zealand presentation on climate change in Parliament. National needs to come clean about where it really stands on climate change. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Government has been in office now for 7 years has had to do a U-turn on the animal emissions levy has done a U-turn on the carbon tax has had an energy efficiency strategy that is in tatters has made a billion-dollar bungle on New Zealand’s climate change position and has had to drop its policy in respect of the reduction in emissions projects can the Minister tell the House exactly what this Government’s climate change policy is—or is it as all the commentators say a complete vacuum? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will make two points. Firstly parts of the climate change policy have been very successful. Notably the projects to reduce emissions which were overseen by the Hon Pete Hodgson brought forward the development of wind-power generation which does not produce climate change emissions. New Zealand now has a future where we can deploy more wind generation cost-effectively without carbon emissions. I also make the point in relation to the animal emissions levy that Dr Smith—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I cannot hear and the member who asked the question did ask for an answer. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; please be seated. As I said interjections are permitted but we do need to hear how the Minister is addressing the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is ironic that Dr Smith this morning and today has referred to the animal emissions levy. He complained— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very straightforward: what is the Government’s policy on climate change? Commentators say that it is a vacuum. It is very simple for the Minister to answer. I ask him to please tell us what it is. I know what my policy is and I am happy to answer questions on that. National is happy to do that. He is the Minister so he should simply tell the House the Government’s climate change policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister is attempting to do that. Would the Minister please continue. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is ironic that the member talks about the animal emissions levy. He mentioned that this morning as well. He complained that we as a Government were not spending enough on it when he as a member politicked against it under the label of the “fart tax”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have listened to the Minister’s answer carefully. I am yet to hear from this Government Minister what the Government’s climate change policy is. I have heard nothing yet and I say to you Madam Speaker that rather than for him to give a tirade on what I or my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith might have said or might not have said he should simply be asked to address the question: what is the Government’s climate change policy? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The member who has just resumed his seat said that he listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. But he shouted through the Minister’s answer and has continually interrupted it. I think it would be a good idea if he did listen to the Minister’s answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I certainly could not hear. I could hear bits of the answer but I could not hear the whole answer. So would members please enable the Minister to be heard. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I said that the part of the climate change policy that has been particularly successful was the bringing forward of wind-power generation so that New Zealand now has a future of cost-effective wind power being integrated into the grid. I also made the point that Dr Smith’s conduct this morning and this afternoon in complaining that more money should be spent on an animal emissions levy stands in stark contrast to his politicking against that levy under the guise of the then description “fart tax”. This Government is consistent. We accept that climate change is a problem. We are addressing it; Dr Smith covers for the other Dr Smith and does not do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have now listened to three attempts from the Minister and I still do not know the Government’s policy on climate change. The only snippet we got was about the emissions project which has been cancelled. I think the House deserves an answer quite simply as to what the Government’s climate change policy is. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If the House wants to give me the opportunity to list some of the other recent announcements in the last 2 weeks we have three all of which are a small part of the matrix that makes up the response to climate change— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The matrix. We have a matrix! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a big word for Dr Smith but yes it is a matrix. It is a series of small steps which will lead to a big difference. Those small steps include vehicle emission testing at warrant of fitness stations the solar hot water announcements made by Jeanette Fitzsimons last week and confirmation that the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is proceeding with minor alteration. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that John Howard expressed the sentiment that climate change is an issue but that it will not be solved by punishing Australians and Australian businesses by way of additional taxation; if he is aware of those sentiments does he not believe that is a position New Zealand First should adopt also? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If as is the case for New Zealand and other countries around the world business as usual sees greenhouse gas emissions increasing then there is a need from a policy perspective to change the rules so that business as usual is not the outcome and we reduce our emissions. Whether we pursue a regulatory route as Australia is or a more efficient emissions trading route or a combination of the two there is a moderate cost to the economy. The mechanism goes to how that cost is shared not as to whether one arises. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of the article in  
Nature 
 last Thursday that records that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is being released from the thawing Siberian permafrost at five times the rate previously thought taking us dangerously close to a climate tipping point and does he not think it is time to inject some urgency into the policy debate? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have not read that report but I have to say that my reading which is quite extensive on climate change gives me increasing concern rather than reducing concern and I agree that there is an urgency for New Zealand and the world to moderate their emissions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned at the image I am holding up of the vast reduction in Greenland’s ice cap in only 13 years and given the predicted 7 metre sea-level rise when all the ice goes does he think that is a reason to inject some urgency into the climate change debate? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of all the illustrations of the potential problems of climate change and suggestions that it is accelerating what is happening both in the northern hemisphere in Greenland and on the polar ice cap and in Antarctica worries me the most. 
Election Advertising—Validation of Spending 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why did the Ministry of Justice commence work on the validation of alleged unlawful spending of parliamentary funds on election campaign advertising and when did that work commence? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: The Ministry of Justice is not currently doing any work on validating alleged unlawful spending of parliamentary funds. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he deny that at one point at least the ministry was doing such work and can he tell us who instructed it to do that work? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The ministry was consulted by Treasury on work referred to in the House previously but it is not working on validating legislation. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Minister considered the need to undertake work on legislative safeguards for election spending to prevent covert funding by extremist groups secret “cash for policy” deals and trust funds hiding large donations from multinational corporations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that the Minister of Justice is undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime focusing on electoral expenses including whether there is a case for more controls on donations—the kinds of donations undoubtedly that are hidden within the 92 percent of funds that are hidden in the trust fund by the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is he concerned that the decision to review the way in which election donations are declared is simply an attack on National and a denial of Labour’s own corruption in this matter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would imagine that National members would welcome the opportunity to stop having the allegations of corruption swirl around them as they are doing as a result of their relationships with the Exclusive Brethren Church which paid $1.2 million to support the National Party in order to try to steal the last election and National’s own trust fund where those members hide 92 percent of their funding. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the Minister’s last answer will he consider making amendments to the electoral law to ensure that funding of political parties is transparent and accountable so that the public is aware when extremist groups fund very large sums of money to parties like National or when large corporates buy influence from parties for “cash for policy” deals—such as the one National entered into in the last election campaign? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that of course the Minister would take such— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When that question was being asked by Phil Goff there were about 15 people on the National benches all shouting at once which indicates of course that their leadership is not capable of controlling them. I have never seen in my long time in Parliament so many people all shouting at once. Usually it is left to the spokesperson the associate spokesperson or the leader but there were 15 people shouting when Mr Parker was speaking and on the second occasion there were 10. All of those people by the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings should be thrown out of Parliament. That is what the precedent is. When will we have it enforced? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! Otherwise members will be leaving the Chamber; I am on my feet. The member referred to when the Minister was answering the question. Certainly I could not hear the question that was being asked by the Hon Phil Goff either. The difficulty has arisen recently that in fact there seems to be a concerted campaign to ensure that some questions and some answers are not heard. It is a matter for members to take on board themselves. I as Speaker could throw out what would be almost the entire House at times. That is obviously ludicrous. It is not from the back section of the House where the smaller parties sit; I concede that. But certainly there have been deliberate campaigns it appears to make sure people are not heard. However it is not on all questions and all answers. I think that that is a denial of the democratic right for people to be heard when they speak in this Chamber. It is for members themselves to take responsibility for that and I ask them please to do so. Of course members can make interventions on both questions and answers because that is also a freedom of speech and members should be able to express themselves here. It is not— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not finished Mr Brownlee. The point is however—and it is a serious point—when members say that they do not like the answer or do not like the question that is not the point. People have a right to be heard. Then the judgments will be made—when we have heard them. But how those judgments can be made when one cannot even hear the question or the answer defeats me. So that is why I have come to the conclusion that there must be some deliberate campaign occurring to stop people from being heard. Members have to think about that in this Chamber. It would not be put up with anywhere else in this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I respond briefly by saying there is no deliberate campaign on behalf of the National Party. We have repeatedly made representations to the Speaker through this Parliament the last Parliament and the one before that about trying to get reasonable answers from Ministers. In recent days Madam Speaker you have been much to the fore in requiring Ministers to stay away from the sort of extraneous matter that they generally like to stray into in their answers to questions. When that happens the House is generally calmer. But when there is the sort of response—or question as it actually was—from Mr Goff that was more of a statement than a question which went on much longer than any of the primary questions on the sheet today would take to deliver then of course this side of the House will get annoyed about that sort of behaviour. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The question I asked was a question. It started with the question word “will”—that is generally required in this House. I had asked barely five words of the question when as the Rt Hon Winston Peters correctly pointed out at least 15 members of the National Party including its front bench all interjected and shouted in a way that meant my colleague sitting right next to me probably could not hear the question I was asking him. There was once in this House a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling that stated that interjections were to be rare and reasonable. There is no way that the barracking from the Opposition side of the House which has gone on all week could be described as rare or reasonable. I ask that that Standing Order and that Speaker’s ruling be enforced. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. I accept Mr Brownlee’s statement in this House that the barracking is not deliberate or orchestrated. The effect however is the same. I have called a meeting of the whips of all parties for next week to discuss this issue so the whips have the responsibility also within their parties to attempt to keep order in this House. It is a matter that can be discussed at that point. Of course if members make comments that are irrelevant to the question or answer they will get sniping. But frequently when there is shouting across the Chamber from whatever side then of course whoever is asking the question or giving the answer will respond. That is human nature. All I am asking is that we try to abide by the Standing Orders and to uphold the democratic right whereby people are allowed to be heard in this country and particularly in this Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] We have a question that has not been replied to. Would the Minister please ask his question succinctly and then we will get the reply. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Minister consider making amendments to the electoral law to ensure that funding of political parties for election campaigns is transparent and accountable so that the public is aware if and when small covert extremist groups or large corporates are making donations in return for policies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that indeed the Minister will do so and he is sure that he will be supported in taking that course of action—in fact welcomed—by the National Party which these days is deeply deeply embarrassed by the allegations that are swirling around it of relationships with extremist groups and large corporate backers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although some members have been given a warning the moment Phil Goff asked the question a second time and came to the end of it that barrage started again. I and my colleagues do not see why certain sections of this House obey the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this issue of interjections being rare and reasonable and another group without any care whatsoever for the image of the House carries on—[ 
Interruption 
] There he goes again. He has been here for just 5 minutes and he has all the contempt for the institution that anybody could possibly muster. He will not last much more than 5 minutes longer. But the fact is that I have never seen the likes of it and they should not be allowed to get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Members can express themselves once the question has been heard and the answer has in fact been given except for as has been said interjections that are rare and hopefully witty—and that has not happened in this House for some time I am afraid because they cannot be heard. So I do not see anything wrong with that—members are entitled to express themselves. What happened however was that when the Minister started to reply it started again. So I certainly did not hear all of the answer. I would ask the Minister to reply very succinctly to the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Minister of Justice I am advised that indeed he will and he is sure he will get backing in that from parties such as National which is embarrassed by the allegations that swirl around it about election spending. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree—that was an irrelevant comment at the end. So would the Minister please— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh well—I wanted to deal with that but point of order the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker you have now said it is irrelevant. The first two times the Minister made those comments you accepted them as being in order and proceeded to then— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Would the member please be seated. I could not hear—that is the point. If I can hear what members or Ministers are saying then I will intervene. But if I cannot I will not so I will not accept criticism under those circumstances. I asked the Minister when I heard what he had to say to withdraw those comments. They were irrelevant to the answer and I hope that in future all Ministers hear what I am saying. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister to withdraw first. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw Madam Speaker. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In respect of this issue you need to bear in mind when you are making your rulings just what is being said. There has been discussion in this House about corruption. That is directly related to provisions of legislation under which the Labour Party has been and is still being investigated by statutory officials. Therefore there is some justification in using the word. None of the allegations made by the Minister has any substance or is subject to any investigation under any law by any statutory officer with regard to the National Party so you are likely to find for the delicate egos like Mr Peters— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is irrelevant too if I may say. That is precisely the problem. Would you please withdraw that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Hon Bill English 
: You are likely to find that when Labour introduces material of that nature for which there is no justification at all then the Opposition is likely to react to it. I am surprised that Mr Peters is surprised about it because he has been the expert in the last 10 years at raising insubstantial allegations in this House as Labour is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There goes the member again— 
Hon Bill English 
: —and we are always going to react to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There goes the member again and therefore you get the reaction. 
Hon Bill English 
: An allegation of corruption is a very serious one. You cannot expect a political party to sit here listening while that is made with no response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And that is precisely it. Those allegations are going across the House. They are matters of debate. It is not for the Speaker to determine the truth or otherwise of any statement. It is for the Speaker to ensure that members can in fact be heard and order maintained. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There has been a remarkable change in behaviour in the House today compared with the last several days. For days we have watched equal barrages across the House from the two major parties. The small parties got so fed up with the situation over the last few days that we collectively decided that when it happened today we were going to leave. However one of the small parties decided in the end not to join us in that. Today we have noticed a remarkable change in that the barrage is continuing from one side of the House which has not learnt about the plan and the other side of the House is being remarkably well behaved. I think that is an interesting change. I welcome your very strong direction to the House that the behaviour needs to change and I hope this can be maintained in the future. The small parties have had enough—we really have. We are not prepared to sit here and put up with what has been going on over the last week or so because it is a complete waste of our time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It is not a point of order but it is a contribution to what appears to be an informal debate that has arisen. That debate should in fact take place at the meeting with all the whips. I am aware of the frustrations of those who cannot hear and who become almost irrelevant to the proceedings accordingly. This is a Chamber for all members not for just some. Supplementary question Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: First I want to say to that member that if minor parties want to continue supporting a corrupt Government— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee please sit down. That is exactly what causes disorder. If you wish to make those comments as I have already said there is another place and time to do that. This is not a debate. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you witnessed exactly what happened there and Mr Brownlee has done that once before in this House. I ask you to consider Mr Brownlee’s tactic of standing up and using a point of order to make a political statement or a speech and in doing so—[ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker I am expecting you to throw those members out because this is a point of order and should be heard in silence. My point is that he deliberately uses a tactic on you of turning his back on you so that he cannot see you—and you know that he cannot see you. When you call him to order he continues talking because he cannot see you. When you stand on your feet he continues. He knows that you are calling him because he can hear you—he is only about five steps from you. It is a direct tactic of his and it is being used to defy you to bring this House into disrepute to actually not comply with the Speaker’s ruling. The— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark you have made your point and you have made it at great length and it was not a point of order. That is the point really. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am sorry; that is the point I am making. Please if members wish to make points of order make them relevant. Occasionally they contribute to the House. Can we now have a supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister of Justice the Prime Minister or any other Minister instructed the Ministry of Justice to work on legislation that would amend section 214B of the Electoral Act to validate the Labour Party’s alleged corrupt practice in breaking the spending cap during the 2005 election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No work has been done as I mentioned in the primary answer on validating legislation. I reject totally any sense of allegation about corruption. The member on that side of the House would know about that because of what National has been doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you happy with that answer from the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well allegations of corruption have been made backwards and forwards. It would be much better if they were not made by anyone because there will be a response if they are. In other words one party would be shut down if that were the case. What the Speaker must do is try to make sure that there is an opportunity for everyone to be heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. To rule out the use of the word “corruption” is just unacceptable in this circumstance. An Act of this Parliament—section 214B of the Electoral Act—makes it clear that if a person or persons knowingly breach the spending cap during an election they are involved in a corrupt practice. We are hearing that the Government is about to change the legislation around electoral spending in order apparently to get more disclosure. Well we do not need disclosure around this one because the whole country knows that Labour overspent— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have made your point. As I said could members please make their points succinctly. I have not ruled out the word “corruption”. In fact Mr Brownlee I thought that was what you were asking me to do. That was the point I was making—that when that word is used there will be a response. I have not ruled it out. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Minister of Justice received any information on how the Exclusive Brethren may have come into possession of the personal electoral enrolment details of New Zealanders given that possession of such information is necessary to conduct the level of phone canvassing and push-polling undertaken throughout the country this time last year by the Exclusive Brethren; and whether or not the Minister has received any such information can he confirm that the passing of such details from a political party to any other organisation is against the law of the land? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not aware of whether the Minister of Justice has received any information but I can confirm that the activity outlined in that question is illegal. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would he expect any Minister who was aware of or saw the letters from the Chief Electoral Officer sent on 2 and 12 September 2005 stating that the Helen Clark pledge card and the fold-out brochure should be included as election expenses to take every necessary step to ensure the Labour Party did not commit a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act; if not is that because Labour Ministers and this Prime Minister think they are above the law? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will not reply to what is a hypothetical question but I would refer the member to the commitments card in 2002 under the name of Bill English and would ask the same question of him in a hypothetical way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the letters of 2 and 12 September 2005 from the Chief Electoral Officer to the Labour Party which make it abundantly clear that the pledge card spending had to be included in the election expenses and would be considered so— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I seek leave to table the commitments card under the name of Mr Bill English—a commitments card that was used in 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Have Government officials done any work to override or amend the Auditor-General’s powers under section 65Z of the Public Finance Act to direct Ministers to report to Parliament on matters relating to unlawful expenditure of taxpayer dollars? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification to assist us in maintaining order. I draw your attention to Standing Orders 103 and 85. Standing Order 103 “Members to address Speaker” states: “A member on being called to speak addresses the Speaker and through the Speaker the House.” I also remind you that all members when they receive their induction training here are taught that not only must they address the Speaker and the House through the Speaker but they must face the Speaker. Standing Order 85(1) “Disorderly conduct” states: “The Speaker may order any member whose conduct is highly”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please respect the member’s right to make a point of order? If he would make it succinctly however it would help the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Well Madam Speaker the two paragraphs are very clear and my point to you is that members standing and turning their backs on you is not in accordance with Standing Order 103 and that Standing Order 85 “Disorderly conduct” as I raised with you does give you the power to throw such a member out of the House I would have thought. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not need any assistance from you Dr Smith. I thank the member for his points. I had noticed that often members in fact do address the person who asked the question or the person to whom they are asking the question. So at times I do not take that as disrespect. Also at times I notice that the positioning of the microphones means that some people’s bodies are in different shapes if I can put like that—leave it there please! Yes it is a matter for the Speaker to determine at what point members’ conduct is unacceptable and they should leave. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister— 
John Carter 
: Holiday over is it? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes would the member please— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is Mr Carter exempt from the rules of this House? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The rules are as I said that members are allowed to make interjections on both questions and answers but members must be heard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh OK. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve been away too long. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes but I never lost my mind like you did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please members. And may I say welcome back. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you very much Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Now let us have some order please where we just stick to the rules. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He always gets nasty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There he goes again. That boy is cruising for a bruising I tell you. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yeah you are. Could I ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Justice in its examination of electoral spending is aware that in one party’s case of $1.86 million of campaign transfers at the last election $1.74 million came from secret trusts—that is only $12000 came from the party rank and file—and that second that same party was involved in a long protection racket in respect of Telecom and that is why it was given free Telecom services and took a million dollars—[ 
Interruption 
] Those young ignoramuses would not know the facts but I do. They do not know the truth and the sham that is being portrayed in New Zealand today. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that that was meant to be a supplementary question and I am surprised that you did not step in when the member clearly strayed beyond the bounds of the supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please phrase his supplementary question succinctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am setting out the circumstances of a worthy examination by the Ministry of Justice. The last thing I want to say— 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is a question Mr English. As I understand it Mr Peters is asking the Minister whether he has any reports of this. He is giving a list of matters and that is not infrequently heard in this House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He stood up and said: “I am making out the case …” or “I am doing …”. There was no question word—no indication of a question whatsoever—and you should not be defending that kind of stance. He got up he did not take a point of order he did not ask a question and you let him continue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully Mr English. We will start again. Rt Hon Winston Peters with a question so that everyone can hear you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the Ministry of Justice in its examination of electoral spending have regard to the fact that one party in the last campaign made $1.86 million of campaign transfers of which $1.74 million came from secret trusts and only $12000 came from the party rank and file— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee is entitled to be heard in silence on a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Quite apart from the fact that members of the National Party can one by one stand up and confirm to the House just how much money the rank and file from their own electorates sent to our headquarters for the campaign—it was embarrassing; many of us had to get trucks in to send it up because people were so keen—it is an utter nonsense for you to allow Mr Peters to suggest that the money came from secret trusts. Everyone knows that every trust in this country annually sends a financial return to the Ministry of Economic Development. There is no such thing as a secret trust I say to Mr Peters. It is a legal entity and there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. We had heaps of cash; we can tell him how much it was. We know that it is Mr Peters’ day to come back and dig the Government out of a hole but this is not the way to do it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all what was the point of order? The second thing is I did not name any political party but clearly we have already had an admission of guilt! The last thing I want to say to finish off my question to the Minister of Justice is to ask whether the Ministry of Justice will look into the $1 million paid by Fay Richwhite to the National Party in order to buy it absolute protection against proper investigation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker my point of order was a legitimate one under Standing Order 371(1). If you look at 371(1)(a) (b) and (c) you can pick up any one of those for the words that Mr Peters used there. He of course is prepared to lecture other members in the House on procedure because they have been here only a short time; he has been here quite a long time and should know better than that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if Mr Peters in his question was asserting those matters as a fact then he can be challenged on it. If it is a hypothesis however it can proceed. As Mr Peters said in relation to the first part of the question no particular party was in fact named. So that part of the question I think can remain but the rest cannot. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just missed the last part of the hypothesis that Mr Peters put and I ask whether he could repeat it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to make it very clear that this is not a hypothesis. The fact is— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if it is a fact it can be challenged. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In a past campaign Fay Richwhite did buy itself some political protection in respect of the BNZ and the wine-box inquiry and paid the National Party $1 million. Junior over here has been around for 5 minutes and would not know what day it is! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Tanczos was seeking because he could not hear that the last part of the question be repeated—was that correct? I ruled the last part of the question out of order so to move on would the Hon Steve Maharey please respond. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The way of answering the question would be I think to draw attention to the fact that the Government is undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime that is focused on electorate expense of course as has been well announced. That would be an opportunity to look at such things as ceilings on advertising expenditure appropriate restrictions on electoral advertising third-party advertising apportionment rules clarification of election expenses whether more controls on donations are needed and other matters as raised by the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As part of this review or examination of electoral spending and in view of the consumer protection legislation in this country will there be any judgment or examination of value for money on the basis of the millions of dollars spent on the National Party and the ACT party—all gone to waste? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This matter lies outside the delegation of the Minister of Justice but I am sure that the National Party which has these allegations swirling around it would be very willing to comply with— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We do not need those last comments. 
Adult Education—Support 
3.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What is the Government doing to support adult learners? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 In 2005 the Government supported over 400000 learners in adult and community education. Adult learning helps people to gain skills improve their confidence expand their knowledge and reach their potential. This week the Government celebrates Adult Learners’ Week which aims to raise the profile of adult learning recognise the efforts and achievements of learners and teachers alike and inform people of learning opportunities available in the community. This has been endorsed of course by the House. I thereby thank Judy Turner Dr Pita Sharples Metiria Turei and the Hon Bill English for their support of Adult Learners’ Week. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is the Government doing to support adult literacy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Tomorrow the Government also celebrates International Literacy Day. One of the key priorities signalled in the Government’s newly released tertiary education strategy discussion document is to build strong foundations in literacy numeracy and language. Moving forward the Government will look to invest in increasing language skills in the workforce and raising foundation skills for parents to support their children’s learning. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why he and his predecessor Steve Maharey have put in place policy that is as we speak destroying New Zealand’s traditional structure of adult and community education which used to be provided cheaply through schools and which will now be provided through a very expensive bureaucratic mechanism that will see most of the money end up in polytechs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The intention is of course to continue to have schools to provide adult education. But I would point out the irony of a man who campaigned on the tightening up of rules that he put in place in the 1990s now complaining that these changes might be a little tighter. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker; tena tatou katoa. What support access and equitable funding are made available to attract Maori and Pacific adult learners to programmes that meet their aspirations and needs given the contrast between current record low levels of unemployment in the general population and the high levels of unemployment in Maori and Pasifika populations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the changes in the adult community education area is to set priorities that will of course be of use to Maori learners—that is targeting learners whose initial learning was not successful raising foundation skills encouraging lifelong learning strengthening communities by identifying community needs then meeting those needs and strengthening social cohesion. All of these areas will have some benefit to the learners the member is referring to. 
Taito Phillip Field—Ministerial Process 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: If as he told the House yesterday with respect to Taito Philip Field’s involvement with Thai nationals in Samoa “the information in question was not placed in the usual system that supported the Associate Minister’s decision making” exactly how was the information used? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Ingram report records at paragraphs 144 155 and 157 that the information received on 9 June was used by the group manager service international in calling the Associate Minister of Immigration’s private secretary to provide that information. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If as the Minister told Parliament yesterday in respect of information received on 10 May “the director of the Pacific division recalls that he attempted to pass it on to the Minister’s private secretary.” on what date or dates did that happen or is the Minister now telling us that he misled the House yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I believe that that matter was covered in my earlier point of order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the director of the Pacific division attempted to pass on information be it on 10 May or whatever to the Associate Minister’s private secretary why did the director of the Pacific division not tell that to the Ingram inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In my earlier point of order I made it clear that it was the director of service international who attempted to pass the information. Paragraph 157 of the report sets out Mr Ingram’s view of the likely sequence of events. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the group manager for service international tell the Ingram inquiry that he received the information he passed on to the Minister’s private secretary in a fax direct from the Apia branch manager Mr James Dalmer not from the director of the Pacific division—how does the Minister explain that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is not for me to revisit the conclusions of the Ingram inquiry. Mr Ingram concludes that a number of the recollections about the transmission of information in that regard appear to have been misplaced. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What is the truth of the Minister’s statement yesterday that the director of the Pacific division recalled—that is what the Minister said—attempting to pass on the information to the Associate Minister’s private secretary? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The truth of that matter was clearly covered in my earlier point of order. I apologised. It was the director of service international who gave that recollection to Mr Ingram. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Who else from the various sections of the Minister’s department attempted to advise the Minister’s private secretary of information on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thais in Samoa prior to the Minister making his decision on their cases on 17 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The information I have to hand is that the director of service international attempted to pass on that information on 9 June but that the Ingram report inquiry at paragraphs 157 and 158 makes clear the conclusion that in all likelihood the information was not passed to the Minister. I do not have any other information on that to hand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table statements made by the president of the Labour Party suggesting that the Ingram report has many factual inaccuracies. 
Document not tabled. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill—Crown Stratum 
5.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi  
Negotiations 
: He aha te putake mo te whakauru mai i tetahi whakaaro hou e kia nei ara ko te rangatiratanga Karauna ki nga hau o-runga kei roto nei i Te Pire Whakataunga o nga Roto o Te Arawa e takoto ana? 
[ 
What is the rationale for introducing a new concept called the Crown stratum as set out in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Ehara tena whakaaro i te whakaaro hou. The terminology may be new but the concept is not. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ka taea e ia te whakaatu mai nonahea a na te aha i whakaaro te Karauna nana te “rangatiratanga Karauna ki nga hau o-runga” i runga i te mea koinei te wa tuatahi kua whakauruhia tenei take ki roto i te Whare Paremata i tenei rangi tonu nei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Can he please advise when and how the Crown assumed ownership of the so-called “Crown stratum” when it is being introduced for the first time in Parliament today? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Me penei ano te whakautu ehara tenei i te mea hou. Mai ra ano i rapuhia ai e te Karauna i te mana mo nga wai me nga hau o-runga i nga wai katoa. I will say again that this is not a new concept. It has always been the Crown’s view that it has ownership of the water stratum including the airspace on behalf of all New Zealanders. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ka taea e ia te whakamaramahe aha i kore ai te rangatiratanga Karauna ki nga hau o-runga i whakaarohia i te wa i whakataunga nga tono a Ngai Tahu raua ko Turangitukua na te mea he roto kei runga i aua whenua a ka whakauruhia he ture hoki whakamuri kia kore ai e riro ki a raua te mana mo nga hau o-runga mena kaore  he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Can he explain why the Crown stratum was not considered relevant in the cases of Ngai Tahu and Ngati Turangitukua given that some of the lands transferred would have included water bodies and will retrospective legislation be introduced to deprive them of their airspace; if not why not? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I tutukihia ai tera raupatu kereme i raro i te Kawanatanga Nahinara. I tera wa rapuhia tonu ai hoki te Karauna i nga wai nga hau hoki. Pera ano i te roto o Taupo. Those claims were settled under the previous National Government and as for Lake Taupo’s situation which includes ownership over water that was not as a result of a Treaty settlement. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Kei te patai au i te patai mena i whakautua taku patai. Ko taku patai ke mo nga kereme o Ngai Tahu raua ko Turangitukua.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I am merely asking whether my question was answered. My question was actually about the Ngai Tahu and Turangitukua claim. 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Ae i whakautuhia e au i tera patai. I tutukihia ai era kereme i raro i te Kawanatanga Nahinara. Tuku atu tena patai ki tera ropu. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Yes I answered that question. Those claims were settled under the National Government. The question should be directed at that party. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I patai au i te patai ki te Minita o te Karauna kaore au i patai ki a Nahinara. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
 [ 
I asked the Minister of the Crown the question and not National. 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address the question however. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Na runga i te ahuatanga ko naia tonu nei te wa hei whakamarama i te rangatiratanga Karauna ki nga hau o-runga i raro i te ture a na tenei kua aukatihia te mana o Te Arawa raua ko Tuwharetoa ki a Ranginui e tu nei a na tenei ka taea te ki kaore he mana a ture nga mahi tohatoha tuawhiorangi. Mena kaore he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Given that the Crown stratum is only now being described in legislation and is being used to deprive Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa of their rights to airspace does it make the allocation of spectrum for example illegal; if not why not? 
]  
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Kei roto i te wahanga tuawhitu o te Pire o Te Arawa me ana roto ka puta te korero kua tautokohia hoki te Karauna te whanaungatanga mai i a Te Arawa ki ana roto katoa. No reira kihai te Karauna kia ki kore kau he mana a Te Arawa ki nga roto. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
There is a statement in Clause 7 of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill where the Crown acknowledges Te Arawa’s relationship to all its lakes. Therefore the Crown does not say that Te Arawa has no authority over the lakes 
].  
Clause 7 of the bill acknowledges Te Arawa’s relationship with all the lakes—including the Crown stratum—defined by Te Arawa as being spiritual traditional economic and cultural. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. E pera ano taku korero ki nga patai i mua. Ko taku patai i hangai tonu ki a Te Arawa raua ko Tuwharetoa me te ahuatanga o te tuawhiorangi. Kaore au i rongo i te whakautu ki tera patai. Tera pea kare i te tika taku rongo kei te inoi atu kia whakautua taua patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
My point of order is the same as for the previous questions. My question was about the spectrum as it referred directly to Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa. I did not hear the response to that question. Perhaps I did not hear it properly; would the Minister answer it please? 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I heard it the member did address the question. If he wishes to add any more to the answer he may do so. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Na te mema ke tera korero i whakamarama. Ehara ko Te Arawa. That is the member’s interpretation of Te Arawa’s relationship with the lakes not Te Arawa’s interpretation. 
Health Services—Workforce 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied with the health workforce; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 New Zealand has a hard-working world-class and growing health workforce. There are 5000 more doctors and nurses working in our public hospitals than there were in 1999. This Government wants to do even better however and I have today announced a new task force to progress and finalise a series of changes to medical training. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he seen the concerns of the surgical workforce and others reported widely today that district health boards have been culling patients without specialist clinical input and can he guarantee that across the country patients have been culled from waiting lists under clinical supervision rather than being culled by a hospital manager more accountable to the Government’s political objectives than to patients’ health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen reports of that nature and I have also seen reports in the media correcting the facts. In Canterbury the Canterbury District Health Board has encouraged specialists to talk to their colleagues in primary care and will continue to do so. Members may recall public notices issued jointly by the district health boards and primary health organisation providers which is further evidence of improving linkages between the primary and secondary sector in Canterbury. 
Maryan Street 
: Has he seen any reports on respect and support for New Zealand’s health workforce? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report today that a doctor with 30 years’ experience as a cardiologist along with the Dean of Medicine at Auckland University along with two professors of nursing with over 60 years’ combined experience and further a former president of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners have been attacked by Tony Ryall and the National Party as “do-nothing bureaucrats”. The new members of the workforce task force are some of New Zealand’s most well-respected health professionals and I find Tony Ryall’s lack of respect for them appalling. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer that he gave two questions ago which suggested that he believes that the surgeons are lying when they say they were not involved in the culling of patients from Canterbury and what would he say to that surgical workforce which says there has been no clinical basis to the waiting list cull and that patients will die as a result of the Government-ordered data cleansing of waiting lists—a view that has been supported by specialists and managers around the country today? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yesterday the Canterbury District Health Board publicly apologised to patients and staff as a result of the way some patients have been referred back to general practitioners. They apologised for the way they have been referred back so that would suggest that in some cases there have been difficulties but the corrections to the allegations made yesterday morning do stand and are valid. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does not the Minister admit that the waiting list cull is not about health is not about patient care and is not about clinical safety—it is all about cynical manipulation of the waiting list to claim some sort of pathetic credit; and is not that the reason why the surgical workforce around the country is nearly unanimous this week in its criticism of the Government and now the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists members of the Council of Trade Unions have accused this Minister personally of political indifference a preoccupation with data cleansing and arrogant political interference? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No one can argue that this Government has not invested heavily in health. No one can argue with the fact that under this Labour-led Government we have 5000 more doctors and nurses working in our public hospitals. No one can argue with the fact that we have built more public hospitals than any Government in New Zealand’s history. We are proud of our record in health and we will keep working with health professionals to add to our successes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How will replacing the Health Workforce Advisory Committee with a new health workforce task force fix the staffing crisis; and surely after 40 reports visions strategies and surveys and 7 years this Government could give the country some action on our workforce crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will remind the member that in attacking the series of reports that have been produced over the past few years he is actually attacking the health professionals and medical and nursing organisations that have prepared them. What happened was that we came out of the 1990s and therefore—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. It is impossible to hear. Would members please keep it down so that other members can hear the replies. It is almost as though members do not want to hear the replies. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will remind the member that in attacking the series of reports that have been produced over the past few years the member is actually attacking the health professionals and medical and nursing organisations that have prepared them. What is more those reports were needed because coming out of the 1990s there was a view about that the Employment Contracts Act would do it and that planning for workforce was a wrong-headed idea. That is why this country ran out of radiation therapists and dental therapists and why we had shortages all over the place. This Government is progressively addressing those things because we do not have a free-market approach to the health workforce of this country. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Has the Minister seen his ministry’s latest breast-screening data for women aged 45 to 49 years of age which shows that only one woman in five has actually been screened—which is exactly what the previous Minister of Health was told would happen—and what will he do to sort out the health workforce crisis so that women are not at risk of dying of breast cancer? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The number of women with breast cancer is climbing very quickly. In the area of 45 to 49-year-olds it is climbing much less quickly but that is because this Government extended the breast screening to two separate age groups and as a result of that more women now have more testing for breast screening than ever before and more women are being protected by the early detection of breast cancer than ever before. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the full-time emergency ambulance workforce in places like Horowhenua where numerous emergencies are attended by single-crew ambulances—with one example being when a Levin patient with severe chest pains remained in an unstable condition all the way to Palmerston North Hospital with no one monitoring the patient—and will the Minister now acknowledge that lives are being put at risk as there are single-crew ambulances all over provincial areas of the North Island and what will he do about this extremely urgent health workforce issue? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From memory approximately— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members ask questions on the assumption presumably that they want answers. So would they please allow the Minister to answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: From memory 82 percent of all ambulance services are double-crewed and 18 percent are not. This is a somewhat significant improvement on what occurred during the 1990s and as years go by we will improve the services still further. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the document “Meeting the challenges: Health workforce development plan 2000: September 2000”. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the document “Cancer screening programmes workforce development strategy 2001”. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the document “Health Workforce Advisory Committee annual report: Minister of Health 2001”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the document “The primary health care and community nurse workforce survey 2001”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the document “The rural general recruitment and retention in New Zealand report to the Minister: a first phase of analysis of surveys to assess the fluctuations in the workforce 2001”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Well I also seek leave to table the documents “New Zealand annual rural workforce survey 2001” the “Clinical training agency strategic intentions 2002” the “Health technicians training 2002” the second annual report of the Health Workforce Advisory Committee 2002 the “Mental health workforce development framework 2002” the annual rural workforce survey of 2002 “The New Zealand health workforce: a stocktake of capacity 2001” the New Zealand health workforce “Framing Future Directions” discussion paper 2002 the “Disability workforce analysis report 2003”  
The New Zealand Health Workforce: Future Directions — Recommendations to the Minister of Health 2003 
  
The New Zealand Health Workforce: Framing Directions Analysis 2003 
 the “Clinical agency strategic intentions 2004” the “Disability support services survey provider survey 2004” the “Health workforce”—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that was a service provider survey from 2004— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just read what is to be tabled please. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Well Madam Speaker I am tabling them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Continue please. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The “Health workforce fourth annual report 2004” the “Health workforce”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: This is a list; there is just one question—the “National screening unit workforce development action plan” the “NZER ageing New Zealand health and disability demand projections report” the “Pacific development report”—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I do not think that Mr Peters is interjecting on a point of order because he would not behave like that—the “Disability support services survey 2005” the “Health Workforce Advisory Committee 2005”—there is not long to go—the “Health Workforce Advisory purpose and practice 2005”— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is on a point of order at the moment. The member will finish the point of order. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: —the “Strategic principles 2005” the “Care and support discussion paper 2006” the “Health workforce advisory fit for purpose and practice advice to the Minister 2006” the “Health workforce advisory national guidelines environment 2006” the “Health workforce summary of the national guidelines for the promotion of healthy working environments” and—the latest—the “Terms of reference for the new health workforce task force”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have never ever seen in my career in this House any member of Parliament abuse the House in that way with regard to what is a very special privilege: the right to publish documents that are usually—not in every case—not known to the public and have not been published. In this case every document is public and the member just sought to waste the House’s time. It is 1½ hours since we started question time we have got to question 6 and he tries that trick. What is so special about the National Party? The rest of us have certain rules we have to abide by. I think it is deadly serious that National members can with all the concern that has been expressed by members of other parties in this House today and before get up and carry on in the same darn way. Frankly Madam Speaker if they are going to behave like that I do not think a Minister has any obligation to reply at all. Not just one person interjected but about 12 people did at once. I do not think they should be allowed to carry on as though they are something special. They have lost three elections in a row. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that that was a point of order. Members on quite frequent occasions seek leave to table documents that are in the public arena. The only other comment I would make is that if members do not wish to hear the answers to questions then obviously it will be up to the discretion of the Minister whether to give them one. 
Nathan Guy 
: I seek leave to table the July travelogue from the pre-hospital care union which documents 16 shocking emergencies—that is one every second day—attended by single-crew ambulances in Horowhenua including the transporting of a manic psychiatric patient to Palmerston North Hospital. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Does the Minister of Health believe that the list of documents just read by the member opposite and ridiculed were valuable pieces of information that the public should see prepared and that those documents were in fact a useful use of health professionals’ time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is from that sort of effort that we have seen a very significant increase in Pacific Islanders in the New Zealand workforce a significant increase in Maori in the New Zealand workforce and a significant increase in the provision of breast-screening services throughout New Zealand. It is why we have ended up with more people in ambulances it is why we have improved our mental health workforce and it is why we have more than 5000 extra nurses and doctors in our health system since the change of Government. That is the difference between a Government that does something and a Government that does nothing. 
Gulf Cooperation Council States—Free-trade Negotiations 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: Has he received any response to his approach earlier this year to the Gulf Cooperation Council States to open negotiations for a free-trade agreement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Yes. Foreign Ministers from the six countries that make up the Gulf Cooperation Council—Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Oman Kuwait Bahrain and Qatar—yesterday agreed to begin negotiations with New Zealand on a free-trade agreement. Scoping discussions for the negotiations will begin in the next couple of months. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have some order in the House. 
Jill Pettis 
: How important economically to New Zealand will a successful outcome to these negotiations be? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There are no restriction now. What are they wasting their money for? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the windbag on the Opposition side of the House can shut up for a moment I will answer his question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that interjections will inspire further interjections but that remark was not appropriate. Will the Minister please stick to the answer. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will answer two questions—one delivered officially and one by interjection. Firstly New Zealand exports merchandise goods to the Gulf Cooperation Council States to a value of approximately $720 million. That makes those States collectively about the same size as an important market like Germany to New Zealand. Secondly— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right; there’s no restriction. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To answer the member who keeps interjecting I say he does not know what he is talking about. There are tariff restrictions; he should do his homework instead of just mouthing off and wasting the time of the House. The agreement is important because it will strengthen and protect the competitive position of New Zealand’s exports— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on name three of them! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Time and time again in the House today members have objected to a continuing barrage from members that is not rare and reasonable is against the Standing Orders of the House and is against the Speakers’ rulings. I ask you to enforce those rulings. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker I take you straight to the Standing Order that is about answers to questions. The Minister is trying to make out that somehow there is a massive gain to be made by New Zealand trade people going over there and entering into some sort of arrangement with the Gulf States. There is no— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order Mr Brownlee. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality or content of the answers. However the member is right that if members cannot be heard then one wonders what is the point of continuing with question time. So I ask that the Minister please continue with his answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order goes to the requirements for the answering of questions. Surely Madam Speaker the questions have to be of value to the public—the Standing Orders state they have to be in the public interest. When one knows full well there are no trade restrictions in that part of the world at all and when the Minister cannot stand up and outline one of them—because none exists—I ask what on earth the new public information is in that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the answer and at the end of the question that was asked by the member the continual barrage from Mr Brownlee was that there were no restrictions now. He did not say it once; he said it 10 times. Then to make up for his ignorance he said “name three”—well there are finance residency and employment restrictions for a start; anybody would know that but of course that buffoon does not—but you did not throw him out for his outrageous behaviour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Neither was that a point of order. Could we please continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member may allege that there are no restrictions but I would invite him to talk to Fonterra to Meat and Wool New Zealand to our wood exporters to the Middle East and to iron and steel exporters to the Middle East. He will find that there are restrictions on entry to the Middle East. What is more at the specific request of those organisations we have entered into these negotiations in order to preserve the competitive position of New Zealand exporters. The member should not speak out of such deep ignorance always. 
Jill Pettis 
: Further to the answer the Minister has just given to the supplementary question could he advise the House which New Zealand exporters have shown a particular interest in the negotiation of a free-trade agreement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Dairy products and meat are particularly important exports to the Gulf Cooperation Council. They are facing tariffs of approximately 5 percent. Others countries like those in the European Union for example— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tell us about the non-existent tariffs. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Madam Speaker he is still doing it. He has ignored your rulings previously. He cannot bear not to hear the sound of his own hollow voice and I ask you to ask him to desist. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry—would the Minister please continue. It is very difficult to hear however. If members wish to remain with us for the rest of question time I ask them to respect other members’ right to be heard. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Fonterra and Meat and Wool New Zealand in particular believe a free-trade agreement is necessary to avoid competitors gaining preferential access in this expanding market. But the free-trade agreement will also benefit the forestry horticulture and manufacturing industries. It will also help those emerging industries like information and communications technology construction materials services medical equipment and education. 
Minimum Wage—Labour Department 
8.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she have confidence in the way the Labour Department investigates issues related to the minimum wage; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. I am confident that the department thoroughly investigates all workers’ complaints it receives in relation to breaches of the minimum wage legislation. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In that case can she explain why the weekend media provided additional information about employment relationships and in particular a relationship between Mrs Field and Mr Suriwan that was sufficient to launce a police inquiry but apparently insufficient for her department to investigate employment law breaches? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I have said to the member on a number of occasions if there is any evidence at all that an employment relationship has been established and breaches of the minimum wage legislation or any other employment relations legislation have occurred the department will investigate. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is this Government doing to ensure a fair minimum wage for New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: This Government has raised the minimum wage every year since it was elected to lead the Government in 1999 and it is committed to raising it to $12 an hour by 2008 if economic conditions persist. This stands in stark contrast to the last National-led Government which over 9 years raised the minimum wage by less than $1 in total which is not surprising given that its leader does not even believe there should be a minimum wage. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How is it that the  
Weekend Herald 
 investigation can find out that Mrs Field signed Sunan Siriwan’s immigration documents as the employer and that his visa was granted on the condition of continued employment with Mr Field and why does the Department of Labour not think that that is sufficient for an inquiry instead of just reading the report? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The inference that the Department of Labour has done nothing other than read the Ingram report is completely untrue. The member should know that given that he has written twice to the department and provided not one single shred of evidence of an employment relationship. I have invited the member to provide evidence. The department has invited the member to do so. Why does he not? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Department of Labour aware that the  
Weekend Herald 
 stated: “Mrs Field filled out Samoan immigration employment sponsorship forms promising to be his employer” and why does that not engage the department to make its own inquiries for a change? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I have said if there is any evidence at all that leads the Department of Labour to conclude that there is an employment relationship—including anything that is in the media—the department will investigate. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the same old point of order Madam Speaker. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will have to put members on notice. Those voices I can distinguish—and there are some that are terribly distinguishable in this House—will be asked to leave the next time there is an interruption where a member cannot be heard. Would the Hon Ruth Dyson please start again. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I just repeat my assurance to the House that if there is any evidence at all that an employment relationship existed and that a breach of the minimum wage legislation or any other employment relations legislation occurred as alleged the Department of Labour has indicated it will investigate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Who does the department believe: Mr Williams President of the Labour Party who apparently thinks Mr Taito Phillip Field paid $20 an hour to the Thai workers or Andrew Little President of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union who accepts the truth of the Ingram report that Mr Field’s gross underpayment was unacceptable and they are finding a new candidate for Mangere? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Given that Andrew Little is a highly regarded lawyer and general secretary of a major affiliate to the Labour Party I am sure he has a lot of credibility with his views on matters of law which was not what he was commenting on at all. This is unlike the member who has made a number of errors in his allegations about matters of law both in the House and to the department. Nothing that Mike Williams the President of the Labour Party said on  
Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson 
 or subsequently reported in the paper gave any inclination—let alone evidence—of an employment relationship. It merely referred to the fact that when the job was re-evaluated by an alternative person to Dr Ingram the price that the person doing the work would have then been paid was $20 an hour. There was no evidence of an employment relationship and that is what there has to be for a breach of the minimum wage. The member should know the law. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is it the case then that the Minister completely disbelieves Mr Williams—who apparently heard a fabricated story from Mr Field that he had paid $20 an hour to his Thai employees—or should we believe Dr Ingram who after hearing evidence found that Mr Field paid less than one-third of the proper rate for the job? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the member continues to say things that are not true about the report or about quotes from the president of the Labour Party it does not make them the truth. What the member is alleging is not factually correct. The Ingram report stated nothing about payment of less than the minimum wage; it mentioned a contract less than the market rate. Mike Williams said that at the re-evaluated price for the contract the worker would have been paid $20. Neither Dr Ingram nor Mike Williams said anything about an employment relationship. Misrepresenting the truth is not a good way of progressing the debate may I suggest. 
Unemployment—Predictions 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received in regard to the future of New Zealand’s unemployment rate? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a report that states: “Labour’s claim that it can bring the unemployment rate down to 3 percent is also a hoax on all the people who think if they voted Labour they would get a job.” That was Bill English in 1999 when the unemployment rate was running at double the current record low rate of 3.6 percent. No doubt National also agrees with ANZ chief economist Cameron Bagrie who told Radio New Zealand on 11 August that maybe in order to curb inflation it would be better if unemployment rises. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What other reports has he seen where commentators have just got it wrong? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to see a report in the  
Timaru Herald 
 today that corrects the misleading statements of National’s Jo Goodhew. Although Labour has reduced the number of people on benefits in Timaru from 5085 under National to 3564 now—a reduction of 1521 clients or 30 percent—Jo Goodhew was telling her constituents the complete opposite of that. Instead of celebrating success it is sad that all National can do is misinform people and bag New Zealand at home and abroad. 
Justice—Delays 
10.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I do not agree with the member’s assertion; it depends on who caused the delay and for what purpose. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister justify his answer in the House on 29 August that this Government is “doing heaps” by increasing the number of High Court judges in Auckland and Wellington only and only by three; and how does this help the High Court in Christchurch where the median waiting time for trials has ballooned from 143 days to 203 days or the High Court in Gisborne where it has gone from 109 days to 262 days—or are Christchurch and Gisborne at the bottom of the heap and not considered for his queue reduction strategy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The increase in the number of High Court judges represents a 10 percent increase. While it is true that High Court cases have increased by approximately 63 percent over the last 5 years in actual fact the waiting time has increased by only 20 days. Many courts have in actual fact had a decrease. The member picks and chooses her statistics. 
Martin Gallagher 
: In terms of the previous answer what is the Minister doing to review and improve court processes and how does that compare with work done previously? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This Government has invested substantially in courts. We have put $165 million into them. We have tidied up court buildings we have built new courts and we have put in an information technology structure. It is completely different from the case we inherited where we had a paper-based system dilapidated courts underfunded courts an inadequate numbers of judges inadequate staff and no staff training. We have made a dramatic turn-round. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can the Minister expect us to believe that “the challenges are being addressed” or “staff numbers have increased” when in the South Island court staff numbers have not increased by one person at all for 3 years—or is access to justice in the South Island not a priority for this Government? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I can justify it quite easily by pointing out to the member that of the many good statistics criminal summary cases across New Zealand have decreased by 20 percent. Secondly if the member was watching she would have seen that I put out a press statement recently saying that the number of staff in the Christchurch court has been increased. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: How can he justify his answer in the House on 29 August that “It is very easy to go and find a court here and a court there that has an increase in its queue.” when median waiting-times for High Court jury trials in each and every South Island High Court have increased; and how can 100 percent of South Island High Courts be brushed off as “a court here and a court there”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: In terms of High Court cases outstanding in the civil jurisdiction Rotorua has had a reduction of 55 percent Timaru a reduction of 50 percent Napier a reduction of 41 percent Dunedin a reduction of 40 percent and Palmerston North a reduction of 22 percent—I could go on. There are substantial reductions in many many registries including in the South Island. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Which statement does the Minister stand by: the one he made in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 of 18 August that “Better use was being made of settlement conferences and mediations in civil matters” or his response to written question No. 11333 provided on 31 August that “Mediations in Civil proceedings occur outside the Court system. The number and proportion of civil proceedings settled by way of a mediation is unknown …”—or does he just not know? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member confuses both of the issues. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Is mediation then just another euphemism for dumping cases off the court waiting list or will cases be referred back to the lawyer no doubt for further legal action on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mediation is a very important tool in resolving issues and very often cases are resolved in mediation without the cost of a lengthy trial and to the satisfaction of both parties. If there is no satisfaction the case goes to trial. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the Magna Carta. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I seek leave to table an article in today’s  
Timaru Herald 
 entitled: “Goodhew accused of misleading electorate”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the Bill of Rights 1688 which the Minister of Justice has today repudiated. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Chlamydia—Control 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports indicating that the chlamydia epidemic may be much more widespread than previously estimated; if so does he intend to increase surveillance on chlamydia? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have received a report on chlamydia from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The report states that the total number of confirmed and probable chlamydia cases has increased a lot—by almost 40 percent if one looks at reports coming in from sexual health clinics and it has almost doubled if one looks at reports coming in from family planning clinics and student and youth health clinics. That is in the 5-year period ended December 2005 and is quite a big increase. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How often does the ministry review the list of notifiable conditions and is there any intention to make chlamydia a notifiable disease; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know the answer to the first question. Making chlamydia notifiable in my view is not the most important thing to do. I think the most important thing to do is to increase surveillance as the member suggested in her primary question. There is some indication that some of the tests may not be as good as they could be; so we have to look at that. Then we need to progress the treatment. This disease is easily treated. A person needs to take two tablets once. In the case of sexual health centres those tablets are available on site; no prescription is needed. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister in line with historical and international precedents put in place statistical capture to establish whether a link may exist between the chlamydia epidemic and the re-emergence of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases and the legalisation of prostitution; if not will he act on this suggestion? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member draws a series of long bows but the short answer to his question is no. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would he concede that his ministry should at least put in place routine antenatal testing for chlamydia in order to protect new-born babies against the unnecessary risk of eye and lung disease? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I do. I think that where an expectant mother accesses general practitioner services—for example in the first triennium—chlamydia testing is close to routine. The problem is that not all pregnant women do access their general practitioner which is why maternity services are under review and a discussion paper is being looked at now. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action if any has his ministry taken following the recommendation of the Family Planning Association at the conclusion of a screening pilot funded in part by the Ministry of Health that routine screening for chlamydia should be made available? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Routine screening for chlamydia is available. The question is whether it should be opportunistic or whether it should be left to the individual. It seems to me that there is a case for moving it to opportunistic by which I mean that a person is offered chlamydia screening proactively even though the person fronted up to the doctor or the sexual health clinic for some other reason. 
Local Government—Auckland Reform 
12.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Does she stand by her statement on the radio yesterday regarding local government reform in Auckland that “I don’t want to spend time on reorganisations. They take a huge amount of time.”; if so why? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 Yes I do as a personal view having been through the reorganisations in 1989. However I also support any move that will help Auckland to become an internationally competitive world-class city and any initiative for reform needs to come from wider Auckland. 
John Key 
: When the Prime Minister meets with the four Auckland City mayors today will she be saying to them: “I don’t want to spend time on reorganisations. They take a huge amount of time.”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Prime Minister has already met with the Auckland mayors. What I will say is what I have been saying for the last 15 years that I have been in Parliament: having seen the amount of time that reorganisations of local government take I would prefer that we had one plan and got on with it to fix Auckland. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What actions has the Government taken to assist Auckland local government? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: We are working closely with Auckland local government business and communities. For example we have invested heavily in land transport. We are spending more than $7.3 billion on Auckland roads and public transport in the next 10 years—over $559 million this year alone. We have embarked on New Zealand’s largest State highway building programme. We have worked with Government and Auckland leaders to launch a vision aimed at achieving a common view of transport projects in Auckland because we recognise that Auckland must be a world-class city if it is to help New Zealand to meet its prosperity potential. 
John Key 
: Is it not the case that her stated position is the complete opposite of the Prime Minister’s who was reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as hinting that the Government will consider reducing the number of Auckland councils and as saying that stronger government at the regional level will help to push the city forward; is it not also the case that her position is completely opposite to that of the Minister of Finance who was also reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as saying there is a strong indication that central government would be prepared to give the process of centralisation in Auckland a big shove; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No because the Prime Minister has also said that we need to keep the “local” in local government. Auckland has regional government and there is nothing that could not be done in Auckland now within the present structures. Aucklanders should get on with it. I am really concerned at the time that is taken for structural reorganisation when in fact what we need is action—which is what this Government is doing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but there are no more supplementary questions for the member’s party. 
John Key 
: I would say “on your butt” but I guess it is a sore point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just get on with the question. 
John Key 
: If my member’s bill on local government reform in Auckland is drawn out of the ballot will the Minister support its first reading; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have not seen that bill. But given the history of the National Party’s contribution to the structural reorganisation of Auckland I would be very surprised if it were a positive move. 
John Key 
: Are we in fact misinterpreting the Minister’s comments that “I don’t want to spend time on reorganisations. They take a huge amount of time.” and did she actually mean that local government reform in Auckland would take a huge amount of her own time; precisely what other commitments does she have that make her such an industrious and overstretched Minister? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: One of the roles I have taken as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues is to meet with every territorial local authority and with regional government the business community and the voluntary sector. Many of those organisations are calling for reorganisation but many of them having been through the changes in 1989 would prefer just to get on with their work. 
John Key 
: What kind of sinecure is it to be the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues when the Prime Minister is meeting with the four Auckland mayors about the possibility of an Auckland “super city” and she is not even present or invited? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Having been to every one but one of the Auckland Mayoral Forum meetings this year I have made it very clear to Auckland that my job is to facilitate the access of Auckland leaders to the relevant Minister. I have no problem with that. Unlike that member who appears to be usurping the role of his leader I have no leadership aspirations. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill gives effect to the Labour-led Government’s intent of ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment of New Zealand’s most vulnerable employees are protected when their work is restructured. The bill also encourages businesses to utilise existing talent and facilitates productive employment relationships that are built on good faith. This bill will protect specified vulnerable employees such as cleaners and food-catering service workers. The terms and conditions of employment of these specified employees have successively been undermined when the work they do is contracted out passed on to another business sold or transferred or brought back in-house. 
The bill will mark an improvement for employees who deserve to be treated better. They are the mums and dads of New Zealand who work hard to provide for their families. In the past their terms and conditions of employment have been undermined time and time again when the price of their labour is reduced to undercut competitors in restructuring situations. This bill will provide additional protection at the time of restructuring. It does not mean that the specified employees are assured of jobs for life. There are existing mechanisms that can be used when dealing with performance issues in employment relationships. These mechanisms are based on good faith dealing with each other fairly and developing processes to support effective working relationships. 
An employer who is concerned about the performance of an employee should inform the employee of his or her concerns and provide the employee with any support or training needed. Ultimately an employer can dismiss a poorly performing employee if after following a fair and reasonable process poor performance remains an issue. The bill does not affect an employer’s ability to do so. Simply allowing poor performance to continue—and a business consequentially losing the contract—is not effective business practice. This type of practice will not result in the kind of high-performing and productive workplace that is critical to our economic transformation. 
All too often it is claimed that vulnerable employees are poor performers when in a restructuring a new employer increases the amount of work expected while simultaneously decreasing the number of hours within which to do that work. This is typical of the type of cost-cutting exercise that goes on during restructuring situations. This bill will protect employees made vulnerable in restructuring situations from having to bear the brunt of this type of practice by providing for continuity of employment on existing terms and conditions—including for subsequent contracting. 
The effective protection of specified vulnerable employees will happen only if this bill applies to all businesses. Is a cleaner any more or less vulnerable because of the size of the company he or she works for? No. In order to be effective these protections must apply across the board. In line with the rest of New Zealand’s employment law there should be one law for all employers. 
The Government’s policies with regard to vulnerable employees have not changed since additional protection was first introduced in 2004. This bill ensures that the original policy intent of those 2004 amendments to the Employment Relations Act is delivered on. Further this bill aims to clarify that original policy intent. As such it includes examples that describe how the protections will apply in practice. This practical approach will assist in the interpretation of the Act and also in determining how the provisions will apply to a range of commercial arrangements. 
A change made to the bill at the Committee stage will ensure that businesses can make informed decisions about whether to take on work that will be done by employees who are covered by the extra protections. By requiring the disclosure of labour costs to potential new employers the level of protection provided to vulnerable employees will be improved. The vulnerable employees are less likely to be adversely affected as a result of a contractor entering into a new contract to carry out the work those employees currently do and underestimating the labour costs it will take on if the vulnerable employees choose to transfer. 
Potential risks will also be minimised for businesses deciding whether to restructure as businesses will not have to tender blind for contracts to which Subpart 1 of Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act applies. This issue was raised with me by both the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) and Peter Brown of New Zealand First and I thank Mr Brown for his constructive engagement on this and other matters relating to the bill. 
This bill balances protection for those employees who are most vulnerable with rights for businesses that will be subject to additional obligations. The bill does not implement a large-scale shift in employment rights; instead it just delivers on what Parliament intended in 2004. I conclude by thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its diligent work on this bill. The changes recommended have made the bill clearer and more effective. I am confident this bill increases protection for vulnerable employees during restructuring situations which is a time when their terms and conditions of employment are most at risk of being undermined. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill is indeed Labour’s pay-off to its union funders. We have been hearing in this House—and in the last couple of hours in fact—a lot of accusations traded to and fro. Labour members seem to think that they can run this argument that National sells its policies to big business. That is the essence of their argument. Yet here today we are debating in the House real legislation that is a direct pay-off to Labour’s union mates. There is a word for that: some might say it is hypocrisy though I appreciate that that is a word I am not supposed to use. 
This is a classic case of legislation for money. If members opposite are offended by that they have only to look at their links with the unions. The Labour Party actually puts members into the House at the unions’ direction. Let us go through a few of the names. Darien Fenton was put in here by the Service and Food Workers Union last year. Sue Moroney was put in by the Nurses Organisation last year. Mark Gosche was an organiser in the union movement. Rick Barker was another organiser in the Service Workers Union. Ross Robertson was in a rather strange union—a freezing workers union. Paul Swain and the hapless Mr Phillip Field were put in by the union movement. 
Actually Mr Field needs to be worried—the people who put one in can take one out. What have we been reading in the paper today? Mr Little said his union would replace Mr Field. Did members note that it was not the Labour Party that said it would replace Mr Field; it was the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. That is how close the relationship is. The union did not go through the pretence of saying that it thinks the Labour Party should replace Mr Field—no no it stripped away the pretence. What Mr Little actually said quoting him directly was: “We will replace him.” It is as simple as that. 
The Labour Party is in fact the trade union arm in Parliament. That is why we get legislation that represents solely the interests of trade unions. It is worth reflecting on the prayer we say in the House because that prayer says we should act without fear nor favour for anyone and for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Is this bill for the benefit of all New Zealanders? The answer is absolutely not. 
I did listen to the previous speaker the Minister of Labour—although I would have to say it was pretty boring—and the bill apart from being just a straight pay-off is also economically bankrupt. I want to take the House through that proposition. The Minister of Labour in essence says that we cannot have productivity gains in this industry because people have to be offered the same terms and conditions. She also said that it has been a terrible thing that people have been expected to clean more premises more quickly and more efficiently. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the same Minister and the same Government that keep talking about increasing productivity. Does she understand what productivity is actually about? Productivity is about doing more work in the same time. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker will understand this because it is an interest of his. It is not a question of slave wage conditions or anything like that. 
Increases in productivity are about three fundamental things. The first is extra capital going into the business which means more sophisticated more advanced equipment. It means better management practices. In truth in many cases it will be clear from an examination of a work practice or a worksite that if workers did it a different way they would be able to do maybe 30 percent more work. Usually the people best able to see that are new players in the business because that is where the innovative ideas and imagination come from. So productivity increases are also about more effective management techniques. Finally the third component to that is a more highly skilled workforce. That again means more skills and more efficiency—doing more work in the same time. 
If we say that it is a terrible thing that people are required to do more work in the same time it is kind of like saying: “Let’s go back to the pick and shovel to build our roads and let’s see how long that will take.” It is remarkable. I look around Auckland and I acknowledge that quite a few roads are being built. There are actually not a lot of people doing that. Some of the reasons why are more machinery and more advanced management systems. If we look at the old photographs we see that worksites are completely covered with people and the work probably took longer. 
The Government’s approach to this is fundamentally flawed because it is standing in the way of innovation. It is forcing new firms to take on people on the same terms same conditions and same work practices as previously. That is what “conditions” actually means—the same work practices as previously. One cannot get more cleaning done as in this instance if that is the approach. During the submission period a number of submitters complained about the fact that they now had to clean more rooms and so forth than previously. They went back over 5 years 10 years 15 years and so forth. I say to those submitters—and I said it at the time—in truth work changes. We cannot expect to do today what we did 20 years ago. We cannot expect to have the same work practices. That is exactly what the reforms of the last 20 years were all about. It was all about getting a more efficient faster-growing economy with higher productivity. 
I now want to turn to the issue of the smaller employer and I am sure that other members will see this point. National through Mr David Bennett put forward an amendment to this provision and we expected that New Zealand First would vote for it because it always says that it is the friend of small business. 
Paula Bennett 
: They’re a lackey. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well there it is. My colleague speaks the truth of this today. The leadership of that party are showing themselves to be lackeys. That is not a good space for New Zealand First to be in and it does not want to stay there if its members want to be back here in 2008. 
Labour and New Zealand First have denied the opportunity for small businesses with 10 employees or fewer to provide employment to their families by tendering for work. It is completely impractical for a small employer whose team is intended to do the work to take on all of the staff of the previous team. If small employers are loaded up with redundancy costs they are cut out from having the ability even to tender for the work. That is fundamentally flawed. It is obviously true across the board but it is particularly true of small business. 
National will be voting against this bill. We think it is economically flawed for the reasons I have indicated. More seriously though we are fundamentally opposed to legislation that is a naked pay-off to special interests. This Parliament is not supposed to be under the control of outside interests but that looks to be exactly the case in this situation. For that reason the bill is fundamentally wrong. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 That last part of Wayne Mapp’s speech was quite astounding. What he was actually saying was that people on this side of the House are guilty of caring—of listening to the lowest paid most vulnerable workers in the New Zealand. The people who clean Dr Wayne Mapp’s office every night and the people who feed him in Bellamy’s every day are the privileged workforce of New Zealand because they get to do that for him. The fact is that their employer might change tomorrow—a new employer might come in the next day—and if this law is not passed those people could not be guaranteed the same wages and conditions for doing the exact same job. It does not seem to strike Dr Mapp and his colleagues that it is unfair for that to happen just because an employer has changed. Well we on this side of the House and all the parties who support this legislation believe that the arguments about productivity that Dr Mapp rehearsed are utter nonsense. It was years and years ago when those things were done. 
I explained in my second reading speech about the Auckland Hospital situation where there was one cleaner per ward. The ratio was dropped so that there was one cleaner per two wards then conditions dropped further so that the cleaners did not even get a whole day to do their work in. What better productivity gain could be expected without getting to the situation where the hospital was unsafe? Would cleaners have to keep on giving blood before the members opposite were satisfied? The next stage in the regime—which is of a kind that National wholeheartedly supports—after dropping the number of workers cleaning the hospital then dropping the number of hours they could take to clean it was to pay the cleaners even less. They now work for roughly the same amount of take-home pay as they did in 1990 because their penal rates have gone their overtime rates have gone and their allowances which actually built up their earnings have gone. As a result even though they have had hourly wage rate increases through the last 15 years many of them are still earning the same as they did in 1990. They are the parents of the future. They are the Maori Pacific and Asian workforce who have come to this country—or in the case of Maori who have been here for ever—and actually make our economy survive. But National’s recipe for them is to punish them some more—to not pass this law to not protect their rights as workers. National would allow those multinational companies—and there are about four or five of them; all are multinational—to screw those workers harder. That is National’s recipe which we reject. 
Labour says that if a worker turns up to work tomorrow and his or her boss has changed because the contract has changed that worker should not lose money or conditions. If workers are working hard and doing the job why should they not get the same pay tomorrow as they do today when they are doing exactly the same work and to the same standard? If they are not doing the job they can be disciplined and the workforce can be changed. 
But this is not the case. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from workers who had been at Wellington Hospital for something like 15 or 16 years and they had been through six different employers. Many of those employers were absolutely hopeless at doing the job. Their management was so bad that the hospital kept flicking them out. But the workers remained there stock standard every year. The promise of better management techniques and greater productivity was a lie told to those people. 
We do not want a country where our most vulnerable most hard-working and most reliable people are actually punished under law as National would have it. That is why I am extremely proud to be part of this Government and to repay those people who keep us healthy in hospital who look after us when we are old and who clean our schools so that our children have clean schoolrooms. They certainly require a payback from this Government for the work they do and they are getting it with this legislation. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and I would like it to be noted that this is the 15th amendment this Government has had to put through on the Employment Relations Act which was rushed through in the year 2000. The Government was keen to rush that measure through at that time but from talking to businesses in the uproar that happened I know that businesses spoke loudly and said no they could not have it go through. They said it would be detrimental to businesses detrimental to productivity and detrimental to what they were trying to do. 
For once Labour actually backed off because the polls started to go down and as we know that is completely and utterly how Labour is run. Labour is not run on the basis of principle or on what it is trying to achieve; it is run purely on what the polls say that day. So Labour backed off and said that it would not put this measure through. But now here it is a few years later deciding that it will not listen to businesses. Labour does not particularly care about productivity so it is trying to put this bill through now even after hearing time and time again of the effects it could have on small businesses in particular. 
I suppose this is an opportunity for me to speak on behalf of my colleague David Bennett who tried to put through an amendment that would have helped 2300 cleaning businesses. We have been hearing about vulnerable workers—and no one denies them their rights—but how about vulnerable businesses? How about those people who get up on a daily basis and struggle? How about the family-owned businesses—the very cleaners whom we were just hearing about—who have taken a bit of a risk and a gamble and who have taken on the contract themselves? They are not big businesses; they are not making a lot of money. But they are working for themselves and their families and they are going out there every night just as the other cleaners are. 
No one denies those people the opportunity to try to grow their business a little and perhaps to take on another contract. Yet under this legislation they will have to employ the workers from the previous contract. It is as simple as that. So a family business that wishes to employ its family members will not be able to employ them—and that is just wrong. During the select committee process the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee certainly heard from cleaners and we certainly heard from people who work for health boards as Mark Gosche the previous speaker said. No one in that room was without sympathy for what those employees had been through with six different employers and their working conditions being changed. We were pretty keen to see those wrongs put right. But when a big stick is taken to fix a very narrow problem that affects detrimentally many other businesses. How can that be good for New Zealand? How can that be good for the people whom we are telling to get out there and give things a go? 
Why would cleaners in one of those businesses actually take a bit of a gamble and put in for a contract themselves? Why would people get a bit gutsy and think of actually putting themselves out there trying to do something taking a risk and taking the next step when all that will happen is that they will be kicked down by this legislation and this Government? This Government tells people there is no point in their doing that because they will not to be able to employ whom they want anyway. They will not be able to run their business in the way that they wish to because the Government is Big Brother—Big Sister—and it knows what is best for them. This legislation will not work. 
I think we need to look back at the amendments to the principal Act and at what has happened since 2000 when it was passed. The effect of the Holidays Act has been to have businesses shaking in their boots. A survey showed that 74 percent of them said the Holidays Act has drastically increased their costs. Yet here we go putting through another amendment that will just make the situation worse for them. The Otago District Health Board for example said it had a $520000 increase in wages and employment costs last year. That $520000 did not go directly to the patients who needed it. It did not even go into the workers’ pockets necessarily. It merely went into the bureaucracy of running the health board and the provisions of the Holidays Act. Air New Zealand is another example. It said it had to put another $17 million into its costs with no hint of productivity increases at all. The Meat Industry Association said that 39 percent increases in sick leave and $17 million more on the bottom line mean the industry cannot employ more people cannot increase wages and cannot support the very workers whom this Government goes on about. 
How can this Government talk about productivity when there has been a 550 percent increase in lost workdays in the last 12 months? Over 32000 person-days of work have been lost because of industrial action. How is that an increase in productivity? I ask the Labour Government how that is good for New Zealand. How are we looking ahead and joining people together to negotiate and come up with answers that work in the best interests of New Zealand? That is the only way we can start to grow. It is the only way we can increase productivity and see New Zealand take the next step which it can do because it has the guts and the right people to do so. It is only mindless legislation that currently holds New Zealand back. 
How can we increase productivity? We can do that by joining people together instead of constantly segregating them under the legislation that we enact. We can say to employers and employees that they both have something invested in seeing a business go ahead. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: A win-win. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a win-win for everyone. If productivity grows wages go up and there are more holidays. We cross over. But instead the Government is pitting one against the other. It is making it nigh to impossible for small businesses to get ahead and accomplish what they want to do for the workers out there. It constantly says to them through legislation like this that it will make their work more and more difficult. 
Another piece of legislation that we are looking at at the moment covers the youth minimum wage. There is a strong argument for increasing it when we hear about youth workers one aged 18 and the other aged 17 who stand next to each other while working together in fast-food chains doing the same work yet being paid different minimum wages. I sat there and by crikey my own head was nodding—I heard the argument from the young people and it was a strong one. Then I sat back and started to think about the issue. I thought about who would be most affected by increasing the minimum wage. Yet again it would be our small businesses. 
Yet again it would be the mechanic who works in Timaru who does not have a huge workforce and does not make a lot of profit and who takes on a couple of 16-year-olds from the local school. Quite frankly they do not help productivity; they do not make him any money. But he wants to employ them for the sake of his community and because he wants to help out the kids at school by giving them a part-time job. So he does pay the minimum wage. But actually that works for everyone. The kids are happy about it because they get the chance to find out whether they like the work and want to be a mechanic. At the end of it there is a good chance that they will get an apprenticeship. The mechanic says he will no longer be able to employ them because it is just too hard for him to do so. He says he keeps being hit time and time again with added costs with added bureaucracy and with compliance issues that he just cannot cope with. 
Let me take the example of the hairdresser down the road who takes on a couple of girls after school—and they usually are girls just as mechanics are usually boys—and on a Saturday morning. During the process of looking at this bill the hairdresser rang and said she could not continue to employ those girls. She does not make any money from them and she is not going home every week with wads of cash in her pocket. Things are getting harder and harder for her and she is not able to keep them on. So we can look at those examples. 
Is there room for some of these changes in big business? Yes but do we constantly have to legislate and bang down on the small businesses that without a doubt are the backbone of our country? We are constantly making it too difficult for those people to achieve what we need them to achieve in order to see New Zealand continue to be the absolutely fantastic country that it is. 
I hope that in some respects this is it. I accept we ain’t got the numbers to see this bill not go through the House today and that Labour has done its work with New Zealand First and has that party on board. But I just ask the Government to stop—15 amendments is enough. I ask it to let small-business people have a go at getting on with what they do—which is running their businesses—and to stop changing stuff and making things more difficult for them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I say to the member who has just resumed her seat Paula Bennett that if she did make any reference to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill at all I missed it completely. She did not know what she was talking about. She sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and listened to submissions yet she does not have a darn clue what the bill is all about. She was talking about the Holidays Act Air New Zealand and goodness knows what else. 
This bill is about vulnerable workers—people who are on the bottom rung of society. They need some help—legislative help. For the member’s enlightenment the Government passed the bulk of the legislation that helps vulnerable workers 2 or 3 years ago. The Minister recognised and acknowledged that. This bill is but to close a loophole—and the member did not even understand that. This bill relates to the  
Gibbs and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 case in Dunedin but I will not go into that now because I do not have enough time. But I urge the member to read a little about what she is meant to be talking about because she is not only letting herself down but also letting the National Party down. 
Three important aspects of this bill went through at the Committee stage and they all went through after a strong effort was made by my party New Zealand First. The first one is that we put the whole thing up for review within 3 years and the Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson and the Labour Government agreed. So if the legislation is wrong and does not deliver what it is meant to deliver it can be relooked at and restructured accordingly. 
The second aspect is far more important. The bill states that there will be full disclosure. I should explain that this bill deals with a contract that has expired and is then up for tender. People tendering for that job will be obliged to take on the workforce of the initial contractor but when they submit their tender they will have access to somewhat detailed information. They will not know every individual’s wages and what have you but they will know the total bill. So they will not be tendering blind and that is fair. Why is it fair? It is because the employees who retain their jobs will retain their conditions. They worked darned hard to get those conditions at a reasonable level and it is not fair by shifting them from one contractor to another contractor that they lose the lot. 
We have heard many examples even tonight and certainly we heard them in the Committee stage of this bill and at the select committee of cleaners—who principally are the people we are talking about—being told they could keep their jobs but they would have to clean more rooms and their hourly rates would go down as well. New Zealand First said we had a low-wage society as it was and we asked what we would be doing for New Zealand society if we kept knocking the guts out of the lowest-paid workers. So we accepted the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 54 which amends the legislation to provide for full disclosure. Had the Government not come up with that there was a question mark over whether we would have supported the bill. 
Another Supplementary Order Paper in my name came as a result of a National Party representation to me. I spoke to the Minister on behalf of the National Party. Those members did not speak to the Minister directly; they came to me. They asked what would happen if the disclosed information changed—for example if the employer increased or doubled the pay after the information had been disclosed. Those members asked whether that would be fair. I said to Mark Blumsky that he might have a point but I read the bill again and I said I did not think that situation could occur. I asked the Minister whether that was a realistic possibility. She agreed with me; she could not see how that situation would occur. But we both thought there could be some devious employers out there who on thinking they would not retain their contract might double the wages of the staff just to make it absolutely difficult. So I produced Supplementary Order Paper 55 in response to the concern expressed to me by Mark Blumsky along those lines. 
One would think that the National Party would have supported that Supplementary Order Paper. Even if it did not support anything else one would think that it would support a Supplementary Order Paper that came about from an idea of one of its own members. But no it did not. However the Supplementary Order Paper got through and it amended the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
As the Minister divulged tonight she received a representation from members of the northern division of the Employers and Manufacturers Association about introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that would provide for disclosure. I thought those were the guys whom the National Party thought it supported. But National members voted against that Supplementary Order Paper. As I say that amendment was very important to New Zealand First. We would not have given our support to this bill had that amendment not been in it. But it is in the bill; thus we are supporting it. 
I will spend the last few minutes I have on the National Party’s amendment. Those members wanted to exclude small employers from this legislation. How dumb can they get? That would have meant that the small employers who employ 10 or fewer employees would be excluded and if their contract was up for tender their employees would not go along to the new employer. If they worked for a big employer they would go over but if they worked for a small employer they would not count. They would lose their work—they would lose everything. They would have no protection whatsoever. 
New Zealand First members are very straightforward people. We said that everything had to be obvious it had to be fair and it had to be in the long-term interests of the people we wanted to protect. It is a sad commentary on New Zealand that vulnerable workers need some protection in this society. They cannot fight competitive market forces; they need to be protected by some legislation. 
This bill closes the loophole in the earlier legislation. It should have been done 2 or 3 years ago when the Employment Relations Act first came in. For that reason and for reasons of fairness New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you very much. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. A couple of months back on International Justice for Cleaners Day I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what level of wage and salary increase he would recommend for cleaners including those who clean our offices here in Parliament. I did not get an answer. I would like to think that if I were to ask that same question again today I would get an answer. Mind you even if Dr Cullen does not want to talk about the low wages that thousands of cleaners food workers laundry workers and caretakers earn in Aotearoa at least this bill will do something to enhance their job security. 
This bill means that every now and then regardless of the yelling and screaming in this House—and the posturing pontificating and the downright bad manners—we can do a decent day’s work. We can actually make a difference. I say that because a decent day’s work is a luxury when we consider some of the terms and conditions many Kiwi workers are faced with. Our cleaners here for example are on low wages and they work really hard spend lots of time away from home and work long and difficult hours. There are often safety issues too especially for women who are working in a large building—sometimes working alone—because often no buses are running when they finish work so they have to walk home. I know that because our cleaners are just leaving here when I come to work early in the morning. 
The attack on a Kelston Primary School cleaner a couple of months ago also shows just how vulnerable cleaners working at night often without security can be. Not only are the working conditions of cleaners poor but they are paid as little as $10.95 an hour and get little recognition for their work. If that is not bad enough they also suffer from a high rate of chemical-induced skin disorders. So doing something to help cleaners’ job security is something to be proud of. 
I recall that just over a year ago while we were hot on the election trail cleaners working for Spotless Services at Kaitaia Hospital went on strike over the poor conditions they faced at Kaitaia Hospital Bay of Islands Hospital and Whangarei Hospital. Their actions brought to the attention of the nation the plight of our most vulnerable workers and their strike brought the media flocking to Kaitaia. They spotlighted the issues of pay poverty penal rates and overtime. 
The Maori Party is happy to support any efforts to protect the rights of vulnerable workers as we now do in our support for this bill. The bill clarifies the protections for workers affected by the sale or transfer of a business or the contracting out of their work. This bill will safeguard terms conditions and continuity of employment for vulnerable workers like cleaners. Without that protection people working for contract companies can lose their jobs through successive contracting. But with this bill in place vulnerable workers will be allowed to transfer their employment terms and conditions to the person who takes over that work. 
I wanted to go back to the situation of the cleaners today because it was really the cleaners and particularly the decision of the Employment Court in  
Gibbs and others  
v 
 Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 that showed up the flaws in the legislation—that vulnerable employees have less protection than ordinary employees. The cleaners’ Clean Start industrial campaign has also helped keep the heat on this issue. They have shown us how hard it is for vulnerable workers to raise their concerns about workloads pay and conditions and do all this while holding down several jobs at shamefully low pay in order to make ends meet. But I also want to highlight the wider group of vulnerable workers—food workers laundry workers caretakers and cleaners—who are contracted in contracted out and often contracted off. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions research shows that contracting and casual work often result in a deterioration of health and safety for workers. 
This bill comes about because the first bill suffered from too much haste to achieve a bad result. Although it was clear that the original Employment Relations Law Reform Bill was intended to cover outsourcing and contracts changes made at the select committee meant that it did not. So as the court said in the Crest Commercial Cleaning case: “The extent to which a court can divine and apply Parliament’s true intended meaning to ill-expressed legislation is at the heart of the case.” The rest is history. Without this bill there are no obligations on new contract companies to offer employment or similar terms and conditions as workers had with the outgoing company. How does that translate on the factory floor? Well it means regular job losses the loss of terms and conditions a reduction in wages and hours increased workloads and the loss of entitlements as demonstrated in discrimination against unionists and the undermining of collective bargaining. 
During the course of this bill we in the Maori Party have done our best to raise scenarios in the House of construction workers in Wellington supermarket workers in Palmerston North and cleaners in Kaitaia. Far far too many of those people are Maori Pasifika or other migrants. Why are we not surprised that poorly drafted legislation often makes already vulnerable workers even more vulnerable? I quote again the findings of the court in the Crest case: “Every week these situations are occurring and every week workers continue to lose their employment their hours their service based entitlements their wage rates.” So having had Parliament declare them the most vulnerable of all workers these cleaners have ended up with the least legal protection of any workers in New Zealand. In the meantime this cycle of employment insecurity and oppression continues. 
Next week we will celebrate the anniversary of the last apartheid test played in this country between the All Blacks and the Springboks. On that same day we will also commemorate the 30th anniversary of the death of Steve Biko a black activist from Azania who was beaten to death by the South African police while being held in detention. On the 20th anniversary of his death President Nelson Mandela said: “It is the dictate of history to bring to the fore the kind of leaders who seize the moment and who cohere the wishes and aspirations of the oppressed.” 
I send my warmest congratulations and solidarity to all those vulnerable workers who have stood on the picket line signed petitions and taken their cases to court in order to put an end to exploitation and oppression. With this bill we also pay our tributes to those cleaners those brickies and those laundry workers who have come to the fore seized the moment and taken the risks knowing that the driving thrust of their work will be to overcome oppression. It is because of them that the Maori Party stands today in support of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Kia ora tatou. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to and support the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which is otherwise known as the “Vulnerable Workers Bill”. I thank the previous speaker Hone Harawira for his support of the bill as well. As he has rightly said it is about job security for the most vulnerable workers in this country. They are the people as he said who work while many of us sleep and who are doing the jobs that many of us do not want to do. 
Many of those people are new New Zealanders who are trying to forge a new life for their families and give their kids a chance in New Zealand. They are working extremely hard as we know. They are laundry workers—people from the Service and Food Workers Union mostly—people working in the aged-care sector caretakers and a whole range of people. Those people are working very very hard and they do a lot to keep the wheels of this country moving and growing so I was absolutely surprised to hear some of the derogatory speeches from the Opposition side of the House. 
I wish to commend this bill and say that it is long overdue—its issues have been around for some time. I am really pleased that the bill is now at its third reading stage and I commend it to the House. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Helen Clark’s achievement will be measured by a number of things in her career. Once the dust has settled on the current mêlée over the pledge card and the immigration rorts the Prime Minister’s achievement will be measured against the achievements of her Government and its stated goals. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh bring it on. Against your achievements in the 1990s! Nil! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Bring it on! I point out for the benefit of Mr Cosgrove that in 1995 Helen Clark said in an address at the New Zealand Trade Centre: “In my lifetime our living standards have slipped from the third highest in the world to 25th today. We are in danger of slipping into the next range of nations like Estonia and Latvia in the sub-OECD grouping which have never reached European living standards.” That is what the Prime Minister said in 1995 and today what are we doing? We are bringing in the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act. That is what we are doing. 
She went on to say in that speech: “We’ve had those living standards but we are losing them and we will continue to unless we can keep our talent at home and create the conditions for rapid growth of new industries.” I want to repeat that because the key point lies at the heart of the goals of this Government. Helen Clark said: “We’ve had those living standards but we are losing them and we will continue to unless we can keep our talent at home and create the conditions for rapid growth of new industries.” 
Six years later echoing this point Michael Cullen made a statement in the 2001 Budget Speech. Dr Cullen said: “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP—a position we have not occupied since 1970.” Dr Cullen figured—quite correctly I would say—that economic growth was the key to raising the living standards for every man woman and child in this country and that includes the vulnerable workers we are talking about in this debate tonight. 
The problem is that economic growth comes from creating an economic framework a framework that encourages entrepreneurs and risktakers to start grow and continue to grow businesses. Guess what! It is those entrepreneurs those risktakers in this country who actually create jobs and keep people in employment. They actually deliver wages to vulnerable workers. Creating economic growth improving everybody’s lot is not helped by putting roadblocks in the way of successful and profitable businesses. It is definitely not helped by putting roadblocks in the way of businesses that are struggling to be successful and that are not profitable. [ 
Interruption 
] I would have thought that Mr Peter Brown who has been an owner of small businesses would understand and would understand correctly. 
So when we look at the goal of getting to the top half of the OECD what can we say? Well after 6 long years we are no closer. This country has not achieved the goals set out by Dr Cullen in that Budget speech early in 2001. If anything we are worse off. Growth is in decline. In the last year we have seen quarters with growth of 0.1 of a percent and negative 0.1 of a percent. How will that help vulnerable workers get their wages up? It will not. 
Interest rates are on the rise. We have seen five interest rate rises in the last few years. The difference between the New Zealand and Australian rates has increased by 7 percent over the last 6 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Let’s talk about unemployment. Oh you don’t want to do that do you? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Inflation is above the Reserve Bank target range and I say to Mr Cosgrove that I cannot see how inflation of 4 percent is going to help vulnerable workers right now. Our balance of payments deficit is the worst in decades. More and more hard-working Kiwis are choosing overseas as an alternative place to work. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell me about unemployment. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: This bill is not about unemployment. Unemployment right now is at an excellent level thanks to jobs created by employers. The gentleman across the floor has the cheek to think that the employment position is created by Governments. Let me tell members that the rise in employment in this country is created by small-business people who go out day after day put their money on the line take mortgages on their property invest money in their businesses and create jobs. That is what they do. Employment is not created by Governments and the member should understand that. 
After 6 long years the Government has dampened down its dreams for this nation. As for New Zealand being in the top half of the OECD that dream has gone out the window. The goal of being in the top half of the OECD is not even talked about now. The message now is “economic transformation”. The problem I have is this: what does economic transformation mean? Is it about going forward? Is it about growth? No it is not about getting to a growth position because the Government has given up on that. I am concerned that economic transformation is actually taking us backwards. 
There is a problem: if the Government does not have a goal and if the Government has stopped trying to get us into the top half of the OECD where are we going? If we aim at nothing—guess what—we will be successful every damn time. Here is a quote from last year’s Speech from the Throne: “My government’s overall objective for the next three years is to continue New Zealand’s transformation to a dynamic knowledge-based economy and society … In the last six years my government has sought to lay the foundations for this transformation.” My problem is this: the Prime Minister wishes to continue transformation of the economy but the goal of transformation to the top half of the OECD has gone out the window. Transformation to a Third World backwater is the direction we are closing in on. 
This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill typifies the policy framework at the crux of this Government. This new bill is the type of legislation designed to transform our economy but I suggest that its particular policy will not add one iota of growth to this economy. How will this bill make it easier for employers to employ more employees? How will it encourage entrepreneurs to merge and sell businesses? Sometimes those entrepreneurs’ businesses do not actually work and they get into a position where they have to look at alternatives like merging businesses and taking on other companies. I can tell members that legislation like this will make it extremely difficult for those businesses to go forward. In fact what could happen is that we could get situations where businesses are in trouble and they just end up closing down because things are too hard. They will not even look at merging with other businesses. I ask how this legislation will encourage risktakers and I certainly ask how it will add growth to our economy. It will do neither of those. 
This bill is designed to protect the rights of certain categories of employees in restructuring situations. But it goes far wider: Subpart 2—which originally included section 69P—relates to other employees. Speaking on the National side of the House I have some sympathy for vulnerable workers. If the bill kept its original aim and focused on where it started—on cleaners and catering staff—I would be happy with that. But I had a major problem with the way the bill encompassed the entire workforce in Subpart 2. Section 69P had stated: “The object of this subpart is to provide protection to employees to whom subpart 1 does not apply if as a result of a restructuring their work is to be performed by or on behalf of another person and to this end to require their employment agreements to contain employee protection provisions relating to negotiations between the employer and the other person about the transfer of affected employees to the other person.” 
In a nutshell the bill places severe restrictions on any business looking to buy other businesses to merge businesses or to combine operations. It creates a situation where rather than protect employees it could in fact mean that combinations do not occur businesses close and employees lose their jobs. 
That is why the National Party will not be supporting this bill. Rather we support business in this country; we support opportunities to create a policy platform to take this country forward to push us forward and to help vulnerable workers by growing the country. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I must take my hat off to the wisdom of my three National Party colleagues who spoke on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. They were very aptly able to grasp the nettle and identify the problems that the bill has. Wayne Mapp was very very good and Paula Bennett spoke from the heart on behalf of small business. 
When members look at the bill before us for its third reading—a bill that National is opposed to—they can feel sorry for people who are exploited and there are those people out there. However when we look into the devil in the detail of this bill we see that it also severely beats up a number of those 300000 small businesses. Those businesses which are family-operated and mainly owner-operated do not have the huge capability that is perceived in the minds of members on the other side of the House to throw unwanted discarded people on to the scrap heap. There are also first-time business entrepreneurs who wish to start out to buy a plant and to go in for a contract. They will be turned off by this legislation. I am afraid that in the intent of trying to sort out an issue that does exist this legislation has unfortunately gone to the extreme and is a total disincentive and beats up on small business. 
Paula Bennett 
: How can small businesses survive? 
COLIN KING 
: It will be remarkably difficult. I do not know how they will survive. In an area that I am probably more familiar with—the shearing industry—the legislation just totally defies logic. In fact it cast my mind back to what happened across the Ditch in 1985. The unions were trying to justify their existence and they took to court an issue over the wide comb versus narrow comb affair. The situation was very similar to what we are seeing in the House at the moment where the unions are asking to be paid back for the favours they have given to the Labour Party. They have called in a due on the basis of getting their favours back—“You support us and we will support you.” So the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is really the “Employment and Relationship between the Labour Party and the Unions Amendment Bill”—a bill that does nothing to promote enterprise and productivity in this country. 
It is with great pride that members on the Opposition side of the House speak up on behalf of businesses medium and small— 
Paula Bennett 
: And workers. 
COLIN KING 
: —and workers for that matter. One thing we want to make very clear is that on this side of the House we have a vision. We want to see this country go forward prosper and grow enterprise. I am a great believer in that. I want my children to succeed and I want my grandchildren to succeed. I want to see the people I pick up at 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning when I go shearing be empowered as well. I do not see that this legislation sends the right message—in actual fact it does the absolute opposite. We have a generation of young people out there— 
Peter Brown 
: It would help if you read it. 
COLIN KING 
: —I say to New Zealand First—who are having difficulty making a decision to commit to employment. I was reading a publication stating that Generation Y today needs leadership. If the Government does not carry on beating up on small business it will get a bit of leadership. Members on the Government side need to pull their heads out of their laps and start to think about what will take this country forward. [ 
Interruption 
] The only vulnerable workers we have in this country at this time are those people who are prepared to get off their backsides work hard pay taxes and improve themselves. 
Paula Bennett 
: What do they do with taxpayers’ money? 
COLIN KING 
: They keep spending it. I ask members to think about the wide comb versus narrow comb affair. The unions argued that narrow combs should be used because wide combs gave an advantage to stronger men. What a lot of nonsense that was. 
This bill is a lot of nonsense. It goes far too far. It has been 15 ways to screw a nation. The employment relations legislation was set over here originally but it has been systematically moved to a stage where it has become totally clear that we will regulate regulate and suffocate this nation’s economy. 
But National has a vision. It will take this nation forward and inspire its younger generation to cultivate those wonderful qualities of industriousness and entrepreneurship that we have heard about from speakers on the Opposition side of the House. We will be very proud of the nation. We all want a nation that people who have left already will want to come back to to enjoy the beautiful standard of living— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where is your policy? 
COLIN KING 
: It is a vision at the moment. This bill is a problem and a very bitter pill we have to swallow. It is so unpalatable and is totally unjustified. One of the things that sticks in my throat is that although the bill claimed originally to look after what the Government calls “workers who could be abused” in effect the bill beats up on those 300000 small businesses. 
If one stifles enterprise one stifles vision. National has a vision of where we want this nation to go but it is certainly not built around this ridiculous Employment Relations Amendment Bill which is just hand holding between the unions—paying back deals for elections. I have just about run out of words to describe to members opposite just how pathetic they are. I articulate that National has great satisfaction in speaking up for small business family business first-time business operators and owner-operators. I would hope that after the next election when National is in Government we can provide inspiration and a vision for the young people of this country. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is very important legislation. As my colleague Paula Bennett said in her address this bill is the 15th amendment to this legislation. When the House debated the previous amendment to the legislation we asked the Government why it could not get it right. Yet here we are again debating a bill that hits those people who make investments in our community—the business people. They are the risk takers. They put their money at stake to provide the jobs that communities thrive on. But this bill takes that away from them; it means if people take over a contract be it in catering or cleaning for example they will have to take on existing staff. 
One of the very important issues about employment and people being prepared to invest to grow the economy is that it is a win-win situation. But that will not happen if the environment is rife with employment law Resource Management Act issues Accident Compensation Corporation levies and all those matters that affect small business—and we are a nation of small business with 85 percent of all businesses employing fewer than 10 people. Small business employs 360000-odd people yet this bill will stifle that initiative. There will be absolutely no incentive for small business to grow because a lot of firms will retrench. They will say: “This is too hard for me.” and will downsize. 
I note an issue about contingent liability that did not come up in the Committee stage but is important to identify. If people want to sell their business there is a contractual arrangement between the purchaser and the vendor to do whatever. But with these contracts there is a contingent liability to take on the existing staff. No business will want to do that. If we value a business we will find there is absolutely no goodwill in it because of the contingent liability that a potential purchaser will have to undertake to abide by the legislation. 
Colin King 
: Who would take the risk? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: My colleague Colin King asks: “Who would take the risk?”. He has been in business. He knows what it is like to be an employer of staff. If we want a growing vibrant economy in which there is investment opportunities for small business to grow and to invest in the community—to make it all work—this sort of repressive legislation does not do anything to facilitate that. Who misses out? At the end of the day it is the employees who miss out. The real people whom one would expect legislation would try to protect are the ones who miss out. 
This bill is very short-sighted. I note as someone who has been involved in employment for many many years that this is the sort of legislation that stifles initiative and makes things more difficult for those people whom we should be trying to help to nurture so that we get a win-win situation in a business environment. Then everybody can prosper with it. But as soon as restrictions are put on and things are made difficult for employers they will ask why they should bother. They will take their money and shoot through or put it into other investments that will not create jobs. They will be passive investments. They will probably put their money into real estate which has seen a boom. In the area where I come from median prices have gone up. There is a lot of capital gain to be made so businesses will decide not to bother about the risks of employing staff. They will move away from that environment and put their money where they know they have a safe return and do not have to worry about facing the employment challenges caused by the Government continually changing the rules and moving the goalposts. 
This legislation makes things very very restrictive for business and does not help the vulnerable workers whom the bill purports to try to help. It does not help them at all. Those people who do the employing those who make the investment want a return on it. We know there have been sharks out there but they have been sorted out. This bill will not allow people who want to build goodwill to do so. This is the 15th attempt at making changes. 
Economies with growth and productivity are economies where employers and employees can nurture the value of that investment. Be it capital on the one side or labour on the other it becomes a win-win situation. Legislation like this which stifles initiative will not work. Employers will be looking very closely at this; I can tell members that. They will not be taking on those sorts of contracts where vulnerable workers are likely to be working and we will find that there is a huge shortfall in those areas. 
This bill is not good law. It will not help the people it is designed to help. Employers as those who make the investment will be very disappointed with this legislation. It is short-sighted and it is very one-sided and that is why National is voting against it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I think it is pertinent to remind members of at least one aspect of the bill that is important which is the fact that it will protect specified vulnerable employees such as cleaners and food and catering service workers. The terms and conditions of employment of those specified employees have successively been undermined where that work—and they do work—is contracted out or passed on to another business the contract is sold or transferred or the work is brought back in-house. 
Some of the speeches we have heard here this evening from members of the Opposition betray any talk of their caring for those members of the workforce or any other workers for that matter with crocodile tears— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Stop making it up! 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: —and the kinds of throw-off comments that the deputy leader of the National Party chooses to make by interjection. Those members do not give a stuff about the workers of this country—they never have! What have their speeches consisted of? They want to think about the business people alone. What about the people who clean the office of that member opposite? In fact those workers look after us all here in Parliament. This is the kind of achievement a bill like this put forward by this Government can make for the real workers in this country. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I too would like to take a short call in support of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and really get back to its intention in terms of offering protections to vulnerable workers. What does that really mean? It means that vulnerable workers such as cleaners and those who work in food services will be allowed to continue to receive their terms and conditions of employment on transfer. 
It is important that they continue to receive their terms and conditions of employment on the transfer of their employment because so often in the past we have witnessed the employers of those workers—many of whom have worked in excess of 15 to 30 years—go into a liquidation situation and those workers have lost their service-related entitlements overnight. There would be no redundancy and no reason at all for doing that other than that the contractor has gone broke. So this bill represents a huge change in ensuring that those protections are in place. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Bill read a third time. 
Business of the House 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Under Standing Order 71 I move  
That Government order of the day No. 2 for the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill be postponed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Order of the Day Discharged 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In accordance with Standing Order 71 I move  
That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be discharged. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that it can be done only by leave. So the question is— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will read you Standing Order 71(1): “An order of the day may be discharged or postponed—(a) on motion without notice or”—and this is the salient point—“(b) by the member in whose name the order stands informing the Clerk accordingly.” That means anyone. There is no restriction here on the moving of that motion and I so move. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. I understand it can be discharged only if it is called and the bill has not been called. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: With all due respect Mr Assistant Speaker can you point to the Standing Order that says that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The practice is a convention of the House and it has been for some time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Assistant Speaker with all due respect it used to be a convention that people had to wear morning suits in this House—that changed because someone stopped wearing one. To say that the Standing Orders are subject to the whim of the day is quite wrong. This is a Standing Order that does not disempower any member from moving accordingly. National Party members know why the Government has taken this action today and we do not like it. The Standing Orders are not there for the Government; they are there for Parliament and for parliamentarians. So Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to put my motion. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 In relation to this matter my understanding is that it is in the power of the House to decide whether an item of business is taken. The Minister moved that the second Government order of the day be delayed. The House has voted on that and it has been delayed. Now we should move on to the third Government order of the day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 With all due respect to the senior Labour whip why on earth does he presume that the provisions of the Standing Orders do not apply to all members? What is it that gives the Government members the presumption that the Standing Orders are there only for them? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 There is one point that the member overlooks—you have ruled Mr Assistant Speaker. You are in charge here not him. Until that changes he cannot change the rules. As I understand it you have ruled and he is challenging your ruling. He has a course of action he can pursue on that but he cannot challenge your ruling. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker if I was challenging your ruling then presumably you would have ruled that only the Government can use Standing Order 71. If that is what you have ruled then let us get that in writing and let us make that the new rule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. The motion is out of order. An order of the day can be discharged only if it has been called. A simple motion to discharge can be moved only by the member in charge. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 With respect Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is this a point of order? I have actually ruled Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: You have told me what you understand the rulings are but you do not make any reference to the Standing Orders to back up your position. [ 
Interruption 
] The member on the other side of the House says that I am challenging the Speaker. I am not. I am protecting the rights that members of Parliament are granted under the Standing Orders that we all agree to operate under. I say to Mr Cosgrove that no one member of this House is more or less elected than anybody else and we cannot have the Speaker deciding that the Standing Orders are there for the exclusive use of the Government. That is not what the Standing Orders say. I cannot find a Standing Order that states that an item on the Order Paper can be discharged only if it has been called and I cannot find a ruling in  
Speakers’ Rulings  
to that effect so they cannot exist. All I am asking is that my motion which is properly put is considered by the House. 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 The discharge of a bill is quite a serious issue and to do it without any consultation with any other party is a very serious issue. New Zealand First members would have listened more intently to Mr Brownlee or taken him a bit more seriously if he had had the courtesy to come and talk to New Zealand First beforehand. We are in no position to say one way or the other whether New Zealand First is united on what he wants and I suggest that that applies to all the parties. I think Mr Brownlee should respect the convention of the House that one deals through the whips to put an issue to the respective parties. Then he might get a more harmonious answer. To ask us to discharge a bill just because he has stood up and asked us to do so is really not acceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: May I speak to that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may speak to it then I want to raise another issue with the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The option is there of course for New Zealand First if it does not know what to do to abstain when the motion is put. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to page 164 of the third edition of  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 by David McGee. Under the heading “Discharge on motion” it states: “An order of the day may be discharged on motion. Such a motion does not require notice and is moved immediately the order of the day is called by the Clerk.” That is where we are now. I now call on Government order of the day No. 3. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled Mr Brownlee. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
Discharge 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That Government order of the day No. 3 be discharged 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have moved a motion. I moved that Government order of the day No. 3 be discharged. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can move that. He must provide I understand for what is called the freight of the bill. Only the member in charge of the bill can move its discharge and he must provide an avenue for its referral back to a select committee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 71 “Discharge or postponement of order of the day” states: “(1) An order of the day may be discharged or postponed—(a) on motion without notice or (b) by the member in whose name the order stands informing the Clerk accordingly.” Why would there be an “or” there if—I will wait until you have finished Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that the member can move that motion. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be discharged. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be discharged. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Tabling of Documents 
Standing Orders 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 62. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table Standing Order 63. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table Standing Order 64. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table Standing Order 65. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table Standing Order 66. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
PETER BROWN (Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is getting ridiculous. Why do we not table the whole book? I seek leave to table the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Standing Order 67. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At what point will this conduct of Mr Brownlee’s be deemed by the Speaker to be first trifling with the Chair second bringing the House into disrepute and third causing disorder and at what point will you eject Mr Brownlee from the House for being guilty of all of those things? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. I heard what you said. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Speaker’s ruling 128/1. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 20/1 refers to behaviour that is trifling with the House. I suggest that Mr Brownlee’s behaviour by repeatedly seeking to table particular Standing Orders is disorderly and that under that ruling you may wish to reflect on that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Speaker’s ruling 20/1 states: “Constantly raising trifling points of order is itself disorderly.” Mr Brownlee has raised a number of points of order. So far the House has chosen to ignore them by not giving the member leave. The member is raising trifling points of order. To continue to raise them is in itself disorderly. The member will desist. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made a ruling on that Mr Brownlee and there the matter ends. If the member continues to raise points of order then he leaves me very little option. 
Points of Order 
Orders of the Day—Standing Orders 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would be kind enough to give us an indication of how you view the Government’s practice of without notice deciding to change the Order Paper in order to accommodate its own business. This is a House of Representatives. It is a House where the balance of votes is reasonably finely tuned and members should expect to be able to make their various arrangements around the Order Paper as it is provided by the Government. I realise that today has been a very bad day for the Government. It has to a large extent lost control of the House process through its own clever behaviour but to exacerbate that situation by taking the course of action that it has this afternoon invites the Opposition to use whatever mechanisms are available to it in order to protect the rights of members of Parliament. That is what I am doing. If you want to rule against that Mr Assistant Speaker that is fine. I accept that you have told me that by seeking to table the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings I am trifling with the Chair. It is an interesting decision but none the less I accept it. But I do ask you to reflect on the question I have put in front of you. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The interesting debate we have in front of us here is that Mr Brownlee who it has been suggested is trifling with the Chair is defending himself by saying that to change the Order Paper is somehow something that he should now indulge himself in moral outrage about. I direct his attention to Standing Order 71 which states: “(1) An order of the day may be discharged or postponed—(a) on motion without notice or (b) by the member in whose name the order stands informing the Clerk accordingly. (2) There is no amendment or debate on the question to discharge or postpone an order of the day.” I have been here for 16 years and I have seen that done by both Governments on a number of occasions. If other members have decided they want to cause some disruption in the House it sometimes does result in the kind of thing we have seen from Mr Brownlee but there is no Standing Order that states it cannot be done. Therefore the views I am hearing from members around the Chamber hold water: that this is clearly being done by Mr Brownlee because he personally just does not like it and therefore essentially wants to trifle with the House at this time in order to take up time. The Standing Order is there; he knows that. He has been here for a shorter time than me but a long enough time to know that. Mr Brownlee is the shadow Leader of the House and he understands the Standing Order. He knows it is there; he can read it. So clearly Mr Brownlee is doing what members say he is doing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I am going to rule. I have looked at Standing Order 71. It provides for any member to move the postponement of an order of the day. A Minister did so and the House has agreed that the order of the day be postponed. It is the decision of the House; the House has made that decision. I declare the House in Committee— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee I have made a decision. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes you have and it is an interesting ruling. But we have also learnt today that it is possible for any member to move the discharge of a bill at any time. I cannot think of a Standing Order that could allow the House to become more unruly than that one if every time a bill was called we were to go through that sort of process. There is always in any circumstance a desire to allow a Government to transact its business. But Governments should not ride roughshod over members of the House in the way we have had this afternoon. The Order Paper as far as I can make out was changed about 40 minutes ago. The Government casually said it had given too much leave to the people who were supposed to discuss the Insolvency Law Reform Bill so it would oblige itself by using its parliamentary majority to simply change the Order Paper. That Mr Assistant Speaker cuts right across the rights of other parties to have people in this House participate in debates at a reasonable time with reasonable notice. That is why we have a problem and frankly will continue to have a problem because we do not think it is fair that the Government goes ahead with this proposal. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. You have made your point. Again I refer you to Standing Order 71 and I reiterate that an order of the day may be discharged or postponed. If you look at Standing Order 71(2) you will see that it states: “There is no amendment or debate on the question to discharge or postpone an order of the day.” I now declare the House in Committee for consideration of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
Procedure 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move  
That 
order of the day No. 3 for consideration in Committee of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be postponed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I declare the House in Committee for consideration of— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker that was a motion. A motion is either put or is not accepted. You have just told us you have to accept it so should it not be put? It was not a request for leave. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member is entitled to put the motion. I will put the motion and then the member can have his point of order. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I clarify whether this is a motion without debate or a motion that includes debate? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it is just a motion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That order of the day No. 3 for consideration in committee of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill be postponed.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Tabling of Documents 
Newsletters 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a  
Molesworth & Featherston 
 given out today—the Governor’s edition—that speaks about the markets. It also has something about the economy and a lot about economic surveys— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the  
Trans Tasman 
 which has a number of things in it like “The Nats fire up corruption charges”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Firstly it is disappointing that we are progressing with the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill when many people who would have wished to be here to make a contribution to it are unable to be here because the Government has chosen to accommodate itself with quite an unscrupulous use of the Standing Orders. 
The bill is controversial in some ways because it enables a transfer—or re-transfer—of the ownership of the lake beds to the Te Arawa people. At the very outset of this bill we were confronted with a considerable amount of misinformation about the process that had taken place in the early 1920s. During the course of discussions in the Maori Affairs Committee we were prepared to accept that what we had been told initially was wrong. The problem at the start was that when the 1922 settlement was concluded—and that settlement had been going on for quite some years but was interrupted by World War I—the final deal was done between a lawyer from Auckland who I understand represented Te Arawa but was not of Te Arawa; a lawyer from Wellington who I understand represented the Crown but was also not of Te Arawa; and the Crown’s agent in the settlement the Minister effectively involved Sir Apirana Ngata who was also not of Te Arawa. 
So an imposed settlement was put in place. Te Arawa were to take some £6000 a year as a gratuity paid perpetually. They were to receive a number of fishing licences for the lakes without charge. But the ownership of the lakes was taken by the various councils or embodiments that at the time had responsibility for waterways and other such things. So it was evident in the select committee process that there was always a question about who owned those things. If the issue had to be settled like that in 1922 then quite clearly the presumption must have been that Te Arawa owned the lake beds. That was quite a revelation for us. It was quite an interesting position to come to. 
Then we looked at the proposal that was on the table. The first part of the proposal was that the annuity payable to Te Arawa was to be terminated and replaced by a cash sum of some $10 million. In our view that it is probably the best thing to do because nowadays £6000 is $12000 and no one can do much about looking after anything these days with that amount. But $10 million gives people a chance to move forward. Given that we are discharging a perpetual obligation it is not an unreasonable thing to do for the New Zealand taxpayer and it is a fair thing to do for Te Arawa. 
Then we thought what about the ownership of the lake beds? There the matter became difficult. Te Arawa although represented in the process by the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board is an amalgam of many hapu and many whanau. Interestingly 18 submissions were opposed to this bill and only two or three were in favour of it. Most of those submissions came from Te Arawa themselves. If we are to look at getting past the difficulties of 1922 and the imposed settlement the first thing we would have thought was that the settlor party would at least be united about what it wanted. We looked further at that and found that in other settlements a runanga structure has been put in place where all of the interests had a seat on that runanga structure and could therefore have a say on the way that the particular transferred asset or cash settlement or whatever it was was used for the wider benefit of the settlor party. In this case the trust board does not have a representative of all of those hapu groups. So we had the situation where groups were coming to the select committee and saying they were not part of the trust board but forever and a day a particular one of the 14 lakes has been theirs. 
 So before we even start talking about the issues that arise around the airspace the water column and all the rest of it essentially we have a conflict inside the group known as Te Arawa about whether this claim should be settled in this way. And all I am asking people today is whether that sort of conflict is not exactly why we are here today trying to sort it out. How can we take the 1922 legislation say that it was no good it was not fair it was imposed it was put upon these people and therefore we have to do something about it and then just go through the process to do exactly the same thing again? 
If people were to look at the mandating process for this particular lakes settlement they would find that the census will record that there are some 40000-odd New Zealanders who say they are Te Arawa. But only 9000 people participated in the vote to ratify this particular settlement and of those only 4000 returned their ballot. So 10 percent of the group known as Te Arawa are participants by choice—and not all of them are in favour of it—in this settlement. No one in this Chamber can comfortably stand up and say that this settlement is full final and fair. 
Let me concede that the fair part of it always depends upon the settlor party accepting the settlement. That is why the select committee itself is constrained in these bills. It cannot just go off and negotiate something different. It has to accept what the Office of Treaty Settlements comes along with and says is the deal. So it becomes vitally important that the deal is done with the right people. If anyone who wants to stand up and tell us that he or she is 100 percent convinced that those people who came to the select committee saying that they are being dispossessed by this settlement are of no consequence then let that person do it. But I do not think it is fair to successive generations that we make a hash of this process because where the effort is made to ensure that the right structure is in place—not imposed but chosen by the people who are settling—then we achieve extraordinary successes. We can point to those all round the countryside. 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: Where? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The people who benefit from those successes will be the future leaders of this nation—and I am not surprised that the MP for Te Tai Tonga a man for whom the island Te Waipounamu is a strange and seldom-visited place has no idea of the success around the Ngai Tahu settlement. I am not surprised that the member for—what is it—Te Tai Tonga has no idea what happens in the Tainui rohe for example. He has no idea because the Labour Government has very very narrowly focused members in its Maori caucus. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a call on the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill. I will just make a few comments in relation to the comments of the previous speaker Gerry Brownlee surrounding the position of the Office of Treaty Settlements its impact and how it affects— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.