Volume 649 Week 83 - Wednesday 27 August 2008 
Volume 649 Week 83 - Wednesday 27 August 2008 
[Volume:649;Page:17971] 
Wednesday 27 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yesterday Mr Hide refused to reframe a supplementary question in order to make it comply with the Standing Orders. Mr Hide persisted with his supplementary question and in doing so defied the Chair and was asked to withdraw from the Chamber. 
Mr Hide’s supplementary question was out of order on a number of counts. The question addressed the abolition of the Serious Fraud Office and sought assurances from the Prime Minister that the office will continue to be able to investigate claims of corruption. There is ministerial responsibility for those matters and Mr Hide’s question would have been in order if it had been so confined. However he sought to include in his question particular assertions alleging corruption. The inclusion of such assertions was out of order on a number of counts. 
First the purpose of supplementary questions is to elucidate or clarify answers. They are not an opportunity to inject information or propaganda that a member wishes to be heard—see Speaker’s ruling 151/5. Second allegations of corruption against a member must be raised in the proper manner—Speaker’s ruling 25/5—that is with the Speaker or by way of giving notice of a motion. Members must not make such assertions by way of veiled suggestions. Third the House was informed that the assertions referred to matters that are the subject of a defamation action currently before the courts. On that I took the word of the member at the time as is the convention of this House. Not to do so would put the Speaker in an impossible position. To mislead the Speaker in such a circumstance would be a very serious breach of a longstanding convention that a member’s word is accepted and would no doubt provoke serious consequences. 
Members argued that I should use my discretion under Standing Order 111 and allow the references. Having had the opportunity to reflect I stand by my ruling. Mr Hide was not questioning the general application of the law; he was simply seeking to insert assertions into the record—assertions that are material to an action currently before the courts. The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders and it is the Speaker who determines its application—Speaker’s ruling 29/3. It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. That is clear from Speaker’s ruling 27/2. However nothing said in the House should prejudice however slightly the decision of any court. That point is made in Speaker’s ruling 28/5. 
The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. The rationale behind the rule is important. This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature above all other institutions that it should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases. The House applies a more rigorous inhibitory standard on itself than applies to the media in reporting judicial proceedings. That is not anomalous given the constitutional relationship between the House and the courts. The House and the news media are not in the same situation. I suggest that interested members refer to page 192 of David McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. 
I have been aware for some time now that some members wish to change the sub judice rule. That is why I referred a question of privilege to the Privileges Committee on 3 July 2008. I await the Privileges Committee’s report. Until the committee reports and any changes to the Standing Orders are made I am obliged to apply them as they currently stand. 
If members want to have a copy of this ruling it is now available. 
Ministerial Statements 
Taser Guns—Introduction 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement pursuant to Standing Order 348. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 348(1) states: “A Minister may make a statement informing the House of some matter of significant public importance which requires to be brought to the House’s attention immediately.” We have seen the ministerial statement the Hon Annette King is proposing to make this afternoon and we ask who actually decides what is something that needs to be brought to the immediate attention of the House. If it were a letter to you asking for something to be brought to the attention of the House and therefore for there to be a snap debate you would make the decision about what was necessary as far as needing to bring a matter to the immediate attention of the House. You would also judge its significant public importance and further you would ask whether there had been a recent decision that relates to the Government. 
None of those tests would be met if this document were sent to you by way of a letter asking for a snap debate. The Commissioner of Police has been considering this matter for some 17 months. He has no immediate proposals to introduce any changes to the current situation. In fact all he is saying is that he is going to seek the opinions of MPs. Presumably he will write to every MP and ask what they think about the idea of using Tasers more generally in the future and what they think about the constraints the commissioner has put upon their use. Then one would assume he will collate that information and test the opinions of MPs—a very rare thing—against his own judgment. Why there is a necessity for a ministerial statement today of all days is a serious question. It should not only be addressed I think by the House; it would be interesting to have your ruling on what in terms of a ministerial statement qualifies for the immediate attention of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In fact the issue is quite clear. That is a judgment for the Minister involved because Ministers determine whether they are going to make a ministerial statement. No leave is required; the Minister simply informs the House that he or she is going to make a ministerial statement. The only requirement is to try to let other parties know about the content of that statement in advance. I must say it is somewhat amusing to see a front-bench member of the Opposition complaining that a Minister brings a matter to the House which a Minister does not actually have to do in order to allow the House to express a view upon that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is for the Minister to decide when a ministerial statement should be made and it certainly has been for the purpose of being able to inform the House. I call the Hon Annette King. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister jumped to her feet at the same time as I did to raise a point of order. I would like to ask your guidance please on your interpretation of Standing Order 111 in the particular case. You stopped me yesterday from— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can I just perhaps stop the member now. I am very happy to consider his point of order but I did call in the interests of an orderly conduct of proceedings in this House the Hon Annette King. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Commissioner of Police Howard Broad has informed me that he has made an in principle decision on the deployment of the Taser as an addition to the New Zealand Police graduated response model. For some years now police have been concerned that a gap has existed in our tactical options between the use of batons dogs oleoresin capsicum spray and lethal firearms. Although in most close-quarter situations the spray is highly effective in subduing a violent offender its effective range is limited to 10 feet and its effectiveness lessens when used to subdue a person who is under the influence of drugs mentally disordered or in a frenzied psychological state. Assaults on police officers by offenders with weapons have increased from 57 in 1998-99 to 88 in 2006-07. 
A report in 2002 endorsed the concept of a graduated use of force model and developing a database to monitor incidents and trends in behaviour. A subsequent project recommended the New Zealand Police consider introducing Tasers as an addition to the graduated response model. Tasers are used by more than 930 police agencies worldwide and I am told that the recovery time of an individual affected by the use of a Taser is substantially less than for oleoresin capsicum spray and that Tasers are highly effective in controlling aggressive and violent individuals under the influence of mind-altering substances or in a mental health crisis. 
From September 2006 police undertook a full year-long operational trial of Tasers in three Auckland police districts and in Wellington. During the trial 128 incident reports were submitted of which 19 actually involved discharging the Taser. Weapons were present in 66 percent of the incidents. The most common were cutting and stabbing instruments. Weapons were involved in 16 of the 19 incidents where Tasers were discharged. Tasers were effective in resolving 86 percent of incidents 71 using just the presentation mode without additional tactics such as laser painting arcing or discharging. Injuries to individuals and officers were minor despite the serious circumstances of the incidents. Individuals sustained expected minor injuries with no extra medical follow-up required. Officers reported a small number of minor injuries that did not require medical attention. 
Police have sought further advice since completing the evaluation. Additional information has come from jurisdictions like Britain and Canada. Canada’s experience is interesting. Tasers were introduced there without the ability for effective monitoring and with a lack of clarity in terms of justification for use and a lack of capability to capture operational data. This contrasts with the measured approach here. Police say that the Tasers’ built-in recording mechanisms provide enhanced auditing opportunities and the recent availability of cameras with a device provides even greater reassurance around deployments if complaints are made. 
The commissioner now informs me that taking into account all the information gathered analysed and presented as part of the trial evaluation supplemented by personal discussions with colleagues in several overseas jurisdictions he has made a decision in principle to deploy the Taser as part of New Zealand’s police tactical options framework. He is proposing that the Tasers currently in police ownership are returned to the four districts for reintroduction to front-line policing. The devices will be equipped with a laser cam video camera and will be available only to selected front-line staff who are thoroughly trained—a mixture of section staff and specialist tactical squad staff such as Armed Offenders Squad members. Tasers will not be carried on the hip of patrolling staff. They will be in secure cabinets in police vehicles and deployed only on approval by a supervisor of substantive NCO rank or above. 
In the medium term he seeks to purchase sufficient units to equip all 12 districts to the same standard as the four trial districts. Commissioner Broad says he is conscious of the convention around the use of force being a decision for the Commissioner of Police but informed by public sentiment—in other words a convention of policing by consent. That is why before making a final decision he would like members of Parliament to express their views. He intends to make his decision shortly after that. He also hopes members of Parliament agree with his approach as the most appropriate one for responding to issues of risk to the public and to the police and for continuing the tradition of having a routinely unarmed police service a value closely held by New Zealanders. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Was that not fascinating? Parliament suspends its business today of all days to hear that the Commissioner of Police has made a decision in principle but that he is not sure. He has made a decision in principle but he is not quite sure whether to go ahead with it. We have had ministerial statements in the past on 9/11. That was serious. We have had ministerial statements on the death of soldiers in East Timor. They were serious occasions. We have had other statements in the House although very very few on matters of similar significance. We do not get ministerial statements on the closure of hospitals on the closure of schools or for that matter on the massive purchase of New Zealand rail. There were no ministerial statements about that at all. But today we suspend the business of the House to be informed that the Commissioner of Police has made up his mind but that he is not sure. 
One has to ask whether this is a fair use of the Standing Orders provisions in this House. Further it raises the question of what the necessity is of the House getting this information today as opposed to tomorrow or some time next week. What is it that is so important about this piece of information? I think it is to tell MPs to watch their in-trays because there is a letter coming from the Commissioner of Police and he wants an urgent response from them so that he can make up his mind—having already made up his mind—and be certain about what he has done. Well I think that actually invites scorn being poured on a Commissioner of Police who does not deserve it. This man has had this report sitting in front of him for 9 months and he has had a total time of 17-months where there was a trial of the particular Tasers in use. 
I doubt that there is anyone of any sort of sensitivity in this House who would turn down the commissioner’s decision but even if they do it is still his decision and not a decision for this House. How many times has Annette King stood up in question time and said: “The decision about Tasers is not mine; it belongs to the Police Commissioner.”? She has said it over and over as she uses the protection of the Standing Orders to fail to give the public of this country any idea as to whether the Government supports Tasers. Then today of all days she comes into the House and says: “Well the Police Commissioner has made a decision in favour but we want to let you know that he’s not going to go ahead until he checks it up with every MP in the House.” Well I wonder whether they want to shorten up this process so that the Taser is available for Winston later in the week. I am not sure but I think the two are connected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He has not heard my point of order yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member have a different point of order or not? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I have not said it yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member anticipated it by withdrawing and apologising. I suggest the member accepts that and is seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you very much. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I should have recognised him as the Rt Hon Winston Peters Minister in the Labour-led Government—a man of high integrity and a man who will give all the answers that we need later today I am sure. 
All I can say in conclusion is that this is some sort of a ploy on the part of the Government to prolong today’s proceedings—exactly what for is anyone’s guess. But there is no need for the House to be informed of this in this style today. We have had 9 years of Government where there have been no more than five ministerial statements to the House yet here today the Government is prepared to sacrifice the poor old Commissioner of Police and make him look like a complete turkey by being unable to make up his own mind. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important and serious issue. The National Party person who spoke who is not the spokesperson on this issue—Mr Borrows is the spokesperson on this issue—did not tell us whether the National Party supports the use of Tasers. He gave us a harangue for 5 or 10 minutes but the National Party clearly has no policy on this issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member asked whether the National Party supports this release. Let me make it very clear that we do support it and it has nothing to do with whom the Taser might be trained on. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Given the events of the last few weeks can we have confirmation from Mr Key that that is in fact the position of the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I can see that it is members’ day. Those were not points of order but I will ask Dail Jones— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting that comment from Dr Cullen perhaps it would be helpful when the Minister takes her reply for her to indicate whether the Labour Party supports this particular initiative because its website at the moment has no policy on it whatsoever. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just point out to members that in this particular debate each member gets 5 minutes to express his or her view and it is not done through subsequent points of order. I also ask members to have the courtesy to allow those members who are on their feet and speaking to be heard. 
DAIL JONES 
: I hit a nerve there because Mr Brownlee realised he had rambled on for 5 minutes and had not told the House what his party’s policy was. He had to interrupt my speech to make the point. The other aspect of Mr Brownlee’s speech of course was that it showed he does not really like the police force does he? He came to the House and attacked the Commissioner of Police and by definition the entire police force. That is the new National Party policy on the police for us. 
New Zealand First regards this matter as being very serious and very important. It is very serious and very important because New Zealand has a tradition of not arming its police force and here we are taking a slight step in that direction. Therefore it is of vital importance that this issue be considered by the House. I appreciate very much the Commissioner of Police adopting this approach so that we can express our view as political parties. 
New Zealand First is a strong supporter of issuing Tasers to front-line police and it believes this should have happened a long time ago. It is a pity the National Party could not make a statement like that in the 5 minutes it has just had. We support Tasers because they are a tool that enables police on the beat to do their job safely and effectively for the whole of the people of New Zealand. They are an excellent mid-range response to incidents involving violence which is something that is currently lacking in the police tool kit. Currently officers have the option of using either a baton or lethal force when responding to incidents involving violence. There is too great a jump between those response actions. Tasers provide a level of force that fits between the two options and they will both save offenders’ lives and most important as well protect officers. They will also help to protect members of the community especially the many people in domestic violence cases where if prompt action is taken the lives and bodies of all parties can be saved. 
The result of the year-long Taser trial was concluded in September last year and it spoke for itself. The conclusion was reached that officers were judicious in their use of a Taser with Tasers being presented 120 times during the trial and discharged on only 20 of those occasions. It is a pity Gerry Brownlee did not concentrate on important information of that kind having been given so much notice of this debate already. 
It is also worth noting that there is a good argument that Tasers actually save lives in many jurisdictions as Tasers have replaced the use of firearms in many circumstances. That is particularly relevant for example in the United States. 
We welcome the announcement; we note the Commissioner of Police’s first step in this direction. The Commissioner of Police wants to know our view and New Zealand First says to him: “You’ve got it. New Zealand First supports the Taser; go for it!”. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This is a very sad day for policing in New Zealand. Our country has prided itself on a much lower level of violence in policing than other jurisdictions such as the United States. Let us be blunt about it: some New Zealanders will die unnecessarily as a result of this decision as have over 300 people in the United States the home of the Taser. So far this month we have seen five Americans die after being Tasered. Those who will die from this 50000-volt weapon will be Kiwis with heart conditions and those whose circulatory system is weak through drug use or mental disorder. Deaths are most likely to occur among mentally disordered people because in our year-long trial the Taser has generally been used against such people. 
The use of the Taser will not help police relations with Maori and Pacific Island communities because the trial statistics show that people from these communities have been the main targets. The introduction of the Taser will be bad for race relations. 
We know that the Taser is very likely to be overused despite the controls the Minister has mentioned as it has been overused elsewhere in the world. In our Taser trial the police sometimes went beyond their mandate which was to deploy the weapon only when there was an imminent danger of injury. In practice Tasers were also pulled out and pointed at people simply when the police were having difficulty restraining and putting handcuffs on an offender. This has happened frequently overseas. Members may remember the horrific television footage last year of Robert Dziekanski—a man who was confused rather than violent—being Tasered to death at Vancouver Airport. Members may also remember the TV shots of a young American student being Tasered after interjecting at one of Senator John Kerry’s meetings. 
This sort of thing has happened here as recorded in the official police reports. One example states that on 20 March 2007 a mentally disturbed women in Waitakere City who was not armed with any weapons took refuge in a bathroom. The two police officers present broke in and Tasered her two times. Such mission creep in the use of Tasers is unlikely to be ever fully controlled because individual officers quickly find out that the 50000-volt weapon is so frightening to people that they will generally comply when it is pointed at them or fired at them. It can easily become an everyday policing tool as it is currently in the United States. 
We have already seen mission creep in the use of pepper spray including the use of it in the confined space of a Whakatane police cell. The Greens have yet to be convinced that the police administration has got on top of pepper spray misuse by some police officers. We do not think that this is the time to equip such officers with a much more dangerous weapon—a 50000-volt Taser stun gun. We can predict the outcry when the Taser is first fired at a protester. There is already concern at the misuse of pepper spray on protesters. Last month Judge McGuire awarded compensation to an anti-GE protester who was pepper sprayed in Rotorua. 
Introducing a greater level of violence in policing actually weakens its effectiveness. Traditionally the New Zealand Police has been more effective than its American counterparts because its officers do not carry guns and because they are less violent in their approach to crime situations. Ordinary members of the public will be more fearful of police patrols that are armed with Tasers and this will get in the way of better cooperation between the police and communities—cooperation which is critical in both crime prevention and the apprehension of offenders. 
There is also the serious question that Taser use is legally torture. This was clearly stated last November by the United Nations Committee Against Torture when it stated: “The use of the Taser X26 weapons provoking extreme pain constituted a form of torture” and was therefore contrary to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which New Zealand is a signatory to and must obey. The fact that America and some other countries use the Taser does not make legal what is clearly illegal under international law—and that is the use of Tasers. 
For all these reasons the Greens are very opposed to these painful—and sometimes lethal—stun guns being introduced into our police armoury. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call Judy Turner. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My reading of Standing Order 349 is that this debate is limited to leaders of parties with six or more members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The convention has been that we normally allow members to speak if they represent a party. I call Judy Turner—I am sorry; I call the Hon Tariana Turia. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. I was thinking that the convention applied to only those parties with six or more members; that is why I did not stand to seek the call. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. 
There are four elements to our issue. The Maori Party is opposed to Tasers. The Greens have outlined all the reasons why we are opposed to them but we believe that particular groups are more likely to be shot by a Taser gun and shot when it is unwarranted or inappropriate. These groups include youth men Maori Pasifika peoples people in a mental health crisis and political protestors. The international evidence has highlighted the probability of ethnic targeting and we know that in Houston the police data showed that in almost 1000 Taser deployments 63 percent of those Tasered were black despite the fact that black people make up only 25 percent of the population. The Taser literature details countless rallies campaigns and lobbies that have emerged alleging racial profiling—that the dark skin colour of victims is the cause of a lethal judgment against them. Stephen Johnson a 22-year-old black college student Tasered in 2005 summed up his position when he said the police “are using tasers as a way to keep black people subordinate”. We would be very concerned if that happened here in Aotearoa given that 56 percent of Tasered subjects have been Maori or Pasifika. 
There has been no robust case made for introducing a lethal weapon in front-line policing nor has there been any comprehensive research on the long-term health effects of Taser use. When developing the business case for Taser guns the New Zealand Police looked only to the recommendations of the Project Lincoln report which was limited by its focus on investigating only lethal weapon options. We note that today’s announcement comes hot on the heels of a low-key media release from the police just 3 months ago when the police decided to use the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle as their preferred option in dealing with armed situations. For those not familiar with this rifle up until 3 months ago it was deployed only by the armed offenders squad. 
There has been no public consultation on the Taser gun trial to canvass the associated risks or how the public might be protected from misuse of the Taser. 
The Maori Party is firmly of the view that police use of lethal weapons is a ministerial policy matter. Again during the course of mediation of our complaint to the Human Rights Commission the police stated that the Minister of Police could have made a different decision. 
We come back then to the call from the Campaign Against the Taser lobby group the Human Rights Foundation the Peace Foundation lawyer Marie Dyhrberg the Council of Trade Unions and the Howard League amongst others. That group called for the police to halt the Taser proposals and to concentrate on traditional methods and for a rigorous independent and impartial inquiry to be carried out as recommended by Amnesty International. 
We are concerned that all too soon this weapon will be seen not as an alternative but as an addition. We are concerned that resorting to the Taser will erode the already fragile trust between the citizenship and the law and that the old-fashioned police skills of wit reason and negotiation will be lost in a whole new category of police-public interaction. We are concerned that Tasers pose a disproportionate risk to many of the most vulnerable: the pregnant the young those with mental health or drug problems or those with heart conditions. We are concerned that “mistakes” will be made and that there will always be the possibility of misuse and the potential for abuse—for the Taser to become a tool of torture. We know only too well that having trialled these new powers it is extremely unlikely that the authorities will ever surrender them. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 349. That Standing Order sets out the limitations in respect of who may speak on a ministerial statement. I ask with respect why that Standing Order is being overturned here today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 77(2) states: “A determination of the Business Committee applies notwithstanding any other Standing Order to the contrary.” On Tuesday 24 November 2005 the Business Committee determined that in fact leaders of parties with fewer than six members would be able to speak on ministerial statements. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future says that we support the police graduated response model. We have weighed up very seriously the inclusion within that model of the use of Tasers and we will support the police commissioner’s decision. We will support it because we believe that a series of procedures have been gone through including a trial and the seeking of further advice from other jurisdictions where Tasers are used. Also there is the inclusion of built-in recording mechanisms and cameras. These weapons will be available only to front-line staff who have been thoroughly trained and they will not be allowed to be carried on the hip but will be locked in vehicles and deployed only on approval by a supervisor or high-ranking officer. United Future suggests that it is the last area that will need the most ongoing monitoring in order to ensure that the deployment of Tasers is consistent with what is intended at this point and with what has been experienced in this country to date. 
We take note of the cautions spoken of by other parties. However United Future expresses our trust that the New Zealand Police will have adequate procedures in place to sensibly manage the use of Tasers and says we are happy to support the commissioner’s position. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member knows that that was uncalled for. Everyone has a right to speak and I think that has been seen by the fact that on the issue that has been raised we have extended the right to speak to parties that have fewer than six members in this House. So I ask the member just to make his statement please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. The ACT party supports the use of Tasers by the police. Yes there are risks but I believe that those risks are far outweighed by the dangers posed by violent offenders in New Zealand and by the risks of going to the next level of response which is a firearm of a higher calibre. In fact it is a shame that this Government has taken so long to make Tasers available to the police. 
But the ACT party does not support the ministerial statement being made ahead of question time by a Government desperate to hold on to power. It is teetering on the brink and is desperate to do anything to protect the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister is clutching this Minister of Foreign Affairs to her Government in order to hold on to power however tenuously without regard to principle to any standard of good Parliament or good government or to any principle of integrity—and Helen Clark knows that. She knows that she has a Minister of Foreign Affairs who had been caught out lying. She knows— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He has started again. He went for hardly 2 minutes and he started to infringe the Standing Orders. Would you ask him to withdraw and apologise and if he will not this day would you be more firm on him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I will just ask the member to address what is before the House at the moment which is the ministerial statement on Tasers. Would the member please continue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He may not say what he just said. I am asking you to get him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but I have said to the member that I did not think that what has been said so far requires a withdrawal and an apology. But I did say we should address the matter before the House. I have ruled on that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He is not going—and you are not going to allow him—to say that a member has been caught out lying. That is what he said. That is against every Speaker’s ruling and every Standing Order I know and I now ask you—I do not know whether you heard the comment; we all did down here—to get him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not hear him say “lie”; I admit that. I did not hear the member say another member was lying. If that is the case then I am sorry Mr Hide but as you know any member who makes that comment is asked to withdraw and apologise. Then could we please proceed. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw and apologise. On the matter of the ministerial statement on Tasers the fact that we are having that now in the last few days of this Parliament before a general election when we are going to see a massive swing and a change of Government means we have a Minister who has been caught out and is in trouble and we have a Government that is desperate to delay any questions—to prevent questions to prevent scrutiny—so much so that it introduces a ministerial statement on a report it has been awaiting for months. That is something unheard of—something unheard of. And we have the Prime Minister delaying question time because she knows that scrutiny has to be avoided at question time of her decision to keep Winston Peters in Cabinet by having a ministerial statement on Tasers. 
The Prime Minister has put her tenuous grip on power ahead of principle and integrity and has turned New Zealand into a banana republic. We have a situation in our Parliament whereby MPs cannot ask questions and we are having our Parliament distorted— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That clearly is a reference to the events in the House yesterday. As you have very carefully pointed out numerous times yesterday and today Mr Hide was not prevented from asking a question; he was prevented from breaking the Standing Orders of the House. After his repeated attempts to do that you finally—finally at the end of a very long rope—decided that he had to leave the House. It is a bit rich now on an issue of law and order in front of the House for the member to be complaining that delay is occurring when he is delaying the House with his speech when it has nothing to do with the matter in front of the House and when he is questioning your ruling in the past. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is the point of order that has been raised. [ 
Interruption 
] No the member will please be seated; we will not have a repetition of what happened yesterday. I have ruled on that matter and members know that. I would ask the member to please just address what was in the ministerial statement. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What was in the ministerial statement was a load of old cobblers actually. It is a desperate attempt by the Minister and this Government to avoid scrutiny of Helen Clark’s decision to keep Winston Peters on as Minister of Foreign Affairs—that is what is in the ministerial statement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect the subject of this debate is a ministerial statement on the topic raised by the Minister. There are some restrictions to this debate and particularly when it comes from the only member of this House who could eat a banana sideways it is all a bit rich. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would just ask the member to conclude his statement. He has only a few more seconds to go. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I just wish we had—and I am looking forward to the time when we have—a Prime Minister who puts the country first who actually stands up for some principle who sets some standards for Ministers and who does not allow Ministers to just tell any old pork pie they like and think they can get through. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member may wish to use my ancestral tongue if he chooses to do so but I understand it. The reference to a pork pie is of course a reference to a lie. That is out of order in the House and he is the last person who would want to be raising that kind of point of order. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I just want to make two or three brief comments. I say to Mr Brownlee that one of the reasons why overwhelmingly people vote in general elections rather than in local body elections for example is that this Parliament has the power of life and death over the population. That is a very serious responsibility. When the police put to Parliament through their Minister the opportunity to participate in a decision about what may be a life-threatening enforcement I would expect anyone in this Parliament to take it seriously rather than take the buffoon-like approach we had from Mr Brownlee. 
Mr Hide in promoting the issues he thinks are important to Parliament and in telling us that we should not waste our time on important matters of policing and the weapons used by the police and that we should let Mr Hide take up the time that he has with this Parliament over and over again on issues that some of us may not be quite as interested in is simply being ludicrous. The issues of arming the police in whatever way they are armed go to the heart of the power of this Parliament. They are extraordinarily important and the decisions that we make around them are critical to the future well-being of many of the people who live in this country. 
The Progressive party will look at the tests and trials that the police have made we will look at the evidence and we will let the facts get in the way of any prejudice we might have. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 First what a disgrace it is that Mr Key would allow Gerry Brownlee to treat this issue in such a bombastic and blowhard way without once addressing the issue. What a disgrace. What sort of leadership is that from Mr Key that he would not treat an issue like this seriously? They said it was a diversion— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I presume the point of order is that nobody can hear. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The Opposition is making it impossible. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I would remind members that the purpose of this place is that people are able to discuss their views and that people are able to hear those views. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have not even said a word yet and the bombastic and blowhard members on the front benches are already barracking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will try once more so the Minister can give a reply and so all members in the Chamber have an opportunity to hear it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They called today’s statement a diversion. Well if anyone needs a diversion to stop the spotlight on them it is National members because they do not want the spotlight on their secret agenda and they do not want to have to keep apologising for their front bench. What we do not know is whether or not National supports the police—but I know they do not actually support the police. Every opportunity they get they attack the police. This was the first opportunity in living memory that the police have come to this House and asked for guidance before the police commissioner makes his final decision. I would have thought this House would have welcomed that. 
I tell the members of most of the minor parties that I thank them for their contribution. Whether they are in favour of it or opposed to it they put their cases clearly and they stated their positions. That is what the police commissioner wanted. Those members are a credit to their parties. I cannot say that to the National Party. 
The Government does not believe that the police should be routinely armed with firearms nor does the public of New Zealand. But we are concerned with the safety of police officers. We are concerned with the increased assaults on them particularly with weapons. We are concerned with the increased use of mind-altering drugs alcohol and so on. Our police face very dangerous situations every day. Our police have been trained to shoot with the most lethal weapon of all the gun to incapacitate and the outcome of that unfortunately in most cases is death. They do need another less lethal option that protects the police the public and individuals concerned. 
The Government is therefore supportive of Commissioner Broad’s in principle decision on Tasers and particularly the way in which their deployment is proposed with a high level of transparency and accountability. 
Points of Order 
Supplementary Questions—Sub Judice Rule 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept yesterday’s ruling but I am referring to Standing Order 111. You ruled that my question was outside Standing Orders because there is presumably “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Now I have had two independent experts go through all the cases relating to Mr Peters and I have also shown them my questions. They are completely flummoxed as to how in any way shape or form my questions could impinge on those cases other than my mentioning the name “Winston Peters”. I also tried to ring you yesterday to seek clarification about what questions I could or could not ask because I realised you were at a disadvantage yourself not knowing what the case was or where my questions breached the sub judice rule and I am wondering whether you have any way that you could [ 
Interruption 
]—the member can interrupt as much as he likes—enlighten me by giving me the parameters even by describing the case and the features of the case that is before the courts that my question impinged on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I did consider the matter very seriously and of course I took advice. I have given my ruling and I hope the member has the opportunity to be able to study it at his leisure. 
Questions to Ministers 
Transport Funding—Waterview Connection 
1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What would do more to achieve her aspiration of a carbon-neutral New Zealand: spending $1.9 billion on the Waterview motorway project or putting that same money towards completing and upgrading the Auckland passenger rail network? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Obviously achieving the aspiration of carbon neutrality requires action on many fronts including through investment in public transport and I would say through the development of more environmentally friendly ways of powering vehicles. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister not aware that every study into this issue demonstrates that building more roads does not reduce congestion and that even a roading fanatic like Maurice Williamson said in 1999 in a rare flash of exuberance— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. Just ask the question. I know that everyone wants to be a comedian in this place and wants to be able to make other comments. There is a general debate after question time. Just ask the question and that goes for all members who are asking questions today and replying. Keep it straight. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister not aware that every study into this issue demonstrates that building more roads does not reduce congestion and that even Maurice Williamson said in 1999 as Minister of Transport that “Building more and more roads in congested areas on many occasions results in more congestion … and more pollution”; if even Maurice Williamson can get it why can her Government not get it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said in the House yesterday that the Government supports completing what have been long-held plans in Auckland for the roading network. But the Government absolutely agrees with the member that there is no “roads only” solution to congestion. Investment in public transport is extremely important. That is why the Government has spent an enormous amount of money in partnership with Auckland local bodies on upgrading Auckland’s rail lines on double tracking and on new station infrastructure and it is why we have committed something like half a billion dollars to the electrification project. All of these are important investments that give people viable alternatives to the private car on the road. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Prime Minister’s Government go ahead with the Waterview Connection when in a letter to me the Transit chairman said that the future price of oil does not feature at all in Transit’s assumptions that the project’s benefit-cost ratio is a miserable 1:0 and that for some strange reason the motorway is projected to be completely full in 2015 when it is projected to open? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in the House yesterday part of the Government’s overall Energy Strategy sees this country being an early adapter of electric car technology. A lot of research is going into alternatives to the petroleum-powered car. Over time there will be I am sure technology solutions that come along as oil becomes more and more expensive and presumably at some time beyond our lifetimes perhaps not available at all. So I think the member is looking at the issue a little too narrowly if he thinks the future of the private car on the road is dependent on oil-fuelling vehicles. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it not a bit premature to build roads for electric cars when the Government’s own Energy Strategy projected last year that electric cars will form only 5 percent of the fleet by 2020 and when this motorway is brand new is being built at a time of declining traffic in Auckland and is due to open in 2015? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have consistently said the Government supports the completion of the Auckland roading network but I have consistently said the completion of that network is not in itself a solution to roading congestion in Auckland. The solution lies in a dual approach whereby we encourage not only the use of public transport—in which we are investing 15 times as much per annum as the level of investment we inherited after the 1999 election—but also other forms of demand management like encouraging walking school buses and encouraging people to walk cycle use ferries and so on. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm that roading congestion in Auckland is estimated to cost the economy of New Zealand $1 billion a year and that it is a priority that something is done about the roading system in Auckland? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As anyone who travels in Auckland knows it is bedevilled by congestion and there is a heavy economic cost to that. Part of the answer is completion of the roading network but a very significant part of the answer is the big investments we are making in public transport and they include the big investments in rail. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it not true that no matter how many emissions trading schemes we get started on we will not make progress towards her goal of carbon neutrality or reducing congestion as long as the Government as outlined in its National Land Transport Programme spends $12 billion on new roads alone while spending only a quarter of that amount on all the sustainable alternatives put together—public transport walking cycling and the rest—with the result that motorists who want to reduce their carbon emissions have no choice but to take their cars? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The reason for investments in public transport being 15 times the level they were in 1999 is precisely to give as many people as possible that choice. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Bryan Jackson the acting chair of Transit in which he says Transit has not made any projections for the future— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreign Affairs Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the letter released by the Privileges Committee from Owen Glenn earlier today that directly contradicts public statements made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and will she be sacking or standing down Mr Peters as a Minister as a result of those clearly contradictory statements; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen the letter. I have seen the response from Mr Peters. I am aware the matter is before the Privileges Committee. I await the outcome. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister personally asked Mr Peters today for an assurance that he did not ask for or know of the donation of $100000 from Mr Owen Glenn in light of Mr Glenn’s clear written statement given to the Privileges Committee which states that Mr Peters did exactly that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes and I have received that assurance. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement in the letter—released by the Privileges Committee this morning—from Owen Glenn in regard to a payment from him of $100000 which states: “The payment was made by me to assist funding the legal costs incurred personally by Rt Hon Winston Peters MP concerning his election petition dispute at his request. Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation some time after I first met him in Sydney.”; if so does she accept that this statement is a direct challenge to the credibility of Mr Peters’ earlier denial of any involvement in or knowledge of the solicitation of that $100000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I have seen that statement and I have also seen the refutation of it by Mr Peters. The matter is before the Privileges Committee. There is clearly a conflict of evidence and I await the outcome of the committee. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement in the letter from Mr Glenn in that “Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.”; if so does she accept that this statement is in direct challenge to the credibility of Mr Peters’ earlier denial of any involvement in or knowledge of the solicitation of $100000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is clearly a conflict of evidence on this issue which is before the Privileges Committee. 
John Key 
: Maybe the Prime Minister would like to answer this: if she accepts Mr Peters’ version of events over Mr Glenn’s she is in effect saying to a person whom she gave a new year’s honour to and that her party accepted $500000 and a $100000 interest-free loan from that he is a liar? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a ridiculous statement. There is clearly a conflict of evidence. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the letter to which reference has been made an unsigned letter that would never hold up in a court of law; that could have been sent to the Privileges Committee by a public relations firm for all we know; and that does not conform with Mr Glenn’s usual form of writing I understand which has his letterhead and his signature on it and also his title? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly the copy of the letter given to the Privileges Committee is not signed. I have drawn no conclusion from that one way or another. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Prime Minister accept the implicit assertion by Mr Key that a person who makes a statement that is subsequently demonstrated to be incorrect is a liar; if so what does that say about Mr Key’s view of Maurice Williamson Bill English and Kate Wilkinson? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What it probably says is that double standards are applying. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that Mr Peters’ version of events—that he had no knowledge of and was not involved in the solicitation of the $100000 from Mr Glenn—is completely at odds with the statement that Mr Glenn made to the Privileges Committee that on that basis both of them cannot be right and that if she is accepting Mr Peters’ version of events she is saying to a man whom she was happy to accept half a million dollars from for her party and was prepared to give a new year’s honour to that he has lied to the Privileges Committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat those assertions are ridiculous. There is a conflict of evidence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the allegation made by the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 12 July was that the money was paid by Owen Glenn to New Zealand First is it not a fact that the letter before the committee now says precisely the reverse—that it was not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is correct. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement also by Mr Glenn that said: “I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.”; and can she tell the House just who in the Labour Party would have given Mr Glenn this impression? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My answer is that nobody needed to give him that impression. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the money was paid over according to Mr Henry barrister on 22 December 2005 and the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government was signed on 17 October 2005 is there not reason to have some doubt as to the veracity of the statement made in that letter? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: These matters are before the Privileges Committee. I really think that it is somewhat futile for me as Prime Minister and not sitting on the committee to try to get into some kind of analysis of the evidence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What a joke! 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the country if Mr Peters cannot give any greater assurances than the one he has given her today but Mr Glenn is quite prepared in writing to state the facts of the case as he sees it what her actions will be as a result of that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It should also be noted that Mr Peters has put in writing his understanding of the facts. If there is any joke around here it is the National Party which does not believe in a process of the Privileges Committee looking at the evidence. If the death penalty applied Mr Key would be hanging people before the trial was finished. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So that we can dissect and dispose of these allegations one by one—the second one was one of fraud—is there any evidence in Mr Owen Glenn’s letter that suggests any such thing as fraud at all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Certainly not on my reading of it. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement yesterday that she would accept Mr Peters’ word “unless something arising out of the Privileges Committee or some other appropriate authority suggests I should not do so.” and if a letter from Owen Glenn stating everything that is opposite to what Winston Peters said is not something out of the Privileges Committee that should suggest to her otherwise what on earth would be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The letter is to the Privileges Committee; it does not arise from it. Unlike Mr Key I prefer to wait for the outcome of a proper process. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is a good look for her Government—or indeed for the country—for her Minister of Foreign Affairs to question the veracity of a statement made to the Privileges Committee by Mr Owen Glenn who was described at the committee by Brian Henry as “a very honourable man” especially considering this man was recognised by her Government this year with the New Zealand Order of Merit? He has given millions of dollars to many good causes in New Zealand albeit he has also given some hundreds of thousands of dollars to some very shonky projects—$500000 to the Labour Party an interest-free loan of $100000 to the Labour Party and $100000 to Winston Peters’ legal fees—and what does he get? He gets shunned and the veracity of this man’s word to Parliament is questioned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is that all OK? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That long ramble could surely not be a parliamentary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. No I have said time and again to all members that the questions should be succinct. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed the shonkiest allegation I have seen this week is that from the former ACT member of Parliament Deborah Coddington who said that the Asian chapter of ACT paid the legal expenses for the party to get rid of Donna Awatere Huata so that one of the chapter’s members could come into Parliament. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is a good look for the work of the Privileges Committee to be prejudged by the leader of the National Party in the House today; and will the Prime Minister take any action to have those members of the National Party removed from the Privileges Committee bearing in mind that the evidence before the committee so far is on the basis of an unsigned letter from Mr Glenn a signed letter from Mr Peters an actual physical appearance by Brian Henry barrister at law in New Zealand and a physical appearance before that committee of the Rt Hon Winston Peters? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Mr Key’s behaviour would suggest that the National Party has indeed prejudged the case and they may wish to think better of that. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall that earlier this year it was actually Mr Owen Glenn who came forward and gave the information that it was he who gave the $100000 loan to the Labour Party? Guess what? It turned out to be correct. So why would the information that Mr Glenn has given to the Privileges Committee which contradicts everything that Winston Peters has said be incorrect? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: For the umpteenth time there is conflict of evidence and the matter is before the Privileges Committee. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Mr Glenn remembers a meeting in Sydney at which there were certain discussions that relate to the electoral system in this country yet the meeting was over the Bledisloe Cup weekend in August—well before the election—what does it suggest with regard to whose recollection may be true or false? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is no way that question can be within the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has absolutely no responsibility for the recollection of Mr Owen Glenn. She does have responsibility for the Minister of Foreign Affairs but that is not what the question was about. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member is 100 percent wrong. First of all the Prime Minister is apprised of the reference to Sydney by Mr Owen Glenn and by me as to the date of it which unhappily for the National Party and Mr Hide was before the election. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it wasn’t; it was November. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it was not. Good try. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Tell the buffoon to sit down and keep quiet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. The primary question was a very broad question. The supplementary questions that have flowed from it have been equally broad but I think the member has raised a good point. We should keep within the parameters as to the primary question although as I said it has been broadly canvassed on a variety of issues. The right honourable Prime Minister I ask you to address the question if you can. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have long since forgotten what it was. 
Roading—Waikato 
3.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What reports has she received on developments in Waikato roading? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen a report in the  
Waikato Times  
noting that National’s deputy transport spokesperson David Bennett has backed Maurice Williamson’s exuberant statements about tolling. He went so far as to say tolling is a “big vote-winner”. Unfortunately for him 24 hours later there was yet another clarification. David Bennett has now been muzzled and as the  
Dominion Post  
would say he is choking on his own spurt of honesty. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has she seen about tolling the existing Auckland harbour bridge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well the stories go on and on. Today in the  
New Zealand Herald  
columnist Bryan Rudman talks about how North Shore MP Wayne Mapp has gone silent on his campaign for a toll on the existing harbour bridge. Not $3 not $5 but $6 a trip is what Mr Mapp has been proposing. That is $12 a day—at 5 days a week that is $60 a week. The tax cut is gone and so is some of the grocery money. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister of Transport outline Labour’s tolling policy which she has failed to do after repeated questions in this House; or is she as embarrassed about her tolling policy as she is about Labour’s exhaust tax whereby it plans to put a $10000 tax on the average family car as outlined in an official Government document that I showed the House yesterday? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All of the rest of New Zealand has heard Labour’s tolling policy. Labour’s tolling policy is set out in the very legislation this Government passed in 2003. I wonder whether Mr English would now like to tell the House—and give the House a little bit of honesty—what he said about roads that do not have a free alternative. He said: “We wouldn’t toll roads unless there was a free alternative.” I draw his attention to the commentary of the Land Transport Management Bill where the National Party said the Minister has to ensure there is a feasible untolled alternative road available for road users. “We believe”—this is the National Party—“that this provision will make it most unlikely that toll roads will receive any investment in New Zealand.” So what Bill English said about there being another alternative is not true. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I may have misheard; I thought Mr English just said “That’s right.” Is that correct? 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is right. 
Election Advertising—Government Departments 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that Government departments may not publish election advertisements; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As I have told the member previously it is not only Government policy but also the wish of Parliament as set out in section 67 of the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Inland Revenue Department dropped plans to distribute 1.4 million copies of a KiwiSaver flier to every household in the country and can she confirm that the Inland Revenue Department drafted an email to the Minister of Finance which stated: “The main reason that we are concerned that a leaflet arriving into every household in an election year is too risky there is too much potential for people to say: ‘Look how the Government is spending your money to get around the Electoral Finance Act.’ ” and what does it say about a Government when even its own departments believe it is trying to rort the law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Perhaps I could just update the member. He has a nice little email that he thought would be a very good little question today but I would like to table the letter from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue Mr Robert Russell who said the eventual decision reflected the fact there was a high awareness and uptake of KiwiSaver already much higher than anticipated meaning the household-wide distribution of the flier was not warranted and this was conveyed to Ministers. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh so they are saying that Mr Russell was a liar. Well I take exception to that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Russell informed both the Minister of Revenue who is not a Labour Party member and me that the advice he and officials gave was that there was no need for the flier because the uptake was so high that Ministers were never informed about any departmental officials’ doubts in terms of the Electoral Finance Act that that played no part in the final decision; or is the National Party— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —now going to call Mr Russell a liar? “Yes that’s right.” says Dr Nick Smith the only person in this House convicted by a court of being a liar. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you know what the point of order is Madam Speaker. Earlier on you pulled up my colleague Rodney Hide for using that term. I would have thought you would pull up Dr Cullen for the same reason. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Dr Nick Smith was convicted of contempt of court and the judge made some lengthy comments about the fact that he did not regard any statement made by Dr Smith as at all reliable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Madam Speaker in the case of Rodney Hide and Winston Peters you took the action of getting the member to withdraw that term because it is unparliamentary. I suggest that these are similar circumstances and that the same action would be required of the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reason I was hesitating is that I was recalling that what was said was in the context of not directly calling Dr Smith a liar but in the context of a decision by the court. However—if members wish to remain to hear the end of my ruling—if members have taken offence I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps Dr Nick Smith would like to apologise for implying that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is a liar. Anybody who knows Mr Russell knows he is not. In fact Mr Russell is on record as saying that the matter around the KiwiSaver pamphlet was not drawn to the attention of Ministers and therefore played no part in their decision. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Normally it is when you call each other liars that it is required that you withdraw and apologise. When a reference is made to someone outside this House there are procedures that enable that person also to take a course of action to correct the record if that is what that person wishes to do. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was making a different point. I was inviting the member to withdraw and apologise on this matter because we are talking about a very senior public servant and given the very nature of his office members of Parliament have to have a very high level of confidence in the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. He is a man who has said very clearly—and the documentation is available—that the matter raised in that email was never brought to the attention of Ministers and therefore played no part in the Ministers’ decision. It was based solely on the advice that the uptake of KiwiSaver was so large there was no need for any further publicity. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister said that the decision by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue not to publish the KiwiSaver pamphlet was nothing to do with the Electoral Finance Act. I interjected “Yeah right!”—I did not call the Commissioner of Inland Revenue a liar or anything else. The only person who suggested that has been Dr Cullen himself. I suggest that the member get a little bit less sensitive rather than going down the track that he has. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I cannot let this point go because of the nature of the official we are talking about. What I have said very clearly to the House and with documentary evidence that has already been in part tabled by the Minister is that the matter in the email was never brought to the attention of Ministers. The only matter brought to the attention of Ministers by the Inland Revenue Department was that the KiwiSaver scheme was so successful that there was no need for further publicity. So the member is either calling me a liar or calling the Commissioner of Inland Revenue a liar. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will take the member’s word for it. He said he did not call the official a liar and if he said he did not then we must take his word for it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the last contribution to the point of order and the previous one that Dr Cullen was making both Dr Smith and Mr Brownlee repeatedly—at least twice each—interjected during the point of order. I ask that the normal rules apply to members at this time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It would certainly assist with the rulings on the numerous points of order that I have been asked to rule on today if people would not speak or interject during them as is the rule. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the comments made by Dr Cullen. I have with me a letter from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue Robert Russell who makes it clear that the decision on the KiwiSaver pamphlet—not to issue it—was because there was already much higher than anticipated uptake meaning that the household-wide distribution of the flyer was not warranted. That is the reason why there was no distribution of—[ 
Interruption 
] You see they do not have to say he is a liar. The members imply it by their comments. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the emails written by Inland Revenue Department officials which include the statement: “The main reason that we are concerned that a leaflet arriving into every household in an election year is too risky” is because people will say: “Look how”— 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue Robert Russell setting out the KiwiSaver flyer decision. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the Electoral Finance Act which did prevent the Inland Revenue Department from putting out that pamphlet Labour also altered section 32 of the Electoral Finance Act to ensure that Owen Glenn would be able to continue to donate to the Labour Party despite having lived overseas for decades? They altered a provision designed to stop overseas donations simply for Owen Glenn. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister as part of the Labour Cabinet now regret changing the law so that Owen Glenn could continue to donate given the complexities that have arisen from his donations to various political parties? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government does not regret the changes that were made by the Electoral Finance Act because it has meant that Bill English and his mates who were salting away millions of dollars so they could spend it in a rort to buy this election with their Brethren mates have been stopped. 
Maori and Pasifika Students—Equity Funding 
5.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How many Maori students and Pacific students currently enrolled at a private training establishment would be eligible for equity funding if they attended a university ITP or wananga; and what would be the annual cost of extending equity funding to include Maori students and Pacific students in private training establishments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Strictly speaking the answer to the question is none because the money is attached to the institution not to the students. Equity funding is paid for Maori and Pasifika students studying at diploma level degree level and post-graduate level. From memory if we were to extend it to private training establishments it would increase the budget by a little under half a million dollars. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: When was the decision made to exclude private training establishments from receiving equity funding for Maori and Pasifika students and what was the rationale behind the decision? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry I do not know when the decision was made. I had a look at it when the member put his question down and I think he raises a good point although it has to be said it is not a very large point. To give members some idea of the size I point out that the student achievement funding that would flow to private training establishments if equity funding is included in their mix would go up from about $132.3 million to $132.7 million. So it is a good issue that the member raises but it cannot be said to be a large one. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister have any intention of reviewing the policy of excluding private training establishments from receiving equity funding for Maori and Pasifika students; if so when; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As a result of the member putting the question down I had a look at the issue earlier today. I think as I said that the member raises a good point albeit not a large one. The fact that it is quite small does not mean that it should not be looked at. I think we should take a look at it. As private training establishments move into the investment plan process it may well be that equity funding becomes part of that mix. It is finally the decision of the Tertiary Education Commission but I will ask officials to take a look at it next week. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is there any evidence that Maori students and Pasifika students enrolled at private training establishments have less need of Government support compared to Maori students and Pasifika students enrolled at universities institutes of technology and polytechnics or wananga; if so what is the evidence? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I do not think there is. The issue here is that there is a very small number of students studying at the appropriate level in the private training establishment sector who are not getting equity funding. As I said it is a very small amount of money. The fact that it is a small issue does not mean that it should not be looked at. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What are the changes to the emissions trading scheme that the Government has agreed to secure its passage and what is the cost of these measures? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The Government will in due course release a full list of the measures agreed to. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What is the cost of the compensation package referred to by Jeanette Fitzsimons which she said would be available to all households when electricity entered the scheme with the level based on household income? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I find it somewhat ironic that the party that has been to be frank whingeing for weeks that the Government will pocket $20 billion from the emissions trading scheme—which has always been untrue— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: He wishes! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As Dr Cullen says he wishes. It does not even break even until 2020 and now we have a complaint going the other way. I am sure we can expect questions in the future— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have not complained; I have simply asked a very straight question: what is the cost of the compensation package? National does not make a judgment as to whether it is good bad or indifferent. We just want to know what it is. I ask the Minister what the cost is of the compensation package. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I said in the answer to the primary question those details will be released in due course. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the cost of not going ahead with the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If the emissions trading scheme does not proceed the cost to the taxpayer of increasing emissions is many hundreds of millions of dollars in the period to 2012 alone. That would be the fate of the country if National were in power. I know that the National Party says it would have an emissions trading scheme promptly if it were the Government but the editorial in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
nailed it when it stated: “That promise is not credible.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the money coming from for the $1 billion for home insulation and household compensation noting that Dr Cullen has said there is no fiscal room without borrowing or is the Government now borrowing to buy Green and New Zealand First support for the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am glad that the member has raised the issue again because members on this side of the House are proud to stand and say that we will not increase debt as a proportion of GDP to fund tax cuts. Where is the money coming from? That member sat on the select committee. It was only 1 month ago. I expect he would recall that the money is coming from the extra revenue that flows to the Crown through electricity prices. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the principle of recycling of revenue from the emissions trading scheme meets one of the six conditions that the National Party has put forward for an emissions trading scheme—that it be revenue-neutral to Government—and that giving households back in the form of warm dry homes some of what they will pay to the electricity companies is actually a very sensible way to recycle revenue? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm my belief in the wisdom of the move. Indeed I do not think there is any doubt that what is proposed here if this legislation gets the support that we desire will constitute the biggest ever investment in household energy efficiency that this country has ever seen. It really is another great example of how the things we do in the name of climate change make such good sense for New Zealand in so many different ways. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister just tell the House that the package for the Greens is to be funded from the windfall profits to the State electricity companies when Dr Cullen told Parliament on 20 May that “the State-owned enterprises that are anticipating increased profits have already planned to use those increased profits as part of their investment programme in … energy production” and that without that increased investment there is not the slightest prospect of the Government meeting our renewable energy targets; how come he has now spent the money somewhere else? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: For a start the issue as to energy efficiency although it is important to the Greens is important not only to the Greens but to the Labour Party and to New Zealand First and I am sure to other parties in this Parliament that I hope will support the legislation. In terms of some of the revenue that flows to State-owned enterprises being needed for reinvestment in renewables that too is true—there is no inconsistency between those statements. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister accept what is blindingly obvious to every parliamentarian and political commentator that the only reason the Prime Minister has not sacked Winston Peters is that she is absolutely desperate to get the legislation on the emissions trading scheme through regardless of what it does for parliamentary or ministerial standards? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would say in respect of the minority parties that often support this Government that they have a more responsible voting record in this House than members of the National Party whether it is increasing support for superannuitants rather than cutting it like Mr English did when he was Minister of Finance; whether it is support for KiwiSaver which was backed by the Greens and New Zealand First and opposed by National; or whether it is support for the emissions trading scheme. 
Education—Public-private Partnerships 
7.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on public-private partnerships in education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report from National’s infrastructure spokesperson Maurice Williamson which was later confirmed by National’s education spokesperson Anne Tolley that the party would effectively privatise school property by contracting out the building and maintenance of schools. This report of course comes hot on the heels of National’s other pledge—also blurted out on the  
Agenda 
 programme by John Key—to double the funding for private schools. Clearly National does not support a State-funded quality public education system for all New Zealanders. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What models for public-private partnerships has the Minister seen being promoted? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen reports of Mrs Tolley promoting public-private partnership projects in Australia. Overseas experience of public-private partnerships shows they can have a very negative impact on public education. Experience in the US Canada and the UK has shown that schools built by public-private partnerships cost more than State schools in the life of the project. Indeed only a few companies ever bid for them so competition is cut down. Schools have faced huge hikes in management fees community groups can no longer use public school buildings and parliamentary oversight is severely diminished under a cloak of commercial sensitivity. After 11 years of public-private partnership education policies being championed by the Howard Government in Australia almost half of Australian students attend totally private schools. Coupled with Mr Key’s pledge to double funding for private schools this disastrous public-private partnership model may be the sort of public education system that National wants for New Zealand but Labour will continue to directly resource schools in a very significant— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer is far too long. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government does not own the buildings of over 2500 early childhood centres over 300 State-integrated schools over 100 private schools or for that matter even the Ministry of Education building here in Wellington; if so why on earth is he showing all this faux outrage about the use of the private sector in school property building and maintenance? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Why does that member never listen to an answer! I have just laid out the perils and pitfalls of public-private partnerships in public schools. In Australia in Canada in the UK and in the USA these policies have been a disaster. That member would like to semi-privatise our public schools; Labour is totally opposed to that. 
Dail Jones 
: Can the Minister confirm that a public-private partnership in education can include the sale of existing State-owned schools on the basis of their being leased back to the school trustees for a market rental—a policy that could for example easily fund the National Party’s tax cuts? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not answer the last bit of the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Indeed it could. But of course National will fund its tax cuts by slashing education spending which is what it did last time. 
Education Ministry—Staffing 
8.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement on 13 March 2008 that “in 2002 the Special Education Service was merged with the Ministry of Education. Statistically this increased the Ministry of Education’s staff but actually created no new positions”; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes; although that member and her party have been trying to beat up the notion of a huge surge in staff numbers at the Ministry of Education actually 1458 existing staff from special education and early childhood merged with the ministry. Another 112 staff were taken on at that time but they were to fill existing vacancies as well as to deal with growing areas like international education work on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and initiatives like AIMHI. I guess that to that member 112 new staff positions out of a total ministry employee roll of 2890 would be a blowout but not to the parents and schools that those 112 staff positions were designed to help. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that on 13 June this year he received a report stating that when the merger of the Special Education Service with the Ministry of Education is taken away the size of the ministry has ballooned by 111 percent from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1223 fulltime-equivalents? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That member always confirms that she never listens to an answer. I just said in my primary answer that 112 new positions were created to deal with issues like international education and to fill existing vacancies in special education. If she thinks that 112 out of over 2800 staff is a ballooning then her numeracy is as poor as her literacy. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can the Minister tell us whether he has seen any other reports about the funding of schools? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen numerous reports of Mrs Tolley and her leader John Key telling schools up and down the country that National— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question is actually very wide of the primary question which related to the numbers of staff who work for the Ministry of Education. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the Minister interprets the question in that context he can answer it in that way. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen numerous reports of Mrs Tolley and her leader John Key telling teachers and schools up and down the country that the only way National will increase funding to schools is by sacking bureaucrats and staff at the Ministry of Education. As I have told this House already on a number of occasions if we slash the total salary of every staff member not involved in front-line services it comes to $54.6 million which equates to $21900 per school—not even enough to employ a single teacher. It is time that National came clean with regard to its educational policy. So far we have only heard of doubling the funding for private schools discredited national testing the semi-privatisation of public schools through public-private partnerships and taking the word “free” out of the 20 free hours that all 3 and 4-year-olds are entitled to. I ask Mrs Tolley to tell us what her policy is. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that under Labour the number of teachers has increased by only 13 percent but according to his June report the size of the ministry without the Special Education Service has more than doubled from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1223 fulltime-equivalents? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I remind the House again about that member’s poor grasp of both literacy and numeracy. She has already told the House that the staff has increased. She used the word “ballooning” by 112 positions. Actually my maths tells me that that is by 7.4 percent so I am sorry I tell “Mrs Tulley” but the numbers do not add up again. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the report that the Minister received in June which talks about 111 percent—percent I tell the Minister not numbers—not completely discredit his previous statements that the ministry increased only because of the special education merger and prove that he has been completely wrong to blame ballooning staff numbers at the ministry on the special education merger—and I remind the Minister that the figures are 578 growing to 1223; my maths seems to be a lot better than his? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am looking forward to going through the  
Hansard 
 account of this question because we have heard from Mrs Tolley a number of different numbers. I remind her that she talked about 112 being that ballooning number of bureaucrats. I tell Mrs Tolley that no matter how much she wriggles and twists and no matter how much she tries to repeat— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whatever disrespect the Minister has for a senior female MP he should at least show her the respect of using her name correctly and he has not been doing so. I ask that he does. She is not “Mrs Tulley”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I heard it as Tolley. But I have always understood that the member wished to be referred to as Anne Tolley. I think that is the acceptable mode of address. However I thought the point of order was going to be—so I will make this point anyway—that the member will please be succinct and address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: If Mr English’s understanding of the English language is different from mine—and I guess he does come from Southland—I will repeat my answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is unnecessary. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will repeat my reference to the member. Mrs Tolley has told us that there were 112 new staff at the Ministry of Education in 2002. The ministry’s total staff was 2890 so where does she get the percentage from that she came up with? Clearly her numeracy skills leave much to be desired. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why has the Minister not come to the House and corrected the statement he made on 13 March 2008 when he knows full well from the report he received in June that even putting aside the special education merger the Ministry of Education has ballooned by 111 percent from 578 fulltime-equivalents to 1223 fulltime-equivalents putting aside any of the staff that are involved in special education; that I tell the Minister is very easy to do so why has he not come to the House and corrected the statement he made back in March? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Just because the member keeps repeating something that does not make it true. The truth of the matter as has been explained in this House not just today but on previous occasions is that Group Special Education and the early childhood service came into the ministry. If the member cannot grasp that then I will send it over in big print and in simpler language. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh that is not necessary. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the report that went to the Minister in June which shows quite clearly the figures— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know this may not be an issue that you should deal with now but I am concerned that in that particular exchange we saw an extreme example of a member making snide references to another member’s lack of intelligence. I think that it was part of the content of every answer that he gave. I know that this is a robust environment and that we could expect occasionally—as does happen but only occasionally—that references are made to other members’ lack of intelligence. In this case it was persistent and I would be interested in your view as to whether you think that is to become acceptable behaviour in the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I sure what the member has said is true but the member often uses the word “dumb” to describe members on this side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members often in their interjections probably do not hear themselves in the excitement of the moment. The member is right however that members should address each other in a courteous way and references to the mental prowess or lack thereof of a particular member are inappropriate in questions and in debate. 
Broadband Network—Roll-out 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What steps is the Government taking to accelerate the roll-out of high-speed broadband? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 This Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to faster cheaper broadband. Yesterday I announced details of the Broadband Investment Fund which will help facilitate high-speed broadband to businesses universities schools and hospitals; extend the reach of broadband into underserved regions particularly in the rural sector; and improve the resilience of New Zealand’s international connections. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he received any other reports on ways to speed up investment in broadband? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes I have seen a report from Maurice Williamson MP that he was “going to have to be very careful about any detail” and when asked whether he intended it to compete with the incumbent Telecom he said: “Well no. The intention is to have a sort of utility just like your water your sewerage your gas.” From one of the National Party’s great proponents of privatisation this sudden urge to renationalise the telecommunications industry is somewhat curious. 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Madam Speaker— 
Hon Member 
: “Mr 20 Percent”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ah that is where the member is headed and I can tell him that it does not feel good. My question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for sharing with us but would we please just get on with the question and the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I was new and inexperienced—what is Helen Clark’s excuse? 
Vehicle Fuel Economy Standard—Government Goals 
10.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: Does she stand by her statement that the vehicle fuel economy standard is an important initiative to assist the Government in achieving its transport strategy goals its Energy Strategy goals and its climate change goals? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes and I would note that that is also National’s  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 discussion document policy. Mr English may not have realised this as he is new to the transport portfolio but the policy discussion paper that he is so excited about  
Improving the fuel economy of vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet: A discussion paper for public comment 
 was published in January 2008. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that Labour’s car tax next year will add a tax of $900 to a Honda Accord a tax of $4650 to a Toyota Hiace and a tax of $10200 to a Holden Commodore so that by 2015 that family car will be bearing a tax of $16800; and does that show any concern for the cost to motorists? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No. Ministers do not favour and have never favoured the option that Mr English is focusing on—to place a fee on inefficient vehicles. That is National Party policy as stated on page 5 of  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 where National states: “Providing incentives for more fuel-efficient imported vehicles financed through penalties for inefficient vehicles”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Associate Minister confirm that the penalty for inefficient vehicles as proposed by the Business Council for Sustainable Development and referred to in  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
:  
Discussion paper by Hon Dr Nick Smith MP 
 was $2000 per vehicle? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Associate Minister of Transport pleased that the Labour Government has put so much faith in her that throughout the election campaign she will be justifying to New Zealanders taxes of up to $10000 on family vehicles? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: At no stage has any Minister proposed that. Bill English cannot hide National’s embarrassment about proposing a toll of $60 a week on every Aucklander for its supposed roading project. That is what he will have to justify during the election campaign. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Associate Minister tell us why if no Minister has proposed a tax of $16000 on a Holden Commodore she signed the foreword of the document that laid out these proposals which claims that this proposal was critical not just to the carbon reduction strategy but also to the Energy Strategy and a number of other strategies that apparently the Government wants to execute? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The rest of the world is introducing rules to improve the efficiency of cars entering fleets. If New Zealand is not careful we will end up being the dumping ground for dross that is no longer acceptable in most other countries. This Government is trying to save money for New Zealanders at the petrol pump and to make sure we have clean air to breathe. What is wrong with that? 
Lesley Soper 
: Has she seen any reports of flip-flops on vehicle efficiency policy? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes. Bill English has proposed a policy that would introduce a $2000 penalty on inefficient new cars as announced on page 5 of National’s  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 which was released in October 2006. National described the introduction of financial penalties as “common sense” and “practical measures that New Zealand could be taking”. I compare that statement with Bill English’s behaviour yesterday when he claimed that the Government had approved a stealth tax when we had done no such thing. National is being two-faced. It is becoming a complete pantomime every day. I feel sorry for John Key who has found out that as Brian Rudman says when teaching old dogs new tricks playing dead should be one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Those final comments were unnecessary. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Associate Minister promise to actively campaign in Auckland Central so that we can win it and will that campaign— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: There’s no need for that nonsense either Bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Eh? Does the Minister— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You complain readily enough when flippant questions are asked so why do you go and ask stupid ones yourself? 
Hon Bill English 
: Just because Harry’s now polling behind someone we put up 6 weeks ago! I say to him that he is going to be well up the list; he should not worry—it will be fine. Does the Associate Minister intend to carry out the Prime Minister’s wish to make sustainability the core of Labour’s election campaign and is it her intention to do a pamphlet drop to every household in New Zealand to advertise Labour’s plans to impose taxes of over $10000 on family vehicles; and is that the kind of strategy she expects is going to win her Auckland Central? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The discussion paper that was released by the Government which believes in open debate called  
Improving the fuel economy of vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet 
 
had submissions made on it that indicated that no one thinks the status quo is an option. If the National Party wants to campaign on inefficient vehicles that cost New Zealanders fuel and time and air quality then it should campaign on that. I am serious about indicating to New Zealanders that increasing fuel economy means that they have options to buy vehicles that will save them money and save them from sickness and death. These options are about open government not hidden agendas. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we take it from the Minister’s answer that Labour’s proposal to save motorists money is to put a $10000 tax on the cars? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: No. At no stage has any Minister suggested that or accepted that. 
Oil Prices— 
Managing Transport Challenges When Oil Prices Rise 
11.  
PETER BROWN (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is the report  
Managing transport challenges when oil prices rise 
 going to be adopted as Government policy; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No; the Government has recently released the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy  
which sets out its policies for transport. This research report was commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency to provide further information on potential impacts of changing oil prices on New Zealand’s medium to long term transport needs. The New Zealand Transport Agency regularly commissions and publishes research of interest in the transport sector. The findings of this report are the findings of the research company alone. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those comments how can this report be taken seriously when it ignores completely any uptake of new vehicle technology and goes on to state: “Should the uptake of improved vehicle technology reduce the sensitivity of travel demands to high fuel prices then the results of this report may need to be re-evaluated”; how the dickens can it be taken seriously? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said the New Zealand Transport Agency regularly commissions and publishes research. Not everybody agrees with the research that is undertaken and obviously this is the report of the research company alone. Any research that is done in relation to the Government’s policy statement and in relation to our strategy will relate to the goals that we wish to achieve. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share my view that it is much better to have a report that shows some faith in human resource initiative and innovation than to undertake an exercise that evaluates the situation when we do have cars appearing on our roads that operate under improved technology and not powered by petrol or diesel and thereby not paying terribly much into the National Land Transport Fund? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Can I assure the member that a lot of work is being done on the use of new technologies and I would not get too worried about this particular research report. I think the work that has been done by my colleague David Parker and by Jeanette Fitzsimons in her own area will be more significant in terms of new technology than any comments in this report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that there are only 36 electric cars registered for use on the roads in New Zealand that those 36 cars are rated as if they were diesel vehicles and are therefore required to pay road-user charges at the same rate as a diesel vehicle and does she think that the failure of the Government’s desire to see more electric vehicles on the road is because the policy from the Government does not encourage it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No quite the contrary. The Government does encourage it and has set the goal to be the first country in the world to have a large number of electric vehicles. However the member is not very informed about electric vehicles because it is very new and cutting-edge technology. We are seeing some of the first electric cars being produced on a mass basis in Japan and I believe we will see more of those cars here. But I have to say to the member that whether vehicles are powered by diesel or petrol eventually every vehicle will have to pay for the use of the road because no matter how they are generated in terms of energy they still use the road and I do not believe that in the long term New Zealanders would want to see one lot of road users paying for the use of the road and another lot not. 
Maori Trustee—General Purposes Fund 
12.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does the Maori Trustee support the expropriation of $35 million out of the Maori Trustee’s general purposes fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The Maori Trustee was closely involved in the proposal to establish the new statutory corporation including the transfer of the $35 million and continues to support the concept of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: In light of that answer can the Minister confirm that the Crown Law Office has advised that “the Maori Trustee is the legal owner of the general purposes fund and no other person can claim ownership of the assets in that fund”; and can he explain why the Minister is actually ignoring advice from the Government’s own Crown Law Office and pushing ahead with plans to steal beneficiary money out of the said general purposes fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There is also a Crown Law opinion that other things can be developed on the way through and it is on that basis that we are going forward in relation to setting up Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand which will help Maori develop enterprise. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker tena koutou katoa. Why is the Government proposing changes to the Maori Trustee Act?  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The proposed changes arise from a longstanding review of the Maori Trustee and the Maori Trust Office along with the decisions taken in Budget 2008. They provide for the Maori Trustee better funding accountability and returns to beneficiaries a significant funding pool for Maori economic development and in terms of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand a significant funding pool for Maori economic development independent governance and decision-making processes and accountability to Maori for those decisions. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Given that the Maori Trustee is by law independent of the Crown why despite Crown Law Office advice that the Minister has no legal or beneficial claim to the money in the general purposes fund is he and his Government trying to force the Maori Trustee who said at a select committee that he does not support the taking of $35 million from the general purposes fund; why is it that the Minister is again trying to steal money through the legislative process? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I was surprised that during the select committee process the Maori Trustee said he no longer supported transferring the $35 million via legislation. But I was also interested in the press release of 23 July where he said that at the select committee Mr Paki reiterated his support for the stand-alone agency and his agreement in principle for the proposed Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand and he restated his view that more work needed to occur before the entity was established. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If if the Maori Trustee— 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If if what? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sorry what was that? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Carry on! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What did the Minister not understand when Crown Law advised that “no other person can claim ownership of the assets in the general purposes fund” or is this another case of Labour thinking it does not have to obey the law of New Zealand just like everyone else—just like the Electoral Finance Act just like the pledge card and just like every other law that it has broken in the last 9 years? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: What is at stake here is a proposal to write off over $60 million worth of historical debt and to introduce $19 million to improve the operational capacity of the Maori Trustee—a $4 million capital grant and a transfer hopefully of $35 million. It is akin to transferring from one waka to the other to help aid and abet the progress of Maori. What is the member’s policy on that?  
Hon Tau Henare 
: Our policy is not to steal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will just ask the question. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: When was the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh just give the diary back. When was the Minister given the Crown Law advice that the Maori Trustee— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you’ve tucked it in front of your tummy Tau. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How is Tuku Morgan eh? What is it like dealing with Tuku Morgan now Trevor? Ha ha! Never mind Trevor! When was the Minister given the Crown Law advice that “the Maori Trustee is the legal owner of the general purposes fund and no other person can claim ownership of the assets in the fund”—when was he given that advice? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Crown Law advice has been there for a period of time. I also assure the member that there is other Crown Law advice and other legal advice about what we can do in developing a fund for the sake of Maori progress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to table the Crown Law advice which actually says— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I apologise for not raising this matter before question time which is when I should have done so. I seek leave for the time by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must report the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill to be extended from Monday 1 September 2008 to Monday 8 September 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. One thing that we do know is that in fewer than 3 months there will be an election in this country. One thing that we do know is that that election—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to those members going again barracking away. Whenever they are in trouble one can measure it by the volume of noise. This election will be about trust. It will be about a choice between two very different directions and two very different leaders. 
New Zealand knows where Helen Clark stands. New Zealand knows that she can represent the country offshore with dignity and prestige. New Zealand knows that she and she alone is in charge of the Labour Party. On the other hand New Zealand does not know where John Key stands and that is not surprising: John Key does not know where he stands either. New Zealand does not trust him and those numbers showing that are getting worse with every poll. New Zealand knows he is not in charge of his own party. New Zealand knows he is confused over policy. How can John Key lead a Government when he cannot lead an Opposition? We see that every day. Members should listen to Mr Key on policy. He went to a Waikato school recently and he was asked for his view on the giant pylons due to cut through the Waikato. It was a pretty easy question. He said: “That’s getting a bit personal dude.” He was trying to be all 2008 but came out so 1996. He said: “We are worried about security of supply … but my personal view is that they are damn ugly”. There is a clear policy position: he is worried and he thinks the pylons are ugly. So what is his position on the issue? 
The cracks are occurring on the opposite side of the House. They began last October when Tony Ryall had a very strange lapse of behaviour. He issued a policy. He said National would lift the cap on doctors’ fees. What happened? National members said: “The health spokesperson knows nothing about health policy. Shut your mouth Tony and disappear until after the election.” Then of course poor old mild-mannered and inoffensive Kate Williamson— 
Hon Members 
: Wilkinson! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —Wilkinson sorry—who would not say boo to a goose said that National would abolish compulsory KiwiSaver contributions. And she is the industrial relations spokesperson. National members said: “She knows nothing about industrial relations. Shut your mouth Kate. We don’t want to see you until after the election.” And then we had Shane Ardern the rural affairs spokesperson. He said National would abolish KiwiSaver contributions for small businesses that provide for rural communities. National members said: “Shane knows nothing about rural affairs. Shut your mouth Shane and let’s not see you until after the election.” 
Then came the doozy. Bill English the policy supremo the man who knows everything in the National Party said he wanted to sell Kiwibank eventually. He said that John Key did not understand Working for Families. So Bill English the finance spokesperson the head of the policy committee was told that he did not understand finance policy. They did not tell him to shut up; after he apologised they put a big piece of tape over his mouth and said: “Bill we don’t want to see you until after the election.” The latest is Maurice Williamson. He proposed tolls of $50 a week which is nothing new; Maurice has been proposing heavy tolling up and down the country at meeting after meeting for years. He proposed the privatisation of schools and hospitals. He has been doing that for years but suddenly of course he said it on  
Agenda 
 which as we all know is the great big trap into which unwary politicians fall. The transport spokesperson was told: “You know nothing about transport. Shut up until after the election!” so Maurice was put back in the garage. 
Well having spent so long following a small target policy of “me too-ism” National is suddenly a great big juicy target. New Zealanders having seen National swallow so many dead rats are starting to say that they think they can smell a live one. The live rat they are smelling is National Party credibility National Party trustworthiness and National Party principles. They do not believe they can trust National. They do not believe now that they can believe what National says. That is the issue that this election will be about. They do not believe National protestations of having no secret agenda and the more they stop trusting National the more many of them start to remember that Mr English is one of those who broke the promise on the national superannuation surcharge. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Let us talk about some issues of the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister of New Zealand and her role in this Owen Glenn donation saga. What has become clear is that the one person who is being straight about the donations is Owen Glenn. Members should remember events from earlier in the year. Owen Glenn got a Queen’s honour and Labour was asked whether he gave it money. Mike Williams said: “No not since the 2005 election.” and that was wrong. Owen Glenn told the public the truth which was that he gave a $100000 no-interest loan. So Owen Glenn is the one person in this sorry saga who tells it like it is. 
What about the other people? Helen Clark was asked whether she knew about the interest-free loan and she said that yes she did know. Then she was asked why she had not told Mike Williams—who had made public statements in January that there was no interest-free loan—and she replied that she had not told him because she was overseas. That is from someone who famously texts people in New Zealand when she is at official functions overseas! 
But the story moves on. We remember the events around 20 February when Owen Glenn said that he gave money to another political party. There was much speculation about which party that might be. He was asked whether he had given money to New Zealand First. He said: “Well go and ask them.” It turns out that that was what the public relations agent was telling him to say. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
of 21 February had a full-blown story about speculation on donations from Owen Glenn to New Zealand First but what else happened that day? On that day Owen Glenn met the Prime Minister in a private meeting after opening the Owen G Glenn Building. The Prime Minister expects us to believe that although the newspaper headline that day was whether Owen Glenn had given money to New Zealand First they never discussed the issue. She expects us to believe that Owen Glenn the man who tells it like it is did not say to his good friend Helen Clark—to whom he had given half a million dollars and from whom he had taken a Queen’s honour—“Helen there is a problem. The problem is that I gave New Zealand First some money and your Minister is out there saying that I did not.” What makes it more likely that he would have said that? In an email to his public relations agent he said: “Should I keep saying I didn’t give it to NZ First?? When I did?”. He sent that email on the day he met with Helen Clark. 
So here is the question of trustworthiness: what did Helen Clark know about the $100000 donation to Winston Peters? This issue is not about some pair of errant schoolboys as she treats them over some disagreement in the playground; this is about a donor and a lump of money at the heart of the formation of this Government—a Government I might add that stood in this House for 2 years lecturing everybody else about the influence of big money; a Government that changed at Helen Clark’s instigation the Electoral Finance Act so that one person who lives overseas could keep giving money. That person is Owen Glenn. 
I have never met Owen Glenn but my impression is that he is a good man. He is generous he is a bit naive about politics he would love to be in photos with the Prime Minister and he was insulted when Labour used Trevor Mallard to keep him out of those photos. I believe that when Owen Glenn went to the meeting with Helen Clark he told her that he had given $100000 to New Zealand First. I believe that Helen Clark has always known this. That is why today she has taken the stance that this issue will have to be resolved in the Privileges Committee which she knows will have to lift when she dissolves Parliament. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The irony of the deputy leader of the National Party vouching for the word of the largest donor to the Labour Party will not be lost on New Zealanders. The Labour Party has taken an extremely principled approach to this issue. The National Party bothered to ask the Prime Minister today whether she had sought a fresh assurance from the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters and she confirmed to the House that she had—that she had received that assurance. The Speaker earlier today made clear once again the convention that applies to all members of this House—that a member’s word is to be accepted but if there is a disproof of that word there is a consequence. The Speaker has underlined that there is a proper process for that to be ascertained and that is called a hearing by the Privileges Committee. All members and all parties that are part of that process are bound by the confidence of that process but that does not appear to have dawned on the deputy leader of the National Party who cannot stand the heat in the kitchen. The deputy leader of the National Party has now changed his mind; he thinks the kitchen is a good idea. No he has not changed: “God lights—I’ve got a John Key policy announcement.” No—yes he thinks it is too hot. So now he has decided he will go somewhere else and think about it because he knows that he has breached the confidence of the Privileges Committee process by jumping to a conclusion. 
I want to say something different today which might surprise some members. I like Maurice Williamson. I like the fact that he has ideas. 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite seriously I like the fact that he has ideas and I like the fact that he is not shy to debate them. I might disagree with the ideas but I like the fact that he will run those flags up the flagpole. Why? I say the public deserves the debate. There is an election coming along and I say: “Bring it on!”. But I say to bring it on in the good old-fashioned way to bring it on in terms of the best traditions of Kiwi democracy which is that that lot opposite will put forward their ideas and our lot will put forward our ideas and that lot out there can decide who they like the best. What is not right is when our lot puts up our ideas but that lot does a soft-shoe shuffle to pretend that either they have not got any ideas or they have but they are not telling. That is not only unethical; it is anti-democratic and it flies in the face of the highest traditions for which this country stands. 
This week we got to see that phenomenon again. We could call it the “CT disease”; Crosby/Textor invented it. National members did not want us to hear the plan to sell Kiwibank so there was an instant retraction from Bill English. They did not want us to know about plans to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation—that plan had to dribble out through John Key’s private network at Merrill Lynch—and they certainly did not want us to know about lifting the cap on general practitioner fees so in National’s whole health discussion document they just forgot to mention it. You know Tony Ryall’s credibility has never ever recovered from that faux pas. Trust in him has gone; trust in National’s health policy has gone because National did not put in its discussion document its single biggest policy. Can we see a trend here ladies and gentlemen? Can we see a trend? National forgot to tell us about plans to privatise schools; that just leapt out in  
Agenda 
 on Sunday. Kate Wilkinson reminded us about plans to get rid of KiwiSaver and was told to shut up. 
The point is that whether or not New Zealanders agree with the policy they deserve better. They deserve a fair honest debate. They deserve to have the honour of knowing what National’s policy actually is so they can decide whether they like it. Let us face it: if at the end of the day the judgment of the public is that they prefer National’s policy—God help them—to ours then they will make that judgment and we will all live with it. But the point is that they cannot make that decision because National is not dignifying New Zealanders with the truth. It is not dignifying them with the facts. It is not dignifying them with the policy but it is using the smokescreen of squabbling between Rodney Hide and Winston Peters to try to cloud the real issue which is a sleepwalk to an election with National pulling the wool over the eyes of ordinary New Zealanders. 
Getting back to Maurice Williamson I tell the House that three things are wrong with the $50-a-week toll charge. The first is just a simple statement of the obvious: Maurice thinks that $50 is no particular cost and that shows a desperate lack of understanding of the plight of ordinary Kiwis. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Let me be clear: nothing I am about to say is sub judice. I have the transcript of an interview by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) of Wayne Crapper one of Simunovich Fisheries’ former senior skippers. Reading from that transcript now I see that Wayne Crapper claims that his former boss Peter Simunovich told him to lie to the special select committee that had been set up to investigate Simunovich Fisheries’ scampi fishing practices. He says: “It was made quite clear to me that I had to lie otherwise I wouldn’t be doing”— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not have any particular knowledge of or interest in the substantive matters at stake here but what I do have is a very fresh recollection of the Speaker’s ruling that was handed down earlier today which made quite clear that under Standing Order 111 that kind of information does in the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the New Zealand Parliament pose a risk of prejudice of a matter that is sub judice. The member has just attempted to introduce more information than he introduced yesterday. Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to reflect on the fact that if it was too much yesterday it must logically be too much today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It pays to know something about current cases before the courts in New Zealand. That is a current case I understand to have been brought against TVNZ by Simunovich Fisheries—and for a quantum sum seeing that it is a company. So it is sub judice. Mr Hide needs to do some homework for a change. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that all members are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted in this House and all will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. I am informed by Mr Peters that the issue is sub judice so I have to take his word—I am bound by that— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No you don’t. You’ve got to take Rodney’s word as well. Why do you take one not the other? You’re supposed to be a fair and impartial chairman. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brownlee please I have not finished. If anything by way of corruption is being alleged then I would refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5 and I will quote from it: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Like members I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders which have been part of our parliamentary practice for more than 100 years. I ask members to recognise that when they address this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During your ruling you were repeatedly interrupted by Mr Brownlee who I note has interrupted me three times now in my first sentence. After you warned him he interrupted you twice again. Can I ask whether you accept that is acceptable behaviour in the House or whether you are going to require him at least to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will run the House my way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me withdraw and apologise for any offence you may have taken at my outburst but I am somewhat perplexed. We are going through a series of points of order simply because Mr Hide is choosing to read out a transcript from a television show that has been broadcast in New Zealand. Mr Cunliffe was so wide of the mark and obviously tuned up to be particularly sensitive to these matters today that it made him look rather silly. I think it would be rather silly if the Chair were to rule that someone cannot read in this House a transcript of a broadcast television programme. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the case is absolutely clear. We have received an indication that the particular transcript is the subject of a defamation action. An attempt by Mr Hide to avoid the defamation laws by repeating in this House allegations that are the subject of an action and—certainly in the view of counsel for Mr Peters—defamatory is the very thing that the Standing Orders are designed to prevent this House from doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Standing Orders are extremely clear. Matters that cannot be raised are matters that are prejudicial to a particular person. No one could conclude that from anything Mr Hide has said today. Indeed Mr Peters has informed the House that the particular court case relates to a company not to an individual person. Even on that ground we would say that the Standing Orders make it absolutely clear that the reading of a transcript from a television programme that has been broadcast is surely within the bounds of this Parliament’s Standing Orders. If is not then we are surely an outfit that is a bit like the three blind mice—and completely deaf and dumb as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact is that Mr Brownlee quite by accident has put his finger right on the nub of this matter. It is that transcript that is the subject of the defamation case and that case is alive as we speak. It is the very exact item that forms the nub of the matter on which the defamation case against TVNZ has been brought. I want to say this: there is no way that TVNZ or Radio New Zealand or anyone is going to lose inside the court and seek to win outside in public opinion by this most devious and obstructive device—namely to get a member of Parliament to run their case outside the court that they are not prepared to face inside the court. Those are the facts. [ 
Interruption 
] The Standing Orders relate to the constitution of this country I say for that member’s sake but of course he knows nothing about that being one of the only members to have infringed them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are two points that arise from Mr Brownlee’s contribution. The first is his confusion that a company cannot be a legal person. Of course it can and therefore is covered by the sub judice rules just as any other legal person would be. 
Mr Assistant Speaker I draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings 27/1 27/2 and 28/2. They are no doubt germane to the comprehensive ruling that was handed down by the Speaker earlier today. The first ruling makes clear that as Parliament often asks the courts to uphold its privileges it must be particularly vigilant in upholding the privileges of the courts. The judgment therefore is the Speaker’s not the member’s as to whether there is a threat to that. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 makes the point that we are held to a higher standard than the media are and Speaker’s ruling 28/2 makes the point that the application of the law to a particular case—or the facts of the case—is within the purview of the sub judice rule. That is what is important here. Again I have no view on the substantive facts of the case but as a matter of process I observe that a member of Parliament is using parliamentary privilege to elucidate in the public domain matters that are the subject or may be the subject of a matter that is sub judice. Whatever any of us might think I believe that this House is bound by the comprehensive ruling that Speaker Wilson handed down earlier today. Mr Assistant Speaker I would ask you to uphold that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I have not alleged any corruption in my speech. I took the precaution of seeking advice before giving this speech—given yesterday’s ruling—to see whether anything I was saying would be sub judice. The advice I received was that it was not. I think I should be allowed to continue my speech. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With the greatest of respect the transcript is to do with an eventual witness before a parliamentary inquiry but at that time the subject of a television documentary. It is that which the company has sued on. It is that allegation that the member seeks to repeat now in this House and it is the nub of the defamation suit by this company. Whatever advice he got it must have been from a plumber or a carpenter but it could not have been from a lawyer. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] I crave the members’ indulgence. I refer members to the ruling that was given earlier today. As I have already indicated the general application of the law may be discussed but matters that are material to a particular case currently before the courts may not. In this regard the House sets itself a high standard to protect the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. In relation to a particular case before the courts there can be no discussion of antecedent circumstances the nature of the action filed circumstances surrounding the action—in other words matters that may arise in evidence—the possible outcome of the case or the circumstances of the parties to the action. I have made the ruling and it is for the Speaker alone to decide. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was the ruling that you have just put the exact ruling that the Speaker gave the House today? None of us have had the time to consider it. If it is if that is to be a new Speaker’s ruling then it is a very very serious step indeed. It would seem to be quite counter to the Speakers’ rulings; indeed it is counter to even the ruling that Mr Cunliffe relied on moments ago and of course to 27/2 which states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” Mr Assistant Speaker if you take the full interpretation of what you have just said to us it would mean that we are totally gagged on any matters that relate to the law in New Zealand. That has to be an utter absurdity. This is Parliament and we are the place where laws are made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Don’t be ridiculous. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Peters interjects as he often does when he has a bit of trouble on his side and says that I am being ridiculous. Well I tell him to read the Speaker’s ruling then read what the Speaker said. I tell you what: at any other time a parliamentarian with that member’s experience would be defending the right to speak freely. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want to quote from the ruling that was given earlier today. “The sub judice rule is set out in the Standing Orders and it is the Speaker who determines its application—Speaker’s ruling 29/3. It is not for individual members to waive the application of the rule. The rule is not intended to inhibit discussion of the law in general. That is clear from Speaker’s ruling 27/2. However nothing said in the House should prejudice however slightly the decision of any court. That point is made in Speaker’s ruling 28/5.” That is as I have been advised. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that of the list you read out—of the Speaker’s ruling that you have just read—nothing I have said or am saying contradicts any of it. 
Dail Jones 
: I think there is some confusion here. The sub judice rule applies to every court case before the courts. I think Mr Hide is trying to say that because this court case—and I am saying it in general terms and on a hypothetical basis—does not involve Mr Peters he therefore can refer to the court case. Well that does not apply. Every court case in New Zealand is sub judice as far as this Parliament is concerned. Parliament cannot interfere in any court case whether or not a member of Parliament is involved in it. I think that is where the confusion may be arising on the part of some members. So if it is XYZ against ABC who are not members of this House we still cannot debate the pros and cons of that particular court case but we can— 
Phil Heatley 
: Read the Standing Orders. 
Dail Jones 
: I have and I am trying to explain them to the rather dense member from Whangarei. I am sure you understand the situation Mr Assistant Speaker and I would ask you to take that into account and explain it to those members who do not understand the situation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Jones. A number of Speakers’ rulings have been referred to today. Speaker’s ruling 27/2 is quite specific. It states: “The sub judice rule is not intended to inhibit members discussing the law in general but a particular case before the court may not be referred to.” It is quite specific. Mr Hide I am governed by Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I can assure Dail Jones that I understand perfectly what he said. I will continue my speech. 
Wayne Crapper says he lied to the select committee about not misreporting— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect this transcript is the core of the case brought by Simunovich Fisheries—as I understand it and have read it—against Television New Zealand. Television New Zealand should not be allowed to not front up at court and instead try to run its case outside the court. Mr Dail Jones has outlined why Parliament has respected this sub judice rule—and for centuries now. It goes to the core of justice in our country. Mr Hide may be unaware of its ramifications or its reasons but he should not be allowed to go on offending it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Again I can only refer to the ruling that was given previously. “The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the interests of justice. The rationale behind the rule is important. This is the implicit acknowledgment by the legislature above all other institutions that it should take extreme care not to undermine confidence in the judicial resolution of disputes by intruding its views in individual cases. The House applies a more rigorous inhibitory standard on itself than applies to the media in reporting judicial proceedings. That is not anomalous given the constitutional relationship between the House and the courts. The House and the news media are not in the same situation.” That is McGee on page 192. Mr Hide all I can say is that if you refer to something that is sub judice then that is not in order. It is not in order; you cannot refer to that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have said—I think half a dozen times—that it is not sub judice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide I can only accept the word—will the member please be seated—of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who tells me that the issue is sub judice. I am only the referee; I have no other course of action left. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You had better now explain to the House why you are prepared to take Mr Peters’ word but not Mr Hide’s. Mr Hide has said that it is not sub judice—he has taken advice. Mr Peters stands up and says: “Oh no sorry it is sub judice. You have to stop it.” Well Mr Assistant Speaker you are the Speaker and there is an obligation to make a decision here. But to stand up and say that you have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters ahead of the word of Mr Hide is unacceptable. There has to be some reason for it. Is Mr Hide less honest— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. You have made your point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yesterday in this House I was challenged on the question of whether a case was sub judice. Today I provided the Speaker with both the evidence of the case and the court receipts of its filing. Mr Hide was wrong yesterday. He gets up in the House today and says he has taken advice on the sub judice rule. He did not even know whether the case was current—on the very transcript that is the critical evidence on which this case is being brought! That is why Mr Assistant Speaker you should not take Mr Hide’s word or Mr Brownlee’s—because it is a pathetic repetition of a total lack of understanding of the laws of this country. Mr Finlayson over there knows what I am saying; he is a senior lawyer. Dr Mapp knows as well that what they are hearing here is political posturing of the worst sort that has no relationship whatsoever with the law. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have again been informed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice. I have no other course of action left to me. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I did actually call before the member; sit down you buffoon! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Both members will be seated! Mr Brownlee I heard Mr Mallard call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The one additional point to your ruling that I think should be made is that in the earlier ruling by the Speaker this case was accepted as being sub judice after discussions yesterday. Any reversal of that position would be I think very very serious. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you are getting us to a situation where you are saying you are prepared to take the word of a Government Minister over any other member in this House. What evidence do you have to say that Mr Hide is wrong? No one has heard him. There has been just an indication of what he is talking about and Mr Peters has gone off the deep end and so have a number of other Government members and Ministers. So what is the Chair basing the decision on? Is it that the member is the Rt Hon Winston Peters and therefore above question; is it that he is a Government Minister and therefore has to be listened to; or is it that you just do not like Mr Hide and have a fear of what he is going to say? 
Dail Jones 
: The reason we have this rule is to ensure that no miscarriage of justice takes place because it would be quite easy for any member of Parliament to stand up and reveal matters relating to a court case the member’s word that it was not part of a court case to be accepted and the very next day the case could be totally damaged. The case has been mentioned to Mr Hide:  
Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and others v Television New Zealand Ltd and others 
. That authority has been given; you have been given that information as well Mr Assistant Speaker. It is obvious you have evidence on which to base your decision and obviously you are trying to avoid a miscarriage of justice. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Much has been made of the sub judice rule. There is a principle that is equally as powerful and important for this Parliament and that is the right of free speech. What we are seeing attempted is the use of a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule to disallow any debate around any matter that is across any court case. If that ruling is to hold what we will do in this Parliament is create a perverse incentive for anybody who has been up to no good and does not want it debated in Parliament to simply file very broad proceedings that can potentially withdraw a matter from political debate for 5 or 10 years. These are matters that relate to a time more than 5 years ago. I urge you Mr Assistant Speaker to take extreme caution in taking a very broad interpretation of the sub judice rule—far broader than any I have heard in my 18 years in this place—and shutting down Rodney Hide from being able to express freely in this Parliament his right of free speech. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am going to give a ruling Mr Hide. I agree with the member that freedom of speech is important; indeed it is vital to a functioning legislature. But we also have the sub judice rule for the reasons outlined. I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. I am guided by the Speaker’s ruling on this and by the fact that Mr Peters has indicated to the House that the issue is sub judice. His word is his bond. If it is found to be anything else then there are consequences that follow from that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that nothing I am saying here today bears any relationship to the questions I was asking yesterday to which the Speaker’s ruling applies. This is new material. I have not mentioned any of the things that you discussed. I have sought advice: the case is not sub judice. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised by the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the issue is sub judice and I invite members to comply with the rules and to proceed with the debate. The issue is sub judice. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Wayne Crapper told Television New Zealand he was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —instructed by lawyers— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. There is a point of order. Mr Hide your microphone has been turned off. I have advised the member that the issue is sub judice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just witnessed an absolute contempt for your office as Speaker in this House; Mr Hide kept on reading out his speech regardless. What is happening here of course is that this case is sub judice on two levels. It is the nub of my case against TVNZ Radio New Zealand and others. Mr Hide knows that the people who have given him this information know that but of course he has not told us who gave him the advice that this issue was not sub judice. He has not told anybody today who told him that what he is about to do is not sub judice. The essence of the matter is that it is the key core heart of the case being brought against TVNZ by two complainants and I am one. So Mr Assistant Speaker if he seeks to carry on in this deliberately obtuse way I think you should sit him down and curtail his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. I just ask Mr Hide to give an assurance that he is talking about a different case from the one that is sub judice. If he cannot give me an assurance on that then I am going to apply the sub judice rule and that means the issue cannot be discussed. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can give you that assurance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: So the member has given me an assurance that he is talking about a different case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the question needs to be something a little more direct—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. This is a rather serious situation and I ask members to take it seriously. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is not a question of whether the member is referring to a case but whether he is referring to material that is material to a case. I think that is the key point and should probably have been the question that you asked him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am asking Mr Hide to give me an assurance that he is talking about a different case and not the case that is before the courts at the present stage. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would be helpful if you were to tell us which case you understand to be the sub judice case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think that is a matter for Mr Peters to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is not. You have ruled from the Chair today Mr Assistant Speaker that a case is sub judice. We are simply asking you which one. To say that it is whatever one that Mr Peters says leaves the Chair out of control in this House and Mr Peters in control of this House. That is unacceptable. Maybe we should take a short break while you find out for the assistance of the House which case is sub judice. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that they all are. That is the point. All cases are sub judice and I am giving you an assurance that what I am saying today is not sub judice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have to take the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has said that the issue is sub judice. This House needs to recognise the constitutional arrangements under which we operate. We could not operate otherwise. I am guided by the Speakers’ rulings the Standing Orders and the ruling that was given by the Speaker today. The issue is sub judice and cannot be debated in the House and there the matter ends. We will carry on with the debate.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two things. Firstly can you explain to the House why Mr Peters’ word is taken ahead of that of another honourable member? That is simple. Secondly what is it about the Speaker’s ruling that refers to a specific case? The ruling does not; it refers to speaking about matters that are sub judice. Mr Hide as an honourable member has said that what he is about to say is not sub judice. So the position that you are in is saying you believe Mr Hide or saying you believe Mr Peters. What are the criteria for deciding that Mr Peters is somehow more elected and more honourable than Mr Hide is? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I understand that the— 
Dail Jones 
: Mr Hide is right and Mr Brownlee is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please sit down. I understand that Mr Hide has given an assurance that it is a different case—that it is not the defamation case. Is that correct Mr Hide? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yeah. Exactly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is not the defamation case. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Then I call the honourable member. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have missed the point. As Mr Hide has acknowledged every case is sub judice. It does not matter who the parties are; every case is sub judice. So if you have asked Mr Hide whether it is the case involving so-and-so well that is irrelevant. Every court case in the New Zealand courts is sub judice. So no one in this House can refer to any court case I say to Mr Brownlee. That is the point. It does not matter whether it was the case yesterday or another case whatsoever; if it is a case before the courts Mr Assistant Speaker—and you have read out the rulings—no member of the House can refer to it. No member can refer to any case at all before the courts. So what Mr Hide has to indicate is that the evidence he is using is not involved in a court case. But if Mr Peters can recognise the evidence as being involved in a court case then you have to accept what Mr Peters has said because clearly his knowledge of the matter exceeds that of Mr Hide. It is simple as that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I again advise the House that as I understand it Mr Hide has given me an assurance that it is not the defamation case. If it is not the defamation case then he can proceed. However I caution the member that if he raises issues that are sub judice he cannot do that; otherwise this House will not function. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for that Mr Assistant Speaker. I very much appreciate your ruling. 
Mr Crapper says on the tape that he lied to the select committee about not misreporting fish caught about the dumping of quota species and about throwing overboard 12 years of his personal diaries. He was told to get rid of the diaries by Simunovich— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Hide. The issue has been raised again by Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Hide is now treating you with contempt—and this House as well. He is reading from key critical information that was the subject of the complaint and remains the core issue in the complaint before the courts of this country. It is also a key issue in respect of the case that I have brought against TVNZ Radio New Zealand and a few others as well. The reality is that your having warned him thus far I think you should tell Mr Hide that he is on his last warning or the speech will be stopped. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think there is only one way that we can sort this out and that is to find out exactly what everyone is talking about. It would seem to me that if you just rule Mr Hide out then given his assurances you are in fact favouring Mr Peters’ view of things ahead of that of Mr Hide and indeed a number of other people in the House and that would be quite unfair. I seek leave for the House to take a 5-minute adjournment to give you time to sort out exactly what the parties here think is being talked about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I objected to leave being given because Mr Brownlee has clearly shown by his demonstration today that he knows nothing of these cases or the facts around them. What I would like to tell you is this: there was a television documentary on Simunovich Fisheries; the transcript that we are hearing from Mr Hide is regarding the TVNZ documentary— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The evidence that Mr Hide is reading from and repeating in this House is the critical part of that case. It also forms of course part of my case and I was challenged in the House yesterday by these same people in the same arrogant and outrageous way to prove that I had a case before the courts of this country. Today I did. I provided the Clerk of the House—and your adviser can confirm this—with the filing date documents and the court receipt. Those members have never apologised for the allegation yesterday that I was somehow misleading the House. Those are my bona fides. Perhaps they can show theirs now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I say again Mr Assistant Speaker that perhaps Mr Peters is right. But it would be nice for us all to know whether he is right or wrong and if we did adjourn for 5 minutes that could be sorted out. I do not know what the Government is so worried about and I do not know what Mr Peters is so worried about but if it is so easy to sort out if he is going to be exonerated and if everyone else is going to be proved wrong why would we not pursue that course of action? So I seek leave again for the House to adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The member has a point of order. Gee; we’re not that much like the Wild West are we? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order Mr Brownlee! 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I draw your attention directly to Standing Order 111. The sub judice rule is not so broad that we can make absolutely no reference whatsoever to cases before the courts. The rule is more limited than that. The reference has to be “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Merely repeating for instance a matter that is on the public record—a television documentary for instance—or referring to a statement of claim or a statement of defence or anything of that nature does not amount to real or prejudicial danger to the case. Mr Assistant Speaker I refer you to the Standing Order which states that it has to appear to the Speaker that there is “a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” Referring to something that has been in a television documentary could not possibly be any level of prejudice. Mr Assistant Speaker I ask you to apply the ruling as it is written; otherwise you simply will restrict all reference to any case whatsoever. That cannot be the effect of the sub judice rule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have to come back again to what Mr Peters has said. He has indicated to the House that the evidence that Mr Hide is talking about is a critical part of the case. I can only take the honourable member’s word for that. That is how this place operates. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it’s not. Point of order— 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Maybe I can help Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am on my feet. Both of you will be seated please. I will ask again for an absolute assurance that the issue and the wording the member is using are not sub judice. If they are sub judice Mr Hide then you will not be able to continue along that line. It is as simple as that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I give my absolute assurance that it is not sub judice. 
Dail Jones 
: How does he know? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I think we have a problem here. I am bound by conventions to accept the word of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has indicated to the House that the issue that is being discussed is critical to the case. I have no other course of action available to me. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can assure you that this material forms no part of the case of TVNZ and Simunovich Fisheries or Winston Peters and it could not possibly do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I invite the member to continue his speech but if it is sub judice Mr Hide you know what the consequences are. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Wayne Crapper told TVNZ he was instructed by lawyers acting for Simunovich Fisheries on how to prepare his affidavits and how to answer any questions put to him by the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We are going round in circles. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No we are not; we are going straight to the nub of the matter: “Wayne Crapper told TVNZ …”. That is what TVNZ repeated in its documentary and that is what it is being sued for. I am asked by members over there how I know; well because I have put enough time into it enough effort into it and a lot of money into it as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. This is a point of order; this is not a general debate. At the moment a point of order is on the floor. My patience is running out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I have acknowledged— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. If you have not finished then please do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There were affidavits referred to in this matter. These are court documents. Those are the facts. The opening case has been published in the newspapers of this country as to the existence of these matters. To sit here now and claim some ignorance because you do not know then take my word for it is just not acceptable. Worse than that it is a contempt for this Parliament and I ask Mr Finlayson who would know these matters to give his colleagues some advice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There is exactly the problem. Mr Assistant Speaker Mr Peters is saying that you cannot be moved by the plea from Mr Hide to take his word. But Mr Peters on the other hand is making exactly that plea—for you to take his word. It goes back to what I said before: what are the rules and what are the motivations for the Chair—the Speaker of the House—to accept the word of one member over the word of another? That would be a very interesting ruling for us to have. In fact it would be a disastrous ruling at the same time. The clearest way round this is for the House to take a short adjournment while you are given the opportunity to check the veracity of the claims made by both members. Either that or we could have someone else take the Chair for a short period of time while another member gave a general debate speech and you could come back— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have sought some advice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker if you look at Standing Order 48 you will see that it is within your power to “suspend a sitting or adjourn the House if the Speaker thinks it is necessary to do so to maintain order.” I would suggest that we are at a very very critical point in proceedings and that course of action might be the best. If that is not acceptable then it would not be impossible for you to consider having Mr Hide suspend his speech for now to allow some inquiry to be made about the two positions being advanced by the two particular individuals and then at some later time perhaps in 20 minutes when someone else has concluded his or her general debate speech having Mr Hide resume his speech safe in the knowledge that his right to free speech will not be impeded by the misuse of Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact is—and the Clerk of the House can verify this because they went through the Clerk’s Office—the filings at the court amount to 28 pages. But what was relevant for the Clerk was to file the critical pages of those 28 pages plus a receipt from the court. That is what I am relying upon as being trusted by this House; it is not just my word but the fact that I provided the Clerk with the evidence of that and of the date it was filed which brings it inside the sub judice rule. All we are hearing from other people is their total misapprehension; they do not know what they are talking about and are trying to explain it away. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have sought advice honourable members and I will share it with the House. Both cases if there are two are sub judice; they are both currently before the courts. The Speaker is in a difficult situation. The Speaker cannot know every case before the courts. The House sets itself a high standard in this respect and as Speaker I have to have regard to the relationship between the House and the courts. If it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read then that is not in order. In this regard I have to take Mr Peters’ word but I warn the member that there are serious consequences for misleading the Speaker in such a circumstance. The media may discuss the issue but the House does not. I ask Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general rather than the specifics of a case. If he cannot I will have to terminate his speech. I ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let me make it quite clear that what I am reading is not sub judice and is not evidence in any case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say again that if it appears that evidence relevant to a case is being read then that is not in order and it would mean that I would have to terminate the member’s speech. I now ask Mr Peters to allow Mr Hide to continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: And I assure you I am following the rules. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It must be in a general sense. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says: “He had no qualms about you lying to the select committee?”. Mr Crapper says: “None whatsoever.” “So let me get it straight. You lied to the select committee about your diaries.” “Yes.” “You’d thrown those overboard.” “Yes.” “Misappropriation.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is outrageous. I recall this documentary very very well. I recall also the inquiry very very well and I know what was filed at the court in both cases. I think it is an absolute outrage that this information which any reasonable person could understand would be contested by someone if that person was in disagreement with it because it is so serious is now being regarded in this frivolous way in this House. Mr Hide’s assurances to you are not worth the air they pass on. Ask yourself which company if it took its business seriously would not be suing on this issue if it objected to the truth of it. That is why this matter is before the court. To have him and others here despite the fact that the Clerk knows I filed today the critical evidence that was part of yesterday’s challenge by all these members—and when they have nothing left to do today they do not demur now that I did file the case on time—come up with this sort of argument is I think disgraceful and his speech should be curtailed now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind Mr Hide to address the application of the law in general. He cannot refer to specifics. If he does I will have to terminate his speech. He cannot refer to specifics; otherwise his speech will be terminated. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The transcript continues: “So you’re saying when it came time to give evidence to the select committee he told you you had to lie to cover up what they had been doing?”. “He told me I had to cover up the answers of what they and more what I was doing on those affidavits—what I’d been accused of. He wanted to make sure that they were his way not the truth.” I know that this matter is not before the courts and I know that it is not part of the evidence; it was an interview conducted in December 2004 well after the time these cases were filed. Indeed it is an interview that was never broadcast. It is an interview that I have copies of and I know that Mr Peters is nutty— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We’ve got a point of order! You can’t take another one. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That was not a point of order; Mr Hide was continuing his speech. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is outrageous. Mr Hide was allowed by me and others to continue his speech and then he says that he was reading from a transcript that was never published. Could anyone imagine why not? It was because the lawyers behind this transcript knew full well what it meant; they knew that it was subject to a court case at that time that it would offend the sub judice rule and that if they published they would be joined in the action. That is what Mr Hide is trying to do today subtly through this House: to get publication; to get the sanctity of the House and parliamentary privilege around this information which the very people who gave it to him would not themselves publish back then. He does not understand just what he is asking this House to do and with what contempt he is now treating this institution. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well Mr Hide has given the House an assurance; I have accepted it and I have allowed the member to continue. If Mr Hide has misled the House there are serious consequences for that action as well. So I ask Mr Hide to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the court. I need that assurance because if it is Mr Hide and you are addressing this House then there are serious consequences for that action as well. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can give you that assurance Mr Assistant Speaker. This has never been injuncted; it has not been any problem whatsoever. [ 
Interruption 
] Well Mr Peters can complain because he is running scared from what is coming out here. We find in this tape that Mr Crapper said he lied to the select committee about— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think I should have to repeat this but it will be obvious to Mr Finlayson over there to Wayne Mapp and to anybody else over there who has any interest in the law of this country and this institution that the reason why they would not have published that transcript—but they seek to publish it now via this House and gain the sanctuary of parliamentary privilege and therefore free themselves to release it—was that it was to do with the central part of a case then current. I know how old this case is; I know how old my case is. The transcript is the key part of the case. But here we are with Mr Hide saying that because it was never published in 2004 it is not part of the sub judice rule. Frankly that is just nonsense as Mr Finlayson who is the senior lawyer in the National Party well knows. And I am asking him now to get up and tell his colleagues what the truth of this matter is on the fact of the sub judice rule as it applies to this case. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I do not wish to comment directly on the matter that Mr Hide and Mr Peters are arguing about at some considerable length but in the context of what Mr Hide has just said I would raise with you Mr Assistant Speaker—and further to what Mr Peters has said—another quite different point. One cannot bring inside the Standing Orders of the House something that is outside it by simply quoting what somebody outside the House said. A member cannot call someone a liar inside the House and a member cannot make something that someone outside the House be within order by quoting it inside the House. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings from the past to that effect and Mr Hide is trying to do precisely that. That is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot get round the Standing Orders by quoting from documents. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not trying to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I find myself in a rather difficult situation. I am between Scylla and Charybdis. I have both members giving me assurances about their positions. If it is found that the case is other than the assurances that both members have given to the House both will face serious consequences arising from those assurances. I again warn Mr Hide that he has to confirm that he is not addressing the particulars of a case that is before the courts. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No Mr Assistant Speaker I am not. Happy? We have millions of dollars of— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are in a very difficult position. I think the vast majority of members of the House know that you are in a very difficult position here ruling on these matters. That kind of sarcastic comment made in front of the House by one of the two protagonists is not actually helpful. I think most people are hoping to get on with these matters and to get on to the next business which a lot of members are interested in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Hide your behaviour is coming to the stage where I will have to take action. I caution the member again that if he brings the House into disrepute and the issue is seen to be sub judice then I will terminate his speech. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. What went on here as evidenced in this interview was that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota was stolen from New Zealanders by the misreporting of catch. We also know that our Parliament was lied to repeatedly— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the very nub of this case. That a company had done what Mr Hide is now alleging was the subject of the documentary and Crapper was one of the key witnesses in that documentary. Mr Hide has carried on regardless of what you have told him a number of times now and has put right at issue what he was seeking to say from the very start. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Mr Hide is entitled to address the House in general and he is doing that at this stage—in general. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Our Parliament was lied to repeatedly at the select committee in a conspiracy to cover up the lying. It is also clear that Mr Winston Peters knew that millions of dollars’ worth of fish quota had been stolen— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not going to sit here and have Mr Hide treat this House with utter contempt saying anything he likes to try to blackguard me under the cover of this House. He can walk outside and I will take him on in the court any day starting right now but he comes inside here—big bold man—and makes his stand in front of you and I am not going to allow him to get away with it. If he wants to say that he should go outside and join TVNZ Radio New Zealand and everybody else who is being sued in this case. But he will not get the sanctuary of this House while I am sitting here when he is repeating comments that are key to the court case in which I am involved and others are involved. Also he is now accusing me inside this House of being in some way corrupt. He is not going to get away with it. I might say this though: Mr David Carter in court at every point of this case said that at no time did he ever seek to impugn the honour and integrity of Winston Peters. Is it not a strange thing what those members are prepared to do in here but when they get outside what they will say when— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All of us know because we have been dealing with this issue for some time now that allegations of corruption are not permitted. That is Speaker’s ruling 25/5. I will read it for the member’s benefit: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Making allegations of corruption is not in order. The member was running very close to doing so and he should desist. There is a proper way to raise such matters and it is not to raise them in the House—not in the House; not allegations of corruption Mr Hide. I terminated your speech last week because of a similar sort of thing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but the transcript will show that he has already done that. He thinks stage by stage by your leniency and your fairness—in my view it is undue—he will get the story out somehow and then the media can print it. I know that strategy. It is an underhand strategy—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order on the floor. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and it is totally despicable but he seeks to do it. He should now be stopped; otherwise there will be uproar in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have cautioned the member about corruption. I have also told him that he was running very close to making corruption allegations and that he should desist. If Mr Peters has taken offence then I will ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise. Has the member taken offence? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I take offence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask Mr Hide to withdraw and apologise. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What is shocking about this case is not actually Mr Peters’ behaviour because we have come sadly to expect no less of him—sadly. He is a man who once stood for something for some principle and integrity. What is sad about this case is that a Government and a Prime Minister have been dragged into defending this fishy tale have been dragged into covering up what has gone on here with Simunovich Fisheries and these donations and Parliament is trying to shut down debate discussion and questions so that right across New Zealand anyone who expresses a contrary view to that of Helen Clark and her Government or anyone who questions criticises or wants to debate or discuss the shocking slip in standards in our democracy and in our Government as evidenced by Mr Winston Peters and his appalling behaviour— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —gets shut down outside this House and inside this House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just a few minutes ago Mr Key made a statement about future coalitions in this country. He was one might say behaving tough with a wriggle-out clause—behaving tough with a wriggle-out clause. It is not clever it is not experienced it is not smart and it is not wise. Why would he not wait until the Privileges Committee on which he has so many more members to decide the evidence on this case? Why would the leader of a party with so-called senior members on this Privileges Committee not wait until it hears the evidence? The answer is that those members know they are going to lose because they— 
Anne Tolley 
: Because they’ve got integrity. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If they had any integrity they would not have bought it in the first place. That member would not know a thing about integrity; everybody knows that. Sitting there spouting and having operations to try to look good does not mean that she will ever be fit to be a Minister. We all know that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a wanker! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No language like that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I ask the member to excuse me; I know there is a point of order in the House. I will have no language like that in this House. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member may have the point of order if it is delivered properly. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. The point of order is granted. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Madam Assistant Speaker you just heard— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I heard bad language. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And I just apologised for that. Actually I do not think that is bad language but I withdrew and apologised. 
Madam Assistant Speaker you just heard in this House an insinuation and accusation that I have never heard in this House before from that member—and he should know better—about one of our members. If you are to let that go and have me up for what I said which as I said I withdrew and apologised for then you should do something about the insinuation that that member made on Anne Tolley as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Anne Tolley has to take the point of order not this member. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Has the member taken exception? 
Anne Tolley 
: I have taken exception to that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member of course was shouting out at the time that I have no integrity but I have more in my big toe than she has. I know what pressure John Key is under. I know from whence it comes; I know who these people are. And let me tell members that that is why he is buckling. That is why he is buckling. What he does not understand is that these people are not pro National or pro anybody but themselves. That has been their track record for the last 20 years. But he is responding to them and it is a very very silly decision. 
What did the  
New Zealand Herald  
say on 12 July? It stated that Mr Glenn in an email that it will not show anybody claimed that he gave money to New Zealand First. Mr Glenn in the letter before the committee right now claims he did not. So we have disposed of the first lie from the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Down goes one. 
The second thing that the  
New Zealand Herald  
claimed was that there was fraud. Mr Glenn in his letter before the committee right now stated that there was not. So down goes the second allegation which is the core of the issue that these people over here were relying upon. Now here comes the third one. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware of and you will know about the rules around the discussion of matters before the Privileges Committee in this House. Mr Peters cannot continue in this vein. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that John Key did nothing else at question time but just that. He relied upon the letters that the committee—for reasons I do not understand but I am happy about—has made public: both Mr Glenn’s letter and mine. Therefore those letters are in the public arena. I am afraid that Mr Brownlee has failed for that reason and by reason of his own leader’s actions at question time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Would Mr Brownlee take his seat please. It just so happened that I was listening and I asked the Clerk of the House. The Clerk of the House said that members are allowed to discuss that which has been published but are not allowed to discuss proceedings in the committee. Would the member please continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—another win! Now here comes the third one; the critical one on which the alligators who are out there relied upon Mr Hide to come to this House and somehow fight their case for them because of course we all know where this is going in the end. 
Let me just say this. When one talks about those issues of personal experience one needs to know what the travel diary for people and what their schedules might be. One has to know what events are important. One has to know which witnesses are important. I can tell members that I have just had a conversation this afternoon—because I have only had the letter from Mr Glenn for less than 24 hours—that tells me exactly what time this conversation happened why it happened whom it happened with and what Mr Glenn said. Do members know why it is important? Because it relates to a critical piece of information that “Granny Herald”—thank heavens for “Granny Herald”—in its nanny way actually published. It concerned my entitlement to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this country. It concerned when the issue first blew in Pusan in South Korea. I was there with two other ministerial colleagues. That is why I now know the dates and the times. I will be telling the select committee—in public—all the details about that as will Mr Henry. Now I would rather wait for the select committee to make those facts known because I think that the select committee is apprised of it but I would just say this here. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Story No. 3. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not story No. 3 I say to Mr Brownlee; it is the same story that I told in respect of Mr Bob Jones who admits now that there was no fraud and that my version was right. 
Let us go back to why this started. It started because it is a compliment to New Zealand First. Those people think that they can take us out because one party stands in their way and that party is the party with a record of standing up for ordinary New Zealanders of putting New Zealand first and of never ever being bought off. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 We have just heard version No. 3 from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and we wonder how long it will be before we get version No. 4 as well. The issues around Owen Glenn Winston Peters New Zealand First and the Labour Government are a test of leadership for Helen Clark and today she has been found wanting. She has been found wanting. This issue is not just about Mr Peters and his behaviour. It goes to the heart of our constitution to our very democracy and to the very reason that we come here to pass laws and to represent New Zealanders. Helen Clark has sat in Parliament today and she has ducked and dived about whom to believe Winston Peters or Owen Glenn—because franklyboth of them cannot be right. One of them is absolutely wrong and Mr Peters’ third version of events today does not sound any better than version one or two. 
This afternoon members of Labour under Helen Clark’s leadership have made a mockery of our democracy. We have seen it—an absolute disgrace—as anything to shut down Mr Hide anything to stop the truth coming out. They have shown us exactly what is important to them. Michael Cullen let go in a little sort of unguarded moment a couple of months ago when he told a television reporter: “It’s all about power; you don’t understand—it’s all about power.” That pretty much sums up Helen Clark’s Labour Government—it is all about power. 
Today the National Party is saying that that price is too high far too high. Integrity has to mean something. It has to be more than words. It has to mean something. Helen Clark has chosen to look the other way while this Parliament and all the MPs in Labour are tarred with the same taint of deceit that they should not have to bear because they should live up to the vision of a new standard of accountability that she promised New Zealand in 1999. Instead the new standard of accountability that we have is the lowest standard of accountability I would say that this Parliament has ever seen in all its years. This is the same Minister of Foreign Affairs who is happy to traipse around the Pacific lecturing other countries about democracy human rights and the rule of law. Yet today we have seen an absolute travesty in the rule of law in this country. We have seen this Parliament held in contempt by the very Government that seeks to govern us and that is a disgrace—that is a disgrace. 
What we know about Mr Glenn is that he donated money to the Labour Party and good on him for doing so if that is what he wanted to do. It was his money. He donated money to pay for Winston Peters’ fees. He said that too. Yet we have all these different versions of events. And poor old Mr Glenn who does not want a lot out of the world—he already has a lot of money—wanted to be the consul to Monaco. That is what he wanted. He wanted a bit of credibility and he wanted a gong at the end of his name and he got that except he did not get the Monaco job. And what happened when he went to the Auckland University to open the Owen G Glenn Building for the business school? Helen Clark was there. He was there in his cloak—he was a very important man that day—but he got snubbed like no one else has been snubbed. 
The person who did the dirty work for Helen Clark was Trevor Mallard—always “Mr Dirty Work” for Helen Clark. He had to go and bully poor old Owen Glenn who was there as proud as Punch because he had donated over $7 million and he thought he was right and he was great. The photo that hit the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
was of 
poor old Owen Glenn being bullied by Trevor Mallard—“Mr Bully-boy”. That is what we can say about the treatment that they have meted out to Owen Glenn. And Owen Glenn does not want to get himself into trouble he wants to tell the truth and so he has. His letter that was emailed to the Privileges Committee says it all really. He thought he was helping the Labour Party—the Labour Party and Helen Clark. He thought he was being helpful; and Mr Peters was really kind: he thanked him for it at the Karaka sales. Obviously Mr Glenn whom we already know cares about these things. He said he thanked him yet Mr Peters— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I call Tariana Turia. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. On 8 November 1918 Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana received a vision to gather signatures for a petition to take to Parliament to convince the Government to make Te Tiriti o Waitangi part of the law of this land. It is a vision that is still waiting to be realised. The mission of Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana was to bring to Parliament the evidence about land confiscation. He went further—as far afield as England in fact—to seek an audience with King George V to present his petition which was a petition that contained the names of two-thirds of all Maori. It was a journey I know well as my own grandfather father and two aunts accompanied Ratana to London on his historic trip seeking the commitment of the Crown to honour the Treaty. That same petition was finally laid in this House in 1932 tabled by Sir Eruera Tirikatene and by then containing 45000 signatures. It is time for the petition of Ratana to be honoured. It has been delayed for too long. 
The petition petition No. 239 which is archived in the parliamentary papers of 1932 requested that the Treaty of Waitangi should be entered into the statute book in an effort—and listen to this everybody—to “preserve the ties of brotherhood between Maori and Pakeha for all time”. But alas the petition was carried over year after year. Eventually in 1945 it was revised into a recommendation to Cabinet that the Treaty of Waitangi should be published and copies hung in schools and Maori meeting places—a promise unfulfilled a commitment dishonoured. 
As we approach the 90th anniversary celebration of Ratana’s original prophesy we in the Maori Party are looking forward to the day when Labour—as it has been saying it will do—tables in the House a bill to entrench Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the constitution of New Zealand. So we have been extremely pleased to hear the rumour circulating around Maori networks that Labour will soon be introducing a bill to entrench the Treaty into our constitution. The ratification of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the ideal that has come through the words and actions of generations of Maori leaders. It was written into the Kohimarama covenant attended by some 200 chiefs in 1860. Indeed every iwi has its leaders and its legacy bound up in the commitment to enshrining the Treaty in law. We believe the time is right to entrench the Treaty in all legislation so that decision making on matters concerning Maori and Maori and Crown together is shared with all. As an example the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act would be redrafted to ensure that articles 1 and 2 guarantee our mana and rangatiratanga—the ability to exercise power sharing on all issues that affect us as tangata whenua. 
It is time to pay homage to Ratana. It is time to front up to the fundamental challenge of our nationhood to entrench Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We remember the call from Ratana in 1936: “May you never forget your responsibilities to the Maori people for when you forget this your Government will fall.” We pledge today that the Maori Party will do all it can to make good on commitments given over the passage of time to ensure that no stone is left unturned in upholding the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Much has been much made in this House in the last few days about integrity about honesty and about being upfront. Well the people of New Zealand are asking the National Party which seeks to be the next Government how upfront its members are being about its policy. 
We have had of course some examples of the so-called hidden agenda. I think that more and more New Zealanders are seeing that the National Party does indeed have a hidden agenda. We saw of course Kate Wilkinson’s release that employers would pay less for their contribution to KiwiSaver. She was dragged in but she said it. We saw Bill English saying that National would sell Kiwibank. Then he tried to clarify that but never actually denied it. We had Lockwood Smith saying that National would have to swallow some dead fish but once in Government it would be able to really convince people that these so-called dead fish were ones that it was going to toss out. Finally of course there was Maurice Williamson’s release last Sunday morning on public-private partnerships where he talked about tolling but also talked about introducing public-private partnerships into schools. 
I am privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Education. I stand before the country in the election campaign with the proud record of the Labour-led Government’s 9 years in office. Labour has almost doubled education spending. It has increased teachers’ salaries by some 35 percent and by 43 percent for principals and it has invested a whopping $5.5 billion extra into education. The electorate knows where Labour stands on education. It is about resourcing education so that we have a quality education service. 
But what does National stand for in education? We have not of course had any policy releases about the really big questions in education such as what young people need to learn in their schools in the 21st century how we address the barriers facing children and young learners who are currently not succeeding in the education system and how we resource our schools adequately. None of those questions has been addressed. But we have had a few glimpses of National’s hidden agenda. We have had four of them. The first of course has related to public-private partnerships which we have talked about in the House today. As I explained in question time public-private partnerships have not worked well in the UK in Australia in Canada and in the US. Indeed the province of Nova Scotia with its quite conservative Government has ended all public-private partnerships in education because it discovered that the education system and the taxpayer were being grossly overcharged by construction firms and those seeking to manage private business in schools. 
In Australia the Federal Parliament found in a recent review of private funding in schools that schools were far less transparent in their processes with that private involvement. It has found that the commercial and confidential nature of many business proposals means that the taxpayer and the state and Federal Government do not have a chance to look closely at these proposals and that there is not the transparency that there is in a fully publicly funded process. In the US Bush America—which I am sure the National Party would like to take us to—has companies using public-private partnerships in schools as hosts for other business. McDonald’s for example provides food in schools and private preschool centres and so on. In the UK there have been tremendous problems with private companies not finishing projects and local government and cities having to pick up the cost of private construction going on in schools. That construction has been grossly under-tendered for so the taxpayer as well as the school system has suffered. 
We also have another obvious sign of the hidden agenda in education from National. We had Mr Key’s commitment on the  
Agenda  
programme that National would double the amount of money that goes into private schools. In other words we have capped it at $40 million and Mr Key said National would just about double it which is another $40 million out of our public school system into the private system even though only 6 percent of New Zealand students attend private schools. We have had Mr Key and Anne Tolley National’s education spokesperson talking about standardised testing. Actually Madam Assistant Speaker as you would know as a former school principal standardised testing has been totally discredited internationally not least of all in the UK. We have formative assessment in New Zealand. New Zealand has some of the best assessment systems anywhere in the world. 
Finally taking the “free” out of free early childhood education is National’s plan as well. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I do not intend to waste any time on that Minister Chris Carter who is hopeless as we all know. Rather I want to educate the Minister of Justice Annette King who needs some help. She admitted in question time this afternoon that she did not know the legislative history of the Electoral Finance Act. So I want to talk about aspects of that legislation which was passed in haste by Labour and its cronies. And why was that? It was passed simply to benefit Labour and hobble its opponents in election year. The legislation was initially the responsibility of Mark Burton but he was such a sad case that he made a botch of that—and indeed of everything else he touched—so he got the sack. The current Minister of Justice is ritually humiliated by Bill English every day in question time. Her reputation has been destroyed to such an extent that I actually have a chance in the Rongotai electorate. 
One clause in the Electoral Finance Bill that was the subject of vigorous debate was clause 25C. That was part of the donations regime that was unilaterally put into the bill one day with no consultation with National members of Parliament. It was interesting to note that during the course of the debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee Labour MPs would run away during lunchtime presumably to get some instructions about the wording of the provision. They were most anxious about the definition of “overseas person”—as Mr Auchinvole will confirm. In 2008 we have discovered why those members were so concerned about the definition of “overseas person”. It transpires that this legislation and particular regime was passed in order to facilitate the donations of Mr Glenn to the Labour Party. 
Mr Glenn is the man who gave $500000 in donations to Labour’s 2005 election campaign after he met the Prime Minister at a Tourism New Zealand promotional dinner in Sydney on 8 July 2004. Instalments of that massive payment were deposited into Labour’s bank account on the 9th of each month from November 2004 through to March 2005. We also know about the interest-free loan. We know that Mr Glenn was made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. We know that he has alleged he was offered the role of Minister of Transport in her Cabinet—and given that the Minister of Justice is also the Minister of Transport that may not have been such a dumb idea. We know that Mike Williams also told the media that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005 and that as a consequence of that statement Mike Williams offered his resignation. 
This Labour Government passed that disgusting legislation in order to advance its own electoral chances in election year. We all know the Electoral Finance Act is riddled with errors. Every day there is a question about the effect of section 5. No one knows what section 5 means. But section 32 is the worst example of legislating to favour the Government at the expense of Opposition parties. It was specifically inserted to facilitate donations from Mr Owen Glenn and when he was of no further use to the Labour Party he was simply vomited out. 
No matter how cynical one becomes in this place it is impossible to keep up with the cynicism of the Labour Party. The Prime Minister’s high-sounding rhetoric about waiting for due process is not about natural justice and her passionate concern for that; she knows that the Privileges Committee will probably never get the opportunity to adjudicate on the matter currently before it because Parliament is shortly to be prorogued. Members should compare that with her very firm treatment of people like the Hon David Parker the Hon Lianne Dalziel the Hon Dover Samuels and Taito Phillip Field. Members should compare that particularly with the treatment of Mr Parker who was subsequently reinstated. He had to resign as Attorney-General and resign as Minister of Energy and Minister of Transport on the following day and he was reinstated. At the very least the previous member for Tauranga the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be required to stand down pending determination of the matters before the Privileges Committee given the seriousness of them and given the effect on Parliament’s reputation. 
As I say no matter how cynical one becomes in this place one cannot keep up with the Labour Party. It really is an excrescence and it really is lower than vermin. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I want to make a comment. Earlier today the deputy leader of the National Party took a point of order about the use of pejorative language in this House. The previous speaker’s speech contained pejorative language not just in the last sentence and not just in the comments about the Labour Party but in the early ones about individuals in the House. I ask that member to reflect on that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understood what the member said and I would expect that any member who used what might have been the four-letter alternative would be withdrawing and apologising. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is not acceptable in this House especially when it comes from a barrister who thought he would bring a higher standard to this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member has taken offence. Would the member withdraw and apologise. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: He is not a member of the Labour Party but I will withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry would the member withdraw and apologise without the preface please. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have withdrawn and apologised. How could one do it better? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Normally when members withdraw and apologise they just withdraw and apologise and make no comment before or after doing so. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I really want to say that Maurice Williamson is an honest man. Maurice Williamson is an honest man. Indeed whoever sneaked into a National Party conference with secret microphones or tape recorders should know that one does not need to do that with Maurice to get an orchestrated litany of truth. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: To those of us who were riveted to the television screens I have the bad news that we are still on the general debate which normally ends at about a quarter to five. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Madam Speaker you said that the bad news was that we were still on the general debate but the good news is that the National Party’s secret agenda for this country is finally secret no more. As I said in the  
Waikato Times 
 to my community the other day I thank Maurice Williamson for his honesty. I thank him for his integrity and for having backbone. I thank him for having the courage of his beliefs. He is not slippery; with Maurice what we see is what we get. Maurice has given us a wonderful insight into the real agenda of the National Party. We do not need some adventurous souls to sneak into a National Party conference with some microphones or dictation machines or whatever in order to get an orchestrated litany of truth. Maurice went on  
Agenda 
 on Sunday and said it how it is. 
Let us consider the toll road issue. There have been articles in the  
Waikato Times 
 such as “Nats eye toll to speed expressway”; there was damage control on all of that. Then there was the wonderful headline to the  
Waikato Times 
 editorial on Tuesday 26 August: “Road work will take its toll”. The real toll indeed has been the integrity of the National Party which thought it could somehow sneak its way—sneaky sneaky—into the Beehive. It thought it could somehow go through an election campaign without revealing what it really stood for and could keep the other 10 or 20 pages of its policy—because it gives the media the one-page release—in the top drawer. It thought somehow it could do nothing be on some sort of autopilot and say nothing. It thought it could hear no evil speak no evil and sneak into the Beehive. 
Fortunately there are people with backbone such as Maurice Williamson who is at least prepared to talk politics. An election in a democracy is about an exchange of ideas a contest of ideas and I think that is wonderful. In terms of the contest of ideas— 
Pansy Wong 
: Where are the ideas? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Pansy Wong should answer me that. We talk about freedom of speech but what is truly chilling is that Maurice Williamson was due to go on  
Nine to Noon 
 then the thought control police the minders took him off a minute before he was due to go on. Maurice was no more. Then Bill English went into some sort of damage-control mode. It is a bit like someone disappearing off to Siberia. Maurice has suddenly become a non-person. We ask people who Maurice Williamson is and they say blankly: “Who’s he? Never heard of him.”. He has basically disappeared. 
Speaking of tolls I say to the member Sandra Goudie that she is remarkably silent this evening. I challenge her to stand up in the House tonight and tell us her view on the toll for the Kopu bridge. The good Mayor of the Thames-Coromandel District Philippa Barriball would tell her in no uncertain terms what the future for the toll for the Kopu bridge should be. Will that toll be $6? Will there be a “Dr Wayne Mapp $6 toll” for the Auckland Harbour Bridge? If one lives over the bridge and goes to Thames or if one goes home for lunch to Ngatea how much would one pay a week? It would be $60 or $100. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: $120. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: It would be $120. Maurice Williamson said there would be some kind of exemption for local people. I ask Sandra Goudie to stand up in this House and tell us which places the exemption card would cover. Would it cover Thames or Ngatea? Would it cover the coast? Would it cover Whitianga or Paeroa? What is the local area? I ask Sandra Goudie to front up. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 The Deputy Prime Minister stood up at the start of this general debate today and talked about honesty. I thought that that was a pretty good way to start. We can judge people’s honesty if we look at the pattern of their behaviour over a period of time. Tonight in my speech I would like to look at a couple of people’s patterns of behaviour. 
First of all let us look at the man Owen Glenn. He has had an ongoing financial relationship with the Labour Party. It is quite clear that his pattern of behaviour has been to pay large amounts of money to the Labour Party—$200000 in 2004 $300000 in 2005 and $100000 in 2007. On the other hand Labour led by the Prime Minister Helen Clark has had an ongoing relationship with Owen Glenn of favours. So in November last year Labour made sure at the Justice and Electoral Committee to alter the Electoral Finance Act in order to protect Owen Glenn’s donations under the overseas donations regime. Sometime over the new year Labour’s president Mike Williams talked to the Prime Minister about Owen Glenn’s desire to become Monaco’s honorary consul and Labour also talked to Owen Glenn at some stage about a position as Minister of Transport in the Labour Cabinet. So we see the patterns of behaviour laid out between the two parties. The relationship between Owen Glenn and the Labour Party and the Prime Minister is one of mutual obligation: “You scratch my back and do something for me and we will do something for you.” 
If we look at the behaviour patterns of the two leading lights in the Labour Party over a similar period of time we see that the Labour Party president Mike Williams told the media categorically in January that Owen Glenn had “not made any donations to Labour since 2005”. That unequivocal statement was made to the media but the media did a bit of digging and found the truth. They found that Owen Glenn had in fact given money to the Labour Party; he had made an interest-free loan of $100000. Let us remember that the $100000 was for helping to pay back to the taxpayer almost $800000 that the Labour Party had illegally used as part of its 2005 election campaign. Mike Williams is the very same man who before the election promised the Chief Electoral Officer that Labour would include that expenditure in its campaign funding but who after the election changed his mind and did not pay it. So we see the clear pattern of behaviour of the president of the Labour Party Mike Williams of saying one thing openly in public but of it actually not being quite true. It is a pattern of dishonesty. 
Then we come to the Prime Minister Helen Clark. She said she did not correct Mike Williams’ dishonest statement to the public regarding Owen Glenn’s donation because she was overseas. That is a bit like the time she did not notice that the car she was in was travelling at 160 kilometres an hour through the countryside because she was reading and it is a bit like the time she did not notice she was signing someone else’s picture because she was too busy. By the end of February this year the Prime Minister Helen Clark was forced to admit that she did know about Owen Glenn’s $100000 donation when she was considering the New Year Honours and that she had spoken with Mike Williams about Owen Glenn’s desire to be Monaco’s honorary consul. So those two leaders’ actions have shown they have little regard for honesty and little regard for the truth. Their actions show that they are not open and honest with the public of New Zealand. 
Owen Glenn is the honest person in this relationship with Helen Clark and Mike Williams. He has always told the truth about his donations and the favours he was promised. He has to be believed because the pattern of his behaviour has been one of complete honesty all this time. How can we not believe that that honest man when he met Helen Clark—whose party he had funded with $500000 or more—at the opening of the University of Auckland business school building to which he had also donated several million dollars talked to her about the $100000? 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Has it not been an interesting day in the House today? Have we not seen the classic Crosby/Textor diversion plan in the House today? What is that plan? It is to hide the divisions and create a diversion. Have we not seen that rolled out today? 
Why did we not hear about the privatisation of our school buildings from National’s education spokesperson? Let me read what Maurice Williamson said about it on  
Agenda 
. He said: “… in Victoria there’s a whole raft of schools now being billed as PPPs they’re still state schools in terms of the teachers … but the entire cost of maintaining the buildings and doing all the facilities management is now farmed off to someone who is much better”—people who are much better than our principals. He said: “… I don’t know very many Principals who are good at taking care of their buildings budget.” Well I know a lot of school principals who are very good at taking care of their buildings budgets. They care about the facilities in their schools. They want complete control of the facilities in their schools. 
Why did we hear none of that from National’s spokesperson on education? Like all the other spokespeople she has gone to ground on the issues that matter one of which is the privatisation of our State school system. Let me say that again—the privatisation of our State school system. We do not have to look very far around the world to find out that when these kinds of arrangements are introduced we go very quickly from privatisation and private investment being encouraged to being required. It is the schools in the East Coast electorate that would miss out under that kind of arrangement. 
But I have to say that National Party members were very very sensitive today. Why would they not be? They are completely in the closet. They are not allowed to say what they truly believe. They are not allowed to tell us their deepest darkest political philosophies. Why? Because they think the New Zealand public do not like it. They cannot admit to their true beliefs. Voters and the New Zealand public should be very very concerned about a National Government. We have seen examples of this such as asset sales. Bill English said that National will sell Kiwibank eventually. Then he went to ground and we heard no more from him. On KiwiSaver Kate Wilkinson and Shane Ardern both said that the employer contribution for our workers will go. All of a sudden there was a backtrack: “No we’re not going to do that.” Those members have gone to ground. 
John Key told us that Working for Families was communism by stealth. Either he has rapidly changed his opinion of communism or he is simply trying to lead the electorate to believe that after the election National will keep a programme that we know it despises and cannot wait to get rid of. When Labour announced the interest-free student loans policy do members know what the National Party members said? They said it was corrupt. They said it was an election bribe and it was corrupt. What has happened since? Apparently now it is National’s policy. Once again we are meant to believe that this policy will stay under a National Government should it ever get hold of the Treasury benches. 
John Key said that the Kyoto Protocol and climate change was a hoax and that he was suspicious of the whole phenomenon of climate change. Where are we now? We have done another 180-degree turn. Now we are the true believers in climate change. Of course the National Party has opposed every single meaningful piece of policy that has come into this House to deal with climate change but we are meant to believe that should National ever win an election it will uphold New Zealand’s involvement in Kyoto and follow through on the policies that this Government has put in place. 
Then there was the most recent example of infrastructure and tolling. Maurice Williamson went on the  
Agenda 
 programme and said what he believed. We all know that Maurice always says what he believes. He believes that tolling is a good idea. He thinks that $5 per trip is fair. What happened? The party whose members today have been screaming at the Government about free speech because they think they should be allowed to not comply with Standing Orders unlike the rest of us would not let Maurice Williamson National’s spokesperson on this issue speak on  
Nine to Noon 
. He was pulled off that programme within minutes of doing the interview on  
Agenda 
 and replaced by Bill English. This is the party whose members stood up today and purported to be the absolute defenders of free speech. But the fact is they only want to defend the free speech that suits them; as for the rest of it they want to shut it down. The sad thing about that is most of the speech they want to shut down comes from within their own caucus. 
That is a problem when a caucus is so divided. That is why we have seen the classic Crosby/Textor diversion coming out today in the House. When one has a division create a diversion—create another issue so that we do not have to talk about the real issues facing New Zealanders. John Key said that he promises to resign if he breaks any of his election promises. Well we have heard that before. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that that stuff is sub judice. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a frivolous point of order. Sit down. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: John Key says that he will promise to resign if he breaks any of his election promises. Where have we heard that before? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Points of Order 
Citizens Initiated Referendum on Smacking—Date 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to move—and I have notified all parties of this—members’ motion No. 3 in my name recommending that the referendum on the criminalisation of smacking be held on the day of the 2008 general election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill 
Procedure 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Judith Tizard (Auckland Central) 
: I seek leave for the House to consider without debate an amendment to the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill to insert a new clause 2A requiring the bill to expire on 1 July 2012. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought we were debating that between the second and the third readings. Is it to be debated now? [ 
Interruption 
] I want to vote against that. I would like to clarify this. I have no problem with the motion being put but when will it be put? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The motion will be put now. The motion to accept that amendment will be put now. 
DAIL JONES 
: New Zealand First does not support that amendment. 
Rodney Hide 
: Sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Mr Hide I really take exception to your behaviour. Would you mind not calling things out. 
DAIL JONES 
: When will the question be put? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The question will be put now. Leave has been sought— 
Dail Jones 
: Leave has been sought— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I just finish this. Mr Jones sit down. Leave has been sought for the House to consider an amendment without debate. Is there any objection to that leave being sought? There is no objection. The question is that the amendment to insert new clause 2A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
New clause 2A not agreed to. 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. I would like to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their careful and thoughtful handling of this bill. I would also like to thank other members and parties from across the House that are supporting this bill. I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work by the organisations promoting this bill representatives of whom are present in the gallery tonight. They are Auckland City councillors Tony Miller and Greg Moyle and representatives from all of the amenities covered by this bill—too many to name. However I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Roseanne Meo who is chair of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and was the catalyst for this legislation. 
Many many people have worked in a truly sustained team effort over 4 years to see the 10 organisations come together to draft and promote this private bill for the good of Auckland. In fact many MPs from across New Zealand have come to me and asked whether this legislation could be extended to their area. I say to members of Parliament just as I say to representatives of local authorities that it is time we stood up in our communities for what we believe in. I am here in Parliament partly because my grandfather believed that politics is as good as we make it—just as the communities we live in and raise our families in are as good as we make them. This is a simple bill. It is about Auckland coming of age taking responsibility for its own amenities and taking the responsibility that all government—local and central—has to take to fund the organisations that make a difference to our families and our communities. Local government has a responsibility to look at the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of our communities and it is time we did so. 
This bill will establish a statutory framework for the secure and sustainable funding of 10 or more important services and organisations that provide facilities and services across the Auckland region. The bill will initially provide funding for the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust the Auckland Theatre Company Coastguard Northern Region the New Zealand National Maritime Museum trust board New Zealand Opera Surf Life Saving Northern Region the Auckland Festival Trust and WaterSafe Auckland Inc. I also want to tell the House that I and all of those amenities have given an undertaking that we will work with the kapahaka organisations in Auckland to make sure that a Maori organisation providing services in Auckland will also be supported and funded. 
I want to concentrate on the organisations that have worked so hard for this bill. These organisations contribute to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders in terms of the services they provide but they also contribute to the lives of tens of thousands of Aucklanders in terms of jobs and economic benefits and opportunities to be involved in the local communities. I am talking about the Aucklanders who with their time and money support these organisations. They are an essential part of the fabric of Auckland contributing to make the region a great place to live in to work in and to visit. These organisations are all truly regional in nature and need to be funded as such. Independent surveys conducted over the last 12 years have shown that the public perceives them as being regional and supports the idea of these organisations receiving funding across all districts of the Auckland region. Right now the funding for these organisations falls disproportionately on the ratepayers of Auckland City. Auckland City has given us an undertaking that it will not cut its funding when there is better funding across the region and indeed in many cases it will increase it. It is time that the eight councils of the Auckland region contributed to those amenities that everyone in the region uses rather than leaving 90 percent of these amenities’ local government sector funding to Auckland City. 
These organisations work hard. They work hard to raise money and they work hard to provide services. We know that New Zealanders and Aucklanders are very generous with their volunteer time and their financial support. A number of these organisations are in danger of falling over. We are in more difficult times and sponsorship is hard to get. A legislative framework is needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of these organisations removing uncertainty—for example for my constituents on Great Barrier Island and Waiheke uncertainty that they will get rescue helicopter services if they or their children are ill. I have asked up and down New Zealand as this Government has moved to support arts organisations community organisations and sporting organisations why taxpayers should increase their support if we as citizens do not support these organisations as ratepayers. The time has come for local government across New Zealand to take that mature responsibility. 
I say that this bill is necessary and its time has come. This bill establishes the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board which will be the conduit between the organisations and the contributing authorities. It will specify the amenities and make sure they are providing good regional services and good value for money. The board will also set out a procedure for the approval of distribution of funding to amenities; it will enable those organisations to focus on their core activity and to use their time and volunteer time and money well demonstrating the good services that the community provides for the well-being of all of our communities. 
There is a suggestion that this bill should be delayed because of possible changes to the governance of the Auckland region arising from recommendations of the royal commission. This is utterly unacceptable to all of those organisations that have worked so long for this legislation. Many pieces of legislation will have to change if and when the royal commission recommends that they do and if and when any Government over the next 4 years or more decides to make those changes. These organisations should not have to wait for the ifs and buts of the royal commission and the political process. We have seen many organisations struggling. It is time we took that responsibility. 
Everyone accepts that these organisations are valuable to Auckland and to our communities and most of them are accepted nationwide. I came to Parliament to make a difference to the country I grew up in and the city I love—Auckland. I believe that Auckland will be a greater place to live and work in because these organisations have support. I also believe that as Auckland is New Zealand’s major international city it is time we passed this legislation. 
Again I commend this legislation to the House. I thank members who are supporting it. It is time that we did as my grandfather suggested and make politics as good as we can. Let us make common-sense decisions that support the services that our communities need. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party will be voting in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. Let me just say at the outset that when I look at the list of organisations that will be the recipients which Judith has already read out I can say that obviously no one I can think of would not want to give them support. We are all very well aware of the challenges that face these organisations and many others. We are concerned like many people in this nation that these organisations which provide a great service to our community—not just in Auckland I might add but across this nation in many cases—have at this time too long been left on their own to struggle to find the means to do those things that they do so well. We are all proud of them and the National Party is proud to be associated with each and every one of them. 
There are however some points that need to be made in regard to this legislation. The first thing is that the way this bill is structured it is likely to put an impost on to ratepayers. That is of deep concern. Every local authority that came before the select committee opposed this legislation with the exception of the Auckland City Council. The Auckland City Council supported it out of its own self-interest. It supported it on the basis that if this bill goes through it will mean that the contribution it currently makes to so many of these organisations will be reduced. So from the council’s point of view— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It will not be reduced. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well members opposite are saying that it may not be so but we will wait and see. That was the basis on which the Auckland City Council actually supported the legislation. 
But the worry is— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: That’s not fair. It’s not true. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well OK the member might say it is not fair and it is not true but that was the text of the submission. The fact is the Auckland City Council was pleased to see that other local authorities and citizens within those local authorities who receive the benefit of these organisations were being asked to make a greater contribution to them. I have to say that from the council’s perspective I can understand that argument. The real issue is: how much do we continue to keep loading on to local government and on to ratepayers? That is the issue we have to address. That is the issue we have to be concerned about. On the one hand we have organisations in this nation of which we are all justly proud and on the other hand we also well know that we have a problem with ratepayers in this country meeting the level of rates they are currently being asked to meet. That is one of the reasons why the National Party reluctantly supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. 
The second reason is that although there are a dozen or so organisations whose names have been read out that will be the beneficiaries of this legislation—assuming that Parliament passes it and it seems that it will—a number of other organisations should also have been considered. That is the problem; the bill is limited in that regard. I notice the member in charge of the bill Judith Tizard recommended that at least one other organisation should be given consideration. But there are many others that quite honestly are just as worthy and that deserve the support of the citizens that they cover. I have to say that is another issue that we will certainly need to address. 
The third issue and the thing the National Party wanted in this bill—unfortunately it was voted down—was a sunset clause. Why did we want a sunset clause? It is not because we are nasty horrible people who do not want to see things happen and develop; the reasoning behind it was that if there was a sunset clause it would make this Parliament the local authorities and all the people concerned focus on coming up with a better alternative than is currently being provided. That is the main reason we wanted to include a sunset clause. 
There are better ways in which the funding can be addressed. A number of options and alternatives need to be considered. On top of that we well know that there is a thing called the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance—and to be fair I know that this has already been commented on—which is very likely going to make some serious recommendations. It may well end up changing the structure and the way in which local government and indeed the organisation of Auckland are dealt with in the future. For that very good reason a sunset clause in this legislation is actually appropriate. It would have caused us to focus and it would have actually insisted that in thinking about the reorganisation of local government and the structure of Auckland City this is one of the matters that should be addressed. 
It seems that Parliament did not see fit to pass the amendment recommended by the National Party. Unfortunately that therefore allows for this legislation to continue. I think that is a great shame. It seems to me that we need to insist that this whole matter be reviewed. So I can say tonight that if the National Party does become the Government after the next election there will be a review of this legislation and a repeal once an appropriate structure is put in place to address the matters this bill addresses tonight. There will be an opportunity for people to review an opportunity for reconsideration an opportunity for the organisations to come up with a better structure and an opportunity for those organisations that tonight are not covered in this legislation to be covered. I myself can think of a good number as I am sure many people can. 
We support this bill but we do so reluctantly because we think there is a better way. We do not want to see the impost put entirely on the ratepayers of this country. Right at the moment for the benefit of those who know west Auckland I say there is serious concern out there amongst the business community particularly about the rates increases people are being asked to meet. If members know the area of Rodney one ratepayer’s rates for example have gone up from $28000 to $62000 in one hit. There are many examples of vast increases such as that one. To ask those people to meet more ratepayer costs is quite honestly not acceptable. For that reason we will support this bill tonight because many of the organisations are seriously in jeopardy. Many of them provide excellent services to our nation—services that we are all proud of; services that we want to see continue; and services that our society and our country need. But we also give notice that if we are elected we will want to have this legislation reviewed and it will be repealed once a suitable replacement structure is put in place. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in this debate and to say with the greatest respect to the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee John Carter that I am getting a bit tired of the “having your cake and eating it too” speeches—the “I support it and I oppose it” all-in-one speech. I say to National members that they should pick a position and stick with it. They should decide what they believe say it and stick to it. If they do not like the bill then they should not vote for it. I can say that the Labour Party unlike the National Party enthusiastically supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. Also I do not know who will do all these reviews for the National Party if it wins the election given that it would fire all the public servants. I guess National will worry about that after the fact. 
I want to start by thanking the promoters of this bill. I thank the officials who worked with us and as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I thank all members of the committee. We worked hard on this legislation. I apologise to the bill’s promoters that we were not able to get it out of the select committee by July this year but as members will know we had some issues looking at the Auckland Regional Council and its role that we simply were not able to resolve in time. So I apologise for that; we did very much want to do it. 
I acknowledge all the councils in the Auckland region for the amount of funding they already give to many of these organisations. It certainly is appreciated. I thought that the comments from the National Party about the Auckland City Council were incredibly unfair. I want to just quickly bring to the attention of the House the analysis of some of this funding. If we look at a group such as the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra we see the total amount of funding it gets is $809000 of which $750000 comes from the Auckland City Council. The Auckland Theatre Company receives $105000 all of which comes from the Auckland City Council. The Maritime Museum receives total funding of $747000 of which $72500 comes from the Auckland City Council. So I think it is a bit unfair to accuse the Auckland City Council of somehow being disingenuous with this when it has in fact been incredibly generous to these organisations. It should be thanked by the National Party not pilloried for what it has done. As we know from what the promoters of the bill showed us when we look at the people using these organisations we see they are spread out amongst the Auckland region; that is certainly not represented by the funding figures we have seen here. 
I quickly point out in relation to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance that the terms of reference do not address the issues that these organisations face. It may well be that they happen to be covered but they are not specifically addressed and I do not think it is OK to leave that to the royal commission when it is not something that it is particularly looking at. John Carter raised the matter of other organisations not being included. The criteria for inclusion are clearly set out. A lot of work was done on this before it came to Parliament. These organisations were chosen based on clear criteria. The criteria are still there for other organisations to be added by Order in Council. I certainly do not believe that there will be the problem the National Party is trying to make out there will be. 
Yes ratepayers are always concerned about rates increases. The cost in year one will be an average of $5 per head per resident or an average of $16 per year per household. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mrs Goudie that that is the rates impost we are talking about to save these organisations. What if one of these organisations fell over? There would then be a hue and cry and screaming about what the local council had been doing and how the organisation would be funded. I congratulate the promoters of this bill on the foresight they have had in bringing forward this bill before that happens and before we have to go into panic mode to save these organisations. Surveys have been done that were given to the select committee that showed that the people of the Auckland region were supportive of sharing the funding across the region more fairly and the cost was part of that. 
I congratulate the promoters. I know the bill has been a long time getting here. I cannot wait for Dail Jones’ speech. I have already told him that if he gets into trouble on a beach in Auckland there will be an eftpos machine on the surf lifesaver who comes out to get him. He said to me that it would be covered by the SuperGold card and I said: “Only if you get into trouble off peak.”! I am very much looking forward to his speech. I congratulate the promoters thank the select committee and thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As Mr John Carter indicated this was a very very finely balanced decision for National. We had a lot of discussions within our caucus and with the promoters of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. There is a reason why the decision was finely balanced. It was finely balanced because it would inevitably load additional costs on ratepayers at a time when ratepayers—residents in fact—are experiencing a certain level of difficulty. The economy is officially in recession. Petrol prices have gone up interest rates have gone up and food prices have gone up. There are pressures on households so to add another rate on to households is a big ask and it is important to recognise that. It is very easy for people to say that we should dismiss the issue as it is not very much. But the truth is that each little bit does matter. 
It is also noteworthy that the territorial local authorities with the exception of the Auckland City Council were not in favour of the bill. Some members may recall that when this bill was introduced I said that the proper entity to be funding this was the Auckland Regional Council. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked very hard I know that the Minister promoting the bill worked very hard and indeed I know that the promoters worked very hard to persuade the Auckland Regional Council to step up to the responsibilities. These assets are regional. People benefit from them from across the region and they should therefore be funded regionally. For various reasons—mostly I have to say the intransigence of the Auckland Regional Council—that was not possible. Yet we are visited by the reality that some of these organisations—perhaps not all of them but many of them—are under very severe financial pressure. 
We also made it clear that we had a particular preference for the lifesaving organisations—Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust Coastguard Northern Region and Surf Life Saving Northern Region. It is obvious why one would choose these three organisations above the others. They are arguably the most broadly used organisations across the region; that would certainly be the case on the North Shore. In many instances the other entities cater to a narrower group of people. We have always had the view that not all 11 organisations really qualified for ratepayer funding. They certainly qualified for charitable donations and all of those things but rates are different because they are compulsory. 
Tonight National reluctantly supports this bill because we see it as something of an emergency measure for those entities. The challenge is to really look forward. There is a royal commission that will undoubtedly improve regional governance in the Auckland region. How exactly that will be done is up to the royal commission but I think there is a pretty clear consensus that regional government will be strengthened and that—as one would quite clearly expect in that situation—it will take over these responsibilities. National is committed to ensuring that a better regional arrangement is in place by 2010. We are not forecasting exactly what that will look like but clearly there is some level of consensus about improved regional governance and the expectation that the new entity will pick up this funding. So National says that this bill is a stopgap measure a one-off that will last effectively through to the new arrangements which will be in place within 4 years. The new arrangements will be in place for the 2010 local body elections. 
In summary I say that it is necessary at this point in time to pass the bill. We are concerned that it was not possible for the Auckland Regional Council to understand its responsibilities around this and that is a considerable disappointment to us. I am also of the view that a much fairer and more democratic means to select the entities needs to be in place. It comes back to that fundamental principle: no taxation without representation. In this instance the citizens of the region have never really had a proper say—despite surveys and so forth—in determining literally household by household which organisations they would favour and which ones they would fund. We need to improve that part of it and that was a point I made at the first reading of the bill when National supported the bill’s referral to a select committee. Again we pointed out our reluctance and our concerns but we have arrived at this situation. 
This Parliament does not have long to go. National agreed that this bill would have to pass into law tonight or else it probably would not do so at all. So the procedure of the second and third readings being dealt with today was done with the consensus of the House across the board. I have to acknowledge that even New Zealand First which is voting against the bill nevertheless recognised that reality. So I guess one should acknowledge that fact. 
In closing I say that tonight we have done something of a rescue mission if you will but it is no more than that—it is short term until new solutions are in place. I say to the regional amenities that they will need to get closer to the communities in order to get a deeper level of support in the communities. I can say that in North Shore City for instance many people are not happy about this bill passing. Some are but many are not and I have received numerous representations from those people and from the local council on this issue. We have to recognise the strength of that concern. I can say the same about Manukau City and perhaps to a lesser extent Waitakere City as well. We just cannot ignore those issues and that is why our support is very very conditional. Next year we will fix this up with an improved model that is fairer to the city and to the residents and ratepayers across our region. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When the Hon Brian Donnelly was New Zealand First’s spokesman on local government he spoke during the first reading debate on this bill and made this point: “New Zealand First members have made it absolutely clear that we give no guarantee that we will support this legislation beyond this stage. We will however give a guarantee that we will listen very carefully to the arguments for and against and make as we always do sound and sensible judgments.” 
I have taken the opportunity to have a look at the bill. I am familiar with the bill because a remit effectively opposing this legislation was passed at the North Shore annual general meeting of New Zealand First last year and we in New Zealand First take notice of remits that are passed at annual general meetings. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about the remit to sack the leader for being a liar? 
DAIL JONES 
: We actually have meetings unlike ACT which can meet in a telephone booth. We have regular meetings around the country. So New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. 
I made it clear to the New Zealand First conference that I as the spokesman on local government want to make sure that rates are reduced and that bureaucracy is reduced and I actually gave some credit to Rodney Hide for his initiatives a couple of years ago. Now I understand that Mr Hide will be supporting this bill which increases rates and increases bureaucracy and I find that very staggering. Of course I find it even more staggering that the National Party which opposes increases in bureaucracy is supporting the increase in bureaucracy proposed by this legislation in a half-hearted sort of way. 
We do not know what National’s policy is—it is worse than a flip-flop because it is somewhere in between. It is up in the sky. Will it fall on one side of the line or on the other side of the line? New Zealand First is very clear—we support a reduction in rates. We support a reduction in local government bureaucracy so we must and do oppose this legislation. 
I will make it very clear though that New Zealand First believes that the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust must be funded by the Government. We cannot allow something as important as this to be left to local authorities and left to some sort of an electoral college system that may not favour the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust in the way it ought to. This is really a national responsibility and it should be the responsibility of the Government of the day and New Zealand First will be making sure that that is what happens with the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust. 
This bill will obviously increase rates. For people like myself for example not only will it increase my rates but I and many North Shore people will actually end up paying twice. My rates will go up and I will still have to pay for the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; I am paying twice for the same thing. If someone had been clever with this bill that person might have said: “Well we might give you a few free tickets to one of these things in lieu of the rates going up because there are always empty seats.” If someone had been clever and had had a simple idea that might have made me happier. It might have made a lot more people happier if they could have a free ticket to the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium the Auckland Theatre Company or something like that. But no it was far too simple an idea to come up with. So many people on the North Shore and around Auckland will pay twice for the same thing. 
Of course this will increase rates and we know it will increase rates on the North Shore. I have lived in the East Coast Bays area since 1970. I left in 1976 and came back in 1993 and I have lived there since. This legislation will increase Manukau City rates by $2.51 million and it will increase North Shore rates by $2.34 million. New Zealand First says to the people in Manukau City and to the people on the North Shore that it does not support this bill and it opposes the views of all parties in this House that support it. If people really are keen on voting for a party that wants their rates to be reduced and wants their bureaucracy to be reduced in rating areas then they must obviously look at supporting New Zealand First. 
What does this legislation do to the people of Manukau? A submission from the Manukau City Council said: “Manukau City Council has studied the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill and opposes the intent on the following grounds.” The important thing to bear in mind as it says is: “Manukau City residents have a median income of $24200 per annum which is 4 percent lower than the national median of $25220.” Yet in this area that struggles to survive we are going to increase the rates of landowners and property owners in Manukau City by over $2 million as I have already indicated. The Manukau City Council also stated: “Residents of the city are already levied a considerable sum: $6352868 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum the Museum of Transport and Technology and the Aotea Centre all by the way of a legislatively imposed levy. The amount proposed $2 million in the first year not including the Auckland Zoo will just add to the rates burden of our low and fixed-income ratepayers and residents.” 
New Zealand First says to the people of Manukau City—those people in the electorates of Pakuranga Botany Manukau and Manurewa—that New Zealand First knows they are struggling and it knows that life will be much harder if National ever takes office and they have to pay $50 a week in road tolls as Maurice Williamson has so truthfully told— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Or $100 if you go home for lunch. 
DAIL JONES 
: Or $100 if people go home for lunch—as some people do especially the people Mr Williamson might support. It is going to create massive difficulties there. 
I have looked at the North Shore City Council’s submission as well and it makes it quite clear that currently the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill is opposed by all Auckland councils except the Auckland City Council. New Zealand First makes it clear to the people of North Shore that we want to make sure that their rates stay down we want to make sure that bureaucracy stays down and we are opposing this bill. 
How much of this money—this $12 million that is collected—will actually be spent on these bodies? That is the tragic part of this type of legislation that creates more and more administration and more and more bureaucracies. This legislation creates a funding board and that board has a membership of 10 members an electoral college of six members and an amenities board of four members—that is 20 more members. How many staff will each of these 20 members have? We can see $1 million going out of the window—no trouble at all—by the time an office for these people is set up they are given a secretary and they are given telephones. People understand this only if they have been in business—and I have. I know what it costs to set up these things unlike so many people with a bureaucratic background who have no idea what it takes to run a business. 
Here we have a bureaucracy being established by this bill; it is another bouncing baby. National says it will repeal the legislation but we all know what happened—was it in 1906?—when some Prime Minister first introduced income tax as a temporary measure. Income tax was a temporary measure and we know what has happened to that. The National Party says it will support the legislation now as a temporary measure. This measure will stay permanent and there is no way in which the National Party will ever repeal it. The people of the North Shore will suffer the people of Manukau City will suffer and even the people of Auckland City will suffer. 
Of course if the people of Auckland City want all these things that is great; they can have them. But what does the legislation do for people on the North Shore? Nothing at all. We have the Bruce Mason Theatre on the North Shore. Does this bill do anything for the Bruce Mason Theatre? We have a big amenity in the North Harbour Stadium which costs us a bit of money. Does this bill do anything for the North Harbour Stadium? Not at all. We have a lot of other theatres—as Manukau City does and as I am sure Waitakere City does. What does this bill do for those burgeoning theatre groups and music groups around Auckland? Absolutely nothing at all. It gives the funding to the expressly mentioned groups. 
I say to the people of Auckland City that if they want a champagne way of life on a beer income that is their problem. That is what the ratepayers of Auckland City should be telling their city councillors. This legislation is a champagne way of life on a beer income. That is what it boils down to. 
Sandra Goudie 
: New Zealand First should know! 
DAIL JONES 
: Sandra Goudie supports more rates. She is a former county councillor she supports an increase in the bureaucracy and that is what this bill gives. Does the National Party not know that this bill increases the bureaucracy? It obviously does and it is quite disgraceful that we have parties in this House whose members say they want to see rates reduced but here they are supporting legislation that increases rates and increases bureaucracy. New Zealand First opposes this legislation. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The organisations that I have talked to such as Auckland Zoo the rescue helicopter and the Auckland observatory are very good organisations that need to receive more regular funding. As was said in the previous speech the outlying cities are governed by not wanting to increase their rates. Quite a lot of freeloading is going on because the amenities tend to be naturally concentrated in the centre of the region. This bill is the best way forward at the moment. The situation may change with the new regional structure but the Green Party certainly supports the legislation at present. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena koe Tau Henare. When the Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli touched down at Auckland airport last week he described his welcoming ceremony as a wonderful surprise complete with beautiful music. The beautiful music he was referring to was not that of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra of New Zealand Opera or the Auckland Theatre Company. The music he was referring to was a traditional Maori welcome from Te Pou o Mangatawhiri—a historic association that all of Auckland can be proud of. 
Back in 1860 when Matutaera Potatau Tawhiao became the second Maori King he named a small settlement near Meremere Te Pou o Mangatawhiri after the river. Sixty years later his mokopuna Princess Te Puea started a kapahaka group at Turangawaewae. She later toured with the group to raise funds to restore the marae and for the building of Mahinarangi. The concert party travelled far and wide inspiring interest from Sir Apirana Ngata who became so interested in the Mahinarangi project that he became directly involved in supervising the tukutuku work finding a builder to complete the plans and bringing expert carvers from Te Arawa to do the interior carving. That building was eventually opened in 1929 by the Rt Hon J G Coates a former Prime Minister and Minister of Maori Affairs. 
The House may wonder what all that has to do with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The answer is everything and nothing. It has everything to do with it because the history of our national identity our cultural heritage and our distinctive sites of significance such as those at Ngaruawahia Maungakiekie Orakei Rangitoto and the beautiful Waitemata are intimately connected to the well-being of the region we now know as Auckland—our history which visitors from all around the world see when they enter our world at Auckland airport. I hate to break this to the “MP for Western Springs” but despite Auckland Zoo’s having 179 different species and over 1300 animals it is not the primary reason that tourists come to Tamaki. Aotearoa is the home of the Maori and kapahaka is the cutting edge of the renaissance of a positive Maori identity but the “nothing” part is how much recognition the bill has given to kapahaka. 
Members would not notice this from going through the bill but kapahaka has a significant and growing market and nowhere more so than in Tamaki-makau-rau. The Auckland regional kapahaka competition always pulls more than a thousand participants and thousands more spectators. The Nga Manu Korero regional speech competitions draw thousands more people and the ASB Maori and Polynesian festival gets up to 100000 visitors every year. The Ahurea kapahaka competition and the primary school kapahaka competitions pull tens of thousands more people. 
That as my colleague Pita Sharples will tell members is just the tip of the kumara pile a mere glimpse into the passionate and incredibly rich world of kapahaka and Maori performing arts nearly all of them organised by the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society every year. The society made a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that everyone in this House should read because it gives an idea of the massive effort that people put in to ensure that kapahaka flourishes in the Auckland region and that visitors to the region can continue to be welcomed and entertained appropriately. Indeed it is the society’s view that kapahaka and Maori arts are fast becoming the flagship of Auckland’s cultural expression. Furthermore with only 3 years until the 2011 Rugby World Cup is held there we know that Maori will be very much the face of Auckland that kapahaka will be the enduring memory that people will take home of the mighty All Blacks and that cultural tourism will help to shape our unique regional and national identity. 
Just as important we who are charged with ensuring that the best interests of the nation are upheld must appreciate that the promotion and enhancement of Maori performing arts are fundamental to our development as a nation. The issue is not just an Auckland issue. In fact kapahaka is of huge relevance to my constituents in the Tai Tokerau as well right from Te Rerenga Wairua down to Te Raki Pae Whenua and across into Te Atutu Massey Henderson and Kelston. Indeed Hoani Waititi Marae long revered in Auckland circles as one of the heartlands of urban kapahaka sits proudly within the Te Tai Tokerau electorate as do Waitakere and North Shore cities. So naturally the provision of arts education and community facilities are high on my own priority list though I do not know whether the 11 amenities that are given preferential treatment in this bill are the same ones my constituents from the Tai Tokerau would have voted for. 
That is not to say that some of those amenities are not doing a fine job of course. Waiora for example—WaterSafe Auckland—along with the Auckland surf lifesaving organisation and the coastguard shows a strong commitment to kaupapa Maori and waka ama. Waiora recently appointed Moana Tamaariki-Pohe to oversee a programme dealing specifically with reducing the alarming 21 percent of drownings that are Maori. Being able to swim well is more than just a school subject for Maori; it is an investment in a future that includes Maori people’s love of the sea diving fishing surfing swimming waka ama waka hourua—just name it Maori do it all the way up to the America’s Cup. The importance is seen of recognising and including mana whenua and Maori organisations within decision-making bodies such as those. That will support Auckland’s regional amenities by including Maori representation on the funding board and avoid the glaring and outstanding omission from the list of amenities included in this bill: the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society. Inclusion of that society is an essential element in the renaissance of Maori identity the participation of Maori across the region and the value of cultural tourism. 
In terms of the Manukau Harbour a local icon Angeline Greensill Maori Party member of the “house of Hauraki-Waikato” who grew up in the area tells me that the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Manukau Harbour includes stories of the people of Ihumatao and Mangere catching heaps of flounder with just their feet. In a more current setting another good friend of mine Derek Fox Maori Party member of the “house of Ikaroa-Rawhiti” who is known for not being backwards in coming forwards for a free feed of kai moana tells me that the Manukau Harbour has provided him and his scurrilous mates with many a choice feed over the years of kahawai parore tarakihi moki hapuku toheroa pipi paua kina pupu toitoi karengo koura and many other little treasures contained within the Manukau’s inlets rivers and creeks. Water safety is a huge part of the life and livelihood of Maori in and around the Auckland region and we congratulate Waiora on lobbying long and hard for amendments to this bill to ensure that mana whenua would have a role under the legislation through the membership of the electoral college which now includes specific representation “as appropriate to represent the interests of Maori in the Auckland region”. 
Returning again to the point about the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society I tell the House that inclusion of the society is an essential element in the renaissance of Maori identity the participation of Maori across the region and the value of cultural tourism. Exclusion of the society would have led to some strident and justified charges of racism against those who would try to deny Maori their rightful role in the cultural fabric of Tamaki-makau-rau which is home to the greatest concentration of Maori people in the entire universe. We are glad that at the eleventh hour the Minister has said that the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society will take its rightful place as one of the lead agencies encompassed within the scope of this bill. In that light at the eleventh hour of this debate the Maori Party will support this final reading of the bill. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to also support the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill but I have to say that we are very disappointed that New Zealand First is not supporting it. I believe it is the only party in the House not to support this bill. It is true that if we took the Spencer Trust and rolled that into these amenities we would not need this bill; there would be enough money there to fund all these facilities. But without New Zealand First doing that I am afraid that that is not possible. 
I ask those people who object to this bill to ask themselves what it is they want to close. Is it the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust the Auckland Theatre Company the New Zealand National Maritime Museum the Coastguard Northern Region the Opera New Zealand or perhaps the Surf Life Saving Northern Region? Perhaps it is the Auckland Festival Trust or WaterSafe Auckland. They are the organisations that are to be funded by this bill and if people say that they do not want those organisations to fall over then they have to ask themselves what an equitable funding mechanism is. Is New Zealand First saying “Oh well we want to keep all those but the only fair way of doing it is to tax and rate just those in Auckland City.”? But as I read through the list I think that everyone—I guess everyone bar Dail Jones—can see that these are regional facilities. And if they are regional facilities is it not fair and equitable that they be funded regionally? I know that Dail Jones might think that it is quite clever given he is from New Zealand First to live on the North Shore and travel across the bridge to enjoy everything for free while other people pay—which seems to be a New Zealand First sort of habit—but I think that it is fair and equitable that the region pays for these regional facilities and this is what this bill allows. 
So yes it is a difficult one. But I just make this observation too: I do not think that it is right to put this bill under a review. I think that that is too tough for the organisations concerned because how can they plan if in 3 4 5 years looming over them is a potential change to the mechanism by which they are funded? 
Mark Blumsky 
: It’s the mechanism not the funding. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well the mechanism is the funding. That is how we get the money. What we do have is a royal commission into the organisation at the local government level of Auckland and I suspect from that will flow a different approach. But just to say that we will have a review of this puts these organisations back on to tenterhooks which is what we are trying to get away from. 
I would also say that it is hard to imagine Dail Jones wanting to fund himself as an MP in the way that he expects say Surf Life Saving Northern Region in Auckland to be funded which would mean that Mr Dail Jones would have to fund his MP activities from the good people of North Shore only. I think that Dail Jones would rather tax everyone he serves—right through New Zealand God forbid! It is also very hard to imagine Dail Jones not actually having some certainty about his funding as an MP. 
John Hayes 
: There’s no certainty about his future. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well he has no certainty about his future; that is true. But do members see my point? What we are talking about with regard to these organisations is some certainty and some secure funding on an equitable basis. 
I will close by saying that it is good to see that we have such agreement in this House—and the bit of disagreement that we have will not be here after the election so it will not be a problem. I would like to thank the many many people who have worked for many many years to get this bill here. That work is the unsung work of people who support organisations that we all enjoy and that we all benefit from and I do not think that those people get sufficient recognition. I would like to place that on record on behalf of the whole House because we all live in communities where people give up their time and make sacrifices for the things we enjoy. In particular I would single out Mr Don Trott who I know has put such an enormous amount of time and energy into this bill. I know on behalf of Auckland that he will be very very proud today to see this bill becoming an Act of Parliament. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will speak briefly in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I will plead guilty to some discomfort about being in the division lobbies effectively with Rodney Hide. When the House is divided that is not a place that I am used to being in. 
I compliment the leadership of Auckland in the social cultural and sporting area on getting its act together. Speaking as a Wellingtonian I say that it is something that we are not very used to seeing Aucklanders doing and it is something that we very much welcome. 
I will make a very brief comment about the National Party. I do not think that I have heard more of an AC/DC approach to legislation than its approach. Those members just cannot make up their minds. I will tell them that when there is a picket fence around if one tries to be on both sides of it then one ends up with unfortunate injuries. I think the National Party is in that position at the moment. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed being on the Local Government and Environment Committee during this whole process and it is probably only when one gets bills like the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill that one starts to debate the merits of actually staying in the place. But then one realises that one could be on the other end and maybe helping Wellington to put together a bill somewhat like this because I reckon that if I am lucky enough to have a shot at the other one I will be doing the same thing quite soon. 
I like what the bill’s promoters have done. They have taken control big time. Like those speakers who have gone before me I can only congratulate them because they have been on a hell of a trip. I am well aware of the hurdles and of the local government processes they have been up against. Is it not a pain in the backside having to go every year—every single year—to every single annual plan and ask like Oliver Twist whether one can have some more? Often local authorities say that they will be there absolutely. Then of course the annual plan goes through the process and lo and behold it has gone or the bit the local authority said that one would get is a hell of a lot smaller than it was because there has been a bit of a noise about rates rate increases and so on. This has been a journey. I say that the bill’s promoters have done well and I was delighted to be on the select committee. 
The process in the select committee was fascinating because one learnt a lot. One did learn a lot because 500-odd submissions came through. I tell members now that one learns a lot from listening to the people who made the submissions about the difficulties that they have been in. Thank God for many of those organisations which I call the group of 11—there are really 11 as the zoo is in there—because if they were not there any more we can just imagine the problems there would be. I have plucked out a couple of the submissions as examples. The Wiri Central School just made it quite clear that it was a decile 1 school and that it would not be in a position to pay. Its parents the families cannot afford to go to the organisations it needs to go to for learning like the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium and the zoo. That school needs those organisations to be there. 
Then we had a submission from Kelly James. Kelly James would be dead if the rescue helicopter had not picked her up when she had a dolphin land on her. She went into a respiratory arrest and nearly died but was brought back to life because the helicopter got there. We have to say that was fantastic for Kelly James. 
Then we look at the submission from Ian Tuck the director of junior surf who said that his group saved 227 people last season and performed 307 first aid treatments. We have to say: “Thank goodness they were there and by gosh they had better be there next time.” 
Then we have the Chinese new settlers. They are here they have come from a strange land they have all this water around them and they do not know a thing about water safety. So we need WaterSafe Auckland to be there to take them through those educational issues. I knew the member would like that one. 
I had the pleasure as I said to go through the submissions which really rammed home to me the importance of the group of 11. It also rammed home to me how important volunteers are and I know that Mr Hide mentioned that. Many many volunteers are tied up in these organisations. They do not get paid and they do an outstanding performance for us. But I also need to thank another group in this process for the learning I had in going through their submissions. They are the community organisations that fund—for example the ASB Bank Community Trust. We are lucky that it is there and that it is generous. We are lucky that the Lion Foundation is there and that it is generous. I congratulate the Auckland City Council because I think it has done good. It has taken a big share of the burden—a bigger share than it probably deserved—and it has made a real difference. I say to the Manukau City Council—Mr Dail Jones mentioned Manukau not me—that 25 percent of its population use those services but it provides only 3 percent of the funding. That is not fair. That is not fair at all. 
Coming back to earth there has been a problem. Serious money is an issue. There is an issue with viability hence the need for this bill. The bill establishes a framework to secure sustainable funding. Money is tough to get. It is not easy to get money for these organisations. I am on the board of Wellington Free Ambulance. We are forever trying to raise money. Donations are harder and harder to get from the public. Every Friday on the street corners in Wellington a different bucket is being shaken. It is a different bucket from a different organisation needing funds. Then of course costs are going up. Petrol prices are going up rental prices are going up. Money is hard to get. Then we have examples like that of the Lion Foundation which admits that 2 years ago it contributed $59 million to the New Zealand community and this year it will be $43 million. So the big funders that have been there historically and have done a fantastic job will struggle to have the degree of moneys available. 
If we look to the future we see Auckland is getting bigger. There is more pressure on the services in Auckland. There will be more risks to those organisations so there will be an issue for how that group of 11 will be funded. There were three options. The first was to ask the Government for more money. I have to suggest that life saving WaterSafe Auckland and the Auckland rescue helicopter for example should probably get more Government funding. I think there is a case for them to get more Government funding. Another option is to up the user-pays. Well there is user-pays and there should be user-pays in many of those 11 organisations—and the cultural arts are a part of that—but we have to make sure that they are affordable because we have to make sure that Aucklanders can enjoy them. So there is a need even in the cultural aspect for the subsidies to go forward. The last option is local government and that is why this bill is here. I note that the Auckland City Council submission stated that independent market research undertaken in 2005 indicated a high degree of support across the region for the regional funding arm of the group of 11. This was reconfirmed in October in 2007 in a separately commissioned North Shore City Council survey. So what I am hearing is that the people of Auckland through surveys by Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council are saying this group of 11 should be funded by the region. To say it again this was reconfirmed in 2007 in a survey commissioned by the North Shore City Council. 
The local government option makes sense. I must admit I am a huge fan of the Auckland Regional Council stepping up and I think it is a pity we could not get that in the process because it did not meet the requirements of the bill or whatever. I believe that is the cleanest and easiest way for this to occur. So in a logical way we are picking up second prize but I suppose that is not as important as the fact that the funding is going to come forward which is important for sure. 
As a National Party person on the Local Government and Environment Committee I was also very conscious of the fact that I did not like the bill in its original form. I liked the Auckland Regional Council stepping up and I liked waiting for the royal commission to do its work—I think the royal commission will play an integral part in the shape of Auckland. Auckland has to get itself together which it is not doing at all actually and I am sure that if the National Party comes forward as the next Government—as I hope it will—it will address that in conjunction with the royal commission. Something has to be done and I admit the fact that we cannot wait until 2012 as we suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper. If we do not send a stronger message to those organisations we actually run the risk of them falling over. 
I suppose just to those who are in the gallery—and I know a number of people are here from different organisations—I send a final message. This bill will pass and there will be a pretty strong funding stream from local authorities for organisations to get. I think they will get $7 million or $8 million. That is not a cash cow for those organisations to then sit back and think: “We’ve got all the money in the world now. Let’s spend it. Let’s go for it. Let’s buy this that and the other.” It will be too easy for those organisations to fall into that trap. What they have to do is say: “We have a serious lifeline. This Parliament has recognised the importance of us as organisations and recognised the importance of us to Aucklanders.” Parliament is saying: “Here is the money to keep you alive and to keep your organisations strong. Don’t abuse that privilege. It is a privilege you’re getting. Don’t abuse it. Be careful with our money please.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a second time and a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Bill read a second time and a third time. 
Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. In essence this is a straightforward piece of legislation. The existence of the Victory Park Act of 1919 necessitates Parliament’s ongoing interest in the health and legal structures of Lancaster Park which is based in my Christchurch Central electorate. 
My electorate is a place of many names: Lancaster Park AMI Stadium Jade Stadium and Victory Park. Over time names change structures change the balance of influence and power in our city changes and management systems change. In the last 10 years the stadium has gone through a modernisation process and this bill completes the reorganisation of its management and the transfer of that asset to local government. The final significant stage is now under way to create a sparkling place which we in Canterbury trust will host a couple of quarter finals in the Rugby World Cup in 2011— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Like hell! 
TIM BARNETT 
: A couple of quarter finals I tell Mr Mallard. 
The passage of this bill through Parliament has been very smooth and its prominence has involved complex and very sensitive and prolonged negotiations between the sporting interests in and around the stadium. I congratulate those in Canterbury who managed to conduct their arguments together came up with their own arrangements involved Ngai Tahu and present this as a united solution to this House. I thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and also the advisers to that committee. The committee received only one submission and that in itself is a sign that we in Canterbury can get these things together when we try. 
I would just like to make two particular points. Firstly I reiterate the significance of the stadium. I described it in my first reading speech as Australasia’s best known sporting venue and no one including Mr Mallard has dared to argue that since. Its history is extraordinary beginning in terms of the iconic events in 1894 when it hosted the first All Black match in New Zealand. As early as 1903 it was recognised as New Zealand’s finest sporting ground. Thirteen years later in the middle of the First World War it became a potato patch—as part of the war effort—and from then on it has never looked back. 
My second point relates to the most significant amendment made by the select committee and I would like to pause for a few moments to talk about that. The select committee has added clause 7A “War memorial gates”. That really puts the responsibility on the council to ensure that the war memorial gates which exist now in the ground exist in perpetuity as a memorial to the Canterbury soldiers who lost their lives in the First World War. 
I promoted that amendment to the council and it was happy to agree to that. The reason was that the Victory Park Act of 1919 stated very clearly that the land was vested in the Crown in commemoration of the victors of the allies in World War I and more important in a sense in commemoration of the soldiers who died in the service of their country. So by building that provision into this new slick and efficient piece of legislation we have ensured there is an obligation to keep those gates upon which is a list of the Canterbury soldiers who lost their lives in the First World War. 
Why is that so important? There are three reasons. Firstly it was a permanent commitment back in 1919 and if it suddenly disappeared I think the House would be failing to meet its obligation. Secondly the First World War period as I mentioned saw the turn-round in the history of the stadium; and the third point is that the contribution made by soldiers throughout our nation—not least from Canterbury—is an extraordinary humbling and numbing contribution. I dug out the figures today. At the time of the middle of the First World War there were about 10000 men aged between 20 and 30 living in Canterbury at any one time and by the end of the First World War 2711 had died in the service of their country. So of the age group of men who went to war one-quarter died. 
On the scale of things nowadays that contribution is on the scale of the situation in Dafur in terms of the impact it had in the community. So the very least we can do is make sure we keep that commitment to keep that memorial and keep those names together and on the basis of that I would like to again thank everyone involved in this legislation. I strongly commend the bill to the House and I look forward to other contributions. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is with absolute pleasure and pride that I as a fierce Cantabrian rise to take a short call in support of the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill at its second and third readings. The aim of this bill as has been stated is to facilitate the redevelopment of Lancaster Park as a modern sports stadium for the future—and for the Rugby World Cup in 2011—which is something that all Cantabrians deserve. 
As the Minister said in his first reading speech this bill will bring ageing and redundant legal structures into the 21st century and will free us from significant impediments to the future development of the stadium. We do that by giving effect to an agreement between the Victory Park Board which was established by the Victory Park Act 1919 and the Christchurch City Council. 
The Victory Park Board has controlled and managed the land and facilities at Lancaster Park well for the last 89 years or so and I feel it is appropriate to extend our appreciation to the board today. However the redevelopment required for the park has grown beyond the board’s financial resources. Therefore in return for the Christchurch City Council’s agreeing to fund the redevelopment the board has agreed to vest and hand over Lancaster Park—and in the minds of some of us it will always be Lancaster Park—along with the land and the assets owned by the board to the council in trust for sport recreation entertainment public assembly and ancillary purposes. With the passing of this bill into law the Victory Park Board will be duly wound up. 
I acknowledge the hard work of all those involved in developing this bill and in bringing it to this House including the member for Christchurch Central Tim Barnett. I take this opportunity to wish him all the best for his post-parliamentary future. I also thank the Victory Park Board the Christchurch City Council members of the public and in particular Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu which in the interests of the Christchurch community have generously deferred their rights under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act so that the redevelopment can take place. 
Cantabrians love this stadium especially when Canterbury wins. I note that the honourable member from Otago will be following me with a speech no doubt with a similar bias but perhaps a more southerly bias. Lancaster Park is a true sporting and cultural icon in the heart of Christchurch City. It has a fantastic history and we have certainly seen some magical sporting moments. Back in 1962 the world record was set by Peter Snell in the 800 metres at Lancaster Park. There was theRanfurly Shield match in 1954 when the Ranfurly Shield was successfully retained by Canterbury after a last-minute try. That try was never converted as spectators—no doubt Cantabrians—rushed on to the field. That is something that could never happen at today’s games but it is certainly in the spirit of the great sporting tradition of Canterbury. 
Lancaster Park is the home of our mighty Crusaders. I have certainly spent many a cold night there supporting my team—I am very responsible I am sure for my team—while listening to the Crusaders’ Vangelis music and watching the horses race round the stadium and stir the crowd into a frenzy and they no doubt often spur on the Crusaders to a worthy win. In my time I have also been there to cheer on the All Blacks I have enjoyed a few one-day cricket matches in the sun and I have also seen some concerts. 
It is amusing that although we have had two name changes since the ground was formerly recognised as Lancaster Park—Jade Stadium in 1998 after naming rights were sold to Jade Software Corporation Ltd and now the AMI Stadium—it is still known in the hearts and minds of many people around the country and in Christchurch as Lancaster Park. Indeed that must also be true for many of us in this House given the naming of this bill. Despite the redevelopment and the name changes for some—and for me—the ground will always be Lancaster Park. 
It would be remiss of me to speak on this bill and not mention the Deans family known in Canterbury as the first family of rugby. Bruce and Robbie Deans were stalwarts of the Canterbury rugby team. They held the Ranfurly Shield for 25 challenges and represented the All Blacks. As well there is Robbie’s fantastic record as a coach and manager. Bob Deans was one of the most famous All Blacks. He was a member of the team from 1905 to 1908 and it is certainly fitting that the east stand at this stadium is known as the Deans Stand—not the “Dingo Stand”—which is appropriate acknowledgment of this family’s contribution to rugby and to the region over a great many years. Of course many of us not only in Canterbury rue the day that Robbie “Dingo” Deans did not quite make it as the All Black coach. I would have to say that All Black versus Wallaby games have taken on a new dynamic and new interest as a consequence of that. 
It is interesting to note the history of this park and I did Google it even though I have lived in for Canterbury all of my days. The Wikipedia history states that Lancaster Park has hosted various sports including rugby union rugby league cricket soccer athletics and trotting—and I have to say that the Crusaders’ horses are not trotters—until 1899 when the trotting club moved to the Addington racecourse. Lancaster Park has also held non-sporting events such as concerts by U2 in 1989 and 1993 and Billy Joel in 1987. In fact I went to the Dire Straits concert there as well but that does not seem to be mentioned on the Wikipedia website. However Lancaster Park is known primarily as a rugby and cricket ground and it is certainly the home of the Crusaders rugby union team one of the great great teams in rugby history which competes in the Super 14 competition. Lancaster Park currently has a capacity of 36000 spectators. It is a wonderful ground. 
In 1880 Canterbury Cricket and Athletics Sports Co. Ltd was established and at that stage the company purchased 10 acres three rods and 30 perches of the Lancaster estate for the princely sum of £2841 which equates to £260 per acre. In 1904 the Canterbury Cricket Association became the sole owner of the ground and then in 1911 the Canterbury Rugby Football Union became co-owners of the ground with the Canterbury Cricket Association. An Act of Parliament back in November 1919 vested the title to Lancaster Park in the Crown and established the Victory Park Board to take responsibility for its management. Jade Stadium Ltd was established in 1998 to manage the existing facilities on behalf of the Victory Park Board and the Christchurch City Council. 
This park and these grounds have a rich rich history. In 1881 the first cricket match to be played on the ground was scheduled for the park’s opening on 8 October but it was cancelled due to rain. If an inaugural game had been due to be played there last week then a similar thing would have happened. An athletics meeting became the first event held there in that year and it was held later in that month of October. 
The embankment was expanded in 1957 which increased the capacity to 33000 people. Two new stands were opened in 1965 further increasing the capacity to 38500 and in 1995 the Hadlee Stand—another wonderful Canterbury name—was opened as a tribute to that successful cricketing family. The Ranfurly Shield has had some wonderful matches at Lancaster Park and I have already mentioned Canterbury’s successful retention of the shield against Waikato in 1954 which is somewhat before my time. 
But it is not only in relation to sporting events that this ground has had its fame. In 1954 Lancaster Park held a Roman Catholic prayer rally which drew a large attendance and in 1986 Pope John Paul II held a public mass on the oval attracting 28000 people. So it is not just for sport that this ground is recognised. 
One of the most famous events of my recollection was the 2006 Super 14 final which was played in thick fog at Jade Stadium. People at the stadium could not see the game I could not see the game and television viewers could not see the game but the important thing was that the Crusaders were valiant and won in the end. 
Finally I say that—and I know that Mr Barnett will concur with this—Christchurch and all Cantabrians deserve a truly modern sports stadium that can move with the times. We will have that after a decade of facility improvements after further redevelopment yet to come and with the passing of this bill. We will have a stadium that is ready for the future and with a bit of luck ready for a Rugby World Cup semi-final game in 2011. May the Ranfurly Shield return to its home at Lancaster Park now to be vested in the Christchurch City Council in trust for sport and recreation. Christchurch needs this bill Canterbury needs this bill and National certainly supports this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a very short call on this Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I appreciated the in-depth history we just heard. This bill was very simple to deal with at the select committee. We had an approximately 35-second submission from the Christchurch City Council and we addressed all its concerns. 
I say “Best of luck!” to the good people of Christchurch and Canterbury in their bid for a Rugby World Cup game. Of course I look forward to the Poverty Bay Rugby Football Union holding a pool game and I invite all members to come to Gisborne and the East Coast to see what real grassroots rugby is like. I commend this bill to the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill. I was born in Christchurch I live in Christchurch and I work in Christchurch very close to Lancaster Park. Like all one-eyed Cantabrians Lancaster Park has played a really important part in my life over the years. But Lancaster Park is important to people far beyond Christchurch. It is important even to people beyond New Zealand. As Tim Barnett noted Lancaster Park is one of Australasia’s most famous sporting venues. 
It is good to see this bill come back to the House because Christchurch people want to see it passed as soon as possible so that we can begin the revitalisation and redevelopment of Lancaster Park and the AMI Stadium. We want the bill to proceed so we can guarantee that our stadium will be bright shiny and new in time for the Rugby World Cup. 
Many people have worked on this bill in order to bring it to Parliament: the Victory Park Board the Christchurch City Council Ngai Tahu sports and entertainment user groups and the public. It is to the credit of Christchurch people that the process has been genuinely smooth and efficient. It is also to the credit of Christchurch people that unlike the process with many local bills all stakeholders have been fully involved with the process. 
I must pay tribute in particular to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu who for the benefit of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury have agreed to the promotion of this bill and who have generously deferred their right of first refusal to the purchase of the land under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 so that Lancaster Park can be redeveloped for the good of all. Lancaster Park certainly needs that redevelopment. 
The ownership of Lancaster Park has changed over the years. It was originally in private ownership and was then held in trust and managed by the Victory Park Board. Now the assets are to be handed over to the Christchurch City Council. Yes the Christchurch City Council will get the privilege of ownership but it will also get the responsibility to fund the very necessary updating and redevelopment of the stadium. The Christchurch City Council and Vbase the council-owned company that manages Lancaster Park have big plans for its future. A $62 million upgrade is underway. The redevelopment plans have been discussed and worked on for years. The upgrade is supported by the whole community including the local neighbourhood association—a situation that is particularly unusual in terms of a stadium redevelopment. The upgrade is supported also by the Historic Places Trust local and national sporting bodies local councils and individuals. Everyone has had a chance to have a say. All the issues have been well and truly ironed out and we all look forward to the development of a modern sports stadium that all Christchurch people can use and enjoy. 
But Christchurch people have always supported their park and have been prepared to put their money where their mouths are. The managers of Lancaster Park and AMI Stadium have developed a very successful business model and with the support of membership fees naming right fees and corporate sales the venue is 80 percent user-pays. That level of 80 percent user-pays is a level of self-sufficiency not met by any other stadium in the country. 
Like most Cantabrians I have spent hours at Lancaster Park over the years and enjoyed a wide variety of different experiences. Lancaster Park is a very versatile venue and has been used for almost everything since it was founded in 1880. It has been used for all types of sport including the mainstream—cricket rugby athletics—and also for rather exotic sports such as ballooning Scottish sports and even penny farthing bike races. 
It has also been used for other more mundane purposes such as growing spuds during World War I. It was used for training soldiers during World War II. My father-in-law was billeted there for a couple of months in 1942 with the 36th Canterbury Battalion. He and up to 900 other soldiers underwent their basic training there and it was a pretty basic place too. They slept on wooden boards and washed at the tap out the back. They trained there before they left for the Pacific theatre and my father-in-law must have been pretty well trained because he came back and he came back to enjoy many more occasions watching footy at Lancaster Park. 
Lancaster Park has also hosted almost every different type of entertainment: from fireworks to wild west shows from Christian rallies to heavy metal bands and from marching girl competitions to cool jazz concerts. But probably the most vivid memories for Cantabrians are of the wonderful Crusaders—the music the horses and of course those red and black rugby players. Yes Lancaster Park is central to the Christchurch way of life. It has been well used in the past and has served many purposes. This bill will make sure that it is able to be redeveloped to meet our needs now and into the future. 
Finally I thank Tim Barnett for sponsoring this bill. He has done a good job. I wish him all the best for his future and promise him that I will take special care of Lancaster Park and the Christchurch Central electorate in his absence. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker tena tatou katoa. It is a very rare thing to be able to come to this House to congratulate the sponsor of a bill on the diligent way in which consultation has taken place with affected parties. I say tena koe to Tim Barnett. If I could be so bold I would say that the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill provides a model for others to follow whereby an issue has arisen from the people has been taken back to the people and a bill will now be signed off in Parliament as required by all those with an interest in Lancaster Park. We in the Maori Party were particularly pleased that Ngai Tahu were properly included and consulted through all aspects of the drafting of the bill. The Christchurch City Council approached Ngai Tahu right from the outset consultation was open and honest and most significant as a result of that consultation Ngai Tahu checked off every stage during the drafting of the bill. 
So it is with great pleasure that I can come to this debate and confirm that through our consultation as the independent voice of Maori in this Parliament we can state that the intent and meaning of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act was followed and upheld and the provisions provided within the Act were sufficient. In particular the right of first refusal provision to purchase land at Lancaster Park is not extinguished. Under the terms of the settlement Act Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has the right of first refusal to purchase the land at Lancaster Park from the Crown. Ngai Tahu has willingly agreed in the interests of the Christchurch community to consent to the bill and the deferral therefore of its rights under the 1998 Act. The select committee did make one comment that is worthy of note—that the passage of this bill is subject to confirmation of approval from the Office of Treaty Settlements. 
When I think of the Ngai Tahu settlement I cannot help but think of the long history of broken promises made by the Crown to Ngai Tahu including the Crown ownership of pounamu the low prices paid for land and reserves the failure to provide schools and hospitals the loss of mahinga kai customary food-gathering places the unclear boundaries of purchased land the leasing to settlers in perpetuity of reserved lands without the tribe’s consent and the forced sale of Ngai Tahu interests in some land bought from them by the Crown. We may also reflect in this House that when Rakiura Stewart Island was purchased in 1864 a total of more than 34 million acres had been taken off Ngai Tahu for the princely sum of close to £15000. This amounts to a fraction of one penny an acre. When we compare as we have heard tonight that the land sold for Lancaster Park around about the same time was £260 per acre and just note again the difference paid to Ngai Tahu of less than a penny such was the treatment of tangata whenua at that time. We reflect also that Ngai Tahu were left with approximately 1000th of its original lands. 
In this context the action that Ngai Tahu has taken to concede to the deferral of its rights under the 1998 Act is an overwhelming act of generosity and one that the Maori Party wholeheartedly commends like the ongoing acts of generosity during the Ngai Tahu claims. This is an iwi that the Waitangi Tribunal found had suffered from the way in which “the Crown acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.” and an iwi that is now prepared to put on record its preparedness to support this bill in the interests of the Christchurch community. 
So I stand to make a brief comment of support for this bill recognising the role of the sponsor and the generosity of Ngai Tahu in progressing legislation to vest Lancaster Park land in the Christchurch City Council. The nation is in awe of their commitment to manaaki tanga to kotahitanga and to the rangatiratanga of Ngai Tahu Waitaha and Kati Mamoe. The Maori Party will support the bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 It is a sad day when a devoted fan of the Highlanders must stand in this House to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Bill. As I go through some of the background information on this bill I will need a tissue very shortly as I get myself further into my speech. Lancaster Park in Christchurch is the home of the Crusaders rugby team. The Crusaders do not always win—they say they do but they do not—and the Highlanders do quite well against them. Can I mention the Highlanders? I am a devoted fan of theirs but never mind that. 
I notice that the first cricket match to be played on the grounds was scheduled for the opening of Lancaster Park on 8 October 1881. Probably all the Deans went; all the Deans from the first four ships probably all turned out. They were probably all excited about the opening of Lancaster Park. I suspect some of my forebears were in amongst that lot; they came in on a convict ship no doubt. Can members guess what happened? The match was cancelled due to rain. Well what an auspicious start that was! We do not get that at Carisbrook; we do not get that in Dunedin. Oh no! At Carisbrook we carry on. We do not need the comforts of the modern day; we carry on. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Snow and hail. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Snow? It does not matter to us. It does not matter to the Highlanders. It does not matter what the weather is like. That cricket match at Lancaster Park was cancelled due to rain and I think that says it all. 
I turn to the submission made on behalf of the Christchurch City Council on this bill. It is quite a simple bill and there was only one submission on it: from the Christchurch City Council. Probably it was the body most closely associated with the bill and I mention the summary of its submission which is in support of the bill—as indeed is National and so am I conflicted though I may be. Actually due to the wonderful nature of MMP the Otago electorate of which I am a proud member is now to become the Waitaki electorate which takes in much of Central Otago and North Otago but also South Canterbury all the way up to Mesopotamia Station. When I am up there campaigning hard which I am doing when I am not here sometimes I am asked which rugby team I support. That would be the only time in my campaign when I am driven absolutely speechless because I am so conflicted and remorseful. In addressing the bill—[ 
Interruption 
] I remain silent and nobody knows where my true heart lies although I must say that many of my younger years were spent on the banks of Carisbrook watching some fantastic games being played by the mighty Highlanders which remains a very good team to this day. 
The aim of this bill is to facilitate the redevelopment of Lancaster Park and obviously with the Rugby World Cup coming up in 3 years’ time Christchurch does need a modern sports stadium that will take it into the future. I recognise that and I also concede that it is something that all Cantabrians—one-eyed and deluded though they may be—seem to desire. As the Minister said in the first reading the bill will bring ageing and redundant legal structures into the 21st century—and that is what this bill is all about—and provide freedom from significant impediments to further development of the stadium. All joking aside that is what this bill addresses and that is what it will achieve. It will do that by giving effect to an agreement between the Victory Park Board established by the Victory Park Act 1919 and the Christchurch City Council. 
The Victory Park Board has controlled and managed the land and facilities at Lancaster Park very well for the past 89 years and it is probably appropriate to extend our congratulations and our appreciation to it today. However the redevelopment required at the park has grown beyond the Victory Park Board’s financial resources. Therefore in return for the Christchurch City Council agreeing to fund the redevelopment the Victory Park Board has agreed to vest the Lancaster Park land along with land and assets owned by the board in the council and that is a sensible thing to do. It is vested in the council in trust for sporting recreational entertainment public assembly and other ancillary purposes. With the passing of this bill into law which will happen this evening the Victory Park Board will be wound up and so will be a great part of Christchurch’s heritage and history. As my colleague the one-eyed Cantabrian Kate Wilkinson says it will not be forgotten. Indeed it will not and it should not. 
It is probably appropriate now to acknowledge the hard work of all the people who have been involved in developing this bill and bringing it to the House. They include the member for Christchurch Central Tim Barnett the Victory Park Board members themselves the Christchurch City Council members of the public and in particular Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu which in the interests of the Christchurch community has very generously deferred its rights under the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act so that the redevelopment of Lancaster Park can take place. 
I guess it goes without saying—and it has been said several times tonight unnecessarily in my view—that Cantabrians love this stadium. It is—OK it is—a true sporting and cultural icon to the people of Christchurch. Who can forget— 
Nicky Wagner 
: And Canterbury. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: And Canterbury. 
Nicky Wagner 
: And New Zealand. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: And New Zealand. Who can forget the marvellous marvellous concerts held at Lancaster Park where cars full of people from North Otago—probably from as far away as Dunedin and much further afield— 
Eric Roy 
: Invercargill. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —and Invercargill have had the most fantastic trips through to Christchurch and through to Lancaster Park whether to watch Dire Straits or—who else has been there? 
Kate Wilkinson 
: U2. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh yes. They have been several times. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Billy Joel. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Billy Joel. Not to mention—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes we will get on to him in a moment. 
We must not forget of course the odd rugby game and cricket match. The one time I went to watch a rugby game at Lancaster Park in recent years—it was about 7 or 8 years ago—man it was cold! It was very cold. 
Eric Roy 
: It should have been postponed. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well we could see the game which was a bonus but it was very cold. So I hope the council is doing something about that as part of the park’s redevelopment. 
Moana Mackey 
: Don’t you live in the South Island? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I have to tell Moana Mackey—and it is a truth that is obviously not going down well over on that side of the House or in fact among my own benches—that compared with Carisbrook Lancaster Park is just cold. When it is not cold one cannot see the games and when one cannot see the games the cricket matches are being called off because of rain. But oh well people love it. 
Lancaster Park is the home of the Crusaders and I acknowledge that they are a great team and many members of this House have spent a lot of time supporting that team. Is it not a good thing that with New Zealand rugby whether it is those of us who live in Otago or further south or those of us who live further north in Wellington and Auckland we are all very passionate about and loyal to our teams and our stadiums? It probably would be remiss of me to speak on this bill and not mention the Deans family known in Canterbury as the first family of rugby. Both Bruce and Robbie Deans were stalwarts of the Canterbury rugby team holding the Ranfurly Shield for 25 challenges—I remember that very well—and also representing the All Blacks. As well Robbie has had a fantastic record as a coach and a manager. 
In conclusion— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wake up Mr Deputy Speaker. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh do members want me to go on? Christchurch Cantabrians and in fact all of us in New Zealand want and will get a truly modern sports stadium that can move with the times within the right legislative framework which this bill will provide. I wish the people involved in the redevelopment all the best of luck and I support them in this bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time and a third time. 
Waste Minimisation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 30 July. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. Obviously there have been a few changes around the amendments since we last discussed the Waste Minimisation Bill. Around clause 2 which is the commencement clause we have replaced Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Nicky Wagner—it has now been withdrawn and I thank the member for that—with a new amendment which I have tabled here tonight. It is a typed amendment that will deal with some of the problems that were identified by that member’s Supplementary Order Paper and as well will make a small change around clause 39. I hope everyone has caught up with that one. 
The second issue concerns the definition of “waste”. There has been very considerable discussion around the definition of “waste” which was originally initiated by Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of Nicky Wagner. The definition would have created some real problems with regard to the legislation. After discussion amongst the Scrap Metal Recycling Association the Government the Minister’s office and the officials of Local Government New Zealand and various other parties we have now come up with a new Supplementary Order Paper 223 in my name which I hope—which I am sure—will meet everyone’s concerns. I know that Local Government New Zealand still has some concerns about this Supplementary Order Paper but I am hopeful that the ministry will actually use its powers to collect the information that it needs in order to get the information that local government needs. 
So I would ask members to support those two amendments—that is the new Supplementary Order Paper 223 and the amendment to clause 2 which relates to the commencement dates. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. It has been a long journey but we have finally got to Part 1. As members know National voted against this bill at its first reading. We voted against it because we believed it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive. We voted against it because it tended to focus on how things should be done rather than the outcomes we needed to achieve. We were also concerned about excessive costs in terms of compliance and enforcements and layers and layers of new bureaucracy. However during the select committee process the original bill was gutted. This Waste Minimisation Bill is completely and comprehensively reworked. National now supports the bill particularly now that we have been through a rigorous process of considering Supplementary Order Papers and because the bill’s provisions are now mostly reasonable and rational and more important because it will be good for our environment. 
New Zealanders are conscious that the disposal of waste however carefully managed does harm to our environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receiving environment we still need to minimise the volume of waste that we dispose of. Even transporting that waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. There are enormous benefits to gain from better utilising our waste stream: economic benefits from recovering valuable resources social benefits from providing jobs and cultural benefits from a cleaner and greener environment. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for this bill and we got it right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste and it seemed very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a definition that included not only anything that had been disposed of and discarded which is probably what most people think of when they are describing waste but also anything that was no longer required for its original purpose and which but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities would have been disposed of or discarded. 
But on reflection our definition included resources in the waste stream that could be reused recycled or recovered even if they had never entered the waste stream and this proved to be a problem. Since the bill had been reported back we had representations from several organisations including the Scrap Metal Recycling Association of New Zealand organic and green waste collectors and paper and plastic recyclers highlighting unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition could actually create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste—or resources depending on how we define it. 
When we designed the Waste Minimisation Bill we aimed to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream but it seemed that the wider definition could have perverse effects as it included material that was never intended for the waste stream. There had already been a court case over the ramifications of a wider definition of waste because a recycler of paper which should have been rewarded for minimising the waste stream was actually disadvantaged under the wider definition. The recyclers were also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses and could hinder the bill’s objective of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore it was pointed out that any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal were considered waste by the New Zealand Government had the potential to influence importers from other countries and New Zealand exports could have become subject to more rigorous import controls. 
I came to the conclusion that unless we reworked the definition of “waste” in the bill we could cause problems for the people and organisations that had been the most proactive in the minimisation of waste and that had spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. To minimise waste we need to attract businesses and operators to work in this area not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I therefore proposed Supplementary Order Paper 219 which dealt with a narrow definition that excluded recyclables and recoverable resources. It would have solved the recyclers’ problem and ensured that those pioneer recyclers and resource-recovery businesses such as the scrap-metal merchants paper recyclers and green-waste collectors were not disadvantaged but it would have meant that the bill did not cover and actually excluded recyclables. That had further complications and ramifications in terms of how local government could fulfil its obligations in waste minimisation. 
After the last member’s day Russel Norman and I got together to work on a definition we thought would get an even better balance. Over the adjournment Russel Norman with the help of the Ministry for the Environment and local government representatives and I have come up with a compromise which is Supplementary Order Paper 223 that I think everyone can live with. Therefore I have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Paper 219 and support the new compromise definition Supplementary Order Paper 223. I look forward to both the recyclers and local government getting on with the job. Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I commend the work that Nicky Wagner has been doing in ensuring that the Waste Minimisation Bill is workable legislation. I want to reflect on Part 1 in the initial bill. If we look through the bill we can see that every single clause in the original Part 1 has been deleted and we have effectively ended up with a completely new bill. The reason for that was that the original bill was a bureaucratic monster. One of the problems with the left is that every time they come to an environmental issue in their view more and more red tape and regulation are automatically the answer. The original bill proposed that every single small business club and council—every single one of New Zealand’s 287000 businesses—would have to have a waste management plan and that waste management plan would have to be approved by the local council. If members think the Resource Management Act is bad at dealing with about a one-hundredth of the number of approvals then they would know that that would have been just awful. We have argued consistently that although there is a legitimate issue around waste the original bill by the Greens was a disaster zone and we rightly dubbed it the “Waste Increase Bill” for the amount of paperwork that it would have driven. 
The second stage post select committee—where Nicky Wagner has been doing a great job—is about recognising that a whole lot of very good recycling work is already going on out there in the community and the last thing this Parliament needs to do is to pass a statute that penalises those people who have been doing the right thing. Yesterday on the steps of Parliament we saw a protest from those who recycle metals. This is an industry with no Government regulation. It is made up of good old Kiwi entrepreneurs who have gone out and created a recycling industry around metals. This bill would have made it harder for them. I say good on Nicky Wagner for standing up for the New Zealand entrepreneurs and getting bureaucracy off their backs when they are doing the right environmental thing. 
Moana Mackey 
: So it’s all the National Party’s idea. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chair of the committee says this is all the National Party’s idea. Well hang on a moment. Moana Mackey chaired the select committee which passed the bill as it was. If she did her job properly why were the metal recyclers protesting on the steps of Parliament? 
Moana Mackey 
: You’re on the select committee. Why didn’t you do your job properly? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh is it not strange! Labour members want what I think Mr Peters calls the trinkets of office. They want all the trinkets and gizmos of office but when it actually comes to their legislation they will not accept responsibility. You see it is a bit like the Electoral Finance Act—it is not the Government’s fault; it is Parliament’s fault that the Electoral Finance Act is an awful mess. And now we are getting the same sorts of dodgy excuses from the chair of the select committee. The truth is—and Moana Mackey knows it—that this clause was fixed only as a consequence of the initiative of Nicky Wagner. If it were not for Nicky Wagner—and I think Russel Norman would have the generosity to acknowledge this—we would not have this solution. It has been Nicky Wagner’s initiative that has seen a sensible solution to this issue of the definition of waste. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mai Chen’s actually. Mai Chen drafted it not Nicky Wagner. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have to say that it was Nicky Wagner who first took the initiative. But I have to ask where the Minister for the Environment has been. 
John Carter 
: Who? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister for the Environment. He is the one who gets the ministerial house the ministerial car and the ministerial salary for getting environment legislation right. But no the responsibility falls on Nicky Wagner to come to the rescue of Kiwi private enterprises that have been doing the right thing and that risked being penalised by this bill were it not for the sensible amendment. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to follow the comments made by my colleague Nick Smith and I also add my congratulations to Nicky Wagner on the very good work she has done on this legislation. There is no question that the bill would be the poorer if it were not for Nicky’s involvement. I also say that the bill would be the poorer if it were not for the National Party’s input as well. 
I do concede that the select committee members worked well together. That is the first point I want to make. When we first started off—and I have said this before—people like me in black bush singlets from the back of Hokianga thought this was all a lot of nonsense. But as we became more focused we began to understand that an issue here not only needed to be addressed but deserved the attention of Parliament. So for example Nicky Wagner and I took a trip to Southern Australia to have a look at the system that people have in that part of this world. I must say I certainly came away with a much clearer idea of what needed to happen in this legislation. I know that Nicky also came away with a wider view I suspect than she had had when she went there. It certainly was a wonderful opportunity to learn. 
Points have been made already that this bill has been changed to ensure that the entrepreneurs we have—such as the gentlemen whom I know are listening and looking on—are the very people this bill will now allow the opportunity to move forward. That is a good thing. But I also add this point to the comments that have already been made: this legislation is about us as a Parliament recognising that this is not only about waste but also about a resource. That is an important point for us to keep re-emphasising. Waste is only waste if people do not understand that it can be recycled and reused so this Parliament has a huge leadership responsibility in that regard to make sure there is an understanding that this bill is about using the resources we have in our country rather than wasting them. Parliament needed to take a lead and we have made a step forward in that regard with this legislation. 
As my colleague Nick Smith has said the legislation is also to support those who are already involved in the industry. There are many people many small businesses and some bigger ones involved in the whole issue of recycling and waste minimisation and we did not want in any way to impinge on their ability to continue doing those things that they are doing so well for our nation. 
I guess the third thing that is important with this legislation and with the way it is drafted and crafted is that it allows us now to ensure that the public also understand that they have a wider responsibility. They must start learning that if we as a nation are to move forward we must use the resource and the opportunities that we have. Where hitherto we have looked to chuck opportunities in the bin so to speak we should now be making all those opportunities count. This part and this amendment we have before us are all about that. They are about ensuring that the nation the operators and all those people involved including local authorities take up the responsibility they have in regard to waste minimisation and ensure that they allow the whole system to work correctly. In that regard this bill gives this country that opportunity. 
The select committee is to be commended. The members of the select committee who worked with this bill have certainly changed it significantly. The member in charge of the bill would now concede that point just as the member who was previously in charge of it Nandor Tanczos certainly recognised it. I understand that the person who first introduced the bill from the Green Party would also concede that the bill is far better for the work that has been put into it by the parliamentarians and the officials involved. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 2 be agreed to: 
To omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
Commencement 
Part 3 (other than section 39) and section 60 come into force on 1 July 2009. 
(2)The rest of this Act (including section 39) comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 210 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.