Volume 617 Week 57 - Wednesday 19 May 2004 
Volume 617 Week 57 - Wednesday 19 May 2004 
[Volume:617;Page:13051] 
Wednesday 19 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Privilege 
Justice and Electoral Committee—Application for Orders and Declaration 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received notice of an application for orders and declaration sought by Mr Darryl Bruce Queen in the High Court Christchurch. The application amongst other things seeks orders against the Justice and Electoral Committee in its consideration of the Care of Children Bill. The application involves a question of privilege in that it asks a court to direct a select committee with regard to its consideration of business. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee. In the meantime I will be applying to the court to have those parts of the application struck out. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2004—Future Directions Package 
1. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it correct that the “Future Directions package” in the May 27 Budget is expected to be worth about $2.5 billion and around 300000 households will benefit as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
; if not what are the facts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As I have stated already around 300000 households with dependent children will benefit. The House will be informed of all the other details next Thursday afternoon. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister confirm that there are 540000 families with dependent children and 150000 beneficiary families so how can he say that a majority of working families will benefit when simple maths show that the majority of working families will get nothing from the Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait until next Thursday afternoon. He will be surprised at how many families get and how much they get. 
Hon David Carter 
: What proportion of the Future Directions package will be directed to beneficiaries and what proportion will be directed to lower-income working New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The package will be directed to something like 60 percent of all families with dependent children. Those who are not on benefits will gain substantially more than those who are. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can he deny that of the $2.5 billion for the Future Directions package more than half of those multimillions will go to welfare families not working families; yes or no? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My colleague is incorrect. The answer is yes I can deny it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister also deny or confirm that there are in fact 1.5 million households in New Zealand so if he is intending to assist 300000 households of which half will be beneficiary families then it follows that the only role for the other 1.2 million households will be to pay the taxes that he is so liberally spreading out to welfare families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Of those other households the member mentioned 300000 are superannuitant families who have gained substantially from this Government in terms of the restoration of the superannuation floor that that member’s party and the National Party voted to reduce. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister comment on the propriety of making all sorts of budgetary comments before the Budget is leaked and if he has no problem with that and he wants to be engaged in a series of mini-leaks could he tell us whether he will do anything about the Labour Party commitment in respect of income and asset testing for the elderly? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Legislation has been introduced that deals with that issue in terms of the phasing out of asset testing. The Labour Party never promised to remove income testing on long-stay care. 
Cannabis—Legal Status 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the current legal status of cannabis; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government has no plans to change the current legal status of cannabis. That of course is part of an electoral agreement entered into by the Government and United Future. The Government also has concerns that the legalisation of cannabis would risk negative social consequences in a number of areas. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister convinced that the current legal status of cannabis should be retained in light of the sudden influx of patients to Hawke’s Bay Regional Hospital’s psychiatric unit which staff attribute almost entirely to a particularly strong brew of cannabis use since it brings out psychotic and paranoiac tendencies in young people? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is well established in medical research and certainly by the Health Committee which looked at this issue that the use of cannabis has very negative effects on those who have pre-existing mental health disorders. That is one of the key reasons why I think no party in this House should advocate greater use of cannabis. 
Tim Barnett 
: What problems does the Minister see resulting from the legalisation of cannabis? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the effect of the legalisation of cannabis would be to make it easier to get and to drop its price and that in turn would have an impact in terms of increasing the consumption of cannabis. As I said in my previous answer an increased consumption of cannabis would have a dramatically negative effect on those people who have mental health disorders. I think it would also have bad effects on younger people who are big consumers of cannabis and bad effects on those who are currently heavy users of the drug. That is also shown to have negative effects on how a person functions. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister have any evidence at all that the cannabis prohibition is effective in reducing the use or abuse of cannabis; if so could he please tell the House what it is because prohibition does not seem to be working anywhere in the world? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Certainly the prohibition of cannabis in itself will not solve the problem. The sanctions that are available are a deterrent to using cannabis. I believe they also mean that the drug is harder to get and more expensive—although obviously it is not impossible to get. Young people in particular are very price sensitive with regard to either alcohol or cannabis—the cheaper the price the more they consume. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that the current legal status of cannabis should be retained in light of the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board annual report that notes the increasing abuse of cannabis in New Zealand by those aged 15 to 17 and does he agree that even if cannabis use was decriminalised for those over 18 those younger users would perpetuate the current black market and profiteering by gangs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think I have already indicated in previous answers that one of the areas that I am most worried about is younger people and the effect that the chemicals in cannabis have on their mental development and their attitudes. That is one of the reasons why I personally believe we should be extraordinarily cautious before making any change in the status of this drug. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister be specific; is he saying that as a result of younger people smoking cannabis for a prolonged period of time they can develop schizophrenia and is he aware that that illness can sometimes lead to youth suicide? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not sure I am qualified to give a medical analysis of whether the use of the drug contributes to schizophrenia. What I do know from the reports I have read is that where a person has a pre-existing condition that will certainly dramatically worsen it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the legal status of cannabis been consulted over the draft drug education booklet prepared by the Ministry of Youth Development for use in our schools since the booklet takes a “harm minimisation” approach which means that nowhere does it state that taking drugs may be a bad idea not least for the reason that it is currently against the law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I understand it the booklet is being put together by the Ministry of Youth Development. I have not personally looked at it. However it is designed to promote best practice in terms of discouraging the use of or minimising the harm caused by marijuana. Obviously people are not going to put their heads in the sand and pretend that the use of marijuana is not happening now. The best solution is to stop using it. The second-best solution I guess is education: to warn people about the abuse of marijuana—that is the constant regular or heavy use of it—and to discourage that as well. But certainly there is nothing in the book as I understand it—and I am not sure whether it has been published yet—that in any way promotes the use of marijuana or states that its use is OK. 
Judy Turner 
: What is the Minister’s response to recent media reports regarding the legal status of cannabis such as the call for decriminalisation by the leader of the new Maori party when the cannabis-related hospitalisation rate for Maori is three times the rate for non-Maori and to this morning’s ironic statement regarding the drinking age by Nandor Tanczos who said: “Yet again we see young people being blamed for emulating the behaviour of adults.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are two separate questions there. I will take the last one first. I tend to agree with what Nandor Tanczos says in that while it is easy for older people to say that alcohol is a problem for young people the young people get their role models from older people. If any members in the House believe that simply changing the law on alcohol will stop the underage abuse of it then they are wrong. 
With regard to the stand taken by the party led by Tariana Turia whatever it is called I would have thought—and I know that my colleague Dover Samuels feels very strongly about this—that one of the areas of the population that is most harmed by the abuse of marijuana is the Maori community. In that light I am a little surprised that the leader of the National Party Don Brash said that he is agnostic about marijuana reform—“The National Party is unresolved.” “We haven’t yet got to the point of forming a view.” “I’m quite torn on it.” I feel uncomfortable.” etc. 
I seek leave to table the document I was referring to with regard to Dr Brash. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Community Education 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Is Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology’s use of $15 million of community education funding a good use of tertiary education funding; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 The Tertiary Education Commission advises that the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology’s community education course has met current funding requirements. The question of whether particular programmes are a good use of funding will be assessed for the first time ever in New Zealand through the new Tertiary Education Commission profile negotiations with each individual institute which will be used for the first time next year. In the short term funding for community education in classification 5.1 has effectively been capped and the rules are being rewritten. All of this is a result of this Government’s tertiary education reforms in its Tertiary Education Reform Bill which the National Party voted against. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that this $15.3 million of funding which was meant for education purposes was used to do nothing more than distribute a Cool IT CD-ROM; that because of loopholes in the funding guide students had no contact with tutors whatsoever and that the millions of dollars were instead spent on paying schools and libraries to enrol students and bribe them with petrol vouchers movie vouchers book vouchers and phone cards to get them to sign up? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware that Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology has a Cool IT course for computer training that covers four levels. Students can enrol in any one or all of those levels. For that they get a self-placed learning programme on a CD which takes about 8 weeks to complete. I am aware of all of that but I repeat to the member that he should be very grateful that the Labour Government is here because unlike his party when it was in Government we can do something about it. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the approach of deciding whether particular courses are a good use of tertiary education funding widely supported? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the whole I think it is. People do want a more strategic approach to the investment of tertiary education funding. However I have noticed there are at least two other opinions. I notice that Nick Smith as a former Minister of Education has said that institutions should be trusted to run themselves and not be interfered with whereas Bill English says they should be controlled. These contradictory opinions are typical. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those comments were unnecessary to the answer. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Why is the Government so opposed to private education providers making a profit yet it permits the abuse and profiteering by State-owned education providers such as the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology all because equivalent full-time student funding does not take into account the actual cost of running the course? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is against anybody making a profit out of taxpayer-funded education. Of course we want people to be able to run their institution in a way that produces a surplus they can reinvest in their institution but we are opposed to anybody making a profit out of the taxpayers’ education dollar. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If there are no courses no follow-up and no assessments then what sort of “Ned Kelly education system” is he running? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Thank you for the honour! Adult and community education has been part of the education system since it began. Those courses are always very short and they have never under any Government had an assessment attached to them. I want to tell the member though that that now changes because we have a more strategic approach to investment; we want to make sure we get value for our dollar. Under this Government after a century or so of that tradition it is finally going to change. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is it a good use of tertiary education funding for Te Wananga o Aotearoa to spend $2 million on a state-of-the-art waka which is 24 metres long with an 8-metre beam has two huge caterpillar diesel motors built to survey and is sitting at Auckland’s Maritime Museum waiting to take students on a spiritual journey to Rarotonga; and when will he answer my letter written 2 months ago asking him to deny that taxpayers’ money was used to build this commercial vehicle? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will of course reply to the honourable member as soon as I possibly can. But I will say in relation to the wananga that members need to remember that the wananga has a large amount of money that does not come from the taxpayer. In terms of its funding base it had its own money prior to ever becoming a wananga. Of course it does things that need to be sorted out in terms of where that money comes from so in this particular case we may have to find out whether the money came from its own resources or from education sources. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister concerned that some of the directors and shareholders of the company that came up with and profited from the Cool IT rort which saw the Tertiary Education Commission pay $795 for each CD-ROM distributed were senior staff members at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and does he think it appropriate for these people to exploit loopholes in Government funding schemes in order to line their own pockets and will he allow them to remain in employment in this State institution? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may answer two of them. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The essential question is really about the two staff at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology. I have been assured by the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit which monitors ownership processes in organisations like this that the two staff members had a conflict of interest that was known about. They had nothing to do with the contracting process. That was handled in an appropriate fashion. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he have any concerns about the business relationships between the development officer at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology the chief executive officer at the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology and the directors of Brylton Software? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Like all members of this House I would be concerned when hearing the details as they were first revealed to us. That is why we have asked whether there is a conflict of interest that has been handled properly. As I said to the member I have been assured that it was handled in an appropriate and proper fashion. 
Jury System—Review 
4.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes will he be making to strengthen the jury system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 To encourage and allow greater participation in the jury system next week’s Budget will make provision for $9 million to allow for the increase in juror fees and also to provide assistance to meet the costs of childcare and parking for jurors. That is designed to help offset the financial costs of doing one’s civic duty and serving on a jury. I think it is really important we give that greater financial help to ensure that a whole cross section of people can serve on juries and that people are both able and willing to do so. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will any other changes be made to improve participation in the jury system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The increase in juror fees is just one of a number of changes that will be made to improve participation in the jury system. Under legislation to be introduced probably next month a number of other changes will be forthcoming. One of the important changes will be to allow people to defer jury service if they have good reasons—for example because the jury coincides with some personal or employment obligation. This will allow more people to serve without having to seek exemption. There will also be protection against employees suffering disadvantage from employers because of the requirement on them to serve on a jury. Of course the penalty for evading jury service will also go up from $300 to $1000. All those things taken together will see much better participation on juries by a wider cross section of New Zealanders. 
Richard Worth 
: Instead of focusing on increased juror participation why does the Minister not tackle current imperfections in the jury system and adopt a raft of strategies such as increasing the threshold for an accused’s right to elect a jury trial and permitting applications for judge-alone trials for extended cases; this juror participation plan is just playing at the edge of the issue is it not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am glad the member raised those examples because he seems to have entirely overlooked that I made a statement saying that for long cases—for example ones that last more than 4 weeks; complex fraud issues—a jury trial can be replaced by a judge-alone trial. I seem to recall that when I made that announcement Mr Worth’s colleagues—maybe Dr Mapp—were totally against doing that. 
Question No. 5 to Minister  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was directed of course to the Minister of Customs. Had I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade I would undoubtedly have asked a somewhat different question. We never get consulted on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must know the Standing Orders. The Government can decide who gets the question. 
Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum—Common Border 
5.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What discussions does he intend to have with the Australian Minister for Justice and Customs regarding the recommendation by the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum that the scope for a common border for Australia and New Zealand should be explored? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Last weekend’s leadership dialogue between Australia and New Zealand canvassed a number of areas relating to harmonisation and integration of our two countries’ policies. One of the areas that participants agreed should be explored was the scope for a common border. A report to both Governments by officials on the issues that that would raise will precede any bilateral ministerial discussions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s reported statements wherein she said: “I wouldn’t support a common border because Australia has one of the most restrictive regimes in the world.” if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister and indeed if I recall rightly the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer have both pointed to particular difficulties that would have to be overcome before a common border could be put into place. One of those difficulties is that New Zealand has a visa-waiver system with approximately 48 countries that enables people to come to New Zealand without visas. If a common border were to mean adopting the Australian policy under which everyone outside New Zealand requires a visa to get into Australia that would have a considerable downside for New Zealand’s tourism industry. Those sorts of problems need to be resolved if a common border is to be established. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Were a common border and a common currency key issues under discussion at that leadership dialogue meeting? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Both those issues were discussed but the key focus of the meeting was on the immediate steps that might be taken to progress towards a single economic market with the emphasis I think by all speakers on where policies could be aligned relatively easily rather than on more radical changes that require more work and more thought. More work and more thought will obviously be put into those areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth would Australia enter any arrangement with New Zealand given the looseness and total lack of integrity of our immigration and passport systems in this country and having regard to the experience of our having already lost our special Anzac social welfare relationship with Australia due to the looseness of our immigration and passport systems? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I absolutely disagree with both the premises on which that question was asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him whether he disagrees with the question. I asked him to answer the question which was why on earth Australia would enter into a common passport arrangement with us given the appalling figures we have in this country in respect of overstayers and given our loose passport arrangements—a matter that has already affected us with the loss of our social welfare arrangement with Australia. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that if the premises are wrong there is no question to answer in that regard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely what I was just about to rule on. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why did the Minister apparently fail to brief the Prime Minister properly so that she could have avoided her gaffe on the morning radio programme where she effectively overruled his own policies? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The premise of that statement is that the article by Fran O’Sullivan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was correct. It was not. It was in fact absolutely incorrect. If the member wants to know the answer I can tell him that the Prime Minister was asked early on Monday morning about common borders. She raised the problem that I referred to before which is a very real problem—that if we were to adopt Australia’s border policies with regard to visas that would do dramatic harm to our tourism industry. Neither she nor I would want to do that. That problem would need to be overcome before we could advance the case for a common border. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Has the question of a common border been discussed before between the two countries; if so with what results? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. It is interesting that back in 1991 the Ministry of Transport in New Zealand led talks with Australia on a common border which culminated in an agreement that it was feasible. Indeed there was Cabinet agreement in principle at that time to proceed further to see how the problems that would arise from a common border could be resolved. Unfortunately there was no response from the Australian side and that meant that by 1994 work on this area had been stopped. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: At what time on Monday did he brief the Prime Minister causing a flip-flop from her statement on Monday morning on radio to her change of heart later in the day? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister rises very early on a Monday morning. She has probably done half a dozen radio interviews before the member is even out of his pyjamas. I had the chance to talk to the Prime Minister later in the morning. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Constantly this question time—and indeed it has been a common theme for some time—we have inferences and other statements made that are outside the Standing Orders. The Minister had no reason to make that comment about a member on this side and there have been previous occasions when that has happened. I ask you to draw to the attention of the Ministers—all of them collectively—the Standing Orders and the protocols around them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a longstanding tradition in this House that when one side goes slightly beyond the rules in terms of its language the other side can respond. I could equally raise a point of order about terminology like “flip-flop” being included in the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I have said if I were to rule out every phrase every time I would be constantly on my feet—and some people say I interrupt too much now. I prefer to let question time flow and I think most members agree with me. 
Immigrants—Overstayers 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Exactly how did he or his officials come up with the estimated 20000 overstayer figure yesterday and what is the margin of error for this estimate? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The New Zealand Immigration Service determines how many people there are on its computer system with expired permits who are recorded as still in New Zealand. From this data the New Zealand Immigration Service samples 100 records from each of at least 12 specified countries those with either high numbers or high ratios of overstaying. It also does a random sample of 400 records from all of the other countries combined. The margin of error for the overstayer estimate is plus or minus 3.5 percent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he will be apologising for misleading the House and for giving a seriously flawed overstayer figure of 20000 when he finally admitted to the House yesterday that the process for identifying overstayers is unsatisfactory and why have members in this Parliament had to listen to a litany of departmental lies from his officials as to the true figure over the last 5 years and when will he give members an accurate figure? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I certainly will not be apologising. I said it was an estimate. It was an approximation of 20000 plus or minus 3.5 percent. I could have given the member a whole seminar in maths and statistics. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You’ve got no idea. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have. It is around 20000. It was around 20000 when that member was the Treasurer and he did absolutely nothing about it. What we have done is put more money into border control and we are trying to do something about information sharing in a Corrections Bill that that member’s party is voting against. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the Government doing to improve the quality of work being done on estimating the number of overstayers? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The problem with establishing the exact number of overstayers has been around longer than this Government and was around when the leader of New Zealand First was the Treasurer. My predecessor Lianne Dalziel initiated a systematic analysis of overstayers data in 2000. As a result of that initiative the New Zealand Immigration Service has dedicated resources to work on this and there has been a 50 percent increase in border control and management since 1999-2000. The New Zealand Immigration Service is constantly working to improve the integrity of data both in-house and with other agencies. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In light of the Minister’s answer just given—that all the information is on computers—why can he not give members a dead-accurate figure by simply comparing departure cards arrival cards and visa information? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: This has been a problem since Governments have let people into the country. The fact is that some people for example arrive on flight crews and then go some people die and some people end up not being overstayers because of the fact they have come in with parents. We do what we can. It is a difficult issue. We are going to get on top of it but it does require a determined effort and support from other parties that consider it an important issue as well. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that the recurring answer I have been given—that current overstayer figures show a significant improvement on the 1997-98 figures—is a complete nonsense given that computerised recording ceased in 1997 because back then when I was in Government it was determined that the system was not accurate enough; and what has he done since then? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well quite a lot actually. The computer system was introduced in 1996-97 and during that time whilst it was settling in the information available was not particularly accurate. The information is now getting better. In fact the information we have on overstayers now is better than it was when that member was the Treasurer. 
Health Services—Finance Minister 
7.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has she received any correspondence from the Minister of Finance regarding concerns over the decline in productivity in the health sector; if so what are those concerns? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes the Minister has received a letter from the Minister of Finance noting that district health board output data as at October 2003 suggested such a conclusion. This reinforces concerns the Minister has about the measurement of productivity in the sector because that data refers to inpatient activity only. This is only about half of district health board activity; it does not reflect what we expect the true picture to be. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Minister believe that the decrease in the number of patients receiving cataract and joint replacement operations revealed last December and today’s revelations that hospitals are doing fewer operations overall are indicative of a health system that is failing the nation’s people; if not what possible other answer can the New Zealand public take in light of the facts placed before them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What they can probably take is that less surgery is being done for people as inpatients— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Less surgery. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No more surgery is being done as part of outpatient provision. What is not clear is what those totals are and work is proceeding on that. I note of course the member is once again promising to spend vastly increased money on her colleague’s promised tax cuts. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What work is being done to improve the information available on actual hospital outputs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Officials are working with district health boards to improve the availability of information on the fuller picture of activities including procedures previously undertaken in inpatient settings but now undertaken in outpatient settings proceedings undertaken in emergency departments oncology radiology and laboratories that were not previously reported and where significant growth has occurred and procedures previously undertaken in secondary-care settings that are now undertaken in primary-care settings. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member interjected the whole time during the question and now wants to ask a question. I do not want too much interjection. The odd comment is allowed—but the odd comment not a frequent flow. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What registration costs will be picked up by district health boards as a result of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and what impact will payment of those fees have on district health boards’ already burgeoning bureaucracy costs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a long way from the original question. Unfortunately I do not have the information in front of me to be able to answer. I suggest the member puts down a separate question to the Minister of Health. 
Heather Roy 
: What evidence is there to show that a letter from the Minister of Finance has any effect when he wrote to the Minister of Health in January 2003—I have the letter here—raising the question of declining productivity and stating that he looked forward to hearing from her; and are the Minister of Finance and the country not still waiting to hear what she intends to do about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can promise the member that the Minister of Health speaks frequently to the Minister of Finance and vice versa. The Minister of Finance is particularly pleased to learn that so I understand the officials are working with district health boards to provide better information. The member may well find that at the end of day there are increased numbers of procedures being carried out but more are being carried out outside of inpatient services. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the Minister of Finance’s concerns about the embarrassing decline in productivity in elective services despite a 6 percent increase in funding over the last year would be addressed by a review of how the relationship between public and private hospitals could be better strengthened to ensure that private hospital capacity is being utilised as effectively as possible; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not. I think the much more fruitful opportunity is to do what is being done already—that is to concentrate on primary health-care services and also to concentrate on expanding the usage of outpatient services. There is not always a need for inpatient services to be provided unless one has a vested interest for some reason in the most expensive form of medical care. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Minister agree with Pat Tuohy who believes that the drop in the number of operations is because “hospitals are not counting all the operations performed”; if so is she worried that hospitals are not counting other figures such as patients dying while on waiting lists patients on waiting lists patients waiting longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment medical errors and hospital deficits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will take just the last point: in fact the hospital system is ahead of budget in terms of the deficit for the current year contrary to all the predictions made by that member after last year’s Budget. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What plans does the Minister have to halt the decline in productivity by district health boards caused in part by initially non-urgent operations becoming more complex because of time spent on waiting lists? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The average time spent on waiting lists has dropped over the last 2 or 3 years. The member continues to make the incorrect assertion that there has been a reduction in the number of procedures carried out. No people in their right mind running a health system would prefer to carry out more procedures in the most expensive part of the system as opposed to more efficient procedures carried out in outpatients or in the primary health-care system. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Can the Minister give the public of New Zealand many of whom are now in agony waiting for surgery some explanation as to why less cataract and major joint replacement surgery was performed in 2002-03 than in 1999 when National left office; and does the Treasury report not just confirm that this Government has made good its election pledge to reduce waiting lists by simply culling patients not curing them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all. As the member is no doubt aware there will be significant announcements around the time of the Budget in terms of increased operations in some of the areas that she mentioned. The fact remains that the member is referring to about half of the total provision of services and it is a declining proportion of the total. An outbreak of logorrhoea on her part will not help matters at all. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: If the Minister is receiving worried correspondence about the state of the health sector from one of her fellow Ministers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Dr Scott. Somebody will very nearly be leaving the Chamber. That is the only warning. Please start the question again. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: If the Minister is receiving worried correspondence about the state of the health sector from one of her fellow Ministers does she not think it is a measure of how deep a problem health is; and in light of Annette King’s statement: “The buck stops with me.” should New Zealanders not expect the Minister to stand by her remarks and finally resign? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Minister draws is the conclusion that this Minister of Finance is a sharing and caring Minister who shows a concern for health services unmatched by any previous Minister of Finance in New Zealand’s history. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Health stating that despite significant revenue increase volumes in this sector are static if not declining. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table the  
Health and Independence Report 2003 
 which shows clearly that major joint replacements and cataracts are at lower levels than under the National-led Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table another letter from the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Health outlining his concerns about declining productivity written in January 2003. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table a statement from the Minister of Health’s acting Deputy Director-General Clinical Services explaining the false nature of the statistics. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kyoto Protocol—Implementation 
8.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received on progress on implementing the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I am advised that 122 countries have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia confirms its stated intention to ratify the protocol it will come into force. However I have also seen a report of Nick Smith’s announcements that a National Government would renege on New Zealand’s commitment leaving it up to Canberra and Washington to decide what New Zealand should do about climate change. Rather than being “clean green and 100 percent pure” National seems to believe that New Zealand should be unclean ungreen and 100 percent pure poodle. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A part of that answer was a matter of ministerial responsibility but the other part was not. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain why New Zealand stands by its ratification of the protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As a newspaper column so eloquently put it “the problem of climate change is enormous. New Zealand can’t ignore the problem. New Zealanders must do their bit.” The writer of that column was Nick Smith. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Minister aware of the infrastructure stocktake released today by the Hon Jim Anderton which found “incentives to invest in generation are affected by uncertainty about the carbon tax and whether the Kyoto Protocol will come into force” and is the Minister concerned about the mixed messages coming from the Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the report; I had a hand in its writing. It seems to me that the member should quote all parts of the report. He may for example like to reflect on the project mechanism by which we use carbon credits that are a direct product of Kyoto to get generation under way such as the 40 megawatts of wind power that I opened in Tararua yesterday. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is this minority Labour Government continuing to spend taxpayers’ money to support the Kyoto Protocol when the refusal of the Russian Federation and the United States of America to ratify it prevents it from attaining any international recognition and also prevents any exchange of carbon credits? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Russia does not refuse to ratify it; it is yet to get around to ratifying it. In respect of the trade in carbon credits the member may be interested to learn that carbon credits are being traded out of New Zealand even now. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In light of the widespread agreement that climate change is serious and that New Zealand needs to play its part why are decisions about a carbon charge with associated income tax reductions to encourage sustainable energy dependent on decisions by the Kremlin about ratifying Kyoto? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It seems to me that the member’s question seeks further progress still on climate change issues and so do we. That is why for example yesterday I announced that we will repeat and enlarge the highly successful project mechanism that has so far seen plans for nearly 400 megawatts of new electricity at no cost to the Government. None of that could have happened if we were not a ratifying party. I think Nick Smith should reflect on that. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Minister’s view of the statement by the internationally renowned scientist and director of the Russian Academy of Sciences KirilKondratyev who said the only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people making a living from attending conferences on global warming and how many trips has the Minister attended internationally? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member is expressing his proclivities by quoting a Russian scientist then I invite him to look at the National Academy of Sciences—that is to say the American scientists—which thinks that the international panel on climate change has the issue about right. 
Drinking—Legal Age 
9.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What evidence does he have that raising the drinking age is an effective means of reducing binge drinking by teenagers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The New Zealand Drug Foundation the Ministry of Health the Alcohol Advisory Council and other public health organisations were opposed to lowering New Zealand’s drinking age based on researched evidence of increases in alcohol-related harm when the drinking age was lowered in Australia Canada and the United States of America. When Canada and the United States again raised their drinking age alcohol-related harm decreased. There was a decrease in the use of alcohol among teenagers in the United States that persisted into their early twenties. A comprehensive analysis carried out in the year 2000 of published United States research found that raising the drinking age appeared to be more effective than a wide range of other strategies aimed at reducing youth drinking. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that the current age limit is not being enforced adequately and what is the Government doing to ensure a crackdown on outlets that sell alcohol to underage people given that it seems sensible to enforce the present age limit before seeking to amend the legislation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think that many members in the House today who were here when the drinking age was lowered will remember the commitments made about enforcing the lower age. The truth is that offences committed by an even younger age group than 18 are increasing and the police have reported that with serious concerns. Therefore one has to say that whether enforcement has been carried out or not and it looks as though it has been much more difficult than the police indicated to the select committee the whole procedure has been a dismal failure and we need to readdress it. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does the Minister have any evidence that lowering the drinking age has increased abuse? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Ministry of Justice report into the consequences of lowering the drinking age showed that of those in the 14-to-17 age category especially who did drink significant numbers were drinking more and more often. Police evidence cited in the report showed that frontline police have had to deal with rising numbers of drunk and disorderly teenagers since the drinking age was lowered in 1999 with the number of minors dealt with by police on alcohol-related matters increasing from 834 incidents in 1994 to 2597 in 2002. My instinct is that if we had the latest figures they would be even worse than that. 
Dail Jones 
: In view of the Minister’s admission today what support will he now give to the repeal of the port and sherry tax which was introduced to reduce binge drinking by teenagers but has only reduced the enjoyment of life by older New Zealanders and put some winemakers into financial difficulty? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The increase in excise duty on the content of alcohol in liquor sold has been extraordinarily successful. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not want to get the facts in the way of anyone’s prejudice but the consumption of light spirits at which the duty was targeted has been reduced by 83 percent. I would have thought that that was a victory in anyone’s language. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister agree that a common-sense solution to combat youth binge-drinking would be to raise the age at which young people can purchase alcohol from bottle stores supermarkets dairies etc. to 20 years but retain the current provisions allowing 18-year-olds to drink at bars and restaurants as these are controlled venues; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Campaigns have been carried out at a local level to reduce the purchase of liquor at bottle stores and liquor outlets and to some extent these have shown some success. However the truth is that the advice of the Ministry of Health to me is that evidence from everywhere around the world shows that raising the drinking age is the single most effective way of reducing teenage drinking and I recommend that to the House. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Justice report  
Young People and Alcohol: Some Statistics to 2002 on Possible Effects of Lowering the Drinking Age 
 which was released recently shows that in New Zealand the numbers of young people drinking has not significantly increased as a result of lowering the age limit and that this evidence suggests a need for us to address the culture of binge drinking through a number of mechanisms—for example looking at price incentives promoting messages of moderation promoting alternatives to alcohol and tackling ready-to-drink drinks? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I accept that New Zealand has a culture of heavy drinking and I regret that. The truth is that a lot of young people do not invent it for themselves; they emulate other people who should also look very hard in the mirror. While this is a complex area every piece of evidence that I have in front of me as Associate Minister of Health tells me that the one single thing that can simply be done to keep a simple approach to this because it is a complex matter is to raise the drinking age and again I will proselytise for that in every place I can. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Has the Minister heard of United Future’s Judy Turner’s proposal of lifting the age to 19 years and does he think this is a good common-sense solution? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Any step to send a message that drinking at a lower and lower age is not a good idea for young New Zealanders would be acceptable to me. I suggest that the House dealt with the age of 20 and lowered it to 18 on the basis that this would work. In my view the evidence suggests it has not worked and therefore I think we should readdress it on that basis. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will the Minister support another simple measure to address the culture of binge drinking and will he vote for my member’s bill to reinstate the ban lifted by a previous National Government on broadcast advertising of alcohol if it should be drawn from the ballot? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If that were a conscience issue in the House I would vote for it. We cannot have double standards. If we do not believe that drinking at a younger and younger age is a good idea then we should not agree that people can promote it as though it were. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to ask a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question on New Zealand First’s allocation. Is there any objection? There is no objection so the member is permitted to ask his question. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister believe that a ban on broadcast alcohol advertising would address the increasing number of minors dealt with by police for drinking in public places which has reached a staggering 2597 in 2002 or does he believe a law changing the legal drinking age back to 20 as provided in my colleague Bill Gudgeon’s member’s bill to be a more appropriate means of addressing this problem? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Again I reiterate to the House that although measures such as reduction in advertising have personal support from me the evidence I have in front of me from the Ministry of Health is that the single most effective thing that the House could do if we are really seriously concerned about this is to raise the drinking age back to 20. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate relating to the addition on to the Order Paper at the first available time of the Sale of Liquor (Increase the Drinking Age) Amendment Bill currently in the members’ ballot sponsored by Bill Gudgeon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: During my supplementary question to the Minister I referred to alternatives to alcohol. I seek leave to table one example I found in Amsterdam which is alcohol-free beer. I should also add that it is very good. 
Sample by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Statistics—Business Compliance Costs 
10.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What is Statistics New Zealand doing to reduce the costs to business in complying with requirements to provide statistical data? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 Although New Zealand has a relatively light compliance burden by international standards Statistics New Zealand shares this Government’s commitment to improving things further. Recent initiatives taken by Statistics New Zealand to reduce compliance costs include changes to the retail trade survey to the extent that compliance has been cut by 25 percent. The post-out of monthly business frame update surveys has been reduced by 30000 questionnaires—50 percent a year. The annual frame updating survey has been reduced by 23 percent from a post-out of 121000 in 2002 to 110000 in 2003 and 93000 in 2004. Both the monthly and annual update questionnaires have been streamlined. This has meant that they have been reduced from 22 to just two. 
Mark Peck 
: To what extent is Statistics New Zealand making better use of tax data to reduce compliance costs as well? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Statistics New Zealand is further expanding the use of tax data to replace direct surveys. In 2003 GST returns were introduced in the wholesale trade survey reducing the number of survey respondents by more than 600 each quarter. That is a 36 percent reduction. The use of GST returns with regard to the quarterly survey of manufacturing meant that the number of businesses surveyed has been reduced by 450 or 28 percent. Statistics New Zealand is working to make sure that business people are as aware of the services that Statistics New Zealand can provide to them as they are of the demands placed on them. 
United States Base Guantanamo Bay—Detainees 
11.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Does he stand by his answer to written question 5653 on 6 June 2003 in relation to the treatment of United States detainees; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. It was to the best of my knowledge accurate. 
Keith Locke 
: Have units of the New Zealand SAS operating in Afghanistan handed over prisoners of war or other detainees to US jurisdiction; if so how can the Minister guarantee they have been treated humanely? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although the House is pretty clear that the Government does not comment on the detail of SAS operations I can say to the member that New Zealand is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and New Zealand forces are required to observe its provisions. I think the most important obligations of international law are those that ensure that all people who are under any form of detention are entitled to humane treatment. Therefore the New Zealand Defence Force’s primary responsibility is to ensure the humane treatment of any detained person. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s reply that we have just heard he referred to the Government not releasing operational details. I think it should be made clear that I did not ask for any operational details. I wanted to know specifically whether any prisoners of war or detainees had been handed over to American jurisdiction. That would not reveal any operational detail. I require an answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might require an answer but he was given one. He might not be satisfied with it but that is not my job. The member got an answer. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister be supporting calls for an independent international inquiry into the treatment of prisoners at US detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay Iraq and Afghanistan given that if the mistreatment continues it will further discredit the coalition force which includes troops from New Zealand? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member would understand that I have no direct responsibility or authority for US forces but I have to say that I absolutely agree with the sentiments recently expressed by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell when he said that Americans deplored what happened and there can be no excuses. I think every member of this House shares the same abhorrence at the actions of all of those responsible. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister assure the House that New Zealand has made clear its position on the treatment of detainees? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: We have made clear our expectation that the treatment of all detainees will be in accordance with the applicable international humanitarian and human rights laws. I can say to members that in the unlikely event of our transferring a detainee we have also made it clear we would wish to stay engaged regarding the ongoing welfare of that detainee. 
Keith Locke 
: How bad does the treatment of detainees by the US-led coalition force have to get before the Government will consider withdrawing New Zealand’s SAS troops from the coalition force and has that point not already been reached? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated in an earlier answer I have no responsibility for the conduct of US forces. But I did explain at some length in my answer to a previous supplementary question that New Zealand sets a high standard of expectation and requires its forces to adhere to that. As I have just said in the unlikely event of a detainee being handed over New Zealand would require to stay engaged regarding the well-being of that detainee. 
Court Fines—“Confiscated Car Club” 
12.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Is he satisfied that the “Confiscated Car Club” advertising and enforcement campaign has been effective in dealing with fines defaulters? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes. Good progress was made. In the 4-week campaign 324 cars belonging to fines defaulters were either clamped or seized; 125 of those owners paid their fines in full. I am advised that as of 30 April a total of $10.18 million had been either paid in full or put under time-to-pay arrangements as a result of the campaign. During the campaign period more than 35500 calls were made to the special 0800 number. It is clear that people heard and understood the message that this Government considers unpaid fines simply unacceptable. 
Martin Gallagher 
: If the campaign has been so successful why is it not being continued indefinitely? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is not feasible to run an intensive campaign throughout the year. Campaigns are better used as short sharp shocks. Campaigns like the “name and shame” campaign will be run again and fines defaulters have a clear message that they cannot sleep easy. The Collections Contact Centre has learnt a good deal from this last campaign and I expect that next time it is run we will do even better. 
Richard Worth 
: What has been the cost of the campaign given that the total of outstanding traffic fines is in the order of $170 million? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have no particular cost breakdown of the campaign but I can say that it has been hugely successful in this way: in 1999 for example the amount collected by the Collections Contact Centre was about $112 million; this year we have already collected $159 million in fines and fines arrears and are on track to collect a record $190 million. 
General Debates 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today is the New Zealand University Students Association’s day of action on student debt. Today we are seeing people gather all over the country to protest the Government’s continued policy of supporting the student loan scheme. Today we will see people gather in Hamilton Auckland Palmerston North Wellington and Dunedin to protest this Government’s policies. It is good to see students hitting the streets because the reality is that students will get nowhere with their demands for a universal student allowance until they get active until they take to the streets and until they make their voices heard. They can take their lessons from the students of the past—the student activists of a few decades ago such as Mr Maharey Phil Goff and Helen Clark who took to the streets in their time to make known their issues. 
I totally support this campaign to draw attention to the disaster that is the student loan scheme and the disaster that the student loan scheme represents for New Zealand students and for New Zealand as a country. Two weeks ago co-leader of the Greens Rod Donald presented a petition to this Parliament on behalf of more than 35000 New Zealanders who put their names in support of the campaign by the University Students Association. That petition said that those people recognised that the current system of student allowances discriminates against those under the age of 25 and forces students to borrow to meet their basic living costs. They therefore called upon the Government to immediately adjust allowance’s parental income limit for inflation since 1992 institute a system of a living allowance for all tertiary students and set the level of the student living allowance equal to that of the unemployment benefit. 
What that petition represented was really a new level of activity among students. What was notable was that the signatures on that petition were not just from students; they were from New Zealanders as a whole. Students are starting to gather support across the population for their campaign because more and more New Zealanders are waking up to the realisation that the student loan scheme is not just a student issue. It is actually an issue that affects our entire country and everyone in it. 
The student loan scheme involves a huge number of issues. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the words of Brian Easton in looking at the sustainability of student loans. He pointed out that student debt is not simply a liability such as a mortgage or an overdraft and that repayment is contingent upon the income stream for the debtor and that that income stream is uncertain. So in effect it is a contingent liability. But he points out that proponents of the scheme are very hesitant to call it a contingent liability because that would display to the world that essentially the scheme is no more than a raising of the income tax levy on some parts of the population—that is those with a contingent liability from the student debt—in order to lower taxes for the rest of us particularly those of us who got a free tertiary education or who have been able to pay off their contingent liability. That would include many many members of this House and many members of the Government. 
Brian Easton also points out that there is a second reason for the hesitancy to call it that—it shows that the net worth shown in the Crown balance is not as healthy as it first appears. In looking at the 2000 figures he talked about the net worth being $8.2 billion made up of $60.9 billion of assets less $52.6 billion of liabilities. But at that time $3.4 billion of those assets were contingent assets dependent on the students for whom they are contingent liabilities earning sufficient income to pay them off not going bankrupt not disappearing out the country and out of the Inland Revenue Department’s records and the like. That debt is now $7 billion. It has doubled from that time. Therefore slightly less than half of the so-called net worth of the Crown is covered by the contingent assets of the student loans. We know that if we go around the country and talk to people— 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 If student debt has gone up it is because there is a record number of students in tertiary education today. There are twice as many tertiary students as there were a few years ago. Because of the changes made by this Labour Government getting a student loan has to be the best deal in town. This Government has spent $2 billion on keeping student fees down frozen for 3 years and in providing interest-free loans for students while they are studying. Why would a student not take out a loan? This is unlike Dr Lockwood Smith who in 1990 as spokesperson on education promised that the fees would be abolished by any new National Government and he promised to resign if it did not do it. Did he abolish fees? No he doubled them. Did he resign? No not even by lunchtime not by Christmas or by any other time. 
I come back to the National Party and say that the country has cringed at the blunders made by this National Opposition this pathetic Opposition over the last week or so. Who led the charge? It was Simon Power the bright young hope from Rangitikei. 
What did Simon Power tell the country when speaking to a National Party conference? He said: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” In one sentence the National Party spokesperson on defence surrendered our sovereignty surrendered our independence and surrendered our right to make our own judgment. 
What Simon Power said was important. He said that if ever there were a National Government important foreign policy decisions for this country would be made not by New Zealanders in New Zealand but that they would be made in Canberra in Washington and in London. He was saying that National will unquestioningly allow our vital decisions to be made by others. It is no wonder the country treated that announcement with derision. It is no wonder the country asked: “Is the National Party really taking us back to the days of Gallipoli when our decisions were made by people in foreign countries and by foreign military officers?”. People raised the question of why Don Brash is now saying he would have had us in Iraq and they raised the question of why we should revert to allowing our decisions to be made by some other country when 80 percent of New Zealanders stand by the judgment of their country their Government in keeping out of the war in Iraq. I wonder where Simon Power thinks he is taking the country. His local paper said he ought to be sacked. We really hate that—when one’s local paper says one should be sacked! But did Don Brash sack him? No I believe that Don Brash approved that speech. Even if he had not approved the speech Don Brash has made blunders at such a monumental level that he was in no position to sack anyone in his caucus. 
Don Brash got caught out. He told the country and the newspapers: “I’m a peacenik. I’m against nuclear ships.” That was for the edification of the New Zealand public. Then we found out that Don Brash in secret told the American congressional delegation: “We’ll have the nuclear ban lifted by lunchtime.” Then he said he could not remember. He then said it was private; he could not talk about it. Finally he admitted that he did say it; the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of course still said: “Oh maybe he didn’t say it.” even after he had admitted he had said it; and he admitted thatit was unwise to do so. It was more than unwise. It is an example of a leader and a party that will surrender the right of this country to make decisions according to its own values and its own judgments. If we need more evidence of that we have Nick Smith promising to withdraw New Zealand’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol if Australia and the United States do not sign it. He wants to withdraw it if two other countries do something different. That is the party that once upon a time under the leadership of Don McKinnon showed some leadership in foreign policy and did not kowtow to others—[ 
Interruption 
] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Varicose veins across the forehead is a health problem I would not wish upon anyone. I would like to bring to the Speaker’s attention the talk on the streets—the “goss” the buzz. Rumours circulating about the foreshore and seabed legislation were that those courageous members in the Labour Party are willing to go to Auckland to Hamilton to Wellington and to Christchurch but are not willing to front up to their people in Northland on the East Coast and in the South Island. Will Dover Samuels front up to the people of Northland? Will Mita Ririnui front up to his people in the Bay of Plenty? Will this Government front up to Tariana Turia’s people in Wanganui? They are gutless. Even the Minister of Maori Affairs does not intend— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will withdraw that comment. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw. It is my understanding that even the Minister of Maori Affairs will not front up to his people on the East Coast on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I would have thought that landlocked Hamiltonians may not have as much interest as the Minister of Maori Affairs’ people on the East Coast on the seabed and foreshore legislation. Interestingly enough those members expect their people to come to Wellington—there were 20000 outside Parliament Buildings—but they will not go to see them. 
I was on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee when it looked at the Maori Fisheries Bill. We fronted up in Whangarei we fronted up in Rotorua and we fronted up in Gisborne. So why does that Minister not front up to his people in his region? I know the Government’s problem. It is somewhat of a dog’s breakfast. We know that the Maori Fisheries Bill has been extended by 1 month and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot be progressed until that bill is dealt with. The aquaculture reform legislation cannot progress until the Foreshore and Seabed Bill has been passed because the Government has to resolve who owns the sea space; therefore the moratorium on aquaculture cannot be lifted. So in effect the Maori Fisheries Bill is extended by a month the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot progress and the aquaculture reform legislation is yet to be introduced. Therefore the Government’s conundrum is that it will not be able to lift the moratorium at the end of the year. It will have to extend it a second time. 
I know what this is all about because I have been talking about it for a long time. If the Minister of Fisheries was not planning to horse-trade with Maori—aquaculture space to secure Crown ownership—he would not be in this pickle. The Minister is horse-trading with Maori: marine farming space to secure Crown ownership. Is it the Minister’s intention upon the introduction of the aquaculture reform legislation to give Maori aquaculture space? If so whose water space will he give away on what basis will he give that space away and will Maori be paying for it? 
The Minister should come clean. He wants to give marine farming space to Maori to secure Crown ownership. He cannot progress the aquaculture reforms until the Foreshore and Seabed Bill decides who owns the space. He cannot progress the Foreshore and Seabed Bill until the Maori Fisheries Bill is passed and that has been extended. So why does he not come clean and admit he will have to extend the moratorium? If he does not extend the moratorium Dover Samuels will not front up to his people in Northland Mita Ririnui will not front up to his people in the Bay of Plenty this Government certainly will not front up to Tariana Turia’s people and the Minister of Maori Affairs will not front his people either. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That speaker got up to make a speech. We are still waiting for it and I seek leave for an extension of his time—another 5 minutes—so we can hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 We know that the National Party is in complete disarray and suffering from shock when it shuffles the hapless Phil Heatley out to lead the Wednesday debate. For week after week the National Party had its best and brightest young star lead the Wednesday debate—Simon Power. It is very clear that Mr Simon Power is now seen as too much of a liability. Even Mr Don Brash is not allowed by the National Party to ask a question in the House anymore. National members are terrified of the House because the moment one of their senior people makes a statement it blows up in their faces. National members are shell-shocked quivering and cowering behind their bench seats here and they have shuffled Phil Heatley forward because they know that if Phil Heatley makes a mistake they can cut him off and no one will notice. It is really interesting. 
I would have thought that Simon Power would love to take the chance as he always does to lead the Wednesday debate to explain his position on our international relationships—whereby without reservation New Zealand will support its close allies Australia the United States and Britain whenever and wherever that commitment is called upon. That was stated as National Party policy by a National Party spokesperson to a National Party conference and that statement was then dumped on by the leader. 
But it is very interesting that on 11 May some days later the National Party made another statement of its position: “The National Party has always been international in its outlook. We will support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain when and where our commitment is called upon.” Spot the difference! That was a blue because the National Party realises that it has ceded our sovereignty to Canberra to London and to Washington and every New Zealander resiles against that. Nobody supports that position. 
When it comes to Mr Brash it is also interesting to see that he has not been asking questions lately either because it has been noted that he cannot deal with the House. It was a disaster for the National Party when he tried to play its trump card the other day—a motion of no confidence. The good Dr Michael Cullen had to help him with the words. He had to help him organise it. Despite that little wee person Gerry Brownlee whispering in his ear Dr Don Brash still could not get it right. It must have been in my view a senior moment. 
But when we look at Don Brash’s varying positions on all sorts of things it seems that he is having lots of senior moments. I take taxation as an example. When he first came into office as the leader of the National Party he said he was going to slash the tax burden on high-income earners. In April 2003 he said he would reduce the top personal tax rate to 33c in the dollar. He said that the biggest winners would be the rich but that that would be fair because they pay the lion’s share of tax. Realising that that statement had the political flight of a lead balloon the National Party then changed its position and said its top priority for tax reductions was tax relief for low to middle income families. That was another change. 
Another example is asset sales. The National Party said—again this was said by Dr Don Brash: “The Government still owns major trading activities that could in principle be privatised: New Zealand Post the Electricity Corporation and its progeny Contact Energy and the ACC just to name three.” Those all are lined up for privatisation like Kiwibank etc. Then when Georgina te Heuheu was ready to put out that statement Dr Don Brash came out and said: “There has certainly been no discussion on the sale of any assets at all.” So what is the policy? What are we supposed to believe? That was another senior moment I think. 
Let us look at the position on superannuation. It was then to “raise the age at which people become eligible for New Zealand superannuation reflecting the gradual increase in life expectancy and improved health amongst the elderly”. What is the position now? It is: “No Government of which I will be a part will be touching the age of eligibility.” 
Darren Hughes 
: Yeah right! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Exactly. But he did not go on to say “only for those above 50 years”. Everybody under 50 is now on notice that National under Don Brash is going to chop their superannuation just as National is going to cut people’s 4 weeks’ annual leave which was legislated for by this Government. Don Brash wants people’s holidays—their holidays. 
I have to say that while all these flip-flops are going on the country is cruising along very very well. Hawke’s Bay which is well known for its position on socialism has put on page 3 of its local paper the fact that only 1329 people are looking for jobs in Hawke’s Bay. Someone was saying the other day the he could not find work and he has now finally got a job. Employers are saying they cannot find enough workers because no one is answering firms’ calls for staff.  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 states there are now 6000 fewer unemployed people in Hawke’s Bay since this Government came to power. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to turn the debate around to the issue that confronts New Zealanders at the moment which is the question of the upcoming Budget and the steps many New Zealanders would like to see taken care of in the Budget from the point of view of the elderly and the family person. Many of the issues New Zealand First has raised have been taken care of since the last election at least in part. We have seen our Treaty of Waitangi issue taken up by the National Party immigration is down and Ron Mark works extremely hard on law and order. Since the last election one of the issues that cropped up about 12 months ago has been the port and sherry tax. I really insist hope and expect that the Minister of Finance with a $7 billion surplus will ensure that the port and sherry tax goes. Why was it introduced? It was introduced to stop binge drinking by young people. Members know that binge drinking by young people is still continuing so the only people who are being affected by that tax are the elderly. The Labour Government may not be interested in the well-being of the elderly and the small enjoyment they may get from drinking port and sherry but I will be very very disappointed if that particular tax is not eliminated. 
It has been interesting to hear that Mr Anderton has suddenly had another one of those Labour - Progressive Coalition lights-on-the-way-to-Damascus experiences. He has now changed his mind on under-age drinking. I understand that he was one of the members in this House who voted to lower the drinking age to 18. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did he? 
DAIL JONES 
: It is my understanding that he did last time. I may be wrong but that is what I have been told. Anyway Mr Anderton now agrees that the drinking age should be raised to 20. Well New Zealand First has a member’s bill ready to be introduced in this House if Mr Anderton is really serious about that. As a Government Minister he can take steps to introduce the bill himself if he wants to do so. Just how serious is this Labour Government about this ever-increasing problem? One only has to go out in a taxi late on Friday night or in the early hours of Saturday morning to see young people in all sorts of states of drunkenness on the streets as a result of lowering the drinking age. [ 
Interruption 
] The member from Dunedin can take that view but I am sure it probably happens in that city more often than in any other place. He does not care about the state of young people. But in New Zealand First we are very concerned about the whole situation. 
Another of Jim Anderton’s views that comes to mind and that is very appropriate today is his view on petrol prices. Before the election in 1999 there was nothing he would not have done to the oil companies when petrol prices went up. He was going to get really stuck into them and even in March 2000 he called for an inquiry into petrol price rises according to the  
Dominion 
. He was also critical of various oil companies and referred to predatory pricing and suchlike. But which issue confronting New Zealanders today will have a significant impact in the Budget? It is that there is a fuel price now of $1.29 a litre for 96 octane petrol in most cities. One of the reasons that the fuel price is being fuelled is the taxes being taken by this Labour Government for petrol. When the price goes up on a percentage basis the tax goes up and GST is added to it as well. I expect Jim Anderton to do what he said he would do 3 4 or 5 years ago about having a look at the real price of petrol. According to an article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today an energy consultant Alan Jenkins says that the real price for petrol should be about $1.07 per litre. But $1.29 per litre is what we have. Part of the reason for that is this Government’s taxation policies and its contribution to the price of petrol. 
I would expect Mr Cullen as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to do something in this Budget to reduce the Government’s take on petrol so as to help all the people who have to go to work at odd hours of the day and night when they cannot use public transport. A responsible Government would do something like that in its Budget. That is what New Zealand First wants to see done and that is what Jim Anderton when he was in Opposition said should be done. He made some nominal effort when he was in Government to do that but he has now given up on that issue. New Zealand First is concerned at the effect of petrol prices on homeowners and on people trying to get to work every day especially in cities in New Zealand where they have a long drive to work. Taxi drivers are having trouble keeping their fares under control. I am told that Wellington’s largest fleet expects approval from the Land Transport Safety Authority for a 4.7 percent fare rise. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ha ha! 
DAIL JONES 
: It is all right for Clayton Cosgrove to laugh because the Government pays his taxi fare but what about all the people who cannot get the Government to pay their fares for them? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The Leader of the Opposition has continued down the track National has been consistently plodding down throughout its years in Opposition: misunderstanding Maori misrepresenting their aspirations and then encouraging the public to feel aggrieved about the imaginary patronisation of Maori people. He was wrong in February when he claimed the nation’s universities were lowering their standards in order to pass Maori. He was wrong again last Sunday when he claimed that Maori are failing in the tertiary education system. Maori enrolment in tertiary education is one of the great success stories of this Government. The number of Maori students in formal tertiary education has increased from 32500 to 62000 in 2003. How can such an increase be deemed a failure? That leader has to understand that very clearly. I am proud that more Maori learners are going to university straight from school and that Maori doctoral enrolments are trebling right at this stage. The way Maori have embraced tertiary education is certainly a signal of how great this Government has been for Maori. 
In the sense of a whole lot of things that are happening the Opposition goes on and on about Maori getting more than their fair share in terms of the history and certainly those members are scratching. I heard the famed newly-promoted Phil Heatley talk about me being gutless. He is not very observant but I am glad he noticed that I go for walks early in the morning and that I am losing weight—not like some of the Opposition members who are struggling. It is a disgrace! The biggest puffer in this Parliament has startedto talk about how great the sense of having one’s brain fogged up is for one. That is not smart education; that is dumb. That is as dumb as some of the unendowed academics in Maoridom who are leading our people down an unreal trail to Utopia—to nowhere and to misery. They want to keep us in the dungeons of doom and gloom like the members on the Opposition benches do. 
Let us look at Dr Brash. I feel very sorry for Dr Brash. It is very well known what Dr Brash is against but members still do not know what he is for. There is a lot of pontification and brouhaha about what Maori are doing wrong and what this Government is not doing for Maori but I have not heard a tinge or a faint suggestion of any constructive policy for Maoridom. That member should tell the House his policy but he has nothing to tell us as usual. That is disgraceful. A certain former woodwork teacher has a background in manual labouring and that is where he wants to keep Maori. He wants us to keep on sawing bits of timber and taking bits of timber home after the class is over to light the fires so as to keep one’s heart warm. This Government is advancing Maori more than that but that is where the Opposition wants to keep Maori—doing home cookery and manual labouring cutting wood and all that sort of nonsense. 
Let me tell members that the times are changing. For the third year in a row Maori exceeded non-Maori in the total entrepreneurial activity stakes. Just over 17 percent of the Maori population has attempted to start a business in the past 3 years as opposed to 13.3 percent of the other people in this country. Globally the Maori entrepreneurship rate surpasses all but three countries in the global entrepreneurship monitoring report—all but three. So Maori are pretty smart. They know what they are doing they know how they want to do it and they know where they want to get to. At the end of the day Maori do want to be business owners and business managers. Maori are starting to find their way. Maori unemployment—let me repeat this—is at an all-time low of 9.4 percent as against 4.3 percent for general unemployment. That is an outstanding performance and the fact that we have put 32564 Maori into jobs over the last 2 years is outstanding. Their income has gone up by $152 a week on average and that is a long way towards going forward to where they need to be. The sooner the Opposition realises that the better. 
Maori are intertwining into the fabric of this country. By their greatness by their right as tangata whenua and by wanting to live in contemporary times and to be as well-educated as some of our industrious leaders they will get a hang of a way further than they are now. In Huntly over the last 2 months since bringing in the He Ara Tika programme 200 Maori have gone off the unemployment benefit and into jobs. There are simple things like that. In the Western Bay of Plenty it was found that the kiwifruit industry was struggling for workers and three buses were got together to take 120 people—a lot of them Maori—from Rotorua to Te Puke to work for 4 months of the year. That is good stuff—simple operational stuff and simple practices that I know some members will not understand. At the end of the day this is a good Government for Maori. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am delighted to hear that that hapless Minister is taking morning walks because in 12 months’ time he will be walking right out of this place. He will be walking right out of the Treasury benches. If ever there is a measure of this Government’s failure it is what is reflected by its promises—by its pledges in that now-infamous airbrushed pledge card of 1999. What did Helen Clark say? She said Labour would cut the waiting times for elective surgery. And what did she do? What duplicitous action did she take? She created the active waiting list. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders were not only taken off the surgical waiting list but were put right back out there to wallow in the community and not even given a chance of being on the waiting list. Then what did she say on that infamous airbrushed pledge card? She said Labour would cut back on the health bureaucracy. Well what has this hapless Labour Government done? It has created the most complex cumbersome inefficient health bureaucracy in the history of New Zealand—if not in the history of the universe. Then the Labour Party had the gall to say that it would deliver. That is what it had the gall to say back in 1999 before the election. 
When I first came into Parliament in 1999 I remember a somewhat arrogant Minister of Finance the Hon Michael Cullen saying: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. What does the  
Dominion Post  
state this morning? A headline states: “More money less surgery—what’s wrong?” What is wrong is this appalling Labour Government. The article in the  
Dominion Post 
 goes on to state that public hospital operation numbers have dropped despite bulging waiting lists and massive funding injections into the health system—and those figures are compiled in the Government’s own Treasury report. To make matters even worse I saw the letter that the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen wrote to Annette King. What does it state? “Analysis of Ministry of Health data suggests that despite significant revenue increases volumes in the sector are static if not declining.” Dr Cullen cannot make up his mind whether those volumes are static or declining but I can tell members they are declining. 
Let us have a look at those volumes. In 1999 we see that 160000 operations were carried out and in 2002-2003 the number was 157000. Well it is only 3000 fewer—not quite static but certainly declining. But let us really look more closely at the analysis of major joint replacements—and there are thousands of New Zealanders around New Zealand who are suffering intense pain and who are in need of major joint replacements. In the time of the last National Government 1998-99 5252 of those operations were carried out but in the 2002-03 year there were 4481. That is 682 fewer operations. Despite more money less surgery is being carried out. We can go to cataract operations and look at what has happened there. We can see there were 5200 cataract operations in 1998-99 but the number has gone down to 4481 under Labour. 
“More money less surgery—what is wrong?” This Labour Government is simply not delivering. It has created one of the most complex and over-peopled health bureaucracies in New Zealand’s history—as I say not just in New Zealand’s history but probably in the world’s history—and what results from that is “More money less surgery …”. This beleaguered minority socialist Government has indeed failed the people of New Zealand. It has failed the people on the waiting lists. Not only are many of them waiting on those lists but they have given up hope. They fear every day that they may be moved off into the community and put on the active waiting list where there is no hope for them. There are thousands of people wallowing on our waiting lists who have given up hope because of this Labour Government. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I can commend to the House this publication for the first quarter. It is independently written by the  
Otago Outlook 
 organisation which is a trans-regional body of district councils in Otago. It makes amazing reading and I will table it after my comments. The key thing about this document is that every indicator of economic success not only points in the right direction but measures hugely significant quantifiable gains. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about exports? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Retail sales in Otago are up 14 percent I can tell Mr Peters. Residential building consents are up 22 percent the value of non-residential building consents is up 62 percent and—most interesting—the net inflow of long-term arrivals to the region has increased by 100 percent. Possibly the most important thing of all and members will be able to see this is that only one arrow is pointing down. That is because it refers to the number of registered job seekers and that is down by 24 percent. This is a story the region is very proud of and it is worth trumpeting. 
But let us not be fooled that success like that is happening in isolation. I am glad to be able to tell this House that this good-news story is being repeated the length and breadth of this country. The country’s provincial heartland and its cities are in very good shape. The reason why is the good shape of this economy. Under the prudent financial management of this Labour-Progressive Government every economic indicator is as good as the regional ones I have just mentioned for Otago. The latest household labour force survey shows unemployment dropping to 4.3 percent—the lowest rate of unemployment in 16 years. More New Zealanders are in work and these results confirm that the number of jobs in the economy continues to grow. There are 17000 more people in work since last December and 61000 more than there were a year ago. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Do not let that pathetic member tell us that this Government is not delivering. Things are good. They are very good so we should not be surprised at the tactics of the dirty and the desperate—dirty divisive downright dishonest—from a party over there with neither policy nor principle and with only one angle. We have all been waiting— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last few words from that member in talking about dirty dishonest and divisive tactics from the “party over there”—which could be any of about four parties in this Parliament—I am sure are totally out of order. We cannot say “dirty” or “dishonest” and that must be a matter for withdrawal and apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. We are not required to know to whom it was directed. It is unparliamentary and the member will please withdraw. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw. So what did that National Party trot out last week? National’s spokesperson on defence Simon Power number three in the pecking order committed New Zealand’s troops to go wherever the United States wanted them—when and wheresoever. With wording like that no slip could ever be so pompous and ponderous. 
It was also the week in which their dithering leader had to acknowledge that he had after all made remarks to visiting US senators that New Zealand’s nuclear policy would “change by lunchtime even” if National came to power. May I remind him that he was the person who challenged Mr Goff to produce the evidence. I tell that member he cannot have it both ways but if he were more forthright in the first place he would not have difficulties like that. 
It was a week that National’s spokesperson on the environment one of their most experienced parliamentarians Nick Smith indicated that the position of the US and Australia on the Kyoto Protocol would be the driver of whether New Zealand actually followed through on its international commitments on global warming. Yes we wanted the debate to be moved on but what did we get? There were three National members in a row singing “Yankee Doodle Dandy” 
. 
 I do not know who the “Yankee” is and I do not know who the “Dandy” is but the “Doodle” has certainly identified himself. 
We all know what it is that National stands against—every single policy initiative of the current Labour Government. It is easy to be in Opposition and oppose things. But we want National members to start debating what it is they stand for. Except that we know they do not stand for very much. The Labour Government has funded 6500 Modern Apprenticeships guaranteeing the right of young people to get into the workforce. How many apprenticeships did National give this country? It left it to the market and that is why National members are sitting on the Opposition benches. 
This Labour-Progressive Government set up Kiwibank. That bank has met or beaten every financial and performance target since it opened for business in February 2002. What does the ditherer want to do? He wants to sell it off of course. He is unable to unhitch his party from that sad privatisation bandwagon that got the party unelected in 1999. National will do anything to advance the cause of the elite self-appointed few who back it. This Labour Government is committed to keeping New Zealand nuclear-free—end of story. What does the “uncomfortable” one say? He may or may not be thinking about the possibility or impossibility of letting nuclear-propelled or perhaps not nuclear-armed ships sometime definitely possibly enter. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 In case people are the slightest bit interested—and I am sure they are not—that speech was made by the Minister of Fisheries who told the  
Otago Daily Times 
 just recently that his only qualification for the job of Minister of Fisheries is that he was born under the star sign of Pisces and that he enjoys fish and chips. Well “ain’t that the truth” brothers and sisters! 
I suspect that every Opposition MP would give his or her eye teeth at the moment to listen in on a Labour Party caucus that is tearing itself to pieces. It is obvious that gone is the unity that used to be shown and gone is the confidence of that party. I must say that one thing still remains: the arrogance. Watching the Government’s show of unity is like watching an Irish river dance performed in bare feet. The Government is having no impact is painful to watch and is a painful performer and I can guarantee that the public of this country will never require an encore. The Government’s performance is abysmal. It backs down at every turn; as soon as the pressure is turned up it caves in. 
The public has had it with this Government and no lolly scramble in the forthcoming Budget will save it. That is very clear. This Government and its members is on the last train to Clarksville. How did the old song go? Members will remember that song; I think it was by The Monkees. “Take the last train to Clarksville and I’ll meet you at the station.” Let me say that rural voters will not meet that lot at the station or at the polling booth. They will remember the “fart tax” the holiday legislation the Kyoto Protocol the dog tax the fuel tax and the sherry tax—they will remember every one of those broken Labour promises. 
What about the hard-working families of this country like the Gilbert-McLachlan family that featured in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 just recently? That family has an income of $55000 and is being taxed into poverty by this Government. They will not vote for another trip to Clarksville—that is perfectly clear. 
I can assure members that the people earning $60000—a whole $5000 more; the rich people of this country—will not be buying a return ticket to Clarksville either! People earning $55000 cannot make ends meet under this Government but the Government considers people earning $60000 to be rich. What arrant nonsense! 
What about Maori? I was on the steps of Parliament recently and I seem to remember that something like 15000 Maori turned up on the hikoi. They bought a ticket to ride—I thought a hikoi was something one walked on—on the train to Clarksville. They arrived in Wellington and what did they see? They tried desperately to find the Prime Minister but there was not even a reflection of her—not a skerrick nothing. Where was she? Where was the Prime Minister of this country when 15000 of the people who surely voted for her at the last election came down to talk to her? Nowhere. She was gone; she was no more. So I imagine that Maori will be off to meet Tariana Turia at her station. 
Who will vote for this Government at the next election? There is always the cloth cap brigade—they are always good for a few votes. There will be those who retire at the age of 18 and of course the beneficiaries who hop on board the Government’s gravy train hoping that it will never end. Well let me tell them that it will end. They will continue to vote for this Government and the Government will buy their votes on the 27th of this month. There is nothing surer than that. But the trip is coming to an end. The Government’s gravy train will run out of steam—and why? I ask this question. It will run out of steam because there will be nobody left to stoke the boilers. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Will the real Don Brash please stand up wherever he is? That leader and those National Party members change their minds and their policies nearly as often as this Government introduces great initiatives and policies for New Zealanders. Dr Brash and the National Party members put up ideas that they think are winners; then if they get bad press simply change their mind. 
Let us look at some examples. Who wants to scrap this country’s proud nuclear-free status a policy near and dear to the vast majority of New Zealanders’ hearts? When questioned Dr Brash says that he has a personal view but at this point he has not expressed it. 
Regarding defence policy poor Simon Power—where is he today?—brimming with youthful exuberance and enthusiasm declared with pride his party’s policy of support for its close allies whenever called upon. When he received some bad press he received a clip from his leader. Then we found that almost identical statements were put out by the National Party in media releases. 
Dr Brash says that he is the original peacenik. He belonged to the Foundation for Peace Studies Aotearoa/New Zealand for some time. Although he stated that America did not handle Iraq as well as it might have done when pushed he said that he would have gone to war with Iraq but that he does not know why. Peacenik? Yeah right! 
Regarding superannuation policy after National stated publicly that we need to raise the age of eligibility—whoops! There was another change. No Government of which Don Brash is part will touch the age of eligibility. Regarding tax policy Dr Brash first stated that tax reductions were for the rich. He consistently made many statements about that. Now he claims that his top priority is National’s core constituency—low and middle income families in New Zealand. Yeah right! 
His policy on asset sales? After declaring a preference for selling off State assets he is reneging on that one too. That is another as-yet undecided policy. We know that Dr Brash is opposed to workers having 4-weeks’ holiday and that he would dump the policy were he ever in Government. That was that week; this is this week. Put a bit of heat on and I am sure that Dr Brash and the National Party members will change their mind on that one too. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What about next week? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly—what about next week? Dr Brash questions the need for a Ministry of Women’s Affairs but should there be a bit of criticism from women amnesia will probably kick in again. 
 That leader and that party do not have a clue as to what leadership is about. Leadership is not about chasing votes and trying to be all things to all people. It is not about having a personal view and wanting to keep that secret for now. It is not about changing one’s mind to fit the occasion. It is not about having selective memory temporary amnesia or senior moments—call it what you will. It is not about making claims that are simply not correct. Come clean! Spit it out! What are National’s policies? Give us one. They are about pillaging and plundering. They are about cutting public spending; tax cuts for the rich; slashing workers’ rights and conditions; selling off our assets; pushing privatisation in both health and education; not supporting women’s policies—and I can see those members nodding their heads eagerly—attacking those on benefits; and dividing our nation. Who wants that? If we want to see leadership we have to look to this party and to this Government. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I wish to further expand on this Government’s fiscal incompetence whereby a lack of forecasting has meant that the Government has frozen equipment funding for the sick the aged and the disabled. But oh no it does not care. Those people are most vulnerable in society—what does the Government think about that? It does not care. It is the Government’s fiscal incompetence that has done that and what has it resulted in? It has resulted in a loss of dignity and in frustration and hardship on families already struggling to care for children spouses and other family members. 
The Minister of Health should ask those families as I have done about the effects that a virtual shut-down of essential services is having on their lives. She may sit there and be very comfortable but a lot of people are not. They need essential equipment to have even some degree of quality of life—something that the Minister quite clearly takes for granted. I can tell the Minister that those families are sick of having to fight every step of the way for the essential things they need for a reasonable quality of life. To quote one mother it seems like every way they go there is some hurdle or brick wall that they come up against. The Minister might do well to listen to that. 
They would like to say to the Minister of Health and the Minister for Disability Issues that they would like them both to spend a day in their shoes looking after their children spouses or family members. For example a 7-year-old girl in my electorate who suffers from progressive lung disease hip disease and a multitude of other disabilities will face the winter at risk of severe chest infections. She needs a ventilation system and a special bed which would mean that she would have some degree of health and be able to attend school on a much more regular basis. That is the child’s wish the parents’ goal the disability strategy’s vision but the Minister’s failure. 
In another case some basic bathroom alterations could significantly ease the stress on a 58-year-old woman whose husband a diabetic chose to have his leg amputated so that he could get his life back. But that will not happen under the current funding policies where people are just cut off at the knees. 
There are plenty of stories from all around the country. Those people do not want to complain and given the problems they face every day they do not have the strength to do that. The Minister is supposed to have someone there to represent their concerns and issues and address their needs but that is not happening. They have had enough. They are sick of having to fight for a quality of life that this Government pretends they deserve. 
The Minister should come clean on the Government’s real policy for the disabled. Is the message “out of sight out of mind” until it suits the Budget? That is exactly what those people are feeling. Already one service provider has had to lay off staff and qualified staff are hard to come by and may not come back. I have asked the Minister what she will be doing to address the growing backlog in equipment. She says that the Ministry of Health is in the process of establishing how it will allocate its disability support. She goes on to say that it will include “consideration” and that it will take account of unmet demand. I am quoting the Minister’s response to my question. 
So far we have “establishing” “consideration” and “take account”. There is absolutely no indication of any extra funding for the 2004-05 Budget to meet the growing backlog. There is absolutely no comfort for people in the disability sector who are getting nothing from this Government and who need that equipment for some degree of quality of life. 
The Minister does not care because she is not meeting that demand. She is not indicating that she will even address the issue. She has made no indication of that in the answer to my question and therefore no indication to people in the disability sector. What assurances do they have as they struggle to have a reasonable quality of life? Absolutely none! It is about time that that was addressed. I urge the Government to take urgent action and address the issue so that people in the disability sector have some degree of quality of life and some assurances as they go into the new financial year because right now they are getting nothing. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 The previous speaker’s contribution is perhaps best encapsulated by a comment made by the great Winston Churchill in the House of Commons—an empty cab arrived outside Parliament and out jumped Sandra Goudie. 
We have had to witness over the last 7 months one of the greatest acts of purgatory ever inflicted upon the people of New Zealand. This is the 7-months anniversary of the appointment of one Dr Donald Brash as the Leader of the Opposition. We all know about purgatory but this is disgraceful. During the last 7 months we have heard nothing from the former Reserve Bank Governor who has a doctorate in economics about the economy the exchange rate business the exchange or anything at all from that paragon of the economy. 
What we have heard the Leader of the Opposition banging on about is Maori-related matters. He has to be a specialist in that regard. He understands and knows quite carefully and clearly why he can get out to the communities and tell them we should dislike one another. For 7 long months speech in and speech out he has poured petrol on racial fires in this country. We do not need that type of leadership. It is about time that Kiwis started to ask the real questions of the Leader of the Opposition. What are the solutions to the problems? By all means he should mention them and make acknowledgment of them but it is time for solutions because out there in the heartland they are starting to ask the real questions. What is this bloke up to? Where is he coming from? What is his real agenda? Is it taking a scalpel to the nation politic—to the body of this great country? Yes it is. 
Why is it that wonderful Kiwis—I do not want to overstate and mislead Parliament so I will just say “a Kiwi like Gerry Brownlee”—like the members opposite do not bring their leader to heel on that particular issue? They know that their constituencies—and we know because we hear it—have had a gutsful of that banging on about Maori-related matters. It is one thing to ask for scrutiny accountability and a robust approach. It is another thing when it tips. Here is how it tips. The day a Maori can get a degree from one of our august tertiary institutions it is a poor degree and it is an incompetent person. Why? Because that person is Maori. That is when it tips. That is when it becomes absolutely unfair. Kiwis out in the heartland understand what Mr Brash is banging on about. 
What else did he say? He questioned community bridging courses which have shifted tens of thousands not just of Maori but of young Kiwi Pakeha kids who did not get well serviced by mainstream education. Those bridging courses have got them into tertiary education and we say we should rejoice in that. We say we must send messages out to our young people in this country—black white brindle or whatever their creed is—that they are good that they have potential and capacity and that we live in a progressive and a positive nation. What we have got from the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party day in and day out for 7 months is why we should dislike one another. It has all been about hate hunger and hurt and we have to sort that out. I shall use a couple of examples. Dr Donald Brash got his PhD from the Australian National University. Just down the road is the Canberra Institute of Technology. One can graduate from that institute with a recreation certificate. I strongly recommend that to Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: A bridging programme. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Down the road from that august university one can take a course on creative writing. Dr Wayne Mapp has taken several courses on that and we know they are far from the truth. There is also a fitness programme. That would be another one for Gerry Brownlee—and a programme on the storage handling and use of explosives. 
Once again it does not matter whether bridging courses are available in New Zealand or Australia. They are part and parcel of a wonderfully robust system of education. Whilst we must ask for quality and accountability we must not say to Maori children that the system is no good that they are no good or that the quality of education they are undertaking in tertiary institutions up and down this country is not good. That is not on. It is an outrage and a blight on the leadership of the National Party. 
It is about time that we asked the National Party what its real agenda is and what its smokescreen based on racial policy is all about. Is it about selling assets or putting the surcharge back on superannuitants? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with an amendment that I am advised is accepted by the Wellington City Council. I thank the members of the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill. 
This is a small bill of just four clauses dealing with a 1500 square metre piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilottt Green which is on the corner of Harris Street and Jervois Quay. It was once home to Wellington’s Circa theatre and is a very much-loved corner not quite on the waterfront but just across the road from it. The site is the last remaining piece of land covered by the Te Aro Reclamation Act. Wellington always seems to be handling these fairly ancient Acts. 
This Act required the council to sell or lease the land by public auction after at least 2 months’ notice and to use the proceeds to repay borrowings for the reclamation. That sounds familiar except it is 100 years old. The council can sell or lease other landholdings not subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act without a notified public auction. The bill before the House today seeks to remove constraints and allow the council to deal freely with the land in question. 
I have sponsored this bill as I sponsor many local bills because I do not believe that central government legislation particularly that passed a long time ago should unnecessarily hamper how local authorities deal with land under their control. I note that a member of this House a former member of the Wellington City Council issued a press release in which she said that this legislation was thought up “sneakily” by the city council. There is nothing sneaky about legislation that is put on the Order Paper and is on the Internet for everyone to see. There was nothing sneaky about this legislation. 
I met with people who were nervous about what might happen to Jack Ilottt Green and I pointed out to them that under the existing legislation the land could have gone to auction and no one would have had any control of what happened to it if it went to auction. This way there is some community control. 
Some submitters to the select committee—I think they were the same ones who came to see me—were concerned that the bill could remove the council’s obligation to follow the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act. The select committee agreed that clause 4 of the bill as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council. The committee recommended that the council deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act. I have no reason to believe that the local council intended to do anything other than work under the Local Government Act the Resource Management Act and district plans. However that amendment will maintain the intent of the bill by removing specific constraints on the council while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified and the community be consulted. So I welcome the change. 
I am aware of some of the very exciting developments involving that land that are being considered by Wellington city councillors. I look forward to them involving the community in their thinking about those developments. I encourage everyone with an interest to engage with the council so that the best solution is reached for that land. 
Again I refer to a press release by Sue Kedgley a member of the Green Party in which she thunders that this will be an election issue. I would hope that we were not into antagonism yet again in Wellington but that we were about working constructively together. In this case it is central government working with local government to remove an obdurate way of working but I hope in the future that all of the Wellington community will work together rather than set up for a pitched battle yet again. Too much time and effort has been lost in this community by pitched battles. It would be good if we could work together under the Local Government Act. 
The Wellington City Council has advised that it accepts the change to the bill and I commend it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this legislation. It is a local bill and there is nothing controversial about it at all. I commend the Minister whose name the bill is in for the work that has been done on it. 
I have one or two things that are probably worthy of comment—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes there are. I am sure there are two things worthy of comment. Firstly the Minister who spoke on this legislation has already made the comment—and it is worth reemphasising it—that the present legislation will indeed take care of any concerns expressed by submissioners who were worried that the council might be allowed to run away and do some hip hops or something with the money it received from any sale. That cannot happen under the Local Government Act or the bill as they preclude any suggestion of untoward action by councils. In other words councils will be as good or bad as they are in anything else they do. 
The other thing of interest—and I mean this seriously—is that we need to consider given that the foreshore and seabed legislation is before us whether that legislation will have any impact on any of this particular land. The Minister is nodding her head and saying no but one of the things we are not certain about is how wide the foreshore and seabed legislation is and what impact it will have. As that legislation develops we may well find— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: It would impact on your mother. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No this is not a “mother” speech. Mum has not read the foreshore and seabed legislation but she will be appalled by it when she does get to see it along with all other mothers and fathers in New Zealand. 
The problem we have with the foreshore and seabed legislation is that because we are uncertain exactly what it means and because its intent needs to be a lot clearer we may find that while we think that the legislation we are passing now is clear gives direction and comes under the auspices of the present Local Government Act the foreshore and seabed legislation when actually passed may interfere in some way with the intent of this bill. 
I tell the House that we need to put that qualifier on it. There are things in the foreshore and seabed legislation that we are uncertain of. We seriously do not know how wide the changes to the Resource Management Act will be under that legislation. Until the legislation is developed those changes will probably not be known until such time as it goes through a court process and that may be some years away. However we might find that that bill will come back to haunt us with regard to this sort of legislation. It may well put restrictions limitations and impositions on local government and as a consequence on this sort of bill which I am sure the House will support. 
 Of course the other thing we are uncertain of is just how wide and far-reaching the foreshore and seabed legislation as put down by the present Government with the support of New Zealand First will be with regard to foreshore issues of which this is part. When we look at the wider issue we see that once again we do not yet know. The issues around “cultural connection” are undefined. Nobody knows entirely what that means. We have to wait and see what those definitions mean. As we pass this sort of legislation we should be bearing in mind that this other legislation that is before the House has wide ramifications and may well impose restrict or influence the outcome of the legislation we are debating today. 
As the select committee that is dealing with the foreshore and seabed legislation grapples with those problems to try to get some clearer definition of the things that New Zealanders are worried about in the bill and the fact that it might impact on their private property or interfere with their ability to enjoy an afternoon picnic at a beach— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This speech is totally irrelevant to the bill before us. After all this bill has a title and therefore the Foreshore and Seabed Bill would not apply. There is nothing in this bill about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and I ask the member to return to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It does concern a part of the foreshore. That is what the bill is all about. I am quite comfortable to let the member wander over the issue of the foreshore and seabed. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If the member actually read this bill he would see that it is about reclamation. The member may not know but reclamation— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where in this bill is the word “foreshore” used? I would like to know that because there is no reference to the foreshore in this particular bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Obviously the member is a bit nervous about the foreshore and seabed legislation that he supports. He does not want anyone to talk about it and that is why he is trying to shut down my contribution. 
The point I am making to Dail Jones who raised the point of order expressing concern and hoping that no one would notice that New Zealand First supports the Foreshore and Seabed Bill is that so many things are unclear in the foreshore and seabed legislation. As we pass legislation such as this the House needs to take into consideration the impact that that legislation could have on a bill like this one. 
I say to Dail Jones and to his colleagues in New Zealand First that they should take great care as they support the foreshore and seabed legislation as to what impact it could have and what the detrimental effects might be. What impact might the term “cultural connection” in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have on this sort of legislation? I think that is a reasonable question to ask. It is a debating point and not one that tends to allow a restriction on the bill before us. 
This is a very good bill. The House will pass it and so it should. However I just say that as we debate it today we need to take into consideration all the other legislation that is before the House and in particular the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I believe that that bill is likely to come back and cause this House and this country some significant problems because of the way it is written and the impact it is likely to have. I say that we need to be aware of that. As we pass this bill through the House the select committee looking after the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will surely want to consider those things with regard to this sort of legislation. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to commend the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill to the House. It is not often that I differ with the honourable Dail Jones. I agree with part of his view that much of what John Carter contributes to the House is irrelevant. However in this particular bill I would like to indicate the following. Reclamations are clearly ruled on within the foreshore and seabed legislation actually although they are not within its purview. I invite members opposite to actually read that piece of legislation but with respect it has no direct impact in respect of the particular bill we are talking about. This is one of those kinds of circuit-breaker bills that most politicians come to Parliament to actually pursue. That is why Dail Jones is so enthused with it. 
This is a small bill containing just four clauses dealing with 1500 square metres. It is a piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilottt Green. I appreciate that pretty soon there might be an amendment at the Committee stage to try to rename that land “Dail Jones Green”. The reality is that this is a very small bill. It has no impact on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill notwithstanding the fact that it is subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. That is dealt with quite carefully and clearly with regard to the legislation on the foreshore and seabed. 
The select committee did a sterling job in taking a significant number of submissions in respect of this bill—in all I think there were two. After much debate covering no less than 15 minutes according to the report the select committee agreed that clause 4 as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council. We have to be very careful in giving lots of discretion to councils particularly in the Wellington region. 
The committee recommended that the council deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act. This amendment will maintain the intent of the bill by removing specific constraints on the council while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified. The community would therefore be placed on notice and consulted. This is a constructive change that we welcome. 
As an Aucklander I am delighted to speak in favour of a bill that is going forward to support the Wellington region. As a consequence on behalf of my colleague Mahara Okeroa who helped to represent the area we commend the bill to the House for its second reading. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill. I speak on behalf of my colleague Mr Jim Peters who sits on the select committee that dealt with this bill. 
I want to go back into a bit of the history of this bill. In 1874 the Crown granted 70 acres of land to the Wellington City Council in trust for the purpose of reclamation and public utility. In 1879 the Te Aro Reclamation Act gave the council the right from time to time to fill up and reclaim certain land on the Wellington harbour. The result was that over time since 1879 the area concerned became fully developed and now includes much of the present-day civic and commercial centre of Wellington. When the Wellington City Council decided to sell property it still owned in the area there was some local concern and agitation about the purpose and the nature of the Wellington City Council’s property regime. A further consideration was whether the Tenths Trust had an interest under Treaty of Waitangi claims. 
I want to touch a wee bit on the bill. The bill conveys to the Wellington City Council firstly the ability to deal with its land as it wishes providing the relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 are met with regard to the selling and leasing powers of the council. Secondly the Local Government Act sets out from section 76 to section 90 the planning and decision-making processes required from the local authority in the course of its policy implementation. Thirdly and particularly important is section 78 which provides for community views in relation to decisions and further sets out the procedures in relation to those decisions. Fourthly section 82 sets out the principles of consultation and section 83 provides for the special consultative procedure which I think is very important to the bill. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill in its second reading. It also supports the ability of a local council to go about its business properly and legally with regard to its lands. Although section 81 provides for Maori consultation the Tenths Trust has indicated that the reclaimed lands in question are solely within the province of the Wellington City Council. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I agree with previous speakers that the amendments that have been made to this bill are a victory for parliamentary democracy and for the select committee process. Marian Hobbs the Minister who sponsored this bill said there was nothing sneaky about the bill but the interesting thing is that she did not come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and hear the submissions on it. The submissioners made it very clear that they thought it very odd that the Wellington City Council had not even discussed the bill in full council. It turned out that the bill had been proposed by a subcommittee of the council and that it had come to Parliament through Marian Hobbs without the full council having been made aware of it even though the land involved is as many have pointed out very significant—small but very significant—and without the people of Wellington having been alerted to the fact that this legislation was about to come before the House. 
I too became curious about this bill and when I saw it on the Order Paper I rang the Wellington City Council because as the Minister pointed out I was a councillor there for almost 8 years. I asked what the purpose of the bill was and why the council had provisions in it that allowed a prize piece of Wellington real estate to be sold without the constraint of any other legislation. However no one at the council was prepared to ring me back and brief me on the matter. As the weeks dragged on and I was unable to get any briefing my suspicions were aroused. The fact of the matter is that this bill as introduced which was slipped into Parliament without it having gone through the full council would have enabled the council to sell this prize piece of land without the constraint of any other legislation. Basically it would have allowed the council to sell the land secretly—without informing Wellingtonians—and literally to disregard all other law. When the city council was asked why it had included this particular provision—which fortunately we have now struck out—it could not offer any plausible explanation as to why it would seek to sell the land without any constraint in a way that overrode all other legislation including the Local Government Act. 
That is why I consider that the council had sought to sneak this bill through. Fortunately members of Parliament were not asleep on the watch. We were alert. We enabled submissions to be heard and we rectified the bill by requiring that the council when leasing or selling the land be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act. That Act requires the council when leasing or selling off the land to consult with the community before doing so. 
We have to remember that there has been significant concern about this land—as I know full well having been on the council. Indeed I can remember when we named it the Jack Ilott Green. We all stood around and said: “Isn’t it wonderful that we’re going to name this wonderful little piece of land after one of the great benefactors of Wellington Jack Ilott?”. All the city councillors were there and we all praised ourselves saying: “Isn’t it wonderful? There is so little green land in Wellington and here’s this lovely little bit of land named after Jack Ilott.” 
It then emerged that the council having gone through that naming procedure—to the great delight of Jack Ilott—wanted to sell the land and build a large building on it. The problem is that such a building would not only block views to the waterfront but would also mean a loss of public space and would in fact cast a huge shadow over the whole of Civic Square. That prospect has created huge concern in the community. There has been a lot of debate about it. Basically the community is saying—in terms of all the submissions I have seen and all the comment I have heard—that it wants to preserve this special piece of land. It feels that there is so little land in Wellington and it does not want to see a large building overshadow Wellington’s very important and precious Civic Square. 
So it seems to me that the council did what it did to try to get round the inevitable controversy that it feared—that is my assumption anyway—would emerge if it were forced to consult on the selling of the land. It was really seeking legislation that would enable it to sell or lease the land without it being required to go through proper consultation or indeed being constrained by any other legislation. 
The Minister said that I have thundered about the fact that the sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. I have not thundered; I have simply said in my press release that I predict that the potential sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. It is a prediction I am making and I am not thundering it. I am not being divisive here; I am simply making a prediction. The reason is that there is strong support in Wellington for the retention of this land as a green space in the city. Certainly the Green Party and our local campaign team running for the Wellington City Council will be launching a campaign to ensure that the land remains as green space. 
We are very very pleased that as a result of the select committee process chaired by the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons—and I personally made a point of being on the committee—the offending provisions have been removed. We have now required the Wellington City Council to follow due process and consult with its community and we have prevented it from being able to sell this priceless piece of land in a rather secretive and sneaky fashion. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 As a Wellington-based MP it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT party and speak to the second reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill. This bill should be well supported by the entire House because it allows the Wellington City Council to progress and go about its business unheeded. Previously the council could not sell or lease the land without a notified public auction and not less than 2 months’ notice of such an auction was required. The bill now removes this constraint and that is exactly as it should be. 
There has been quite some discussion about clause 4 which repeals and replaces sections 8 and 9 of the principal Act with the power for the council to freely deal with the land in question. ACT because it thinks that the council should be able to go about its business unheeded would support this. As we have just heard the Local Government Act of 2002 will apply. Therefore the consultation that Ms Kedgley spoke about will go ahead. I am not sure that we are entirely happy. ACT’s position on local government legislation has been well documented and I would certainly hate to see the constraints previously imposed on the Wellington City Council removed and replaced by a completely different set of constraints. However it is the right thing for this bill to be proceeding. 
I think I should point out just for anybody who might be in any doubt that the Wellington City Council does have a very good record of consulting with its local community and fulfilling its obligations in this regard even since Ms Kedgley has no longer been on the Wellington City Council. I think that Wellingtonians in particular need not fear that consultation will not happen. It certainly will. 
It is good to see that Labour and the Greens are in favour of this bill. I think that at times Wellingtonians might well question the commitment that both of those parties have to progress locally. I refer very briefly to the progress of the bypass which was talked about 30 years ago. In fact the recent announcement that the bypass will happen had its beginning 30 years ago and it should have been built at that stage. But the money was diverted by the then Minister of Works and Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Hugh Watt. That money was diverted to “Spaghetti Junction” in Auckland where his voting base was. So it is good to see that the Labour Party is supporting at long last progress in this Parliament for Wellington. 
I might say that Mr Darren Hughes over on the other side is being very vocal about this but where has his commitment been to improving transport in the Wellington region since he has been in Parliament? I would say that it has been sadly lacking. In fact six of the seven Wellington region MPs are Labour MPs and they have been noticeably lacking in their support of progress in the Wellington region. It has been the list MPs living and being based in the Wellington region who have stood up for progress. 
Hon Member 
: The Mount Victoria tunnel! 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. My colleague has spoken up in favour of the Mount Victoria tunnel in Wellington and I have been very vocal in my support of the bypass. Unfortunately though the seventh seat is the Hon Peter Dunne’s Ohariu-Belmont seat and he campaigned quite hard for various things before the last election but now that he is supporting— 
Gordon Copeland 
: He is still supporting the bypass. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Is he? Well his support has not been very loud I hate to say. His colleague in United Future has been much better at representing the Wellington region than he himself has. But anyway back to the matter in hand. ACT New Zealand does support this bill. We do perhaps highlight the uncertainty that might come about over this piece of land due to the foreshore and seabed legislation when it is a piece of reclaimed land that we are talking about as was highlighted by my colleague from National John Carter. But it is a move forward. We hope that the Local Government Act 2002 will not hinder the progress that this bill will make for the Wellington City Council and for the benefit of Wellingtonians. 
Ms Kedgley’s concerns about this area of green land owned by the Wellington City Council might well be an election issue in the local body elections in October this year. But that will be a case of democracy at work and of course it will be a very good issue for those contenders—those who we have yet to see put their names forward—to campaign on. In conclusion ACT does proudly support this Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The Hon John Carter of the National Party and you Mr Assistant Speaker in your very clear ruling are quite right to say that this bill—the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill does in fact link to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Would it not be a great thing if indeed the Foreshore and Seabed Bill did refer to the concept of “public domain”. I think it would relieve a lot of the uncertainty that John Carter spoke about if we just had those two simple words “public domain” back in the bill. 
Why have those two words been taken out of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? We all know the reason do we not? Three members of the Labour Party could not make up their minds. Then two of them finally did make up their minds to vote against the Government and it had to turn to New Zealand First. New Zealand First with its chest puffed out breathlessly informed the nation that “public domain” was an American republicanism concept. Well ha ha! Let us tell that to the people of Auckland who well know about the Auckland Domain and try to tell it to one Gordon Copeland Member of Parliament born in Mapua ex - 3-mile specialist who used to run his races on the Mapua and Motueka domains both of which have been there since time immemorial. So much for the nebulous ridiculous reason given by New Zealand First for dropping those words! I hope they find their way back into the bill. 
Coming now to the issue at hand in terms of this particular bill I would like to say that United Future will vote in favour of its passage through the House. However I say to Wellington City councillors that they should proceed wisely and certainly they should consider the original intent of the 1879 Act that the proceeds from the sale or the lease of the reclaimed land should possibly be applied to the reduction of debt on the city especially if the land is sold. If it is sold the city will be realising a capital asset. Therefore ideally the proceeds should be used as a general principle for the reduction of the city’s liabilities. 
I express the hope that the councillors especially in this election year will consider that matter carefully because just like in a business or a family selling some of the family jewels—and this land is a jewel of the city—-and frittering away the proceeds on somebody’s expenditure wish list normally turns out to be a mistake and a costly mistake at that. So I tell the people of Wellington that if they want to get their rates down then when they select their new councillors this year they should vote for prudent people—and next year they should vote for United Future because we will take GST off rates and leave just for once some extra cash in the pockets of every Wellington residential ratepayer. I think that all the people of Wellington would welcome that change. We support the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in support of this legislation. It has been interesting to hear the comments from Wellingtonians who have a vested interest in what the outcome of this legislation will be and how it will affect those people who live in Wellington and of course the responsibility that the Wellington City Council will have once this legislation is passed. One of the points that has come out of it—and I think it is important—is that the bill will allow flexibility. It will allow the council to decide what is best for the land. But it is also interesting to note—and I guess this is a word of caution to those who may be seeking to be candidates in the local body elections—Sue Kedgley’s comment that this will become an election issue. So I guess there is some forewarning there for those who may be seeking to stand certainly as to what their position is with this land and whether it can be sold or leased or whatever the outcome is likely to be. It is also important that the council take notice of the pending foreshore and seabed legislation and that has been mentioned by previous speakers. The foreshore and seabed legislation will impact on this legislation and the council needs to be very mindful of what the likely outcomes of that would be in the future. National is very happy to support this piece of legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seem to recall that towards the end of last year I had the opportunity to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I listened to some of the submissions on this bill and got some idea of how the Local Government Act and suchlike would affect the land involved. I note with interest the confused view that has been given about the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill on this legislation. Today in 2004 this legislation amends the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. The area concerned may have been the foreshore then but I understand that today it is no longer the foreshore. The definition of the foreshore is very simple: is it a wet bit or is it a dry bit and does the tide come up to Jack Ilott Green any more? If the tide came up and covered Jack Ilott Green up to the high-water mark then it would be the foreshore. But if it is a dry bit now and the tide gets nowhere near to it today then it is not the foreshore. It is as simple as that—dry bits; wet bits. Most people can understand the difference between a dry bit and a wet bit. The National Party it would appear cannot and the Greens and United Future have some difficulty with that as well. In relation to the definition of foreshore and seabed those of us who can tell where the tide goes up to at the high-tide mark know that that is a wet bit. Those of us who cannot understand that somehow think it is still a dry bit. 
The area referred to in this bill is from my understanding quite some distance away now from the high-water mark area. Therefore it cannot be affected by the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It really is as simple as that. All that the National Party is doing is trying to be suspicious. United Future was going to support the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It was the removal of three little words from the purpose clause that made it change its mind and not take a very unctuous position. The removal of three words from the purpose clause made United Future change its mind. That was not common sense; that was spitting the dummy. As far as anyone else is concerned that was just a fit of pique on the part of United Future. 
So I conclude by saying this land is a dry bit and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot apply to it. Most people who have any degree of common sense understand that fact. It is regrettable that neither the National Party nor United Future has any common sense with regard to the area referred to in this bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I want to join with other members of Parliament in welcoming the second reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill which was promoted by the Hon Marian Hobbs in consultation with the Wellington City Council. The Hon Marian Hobbs does play an important role in coordinating the Wellington electorate members of Parliament and as a group we certainly welcome the opportunity this legislation will provide for this piece of land. It is of course a small bill with just four clauses. Mention has been made of Jack Ilott Green by other speakers. As my colleague the deputy leader of the House says this is a small but perfectly formed bill. 
Comment was made by the ACT list member who I understand lives in Wellington that not enough action is being taken on Wellington transport issues by Wellington electorate members of Parliament. The member clearly has not looked at the record of the effort and energy that Wellington members are putting into trying to address the transport needs of the region. Those needs are challenging but we are trying to meet them. There are already runs on the board. The member said that nothing has happened but of course if she is focused only on her small suburb—as I suspect she is—she would not know of the developments at Mackays Crossing that Winnie Laban Peter Dunne and I have worked very very hard on to try to make sure we help to make that part of State Highway 1 function as an entrance to the Wellington region. Unlike that member who wants to talk down Wellington’s chances as a region what we do as Wellington electorate members of Parliament is to stay positive about the transport and other issues confronting Wellington. 
Finally in closing I note a very important event that has happened this afternoon. The member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick has had a granddaughter born called Tiki. I am sure that members would like to join me in congratulating the extended Chadwick whanau. 
Bill read a second time. 
Clean Slate Bill 
Second Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Clean Slate Bill be now read a second time 
. The Clean Slate Bill was first introduced into this House in March 2001. It was quite some time ago—during the last session of Parliament. I think it is fair to say that this bill has played an important role in spurring the Government into action. As a result last week we saw the enactment of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. It is fair to say that I take some pride that an issue that has been under discussion in this country and even in this Parliament for a number of decades has finally been dealt with by this House and resolved at least partly in response to this member’s bill. 
When I turn to the first reading of the Clean Slate Bill I recall that the bill was supported by the Green Party of course and by the Labour Party the Alliance and United Future which at the time consisted of only Mr Dunne. I have here a media statement from the Hon Peter Dunne. At the time when the vote was taken his proxy vote was cast by the National Party against the Clean Slate Bill. So Peter Dunne put out a press statement and moved a point of order to amend his vote so as to be in favour of the bill. At the time he said: “While my vote alone does not affect the outcome of last evening’s bill United Future has supported the quashing of convictions for certain minor offences and it is an important plank of our law and order and justice policy. While I may propose some amendments at a later stage United Future remains strongly committed to the intention and spirit of this bill which will go some considerable way towards promoting meaningful rehabilitation and ensuring people do not have to carry the burden of past mistakes for the rest of their lives.” I think that is probably the last time that Peter Dunne has mentioned my name—I will not say it was mentioned with approval because I do not think it was with that exactly—without an effusion of toxic bile spewing either from his mouth or from his computer keyboard. 
It is a shame that those sentiments—Peter Dunne’s strong commitment to the intention and spirit of the bill—somehow became translated in the hands of the United Future representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee Murray Smith into opposition both to my bill and to the Government’s weaker version. We can put that down to the principle that Mr Dunne seems now to have adopted: that if the Greens are for something he is against it. I think that maxim must have prevailed. It is a shame. It is hard to find a description of that. I do not want to be personal or to fall into making personal attacks but that seems to me to be a singularly childish way of deciding policy. 
So what does this bill actually do? It differs from the Government bill in a number of ways. The general thrust is the same but there are a number of differences. My bill states that all convictions of a person become spent convictions after the period specified in clause 7 whichis 7 years except where the conviction attracted a prison sentence of more than 6 months or a fine exceeding $2000 or was a conviction for sexual offences or was a conviction imposed against a body corporate. So a clean slate was to have applied after 7 years. I also made a distinction in my bill between convictions attaching to adults and to young people although I recognise that the status of convictions in the Youth Court is different from other convictions. There was also a difference in the way that I approached dealing with information. My bill stated that no person would be required to disclose any information relating to a spent conviction and no person could ask questions concerning a spent conviction. It made it an offence to try to force someone to reveal a spent conviction or to subject someone to unlawful discrimination. In the end the exclusions were somewhat broader than those in the Government bill. I think that is right because my bill applied to some convictions that had attracted a prison sentence whereas the Government’s Act applies only to non-custodial sentences. So it is quite right that the exclusions in it should be somewhat narrower. 
At the time of the first reading I recognised that this bill was not perfect. I said that we would probably support amendments during the select committee process. But I am still convinced that broadly the bill is right. If we look at some of the convictions that have resulted in prison sentences of less than 6 months we can see many of them are extremely minor offences and are the kinds of offences that should rightly be captured by the clean slate legislation. There are things like careless driving offences under the tax legislation trespassing disorderly behaviour and offensive or insulting language. It is amazing to me that those offences have actually incurred a prison sentence but that is the fact. Other examples are breaches of community service unlawful assembly and of course possession or use of cannabis. Those are the kinds of things that this bill was very much intended to capture. As far as those kinds of offences are concerned we would say that if people have not been reconvicted after 7 years they should rightly be able to put their past behind them and be treated as though they do not have those convictions. 
When Mr Goff said he would be introducing a bill that applied to convictions that incurred a sentence of 3 months or less I welcomed that. I thought it was a reasonable compromise. But in the end the Government bill applied only to non-custodial sentences. I have to wonder where the change came from. I did not really see any substantial evidence presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee as to why the legislation should not apply to any custodial sentences at all. That came about I suspect because at the time Mr Mapp indicated National might support the Clean Slate Bill if it applied to only non-custodial sentences. I have reminded him about that fact—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I think he is quite hurt to be reminded about the speech he made at that time. But it seems to me that what may have happened is that Mr Goff introduced a bill that did not include any custodial sentences perhaps in the hope that it might actually attract a consensus in the House and cross-party support. I think that was a good intention. If the bill had attracted cross-party support that would have been a good thing. Unfortunately the National Party’s final position was inconsistent with its original indication and therefore I think the possibility opened that the Government could have included some custodial sentences. I regret that Mr Goff was never able to see his way clear to supporting that. 
I think it is a shame that the Government did not support my bill but chose to introduce its own bill in place of it. Mr Goff made the point that my bill was not very well drafted but of course the resources available to a member go nowhere near to competing with the resources available to the Government. But I have sat on select committees and I have seen them gut bills and rewrite them. I think it is quite feasible that the Justice and Electoral Committee could have done that in this case. I say that not so much for myself because at the end of the day I am truly of the opinion that it does not matter whose name is on a bill when the fact is that this Parliament is doing something worthwhile that has been needed for some time. But I do think that in general Governments of any persuasion should look at supporting a member’s bill when they support the bill’s intentions rather than introducing almost identical legislation. I think it is good practice for members to be able to see their members’ bills through the House and passed into law. 
This bill was welcomed all around the country when it was introduced. I have already pointed out that I received a stack of emails and letters. The folder I am holding now contains letters relating to the Clean Slate Bill so members can see I received a substantial number of them. I think people welcome the fact that something like this bill has actually been passed into legislation. The intentions of my bill live on in what is now the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. Although I accept that my bill will now be lost to history I do take pride in my role in getting clean slate legislation finally passed into law in this country. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Clean Slate Bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos will not as he has indicated be progressing today. That fact does not reflect on the good idea behind the bill but reflects the fact that this Government has moved already to enact legislation that finally in this country allows a person who may have committed a less serious offence—normally as part of a youthful indiscretion—finally to put the past behind them. 
I welcome the work that Nandor Tanczos has done on his bill and his motivation and compassion behind it. He said he spurred the Government into action. I am not quite sure that that is exactly correct. The Labour Party manifesto in 2002 contained a provision whereby we would have clean slating of minor criminal records. We put that before the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand returned this Government for a second term and with a record level of voter support in the MMP environment. 
There is a mandate for this type of legislation in part because some 500000 New Zealanders according to the Ministry of Justice will be affected by it. As Nandor Tanczos has said a lot of those people have lived for many many years with something that has preyed on their minds and caused them anguish and the fear of discovery. During the Committee stage of my own bill I read a letter from a lady who 23 years ago had been convicted of a shoplifting charge. This is what she wrote in brief: “This has been my one and only breaking of the law and one I regret on a daily basis. It does not go away. No one in my family has any knowledge of this record. My husband would be devastated if he knew and more than likely should he find out this would put my 31-year marriage at risk.” 
Like Nandor Tanczos I have received literally scores of letters along a similar line from people in that situation. I deeply regret that there has been a lack of compassion with regard to this issue in some sections of the House. People have thought that there may be some political points to be scored by showing how tough they are and saying that people who committed an offence many many years ago of a less serious nature should not be able to put their past behind them. I think of all the legislation I have passed in the justice area. Much has been tough and much has resulted in people going to prison for much longer. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Mapp can scoff but now people are being sentenced to 30 years non-parole for serious murders. To be fair to the Green Party members I note that they supported that legislation. The worst offenders in this country should be treated in a tough and uncompromising way. But there are a lot of other people who have made mistakes in their lives. Some of the self-righteous members who have opposed clean slate legislation may well say that they have led blameless lives. Well I do not think any one of us has led a blameless life. We have all made mistakes. Some people who have made mistakes have paid a price for that. 
John Carter 
: Speak for yourself! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is “St John” or rather “St Hone” over there who claims he should be exempted from that description. But it is human to err and most of us have done it. Many New Zealanders—half a million—have paid the price and have been convicted and at a certain point we have to say that when one commits a minor offence it is not a life sentence. But many of these people have been serving a life sentence. A man rang my office a couple of weeks ago. He had just come back from Australia. Australia has had clean slate legislation for many years. He came back to this country with a minor conviction from a couple of decades ago. He rang my office to say how much of an obstacle that minor conviction had been in his securing employment in our country. 
I have heard members in this House oppose this legislation as though it is some radical and new measure that will undermine law and order in this country. Can I say how much that is nonsense. The United Kingdom has had clean slate legislation for 30 years. Has it caused chaos in England? No it is regarded as common sense. This legislation is a measure that I think will have wide support around New Zealand. 
Nandor Tanczos has raised the question of the threshold. I puzzled for quite a long time over the sort of threshold that I thought might be most appropriate. I am aware that as the member has said there are some people who have received prison sentences of up to 3 months—and again that is sometimes a reflection of the past—for less serious offences but in the end I decided that the least arbitrary threshold we could set for clean slating was a non-custodial sentence. A non-custodial sentence by definition is regarded as something that is imposed when the person is not a serious or recidivist offender. So in terms of having a clear and the least arbitrary threshold I think that threshold is appropriate. 
 The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act originally had a 10-year period for non-reoffending but I listened to what the select committee had heard in submissions and the clear evidence was that after 7 years of non-conviction one is no more likely than anyone else to be a repeat offender. The science suggested that 7 years is an appropriate time when one can say: “I have turned my life around. I am no longer an offender. I have had no more convictions. Please give me the chance to live down my past. Please give me an incentive and recognition for the fact that I am now a law-abiding citizen.” I think the 7-year period is quite appropriate. 
The legislation that has been passed is not about expunging the record. One cannot expunge something that has happened. It is about concealing a record after the time has passed when there is a need for transparency of that record. Of course if a person reoffends then the whole record will be exposed again and appropriately so. But what we have also done is to look at particular exclusions. I think we have erred on the side of caution with the legislation we have passed. I have done that deliberately because we are—in this country at least—entering new ground to that extent. 
What we have done is to exclude sexual offences and certain very sensitive forms of employment are also excluded. But if we had made exclusions for everything the Opposition wanted the legislation that has gone through would have had no impact at all. That was just a back-door way of trying to undermine the legislation. 
I think we have the balance right and I think history will demonstrate that. I think there are members in this House who have opposed this legislation who in times to come will look back at their words with a sense of shame and wonder why they could not have put partisanship and politicking behind them. They will wonder why they could not have done something to show an ounce of compassion and decency and a belief that it is quite possible for people who have broken the law in the past often in their youth to turn their lives around and become decent citizens and say: “I have paid my price. I have met the sanction. I can now get on with my life.” as people have written so movingly to me in recounting their own personal circumstances. 
Finally this bill has played an important part in the debate over clean slating. Once again I thank Nandor Tanczos for his initiative in bringing the bill through. Now that the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act has been passed we are moving on to a new era in the New Zealand justice system. I think that is positive for New Zealand. I thank the member for his contribution and I look forward to the law that has been enacted making a big change in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 A consistent theme that comes through from both the Minister of Justice and the promoter of the bill Nandor Tanczos is youthful crime—youthful indiscretion. I suspect the Clean Slate Bill and indeed the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act have been largely motivated by the proposition that a minor offence committed let us say under the age of 20 during one’s teenage years should not follow a person throughout his or her entire life. 
Both the Minister and Mr Tanczos particularly when he introduced the bill some time ago made extensive reference to youthful indiscretion and that is a reasonable point. I think most people can understand that youthful indiscretions at the lower end of the scale should not follow a person for the rest of his or her life. National recognised this in its minority report in relation to the Government bill when it referred to the greater use of diversion. We accept that those crimes particularly under the Summary Offences Act that can be dealt with by diversion ought to be dealt with by diversion. If diversion does occur then such offences do not appear on a person’s record. So we do understand that proposition and there are a variety of mechanisms to achieve that particular outcome. Had the Government or indeed Mr Tanczos introduced legislation to deal specifically with youthful indiscretion they may well have achieved not just a majority but a broad consensus in the Parliament. They did not and that was the problem. 
I wish to refer to clause 4 of the member’s Clean Slate Bill which provides: “The purpose of this Act is to limit the effects of a person’s conviction for a minor crime in situations where that person is unlikely to re-offend.” If only that had been true in the balance of the legislation because as soon as he included offences that were not just capable of imprisonment but where imprisonment was actually imposed for 6 months he took the legislation well beyond the category of minor crime. In New Zealand 6 months’ imprisonment is handed out for quite serious offences for example burglary assault robbery and fraud. Mr Tanczos mentioned careless use of a motor vehicle. Mere careless use of a motor vehicle cannot result in a 6-month jail sentence because it simply does not attract such a penalty. Of course careless use of a motor vehicle resulting in injury or death does so that is quite a different issue. That would take the offence well beyond being a minor indiscretion. One has to do something quite significant before one would be charged with such an offence and receive a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. Careless use of a motor vehicle without any further record would not result in imprisonment even if it resulted in injury. If on the other hand a person had a pattern of offending such as consistently speeding and things of that nature then a prison sentence would result. 
So one of our fundamental objections to Mr Tanczos’ bill was that it went way beyond what he had contemplated. It was a fair point that he noted I had made those observations at the time of the legislation. He also noted that perhaps the Government’s bill took those comments at the time into account. I also stressed at the time the issue of youthful indiscretion which of course Mr Tanczos did not mention. He knows that the two were linked together in my speeches and as I say that was the default in the Government’s legislation as well. 
This is an area where I believe all parties in Parliament understood there was a genuine issue: the youthful offender who was unlikely to reoffend where there was a truly minor offence. I acknowledge that the youthful offender extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Youth Court which stops at age 17. So it would include 18 and 19-year-olds who would be dealt with through the District Court in the full glare of publicity. I think all members would acknowledge that that is a particular age band where people ought to be able to move beyond their offending if they can show a pattern of doing so. National’s solution as indicated in the minority report to the Government’s legislation which is now an Act was greater use of diversion. So it is wrong for Mr Goff to get up in his usual lecturing way and take a platitudinous approach saying that certain members will regret statements they had made. There was a way of achieving legislation that I believe would have had pretty broad consent. It would have had to be limited however to the youthful offender. 
 I want to conclude on one final point. The Minister of course also made much play about being tough on crime. He tends to talk tough. But I want to remind him of this one simple fact before he becomes excessively boastful as he is wont to do. Under his legislation and this is for the benefit of the junior Government whip because it is quite clear he does not know this fact— 
Darren Hughes 
: I was on the select committee. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No. I tell the member he was not on the relevant select committee that considered that legislation. The fact is this: a rapist sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment is now eligible for parole at 3 years. That is the reality—the absolute reality. In the past that person could not have been released until 6 years had passed. I recognise there was a deficiency in the old legislation and that there would have been an automatic release at 6 years. Mr Goff used to point that out consistently and regularly. Everyone anticipated that the law as introduced would have at a minimum provided for eligibility instead of automatic release on serving two-thirds of the sentence. Mr Goff completely negated the force of his then tough words by the law he introduced—sentenced to 9 years eligible for parole at 3 years. Under no stretch of the imagination can that be considered tough legislation. It was not it is not and the public knows the truth of that. That is why whenever Mr Goff appears at any public meeting on the issue he is properly reprimanded by the public for having failed them. 
It is with regret that I say Government members did not properly understand the core issue in the clean slate area—that is the youthful offender. That is where they needed to concentrate their minds because if they had done so they might then have been able to get broad consensus. Mr Worth who is the ranking member of National on that select committee specifically referred to diversion for youthful offenders. He did so for a reason which was that we acknowledge there is a particular issue around that matter. Had it been the focus of the legislation there might well have been support for it. That issue was not the focus. The legislation is therefore deficient and that is why National did not support the Government’s bill and does not support Mr Tanczos’ bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee which reviewed the earlier select committee’s consideration of this legislation when Parliament resumed in September 2002 after the July election. We looked at this member’s bill the Clean Slate Bill introduced by the Greens member Nandor Tanczos in conjunction with the Government’s Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. Concerning the member’s bill we are discussing today the select committee came to the conclusion that Nandor Tanczos’ bill should not be passed and that is the conclusion the House is now considering. Strangely enough there is no minority report on this bill so it seems that even Nandor Tanczos at the select committee agreed that this bill should not be passed. The report states: “We recommend that the bill not be passed.” and Nandor Tanczos was a member of the committee. So I really cannot understand why we are spending so much time on a bill that the select committee including the member who introduced the bill unanimously agreed should not be passed. 
I note just briefly to add to what other members have said that the bill states that if there is a crime of dishonesty one’s employer will not be able to find out whether one is dishonest as a result of this bill. If a person wants to travel overseas and that person has committed a crime in New Zealand—this is regardless of what is in the Government’s bill I should say—he or she still has to disclose that crime to an overseas country. If the crime is not disclosed the person will be in trouble in that overseas country as well. That provision applies particularly to travel to the United States and to drug offences because that country is particularly strong in that area. 
Members have taken quite some time on a bill that we have unanimously agreed we should not continue. It is almost a good example of why we should not have 120 members in this House. We should have New Zealand First’s policy of 99 members because time seems to expand with the numbers of members available to fill it. New Zealand First does not support this bill. We will not be supporting it when it comes to the vote and I do not intend to say any more. I have said enough in previous debates. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to a member’s bill from the Green MP Nandor Tanczos who has produced a bill called the Clean Slate Bill. The idea behind the bill is to limit the effect of a person’s conviction for a minor crime in a situation he says where the person is likely not to reoffend. The member in his introductory speech made a great play of the fact that I myself had introduced a private member’s bill to have the same effect—I think 1983 so that is more than 20 years ago. I have to say that that is true so I am sympathetic to what the member is trying to achieve. It did appear to me in 1983 that a conviction is the mark of Cain—that in effect one has it forever. What motivated me in 1983—and members might not think of these things—was that when I first started practising law and I would ask a person: “Do you have a previous conviction?” the person would say that yes they had been convicted a decade ago for something fairly minor. I would say: “We are under no obligation to give that information to the court and when the police come in and read out the police records the records are so bad because they are manual that the chances are they won’t have it.” But of course the Wanganui computer changed all that. 
Once that computer was introduced convictions were never forgotten. The State could actually remember things in a way that prior to computerisation it could not. It occurred to me in 1983 that that was seriously changing the situation and that it would be unfair if people who had committed relatively minor offences had those held against them forever. I made a visit to Britain for some other things and saw that such legislation had been introduced. I think it was called the Offenders Rehabilitation Bill or some similar name. I borrowed parts of that bill and I introduced it. I remember that there was a great deal of media coverage of it. 
What I found very interesting was that contrary to Mr Goff’s experience I did not receive very many letters. I looked carefully at the letters I received and I found they fell into a number of categories. The first and biggest was of people who having committed drug offences wanted such a bill so that they could travel overseas. Well there is nothing a New Zealand law can do—or Mr Tandor’s bill or the law the Government has passed—to enable a person to lie when he or she fills out an application and I guess that is one thing we have to keep on saying to young people in New Zealand who think it might be a good thing to smoke a bit of marijuana. We need to keep telling them that if they are convicted it will prevent them from travelling in many places around the world and a bill like Mr Tandor’s will not help. People should realise that. That was the biggest category of letters I received. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech. I let it go the first time—and I realise that was a mistake—but my name is Mr Tanczos or Nandor. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I apologise to the member for mis-stating his name. Let me go to the next point. The next group of applications I received were from people who said they had suffered convictions but that those convictions were terrible misunderstandings that the young boys had misunderstood their intentions and that they thought it was terrible that the Boy Scouts would not allow them to be scoutmasters. They wanted to support my bill because it would enable them to do that. 
 Well I was not sympathetic to that group of people either. I then heard from people who said there had been misunderstandings about money that they had not really taken it or that people had misunderstood their intentions and they thought it was wrong that they had to declare their honesty. I did not find any letter that seemed to set out a case where someone had been discriminated against. 
I then looked at some other aspects. I have been an employer. Employers are entitled to ask these sorts of questions. The reality is that New Zealanders on the whole are pretty broad-minded. They realise that offences committed at the age of 18 should not be held against people when they are 28 especially if they can show that in the last 10 years they have not committed any offences. It is the case in many places that one is entitled to know about people’s records—not just employers but also for example people in social organisations. I make the point also that although it may be hard the reality is that our reputations are with us for life. They are things that people create for themselves. If people have made mistakes they should be able to live them down. I am not attacking any MP when I say this but we have members of Parliament who have strings of convictions. 
Richard Worth 
: Who? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well OK. 
Sue Bradford 
: I’m one of them. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Sue Bradford has put her name up. I was not naming her but she has put it up. Her record has not held her back from being a member of Parliament. Indeed I think she regards her record as a list of honour. 
Sue Bradford 
: That’s right I do. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She does and the point I am making is that that makes a nonsense of the need for this bill. As a result of the information I have received I have reached the conclusion that this is something Parliament should not do. We ought to have more faith in our fellow citizens and we ought to have faith in the basic good intentions of the average New Zealander. We also ought to uphold the general principle that it is not a good idea—and certainly not a good idea for the State—to pass a law that enables somebody to tell a lie. That is what this bill does. It enables people when asked the question: “Have you ever had a conviction?” to legally lie and say that they have not when they have. 
The more I have thought about it in the last 20 years—even though I am sympathetic to the sorts of arguments put forward—the more I have thought it is not a good idea. I do not think it is something this House should do. I believe that Parliament should say to people that the State cannot rewrite history. We can understand history but we cannot rewrite it. For that reason I am opposed to this bill and was opposed to the bill introduced by the Minister. I think on balance that passing laws of this sort will cause more harm than good. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will vote against the Clean Slate Bill because the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill that was passed recently has clearly superseded and overtaken it. I commend Nandor Tanczos for bringing this bill to the House. I have understood from members who have spoken that there is clearly some sympathy among parties generally for people who have picked up some convictions in earlier years and have to live with them for the rest of their lives. As the Justice and Electoral Committee report states the Clean Slate Bill and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill were considered together by the select committee. Because the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill was a Government bill the committee concentrated basically on that with the idea that the Clean Slate Bill would be discharged as looks likely to happen. United Future did not support the Government bill—for reasons that are set out in the select committee report on that bill—and that was so because of key matters of principle some of which are shared with this bill. There are some aspects of this bill that are preferable to the Government legislation and which United Future leant towards. 
Primarily the principle behind both pieces of legislation is that people with minor convictions should not be plagued by them for the rest of their lives. When people are convicted of an offence whatever it is they suffer three penalties. They suffer the criminal penalty—in these cases largely fines for minor offences but maybe also community service. Then they are subject to civil remedies—they can be sued for compensation. They also have social penalties—in particular the stigma that they carry with them and the threat of publication of prior convictions—that haunt them for the rest of their lives. 
It may well be as Mr Prebble said that the stigma as far as employment is concerned is more perception than reality. Certainly New Zealanders are reasonably forgiving as far as old offences are concerned. But in a lot of cases people bear within themselves the weight of the convictions they have and cannot get on with their lives because they know that it is something they incurred and which haunts them. It may be that the matter of self-confidence and self-respect on the part of people who have become law-abiding citizens is more the cause for concern. 
For some the social penalties far outweigh the crime that was committed. They have become upstanding citizens. Some find they are impeded in employment because of those convictions even a long time afterwards. Certainly overseas travel is a problem. Prior convictions sometimes come back to haunt people on issues of social standing such as running for public office as the media get hold of some juicy titbit about something that happened 20 years ago. 
United Future has considerable sympathy for such people and certainly would like to see past convictions wiped once people have proved themselves to be good law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately the Government legislation does not do that. This bill would do that but the Government legislation does not wipe convictions despite having the “clean slate” name. That legislation simply hides the convictions so there is quite a difference between the two pieces of legislation. 
The question is how the exoneration of convictions should be carried out. This bill has some positive and negative suggestions with regard to how that could happen particularly in comparison with the Government legislation. On the positive side the convictions were to be spent. Contrary to what Mr Prebble said Mr Tanczos’ bill does not require or sanction lying. Under clause 8 the conviction would be spent. People would not be required to disclose their convictions and under clause 8(1)(b) no person or organisation could ask questions concerning or requiring a person to disclose convictions. That is certainly a more honest approach. It allows non-disclosure and requires a person not to enforce disclosure as opposed to the Government legislation in which people are sanctioned to lie about the existence of their convictions. 
The bill is also positive in so far as spent convictions do not revive on further convictions. So the issue of dredging up the past is less of an issue. However there are also a number of negative aspects in the bill. Firstly as alluded to earlier 6 months’ imprisonment is too high a threshold. Secondly individual convictions are to be wiped at the time they expire so that people with a string of convictions would have them drop off the end no doubt notwithstanding the fact that they continue to incur convictions. Receiving further convictions is not evidence that people are upstanding citizens who have reformed their ways and who deserve the consideration of having their convictions wiped. That would be a major impediment were this bill to proceed further. No application to wipe convictions is required and I will allude to that when I allude to United Future’s alternative. 
This bill lacks certainty would be confusing and its provisions would be difficult for the police to monitor. It restricts the power of the police to disclose full information to the courts and it also lacks detail. Although select committees do improve bills it seems to me that it would have been beyond the committee’s capability to entertain the work needed on this bill. It is too much of a skeleton but that is not unusual when it comes to members’ bills simply because members do not have the resources the Government has to put energy into drafting lengthy legislation. 
 So in some ways the policy direction of this bill is preferable to what the Government did. It wipes convictions rather than merely hiding them and a person would have been able to honestly say if that procedure had been adopted that he or she had no convictions whereas under the Government’s legislation that person has to lie. 
United Future however proposed a model that would have been far preferable and would have met in my view all the objections of the other parties. Under the United Future proposal the law would recognise that the clean slate scheme was a privilege which was being given to eligible people because they had maintained a good character record. In order to convey that a person would apply to have his or her convictions expunged. Following that a certificate would be issued—which would avoid any doubt about the matter—to confirm that “in recognition of their good behaviour the person’s convictions had now been expunged.” Any application for expungement would be sent to the police who would have an opportunity to oppose the application for reasons such as the fact that the person had offended overseas during the interim period—now 7 years—or that the person was well known to the police who therefore had good reasons for opposing any expungement of convictions. That would help to ensure that only people who truly deserved the expungement of their convictions achieved that. 
Such a scheme would give people who did not want their convictions expunged control over whether that occurred. I remember that one of my colleagues in the select committee who is sitting in the Chamber said she was proud of her convictions and would not want them expunged. Under the Government’s measure she gets them hidden whether she wants that or not. The exemptions contained in the Government’s legislation could still be provided for by creating a historical record of convictions which would be accessible by the exempt authorities in the same way that legislation shows the historical provisions of Acts prior to their amendment. The record would simply be a historical record of previous convictions that the person had had but that had now been expunged. 
The fact that the convictions were historical would also serve to encourage exempt employers to treat them more lightly. It would mean that once a person had completed the 7-year rehabilitation period his or her previous history would be expunged and even if the person reoffended he or she would be truly starting with a clean slate. Under the exceptions in the Government’s legislation the police and courts would know the full history for investigation and sentencing purposes which would apply also in United Future’s legislation. It would be an easy scheme to administer because although there might be a rush of applications at the early stage we consider that they would then settle down to a regular trickle and simply require the Ministry of Justice when applications were received and approved to transfer convictions shown on a person’s record into a history file. 
In order to avoid mandating lying about the absence of convictions we along with Nandor Tanczos’ proposal would have constrained the employer as to the questions that could be asked. In particular any question would need to be framed in a way that specified that it excluded convictions that had been expunged under the clean slate scheme. Such a provision would be a simple matter to incorporate into standard employment application forms. That would have been a far preferable way of handling the matter instead of what the Government has proposed but we will oppose the bill because of the passage of the Government’s legislation. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am taking the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate tonight because I am aware as several speakers have already pointed out that I am one of a select number of MPs who are personally affected by the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act which resulted from my colleague Nandor Tanczos’ member’s bill. I have had to bite my tongue a few times during this debate as in fact I am one of an even more select few in the House who has no desire to wipe any of my convictions from the public record. My criminal record started when I had just left school and was taking part in anti - Vietnam War demonstrations in Auckland and there is no question that it hampered my career options earlier on and later adversely affected applications for bail and sentencing outcomes in court. However and at the same time I have never resiled from what my convictions stood for in my personal and political life whether they arose from the anti-war demos in the 1960s the 1981 Springbok tour mobilisation nuclear-free and women’s liberation campaigns or later on from actions taken with the unemployed workers movement. I have no desire to be clean-slated and I am just as proud of my convictions as I am of the other parts of my CV like university degrees or job histories. 
However I am all too aware that for the vast majority of people with even minor criminal convictions even one conviction can have a destructive and devastating effect on the rest of one’s life. Having worked in the unemployed and beneficiaries movement for 16 years I am acutely conscious that people’s job prospects are instantly and negatively impacted in most cases if they do tell the truth or if their employer finds out about their past. Things like broken relationships addictions and other mental health problems and a general lack of self-confidence can also be a consequence in a long negative spiral. 
So while I am grateful that the Government Act resulting from Nandor Tanczos’ bill will allow me to leave my convictions on the record and to release them to friends the media the courts or employers if I so choose at the same time I am even more delighted that many thousands of other people will in the future be able to lead happier and more fulfilling lives as a result of clean-slating. 
To finish I congratulate my colleague Nandor Tanczos on the outcome of all the work he put in on his original bill and on achieving a significant change to the law with the help of the Government. I believe his member’s bill basically forced the Government into following up on an issue that various Governments have ducked for years. It is a fantastic achievement. The only pity was that the Minister was not prepared to work to improve Nandor Tanczos’ bill rather than starting from scratch with a new one. Be that as it may the main thing is that the objective of clean slate legislation has been realised although many many years later than it should have been. 
It is also a highlight that this is the fourth Green Party member’s bill that has been passed into law or that has led to the Government adopting the same or similar provisions within its own legislation. Previously Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act was passed in its own right Rod Donald’s Local Elections (Single Transferable Vote Option) Bill was incorporated into the Government’s recent local government legislation and Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Road Traffic Reduction Bill became part of the Land Transport Management Act. It is just a pity that a few other bills like my own universal child benefit bill which is coming up very shortly and Ian Ewen-Street’s bill to reinstate a moratorium on genetically modified organisms do not appear likely to meet with quite the same success. But I must not detract from what has been accomplished here. Once again I congratulate both Nandor Tanczos and the Labour Government on their commitment to ensuring that many people who have minor criminal convictions in their past will now get a second chance at life. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Clean Slate Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 May. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 Tonight I am pleased to contribute to this member’s bill because it deals with the very important issue of children in this country. First I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford a very good member of the Green Party. Her work in Parliament during this time has certainly proven her commitment to social issues that are very important to this country. I commend her for her efforts to recognise the needs of children. I also want to say that this side of the House is certainly committed to ensuring that we deal effectively with child poverty hardship and deprivation in our communities. 
The Government will not be supporting this legislation primarily because we believe we will be developing significant targeted initiatives in Budget announcements in the near future. Also moves have already been made by the Government to improve the living standards of struggling low-income families and for that matter middle-income families as well. In its last 4 years of power the Government has developed policies and initiatives that have significantly improved the situation of low-income families and their children. 
I know that there are continuing concerns about poverty in our communities. Recently I attended a meeting of community groups in my own electorate of Mangere who were concerned about poverty in our communities. Sue Bradford was present and also a few others who are very much into developing social policy issues to help those struggling families. This Government has significantly improved the situation of those families particularly if one considers Jenny Shipley’s 25 percent cut to benefits in the 1990s which contributed to the demise of many of those low-income families and their children. Market rents increased the cost of accommodation and housing around New Zealand enormously and were a major contributing factor to the poverty experienced in the community. 
Those two areas contributed to poverty and this Government has dealt significantly with them with the removal of market rents and the reinstatement of income-related rents. That not only made housing more affordable but also contributed to a more stable situation for low-income families and their children. Not only were those significant achievements made in the first years of this Government coming into power but benefit levels for low-income families havegradually been improved. Other initiatives including fairer industrial laws with the repeal of the Employment Contracts Act have resulted in the improvement of wages and conditions for low-income workers. 
Progress has been made towards dealing with deprivation and poverty in our communities and this Government will look to develop those initiatives further. This Government has signalled that in the Budget to be announced next week there will be an emphasis on dealing with poverty in our communities. Clearly the assistance that will be given to low and middle-income families with children who are on benefits as well as those in low-paid jobs will be the emphasis of what this Government will be doing within the next 2 years. I am sure that that will meet the legitimate concerns of communities with regard to struggling families with children on low incomes. 
Were we to accept this bill it would cost about $500 million and it would not alleviate poverty in our communities. In fact it would put only a small amount of money into the hands of those who really need it. Even with the research that has been done on children in low-income households—in fact one in three children have been defined as living below the poverty line—the reality is that we will end up paying another two-thirds of benefits to children who do not need them. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 This bill is a godsend to those many hundreds and even thousands of low-income families in our country in need of financial support. It prioritises their highest need—that is a boost to their regular income. The universal child benefit will not be income tested but applied universally so that families will not have to beg to justify their need. This legislation is focused on the children of a family and makes some gesture to prioritise children and place them at the centre of policy making. It does not undermine the dignity of families by identifying them as the deserving poor and it makes a real tangible contribution to the efforts of those families to climb out of the poverty trap that many hundreds of them are in. 
This Labour Government is turning its back on those families. It is turning its back on the 30 percent of this country’s children who live below the poverty line. It renders any Government rhetoric in the lead-up to this year’s Budget an insult to the needs of those families. Given that the National Party disgracefully abolished the family benefit in 1991 along with benefit cuts and other acts that attacked the low-income people of our country we can only assume that on this matter Labour and the National Party agree that child poverty is not the national disgrace it is but merely an expedient problem that they are prepared to put up with and do nothing about. 
This Government will not even allow this bill to go to a select committee where the needs of families and children can be identified and explored financial implications considered and the consistency between this bill and the New Zealand superannuation scheme established. The universal child benefit is one small step that we as a country can take towards eliminating child poverty. It will not cure all those poverty issues but it will take the first crucial step to centre our economic policies on the needs of children and their families. 
This legislation has received wide support from the New Zealand community—women parents and low-income families. Many community organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the Downtown Community Ministry have done an extraordinary amount of work to assist families and support the measures set out in this legislation. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services and even the Public Health Association recognise that the measures in this bill are a necessary part of the strategy to end child poverty in our country. 
The tragedy is that it is not just the traditionally understood low-income families who desperately need this measure but also those in the middle-income earning band. It is that group that does not qualify for other targeted funding such as the community services card and it suffers extraordinarily. It is finding it harder and harder to make ends meet and we saw some of the stark realities of that situation just a few weeks ago. This bill could signal a serious and real improvement to the problem of increasing poverty in our country. The question is whether the Government is concerned to end child poverty in our country. Clearly it is not. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 There is no doubt in my mind that the sponsor of this bill Sue Bradford is very well meaning in her attempts to address childhood poverty. Over the tea break I canvassed a few opinions on the family benefit. The first person I came across said: “I used to love having the family benefit. It was usually paid into the women’s accounts so that the men did not get their hands on it and women would beaver it away. I used to spend mine on getting my hair or nails done when I felt like it. It was great and I loved it.” The long and short of it is that the family benefit was never intended for that. It was intended to be spent on families. 
The explanatory note in the bill states that its purpose is to restore a benefit that is necessary for the protection and development of New Zealand children. The shame of it is that this bill will not address that issue. A universal family benefit will certainly not achieve that. There is no way that childhood poverty can be addressed in that regard. This benefit is intended not only for low-income families but also for every other family in the country mine included. I have five children and according to this bill I would receive $15 for my oldest child and $10 each for the other four—that is a total of $55 a week. I agree that for many low-income families that is a lot of money but for families such as mine—there are a large number of them in the country and I will come to that in a moment—it just is not necessary. I would rather that $55 went towards hip operations or looking after children who lived in poverty-stricken situations. 
If this bill were to become law 16257 families with one child would receive the family benefit 19569 families with two children would receive it 8493 families with three children and 2304 families with four or more dependent children would receive it. That is a sum total of over 46000 families receiving an income of $100000 or more a year. I wonder how Miss Bradford feels about families such as these—and it would amount to quite a sum over a period of time—being given that amount of money when there are much better places for it go. 
The ACT party of course would much rather see a lowering of taxes across the board to compensate families in this way. It is much better that people have the money to spend on whatever is necessary for themselves than having the Government spending it on their behalf. It makes very little sense that these working families pay their taxes then the money is filtered through various systems and the social welfare department gives it back to them in a rather obscure way. The route itself is very costly and it is hard to determine exactly what value of the money originally paid out in taxes would filter its way back to these families. 
It is an unreasonable expectation that this bill will see the protection and development of New Zealand families particularly poverty-stricken families. There is no assurance that those families will spend the money on their children. We know from when the family benefit was around previously that in many cases that was not the case. The wealthier families were more likely to dedicate that benefit to their children by putting it in bank accounts or whatever than the poorer families who often spent it on things other than those that benefited their children. 
For these reasons the ACT party will oppose the bill. We would rather that the Government addressed the issue of lowering taxes in its Budget next week rather than trying to find other ways of supporting families. There is little doubt that New Zealanders are by far the best qualified to spend the money on their own behalf and that is certainly what we would like to see. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 My call will be a very short one. I just want to record what the last member said. The suggestion that if poor people got a family benefit they would not spend it in the interests of their children— 
Heather Roy 
: I said some poor families. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member implied that proportionately rich people in receipt of the family benefit had the interests of their children at heart while poor people did not. I suggest that when poor people go down to Countdown and try to buy good food to put in the stomachs of their children they are even more aware of budget constraints. Those pressures are far more real for poor people than for wealthy people. I do not think that that comment reflects well on either that member or her party. It was a terrible thing to imply. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 First of all I would like to thank those parties—New Zealand First and United Future—that offered to support this bill to the select committee so that it could at least be considered in the context of Government measures to support families and children. I am very conscious that these parties do not on the whole support Green Party initiatives so I thank them for taking the time to really look at what I have been trying to achieve in putting this bill forward for public debate rather than just acting on prejudice. 
On the other hand we in the Green Party have been under no illusions about the likelihood ultimately of Labour support for my member’s bill to reintroduce a low but universal benefit for all children. All along I had a faint but real hope that the Government might at least see its way clear to supporting the bill past its first reading given that all it does is reinstitute the family benefit that was lost with so little fanfare way back in 1991. The family benefit seemed to sink without trace in the era of massive benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act yet the loss we experienced then of that pitiful yet significant $6 a week per child is still with us now and in some ways having an even greater impact. 
Just imagine if in 2004 we had a universal child benefit that families could capitalise on so that they could at least raise the minimum necessary to put the deposit on their first home. Just imagine if families who have to borrow money or go to the food bank most weeks just to put food on the table could at least buy another $25 or $35 worth of food to feed their children. Just imagine if we lived in a country that dared to treat our youngest and most vulnerable citizens with a fraction of the same respect that we afford our elderly through a universal benefit called superannuation. 
I hope that all those people who criticised this bill because it is universal and not targeted just to families that they identify as poor will take a moment to ponder even briefly the fact that most parties in this House are more than happy to support universal superannuation—paid to everyone 65 and over no matter what their income or assets—while some of these same parties say at the same time that we cannot afford to offer all children and their primary caregivers the dignity and support of a very tiny $15 a week for the first child and $10 a week for the second. I wonder what that says about our comparative attitudes to people who are equally citizens of our country one segment of which can vote but the other cannot. 
I feel really sad tonight that a Labour Party filled with all sorts of well-intentioned people like Steve Maharey Jill Pettis Taito Philip Field and David Parker who have all spoken interestingly in this debate cannot at a minimum allow us to take my bill to the Social Services Committee. If we had been given that opportunity we could have looked at it in the light of Budget changes to family assistance and the benefit system overall—which evidently Dr Cullen is about to announce—received submissions and opened up a whole public discourse in this area that would have been very useful and timely. 
However that is not to be. Neither Labour nor National have seen fit to support my bill and this will be the last speech on the subject for a while at least. Nevertheless I do not regret the priority that the Green Party has put on supporting me in putting this bill forward and on making the ending of child poverty one of our key electoral policy targets. 
I would like to finish by thanking all the community trade union and church organisations that have supported this bill and by promising that we in the Green Party will continue to campaign for a society and a tax and benefit system that puts children and families at the front of policy making and not at the rear and that works for equity and sufficiency for all our citizens even those who cannot vote in elections. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6; Progressive 2. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Commission for the Family Bill 
First Reading 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commission for the Family Bill be now read a first time. 
 My intention is for this bill to replace the existing Families Commission Act of 2003. In speaking on the Commission for the Family Bill I would like to thank those members who seem to have more pressing issues to address than to speak to their bills in the House this evening. Obviously that has allowed my bill to move up the Order Paper very quickly. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. 
Sadly despite United Future’s best intentions in getting the Families Commission established through its confidence and supply arrangement with Labour the compromises those members chose—and I highlight the word “chose”—to make with the politically correct liberal cabal within Labour has meant that this issue needs to be reviewed urgently. We in New Zealand First have two fundamental issues with United Future’s Families Commission Act. 
I refer first to the definition of “family”. Definitions are important in legislation as we all know because when they are too broad or vague they become meaningless. The definition in the United Future Act is a clear sign of its capture by politically correct Labour. United Future will say that the definition is broad so as to include all types of family in New Zealand. However we should ask ourselves this question: does it sound like the language of United Future to include such a wide description of families or do we think it might just be Labour’s influence? This is the fate of a lapdog party forced to yield its values to its master. Why on the one hand would United Future spend so much time and money attacking the Civil Unions Bill when in the Families Commission Act it has already opened the gate on those relationships? 
Let me make it clear that we understand that there are different living arrangements out there. We do not have our heads in the sand. However it is not our intention to support living arrangements that quite frankly stretch the imagination to consider them families. United Future—particularly Mr Alexander—will say that no children should be excluded due to the nature of their living relationship. We say that is the role of the Children’s Commissioner not the Families Commission. We in New Zealand First know what a family really means. 
Marc Alexander 
: What is it? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The  
Oxford Dictionary 
 would help the member. The definition of a family is defined in my bill as such in clause 4 “Interpretation”. It means “a family group including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least 1 adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship”. That is unlike the definition in United Future’s Families Commission Act which states in section 10(2): “In this section ‘family’ includes a group of people related by marriage blood or adoption an extended family 2 or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised family group.” 
Hon Member 
: It includes the cat and the dog. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is right; basically it does include the cat and dog. That definition leaves open the possibility for policy makers to define what a family is and we have mentioned that many a time. We in New Zealand First say that is not good enough. Parliament must make these decisions not faceless bureaucrats. 
Our second major concern with the Families Commission Act relates to the function of the commission. I would like to compare the functions of the commission in United Future’s Families Commission Act with those in my New Zealand First Commission for the Family Bill. Section 8 in Part 1 of United Future’s Act—which is equivalent to clause 12 in Part 2 of my bill—highlights the additional functions of the commission and states: “(a) to encourage and facilitate informed debate by any of the following persons on matters relating to the interests of families: (i) representatives of government academic and community sectors; and (ii) members of the public:”. Members should compare that with clause 12(1) in my bill which gives as the first additional function: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents:”. We cut to the chase in this bill. It goes straight to the heart of the issues that families in this nation are going through. 
There is no politically correct drivel in my bill unlike another additional function in United Future’s Act which states: “(c) to encourage and facilitate the development and provision by Ministers of the Crown departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families:” Again these functions leave open the possibility for direction from members of the executive of the Government at the time. 
Peter Brown 
: This is United Future’s Act? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes that is right. I quickly want to read out the general functions in New Zealand First’s Commission for the Family Bill. Clause 12(1) states: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents: (b) to ensure all policy development reflects the fundamental needs of families and their children: (c) to provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services:”. 
Peter Brown 
: Marriage! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I know it is amazing—we have used that word “marriage”. It goes on to state: “(d) to facilitate family support and parental education classes: (e) to improve co-ordination of government departments: (f) to receive and invite representations from members of the public on any matter that relates to the welfare of the family: (g) to increase public awareness of matters that relate to the welfare of the family: (h) to promote in relation to decisions that affect the lives of the family the participation of the family in those decisions: (i) to report with or without request to the Minister on matters affecting the rights of the family: (j) to inquire generally into and report on any matter including any enactment or law or any practice or procedure that relates to the welfare of the family.” 
I wonder why United Future members went quiet when I was reading out those additional functions. The reason is that they have heard it before because I was reading out what they had in their manifesto. This is what they actually promised to the people of New Zealand. This is what Mr Alexander promised to the people of New Zealand and all of a sudden he is quiet—he is not talking any more. 
Barbara Stewart 
: He’s looking at his papers. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: He is looking into his desk. The functions I read out are what they promised the people of this nation. At the end of the day all they could do was to come up with some liberal garbage. They did not have the guts to stand up for the supporters and people who voted them into this Parliament. That is a disgrace and an absolute outrage and they will pay for it come the next election. 
We are giving United Future and the other parties in this Parliament the chance to support something of substance. We have ensured that this bill is written in language they can understand. Marc Alexander I think can understand it because it was in his party’s manifesto. 
Barbara Stewart 
: They’re quiet now. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes they are very quiet. We have ensured that the bill is written in simple language. Unlike United Future’s Act my legislation is littered with the words “families” and “parents” as we have just heard and “marriage” as well. It does not have politically correct alternatives aimed at fudging the issues. We call on all parties that really support families and do not apply just lip service to that to support my bill. This is a chance to correct the blatant errors of the earlier Act. 
In closing I acknowledge my colleague Dail Jones who in his maiden speech some 20 years ago made reference to the importance of having a families commission. I look forward to the support of the rest of the parties in this House. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Commission for the Family Bill which obviously is the expression of Mr Craig McNair. I tell Mr McNair that that was the first time I think in the 2 years since he has been here that I have had the pleasure of listening to his exposition on families on behalf of whatever constituency he is serving this evening. 
I think I should make it clear at the outset that the Government does not support this bill for the very obvious reason that we have a Families Commission process under way. We have a piece of legislation that will ensure that in July we launch that commission. We will have commissioners who will have a very wide brief. And of course the Government has not put aside funding for Mr McNair’s dream of a Commission for the Family. So I am sorry to say we will be voting it down. 
We should also note that Mr McNair’s speech this evening seemed largely tailored to try to antagonise the people from United Future. I did not hear a serious argument and I could tell from the demeanour of such serious people as Barbara Stewart whom I have enjoyed working with in this House that what we were watching was a joke. The joke was an attempt to run at United Future a debate that said that those members are wrong because they have taken an inclusive approach to the family rather than adopting a narrow definition such as the one adopted by Mr McNair in his bill. 
I want to tell the United Future people that one of the most refreshing parts of working with them is that they came into the House not only championing families not only arguing that families should be on the mat but with a view that they wanted to include the wide range of families in this country within their legislation and that is what they have attempted to do. They are inclusive. They are able to talk to all New Zealanders as a result. They are not dividing New Zealanders according to one form of family which is the only one that Mr McNair wants to talk to and forgetting about everybody else. By the way I tell Mr McNair the majority of people do not currently live in the kind of family he is talking about. They live in other kinds of families as well and United Future has had the guts—to use his word—to front up in here and put together a policy that appeals to that wider ranges of families rather than coming in here and talking to just one particular group of people. 
So I assume that what we are seeing tonight is not a serious effort to advance this argument. It really is just designed in a cheap way which often goes on in politics—but I do not think it should on a serious issue like this—to tell the United Future members who facilitated by the Government have made a very serious attempt to put the family on the political agenda that somehow they are embarrassing wrong or whatever and should be withdrawing what they are trying to do. I tell Mr McNair that I think this is a very serious debate. I think the family debate is one that this Parliament ought to be having. The fundamental institution of this country of course is the family which we all come into. 
But it does take a very wide range of forms. I shall give just one little example of why constantly harping on about the nuclear family might not be the wisest thing to do. Members should just think about the diversity of people we have in this country. Let us take the indigenous people—Maori. What is the most likely form of family historically amongst Maori? It is a form of family that often sees people raised by a biological member of the extended family; people may be raised by a grandmother or raised by an auntie. The family takes an extended form. There is not always a biological link by the way—not in the sense that Mr McNair means. Children may not have an immediate biological link to their family; they may be raised by people who are quite a long way away from them biologically. It is a very different kind of family. 
That is what United Future has had the wisdom to look at—that there are different kinds of families with different kinds of traditions and all those families need to be part of any kind of commission that looks at what modern New Zealand society is about. What we get from Mr McNair is an argument that says in effect that if a person does not belong to the traditional nuclear kind of family he does not want to talk to that person. That usually means to use the kind of language he talks about—he says one is being PC if one talks about other kinds of families—that people like him do not like sole parent families. They usually say they are an inadequate kind of family and if people happen to be in such a family well that is not the way things should be. That is the usual argument that comes from people like that. 
I want to tell Mr McNair that a lot of people live in sole parent families and the main reason that people in sole parent families have difficulties has nothing to do with the family form; it has to do with the amount of money that comes into the household. The research right across the world shows that if we can get the right kind of money going into those families then they can be a successful form of family. I want to tell Mr McNair that no one on this side— 
Craig McNair 
: Where did you read that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I promise Mr McNair that I have read a lot more than he has. No one on this side of the House says that it is not a good idea—probably it is the best idea—if a family stays together and the kids stay with their parents. But the fact of life is it does not always happen. That is what public policy has to allow for. It has to talk about that diversity of family and make sure that the best outcomes for the parents and for the children come from all those family forms. We should not try to pretend that somehow we can shoehorn everybody back into one kind of family once again. 
That is why the United Future people have been wise in the way they have gone about this issue. They want the best for all kids. They want the best for all parents. They want the best for all communities. They are not going to talk about one simple little section—no matter how important that section might be to the overall debate. That is why I applaud what the United Future folks have done on this issue. They have approached it in a way that includes every single New Zealander and does not marginalise any of them. I think that later on in this debate I am sure I will hear the United Future members make their own case as forcibly as they should and they will make it with the kind of dignity that this subject deserves—not the kind of constant laughter and undermining of the issue that seemed to go on around Mr McNair’s speech. Obviously he has put this bill together merely to raise this debate today; it is not a serious effort to advance the cause of families at all. I think that is a real shame given that we are about to go into a major debate of importance about it. I would have thought he would do a little more work and give us a better debate this evening. 
I return to the fact that the Families Commission will be up and running in July. That is the main reason of course that we cannot accommodate that particular commission—because we are already paying for one. I say to New Zealand First that our Families Commission has support right across the whole of the community from people who are interested in family issues. There were 58 submissions on that bill and there was support for the bill right across those submissions. Major groups like Plunket Barnardos and Parents Centres have identified this particular process as the one that they want to support. 
I am not quite sure what public pressure there might have been for New Zealand First to bring forward this particular bill. It would be interesting if maybe a later speaker could tell us where the public swelling of support was for the notion that we have a Commission for the Family of this kind. I have not heard it. It has not been on my desk. I cannot imagine that the United Future people Katherine Rich or anybody else have had people writing lots of letters saying they want an alternative commission and want it to look like this proposal. It does not seem to be coming from people all over the community particularly because all those people who might have written such letters have already made a submission in support of what United Future introduced. 
Just to round off— 
Dail Jones 
: Not another 2 minutes—this is rubbish! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree with Mr Jones about another 2 minutes being spent on this debate. We have just had to listen to 10 minutes of the New Zealand First member and it worries me too really that we have to spend our evening talking about this particular bill which New Zealand First would have known from the beginning was not a serious effort to put forward anything. We already have a Commission for the Family. This bill is just a device to try to bait the United Future people into feeling a little bit bad or whatever about the Families Commission. So I simply want to finish by saying that United Future has done an outstanding job of trying to put these issues on the map. Those members are way ahead of the debate that is contained in this particular bill because they are prepared to take on the issues of 21st century New Zealand and talk about how to have all forms of family deliver the best for kids their parents our community and our society. I applaud the way that they have gone about it and just repeat that the Government will not be supporting this bill. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I do not doubt for one second that Mr McNair had good intentions in bringing this bill to the House and that he meant well by putting this bill in the ballot but I think that as members of Parliament we should always think very carefully about bringing bills of any kind to the House because of the expense that is involved. Just keeping this Parliament going for 1 hour costs many many thousands of dollars. I do not think that bringing a bill like this to the House was the correct thing to do because we already have a similar initiative which is well under way. 
Our party does not support this bill. That will not come as a surprise to the many people who would have heard the debates about the initial Families Commission Bill which was brought to this House by the Government. National did not support the establishment of the Families Commission because although we saw that it had some worthy goals we felt that its cumbersome structure and overly bureaucratic nature meant it would not deliver the things that many New Zealanders thought it would deliver. Yes there has been support for the commission now that it is to be established in July. Although there was a very robust debate and both sides put forward their views very strongly we are now in a position where the Families Commission will be established and I think any attempt to undermine that development or sabotage it before it happens is not particularly useful. We are at a stage now where money has been put aside the process of putting together the commissioners is under way and a lot of the people who are involved have taken on board the good intentions. So I think we need to work with that commission now to make sure that the money is well spent and that it can at least try to achieve some of its goals which I think everybody in this House would support. 
We did have quite a bit of debate about the definition of a family but I do not think the definition in this bill adds any greater clarity. There still will be a huge debate about what a family is what constitutes a family. We will never get to a position where there is a heck of a lot of agreement. 
But I think there are some good things in this bill that are worthwhile talking about. This bill intends to create greater public awareness of the importance of families which I think is a good thing. It looks also to providing some practical services for families so that there is somewhere for families to go to seek help with mediation somewhere that promotes families provides counselling and does that sort of thing. Perhaps there is some merit in considering that. But these things could have been considered and put forward at the time of the initial bill. So that is why I think it is not a good use of time to spend members’ day discussing something that I think the country is well on the way to providing. 
Just further to the definition of the family during the debate on the other bill many people were surprised that the initial definition potentially could have included the likes of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. When I first raised this issue press releases were fired off saying that I had made “a silly claim” and I had missed the point entirely. It was very interesting that in the final parts of the debate that definition was tightened up. It was not just a concern of the National Party; it was a concern of many New Zealanders that there was not the clarity in that definition that they wanted. 
I understand that the Families Commission will be looking at a wide range of research. One of the concerns we raised at the time was that it should not go into areas where the Ministry of Social Development is already doing a lot of research. Our initial argument against the Families Commission Bill was that there is a huge amount of family-oriented research going on. We felt that the Ministry of Social Development was already doing that. Groups like the Parenting Council the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Parentline Plunket Parenting with Confidence Triple P and Parent to Parent are already doing a huge amount of work within the community to assist families and to promote the all-important role of the family as a unit within our community. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand and speak to the Commission for the Family Bill today and I certainly will not be supporting it. I think it is an incredibly naive bill from the member who is not exactly branded with being a family man or having an in-depth understanding about family issues. I feel quite justified in standing up to say that because today I have become a grandmother. I am a grandmother to a new member in my family who is not legally part of my family at all but is my grandchild. And by golly I will be there to support that little girl right through her family life. That little girl’s mother is not married to my son but she is my son’s partner and she is the mother of my grandchild. I am proud of the way that they have worked together to give this little child a wonderful start in her life and a joyous beginning today. We as a family do not give a jot whether our children are married are legally bound together or have one adult member. We just know in our family that when one of our children sires a baby that child belongs to our family our whanau and we will give it the love and support those parents need and walk beside them in their life. 
So I feel quite justified in standing here today to question why that member went to the effort with good intentions—I think he is well intentioned—to put together a bill such as this that it was very clear in the House advocates a Commission for the Family to our Minister for Social Development and Employment. The member had every opportunity to work with United Future and to come together with that party to our Minister. We would have loved it if other parties had showed their support and had come in and worked with us on developing very robust legislation such as we have now but that member did not ever take that opportunity. He never pounded a path to the Minister’s door. He has not joined with other parliamentary groups that seriously consider family issues such as the Littlies Lobby that holds regular meetings and looks at issues that impact on families and family support. 
I find the actual definition in the bill simply silly. It is out of touch with reality today in the contemporary New Zealand world. Why do families have to have members with a biological or legal relationship? What right does that member have to define what a family is? 
Then we turn to functions. The member proposes 10 lofty functions for his commission and all are rather peculiar. How could a commission for families improve the coordination of Government departments? For goodness’ sake! Has the member not listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment who stood here week after week talking about an all-of-Government approach so that we do build resilient families? 
The member has one function in the bill that is about antenatal education. For goodness’ sake! Antenatal education exists now. What is the point of setting it up? I wonder whether the member himself knows how much it costs to go to antenatal education classes how available classes are and when to engage in classes. I think the member should be a little more considered when he tries to brand himself as he said with a bill that is not PC. 
I say that this bill is a dismal failure. I urge the member with his well-intentioned approach to come and work collaboratively with us on putting some sense into the Families Commission that is to be launched in July this year. I would have thought that the right thing to do was not to waste the energy of the drafters and the Parliamentary Counsel Office or the time in this House but actually to put constructive criticism and input into the alliance that Labour has put together with United Future under the leadership of Minister Maharey to build something that will be durable and sustainable. 
I think it is unfortunate that people get labelled. The member must realise that with a member’s bill one gets labelled. I am very proud of being labelled with the anti-smoking bill but I think it is unfortunate that Mr McNair will be labelled with this dismal bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 There is not a lot more to say about this bill but I must admit that as a member of the Social Services Committee which not that long ago spent some considerable months hearing submissions and considering the bill that established the Families Commission I find it extremely odd to be debating the first reading of the Commission for the Family Bill tonight. Members’ bills usually represent substantial drafting and political commitment from the members of parties that put them forward. I would have thought that Mr McNair and New Zealand First as a minor party without the ability to create and implement Government legislation would put their efforts into a somewhat more useful and creative policy initiative at this time. 
However I will make just a few points about Mr McNair’s bill. First of all as others have pointed out it is totally redundant. The Families Commission for better or worse is being established and will get under way in July. Although the Green Party did not support the Families Commission Bill I have to acknowledge the thought and work that went into it from both United Future and Labour. I believe that anyone who cares about families and children as the member’s party claims it does should now work with the Families Commission and make the most of what has been achieved so that it does work in the future for the benefit of all families and children in this country. That is an obligation on any of us who support the kaupapa of families and children. 
The second point I would like to make is around what appears to be Mr McNair’s key motivation in continuing to put his bill forward his enthusiasm for establishing a different definition of family than that which evolved through the whole developmental process of United Future’s Families Commission Bill. Mr McNair seems to be oblivious to the many debates that took place in the select committee and in the House—and I am sure the many more debates that took place behind various closed doors—about the definition of“family” in New Zealand today. I have sat through many of them and it is a very complex issue. Those discussions ended up with even a very morally conservative party like United Future agreeing that in this country in 2004 the nature of families is widely variable and does not fit at all with the kind of simplistic wording we see in this bill tonight. Mr NcNair’s bill is a most ill-informed and rudimentary attempt at a member’s bill and I hope his next effort goes better. 
As for the rest of the bill the functions he puts forward are pretty much all contained within the Government legislation apart from ones that are irrelevant as Steve Chadwick pointed out because they already exist. I have to agree with Steve Chadwick Mr Maharey Katherine Rich and others who have said that this bill is basically wasting the time of the House. I would rather be debating a real policy initiative no matter how much I disagreed with it than wasting time on this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am going to congratulate Craig McNair on the Commission for the Family Bill. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The grand coalition! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well it is good to see a young member of the House who does not have the cynical world-weary “thumb-your-nose” view on any attempt to do something good that other members of this House have. I am serious. The ACT party is consistent in that its members do not support any commission for the family so we are not supporting this bill. But I do not see the need for other members in this House to say this bill is wasting our time. The last member who spoke criticised Mr McNair for wasting the time of the House. I would argue that her member’s bill would waste the time of the House too because it would be better to get people who are on welfare off welfare and out into work than have them racking up more welfare and locked into dependency for the rest of their lives. 
The purposes in the explanatory note of this bill are good.There are good things in this bill. There are things in this bill that everyone in New Zealand should look at if they are serious about the family. The family is the basis of a civil society. The family is what keeps a civil society together. If we do not have families that function well then we do not have a society that functions well. What does it matter that this member is newly married and does not have children? I see a number of members on that side of the House who have no children either. Does that disqualify them from commenting on legislation that seeks to protect the family? 
Peter Brown 
: We’ll have to think about that! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: They say they will have to think about it. I do not think so. If we were disqualified from speaking on legislation just because we did not have experience in various areas there would be a lot of people in this House who should not be getting up and speaking. United Future members I notice in their legislation mentioned the word “family” in only six out of 60 clauses. Yet they say they are the party for the family. Their bill was really about building up and inflating the bureaucracy. It was all about superannuation for commission members etc. etc. This is the exact reason why the State the Government should not be involved in the family at all until someone gets hurt. When someone in a family is breaking the law that is when the State should step in to protect them. But the carping that has gone on tonight under the pretence of debate shows exactly why Government should not be involved in the family. Labour members are saying: “We support the family only when it is our bill. When it is your bill we don’t support the family. It’s all different. It is a waste of time.” 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The bus has left. It’s gone. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Clayton Cosgrove says he has missed the bus so Clayton Cosgrove believes that the Government’s Families Commission is perfect. Well we shall wait and see when it comes in. I am sure there are parts of this legislation that could have improved Labour’s legislation by a long shot. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Have you matched them up? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Has that member defined what is a family? Does that party know what is a family? Therein lies the problem of the State getting involved in trying to define what is afamily. According to that party a “family” is anyone a person has some sort of spiritual or emotional connection with. If we get down to that level of definition it is “jokers’ wild” because then the family means anything. If the Government concentrated more on ensuring that every child was a wanted child and that every child had two parents who whether or not they stayed together were financially emotionally and intellectually committed to the welfare and upbringing of that child then family life in this country might be a lot improved. 
Having a child is the greatest thing that two people will ever do in their lives. It is a gift. That Government in the Budget that is coming out will lock more and more families into dependency and welfare and consign more children to the scrapheap of dependency on the State than anything else it has done in its term of Government. The Government will be a welfare Government. It will destroy the family even more than it has now. That is what those members should be ashamed of. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to voice our absolute outrage at the time-wasting and game-playingthat the House is being subjected to by the sponsor of this bill. The credibility of the party that member represents was completely shot to pieces during the select committee process on the Families Commission Bill which passed into law at the end of last year. When those members joined forces with the National and ACT parties to throw away the opportunity to propose changes to that bill it was left to the Government and United Future to address the suggestions that were made by submitters. Most members are thrilled when their members’ bills are superseded and fast tracked into the House by a Government bill and they work hard to make sure that their concerns and interests are at least in some way reflected in the Government’s proposal. But that was not so with the members of New Zealand First. Oh no! They sabotaged the process insulted submitters and voted to return the bill with no commentary—not even a minority report outlining any concerns. 
 One would assume then that this member’s bill is significantly different and focused in a completely different direction from the commission negotiated by United Future with the Labour-Progressive Government which is scheduled to be up and running by 1 July this year only a few weeks away. The explanatory note of this bill outlines 10 functions and powers for this alternative Commission for the Family. Eight of the functions listed are covered in the legislation passed last year and the remaining two would see the commission wasting taxpayer dollars on competing with and duplicating the work of the many parent educators marriage counsellors and family therapists already operating in New Zealand. 
The bill has two parts. The first includes the normal preliminary provisions. The second has 22 clauses half of which are dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the appointment and job description of the commissioners. One clause repeats the list of functions from the explanatory note of the bill and then it goes on beyond what is in the explanatory note to reveal what appear to be rather vague but extensive powers for the commissioners. The bill does attempt to define the family. However in doing so it excludes large numbers of New Zealanders who are members of families including orphaned siblings and step-parents who have not obtained legal guardianship of their partners’ or spouses’ children. I can only conclude that that was unintentional because clause 11 of Mr McNair’s bill requires commissioners to have regard to and recognise family diversity—just like the original bill. Voters interested in this project will now be hard-pressed to understand why the New Zealand First members joined in the howls of protest last December when the Labour - United Future version of the bill acknowledged the reality of family diversity. They will be left with only one conclusion which is that New Zealand First is more interested in game-playing than it is in really supporting the cause of New Zealand families. 
I say to Mr McNair that the New Zealand voter is not stupid. The proposed commission has neither a research function nor any requirement that policy advice be evidence-based. It appears that policy would be driven by suggestions made by anyone who was of a mind to make them but it is unclear what mechanism would be used when conflicting advice had to be processed. This proposal gives commissioners the power to access confidential information from the courts but then it is very unclear what the information could and would be used for. It certainly could not be used to challenge court decisions because the proposal is clear that it could not be and if the plan does not mean to duplicate the new powers of the Children’s Commissioner then one can only guess at the intention. 
This proposal has been in the ballot unchanged for nearly 2 years now and if either of the New Zealand First sponsors who at different times have lent their names to the proposal had bothered to consult widely with family-focused organisations or had at least measured their proposal against the submissions made on the existing legislation they would have concluded that this proposal falls well short of the advice and recommendations of the huge numbers of groups that supported the notion of a families commission from the start. This bill seeks to set up an additional family service provider to offer mediation education and counselling. Instead of advocating for family services this model would compete for Government funding alongside existing providers. The commission proposed by this member would end up pitting itself against the very organisations it should be advocating for. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the Commission for the Family Bill. In the words of my predecessor in the Waimakariri electorate this member is a day late and a dollar short. Mr McNair sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with me and I think he is a reasonable bloke but I do not hold him responsible for this bill as it should have been pulled. The senior members of New Zealand First—and I see Dail Jones the Arthur Daly of New Zealand politics is here—hold the leadership role in that party. Dail Jones should have advised the new member to pull the bill. He should not have stuck the member out on a pole tonight—and I have some sympathy for Mr McNair but for different reasons from Ms Coddington’s. I have some sympathy for him and say he should not have been stuck out on a pole tonight and told for the sake of political expediency the politics of envy and reasons to do with jealousy to have a go at United Future because it got there first and worked constructively with the Government. Mr McNair should not have been stuck out on the ledge; he should have been told to pull the bill. So I do not hold Mr McNair responsible for this situation. 
I think United Future deserves—as the Hon Steve Maharey said—a huge amount ofcongratulations on the way it promoted this policy. The Families Commission was a flagship policy for the United Future members. They came to the Government after the last election and said it was one of the flagship policies they wanted. They worked with us and now we have a Families Commission. They deserve credit for that. The commission will become activated in July and $28 million or more has been put up for that. It is a concrete step rather than the flippant puffery that members hear from Dail Jones. I know members will hear that again tonight because Dail Jones cannot resist getting on his feet and putting his foot in his mouth. He should have shown leadership and advised his colleague to pull the bill but he did not. Perhaps if Winston Peters had been in charge of the New Zealand First members tonight—if one can put it that way—I think he would have advised the member to pull his bill. But they have the B team in the leadership role tonight and they did not front up to do that. 
I want to briefly address Ms Coddington’s comments because it was the usual ACT diatribe from that member and the rest of the ACT team. I think she said that they would not support any legislation to assist families except for their mates’ families. That means except for the families with Mercedes-Benzes and flash places in Remuera— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The ones who pay their GST. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The families who pay their tax—some do; some do not—are the sort of families that party would support. Those members are not interested in what the Families Commission will do which is to support those who need assistance to reconstruct families where appropriate to give advice and to support families who are in need of that support. No no—to quote from another colleague the ACT party is interested only in the “big end” the silver-plated end of town. That is the group the ACT members represent because they know they do not get their 2 percent of the vote—or is it 1 percent—from the battlers who need assistance. They get their support from the “big end” or the silver-plated end of town. 
In summation this bill is as a few other speakers have said a well-intentioned bill from Mr McNair. I will give him credit for that. But it is ill-advised and when one is in this place—and I have not been here in Parliament very long myself—one does look to the senior people in one’s party for advice and leadership from time to time. I go back and say again to Mr Jones and Mr Brown that they should have shown leadership tonight and advised Mr McNair that he had missed the bus. He was a day late and a dollar short. They should not have stuck him out on a pole for the sake of political expediency downright jealousy and the politics of envy. All that has been accomplished tonight is that the New Zealand First members have vented their spleen by trying to have a crack at United Future. Well I am sorry to tell Mr Jones and Mr Brown that the sad thing for those members is that United Future can stand up with credibility along with this Government and say it has done it—established the Families Commission—and that in July the commission will become operational with $28 million in funding. That Opposition party can say it did not contribute to the debate on the Families Commission and did not put policy up but had a crack at the issue at the eleventh hour. All that that has generated for the New Zealand First members bluntly is a degradation of their integrity and some humiliation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Craig McNair on taking the Commission for the Family Bill on. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You set him up. 
DAIL JONES 
: I make the point—exactly what Clayton Cosgrove has just been saying—that I asked Craig McNair whether he really wanted to take this bill on bearing in mind there is now a Families Commission Act and he insisted on doing it because he supports the family and could see the errors in the existing legislation. Craig McNair was given the choice not to move this bill but he insisted on doing it because he is a family person and because the existing bill has grave deficiencies. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You set him up. 
DAIL JONES 
: That is your answer I say to Mr Cosgrove. 
Craig McNair is a family person newly married and we in New Zealand First are thrilled that our youngest member of Parliament should want to make a stand and draw a line in the sand as to what a family is as set out in this bill and what a family is not as set out in the Labour - United Future legislation. That is the line in the sand for New Zealand First. Now it may be that the National Party the ACT party and some of the other parties do not in principle support this type of legislation and that is fair enough but if one is going to support this type of legislation one should do it properly and get a decent definition for “family”. 
 One should get a definition that states as this bill does in its explanatory note—and I quote because Labour members have not read the bill and I include Steve Chadwick and the Minister Mr Maharey in that comment—“A family is defined as a family group including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member;”. For the benefit of Mr Maharey I point out that “one adult member” includes solo parents. He is attacking this bill for not supporting solo parents. It does in the words “one adult member;”. The explanatory note continues: “(b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” Steve Chadwick has not read this bill either. She said her grandchild would not have the benefit of this bill. Well her grandchild will because my definition of “biological” includes “my grandchild”. I congratulate Steve Chadwick and her family on having a grandchild today but she has not read this bill and her grandchild would come within the scope of this legislation. 
The United Future party and the Labour Party have set this bill up from the point of view of it being a precursor to the Civil Union Bill. The definition in the existing Families Commission Act is perfect if one supports the Civil Union Bill—and clearly United Future does. Section10(2) of the Families Commission Act states: “In this section family includes a group of people related by marriage blood or adoption an extended family 2 or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised family group.” That is a pretty wide definition and subsection (3) continues it. There will be some great problems associated with the definition set out in the Labour - United Future legislation. 
It was interesting to hear from Ms Turner of United Future. She was quite vitriolic about this bill. She seemed terribly upset. After all when we look at United Future’s election policy we see that she was criticising something that was in that party’s election manifesto. United Future went around the country saying it would establish a commission for the family “to provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services.” That was United Future’s election policy but tonight Ms Turner turned her back on the policy that was put in every letterbox that that party could possibly find. It is set out here in United Future’s election policy which Craig McNair will seek to table in the House at the conclusion of this debate. 
May I say that of the speeches I have heard tonight I would have to congratulate Deborah Coddington on making the best speech of all. Even though she disagreed with the bill I thought her speech far surpassed anyone else’s especially that of Katherine Rich from the National Party. When one looks at the calibre of someone like Deborah Coddington—who can make a genuine speech on behalf of the family—and the calibre of someone like Katherine Rich one knows who is the winner by a country mile. 
The crunch of Deborah Coddington’s speech which really rubbished that of Katherine Rich concerned the fact that—and this was the thought that occurred to me—some members commented on what a cheek it was for Craig McNair to bring a member’s bill into the House but that it is a member’s constitutional right to bring to the House any bill that he or she feels like bringing to the House. Those other members may not like it but a member may bring it in. Members may bring in an abortion bill a homosexuality bill a death with dignity bill—any kind of bill they like. It is their right as members of the New Zealand Parliament to bring in a bill whether or not other members of Parliament like it. It is a member’s constitutional right. The National Party does not support that constitutional right and neither do the Greens. Although the Greens bring in some quite outlandish bills we will never deny them the right to bring those into the House. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In reply to the speeches I have heard tonight I will start with what Katherine Rich said. She raised the issue of me wasting Parliament’s time in bringing this bill to the House. I will always feel that people should stand up for what they believe in which is similar to what Dail Jones has just been saying. I believe that people should stand up for what they believe in and not be ashamed for it. I want to acknowledge Deborah Coddington for believing that one should stand up for what one believes. She admitted that her party would not be supporting this bill and that is fine. That is her right. But I want to thank her for believing in the right to be able to stand up and be counted. 
I want to say how disappointed I am in the Minister Steve Maharey Judy Turner from United Future Steve Chadwick and others who questioned my intentions for this bill. They said that I did not have very good intentions. But I ask if one disagrees with somebody does that mean that one has bad intentions? I disagree with Tim Barnett on most issues. Does that mean I think he has bad intentions? No. He may have very genuine intentions—and he does. I am sure he does. But we approach a lot of issues from different angles and different viewpoints and I respect him for that. I have heard the most disgusting outrageous speeches from United Future and from Labour but especially from United Future. Judy Turner comes from a church community which says one should stand up for issues like this. I have been put down for standing up for what I believe in and I say that is quite frankly disgraceful. It is a real shame. I also take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said. He said that I was set up. No—I was not. I went to Dail Jones and asked him if I could take on this bill. I am very passionate about it. I tell Mr Cosgrove that quite frankly I do not want his sympathy. I do not need his sympathy. I am absolutely 100 percent proud of this bill and of what New Zealand First is standing for. 
I am very much looking forward to taking this issue back to the community I live in at Rodney and sharing with them the information as to who voted against who voted for and who said what. I will definitely even be telling them that at least the ACT party and Deborah Coddington respect somebody for standing up for what they believe in. I think that that has incredible virtue compared with how members on the Government side of the House want to talk about giving me sympathy or whatever as Mr Cosgrove did and use the excuse that I was hospital-passed this bill. That is ridiculous. I underline again and reiterate exactly what the general functions and powers of the commission in my bill are. Actually I will read them from United Future’s manifesto just to highlight again what I was saying because they are exactly the same as those in my bill. 
Peter Brown 
: It can’t be. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I know. It is just unbelievable. The manifesto of United Future states that that its aims are to promote the status of families and the role of parents; to ensure all policy development reflects the fundamental needs of families and their children; to provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling—[ 
Interruption 
] Shall I read from this or shall I read from my bill? I want to know whether United Future members are voting against this. They are and they seem proud of it. That United Future member was one who joined in the song with Steve Maharey saying that I should not stand up for what I believe in. She even put out a press release quite a few months ago when the bill came out to say that we were venal. Yes she remembers that and I will bring out the press release for her if she wants. She remembers. She knows what I am talking about. I am not just throwing something around and saying a load of rubbish like some of the speeches I have heard today. It is a sad sad thing to see United Future sticking up for legislation like the commission they have set up with Labour. 
I want to continue with the general functions and powers of the commission in my bill because I want to say how important these are compared to the PC drivel in the Labour - United Future Act. I seek leave of the House to table United Future’s 2002 manifesto. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Inquiry into the 2002 General Election 
Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee 
TIM BARNETT (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Inquiry into the 2002 General Election.  
This is a rare and welcome opportunity for a select committee to present to the House a significant report that in this case took 19 hours and the work of a team of expert advisers to prepare. Over the last 15 months the Justice and Electoral Committee has worked on its review of the 2002 general election. This is one of those brief moments amongst the cauldron of legislative and set-piece debates in the House when the unique work of a select committee floats to the surface. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s historic. 
TIM BARNETT 
: I say to Mr Hughes that it is historic indeed and it is for a brief moment that I will speak about it. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee mainly deals with justice issues but since 1999 it has covered the Local Electoral Act the famous electoral integrity legislation and the electoral amendment legislation. This is its second report into an election. 
After the review of the 1999 election 87 changes were made to the way the election of 2002 operated. That election was by all accounts the most smoothly administered general election we had had for many years. As part of the committee’s inquiry it reviewed some of the factors by which elections can be compared. The notable aspects of the 2002 election were that the enrolment level was up 3 percent to 94.2 percent of eligible voters the turnout was down from 85 percent to 77 percent the turnout was significantly down among people on the Maori roll the number of early votes cast—because the election was in a winter holiday period—went up from 5.22 percent to 6.45 percent and so forth. Overall indications were that the 2002 election was extremely well administered. 
The committee’s inquiry has come up with three recommendations and it awaits the response on those from the Government in the next couple of weeks. Those recommendations are: firstly that there be a fundamental review of the law relating to parliamentary elections; secondly that the recommendations of the committee from the 1996 and 1999 elections relating to electoral broadcasting be put into effect in time for the election next year; and thirdly that a package of extra items also be acted on. 
In terms of the fundamental review the committee identified a whole variety of issues including electoral organisational structure State funding disclosure of party donations taxation status of political parties and various other items which are sitting there ready to be reviewed. The committee would like to have had that job done at this stage and I am sure that Mr Donald will refer to that later but we are content to say that it is a major task that needs to happen over the next short period. 
The second package of our recommendations basically repeats the unfinished business of the 1996 and 1999 election reviews. One problem with the process of having select committees look at elections is that not all that they recommend is ever enacted in this busy place the Chamber of our Parliament. Those recommendations are about anomalies concerning electoral broadcasting—making the administration of those rules easier for the Electoral Commission and recognising that both elections and broadcasting are dynamic fields in which changes are made from time to time. 
The third recommendation relates to a whole package of new items. These are mainly additional broadcasting matters that came up through the last election but they also include such things as national guidelines on electoral hoardings—a matter of great interest to many people in this House—and party access to the electronic lists of non-voters so that political parties can encourage higher turnout. As well there is the recommendation that all electoral broadcasting on television funded from the public purse be captioned so that people who are deaf or hearing-impaired can access those broadcasts. The committee also recommended that the amount of money in the Budget for electoral broadcasting be significantly increased to $3.212 million an increase of about 50 percent in recognition that funding has not gone up in the last 10 years. 
An important role of a select committee is to conduct these reviews of electoral law. As I said the committee has flagged the urgent need for a fundamental review of the Electoral Act. One example of the difficulties being created was the issue last year concerning citizenship and electoral law. That was an example of how complex and convoluted that legislation has become and I certainly urge the Government to take up this recommendation. 
In a sense it is at the core of our democracy that people representing eight different political parties can meet together over a period of 15 months and discuss a whole variety of electoral issues can agree on an awful lot and can disagree on a few. That is all part of democracy and that is how we deal with the bread and butter of our activities as professional politicians. I commend the report to the House. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is an unusually warm evening and I seek leave for members who so wish to be able to remove their jackets for the remainder of the evening. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
ROD DONALD 
: I thank fellow members! I am delighted that we are having this debate this evening. The  
Inquiry into the 2002 General Election  
is an important report that normally would not have seen the light of day in the House because members’ bills would have taken up the available time. I believe that this is an unintended insult to select committee members who toil over reports such as this and I think we should remedy this deficiency by setting aside time to debate select committee orders. That is exactly why the Green Party supported the Clerk of the House David McGee in his proposal to the Standing Orders Committee last year to establish a dedicated time each week to debate select committee reports. 
I am very sorry that the Standing Orders Committee did not adopt that recommendation because this report is not the only one worthy of debate. If members look at the Order Paper this evening they will see that we could also have debated the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Statement the Health Committee’s inquiry into hospital-acquired infection and even the Social Services Committee’s briefing on the work of Parentline. All of that is important work undertaken by select committees that deserves not only to end up on the Order Paper but to have the chance to be debated before the full Parliament. 
I am looking forward to the National Party’s contribution to tonight’s debate. I believe that its campaign at the last election was quite extraordinary. Despite National being the party that created MMP by legislating for it in 1993—and I congratulate the party on honouring its 1990 election commitment—it failed MMP 101. I am always interested to hear what National members have to say on how we should run elections. I had something in common with Mr Tisch at the general election inquiry but I am afraid the majority on the committee defeated the Greens on some of the changes we were trying to achieve. 
 So I am both pleased and disappointed in the outcome of this inquiry. My pleasure remains on hold however until the recommendations in the report especially the limited ones on reforming the broadcasting rules become law. That is because I was on the review of the 1996 election and we made exactly the same recommendations. A bill was introduced into Parliament; it went right through the select committee process and was reported back to Parliament and if my memory is correct it was carried over at the 1999 election but then was quietly discharged by the Labour Government. So I urge this Labour Government to get on with progressing the amendments to the Broadcasting Act this year in order to save the Electoral Commission the unnecessary work next year that the current rules require it to carry out. 
Like Mr Barnett I support the recommendation of the committee to increase broadcasting funding for the 2005 election to $3.2 million. That fund has not increased since 1990 so an increase is long overdue. But more money is a poor substitute for introducing proper State funding for political parties. So to that end I have to support the first recommendation of the committee which is to undertake a fundamental review of the law relating to parliamentary elections and that that review be completed and any changes be in place for the 2008 election. That at least I hope will be a step in the right direction but I urge Tim Barnett the chair of the select committee to ensure that it gets started on that work. 
Again a review is still a poor substitute for some action. The action we needed was a range of initiatives which happen to be outlined in the Green Party minority view in this report. The first concern we have is that the committee chose not to address the glaring need to improve the donation disclosure regime. The current rules on anonymous donations are quite frankly inadequate and lack any look-through provisions for front organisations such as the National Party’s Free Enterprise Trust. That makes a mockery of the existing regime and clearly points to the need for greater transparency to give the public confidence that political parties are not beholden to their funders. That means we need a limit on anonymous donations—say $250—and above that every donation has to be declared. 
The second failing of the committee was its refusal to grapple with the State funding issue that I mentioned before. The 1986 royal commission recommended such a step in concert with the introduction of proportional representation and our nearest neighbour Australia has had a robust system in place for many years. It would not have been difficult for the select committee to propose a framework that could operate either alongside or as a replacement for the present regime. What is certain is the need for change to ensure that the public is well informed about the policies and candidates of the parties. What is also certain is that what we have now is a disaster. One has only to look at the allocations at the last election to see that. National received $1.45 per vote United Future received 55c per vote and the rest of us were somewhere in the middle. The allocation system was arbitrary rather than fair. 
The third disappointment that the Green Party has is that the select committee did not properly address—or even report on—the arguments for and against the removal of political party representatives on the Electoral Commission and the Representation Commission. I look forward to my colleague Richard Prebble supporting me on that point because it is patently unfair in an MMP Parliament with seven parties for only two of them to be represented on those bodies. It should be noted that in the Electoral Commission’s own submission to the 1996 election inquiry the commission itself recommended that all political party representatives be removed. In the Representation Commission’s 1995 report it stated that it is difficult for the commission to maintain a reputation of independence in relation to an alleged leak of provisional boundaries by a political party representative on the commission. 
At least I hope those matters will be addressed when the review of the electoral organisation structure takes place and at least that review I hope will look at combining the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission into one body that is statutorily independent from the Government of the day. 
Another matter the select committee did not address—and it therefore failed to complete its task—was the issue of entrenchment because some sections of the Electoral Act currently enjoy protection while other fundamental sections remain subject to amendment by a simple majority. In particular I refer to section 45 which defines the Maori seats. Whether one believes that they should exist or not they should enjoy the same protection that the general seats have under sections 35 and 36. Equally section 168 which defines the method of voting is entrenched but the much more crucial section 191 which defines how many seats there are and how the party votes are applied and determines what the party vote threshold is is not entrenched. Those matters deserve to be addressed as does the ongoing problem with tolerance. 
I believe that the tolerance needs to be increased to plus or minus 10 percent. There is absolutely no reason to maintain the current level of tolerance when it is the party vote that determines the number of seats each party wins not the electorate votes. There are some very good arguments for increasing the tolerance in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the report. 
Finally I would like to finish as we come to the celebration of the 150th year of this Parliament with my concern that we desperately need to adopt a programme of civics education in our schools in this country. I believe our democracy is in danger because our young people in particular think this place is irrelevant to them. According to the New Zealand Election Study survey at the last election 38 percent of under-29-year-olds did not bother to vote and that contributed to the turn-out dropping from 85 percent in 1999 to 77 percent in 2002. I believe it is the responsibility of all of us in this House to reverse that trend and to improve the turn-out. I doubt that we will improve our behaviour as a way of encouraging more young people to vote but at least we can adopt and implement a civics education programme in schools to try to point out the positive features of our representative democracy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Let me in bipartisan spirit start off by saying that there are some matters raised by Mr Rod Donald of the Green Party that I do agree with. The first is that this is an important report; it ought to be debated and I think the other major parties should look at it. Secondly I do agree with him that having representatives from two political parties on the Electoral Commission and broadcasting is fundamentally wrong and it does compromise those organisations. I say to the House that it is a fact that prior to the boundaries being drawn after the 1996 election I drew for my staff the most unfavourable boundaries that could be technically possible for Wellington Central and said that that would be what the so-called independent commission would draw up. When it came out I was slightly wrong. There was a little bit of the electorate that could have been put in to make the boundaries even more unfavourable for me. There was a considerable amount of appeals from people in Wellington Central and the only change that the Electoral Commission made was to move to the boundaries that were the most adverse possible to me. I know that the civil servants claim they were unbiased. Rubbish! It is mathematically impossible to do that and of course we know that the same thing was done to the Social Credit Party. One of the reasons why first past the post became discredited was because the two major parties were able to influence the drawing of boundaries in this country. I say that those political representatives should not be on the commission. 
The next point that is clearly unfair concerns State funding. Per vote the ACT party gets the lowest amount election after election. 
Rod Donald 
: Not last time. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think we were the lowest again. Of course the National Party ended up with $1.40 and that is because the system is biased in favour of the two major parties. They receive the bulk of television time and then by law other political parties are not able to buy any advertising time. What is interesting is that with nations similar to ourselves that have written constitutions—like Australia Canada and the United States—when our types of broadcasting laws have been passed by their Parliaments the courts every time—I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A Minister is trying to hold a loud conversation in my ear. 
In Australia Canada and the United States New Zealand -type broadcasting laws have been struck down. Why? First they are an affront to the principle of free speech. By law we are refusing to allow certain opinions to be broadcast and secondly in a free society people ought to be able to spend their own money to advocate their views. We as a Parliament are saying that they cannot. That works very much to the detriment of my political party. 
I shall run through some other points that I do not think have been looked at. The Labour Government has spent a fortune to put people on the roll. In a free society that would be the duty of the citizen. Is it worthwhile? No it is not. While the number of people on the roll went up and in parts of New Zealand people were chasing citizens around the streets to try to get them enrolled it did not result in more people voting. It is a monstrous waste of taxpayers’ money. The fact is that the Government is prepared to spend that money because the Labour Party thinks that it is to its electoral advantage. I am disappointed that the select committee— [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister who is now interjecting should go back to playing her ukulele. The select committee has not given us any sort of report on whether that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. 
I now turn to another point that the committee in my view has not—[ 
Interruption 
] That Minister was elected on her name not for any work she has done. She also said that she would solve Auckland’s traffic woes. They seem to be going about as fast as she is. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: You were going to save Rail. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: That’s right. You were to save Rail. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I most certainly did. It is still there if the Minister would like to look. That Minister wants to spend taxpayers’ money on ukuleles but is not prepared to speak on why she is sending silly invitations to people to sing with her with a ukulele. I have better things to do. That Minister is being paid by the taxpayer to be a Minister gets a Minister’s car and thinks that is a ground for her to interject. However I shall turn to the question. 
Dail Jones 
: What’s she ever done to earn a Minister’s salary? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Nothing in my view. I tell the House that with regard to appeals for State funding for political parties if the select committee had examined the matters properly and added up all the State funding I believe I am right in saying that there is no other country that has more State funding than New Zealand. I know that that is an unpopular thing to say to MPs because they always want to maintain that that is not the case. In fact unlike Britain once the election is on members of Parliament are still able to fly around the country use their telephones and their full postal privileges. All those matters would be added up and included in a party’s expenditure in any transparent system but they are not. 
Then when we have a discussion on donations we find that the donation list is most extraordinary. It is quite possible for an organisation to give full-time organisers and cars to a political party but that never has to be recorded. In fact that does go on and we all know that the Labour Party is the biggest beneficiary of that. [ 
Interruption 
]The member raised the subject of Auckland Central. When I was the member for Auckland Central two full-time trade unionists and a car turned up to work for me. I did not have to put that down because there was nowhere in the return for that. When the Green Party talks about transparency—if we are to have that and that is what we ought to do—in my view if a trade union wants to use its union funds to support a political party so be it. In a free society it should. However we should not have the trade union -supported party then saying “It’s perfectly OK for us to be funded and for us to receive 10 20 60 cars or whatever it is from the trade union movement and full-time organisers but oh dear those people who are supported by business interests in New Zealand ought to be required to make a full report of their accounts.” 
I think the donation rules are a nonsense. Personally I believe in freedom. If people want to contribute their own money to political parties that is their business and not the business of others many of whom have never given a dollar or done anything to help in any election ever. 
Finally while the committee has called for the Government to do a review of the Electoral Act frankly I do not trust it to do that. If it is anything like this report the changes that will be recommended will be partisan and designed to help a particular political party. With regard to elections we ought to try to make sure that they are free open and people are able to have free speech. We ought to allow all citizens to have access to the airwaves. Countries that have restrictions on airwaves used to be part of the Communist bloc. We now have some of the most restrictive anti - free speech electoral laws in the world and they have been put together for the simple reason of creating a handicap system in favour of the two major parties. The sooner they are done away with the better. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by expressing United Future’s congratulations to the Electoral Commission the Chief Electoral Office and the Electoral Enrolment Centre on the very good outcome of the 2002 election in terms of the way it was run. There was certainly a dramatic improvement in addressing the causes of concern from the previous election and those institutions did a fine job. 
The inquiry into the general election that always takes place afterwards is an opportunity to relook at our electoral system and to consider changes that could improve it. This year we considered two primary areas in particular. One was the area of donations to political parties and the other was the funding of political parties. In respect of donations to political parties issues such as the threshold for disclosure of donations limits on the amount that can be donated and the vexed problem of anonymous donations were all looked at at length. In the end the Justice and Electoral Committee decided not to take on the hard issues but simply recommended them for further inquiry. That was a little bit of a fizzer after we had begun what seemed to be quite a promising trek on a pretty meaty inquiry. 
The anonymous donation situation is really problematic. I note that in the last general election a large proportion of donations made to political parties—in fact 44.4 percent overall—were anonymous. In National’s case the sum of donations made anonymously was $200000 out of $529000 which is 38 percent. In Labour’s case it was $380000 out of $672000 which is 57 percent and ACT and United Future had similar figures at 56 percent and 53 percent respectively. Clearly all parties take advantage of the fact that donations can be made anonymously. 
Central to this issue is the question of what influence donations have on parties and on Governments’ policies and decisions. I must say that the evidence was very scant in terms of donations having much influence at all. Clearly parties have policies upfront that will attract certain funding—funding for Labour from unions because of its employee-centred policies and for National from members of the Business Roundtable because of its high-income-earner - supporting policies. But there is not a lot of evidence that donations from individuals in particular influence Government decisions. Perhaps the closest we got to a suggestion of that was the sale of New Zealand Rail to Fay Richwhite and Co. for what many regarded as a very conservative price. However if there is any influence then it is certainly not in the realm of $100 $1000 or even $10000 donations. 
That brings me to the second concern which is the difficulty of policing regulations about anonymous donations and donations generally and the difficulty of being able to find out who has made anonymous donations and how they have done that. The use of third parties such as trusts has become quite prevalent so that one can even have a donation that is overt but that has come from a trust that in turn has received it from third parties who remain anonymous. Direct deposits into a bank account often mean that the party does not even know whom the money has come from. 
United Future proposes we take a higher threshold of donations—and we suggested $50000 as a rough suggestion—a threshold that would be meaningful and below which clearly in terms of common sense there is unlikely to be much in the way of influence and propose we rigorously enforce that threshold. We suggest there should be a bar to intermediaries and there should be a declaration by donors of sums above $50000 as to the source of their funds. We would also ban anonymous donations above $1000 to prohibit the multithousand dollar donations getting above something like a $50000 threshold. That certainly is the way we think the direction should go—that is when it comes to donations we would keep the threshold high and rigorously enforce it. That is the only way we can effectively address that issue. 
Over the last few weeks I have had the privilege of travelling to Europe Scandinavia and the USA to observe some of the electoral systems operating there. I was keen to see the direction of the proportional systems in Europe and what that might mean for New Zealand. Some quite interesting factors emerged only one or two of which I can refer to tonight but in Europe clearly the proportional systems have proven that the proportional system is less stable than the Westminster democratic-type tradition. 
There are many Governments that do not last the full term and generally in Europe that term is a 4-year period. Norway for example with one of the oldest proportional systems has a system very similar to that of New Zealand but with multi-representative electorates and with some allocation still on a proportional basis. As Norway has developed its system it has seen a closing of percentages among political parties so that it now has two parties Conservative and Labour that get 20 to 25 percent of the vote; three parties the Christian Democratic party which is family centred the Progress party which is a populist party and the Socialist party which is a left party that get 10 to 15 percent of the vote—and the parallels can be seen—and then two smaller parties Centre and Liberal that get about 5 percent of the vote. That means Norway tends to have three to four parties in a Government coalition. Currently the conservative Christian Democratic - Liberal Government with a Christian Democrat as the Prime Minister has 62 of the 165 seats and relies on the Progress party’s—that is the centrist party’s—26 votes to make a majority. One can easily understand the instability of that system. After the last election the coalition of the time lasted only 2½ years. 
There are clear signals for New Zealand that as we move further away from a first-past-the-post two-party dominated system we may face the same sort of instability. But the message from Norway was that the instability was a price for a greater breadth of representation. Its people saw that most parties had a similarity in terms of central policies that meant there were not dramatic swings of policy and they saw that as a good price to pay in order to have that representation. I also spoke with ministry officials who admitted that it effectively caused a lot of uncertainty for them as projects were scrapped when there were changes of government and new emphases were brought in. So it was not all sweet in terms of the way that the Government ran. 
The instability was different in Estonia and Latvia. Since their independence from Russia in 1991 they have found profound and very positive change in their democratic structure. In their election in 2002 there was a groundswell against political corruption and currently in both countries two-thirds of the MPs standing in the last election have lost their seats. So they have a very inexperienced Parliament. In discussions we had with the President of Estonia he admitted having had a huge amount of experience in the constitutional reforms in that country that the inexperience of the Parliament was showing in some of the legislation it brought in. One of the parties in government there is the Latvia’s First Party a family centred centrist party that was formed in May 2002 and elected with nine MPs in October 2002. That party has close similarities to United Future and is evidence that there is a rise of family-focused parties in all the European countries. Even in Russia there is a party called the Party of Life—that is a family-centred centrist party that is part of the United Russia majority in the Duma which is the equivalent to our own House of Representatives. 
The is that in the rise of family-focused parties is happening quite rapidly. As I pointed out in Latvia there was a sudden rise of that party so I think that the rise of United Future in the last election was more than simply a factor of a worm or a single debate. The fact that in the last 2 weeks before the last election we went from 1 percent to 7 percent was indicative of a move we can see internationally towards centrist family-based parties. The increasingly rapid support for them in Europe is a key to the development of those countries. 
The other thing I noticed was that there was some envy in the larger countries for our unicameral system. In the United States and also in Russia it takes at least 6 months to get legislation through the system because there are the executive the Senate and the House of Representatives to contest with. That means that legislation is well considered whereas in this House the rapid changes in legislation we are able to make are not always positive. We should not be concerned therefore about taking time over legislation in order to get it right. 
The select committee process is central to that and is a vital part of our electoral system. We have a very good system. There are areas such as the donation area that can be addressed but we still have an evolving system. We have only had three elections under MMP. I think there is much we can be grateful for in our system when we compare it with systems overseas. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I always enjoy hearing about other electoral systems and I thank the member for that. I too have travelled to some of these places. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Tell us about them! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No it is not a travelogue tonight but I say to Murray Smith that we find some commonality when we see how other countries operate and make comparisons with what we have here. 
I want to comment briefly on the inquiry as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I refer the House to page 9 of the report which talks about a fundamental review of the Electoral Act of 1993. It is our view that major changes need to be made and we cannot make significant changes in the 3-year cycle. Tim Barnett and I have talked about this before. That is why National supports this inquiry in its entirety. The report states that any substantive changes need some time. We cannot rush these things and we cannot hope to get the best results by making some minor changes for the 2005 election. We need to think through the issues. The comments that have been made by other speakers including Richard Prebble and Rod Donald have raised valid points and I take them on board. Let us get it right and let us take the time to do it. That is why we support the recommendations in this review being done for the 2008 election. We cannot hope to do these things properly on an ad hoc basis. 
If we were to go back to previous reports that have been done we would see that that was exactly what they have commented. On page 6 of this report there is a very good comment from the 2001 report of the Government’s Election Framework Taskforce about the election cycle. The last sentence of the paragraph quoted there states that the result of the reviews and whatever held over time is “an Electoral Act riddled with ad hoc fixes and additions and very limited capacity in the system to consider the overall effect of the changes being made.” That probably summarises very succinctly the issues we currently have with the legislation. 
I want to mention two important parts one of which certainly affects me as an electorate MP for a rural area—and on looking around the Chamber I see I am the only one here at the moment who represents a large rural area. I refer to clause 64 on page 25 of the report under the heading “Tolerance level between electoral boundaries”. It is a huge concern when major changes are made. At the last election the electorate of Karapiro disappeared and became Piako. Barbara Stewart knows a lot about it because she comes from this area as well. The old Karapiro electorate was made up of a community of interest. It was centred on Te Awamutu Cambridge Matamata—where I live—Morrinsville and Te Aroha. It changed completely with Te Awamutu going to the King Country electorate. That electorate extends from halfway between Cambridge and Te Awamutu to way south of the mountain to the area where Shane Ardern comes from. There is no community of interest. Even the geographic boundaries which in the past would have defined the electorate boundary are nonsensical. The new electorate of Piako encompasses Cambridge Matamata Morrinsville and Te Aroha and heads around the north of Hamilton on the outskirts to take in Horotiu Taupiri Ngaruawahia and Huntly. Those groups have absolutely no community of interest. There is no likelihood ever that they will have any affiliation with those areas in the southern part of the Waikato. 
Clause 64 of the report refers to the tolerance level. It states: “New Zealand’s plus or minus 5 percent level is relatively low by international standards.” When we compare that with Australia we see that its level is plus or minus 10 percent. Canada France and Germany have a level of between plus or minus 20 percent and the United Kingdom has a level of between plus or minus 10 and 20 percent. There are some very good examples now around the world—and Rod Donald acknowledges that. Do we have to have the same tolerance level at every election? My view is that no we do not. Constituency MPs could probably service their electorates better if the Representation Commission recognised geographic areas as opposed to it being just a numbers game. 
That is one of the points I certainly would be interested in pursuing later on when the committee is set up. I hope the Government actually does set it up—a point that was made earlier. Of course time runs out fast and we would certainly want to make sure that all efforts were made to have it in place. The minor changes for 2005 have been acknowledged but the bigger picture is the changes for 2008. 
The second major point I want to refer to is the electoral organisation structure. To my mind it is an absolute nonsense that we have so many different organisations controlling the way we have elections. We have the Chief Electoral Office which is responsible for the conduct of elections and referenda the registration and supervision of candidates and receiving returns on donations and expenses. It is a stand-alone operation. In addition we have the Electoral Enrolment Centre which is responsible for all electoral enrolment activity and is part of the business unit of New Zealand Post. We then have the Electoral Commission which is responsible for the functions associated with the registration and regulation of political parties and receiving their returns on donations. That is the third group responsible for running elections. Previous reports have said that there needs to be one integrated body that has an overview of how elections are run. 
Certainly we would be interested in being part of the establishment of a committee that looks at the long-term effects and how elections will be run in the future. With those comments I want to say that National will be supporting this report. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the report back. I would like to commend the officials who worked extremely hard on this report with I think a great degree of patience over time because we seemed to be forever making alterations to the final recommendations. I listened with some interest to Murray Smith’s description of his tour of Europe. I could give an example of how delighted people were to be part of a military coup how useful and important the military coup was and how better off the people were as a result of that military coup. But I am sure the House does not want to hear my deliberations on my tour so I leave the matter there. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 9.36 p.m.