Volume 642 Week 57 - Thursday 11 October 2007Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 642 Week 57 - Thursday 11 October 2007[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 11 October 2007Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the third readings of the bills that arose out of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the first readings of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) the Public Transport Management Bill the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill the Biofuel Bill and the Evidence Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday of course is a members’ day next week.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could tell us why the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) was discharged from the Order Paper on 20 September; are any other bills currently on the Order Paper likely to get the same treatment?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That bill was discharged. I understand that some matters will be revisited in a later piece of legislation. At the present time I am not planning to suggest to colleagues that we withdraw any other bills on the Government’s Order Paper. I would be quite happy to suggest withdrawing one or two members’ bills but of course that is not within my province.Questions to MinistersTaxation—Thresholds1.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to theMinister of Finance: Why is it Government policy that someone earning $39000 a year should pay the 33c tax rate?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): As I outlined on Tuesday there are various factors that can tell me whether someone earning that amount does pay 33c in tax at the margin. The average rate he or she pays at that point is normally 20 percent. In the example of a single-income earner in a family with two children the Working for Families package means that person may effectively pay no net tax at all.Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister keep using the example of people in the Working for Families package when the vast majority of earners on $39000 a year do not have children who qualify for the Working for Families package and pay on their marginal dollar 33c in the dollar which is the rich person’s tax rate according to that Minister.Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On the last point I have never said that 33c in the dollar is the rich person’s tax rate. It is not even the highest tax rate in the New Zealand scale. Why the member keeps making things up is quite beyond me.Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister tell the House how the tax paid by an average family changed between the years 2000 and 2006?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: According to the OECD’sTaxing Wages Report 2006 the tax burden for a one-earner married couple on the average wage and with two children has fallen from 13.6 percent to 2.6 percent—that is before the extension on 1 July this year. At the same time that family will have seen cuts in the cost of going to the doctor which Mr English wants to increase again prescription costs falling and saving for retirement made easier.Hon Peter Dunne: Will the Minister confirm that just under a quarter of taxpayers earn between $40000 and $80000 per annum yet they contribute just under 40 percent of all personal taxes paid and that reducing the burden on those people has to be a priority for any future tax reform?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is fair that what people see as the priority depends very much on where they are on the tax scale. I have heard people argue that the priority is to lower the top tax rate; they tend to be on the top tax rate. I have heard people argue that the 33c in the dollar rate is the most important criterion and they tend to be on the 33c in the dollar rate. I tend to hear a lot of people—something like 45 percent of total full-time wage earners and way way more than that as a percentage of total income earners—who are on the bottom tax rate and who would like to see some relief at their level as well.Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister recall that in announcing his plan to end fiscal drag in Budget 2005 by adjusting the tax brackets he gave as his reason its logic; if he does recall that where did the logic go in Budget 2007 when he canned those plans and might we see a return to logic in Budget 2008—or does he now regard fiscal drag as acceptable even though illogical?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In Budget 2007 the priority was clearly outlined: to try to lift New Zealand’s savings record. With over 200000 New Zealanders having joined KiwiSaver already I think it is clear that that policy is succeeding very substantially. In terms of the issues the member raises of course there are many different ways in which taxes can be cut. Indeed I have made it quite clear that one of the criteria that I will apply is aspects of fairness particularly in a society where incomes at the top end tend to increase faster than incomes at the bottom end in any case.Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister straightforwardly whether he regards fiscal drag as acceptable and he did not answer that part of the question.Madam SPEAKER: Your question actually involved several thoughts and the Minister is only required to address only one of them. I thought he addressed two.Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that since he took office in 1999 the average wage has grown by 30 percent and the tax on the average wage of $46000 has grown by 40 percent; and why does he think that that is a good idea?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I thank the member for telling New Zealanders that the average wage has grown by 30 percent over the life of this Government. I would not have thought so from National’s usual propaganda in that regard. During that time people on such a wage have also seen enormous improvements in a range of areas. Their prospects for New Zealand superannuation have been lifted by restoring it to the level that that member cut when he was a Minister. At the same time we are saving money to ensure that we can afford to pay it at that level over the long term. For those people with dependent children we have introduced Working for Families. If they go to a doctor the cost of a doctor’s visit has been reduced. If they have a young person who is a student that student now has access to an interest-free loan. I could go on endlessly about the benefits of the Government—and all of those policies are supported by an overwhelming majority of people and all of them were opposed by the National Party on introduction.Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any reports about mechanisms for funding revenue reductions; and how do those compare with the Government’s four criteria for assessing revenue reductions?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes indeed. I well recollect the approach employed in 1998-99 when personal taxes were cut. The then Government decided it could notactually afford those cuts and it then cut New Zealand superannuation so that retired New Zealanders could pay for those tax cuts. That does not meet the criterion of fairness that I outlined on Tuesday.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not. Rubbish!Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh the member says it is not true that the National Government cut New Zealand superannuation. It lowered the floor from 65 percent of the average wage to 60 percent of the average wage and that was one of the first things that the incoming Labour Government restored. Taxes were cut by National and the elderly paid for it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are the facts that the Minister is referring to that on 1 October 1998 National took the level of superannuation down to 60 percent of the average working wage that when Labour came back into power it restored the level of superannuation to 65 percent of that wage but that when the Minister used the words “restored the level” he really meant that Labour at the behest of New Zealand First increased the level at the recent Budget to 66 percent of the average working wage—is that not the chronological series of facts?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that the incoming Labour Government increased the level of superannuation back to 65 percent of the average wage and that we responded to Mr Peters’ polite request to raise that to 66 percent of the average wage as part of the confidence and supply agreement.Hon Peter Dunne: What does the Minister say to those who would argue that the thrust of tax changes in recent years has been to benefit families and working couples but has been of no benefit to individuals; and how would he envisage changes that might benefit individual taxpayers being considered in the future?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is a fair comment that the Government’s priority around tax cuts has been for modest-income families with dependent children—[Interruption] Apparently Mr English objects to that being done because of course he is a high-income person with dependent children so it does not worry him at all in that particular regard. But we do worry about people who are struggling to bring up their kids and provide properly for them. Other changes in the taxation system of which there are many potential changes can help those people who are not in that position. But of course I emphasise that once one gets into tax cuts across the board then the cost of those becomes very expensive in relation to the benefit for any individual person.Hon Bill English: Why should the public believe the Minister’s crocodile tears for middle-income earners when the Government accounts yesterday showed that in the last 12 months wage and salary earners paid $1 billion more in tax than previously and when the only tax cut he has actually put forward was for companies to pay $1 billion less?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I note again the pro-business National Party’s opposition to tax cuts for business. I hope Mr English keeps going to those business lunches and breakfasts and saying: “We will increase the corporate tax rate back to 33c in the dollar.”—yeah right!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm the following information: in 1998 the then leader of the National Government threatened the then Treasurer of this country that not taking the rate down from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average working wage could be a coalition breaker and more important the then Treasurer had papers to show that National wanted the rate to go down to 55 percent of the average working wage; and can the Minister confirm the very important fact that when Labour got back into power and the rate was still at 60 percent New Zealand First agreed in itsnegotiations with Labour for the urgency vote for the Cullen fund that the condition would be to raise it back to 65 percent—a glorious history of defence of the elderly?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm half of the last claim. It is certainly correct that we could not have introduced the New Zealand Superannuation Fund without the support of New Zealand First. It would have failed because other parties opposed the fund. Now of course almost every party supports the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; even the Greens keep trying to find new and innovative ways of changing the entire world with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. However it is not true I have to say to my friend and colleague that it was a condition that superannuation be raised back to 65 percent. That was a clear promise of the Labour Party manifesto which was implemented. It was one reason for cancelling the further tax cuts that National was planning.Hon Bill English: Can we take it from the Minister’s answers today that Labour’s policy is to tax people on $39000 a year at 33c in the dollar which used to be the top tax rate in New Zealand that it is Labour policy that people on the average wage pay an increasing proportion of their wages as tax and that the reason for that is so that Labour can collect the money then pay it back through its own political bribes?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What of course the member is saying is this: it is absolutely essential and desperately needy that taxes should be cut and God forbid that a Labour Government should do it.Hon Bill English: Why did the Labour Government announce in the 2005 Budget that it would lift tax thresholds across the board in election year then decide in 2007 to break that promise to middle New Zealand and then give advice in Cabinet papers for the 2007 Budget that the Minister has no intention of giving middle-income earners the benefit of increases in tax thresholds because the Government will need the money for its plans?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is factually wrong again. The decision taken was to lift tax thresholds on 1 April 2008—actually well after the 2005 election so the member has that wrong for a start. The decision to abandon that was taken because there was clear advice that the Government had to be careful of the fiscal stimulus of doing that. That is why the Government enhanced KiwiSaver and 200000-plus Kiwis have responded to that. We still do not know the National Party’s policy on KiwiSaver but no doubt we will have at least two versions of it before the year is out.Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister not just front up and acknowledge to those people on $40000 a year who are still paying 33c in the dollar after 8 years under Labour that he made a promise to them to reduce the burden of tax and that he broke that promise?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I notice the member is already outbidding himself. He started off at $39000 a year and now he is up to $40000 a year. By the end of question time he might be up to $60000 a year.Roading—Auckland Traffic Congestion2.JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Finance: Is he confident that the Government’s investment in the “biggest road-building programme this country has ever seen” has reduced traffic congestion in Auckland?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I am sure that when the road-building programme is completed—[Interruption]Hon Maurice Williamson: Stay away from men in white coats!Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I just hope it is not contagious that is all I can say. I am sure that when the road-building programme is completed the congestion will be less than if the road-building programme had not been completed. Of course whileroads are being built congestion can increase. It is also true that we have at the same time increased spending on passenger transport 12 times since coming into office. So if congestion has increased that might even raise some questions about that issue.Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen yesterday’sNew Zealand Heraldarticle that details how despite heavy Government investment in Auckland motorways much of which is now complete morning peak speeds over the Auckland region have dropped to 34 kilometres an hour the slowest recorded since 2003 with average delays of 50.4 seconds for every kilometre travelled and with speeds plummeting by 10 kilometres an hour along large sections of the motorways; if so how much further does he expect average speeds to decrease once this year’s road spend of $593 million is built?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am surprised the member claims that the rebuilding programme in Auckland is almost complete. There is still a great deal of further work to be done in that respect and until that programme is complete obviously we will not see the full benefits. However I probably agree with the member that it is also important to put more money into public transport. That is why we have increased passenger transport fundingtwelvefold since we became the Government. It is also why it is important that we do not have people taking extreme positions on the regional petrol tax because without that tax in Auckland we will not be able to see electrification of the railway system because the Auckland Regional Council certainly will not be able to fund its part of the bargain.Darien Fenton: Has he seen any reports on forecast congestion in the Auckland region prior to this Government’s increase in infrastructure spending?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We had a report when we became the Government that in fact the decades of under-investment in roading and passenger transport in Auckland was a major issue. I think we can be sure that without that investment some of the travel times we have seen recently would have been substantially higher and of course what the Government is also engaged in is major public transport investment in the Auckland region and it wishes to continue to increase that level of investment.Hon Maurice Williamson: Has traffic congestion in Auckland as measured by average speeds achieved in additional travel time in seconds per kilometre got better or worse in the 8 years since Labour was elected?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the comparison back as far as that. The survey is back to 2003 and of course during that period of time Auckland has grown very very substantially indeed. The size of the population has got very very much bigger during that period of time. Therefore without further investment in both roading and public transport there will be deterioration. What we do not need to do is to borrow to pay for that.Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does he interpret the map in yesterday’sNew Zealand Herald showing that there are a few places where congestion has substantially reduced on Auckland’s motorways and that they tend to be parallel to those places where public transport systems such as the North Shore busway have opened?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I regard it as successful Government policy in terms of the investment in public transport in Auckland but the reality is that it is still true in Auckland that a fairly small proportion of the population travels on public transport particularly the working population. What is more Auckland is a city that has an enormous amount of service industry traffic around it and that traffic cannot go by public transport; it has to go by road.Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree with the internationally acclaimed peak oil expert RichardHeinberg who has just finished his presentation on peak oil in the Beehive theatrette at lunchtime and who is present in the gallery today that New Zealand needs urgent expansion and electrification of public transport because liquidfuel production worldwide even including oil from unconventional sources peaked more than a year ago and now appears to be in decline?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are any number of experts with different views about when peak oil did occur may occur or will occur. I am not in the least an expert to make a judgment between all those enormously varying estimates. But I can say to the member and perhaps he might acknowledge this a little bit because he has had something to do with it that this Government has put enormous amounts of extra money into public transport. We are extending electrification in Wellington; we have helped fund that in Wellington; we have taken back the rail track; we are double-tracking the western rail line in Auckland; we are building new railway stations in Auckland; we are separating the grades in certain important parts of the Auckland area; and we now have a proposal to electrify the Auckland rail system and that will require significant expenditure and will be dependent upon Auckland coming to the party to pay for a large proportion of that expenditure. It is not fair to expect people in the rest of the country to pick up the bulk of the cost of electrification of Auckland’s rail system.Peter Brown: Will the Minister clarify the position: does he agree that for the foreseeable future there will be a need for cars trucks and buses—they might well be powered differently and there might be different numbers of people travelling in them but there will be a need—an if there is a need then it is essential that we have a decent safe highway roading system and to do that we need a practical hands-on fully funded roading maintenance programme?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is absolutely correct. Indeed even from the perspective of passenger transport to try to build a metropolitan-style underground system in Auckland—or even an above-ground rail system in Auckland—will be almost impossible. Unfortunately the horse bolted out of that stable something like 50 years ago in terms of its possibility. We therefore have to ensure that there is also a proper roading system. I want to emphasise again that it is not just a matter of passenger movements it is also a matter of industry and business and service movements in Auckland and they cannot be done on buses and trains.Jeanette Fitzsimons: While congratulating the Minister on the steps that have been taken to accelerate public transport and noting that 12 times almost the nothing that the National Party left us with is still not huge can I ask whether he can assure the House as he wrestles with the question of what capital investments to fund with the $8.7 billion Budget surplus in order to avoid extreme and unsustainable tax cuts that he will not repeat his 2006 largesse of hugely increasing funding for new motorways but will instead prioritise new public transport infrastructure as suggested in the Government’s Next Steps programme and the energy efficiency and conservation strategy launched today?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I almost feel faint with damned praise after that particular effort from the member on public transport and the Government’s policy I think I can say. The Government will continue to invest and increase investment in public transport in Auckland and in other parts of the country. There are a range of possibilities for further infrastructure investment some of which would help indeed in terms of movements of people even if they have nothing to do with transport.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he recognises that the problem with the Auckland transport infrastructure is the plethora of local government organisations and the number of people demanding to be heard and to have their way in respect of any future plans which leads to inevitable paralysis and stagnation and that no matter what is sought to be done in Auckland there is something that has to be changed in respect of the system that makes decisions on transport?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that although it is fair to say the flowchart around Auckland decision-making is still somewhat complicated it is on the public transport side a good deal simpler than it used to be with the creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I think the real issue comes about in terms of the ability of Auckland itself to fund significant advances in public transport in Auckland and not simply to expect central government to pick up the entire cost which is not something I think taxpayers in the rest of the country are prepared to see as fair and reasonable.Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the article from yesterday’sNew Zealand Heraldwith the map headed “Motorway work has not helped crawl”.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Electoral Finance Bill—Parliamentary Expenditure3.GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to theMinister of Justice: Does he stand by his statements that “the Government is reviewing the rules relating to Parliamentary expenditure” and “The Electoral Finance Bill needs to align with the review of Parliamentary expenditure”; if so why?Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): Yes; because it is and it does.Gerry Brownlee: What does the Minister mean by “aligning” the Electoral Finance Bill with the parliamentary rules on expenditure and in particular does he mean that the definition of what constitutes an election advertisement should be the same for ordinary members of the public as it is for MPs; if not why not?Hon MARK BURTON: What I meant by “aligned” was ensuring that the differentiation is clear so that there is no confusion about legitimately incurred expenditure made by an MP going about his or her duties on the one hand and on the other hand in the case of the Electoral Finance Bill a party a candidate or a third party engaging in electoral activity. That is what that particular reference in a set of questions and answers relating to a press release referred to—not to the subject matter the member referred to.Gerry Brownlee: Is it then Government policy that political parties represented in Parliament should be able to publish election pledge cards or similar material using taxpayers’ money right up to the election but that the cost of such material being produced by non-members of Parliament would be an electoral expense but not for the political party using taxpayers’ money?Hon MARK BURTON: As I said in the first answer it is the Government’s intention that material produced by members of Parliament such as the member producing an electorate newsletter for his constituencies to inform them about his work is legitimate and is covered—actually by different legislation which is not my responsibility—whereas those activities that are part of an election campaign whether by a candidate a party or a third party are covered by the provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill.Gerry Brownlee: Is it Government policy that in an election year candidates who are sitting MPs can freely produce material of an election-type nature and have it paid for by the taxpayer and not have it count towards election expenses yet anybody contesting that view is caught by the Electoral Finance Act and cannot produce such material without it being taken into the spending cap; and if it is different for MPs compared with non-MPs where is the level playing field?Hon MARK BURTON: As I said in reply to the member’s second question this is about defining and differentiating between—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s about cheating and saving your own bacon.Hon MARK BURTON: Oh for goodness’ sake! I wish that Dr Smith just for once in one question could be quiet. This is about differentiating between the legitimate and proper business of a member of Parliament or a party going about their proper business as a member of Parliament or as a parliamentary party and those who are candidates parties or third parties in an electoral process.Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that if the Labour Party produces a pledge card in 2008 that pledge card can be paid for by taxpayers’ money distributed throughout the country to the letterboxes of the nation but not get caught by the spending cap that will be imposed by the Electoral Finance Bill but that if somebody else who is not in Parliament went through the same exercise—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely a member should be required to assemble his thoughts before he gets up opens his mouth and just talks and talks. That is precisely what his offence is and he has got away with it for far too long.Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point of order and we can all hope that such an activity would take place by all members in this House. But I have noticed today—whether it is because it is Thursday I do not know—that supplementary questions and answers are becoming increasingly longer. I ask the member to please ask his question as succinctly as he can.Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is my understanding that if a member wants to make a personal explanation he or she should seek leave to do so.Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that that was not a point of order so let us proceed.Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that if the Labour Party produces a pledge card in 2008 distributes it around the nation and pays for it with taxpayer funding that will not be caught by the Electoral Finance Act but that if another party not represented in Parliament produces a similar pledge card then it would be caught by the Electoral Finance Act and that material would be part of its spending cap?Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm that the current provision of the Electoral Act 1993 is continued in this legislation. It clearly offered—Hon Bill English: It is?Hon MARK BURTON: For goodness’ sake! Mr English should read it. If one reads clauses 80 and 81 of the bill one will find the precise provisions. The provisions of the Electoral Act are carried over. Those legitimate matters conducted by parties and MPs going about their proper parliamentary business are not covered by this legislation but the business of candidates parties and third parties in campaigns is.Energy Safety—Reports4.STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to theMinister of Energy: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s Energy Strategy?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): I have seen many reports supporting the Government’s view that renewables are affordable. The Energy Strategy confirms the Government’s view that all new generation should be renewable except to the extent needed to ensure security of supply. To aid the transition to more renewables we have sent a message to State-owned enterprises that we do not want more baseload thermal and we are also considering amendments to the Electricity Act to similar effect. These steps together with a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act will help achieve our 90 percent renewables target in the electricity sector. New Zealand has a competitive advantage in renewables and we are determined to seize that opportunity.Steve Chadwick: What principles underlie the significant step up in energy efficiency in the strategy?Hon DAVID PARKER: The fundamental principle is that we as a country should invest in efficiency where this is cheaper than more energy including environmental externalities. This strategy includes the best cost-benefit analysis we have ever had. Thanks are due to the Electricity Commission as well as to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Economic Development for their parts in that. Improved energy efficiency will make us wealthier because it reduces our ongoing energy costs and has many ancillary benefits including improved health. It is also crucial to achieving our environmental and sustainability goals and I am confident that with the help of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy we will achieve significant advances for our citizens.Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister accept that there is a gap between the rhetoric of the Energy Strategy and the record of his Government which has seen the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources fall to an all-time low of 62 percent has seen the use of coal increase by three times from 4 percent to 12 percent and the Government itself directly build the oil-fired Whirinaki power station and give gas supply guarantees to Genesis for its E3P plant; or is the strategy just something you say you might do but in fact not what you do?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I do not. I am very confident that we will achieve the objectives set out in the strategy and further a lot of the criticisms that we hear from National go very close to criticising the profitability of Solid Energy. Now I know that in recent weeks National has said that it will flog off State-owned enterprises but it really is the first time that I have heard National say that we should reduce their profits so we can flog them off cheaply. We really are determined to achieve increases in renewables decreases in greenhouse gases—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s gone backwards for 8 years!Hon DAVID PARKER: No Dr Smith it is not going backwards. Dr Smith in the last couple of months has of course misled the House by telling us that we are burning more coal this year when in fact we are burning less.Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is surely unacceptable for a member to allege that someone has misled the House when the fact is that the Opposition member has been able to table material in the House that verifies the claim is correctly made that the use of coal for energy production in this country has increased three times under the Labour Government.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is clearly a debating point not a point of order.Madam SPEAKER: If the member takes exception then the matter will be dealt with.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Government’s own climate change document which shows a threefold increase in the amount of greenhouse gases coming from the electricity sector.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon DAVID PARKER: The second document refers to the comments by Dr Nick Smith when he misrepresented the facts in saying that coal usage last year went up when in actual fact it went down.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Peter Brown: Noting that one of the aims stated this morning is to improve the efficiency of appliances has the Minister given any thought at all to restricting the purchase or use of plasma flat-screen TVs as apparently the Australians are considering?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I am not aware of any such proposal. I am though aware from comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons emphasised this morning that some of the most cost-effective gains in energy efficiency have been from measures that the Government has already taken to knock off the least efficient appliances coming into the country. I think from memory that the cost to taxpayers was something like $3 million for those new efficiency standards and that already the energy savings for consumers have exceeded $60 million—I think those were the two figures.Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that the measures in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that he and I launched this morning providing for better urban planning better facilities for walking and cycling more priority for public transport and a 10 percent reduction in single-person car trips in cities will contribute substantially to reducing the congestion in Auckland described in yesterday’sNew Zealand Heraldarticle?Hon DAVID PARKER: Just as Dr Cullen acknowledged in his answer to an earlier question those things will make a material positive difference in reducing congestion as will the significant amounts that have been spent to unlock the roading network.Heather Roy: Has the Minister seen any reports critical of the ministry’s biofuels strategy in light of Fred Pearce of theNew Scientist reporting that biofuels will trash rainforests suck water reserves dry kill off species and worst of all barely slow down global warming and that the overall benefits are far from conclusive; and will he concede that the main benefactors of Labour’s biofuel plans will be wealthy American farming lobbyists?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I certainly would not concede the latter point. I do agree that we need to take care with biofuels that we do not as we fix one environmental and social problem cause another. To that end the Government has put increased emphasis on sustainability guidelines relating to biofuels at the behest of the Greens but I am sure supported by other parties as well.Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that was launched this morning.Document not tabled.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table a chart showing the increased emissions that have come from coal-generated electricity under the Government given the denial from the Minister.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Report5.Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement to the House on Thursday 24 August last year: “I expect the public to believe the findings of the Ingram report”; if so why?Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of theMinister of Immigration: Yes the Minister stands by his full statement to the House on Thursday 24 August last year which was: “I expect the public to believe the findings of the Ingram report which was quite clear on that matter.”Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Minister told Parliament in answer to a question on 24 August last year: “The Ingram report makes clear that Mr Field may have committed some errors of judgment … The Prime Minister concurs with that view and so do I.”; if so given the recent High Court judgment does he still concur with that view or has he changed his mind?Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and yes.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Minister confirmed to Parliament in answer to a question on 28 February this year that he had reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report which he said “… I have read on a number of occasions”; if so precisely what steps has he taken to further review those immigration matters given that the High Court judgment states: “Several witnesses now say they gave false evidence to the Ingram inquiry at the respondent’s request.”?Hon RUTH DYSON: In my view those matters have been thoroughly traversed not just in the Ingram report but also before Parliament. The matters that the member is alluding to are now in the hands of the police and that is the appropriate response.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the High Court judgment of Justice Randerson brings into question some of the conclusions of the Ingram report; if so does the Minister still claim that the former Associate Minister Damien O’Connor was not told by his private secretary of the information she had on Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with the Thai tiler in Samoa when she gave four conflicting statements to the Ingram inquiry and Ingram found “real uncertainty results from the available evidence as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations in relation to Mr Field.”?Hon RUTH DYSON: As the Minister has replied to similar questions from the member on a number of occasions that specific matter has been thoroughly traversed in the Ingram report and in his view the conclusions that Mr Ingram was able to reach stand.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report—he claims to have read it on a number of occasions—is the claim in this House by his Labour colleague Russell Fairbrother: “This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity …” consistent with the findings of his review?Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Fairbrother said on this matter. I think more generally speaking—and I have been listening very carefully—that one has to be extraordinarily careful with a question line that is first coming perilously close to asking a Minister to comment on a judge’s decision particularly when notice has been given that the decision may be appealed and secondly perilously close to putting Mr Field on trial which is not the function of this House.Hon Bill English: I think that is a spurious point of order Madam Speaker. If you rule that that question was out of order then you would certainly have to rule that the questions asked by Mr Peters earlier on about events 10 years ago were out of order. You let those questions go so it would seem that this question would have to get through as well. In respect of the other matters Dr Cullen is simply trying to scare members of Parliament from asking questions that they are legitimately able to ask. It is not a matter of a trial of Mr Field or of questioning the judgment of the High Court; it is a matter of asking Ministers about statements they made to this House on this matter over a period of 12 months. Dr Cullen should not try to stop Parliament from addressing those issues.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I do not stop Parliament from doing its legitimate role but I will certainly intervene if there is any suggestion that this House will get intocommenting on judicial decisions particularly in the circumstance we are in at the moment where Mr Field has indicated that he intends to appeal that decision and therefore we might be affecting the outcome of that appeal. Also we are in a position where willingly or not we are starting to get into areas where it is possible that we may affect Mr Field’s trial. As he rightly questioned the other day he has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore Madam Speaker the member’s first point is utterly wrong. The fact that objection was not taken to something said previously is no reason for you to rule out objection being taken to something said currently.Taito Phillip Field: I take exception to the reflection on my character in terms of the line of questioning that we have heard this afternoon and I support the point of order that has been put forward. Also on the assertion about the Ingram report and the question of an error of judgment I want to say that there is nothing in the Ingram report that suggests an error of judgment. Regardless of whether the gentleman or anybody else wants to say that in the House and to try to put that that is part of the Ingram report it is actually inaccurate. I support the point of order that has been raised by Dr Cullen. Also I would like to say that I object to this line of questioning. It is a reflection on my person and I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise as well.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Could I just point out the substance of my question. The Minister has claimed in this House on at least four occasions previously that he has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report. I am now asking whether having done that his findings in that review are consistent with a statement made by a Labour member of Parliament in this House.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I come back to the point I originally raised: the Minister has no responsibility for statements made by members of Parliament whether they are Labour members or any other member. He is responsible only for statements made by the Minister previously.Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. I think this is a serious matter. I have been listening very closely to the questions and the answers and I am going to take them under consideration as to what rulings should be made in the future on matters that are before the court and are under appeal. In the matter at the particular moment however I think that if the member does confine his questions to the ministerial responsibility then those questions will be fine. I am not clear precisely what the statement was that Mr Field sought to be withdrawn and apologised for because at the moment the questioning is not directly related to the member. It is related to the Minister and matters relating to the Minister’s responsibility. So I do not think it is appropriate at this moment that the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The concern I have is the line of questioning we have had for 2 years now and the repetition of those questions. Some of the language that is being used is a reflection on my person which is against the Standing Orders. That is the concern I have. I also want clarification from you Madam Speaker about the number of times a question can be asked in this House over a very long period of time—the repetition of those questions. Perhaps you could clarify that.Madam SPEAKER: Members are entitled to be as repetitious as they like. As long as they comply with the Standing Orders they are perfectly within their rights to ask those questions. But it is the more general question that I wish to consider I think. It is difficult for members when matters are before the courts and at the same time there is ministerial responsibility.Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a good idea for you to take this matter under consideration but it is our understanding that it is not in factbefore the court. A decision has been made and there has been an expression of an intention to appeal but that has not actually occurred and the police have not yet laid charges. We just want to be sure that as part of your consideration the facts of the matter about the legal process are quite clear.Madam SPEAKER: I am aware of that. I know that no charges have been laid and I know there has been speculation about an appeal but it is certainly true that the matter is current is relevant and is not 10 years old.Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister has reviewed the immigration matters contained in the Ingram report—and he claims to have read it on a number of occasions—is the claim in this House by his Labour colleague Russell Fairbrother: This is a report that Mr Field can wave around as a tribute to his integrity” consistent with the findings of his review?Hon RUTH DYSON: I support the right of my parliamentary colleagues to contribute in whatever way they think is appropriate. I am not responsible for their contribution.Violent Crimes—Police Capacity6.SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to theMinister of Police: Can she confirm that violent offences have increased by 32 percent since 1999-2000 and is she satisfied that the Police have the capacity to address this?Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Violent crime in New Zealand as in other countries has been increasing year on year for a number of years. However the rate of the most violent offence of homicide remains relatively consistent over the period. Since 1999-2000 the increase in recorded violent offences per head of population has been 22 percent or around 2.7 percent on average each year. A large driver of recorded violence has been the increased recording of domestic violence offences. For example between 2005-06 and 2006-07 domestic violence offences increased by 11.2 percent while non - domestic violence offences increased by 0.6 percent. I am satisfied that the police have the capacity to address violent offences as evidenced by the increase in the resolution rate of violent crime. That rate went from 77.3 percent in 1999-2000 to 81.2 percent in 2006-07.Simon Power: How can the Minister continue to claim that increased reporting of domestic violence explains the increase in violent crime when offences have increased across all categories of violent crime including those violent offences that are not normally domestic in nature such as the 55 percent increase in robberies and the 64 percent increase in group assembly violent crimes?Hon ANNETTE KING: I make no excuses for the increase in violent crime in New Zealand. As I said violent crime has been increasing in this country for many years. I make no excuse for that but I do applaud the fact that we have more women in particular who are prepared to report domestic violence than we have ever seen before. In fact the number of recorded offences of domestic violence has more than doubled over the last decade and so has the number of the prosecutions for domestic violence over the last decade. I would hope that members of this House would welcome that. I am concerned—as every member of this House should be—about the increases in non-domestic violence—public violence. Violence is everyone’s issue. It is not just a police issue. One of the issues that comes up when we look at those statistics is the involvement of alcohol in most violent crimes. That is an issue that this House ought to consider very seriously because it is not one that the police have a lot of control over. It is something that we as a community certainly have attitudes about.Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by Labour’s 1999 pledge card promise to “crack down on youth crime” in light of the fact that violent offences by 14 to 16-year-olds have increased by 47 percent since 1999 including a 40 percent increase in serious assaults and a staggering 143 percent increase in grievous assaults?Hon ANNETTE KING: Cracking down means that we actually go out and police youth crime—we go out and police youth crime. If we go out and police youth crime we are likely to catch the young criminals. I can only assume that the member is saying: “Don’t catch them. Therefore you don’t know what the level is. Therefore it’s OK.”.Jill Pettis: What impact would reducing the number of police by up to 500 have on their ability to address violence in the community?Hon ANNETTE KING: It would have a considerable impact and it was National’s proposed answer to violence in 1999. It would have represented a decrease of 7 percent in the number of front-line officers. This Government has increased sworn police numbers by 1154 between November 1999 and the end of September 2007. That is a 16 percent increase in police officers. Between now and June 2009 when the full effect of the arrangement between New Zealand First and Labour comes into effect the New Zealand Police will have grown by in excess of a further 500 police officers—a total increase of 23 percent in terms of police officers in this country. I would put that record alongside anything that the National Party could offer.Simon Power: Does the Minister stand by her claims that increases in violent offences are due to an increase in reporting when her predecessor George Hawkins stated in 2005 that claims of under-reporting were intemperate misleading and just plain wrong; and if crime rates ever fall will she decry the decline in reporting?Hon ANNETTE KING: One has to have crimes reported to know that one actually has them. This is just a common fact.Simon Power: Oh!Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to the member that he should go back and look at his question. It was so stupid. Crimes have to be reported—so we know we have them.Simon Power: Has the Minister read the report by Dave George into the standards of police recruits which was due at the end of last month and which has a major bearing on the capacity of police to bring the crime rate down—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speed it up!Simon Power: —wake up—if so do the results of that report suggest that the answers the Prime Minister gave to the House on 25 June to the effect that new recruits did better on mental ability tests than serving officers were based on inaccurate information from police human resources manager Wayne Annan?Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to the member that I read the report last night. If the member would like to wait until 3.30 today he will find out that I am releasing it less than 24 hours after I got it.Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation—United Nations7.H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to theMinister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What steps will New Zealand be taking at the United Nations this month to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Over the next 4 weeks at the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly New Zealand will lead a number of initiatives promoting disarmament. The key initiatives include resolutions calling for the removal of nuclear weapons from high alert or launch-on-warning status the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty support for a Southern Hemisphere nuclear-weapon-free zone and a broad resolution with our New Agenda Coalition partners calling for progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.H V Ross Robertson: Which countries will be co-sponsoring calling for the removal of nuclear weapons currently on high alert and why is the resolution important?Hon PHIL GOFF: Sweden Chile Switzerland and Nigeria have so far joined with New Zealand as lead co-sponsors of that particular resolution. The resolution is important because as disclosed by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission last year one of the greatest risks of nuclear catastrophe comes from the estimated thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert. Such weapons could be launched in minutes in response to the perception of an attack which might in fact be the result of something caused by technical malfunction accident or act of terrorism. De-alerting would certainly reduce the risk of nuclear conflict by allowing more time for communication and avoidance of misunderstanding or miscalculation. I think that is important and I hope New Zealand is able to attract very strong support for that resolution.H V Ross Robertson: What progress has been made towards disarmament and non-proliferation at the UN and elsewhere over recent years?Hon PHIL GOFF: Despite the overwhelming support across the international community for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction—for example the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty gets supported at the UN by 175 votes for to just two against—it is disappointing that progress towards disarmament has been very slow. Certainly we can welcome the fact that there has been a sharp reduction in nuclear weapons from their peak at the time of the Cold War of around 70000. The estimated 27000 nuclear warheads that remain still pose the risk of catastrophic consequences if used. That risk is increased with the proliferation of nuclear weapons control to further countries. That is why New Zealand will continue its efforts to promote not simply non-proliferation but also disarmament. To be successful however will require a change in attitude on the part of the nuclear weapons States.Childcare—Licensing8.PAULA BENNETT (National) to theMinister of Education: Are creches at pools gyms Sunday schools and at-home babysitters now all required to be licensed; if so why?Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour)on behalf of theMinister of Education: Creches at pools gyms and Sunday schools have had to be licensed since 1989. At-home babysitters have never had to be licensed. The regulations are designed to keep children safe. As I have already made clear in answer to questions from the member and her colleagues the regulations are currently under review and anyone with a view on this matter is encouraged to make a submission.Paula Bennett: Will the ministry be contacting babysitters in their homes to tell them to be licensed?Hon RUTH DYSON: Perhaps it would assist the member if I could repeat the answer to the primary question which clearly she has missed. At-home babysitters have never had to be licensed.Paula Bennett: Did the ministry phone a Nelson woman who had lost her job after the gym creche she worked at was closed down at her home on 27 September and tell her she was breaking the law by babysitting children in her home and what is next—will neighbours and grandparents who babysit children have to become qualified and licensed centres?Hon RUTH DYSON: I think it is hugely ironic that over the last few weeks the National Party has been kicking up a frenzy about unqualified and unsuitable teachers who are in charge of our classrooms and now the member is advocating that anybody can have care of our children without any regulatory protection at all.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member’s question which affected a constituent of mine who was phoned by the ministry was very specific and asked whether the ministry phoned this woman who had lost her job as a consequence of the ministry closing down her creche and told her that she was unable to babysit children at her home. I listened to the Minister’s answer. She was making no attempt whatsoever to answer it.Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The Minister was taking a very long time to get to the point of her answer. I ask her to please complete her answer.Hon RUTH DYSON: I have completed it.Madam SPEAKER: Well would the member please then repeat her answer.Hon RUTH DYSON: The point I was making was that babysitters in the home have not ever been required to be licensed and are not now. If the member is advocating that children are cared for by parents in creches that do not have qualified staff with supervisory skills then it is totally in opposition to the position Katherine Rich has been whipping up a frenzy about up and down the country concerning unqualified untrained and unsuitable teachers being in charge of our children. The member needs to make up her mind. Does she want our children to be safe or not?Madam SPEAKER: The question did relate to a specific case. Would the Minister please address that case.Hon RUTH DYSON: The issue is about whether the person in question was operating a creche or babysitting and that was the response I appropriately gave in answer to that question.Moana Mackey: What steps has the Government taken to increase access to quality early childhood education?Hon RUTH DYSON: Under the Labour-led Government we have made huge progress towards making quality early childhood education available to every New Zealand child. We have created approximately 5400 early childhood places through the discretionary grants scheme increased the number of qualified early childhood teachers introduced a funding system that acknowledges cost drivers for centres reviewed regulations to make them more clear and transparent and introduced 20 hours a week free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds. This policy I note is under threat from National which opposes it.Paula Bennett: Has the Minister already approved an exemption as stated by the Ministry of Education’s southern managerCoralanne Child that “One change that is confirmed for next year is the introduction of an exemption from regulations for centres such as gym creches provided they operate for no more than 4 hours per week.”; if so will the Minister now be setting the timetable for when these parents can exercise—does she suggest that opening one morning a week or for 1 hour four times a week is suitable?Hon RUTH DYSON: The regulations have been in place since 1989. They are under review. I urge the member if she has a positive contribution to make to do so. It is my view that parents should be able to exercise and should also know that their children are safe at that time.Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that the question I asked was incredibly to the point. It was not answered at all. I asked whether the Minister has already approved an exemption.Madam SPEAKER: I listened carefully because I anticipated that would be the case. I think the Minister in this case did address the question.Paula Bennett: If the Minister can approve an exemption of 4 hours a week without a whole lot of palaver then why cannot the ministry just let some common sense prevailand put some basic safety precautions in place and let these parents decide when they will exercise and who will look after their own children?Hon RUTH DYSON: The exemptions are outlined in the regulatory regime that has been in place since 1989. If creches meet the conditions for an exemption then I consider they should apply.Paula Bennett: I seek the leave of the House to table theNelson Mail article that says “Babysitter steps in to help gym mums”.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.Body Armour—Purchasing and Supply9.RON MARK (NZ First) to theMinister of Police: Is she satisfied with the police’s handling of the purchase and roll-out of stab-resistant body armour; if not why not?Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): As I have said on a number of occasions I have not been entirely satisfied with the handling of that project; nor has the New Zealand Police. As the member knows this project was taken over by Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope and is now back on track with a December 2007 date remaining for the final roll-out.Ron Mark: Has she received details of the Auditor-General’s inquiries into the purchase which revealed that instead of allowing the manufacturer Aegis which knew what it was doing to measure the vests and guarantee under contract a 99 percent success rate with the fit at no risk to the police the police decided to try to save money by doing the measuring themselves and to accept the full financial risk of any mistakes made—a decision that resulted in a $2.7 million blow-out with no ability to recover those costs from Aegis?Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is correct. One of the issues that I think was incorrect was the initial measurement discrepancy. That has already been identified at the select committee by Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope. It does not mean that the vests will not be used. As has already been pointed out by the police the vests have been purchased and will be used for appropriately sized police. I also know that the Auditor-General’s office has looked at this issue and has informed the New Zealand Police that it believes the police have learnt lessons from the process and does not believe any further action is required.Ron Mark: Why when professionals who are expert in the manufacture of body armour offered for a small fee to come out to New Zealand to conduct all the measuring and offered to accept full responsibility for any errors made—to meet all costs of that; to replace all incorrectly fitting vests at no cost to the police—did the police say “No we can do it better than them. We can save the pittance.”; and when the costs of getting it wrong are and have been so great why would one turn such an offer down?Hon ANNETTE KING: All I can say to the member is that that was an unwise decision by the former person in charge of this project and as the member knows that person is no longer in charge of the project.Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree that rather than the contract being well measured well fitted and containing no slack and no slop the cloth from which this contract was cut was found to be wanting and the police have totally stitched themselves up and managed to do what no one else could which is to make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse?Hon ANNETTE KING: I commend the member on the obvious time he has taken to write that question. I think there is an element of truth in it. This project was not wellhandled. I have to say however that since Deputy Commissioner of Police Rob Pope took it over when he became deputy commissioner it has been on track and it will be completed by December 2007.Simon Power: Why are some police officers still waiting on stab-resistant vests when all operational fisheries officers have been issued with them?Hon Phil Goff: Waited for 9 years and got nothing out of that!Hon ANNETTE KING: Can I just commend my colleague’s interjection which is true. For the member’s sake I say I think there are considerably more police officers than fisheries officers. In fact 6114 police officers have vests. I do not think we have as many fisheries officers as that. The police intend to ensure that all front-line officers are wearing them and they will have them by December.Water—Sustainable Water Programme of Action10.Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to theMinister of Agriculture: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action?Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): No I am not fully satisfied. The Sustainable Water Programme of Action is a comprehensive attempt to improve the way that New Zealand manages its fresh water. This is not a trivial exercise. It involves deep and complex issues that go to the heart of our economy and our consciousness as New Zealanders. Issues such as the supply quality and accessibility of water are intergenerational matters. They do not arise suddenly and they are not fixed quickly when they do.Hon David Carter: Is the Minister aware that his second-most senior Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official Paul Reynolds the Assistant Director-General said at a public meeting last month in Rotorua that the programme should be known as the “Water Programme of Inaction” and why would such a senior official make such a statement?Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think even the most talented and valuable public servants are entitled to a bad day at the office.Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What other Government activity contributes to advancing the objectives of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action?Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has a proud record of investing in projects and programmes that contribute to improving water management towards New Zealand’s future generations. Currently $22 million a year is invested in freshwater research through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. Since its inception the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided over $22 million to 30 project teams working on projects to improve water-quality management in the primary sectors $36.7 million has been provided as the Government’s share of the LakeTaupō water-quality protection programme $4 million has been committed to theŌhau channel diversion project to improve LakeRotoiti’s water quality and $2 million has been provided for the development of the Waitaki catchment plan. In addition to these initiatives the recently announced sustainable land management and climate change plan of action will provide impetus to reducing sediment and nitrogen discharges to water.Hon David Carter: Acknowledging the programme is going badly why did the Minister then say in May 2006 that “we need this action to get moving” and what has he actually done with this flagship Government initiative other than just talk about it?Hon JIM ANDERTON: If the member was listening he heard what was going on about water quality and I have to say that in the 9 years between 1990 and 1999 that the National Party was in Government it did nothing whatever about the supply access or quality of water in New Zealand.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain the advice given today to the Local Government and Environment Committee from the Auditor-General on the $200 million sustainable development programme of action launched in 2003 that the announced special Cabinet committee of Ministers never met and that their programme states according to the Auditor-General: “Governance for the programme of action was less clear because of a lack of ministerial meetings.”; and how does he reconcile the Prime Minister mentioning the word “sustainability” 38 times with the fact that the ministerial group set to do it never met?Hon JIM ANDERTON: Far be it from me to make any criticism about the qualities of the Auditor-General in the areas of competence and expertise that he has. But I can tell the House and the Auditor-General if he asks me that I have personally been to innumerable meetings with other Ministers about the sustainable water-quality project and I never saw the Auditor-General at any one of them. If he had actually asked me I would have told him many there had been.Hon David Carter: Is the Minister also aware of the further statement from Assistant Director-General Paul Reynolds that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action is “stalled at this juncture because our engagement withMāori has not run smoothly” and does the Minister agree with Mr Reynolds?Hon JIM ANDERTON: No I have not heard of that but I am sure that I will hear comment from Mr Reynolds at the pre-Cabinet meeting on Monday.Te Ururoa Flavell:Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Kia oratātou. In progressing the Sustainable Water Programme of Action what legal grounds does the Government rely on to assert that it owns water?Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government does not say that it owns water. Water is in the Government’s view a public resource and is dealt with on that basis.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Government’s sustainable development programme of action.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.Te Ururoa Flavell: What is the Government’s position regarding customary ownership of resources such as water as set out in Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?Madam SPEAKER: I am seeking the ministerial responsibility but yes—the Hon Jim Anderton.Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government’s view is of course that there are many areas of common interest particularly in terms of customary issues withMāori aspirations for fresh water and the Government’s goals of the water programme. An example of that is the need to halt over time the despoliation of water and the decline in water quality in our lowland rivers and lakes. We believe that fruitful and important discussions and consultations have to go on withMāoridom and those are in progress as we speak.Question No. 9 to MinisterRON MARK (NZ First): I apologise—I should have done this earlier—but I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from the Controller and Auditor-General regarding a request for an inquiry into the purchase of stab-resistant body armour.Document  by leave laid on the Table of the House.Courts—Facilities11.MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to theMinister for Courts: What has he done to improve court facilities?Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Last month the Minister ofMāori Affairs Parekura Horomia and I opened the refurbished TaiRāwhitiMāori Land Court. This is the fifthMāori Land Court to be refurbished the others being in Christchurch Wellington Rotorua and Hastings. In addition work is occurring at Hastings Palmerston North andTaupō District Courts work is set to begin at Nelson Timaru and Invercargill the Auckland District Court and at Whangarei and in time the Manukau and Levin courts are high on the lists. In the past 12 months I have opened two new courthouses one in Greymouth and one in Queenstown as well as the fully refurbished Blenheim court. In response to this member’s constant advocacy the Hamilton court is also being looked at. It is fair to say the achievements of this Labour-led Government have eclipsed any of the previous Government’s in this area.Martin Gallagher: What other improvements are being made and has he seen any reports outlining alternative approaches to managing our courts?Hon RICK BARKER: As well as a huge programme of investment in restoring our courthouses after a decade of neglect and cutbacks in real money terms under National the Labour-led Government is making huge strides in all-round performance improvement. I recently announced that e-filing is under way with savings of over 2000 reams of paper a year demonstrating Labour’s commitment to introducing sustainable business practice. As well there is videoconferencing digital audio recording Pay or Stay improvements in the infringement system the service improvement programme more judges more courtrooms better facilities and better information technology infrastructure and the list goes on. Labour has a policy programme and we are delivering on it. However I have seen reports showing that National still has no idea. It is waiting with no policy except mutterings from National’s Simon Power calling for greater investment in the system while Kate Wilkinson says there should be no more investment as it will not do anything. We are left with one conclusion: National still has not got a clue and will end up saying that whatever Labour says is right because Labour has got the ideas.Kate Wilkinson: Does the Minister’s failure to answer my written question No. 13961 which was lodged over 2 months ago and sought updated waiting times for courts mean that he is embarrassed because the figures are worse than the previous averages of 290 days for the High Court and 256 days for the District Court; or can he not say when I will get an answer because as he has stated: “Predictions are always difficult particularly when they are about the future.”?Hon RICK BARKER: I will take time to track down question No. 13961 but I can tell the member that there is a very good story to be told about our court system. In the Auckland High Court jury trial disposals have improved by 10 percent—that is a 10 percent improvement in efficiency. In the District Court jury trial disposals have improved by 8 percent and in the Auckland District Court by 13 percent. Criminal summary disposals have increased by 8 percent. These are exceptionally good figures.Mining Permits—Macdonald Investments Ltd12.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theAssociate Minister of Energy: Is he satisfied with his and Crown Minerals’ handling of the recent mining permit application 50100 from Macdonald Investments Ltd; if so why?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): Yes and I also think the people of the West Coast deserve to know whether that member supports development of resources on the West Coast and local jobs.Chris Auchinvole: How many non-compliance notifications did Crown Minerals issue to Macdonald Investments?Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Due to the noise I could not hear the first bit. Could the member begin the question again please?Madam SPEAKER: I know that it has been a long time for members to sit in their seats but would they please keep the level of noise down so we can hear.Chris Auchinvole: How many non-compliance notifications did Crown Minerals issue to Macdonald Investments Ltd regarding its previous exploration permit on the West Coast of the South Island given that section 39 of the Crown Minerals Act requires the Minister to revoke a permit if the holder does not comply with the agreed conditions?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First I think the member should be accurate in what he says in his questions. The permit had not yet reached the end of its period. However there were three issues: Macdonald Investments Ltd had 22 work obligations to comply with in its exploration permit. It did not comply with three of those obligations. These were to complete a review of drilling requirements of work on Dobson andRapahoe to drill the Fosters Farm prospect and to re-enter Card Creek-1. I am advised there was a change of technical management at Macdonald Investments Ltd which led to a review of what was considered to be best practice in order to advance towards mining of this resource.Maryan Street: What work programme is in place to ensure that petroleum mining permit 50100 is being actively worked?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: An active work programme has been set up for this permit. The permit holder is required to drill two core wells within 24 months in the central area and within 36 months the permit holder will acquire process and interpret at least 10 kilometres of 2D seismic data and drill one core hole within the southern area of the permit in addition. There are also ongoing work programme commitments to be delivered at 48 months 60 months and 84 months. All of this work will occur as a result of the decision to award a mining permit.Chris Auchinvole: Has the “new and very able geologist” employed by Macdonald Investments—a point that persuaded the Minister to approve the mining application—ever worked in New Zealand before and did he declare any conflict of interest when writing in support of Macdonald Investments’ mining permit application?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I do not know about the latter but given the member has tried on many occasions to insinuate that something untoward is going on in that I as Minister approved the mining permit can I tell the member that the reason I approved the mining permit is that I was advised to do so by officials. The reason I was personally interested is that this was the first time a coal-seam gas permit for mining had been applied for in New Zealand. That may be why the company has chosen to employ a specialist in coal-seam gas mining from Australia.Chris Auchinvole: Did he check before granting Macdonald Investments this extremely valuable mining permit whether its claimed commercial discovery had been subject to an independent review or did he simply take the company’s word for it?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Given the company itself has to outlay its own resources its own cash to do its own mining in its permit area I do not see why I should second-guess the company when it puts up a proposal for work that is accepted by my officials who recommended that I sign the permit—because the company takes the risk. If the member is proposing that the Crown should take the risk I suggest he moves to Albania.Dr Pita Sharples: What involvement has there been with KatiWaewae andMakāwhio mana whenua of Te Tai Poutini to discuss heritage issues as per therequirements defined by Te Ture WhenuaMāori Act 1993 for minimum impact activities?Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: What I can tell the member is that first if he likes to put down a written question I will give the detail of that answer. Second under the minerals permitting regime that we run in New Zealand Crown Minerals has a responsibility to go out to local iwi long before a permit is established to liaise with iwi about the issues they may have in relation to any particular area. I would assume that has been done because it has always been done in the past with areas. But if the member sets down a written question I undertake to give him a detail of the answer of how when and why.Questions to MembersElectoral Finance Bill—Oral Submissions1.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to theChairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: When were the persons who provided oral evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Electoral Finance Bill on 17 September 2007 told of the time that they would be appearing before the committee?LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): When they were contacted by committee staff.Christopher Finlayson: Can she confirm that on the morning of 17 September a submitter was phoned told he had to give oral evidence that morning but was not advised of the time he had to do so and then was phoned back 30 minutes later by the committee clerk who asked that his oral evidence be presented immediately; and how is such shambolic organisation fair to members of the public who want to make a submission to a select committee?LYNNE PILLAY: No I cannot confirm that. If Mr Finlayson had any concerns about that he should have raised them in the committee. I find the committee staff are extremely hard-working and efficient and I really take issue with political point-scoring by that member in this House.Madam SPEAKER: We have a supplementary question. This is the last one. The normal practice is there are only two.Martin Gallagher: Can the chairperson confirm that the questioner is indeed the deputy chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee; if he is why has he not raised these issues personally with staff and other members of the committee instead of wasting the time of this House?Madam SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order but the second is not.LYNNE PILLAY: I can confirm that the member is the deputy chairperson of the select committee.AppointmentsOmbudsmanHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I moveThat pursuant to sections 3 and 5 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommends His Excellency the Governor-General appoint David Graham McGee CNZM QC of Wellington as an Ombudsman for a term commencing on 19 November 2007.I would like to place on the record our appreciation of Mr McGee’s 22 years of service as Clerk of the House of Representatives. The Office of the Ombudsmen in New Zealand has a long history by international standards. With the passage of the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act 1962 New Zealand became only the fourth country in the world to establish an Ombudsman position and the first country outside of northern Europe to do so. The office provides an avenue of redress for NewZealanders who feel that Government agencies have made unfair or inappropriate decisions. In providing this avenue the office has a healthy impact on the ways that agencies make decisions in the first place.In establishing the position 45 years ago Parliament was underlining the importance of openness and transparency to the health of our democracy and to the sound functioning of our Government. This has contributed not only to New Zealand’s sustained reputation as one of the most transparent and corruption-free nations in the world but also to the health of other Commonwealth democracies that have used our model as the basis for their own ombudsmen positions. Today approximately 200 ombudsmen are serving in 100 or more jurisdictions and territories.In recommending the appointment of an individual as Ombudsman this House has a responsibility to ensure that any candidate is able to appreciate the history and importance of the office and to put into practice the values upon which it was created. In recommending the appointment of the Clerk of the House Dave McGee this House is without question fulfilling that responsibility.Mr McGee arrived in New Zealand in 1972 as a ten pound immigrant from England. Following work in the old Legislative Department he became a Clerk-Assistant in 1976 and Deputy Clerk in 1984. The following year 1985 brought two important milestones in his career. The first milestone was the publication of his bookParliamentary Practice in New Zealand which was immediately—and in its subsequent editions it remains—the standard reference work on the operation of our Parliament. The second milestone was his appointment as Clerk of the House following the retirement of the long-serving Charles Littlejohn.The longevity of Mr McGee’s service as Clerk is a mark of distinction in and of itself but it is his contribution in guiding this House through a period of significant change that is his most important achievement. The creation of the Parliamentary Service; major changes of the Standing Orders which he helped to draft; and a reorganisation of select committees occurred within the first weeks of his tenure. These changes had significant implications for the Office of the Clerk requiring a refocusing of the role away from many of its administrative functions and on to its constitutional responsibilities.The most significant changes however came with the electoral reforms of the 1990s. As a member of the Electoral Referendum Panel Mr McGee played an important role in making sure the public could make an informed choice about whether to change our electoral system and about how we might change it. Following the decision to adopt MMP the Clerk had a major role to play in advising members on how the procedures of the House needed to change. This included a further—and indeed a very substantial—reform of the Standing Orders formal recognition of political parties in the House and further changes to the operation of select committees.It was without question the greatest period of change in this House’s history and our largely smooth transition through it is in no small part a credit to Mr McGee’s guidance. What distinguished his service through that period of significant change however was not the zeal of amoderniser but the traditionalism of someone with a great respect for the institution of Parliament and its history. He has understood that Parliament must change with the times but must not lose sight of the traditions that have served the House well in its over 150 years’ history and of course reaching back further into the history of Westminster.In recognition of Mr McGee’s service he has already been made a Queen’s Counsel and a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. He is recognised as a leading expert on parliamentary practice throughout the Commonwealth. It is fitting as he moves on from the role of the Clerk that this House recommends his appointment to aposition where his considerable skills and knowledge and his respect for our democratic institutions can be put to good use.On a personal note it has been a great pleasure to work closely with Dave over many many years especially in my role as Leader of the House and indeed previously as senior Government whip. We have not always agreed on every point. Sadly for tribal and genetic reasons he remains a supporter of Sunderland whereas I remain for the same reasons a supporter of Spurs but his intellectual strength and integrity have always had my respect. When we have not agreed I have tried not to lose sight of the challenges of his very difficult role.New Zealanders as we have seen just this week are not always fond of the referees in our society and sometimes with very good reason. Many forward passes and occasional fouls occur in this House that are not actually seen by the referees. There is no question that in helping the Speaker to referee the House on a daily basis his speed in writing notes and passing them is something to behold. The role of the Clerk is one of the most difficult officiating positions in Parliament. Sustaining his trademark calm and thoughtful demeanour in the middle of question time—indeed on occasions he is almost the only person to maintain a calm and thoughtful demeanour during question time—for over two decades has been no small achievement.It will be a sad day for this House to see Mr McGee move on from the role of Clerk. Only a very few of us in this Chamber have served with another Clerk of the House. None of us has served in this House as long as he has. I thank him for his service. I wish him well in his new role as Ombudsman; I suspect we will have occasional differences of opinion in that role as well. New Zealanders are fortunate that his talents will continue to be put to good use in the service of the New Zealand public over the next 5 years.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I stand to wholeheartedly support the Government motion and to join with the Government in recognising the long service of David McGee. I congratulate him on his appointment to the Office of the Ombudsmen.I support everything Dr Cullen said. Dr Cullen would be acknowledged as being probably one of the few parliamentarians who has a long and deep knowledge of the procedure of Parliament so he is an expert acknowledging the superiority of another expert in David McGee. That is a compliment in itself.As a measure of David McGee’s length of service I tell members that he has had 33 years in the Office of the Clerk. He has served under six Prime Ministers—Lange Palmer Moore Bolger Shipley and Clark—some of whom have lasted longer than others. He has also served under eight Speakers. Just to remind Parliament how far back that goes there is yourself Madam Speaker; Jonathan Hunt; Doug Kidd; Peter Tapsell; Robin Gray; Kerry Burke; Gerard Wall; and going back to Sir Basil Arthur. If there was ever a collection of people who had the combination of idiosyncrasy as well as political understanding it is that line-up of Speakers. Though I was not present in the room for any discussions between the Clerk and any of those individual politicians I know from watching David McGee in action that at all times he would have been politely directional when it was required and totally professional in his opinions and advice.Dr Cullen remarked that sometimes the Clerk has been the only person in the House who has kept his head. I think that is David McGee’s outstanding characteristic. Not only does he have a sufficient grip of complex constitutional and parliamentary issues that he has published three editions ofParliamentary Practice in New Zealand—which is far and away the most authoritative source on these matters in New Zealand and probably close to the most authoritative source on these matters in the Commonwealth—but also he has the personal disposition that has allowed him to be thecalm professional in this political pressure cooker day after day week after week and as it has turned out decade after decade.As Dr Cullen pointed out it was David McGee who shepherded this Parliament through the changes to MMP. I am very pleased that we had with us someone of exactly the sort that Dr Cullen described—someone who understood the traditions conventions and philosophy of this Parliament. In my view David McGee enabled this institution to survive the design of the idealists who were behind the MMP system. I think some of them imagined that MMP would transform politics; it was never going to. David McGee helped us to find the right balance between change that reflected the public mood and the requirements of the new system with at the same time managing that instinctive balance of rules flexibility and understanding of our flawed humanity that makes this institution work from day to day.He exercised judgment reasonableness and in my view some vision. It is difficult particularly for someone in a procedural job to understand that things can and should change. Changes have happened in this Parliament that I did not like and that I am sure David McGee did not like but he was able to see what was required to ensure that the institution maintained its credibility and did not lose its past when our electoral system changed. I thank him for that.I also thank him for advice he gave me in my role as leader of a political party and occasionally at other times when I have required it. I like the way that he does not really humour politicians too much. When a politician goes down to see him he is pretty straightforward. Often a politician goes to see the Clerk only when something really matters which means that he or she is in a state of some excitement about some wrong that has been done or about some procedural opportunity the politician thinks he or she has found that no one else has found. David McGee stripped down the arguments very quickly sometimes in a matter of a few minutes. One went away with the best advice one could get and sometimes slightly calmed down by his reasonableness.We wish David McGee well in his transition to Ombudsman. If I were to give him just one piece of advice as a new Ombudsman—which of course he may not need and may not take any notice of whatsoever—it is that between himself and others he should use his thorough background in the political and parliamentary system to give us some advice about the Official Information Act. The Act is pretty old legislation by our standards and the Ombudsmen’s office is now in a constant state of wrangling between the Opposition and Government about how the Act should be used. Some of the Act is simply quite dated. It has no provisions to deal with electronic information. That is one contribution that David McGee could make to the ongoing process of executive accountability which is the primary function of Parliament.We wish him well. I just hope he does not get bored over there. I know that we are generally a humble lot but I think we have made his life pretty exciting. That is why he has stayed for 33 years. We do things that are unpredictable we try to change the rules and we are allowed to write our own rules. I do not think there would have been too many days when he has come to the office and gone home thinking it was not worth it. So I say to David: “Please stay interested; don’t get bored.” I hope that we see the extent of the contribution he has made here to this Parliament now made to the Office of the Ombudsmen.PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First let me say that we endorse absolutely the motion. It was always the intention of my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters to take a call in the debate on this motion. Though I intended to do so also I am probably occupying the slot that Winston would have taken. Unfortunately due to the overrun of question time and a pressing engagement he has had to go. I would like to record inHansardhis thanks to David McGee for his effortsand I wish him well on behalf of Winston. Winston is the first to say that David McGee has done an outstanding job.David McGee has not only done an outstanding job in his role as Clerk of this House; he has done an exceptional job. He is not only highly regarded here by I suggest all MPs—current and former—but he has served this institution so well that he is respected internationally by Parliaments well away from New Zealand. He has a reputation when it comes to the administration of Parliament that is second to none. He has written a book as has been stated calledParliamentary Practice in New Zealand and it has been updated twice. It was written in 1985 updated in the 1990s and updated again in 2005 to encompass MMP. It is a tremendous book. It is a book that should be on every MP’s desk. I would describe it in succinct terms as being an MP’s bible. It tells one what happens in this place why it happens and all of the procedures—just about everything one can think of.However he has chosen to move on. He is now set to become an Ombudsman. We in New Zealand First have no doubt that he will become a very competent Ombudsman. He has all the qualities in abundance. He has an analytical mind and an inquiring mind. He has the ability to explain—as the Hon Bill English said—some very complex issues to break them down and to explain them very straightforwardly in everyday language. That is an exceptional gift. He has patience and a marvellous ability to concentrate. If anyone doubts that they should take note—and I am sure you do Madam Speaker—of the many many thousands of questions he has sat through and listened to intently. When there has been a glitch or a hiccup he has been quietly but swiftly to his feet giving written advice on how the matter or the glitch should be handled. For that attribute alone he deserves a medal.However he has chosen to become an Ombudsman. It is my understanding that in that role he will be addressing a number of problems. One of those I believe will be sorting out the problems of prisoners. Some would assert perhaps that having worked over many years with MPs he might well be well qualified for the part of his role dealing with prisoners. Other MPs may well take umbrage at my even suggesting that and say possibly that it is irrelevant. But prisoners are volatile people. They have their highs and their lows. They know what it is like to be at the bottom of the heap. I say this in jest because Dave McGee knows exactly that—not because of his dealings in Parliament but because he is a lifelong ardent Sunderland Football Club supporter and that football team knows what it is like to be at the bottom and to be volatile.To conclude on a more serious note I say that Dave McGee has served this House exceedingly well. He most certainly will leave a very difficult pair of shoes to be filled; it will be an enormous task. We have no doubt that he will become an excellent Ombudsman. He is a very fair-minded man with the patience of Job and he has the intellect to simplify as I have stated the most difficult and complex problem. I know he will do exceedingly well. On behalf of my colleagues in New Zealand First I take this opportunity to thank him for his service and his invaluable guidance from time to time. I wish him and his family all the very best. Thank you Madam Speaker.NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): Like other parties the Green Party warmly supports this motion. I will begin our speech in support by talking about the importance of the Ombudsmen first of all. I thank Dr Cullen for his brief history lesson on the office of the Ombudsman in this country. The Ombudsman is an independent Officer of Parliament and has an absolutely crucial role in helping to ameliorate the imbalance of power between the State and citizens and to hold Government departments to account in their treatment of citizens. I do not think the importance of that role can be overemphasised—particularly in a world where the powers of the State are increasingly encroaching on the lives of citizens.Just very recently we have had an excellent demonstration of the importance of that role in relation to the inquiry into prisoner transportation following the killing of Liam Ashley in a prison van. We need only think about the range of difficulties that have been faced by the Department of Corrections—not just in recent times but over a long period of time—to see how important it was that that inquiry was conducted by an independent and credible agency and that it was done with a level of rigour and fearlessness. I have to say that the Office of the Ombudsmen did an excellent job. It produced a comprehensive and authoritative report. The crucial thing was that the Ombudsmen did not do the investigation only by reading the papers and looking at the policies; they actually got out into the real world and really saw what was going on—even to the extent of actually getting inside prison vans to see for themselves what those were like on the inside. So the role of the Ombudsman is enormously important and as a result is highly respected by most New Zealanders.In that context it is a pleasure to speak in support of the appointment of David McGee to that role and first of all to agree very strongly with the words of members who have spoken very warmly in relation to David McGee and his time here. Like most members I have had the opportunity to seek the advice of David McGee as Clerk of the House. I have found him to be authoritative in his pronouncements and to be impartial in the way he approached matters. I want to really thank him for that because that is enormously important particularly when one is a bit of a young fresh MP trying to find one’s way around the Standings Orders and things like that. So as a result of those qualities I think he makes an excellent candidate for Ombudsman and I welcome the motion.In particular I want not just to acknowledge his personal conduct which members have already spoken warmly about but also to touch upon the leadership he has given in his role of Clerk and on his importance I think in developing a culture within the Office of the Clerk—a culture of professionalism and impartiality. That is enormously important. I have sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee since 1999 and have seen the clerks who have come through and serviced that committee. The level of service that members get from clerks in the committees and in the House is very very high. Certainly the current committee staff in the Justice and Electoral Committee are extremely good and I do not think we can underestimate the importance of the culture of the Office of the Clerk in supporting and promoting that culture of professionalism of impartiality—in fact of excellence. We know that David McGee is internationally respected for his work as Clerk of the House in this Parliament and his advice has been sought by people from other Parliaments because of his internationally recognised expertise. I think the clerks of our select committees have demonstrated and developed the same qualities and that his leadership has been crucial in that.I think David McGee is well placed to bring the same level of authority professionalism fearlessness and impartiality to the role of Ombudsman and to help maintain and strengthen that culture in that office. I am not saying that that is necessary—I think that that culture is already there—but I think he is a good person to enhance it.It is obvious that David McGee is highly regarded by members in this House and that is a very good basis for his taking up the role of challenging the Government and holding it to account in this role. The respect we all have for him means that any of his findings will be difficult to belittle—as Governments under pressure from adverse findings are sometimes tempted to do—as will be his advice. Really all I can say in finishing is that I offer him our best wishes. Kia kaha; go hard bro!Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Madam Speakertēnā koe. When one walks into this Chamber one sees the cameras which are often focused onthe drama intrigue and spectacle that is called politics. But when one walks out of the Chamber one sees the many distinctive and equally impressive people who make this place work. There is the Scottish wonder of Ellen the cheery conversations ofClarry the respectful protection of our security staff and the incredible resources of the library services—and many others. But there is one person who absolutely stands out amongst many. He is Parliament’s top official the head of more than 100 staff and the key adviser to you Madam Speaker: the Clerk of the House of Representatives.It is my honour on behalf of theMāori Party to support this motion to endorse the comments made this afternoon and to acknowledge with our utmost appreciation the outstanding contribution that David McGee has made to this Parliament. For over 34 years he has been a pivotal player in guiding Parliament and in monitoring the extent to which Parliament should be at the forefront of public debates.We stand also to mihi to a man who has not been afraid to make his mark on parliamentary practice in Aotearoa. In doing so he has never shied away from controversy or conflict. It was this man who backed the Privileges Committee in censuring Television New Zealand’s treatment of former chief executive Ian Fraser describing its behaviour as an egregious breach of privilege. It was David McGee who criticised the way that New Zealand enters into international treaties as being fundamentally undemocratic.It is the Clerk of the House who gets to deal with any evidence or reports that may adversely affect somebody’s reputation. Examples in recent years include the accuracy of home addresses for the Leader of the Opposition or our own HoneHarawira’s 2-day visit to the Northern Territory.It is the same person who in 2004 issued a scathing 24-page submission in response to the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. His opening two lines bear repeating as an example of the clarity of the advice he has presented over the years: “Democracy entails accountability for the exercise of power. Accountability has a number of facets one of which is the executive being answerable to Parliament for its use of public resources to achieve specified outcomes.” I am sure that David as a student of democracy knows only too well how fragile the existence of the institution of democracy can be in any society—a view we in theMāori Party are also acutely aware of.Within everywhānauhapū and iwi there are wise elders who inspire and challenge us all as much by what they do not say as by what they do say. Their lifetime legacy is demonstrated in the art of understatement. Lessons are learnt by trying to interpret the stories told and by struggling over the meaning of past experiences. David McGee reminds me very much of these same wise elders. The impact of his institutional knowledge is immense. He has an enormous capacity for being able to look into history and to draw upon precedent to assist us in understanding the issues of the day. It is a quality that theMāori Party has come to attribute the highest value to.We have all appreciated the expert opinion he has shared so generously with us never venturing past the boundaries of political impropriety but adhering firmly to the conventions and procedures of the parliamentary process. He is truly a professional.As a new party the source of institutional wisdom theMāori Party found in David McGee has been particularly crucial in establishing a sound foundation for our future as a strong and independentMāori voice in Parliament. The institutional knowledge and memory he takes with him will be sorely missed. And we all know what happens to an institution when its memory goes. We just need to look at our Public Service and the difficulties that currently exist there as a result of the corporate juggernaut that marched through its ranks in the mid-1980s. Let history be our constant reminder.As an example of the imprint of his institutional memory I recommend that members of the House look at a paper from David McGee entitled “Concerning Legislative Process” which was published in theOtago Law Review earlier this year. In that paper he revealed a rather amazing fact. From analysing the speed of lawmaking over a 50-year period starting back in 1954 he found that the 2002-05 Parliament produced the lowest total of sitting minutes to pass each page of legislation. Whereas in 1984 for example the House required 22.4 minutes to pass each page of legislation in 2002-05 the time required had reduced dramatically to 12.3 minutes. As we consider the undue haste in which the House proceeds through its legislative programme we can only surmise that the speed of lawmaking for this 2005-08 Parliament will no doubt drop off the tally sheet.I have taken the time to outline some of these other distinctive characteristics from the reign of David McGee because I see them as having the right foundation for his next role as the third Ombudsman. The candidate specification outlines the fact that independence credibility and impeccable integrity are essential to that role. It is my humble opinion that we would be hard-pressed to find a better person than David McGee to fulfil such characteristics. Indeed his leadership is acknowledged throughout the Commonwealth. Perhaps his greatest legacy will be the 770 pages ofParliamentary Practice in New Zealandwhich occupies pride of place on any reputable MP’s bookshelf.The role of the Ombudsman is an essential facet of the democratic process. It is critical to the maintenance of public confidence in the bureaucratic system and public administration in Government. The Ombudsman provides a critical watchdog capacity to ensure that the machinery of Government operates in a fair and reasonable manner.As I have pondered on David McGee’s suitability for this position I was drawn to a comment he made in the submission I referred to earlier challenging the substance of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. David McGee drew upon an example established byGaiusPetronius in the year AD 66 who said: “I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation with reorganising and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing inefficiency and demoralisation.” As I said the wisdom of our olds is a gift to be treasured.TheMāori Party is confident that our support for David McGee to be appointed as the third Ombudsman will reap rewards for the very nature of the democratic process. We believe that he will provide excellent and expert advice to those who seek his services—those who seek to relitigate their grievances against the administration of Government those who seek to outline their evidence of the mistreatment of prisoners those who are considering making a protected disclosure those who appeal requests declined under the terms of the Official Information Act and all those New Zealanders who simply seek justice.We congratulate David McGee on his appointment we acknowledge his distinguished contribution to the House of Representatives and we are very happy to support this motion. Thank you.Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): A large part of me personally hopes that this resolution fails simply because if it fails then Dave McGee would stay here. Dave McGee has been in this House as long as I have been in Parliament—that is since 1993—and I have often had the feeling that he is almost inseparable from this place. I am left with the impression that should Dave McGee finally walk out the door across the forecourt of Parliament a crack will open up which will run through the building as well.I say that because Dave McGee has been a very powerful force for keeping this place together. I have seen this debating chamber in full rage on various issues and the veryinstitution we have here being pushed to the absolute limit. Its conventions and its procedures have been under pressure from every quarter but Dave has been the quiet calm person at the centre always with reason and logic always compelling and always fearlessly promoting the interests of this House and the rights and privileges of the House of members of the Government and of the Opposition—the rights and privileges of all—but making sure that this institution was untarnished no matter what happened.Dave has been a marvellous person in refurbishing this Parliament in all its ways and institutions. I had the privilege of being here when we had the transition from first past the post to MMP and what a remarkable transition it was. Many many questions had to be answered and many many issues came up that no one had actually foreseen. On every particular occasion Dave came to the discussions with suggestions that were well-thought-out and well prepared and with impeccable logic and great respect for the institution.It has been well said before that Dave has been a great writer about this place. His book is quite remarkable. It is extensive and it is exhaustive. It throws light on the dimmest and darkest recesses of this place and is all eminently readable. It is quite remarkable. I personally think that it should have been nominated for a Montana New Zealand Book Award but I am not sure that the readership was quite wide enough. But it is a fabulously well-written book. I have often referred people to it for answers and they have been very surprised at how easy it is to find those answers.Dave has helped all of us and I want to narrow my contribution primarily to the personal relationship that I am sure each MP has in dealing with Dave McGee. As a senior Government whip I had many dealings with Dave McGee. There would have been quite a number of occasions when we were confronted by a problem. Similarly I went to see Dave on many occasions when I was in Opposition confronted with a problem and seeking advice. I would go into Dave’s office where the desk was surrounded by books—a very scholarly and bookish place it was indeed—and I would sit down and talk to Dave. I would outline the situation I had and seek advice from Dave on how I could outmanoeuvre the Opposition trick it and do other things or outmanoeuvre the Government—whatever the strategy was. I knew that I received absolutely impeccable advice from Dave McGee. When I left I often had the impression that I had either been in ahead of or after the Opposition whip who had been asking similar questions and who would have been given absolutely impeccable advice. Dave would never ever let the advice he gave to one be reflected in the advice he gave to others. I have this wonderful impression of Dave McGee that he is probably the only person in this building who did not leak. This place is known for leaks but I have always felt that Dave would never leak and that he was always a person of unquestionable integrity. Any confidence one gave to him was trusted and respected.In my opinion Dave has also been a very fearless advocate for this House and for its privileges—fearless in his advice regardless of whom it was he was giving it to and what the reaction would be. I recall one particular occasion in the Standing Orders Committee when we were discussing the changing role of the executive with regard to Parliament. In the past the executive had simply signed off on international conventions and international orders without any due reference to Parliament. But under MMP Dave said we would have to refer the matter to Parliament because the executive was no longer guaranteed to have an absolute majority and therefore the matter would have to be referred to a select committee which it was. We talked about the timing and so on and people raised the issue of what would happen if a convention or an international agreement had to be signed within so many days the select committee did not have time to completely consider it and the executive was about to sign—what would we do then?Dave’s advice was simply that the select committee should stare down the executive—as blunt as that. I thought: “Gee this is a person whom I would rely on in any situation for advice.”The other thing I felt about Dave McGee was that he was not just an umpire; I always thought he was the equivalent of the television match official—the video umpire—for the Speaker who had to make the rulings. And he was a video umpire who did not have the opportunity to look at all the replays. I will recount a story that describes what I think are the incredible qualities of Dave McGee. I was sitting in the senior whip’s chair where Mr Barnett is sitting now it was late at night and we were in one of those set-piece debates where people were tediously reading well-prepared and boring speeches on legislation that was not impressive in itself. As this white noise was droning on and droning on I was struggling like the rest of the members to maintain consciousness. But sitting in the Clerk’s chair was Dave McGee. He was reading as he usually did a large thick esoteric book on the law of goodness knows which jurisdiction—he was carefully reading through it. In the middle of this boring speech someone suddenly leapt up and said: “Point of order.” I thought: “Point of order? What can this be for?”. I was trying to figure out who was speaking and what was going on. As I looked over at Dave McGee I saw that he had looked up from his book reached forward pulled out a notepad and was starting to write the recommendation to the Speaker. He had not only been reading the book; he had been listening to the debate had recognised what the point of order was and he was writing out what the Speaker’s response was to be with reference to the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings. That is an incredible quality—he could follow so many different conversations and have a wonderful analysis of them.Dave McGee has been an outstanding servant of this place. He has given outstanding service in every way both in terms of his intellectual ability his professional ability his integrity and in the way in which he has dealt with individual members of Parliament and the select committees. He has been a fearless advocate for this place and a great defender of it. He will be sorely missed. He has been a great servant. But in our loss I think that the Ombudsmen’s service will have gained an outstanding individual. If we were ever to nominate one of the best people we could nominate for that office we could do no better than Dave McGee. He leaves this place with my very best wishes and I place on record my appreciation—and I am sure the appreciation of many many other members of Parliament who are here today and who have gone before—for the advice the support and the integrity in the way in which he has conducted his job and the support he has given to members the Speaker and every part of the institution of this fine Parliament of New Zealand. This Parliament is in such good heart today because in part of the outstanding service of Dave McGee. Dave I want to say: “Thank you very much.”HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): It gives me great pleasure to rise and support this Government motion today on behalf of the ACT party. It is a shame that Dave McGee is not sitting in the Clerk’s chair today although it certainly would not be his style to do so. But I do hope he is listening to all these very kind but very accurate reflections on his abilities and his time in this Parliament.I think pretty much everything that there is to say has been said but I would just like to add a couple of things. From a personal perspective and as many other members have noted I would like to thank our Clerk for his assistance and for all the great advice he has given to MPs over the years. Certainly when one turns up at Parliament as a new MP one finds that David McGee’s reputation precedes him. Everybody is very quick to say that he is the point to go to when sound advice and a sympathetic ear are needed and I have certainly been the beneficiary of such on occasion. In looking forward to hisnew job we can feel assured that he will fill his new shoes very ably and that he will be a great third Ombudsman.When I thought about what to say in this speech today knowing that I would be well down the list of speakers I went back to the parliamentary website and looked at the history of Clerks of this House. There has been a Clerk of the House since 1854 and certainly it has become something of a tradition. We inherited the position of Clerk of course from the British Westminster system. Dave McGee is somebody who is greatly respected both here in New Zealand and internationally for his abilities in his job and for the great advice and respect he has brought to the position. The shoes that the Clerk had to fill when he set out along this course 22 years ago were pretty big shoes to fill because we have had only 12 Clerks since 1854. Two of those held the job for a combined period of 52 years so this Parliament has been very fortunate in the people who have occupied that position. As I say several long-serving Clerks have steered Parliament through many important changes and as Mr McGee himself commented the other day his great challenge was steering Parliament into the new MMP environment. I imagine that that really was quite a challenge and has brought huge changes to our Parliament.Mr McGee commented—I am reading from a press release from Tuesday this week—that he had been here in Parliament for 34 years and Clerk for 22 years and he wanted a fresh challenge before he became “past it”. I hardly think that Dave McGee will ever be “past it” and we look forward to many years of his continued service in the Ombudsman’s office from this point forward when he takes up that position. He said that over his period of service he has sat under eight different Speakers and all of them have been very different I suspect but challenging and good to work with in their own ways. But he did comment that the major change he had had to contend with had been the transition to MMP. He said that Parliament has changed immensely as a result with outcomes becoming less predictable and with more diverse points of view getting heard. That has been in my view anyway a very very good thing.Just to conclude I thank Mr McGee for the service that he has brought to the New Zealand Parliament. I congratulate him on the respect that he has—which is well deserved as I say both here and internationally—and wish him on behalf of the ACT party all the very best in his new job. He will be greatly missed. Thank you.Hon CLEM SIMICH (National): I am pleased to support the motion that seeks to recommend that David McGee be appointed an Ombudsman. Most things that need to be said have been said. There have been some wonderful tributes to David; I of course endorse them all. He has been here as the Clerk of the House for longer than just three or four of the members of this House and he has of course been a servant of this Parliament for far longer than any of the members whom we have in the current Parliament.I remember him from his early days. I have worked with him as a member as a Minister and as a presiding officer of the House. I know that all members would agree that he has been invaluable. He is the most helpful person one could wish to have in the position he has held. His advice his encouragement and his counsel have been invaluable to all members.From the position of a presiding officer I would just like to say—if I may be so presumptuous—on behalf of the eight Speakers whom he has served under and on behalf of the many deputy speakers and assistant speakers whom he has served with we say thank you to him. Our job has been much easier and we have been able to perform our tasks much better because of his presence. Over all the turmoil that is this place the ups and downs of politics the highs and lows David McGee has been the one constant and we have all relied on him in that position. On behalf of the presiding officers DavidMcGee I say there is no one better qualified to be an Ombudsman. We thank you for your service and we say that we will miss you.CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I will speak just briefly as a member of the Officers of Parliament Committee in favour of the motion. As is known the committee exists to manage the interface between the three Officers of Parliament and this House. As you know Madam Speaker earlier this year we resolved in the committee to recommend the appointment of a further Ombudsman. At the same time we recommended the devotion to the office of some additional resource to recognise the increased workload the office was under. I would like to note that those recommendations were agreed to without demur and to congratulate the executive on that because in my view the fact that there was no such objection demonstrates a good level of respect for the operation of the rule of law at a practical and everyday level.I also acknowledge with respect your work Madam Speaker as chair of the committee and also of the subcommittee that conducted the search for the additional Ombudsman. I also acknowledge the work of the other members of that subcommittee: the Hon Mark Burton Darren Hughes and Nathan Guy. I should also acknowledge the work of the recruitment team that was led byLilias Bell because I think everyone on the committee would agree that we were ably assisted. Finally I acknowledge the very high calibre of all the persons who expressed an interest in the role and in particular those whom we interviewed.I will just briefly point to the practical reasons for the increase in the work of the Ombudsmen. Obviously when the role was first created under the 1975 legislation it was confined to the investigation of complaints about central government and its organisations but very quickly the Ombudsman began to build public confidence. In 1982 when the Official Information Act was passed quite a substantial level of additional work was placed on the Ombudsman in recognition of which the facility was created for the appointment of additional officers. Then in 1988 the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act came into force—it was 1987 legislation—giving the ombudsmen further work. In 2001 the protected disclosures legislation augmented the workload and then of course in January 2005 the Crown Entities Act provided further work for the ombudsmen.The last piece of legislation to increase the jurisdiction of the office came with the enactment of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Act 2006 where the obligations that New Zealand accepted under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment were brought into legislation. Clearly designating the Office of the Ombudsmen as one of the agencies to visit prisons mental health detention facilities residential care facilities such as those existing for at-risk children and youth and immigration detention facilities will create substantial additional work for the office. So it is appropriate that that additional resource has been supplied.Very briefly I will acknowledge the calibre of the existing Ombudsmen: JohnBelgrave a former Secretary for Justice and Secretary of Commerce a former member of the State Services Commission and a former Comptroller of Customs; BeverleyWakem a former chief executive of Radio New Zealand a former president of the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union a former executive chair of Hill and Knowlton (New Zealand) Ltd and a former member of the former Higher Salaries Commission; and Mel Smith a former chief inspector a former Secretary for Justice and a former Deputy Secretary for Internal Affairs. The fact that there are such illustrious appointees in the existing office is a tribute again to Dave McGee in that he is seen as worthy of joining those people and also of joining the ranks of those who have held the office in the past—notably Sir Guy Powles Sir GeorgeLaking Sir John Robertson Sir BrianElwood andNadja Tollemache and perhaps most notably of course our current Governor-General the Hon AnandSatyanand.Madam Speaker when you spoke at the launch of the third edition ofParliamentary Practice in New Zealandyou said that in the short time you had been Speaker you not only had had many occasions on which to rely on Mr McGee’s advice but also had observed that internationally he is respected as the doyen of Clerks who serve parliamentary democracies. I was able to see for myself that that was the case when the Justice and Electoral Committee recently visited the Victorian Parliament and we were told by the Clerk of the Legislative Council WayneTunnecliffe that as far as he and the other Clerks of the Parliaments of Australia were concerned the third edition ofParliamentary Practice in New Zealandwas as essential a reference work on the Tables of the Clerks as Erskine May’s work. I think that is a very eloquent demonstration of the fact that Dave McGee has gained the level of international recognition that has been referred to by previous speakers.It is also very refreshing to have heard that at the Youth Parliament Mr McGee had some interesting views as to how the controversy over reporting of parliamentary affairs might be dealt with given the fact that the media will be substantially part of his new clientele in his new role. I understand that he said it might be a good thing to send photographers into the gallery after question time every day just to see how many journalists were yawningtexting or sleeping or had simply disappeared through lack of interest. More power to his elbow on that sort of advice!In conclusion I can say on a personal note that Mr McGee is kind and considerate to new members. That will certainly be something that will be missed but hopefully Dave McGee’s successor will also exhibit those characteristics. Mr McGee will make an excellent Officer of Parliament. Asa femmeje dis: “Bonne chance!” and to him: “Bon courage!” in his new role. I offer my respectful good wishes to him.Madam SPEAKER: I thank members. On another occasion I will make my own tribute to the Clerk.Motion agreed to.Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3)First ReadingHon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I moveThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee with an instruction that the bill be finally reported back by 12 November 2007.This is a routine annual bill to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that in accordance with the confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which these various instruments are made lapse at stated times unless earlier confirmed or validated by an Act of Parliament. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm or validate and confirm 16 Orders in Council made under 10 Acts. To avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing the bill must be re-enacted by the end of 2007. The 12 November report-back date will allow time for the select committee to receive explanations on the contents of the bill from the various departments that administer various orders and regulations while still leaving time for the bill to pass its remaining stages before the end of the year.Two of the 16 orders apply movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits New Zealand superannuation and war pensions. One of thoseorders also makes an additional increase to the rate of New Zealand superannuation so that the net amount payable to a married civil union or de facto couple is 66 percent of the net average wage. Three orders are made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. These orders apply movements in the consumer price index to the rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcohol and tobacco products and motor spirits.One order is made under the Tariff Act 1988. It changes from 1 September 2007 the duty-free quantity of alcohol spirits that passengers may import into New Zealand from one 1125 ml bottle to not more than three 1125 ml bottles. This order was accompanied by a separate regulation to exempt alcohol from the diminished provision where duty is not collected if the total amount payable is less than $50. These changes reflect current practice in maintaining the status quo in light of the inflation increases in duty. Six of the orders deal with commodity levies and three replace similar orders relating to pipfruit that expired in December 2006 vegetables and fruit that expired in July 2007 and will expire in November 2007 and avocados that expired in August 2007. Those orders were voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. Each is payable to the industry organisation to finance activities of benefit to the industry.The other three commodity levy orders relate to fisheries. One exempts for 5 years the existing order relating to fish. It was made at the request of the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council to which the levy is payable and it finances work on policy issues research promotion and administration for the seafood industry. Another order replaces the existing levy order relating to southern scallops that expired in July 2007 and also changes the way in which the levy is calculated. The third fisheries-related order made under the Commodity Levies Act 1990 imposes a single levy on farmed green-lipped mussels Pacific oysters and salmon. It replaces two existing levies on farmed green-lipped mussels and Pacific oysters and a voluntary levy paid on farmed salmon. It is payable to the recently established industry organisation Aquaculture New Zealand. A further order concerning fishing is made under the Fisheries Act 1996. This order made a number of changes to the administrative aspects of the quota management system. The aspect of the order concerning the annual catch entitlement holdings for the South Island’s West Coastpāua fisheries requires confirming and this is achieved by confirming the whole order.Regulations made under the Animal Products Act 1999 give effect to cost recovery proposals for services provided by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and Biosecurity New Zealand relating to the production processing and export of animal products and the export of live animals and animal germ plasm. The regulations redistribute fees and charges so that they are more equitable and justifiable and replace various fees and charges that have been in place since 2003.An order made under the Gambling Act 2003 specifies the problem-gambling levy that will be payable between 1 July 2007 and 20 July 2010 by the gaming-machine operator a casino operator the Lotteries Commission and the New Zealand Racing Board. This levy money funds the costs of developing managing and delivering an integrated problem-gambling strategy by the Ministry of Health. The final order to be confirmed is made under the Road User Charges Act 1977 and increases rates of road-user charges for heavy vehicles. I commend this bill to the House.TIM GROSER (National): I will just take a brief call on this legislation that the National Party is of course supporting. Quite clearly this is fairly technical legislation—a part of our legal process to ensure that the regulations that are subordinate to legislation are fully consistent with the law. We have just heard a fairly comprehensive explanation of the range of activities we are talking about here which go from the relatively mundane but no doubt popular idea that we might be able to bringin three duty-free bottles of gin rather than just one in the future knowing that this is fully legally consistent through to things that are of great importance to the people of New Zealand such as the consumer price index adjustments for their superannuation payments. So we are dealing with smaller pictures and with some quite large issues of great importance to our society actually in making sure that this proceeds in a proper rigorous legal framework. Let me also just say that the fees and charges levied from a number of organisations are used to perform a number of public goods in a pretty efficient way in my opinion.Before going into a couple more examples I would like to make some more general comments on regulations. It is probably stating the obvious to say that Governments of whatever complexion they may be achieve their objectives either by the direct provision of public goods financed by taxation or other revenues or by relying on private agencies and then putting regulatory frameworks around them. There is a lot of hot air I think sometimes of an ideological nature about free markets versus regulatory frameworks. The reality is that most free markets in order to operate in a socially responsible way do indeed require an adequate regulatory framework. This myth of the untrammelled power of the free market is usually totally exaggerated in political discussion; we all buy into the idea that we need effective and firm regulatory frameworks to police the free market. Then it becomes a matter of looking at market failure remembering there is no such thing as a perfect alternative or a perfect regulation and making a sensible and balanced judgment.So we are dealing with a number of Governmental objectives here—shared I am sure probably by all parties and not just the two major political parties. I will take the commodity levies as one example. They are essentially designed to deal with what is called in the literature the free-rider problem. We know if we take Pipfruit New Zealand for example that the organisation itself needs to come to a democratic vote as to whether it wants to levy its members but because of the existence of the free-rider problem it needs the power of Government and the force of regulation behind it to levy its members. So it can start from a democratic base and deal with the free-rider problem through regulatory frameworks then use the money from the levies—which are then compulsory on its members—to achieve public goods that the State would otherwise have to fund directly. Those are usually excellent public goods: research and development joint marketing promotion and other activities that all of us recognise are in the collective interests of the industry as a whole and they can proceed in a pretty efficient manner. In this case I have just taken pipfruit but we could use the seafood examples mentioned earlier to make the same basic point.On the other hand we also know that there is a bigger picture out there; it is called regulatory creep. I do not want to enter into a divisive debate on that when we have just discussed it in question time but frankly the almost ludicrous example of the spread of regulations concerning childcare facilities to Sunday schools gyms and creches is an example of where mindless regulation needs to have some greater political judgment put on to it. I do not have the exact quotation in front of me but I recall very clearly a well-known anecdote that says that the Ten Commandments are something like 100 words long the Gettysburg address is 120 words long but the European 2002 oilseeds regulations are 23684 words long. So it is not just a problem for us—let us be quite clear about this—this problem of regulatory creep is a global problem and we need some greater discipline there.Although these regulations are widely supported politically in other areas the debate perhaps gets off to not quite the right footing by its being seen solely as a compliance cost issue. Well yes that is a serious issue but when we analyse it more deeply we find that the real costs are not the compliance costs—although they can be substantial inthemselves—they are the actual economic effects of the regulations which will often lower productivity and disadvantage productive behaviour in the country. By analogy one could ask “Taxation—what does it do?”. Yes taxation has a compliance side to it and it costs a great deal of money although all Governments need to have that side to raise revenue—in the literature it is called the deadweight costs of taxation. But the more powerful issues are not about the compliance costs; they are about the actual economic consequences of taxation. In an economy that is driven essentially by market forces influenced by regulatory frameworks this is the bigger picture.The National Party supports this legislation. It is a fairly mundane technical and proper thing to do but we should bear in mind that there is a bigger picture out there. There is a problem of regulatory creep and we need a greater resolve to address that if New Zealand is to move forward in a sustained and competitive sense.CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): It is good to know that this legislation has at least bipartisan support. As the previous speaker said the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is a routine and annual bill to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that if not so confirmed would lapse by the end of the year.It was interesting though to hear TimGroser’s observations about the importance of quality regulation. Certainly this Government has shown by its actions that it agrees with that precept. I merely have to refer members opposite to the excellent work done by the Minister of Commerce in the Quality Regulation Review which is the first time in the history of New Zealand that a Minister has really grasped the nettle and met that problem head-on. It is really terrific to see the work that Lianne Dalziel is doing to make sure that our regulation framework does have some quality and rigour to it.As a member of the Regulations Review Committee to which it is anticipated that this legislation will be referred I am very pleased to say that we are doing our bit on that very hard-working committee to make sure that we look at regulations in a systematic way and consider whether there is justification for their continuation. The member who has just spoken might like to know that at the moment we are looking at every regulation on the statute book. We have written to every department and every entity responsible for the administration of a regulation and we have asked them to justify the ongoing need for that regulation. It is quite an important thing to keep the delegated statute book up to date and I can assure that member that not only is the Minister of Commerce making brave efforts in that regard but also the Regulations Review Committee.Just turning to the detail of the bill it would provide for this Parliament to validate and confirm 16 Orders in Council which are made under 10 pieces of primary legislation. Two of those 16 orders apply movements in the Consumers Price Index to the rates of social security benefits New Zealand superannuation and war pensions. One of those orders also makes an additional increase to the rate of New Zealand superannuation so that the net amount payable to a married civil-unioned or de facto couple rises to 66 percent of the net average wage.Three orders are made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. They apply movements in the Consumers Price Index to the rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcohol and tobacco products and on motor spirits. One order increases the amount of duty-free alcoholic spirits that passengers may import into New Zealand—that will make incoming passengers happy—from one bottle to three bottles of 1125 millilitres of spirits and adjusts the amount of duty allowed to be forgone in line with this. I see that Mr Foss is particularly welcoming of that measure and a good measure it is too.Three orders deal with commodity levies for fruit and vegetables and replace similar orders. These orders were voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. Each is payable to the industry organisations in order to finance activities of benefit to the industry—like work on policy issues research promotion and administration in respect of the seafood industry. Three deal with commodity levies relating to fisheries. One extends for 5 years the existing order relating to fish. One replaces the existing levy order relating to southern scallops. One imposes a single levy on farmed green-lipped mussels Pacific oysters and salmon. Again each is payable to the respective industry organisation in order to finance the activities of benefit to the industry.There are four other validated pieces of subordinate legislation. One is under the Fisheries Act relating to the quota management system. Some regulations under the Animal Products Act 1999 give effect to cost recovery proposals. One is under the Gambling Act specifying the problem gambling levy to be payable from 1 July 2007 to 1 July 2010 by either a gaming-machine operator a casino operator the Lotteries Commission or the New Zealand Racing Board—those with a statutory monopoly in other words—to conduct gambling. As members will know this levy money is important because it goes into Vote Health to ensure that the deleterious effects of gambling can be countered by Ministry of Health - funded programmes.The final piece of subordinate legislation that will be dealt with relates to the Road User Charges Act and increases rates of road-user charges for heavy vehicles.If the legislation is referred to the Regulations Review Committee in accordance with the Minister’s expressed desire then I certainly look forward to detailed consideration of it.Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): In listening to the last Labour member speaking Charles Chauvel one could say that one is almost encouraged to hear that the Government is actually starting to ask what regulation is still required. But there is a huge difference between simply going through the bureaucratic process of questioning whether regulations are still required in this country and actually getting rid of some of them. The test on this Government is whether it gets rid of some of the plethora of regulations that makes doing business in this country so increasingly difficult.So far the track record of this Government is not good. If we look at recent regulation that has come into this Parliament so much of it does not have a cost-benefit analysis associated with it at all; and that is not good enough. Every new piece of regulation should have a thorough cost-benefit analysis so that Parliament on behalf of the people of New Zealand can be satisfied that the benefits of the regulation definitely outweigh the costs. There have been plenty of occasions where regulation has been put through this Parliament where in fact the benefits do not outweigh the costs.The test remains on this Government of whether it will do anything to reduce the burden of regulation. Talking about it and starting some bureaucratic processes are not the solutions. Actually doing something about it is what is crucial. What is often quite difficult with legislation like the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is that it is the kind of thing about which Parliament can easily say that it is just confirming some stuff and that it should just put it through. So it is important that it goes to the Regulations Review Committee.The other quite important thing is that some of the provisions and confirmations in this bill are adjusting some benefits like superannuation and retirement income according to indexation for inflation. Those are measures that everyone accepts are really important and at times it is too easy to let those positive important measures override some of the tax-gathering measures that are also contained in this legislation.We should note that the legislation confirms increases in taxation through measures under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and also the Road User Charges Act 1977.It is all very well saying that the Government just puts tax up by the rate of inflation but when it comes to tax we should really be always questioning whether this is necessary. Is it necessary to keep putting tax up? I have looked at the most recent notes to the Crown’s financial statements and at how much tax the Government has been gathering through the measures covered by the regulations this bill would confirm particularly the Customs and Excise Act Regulations and the Road User Charges Regulations. It is really interesting to look at how much tax the Government is collecting. If we look at the Road User Charges Regulations in the June year 2006 we see that the Government collected $731 million. In the year ending June 2007 it collected $55 million more—$55 million more tax—from heavy motor vehicles that pay road-user charges. That is a significant increase in tax and we should not be just accepting that these taxes go up willy-nilly with inflation. We should be questioning those increases all the time.With regard to road-user charges there may be a good argument that road users in the case of the heavy vehicles do have to pay to help contribute to the construction and maintenance of the roads in New Zealand that carry those heavy vehicles because one has to acknowledge that our roading network in the Auckland region is falling further and further behind requirements. Despite the Government’s claims that it is spending more money the result is a worsening situation not an improving situation as we heard in question time today. If we look at some of the other amounts collected though it is really interesting. The amount collected under the customs duty has gone up by $750 million from $1.083 billion to $1.836 billion which is amazing. That is a big increase. If we look at the alcohol excise it has gone up by $40 million. Again with the alcohol excise I guess that one could argue that we need some of that money to spend on dealing with some of the negative consequences of alcohol consumption but I think the customs duty increase is something that we should be questioning this Government about. Is that massive increase of three-quarters of a billion dollars in just 1 year justified or is that a windfall gain for this Government?And so it goes on. It is interesting that the petroleum fuel excise has gone down slightly in the last 12 months so there is probably a good argument for that one to increase. But the point I am making is that this Parliament should make sure each confirmation of these individual regulations is looked at carefully to make sure that where more taxation is being taken from New Zealanders it is justified. In some cases National fully accepts it is; in other cases I think the issues should be given full scrutiny to make sure that those increases in taxation are in fact justified and that the benefits outweigh the costs of collecting that taxation.Although National supports the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) and although some might say it is just confirming and validating certain measures there are important issues buried within this legislation. It is important that the Regulations Review Committee and Parliament scrutinise some of the taxation increases and that we do not develop a habit of just automatically upping taxes by the rate of inflation or indexing them automatically every year because I do not believe that is in New Zealand’s interests. In some cases it makes sense; other cases I think should be scrutinised. I hope that is what happens with this legislation at the select committee.Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): There are two remarkable points of relevance to this debate on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) that the Government motion No. 1 debate brought to our attention. The first is to acknowledge the debt the House owes to David McGee and tohis excellent service as the Clerk of the House for some 22 years. As part of that service he has defined the value of bills such as this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3).In the third edition ofParliamentary Practice in New Zealand on page 410 he describes the need for such bills as being purely and simply about confirming regulations that might otherwise lapse. These lapsed regulations are commonly brought together in a single piece of legislation—a regular baker’s dozen of bits and pieces.True to form in this one bill as has been said already we have the vital order to ensure that passengers can import duty-free into New Zealand three 1125 millilitre bottles of spirits instead of one alongside commodity levies orders for apples pears fish southern scallops vegetables fruits avocados mussels oysters and salmon. Indeed if we took all these requisite components apart we are faced with a virtualhākari of regulation—a feast of provisions—that we are encouraged to accord the greatest priority to.The second tasty morsel that arose from the Government motion No. 1 debate was the vexed issue of the speed of lawmaking. David McGee has evidence of a dramatic reduction in the number of minutes allocated to passing each single page of legislation identifying that the total of 12.3 minutes per page awarded in the 2002-05 Parliament was the lowest amount of time recorded over the previous 50 years. I am aware that the defence for this speed will be to attribute it to the quality work that occurs in the select committees. Having experienced partisan select committee behaviour I have my doubts.As we come to debate this riveting piece of regulatory readjustment I also raise the issue of the unseemly haste in the placing of items on the House programme at this point in time. It would not have gone unnoticed that the Order Paper has been completely reshuffled overnight. Although yesterday’s top 10 items included just one first reading of a bill the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill suddenly today’s top 10 includes a whopping seven first readings. Where did they all come from—and why the sudden placement of priority on the Order Paper?I wonder whether the combination of Treaty settlement legislation and the political numbers has anything to do with these sudden overnight changes. Funnily enough the TeRoroa Claims Settlement Bill which yesterday was No. 7 on the Order Paper dropped 12 places overnight down to No. 19.For those members who burn the midnight oil or set the alarm to watch the breaking news of prime television onTeKarere it would also have been noted that there is growing speculation that the Government lacks the numbers to pass controversial settlement legislation for either the TeRōroa or Te Arawa affiliate groups. The legislation is controversial because the settlements are wrong. The behaviour by the Government in respect of these two bills is about winning. It is not about justice. It is not about fairness. It is not about doing what is right. It is about winning at all costs.I raise these matters in the context of our deliberations on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) because I think it is critical that members maintain a watchful eye on the checks and balances against stacking the parliamentary agenda. This is not to say that there are not crucial matters to be dealt to in the context of this current bill but more to make the statement about how priorities are determined and agendas set.One of the significant issues that concerns us in this bill pertains to the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions Lump Sum Payments and Allowances) Order. The bill validates and confirms the war pensions regulations set out in the 2007 order. The House will recall one of the last acts of courage demonstrated by the late ArchbishopWhakahuihuiVercoe who made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in support ofMāori Viet Namveterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange. The claim was presented by the Vietnam Veterans Action Group representing about 2000Māori Viet Nam veterans and their families.The claim estimates that 65 percent of those New Zealanders serving in Viet Nam wereMāori. Veterans have spoken repeatedly of their concern that the current system of compensation does not give justice to veterans. On 21 August Viet Nam veterans marched on Parliament grounds in protest against what they described as “the Crown’s consistent and despicable rejection of Viet Nam veterans’ health and welfare concerns.”Pita Paraone: What part is this?Dr PITA SHARPLES: The member should read it. We would hope that the honour of the late archbishop and these Viet Nam veterans might be respected enough in subsequent stages of this bill to address the discriminatory impact of the differences in pension payment and compensation available for Viet Nam veterans as opposed to other injured soldiers.Another issue in which discrimination appears to be manifest is the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order. Although the intention of the bill is to increase the rate of New Zealand superannuation to 66 percent of the net average wage we have to bring to the table again the following questions. What about the other benefits? What about the 250000 children who are discriminated against by virtue of the fact that their parents are on income support and therefore restricted in the levels of support available from Working for Families? What about the levels of deprivation that continue to be experienced by our most vulnerable: the poorer poor?As we think of those who are currently facing the highest levels of deprivation one cannot help but think of the adverse impacts that gambling has on the lower socio-economic communities. The Gambling (Problem Gaming Levy) Regulations 2007 deal with the concept of building capacity to deliver the strategy on problem gambling. We in theMāori Party are completely in support of any initiatives that seek to eliminate gambling harm. We know that the accessibility of machines in low-income communities increases the risk of those living locally having a problem with gambling. We are also aware that for every dollar that a community group receives as a community grant through pokie machines $3 has been taken.Gambling creates an enormous strain on community resources and bumping up the levy to fund a problem-gambling strategy must not be seen as the be-all and end-all. As a starter we are interested in proposals for legislative change to the Gambling Act 2003 that would giveMāori a clear role in deciding the place of gambling in Aotearoa and would also empower communities to have the authority if they wish to remove gambling venues and pokie machines.Another of the proposals lumped into the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is a set of schedule changes associated with freshwater eel stocks Otago cocklespāua fisheries and other items included within the total allowable commercial catch. We simply make the statement that with such amendments to the Fisheries Act consultation and negotiation over the finer print must proceed with mana whenua—theMāori fishing industry—as key players in the sector.We of course support the bill. We support the opportunity for the detail of legislation as included in this bill to come before the scrutiny of Parliament. We support this bill at its first reading but we will also continue to ask why some bills are slipping down down down the Order Paper with the risk that they may never see the light of day. Thank you.MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). There are a couple of important issues in relation to this legislation not only in its content but in its process. TheRegulations Review Committee has been exercising itself recently with a review of regulation and subordinated legislation. The committee has—along with our Australian colleagues at conferences in recent times—considered such things as sunset clauses and whether legislation ought to have sunset clauses so that as a matter of course it comes back to the House for reconsideration.Those points are important when one considers the process of the drafting confirmation and implementation of legislation and its passage through this House. If we are going to have sunset clauses on legislation we would find it has a very salutary effect in that it means that at every point where there is a sunset clause there is a process by which that legislation is reviewed once more by Parliament. That is a very strong position. It is a very strong process. It means that the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation is paramount and is constantly reflected.This bill is a routine annual bill. Its purpose is to confirm and validate those items of subordinated legislation that will lapse unless we do this exercise by Act of Parliament by the end of this year. So there are a number of things in this legislation that—the previous speaker’s comments notwithstanding—would appear to be reasonably pedestrian but are however matters of real importance. When the matters are to do with social security benefits New Zealand superannuation war pensions or commodity levies—particularly those relating to fisheries—they are matters that are of importance and they are significant to the ongoing operation regulation and maintenance of those industries.I pick up a particular point that the previous speaker made in relation to the Gambling Act 2003 and the order within this bill made under that Act. This legislation specifies the problem-gambling levy which will be payable from between 1 July 2007 and 20 July 2010 by gaming-machine operators or casino operators the Lotteries Commission and the New Zealand Racing Board. I am keen to tell the House that Sue Bradford of the Green Party has raised concerns with Ministers about the problem-gambling levy and the way that it is set. It is important for this House to know that the Government is committed to these matters being reviewed within 18 months. That is a particular concern that has been raised with Ministers by the Green Party and that has been recognised by Ministers. I felt it was important that the House was advised of that matter.These regulations and provisions—the levies and so on—that are contained in this legislation need to be renewed and they need to be applied after consideration by this House because at each turn it means that these provisions will get renewed scrutiny. I alluded to this earlier in my speech but it seems to me that it may well be worth this House’s consideration in a more general forum or discussion and perhaps through the forthcoming report of the Regulations Review Committee that a number of other pieces of legislation which impact either on industry or on the provision of benefits and orders to individuals and families—and by those I mean such things as superannuation and war pensions—always have sunset clauses attached so that they can be scrutinised afresh by the whole of Parliament.This bill will be referred to the Regulations Review Committee I am sure at the end of this first reading but one of the committee’s functions—and this goes to the question raised by the previous speaker Pita Sharples—is around whether sufficient consultation has occurred in the renewal and the promulgation of these regulations. One of the things we always do in the Regulations Review Committee—and the member who spoke before me is very familiar with this because he sat for a time on the committee—is routinely ask whether the obligations to consult have been met. We have needed on occasion to ask for reports about the consultation processes that have been undertaken with respect in particular to fishing quota and levies in the fisheries area. Theconsultation with tangata whenua and the fisheries organisations has always been taken into account. We have asked questions about the consultation process received reports on it and have been ultimately satisfied that appropriate consultation has been undertaken. Where we have not been satisfied we have asked those bodies to go back to do consultation again. So the member who spoke before me is aware that consultation does occur and that the Regulations Review Committee does require it to occur.In conclusion I commend this bill to the House and particularly draw attention again to the concerns that the Green Party has raised about the way the problem-gambling levy has been set and the Government’s commitment to reviewing that within the next 18 months. Thank you.SUE BRADFORD (Green): It is somewhat unusual for the Green Party to care passionately—Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did indicate to Madam Assistant Speaker previously that the Green Party would be splitting its speech.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely. I accept that thank you. That is the intention. The Green Party is splitting its speech. The bell will go at 4 minutes.SUE BRADFORD: It is somewhat unusual for the Green Party to care passionately about a bill like this a subordinate legislation bill but today is a bit different. This time there are two elements of the bill that we care about. My colleague Nandor Tanczos is going to speak in a moment about commodity levies but first I would like to say a few words about clause 11 which confirms the problem-gambling levy as set earlier this year.The Green Party has had concerns for some time about the way the levy has been set and we were very reluctant to simply rubber stamp its confirmation in the bill in front of us today. There are a few reasons for this. First of all the rate of payment expected from New Zealand’s six casinos is half that of pubs and clubs with no real justification. When working out the levy the number of people presenting to problem-gambling services with issues around harm caused by casino gaming is used as a basis for working out the levy calculation. However that does not take into account the fact that casinos cause a disproportionate severity of harm in the amount of money lost by individual problem gamblers the quantity of money ripped off from employers and so on. The harm done through problem gambling associated with casino play should be calculated differently and at a higher rate and casinos should be expected to pay their fair share of the levy.Secondly the rate of levy for clubs is unfair and too high. Clubs are levied for their pokie machines at exactly the same rate as pubs yet they have much better host responsibility policies and practices and for example operate substantially more comprehensive training for staff in relation to dealing effectively with problem gamblers on their premises. It is difficult to work out what the right rate for pubs and clubs should be at present because the figures of those presenting with harm from pubs and clubs are not disaggregated. The Government should move immediately to start separating out the statistics on presentations on harm being done by pokie machines in pubs and clubs so that next time the problem-gambling levy is set it can be done on a fair and transparent basis.Thirdly when the problem-gambling levy was struck this time around it was done on erroneous data. At the time the Government chose to believe the industry’s figures about the so-called decline in gambling spend. In fact once the first of the new electronic monitoring system reports came out a couple of months ago the figures showed that losses on non-casino gaming machines were in fact up by 5 percent not down. The basis of the calculation was simply wrong.Fourthly further incorrect information was provided in that the Gambling Commission said that treatment providers had no complaints with an effective cut in the amount allocated for treatment when in fact a number of organisations objected strongly—as one might expect. Although we are really unhappy about approving a levy struck on this basis at all the Green Party realised that we could not really expect the Government to backtrack completely at this stage. It is too late for that.However we did make our concerns known and it was with great relief that I heard the Government say through Maryan Street this afternoon that it is committed to reviewing the problem-gambling levy and how it is set within 18 months instead of the usual 3 years. This gives the Government time to do the necessary work on getting the levy calculations on to a better and more accurate footing without the affected groups and those they serve having to wait for the full 3 years. The Green Party is grateful to Dr Cullen and the Government for their commitment to cutting the review period in half and we will be watching developments over the next 18 months very closely.Because of the Government’s willingness to move on this issue we will be abstaining in our vote on this bill rather than voting against it as we would have done otherwise.NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): Although I welcome the gains that my colleague Sue Bradford has made in securing a review of the problem-gambling levy I have to express disappointment in another matter—specifically the commodity levies in relation to organic production.It seems to the Greens a basic issue of fairness that levies collected from a sector should be spent on activities that support that sector and that principle does not currently apply to organic producers. This issue was raised with me when I attended the inaugural conference of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand at Lincoln University a month or so ago. Organic producers are subject to commodity levies like other producers but although some of the activities funded by the levy money do have generic benefits across say the pipfruit industry the bulk of the benefit actually accrues only to conventional producers.The needs of organic producers are quite specific and are largely not addressed through conventional commodity levy spending. Research advice assistance marketing and support for organic producers and products are largely different from that needed by conventional producers. As I have said there are some benefits to organic farmers from conventional levy funding and I do not propose that the full proportion of a commodity levy paid by organic producers should go to the organic representative body. But it does seem fair and right that a proportion—perhaps 75 percent—of the money paid in by organic producers should go to organic representative bodies. So the Green Party is not voting for this bill because we could make no progress on that matter. We will however be abstaining in order to recognise other gains made by my colleague Sue Bradford and I intend to pursue further this matter of the commodity levy for organic producers.There are a couple of other matters worth relating in relation to that. First the organic sector’s advisory programme consists of $2.15 million over 3 years funded through the Government - Green Party co-operation agreement and includes specific support for applied research and extension-project work. This project support is managed through Organics Aotearoa New Zealand and in effect as a levy would be. The Greens acknowledge that support for organics but we also note that that funding is temporary and there are obvious questions about how to sustain it over the longer term. That is especially relevant as the organic sector becomes increasingly important in light of climate change—the carbon-sequestering properties of living soils are enhanced through organic production methods—and also because of challenges to conventionalfarming from imminent peak oil. RichardHeinberg spoke in the Beehive today about that very matter.Secondly the Ministry of Economic Development’s sector initiative fund which is $1.5 million over 3 years anticipates putting the sector in a position to consider and seek support for a levy referendum under the Commodity Levies Act or similar arrangements within the industry levy organisations at the conclusion of the contracts at the end of this financial year. Again although the Greens would welcome that we would be very unhappy to see such a levy put in place in addition to any current levies paid by organic producers. That would be unfair and the Green Party must insist that any commodity levy on organic producers must be in place of any levies they are currently required to pay rather than additional to them. There may be a need to recognise the benefits that organic farmers gain from conventional levy spending through some kind of split-funding arrangement—and we accept that—but simply to increase costs for organic farmers on top of what they already spend in terms of both levies and the additional costs they have to bear for organic certification and the like would be unacceptable and we could not support that.PITA PARAONE (NZ First):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I am participating in this debate. I can say on a personal note that I have landed the privilege or opportunity to make a contribution on behalf of my party because I am the duty member at this point of time. When I found that I was required to speak to this bill I tried to get some information. I rang one or two offices and in particular the office of the Minister of Fisheries but I have to say that I had some difficulty in getting some information out of that office as to what this bill was all about. I thought to myself well I am a member of this Parliament and a member of a party that has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government but I am having some difficulty in getting information. So I decided that it was only proper for New Zealand First to support this bill going to a select committee in order to give the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have their say on it.We have heard that this is merely technical legislation and a routine and annual bill. But on listening to the contributions that have been made by previous speakers I think this bill is more than just routine and annual given the importance of some of the legislation that it covers.I want to speak particularly in relation to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 which this bill covers. My interest of course is in regard to the increase in superannuation to 66 percent of the average wage. It should not come as any surprise to this House that New Zealand First was responsible for that increase. But what concerns me is the fact that the previous speaker made a comment—and I am not saying he is wrong—that a lot of legislation particularly new legislation that has come to this House has lacked proper financial analysis. He said that the benefits of legislation should be weighed up against the costs. When I heard that I asked myself how the costs are measured and how the benefits are measured. I know that the previous speaker was making reference to financial costs but I want to talk about social costs. I know that all the superannuitants of New Zealand irrespective of which party they might support would certainly want their increase to be measured in terms of not only financial costs but social costs. In respect of New Zealand First I can say that we will be interested to hear the debate in the select committee process on this particular issue.The other part of this bill that we are certainly interested in—and particularly me from a personal aspect—is the amendment to the Fisheries Act 1996. I was able to find out that it is regarded as a mere amendment in relation to the South Island’s West Coastpāua stock and involves a reduction in catch from the present 1 tonne to 100 kilograms.I take on board the concerns expressed in terms of consultation with those involved in the industry and I am making reference not just to the importance thatMaōri fisheries contribute to this particular industry but also to the wider public especially the recreational and ordinary fishers who avail themselves of the resource that Tangaroa is able to produce for them.I do not need to take too long because I have already indicated that New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation going to a select committee. We hope the people of New Zealand will take the opportunity to avail themselves of the benefits that the select committee process provides in terms of expressing any concerns they might have. In closing I reaffirm New Zealand First’s support for this bill to be referred to a select committee.CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to talk briefly on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). We have been assured that this is a relatively administrative and procedural bill but it touches on many many facets of our society. The Regulations Review Committee will no doubt make sure that there is nothing dodgy or untoward going on here and we have full confidence that that is the case. Ten Acts and a number of Orders in Council will be confirmed by this bill. They will be rolled over they will be confirmed or they will essentially not expire. We have heard from other speakers and they have touched on themes from peak oil—from the Greens—right up to pipfruit and grower levies and someMāori issues as well. As I said many of these issues cut across various facets of New Zealand society but coincidentally many of them also have a large bearing and impact upon my electorate Tukituki and of course the region of Hawke’s Bay the home of the mighty Magpies—one of New Zealand’s best rugby teams—who are currently fourth-equal in the Air New Zealand Cup.I will touch on three of the Acts and/or Orders in Council that the subordinate legislation deals with. Clause 8 of Part 2 deals with the Commodity Levies Act clause 9 deals with the Customs and Excise Act and clause 12 deals with the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—coming on the back of the previous speaker’s remarks.Clause 8 talks about the grower levies. I want to talk particularly about the pipfruit levy being from Hawke’s Bay. That is in and around the enabling legislation as a previous speaker talked about. Growers themselves actually vote for these levies and good on them. This provision enables that to continue. Pipfruit New Zealand is mostly about apples though pears are also in there. Those funds will be used to continue to build upon the momentum that was gathered from the Aussie apple access protests which myself and Chris Tremain were actively involved with in the last 2 years and it is fantastic to see action finally happening. The World Trade Organization action will be taken apparently—we do not yet know when—by the current Government. But I say all speed to them and I ask them to please just get on with the job.Also the pipfruit levy will be used to help restructure and put further capital intoPrevar. A lot of people do not know what that organisation is. It is the research and development side of Horticulture New Zealand. It is a commercial company but there is an interesting shareholding tension at the moment. I for one am very very concerned that the future viability of years and years of research and development inPrevar is under threat at the moment as is New Zealand’s ability to commercialise research there. A lot of work needs to be done.A previous speaker talked about the commodity levies and particularly about organics. I think the member was saying organics need different treatment. I am quite keen to speak to the member—I think it was Nandor Tanczos—who was talking about that earlier. I am not sure whether he realises it but one of the biggest andgruntiestapple growers and squash players and exporters in New Zealand is actually organic. This grower competes very very well and gets better returns than traditional growers do.I will touch on clause 12 which deals with superannuation which is what the previous speaker from New Zealand First Pita Paraone talked about. This is one of the clauses that touches on CPI. Of course we all know what CPI stands for—the consumer price index or inflation. The previous speaker talked about the increase to 66 percent of the average wage as the married superannuation. He is right and that is part of New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement. But actually that confidence and supply agreement expires at the end of this parliamentary term. That means as is currently planned that married superannuation will go from 66 to 65 percent on the expiry of this Parliament so there will be an interesting tension come election time because that confidence and supply agreement expires at that moment.To touch again on the superannuation issue I say that the rate is currently 66 percent of the average wage. I have said many times in this House that there is a lot of talk about the rate of superannuation—66 percent 67 percent 65 percent. That kind of misses the point because it is based upon the average wage. If we look at the average wage in New Zealand we need to acknowledge how absolutely pathetic it is in international terms. Our average wage is about one-third lower than Australia’s. That is an absolute disgrace and it is upon that absolutely uncompetitive average wage that the superannuation is based. So when people talk about being unable to live on superannuation and have it get them through the week well actually that is because the average wage it is based upon is so low.A final point I will touch on is the Customs and Excise Act—clause 9 of the bill. This allows and confirms the Order in Council that allows indexation of those levies—the excise duty. Philosophically I do not have a problem with indexation at all although it is interesting that the Government is happy to index this but not for example our tax thresholds. It will be interesting to know where the tax thresholds should be after 8 years of about 25 percent compound inflation under the current Labour Government.I will touch on what actually happens with that excise. First of all the consumer price index which the excise is based on is high now and is expected to be high well through the 3 percent band over the coming forecast term. This actually means that the cost to New Zealand consumers will go up but the way that the excise duty is implemented means that the smaller producer the producer of 40-odd acres of grapes—the small niche producer—will have to keep eating this margin the indexation of excise tax. Those producers will not be able to add that to their margin because there are price points in the wine market that the large producers are able to reach with their economies of scale—that is fine; there is an advantage for them. But when this thing turns down to 3.04c or something those producers actually have to keep eating that margin to maintain their ability to compete and sell wine. The House should note that the smaller winemakers in New Zealand are under a lot of pressure and this does not help. I am not arguing against indexation per se—I actually agree with it—but again inflation in New Zealand is so high that it has a higher compounding effect on winemakers and on growers than on other producers in New Zealand.National is supporting this first reading and the bill going to the Regulations Review Committee. Good on it. That committee will have an interesting job ahead of it. National will be supporting this view. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.DIANNE YATES (Labour): I rise to speak on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) and I note that it will be going to the Regulations Review Committee which deals with this type of legislation—and a verygood committee it is too. It is very well chaired I might say. I note that there are 16 orders that apply to movements and particularly to social security benefits and superannuation. In the dead of the afternoon the people who are most likely to be listening to the House at the moment are retired people. This bill is absolutely vital to those people who are over 65 and retired.I suspect I just heard a new piece of National Party policy come out of Mr Foss a minute ago. I thought he said that superannuitants were not getting enough money. He indicated that superannuation based on 66 percent of the average wage was something that National would be looking at. We should look very very closely at National Party policy on this because I remind the House that in the days of Mrs Shipley—and I note that some present parliamentarians on the other side of the Chamber are likely to follow her footsteps—it was actually reduced to 60 percent of the average wage. Everybody I think who is over 65 and who is listening today is saying “Oh no not again. We do not want to have our superannuation reduced to 60 percent of the average wage when it has now gone up to 66 percent.”So this subordinate legislation is vitally important to anyone who is over 65 and that is a very high proportion of our population. I refer to those people who lived and worked to make New Zealand what it is those people who have an entitlement to superannuation at age 65 and I think some of whom are a little bit afraid as well. We have heard some statements from Mr Key saying that he was keen to raise the retirement age and he thought he would do it gradually and gently over time. No reduction in superannuation no matter how gentle and how gradual is welcomed by those who are over 65. I think those people would be throwing up their hands if they could at those comments from Mr Key. We are looking forward to the implementation of this bill which will bed in the provision that New Zealand superannuation will continue at 66 percent of the average wage and for those who are over 65 years of age. So in that regard this legislation is very very important. I am sure that the Regulations Review Committee will not receive any submissions on that provision because I do not think anybody over 65 will want that percentage to go down and they will be very very happy that this regulation will be endorsed by the committee.There are a number of other pieces in the legislation that apply as we have said to food safety to biosecurity to the export of live animals to fruit to vegetables—a whole range of issues. The issue of gambling as has been mentioned by the Greens is one that needs continual and continuous attention by this House as we have evidence of how gambling legislation is implemented in the community and what is happening in terms of the effect of gambling on people in New Zealand.I commend this legislation to the House. I am sure that the Regulations Review Committee will look at all aspects of it in great detail. It is something that we can look at and think is dead boring and very routine but my goodness for anyone over 65 it is absolutely vital that he or she gets 66 percent of the average wage and that the age of eligibility stays at 65 years.Bill read a first time.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I moveThat the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be considered bythe Regulations Review Committee and that the bill be reported back to the House by 12 November.Motion agreed to.Trustee Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) on behalf of theAssociate Minister of Justice: I moveThat the Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Trustee Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. This bill amends the Trustee Act 1956 in light of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its report entitledSome Problems in the Law of Trusts. The bill implements five statutory amendments proposed by the Law Commission report. It also contains one change to the Administration Act 1969 and the Wills Act 1837 and one technical change to the District Courts Act 1947.Trusteeship has become an increasingly specialised task often requiring in-depth financial and administrative skills. The bill addresses this need by making important improvements in the administration of trusts while protecting beneficiaries’ legal entitlements. The bill promotes the effective discharge of the obligations of trusteeship. The current limits on the actions by agents or attorneys of fiduciary discretion are too restrictive. The bill expands trustees’ collective power to authorise their agents or attorneys to administer aspects of the trust including powers of investment and management. However certain key powers are reserved to the trustees and cannot be delegated such as the power to appoint trustees or to decide how the capital or income of a trust is to be distributed.A responsible trustee is the legal owner of the trust property and retains control over the trust’s management and administration. An advisory trustee assists or advises the responsible trustee. Currently responsible trustees can legally challenge a direction of the advisory trustee by applying to the High Court for directions if they believe that the advisory trustee’s advice is objectionable or wrong. However responsible trustees are not obliged to do so and are not liable if they choose to follow any objectionable advice or direction given by an advisory trustee. For example if an advisory trustee advises a responsible trustee to invest moneys in a manner that created a conflict of interest by favouring one beneficiary over another and the responsible trustee followed this advice knowing it to be wrong he or she would not be liable. This is wrong in principle. A responsible trustee should not be able to shrug off the fact that advice from an advisory trustee is wrong or objectionable. The bill obliges the responsible trustee to seek a direction from the High Court where the trustee considers that such advice or discretion conflicts with the trust any law or exposes the trustee to any liability. Failure to do so will make a responsible trustee liable for following objectionable advice given by the advisory trustee.In some trusts trustees are obliged to act on the directions of a protector of a trust. Trustees have no statutory provision to challenge a protector’s direction if it is fundamentally objectionable. This places responsible trustees in a precarious position. A responsible trustee should be able to challenge a problematic direction from a trust protector. This bill authorises a trustee to apply to the court for directions where a trustee knows or reasonably believes that the protector’s direction or refusal to consent to exercise of a power conflicts with a trust any law or both or exposes the responsible trustee to any liability.The bill also simplifies a trustee’s ability to obtain insurance cover for trust property. Under the current Act a trustee seeking to obtain insurance cover on a replacement basis for a trust property needs the consent of the life tenant who occupies the property. If consent is withheld it may result in a situation where a property is not adequately insured. This not only affects the life tenant of the trust property but it affects thebeneficiary who stands to inherit the property. The bill simplifies the ability to obtain insurance by removing the need for trustees to obtain the consent of the life tenant and insures that the property can be properly insured for the benefit of both the life tenant and the trust beneficiaries.Finally the bill will help ensure that beneficiaries of a trust are informed of their legal entitlements. At present the law is uncertain whether a trustee is obliged to notify beneficiaries of their right to transfer or terminate the trust once the beneficiaries become entitled to do so. Often trustees take the paternalistic view that beneficiaries need not be informed of their right to end the trust or call for its transfer. This bill creates an obligation on trustees to notify beneficiaries of their right to end the trust or to call for a transfer of trust property so that beneficiaries are informed of their legal entitlements. If trustees do not do so they will be liable for damages for either a breach of trust or a breach of fiduciary duty or both.This bill which has been developed on the basis of the Law Commission’s recommendations makes the law clearer in relation to trusts and trustees by amending a number of specific provisions in the Act that have caused difficulty. The bill will improve the administration of trust property by reducing administration costs to trustees while continuing to protect the interests of beneficiaries. I want to thank all members for their consideration of the bill prior to its introduction and for their expressions of support for it. I would also like to thank the Law Commission for its report and recommendations. I commend the bill to the House.SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Clayton Cosgrove in his usual delicate and gentle way approached me some months ago about the Trustee Amendment Bill and whether National would be prepared to support it. In this day and age it is becoming an increasing trend for the Government to ask the Opposition about its view on a bill prior to it coming to the House. I have noticed this interesting emergence over the last 1½ to 2 months in particular.In respect of this bill the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has done a good job of outlining the general policy statement and provisions. At first glance of course it is easy for those speaking to legislation such as this to use that commonly coined phrase that the bill is simply a technical one of a mechanical nature and accordingly should pass through the House. Indeed as the Minister said the bill is based on proposals in a 2002 Law Commission report—one of the reports that with recent changes to the commission’s role have taken on a more significant meaning for this House and create an interesting relationship with the Ministry of Justice which used to do this sort of work. I think too it is worth just saying that the purpose of the bill is to make the law clearer in relation to trusts and trustees by amending a number of specific provisions in the Act that have caused difficulty.Essentially the legislation makes four key changes. The first of those is to expand the trustees’ collective power to delegate decision-making powers. Of course it does not permit delegation of certain fundamental powers such as the power to appoint trustees or to decide how capital or income of a trust is to be distributed. Secondly it requires trustees to apply to the court for directions where advice is received from an advisory trustee and that advice conflicts with the terms of the trust which actually makes sense. Thirdly it widens the insurance powers of trustees which also makes sense although it is limited to the trust property. Fourthly it requires trustees to notify any beneficiary of any entitlement. As the Minister said in her opening remarks that is probably a useful change.I was concerned about one matter prior to National agreeing to support this bill at its first reading and that was whether the bill had any consequences or implications for corporate trustees. I phoned Sir Geoffrey Palmer to ask him for some advice on thismatter and he was good enough to provide me with a written opinion. In that opinion he said that the matters dealt with in the bill are not likely to arise in relation to trustee companies in the context of the Securities Act. Trust deeds in this context are contracts between the trustee company and the issuer of debt securities and in this case the trustee company does not usually hold property on trust except in a liquidation situation. In this context the trustee acts as an agent of the security holders to monitor compliance by the issuer with the terms of the trust deed. He concluded by saying that he therefore would not expect the Trustee Amendment Bill to be relevant to trustee companies in their role as monitors of the performance of issuers of securities under the Securities Act. That tidied away the one concern that National had about the bill at the first reading stage.We look forward to hearing submissions on the bill and we will listen to those submissions carefully before forming our final view on it. At this stage National is happy to support the bill going to the select committee after its first reading.CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I rise briefly to speak further to the informative speeches of the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson. The Trustee Amendment Bill is based as we have heard on a Law Commission report that dates back to 2002 as I recall entitledSome Problems in the Law of Trusts. The Law Commission’s report is well worth reading. It is a short report and if members who are not familiar with the work of the commission want to start with a paper that is easily digestible well explained in layperson’s terms and about an area of the law that is not a simple or everyday one they could do well to look at this Law Commission report. “There is much to be said” states the report “for the view that the Trustee Act 1956 is in important respects confused and confusing”. The Government agrees with that statement and it has taken on board the opinions of the commission hence this legislation.The bill is omnibus in its nature; it amends as we have heard the Trustee Act 1956 the Administration Act 1969 the District Courts Act 1947 and the wills legislation. Clearly these amendments will have to be divided into three separate but related bills at the Committee stage.There are four key features of the bill that I think are worth mentioning. As a result of the Law Commission’s report there are changes to what trustees can lawfully do including a provision allowing them to insure against loss or damage due to any event. As we have heard from the Minister there is a provision permitting advisory trustees to work alongside ordinary trustees in the administration of a trust property. That provision will be of enormous use to ordinary trustees. The legislation will allow trustees to employ an agent or attorney and in doing so be exempt in certain circumstances for liability for acts or defaults of that agent or attorney. That is a departure obviously from the current state of the law. Finally the bill will move proceedings taken against a trustee from the District Court to the High Court which is probably consistent with the sorts of matters that are dealt with by trusts these days and the quantum of disputes that arise.Mr Deputy Speaker you kindly allowed me in my third reading speech on the Willis Bill earlier this week to speak of the Government’s record in enacting Law Commission legislation and I am grateful for that opportunity to do so. I wonder whether I might just take a minute or two to finish the observations that I began on that occasion because this is one of the last bills that will come before the House in a non-systematic way from Law Commission proposals. From now on projects for the Law Commission will be able to be proposed by any Minister. Each year the Minister responsible for the Law Commission will present a Cabinet paper putting forward those projects—supported by portfolio Ministers—including their resource implications. IfCabinet approves a project departmental resources will be made available for close collaboration during the life of the project so that officials can be kept in touch with developments and provide advice. Where consensus cannot be reached and differences of opinion remain these will be identified and discussed.The Law Commission will then complete its recommendations give a report to the relevant Ministers and seek their views. A draft Cabinet paper will be prepared and unless the Minister otherwise directs the Law Commission will do that on the portfolio Minister’s behalf. Once the Minister is satisfied with the draft paper he or she will present it to Cabinet and seek approval for the recommendations. If Cabinet accepts those recommendations it will invite either the Minister or the Law Commission to issue drafting instructions and there will be no further need for a Government response. The bill that ensues will be introduced in the normal way in the name of a portfolio Minister. If Cabinet rejects the recommendations the Government will continue to be required to respond formally as at present by way of a paper presented to the House.In conclusion I just note that this is the procedure that will be adopted from now on in respect of the Law Commission. It is an excellent and systematic way to deal with law reform matters. Obviously this procedure ought to be commended to the House along with this bill.Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): We are debating important legislation in the Trustee Amendment Bill but I would not be as quick as the previous speaker Charles Chauvel to give unstinting praise for the Government’s speed in implementing Law Commission reports—for as we have heard this is not one of those instances. It was in April 2002 that the Law Commission reported onSome Problems in the Law of Trusts and now 5½ years later we see this bill introduced into Parliament. If these were as the previous speaker has said important changes then clearly they were deserving of some greater expedition than that. But that said the legislation comes to the House tonight and a number—in fact most—of the Law Commission’s recommendations are picked up in it.I see that time rapidly advances and it may be that at a later opportunity I will be able to talk in detail about some of the changes that are made. Just in the order they appear in the bill the first issue that arises in a substantive way relates to the power to insure so perhaps I will take up that issue first. It is of course an important issue. As Georgina te Heuheu said the Trustee Act 1956—Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.