Volume 676 Week 86 - Wednesday 5 October 2011 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 676 Week 86 - Wednesday 5 October 2011 
[Volume:676;Page:21707] 
Wednesday 5 October 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Japan—Vice President House of Councillors 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Mr Hidehisa Otsuji Vice-President of the House of Councillors of the National Diet of Japan is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Mr Hidehisa Otsuji accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) 
Procedure 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) to be set down for third reading forthwith without debate following its second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy Rebalancing—Progress 
1. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made in building a more competitive economy and getting on top of New Zealand’s longstanding reliance on foreign debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Substantial progress. Having inherited an economy in recession we now have moderate growth. Having inherited forecasts of permanent deficits and ever-increasing Government debt we now have a path back to surplus and to debt repayment. Having inherited current account deficits at record levels of 8 percent of GDP these have now halved. Having inherited first-mortgage rates of over 10 percent these are now 6 percent. We inherited a situation where households were spending $1.10 for every dollar that they earned and in the next few months we will finally have positive savings in households for the first time in a decade. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How have these improvements been reflected in New Zealand’s net international investment position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our net international investment position is an important measure—in fact probably the most important measure—of our liabilities to the rest of the world. We inherited net international liabilities of 85 percent of GDP with forecasts of their increasing to 100 percent. In fact today net international liabilities have reduced to 70 percent of GDP. This is a significant improvement but we remain a highly indebted country and we must continue to make further improvements. It is now obvious that global markets have no appetite for debt and irresponsible policies involving more borrowing would make our foreign debt position much worse. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is it important to build a competitive economy based on savings and productive investment rather than on Government borrowing and spending which got out of control between 1999 and 2008? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was clearly out of order. It contained an unauthenticated alleged fact which is clearly wrong given the fact that Government debt went— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was doing perfectly fine until the last point when he got into debating the matter. What I am going to do is ask Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to repeat his question without the opinion in it. The Hon Trevor Mallard is correct. It is not consistent with the Standing Orders and it is inappropriate in a question to the member’s own Minister. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is it important to build a competitive economy based on savings and productive investment rather than on Government borrowing and spending which was out of order in the last 10 years? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although Government debt has got out of order in the last 3 years— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the issue. I ask the member to repeat his question without the opinion at the end of it. The question is perfectly understandable without the bit at the end that is causing the problem. If the member doubts whether he is entitled to insert opinions into the question he should check Standing Order 371. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is it important to build a competitive economy based on savings and productive investments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because jobs and incomes that were based on excessive household borrowing and on excessive Government spending up to 2008 were not sustainable. If we want sustainable new jobs and higher incomes we need to earn a living by selling more to the rest of the world. That is why the Government has changed the taxation system to encourage saving and discourage consumption and property speculation. That is why we have plans in place to stop Government borrowing rising and to start paying off debt and get the Government’s books back into surplus over the next 3 years. And in the face of a global recession and a substantial earthquake in Canterbury that is not a bad achievement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Government is really in a stronger position now than it was 3 years ago as he claims why does the Minister think it took until now for the ratings agencies to downgrade its credit rating; could it be due to 3 years of zero growth burgeoning debt and muddling through? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No; the reasons for the change in credit ratings I think have been discussed at some length. One reason is the product of a long-term build-up in New Zealand’s foreign liabilities particularly under the stewardship of that Government in the mid-2000s. A second reason is the growing sense of crisis in world financial markets which means that every country with high levels of debt is under the microscope. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How do the current Government’s policies contrast with New Zealand’s economic direction before the 2008 election? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s policies are focused on having a competitive economy that can deliver sustainable new jobs and sustainable higher incomes. We have had to change the direction from growth that was based on excessive borrowing and high levels of Government spending to growth that is based on earning a living from the rest of the world. And we are trying to do that at a time when the global economy is subject to a lot of uncertainty and volatility. I have to say New Zealanders have shown a great deal of resilience and I for one am proud of what they have achieved in the face of adversity. 
Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Minister of Finance’s Actions 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Finance? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because despite the global financial crisis the Canterbury earthquakes and a very uncertain global environment he has done a great job to put New Zealand on a credible path back to surplus. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister of Finance do nothing when he became aware that hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money was being put at risk as depositors poured money into risky finance companies as a result of the Government guarantee? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister of Finance took the steps he could but of course he was dealing with a deposit guarantee scheme that was put in place in a rush. You see it had to be a rush because Labour had to have it ready for Helen Clark’s campaign launch in 2008. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Auditor-General wrong in her conclusion that there was a capacity through 2009 to manage that risk but the Government did not take it causing the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to the New Zealand taxpayer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: She did not say that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the Auditor-General did not conclude that there was the capacity to manage the risk but the Government through its agency Treasury did not take it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No; she did not say that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report of the Auditor-General where it is very clear that she did say that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have that report and it has already been tabled in the House so we are not going to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have another dilemma. The Auditor-General said that in the report and was reported to say that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. There are plenty of opportunities for these matters to be examined by anyone whom the member wants to examine them but the rules of this House during question time do not permit them to be examined in that way. The Prime Minister is on record with what he has just said and the report is available to all members. People are perfectly at liberty to see it but we do not waste the time of the House by tabling it when it is already tabled. The honourable Leader of the Opposition supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Then the Prime Minister should have read it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the Minister aware of the growing liability to the taxpayer with some finance companies increasing their deposits by 1000 percent because they had the Government guarantee to fall back on and why did the Minister not do anything about that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Of course the Minister was aware of that and that is because of the way the scheme was set up by Labour in order to rush it through for Helen Clark’s campaign launch— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no it was renewed twice. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually I remember it really well I say to Trevor because John Armstrong wrote it up in the paper the day after the launch; he said how clever Labour was. Well Labour was not as clever as that because it cost the country a lot of money. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I rise to point out that the comments that former Minister Mallard is repeatedly shouting across the House are unacceptable and I take issue with those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What he actually interjected if I heard rightly was: “What a lie.” I am not sure that is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did call the Prime Minister a liar and I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the situation was as the Prime Minister pretended it was why did he renew the scheme twice without changing it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We did change it. If the member wants to give me some time I will pop upstairs and I will get the John Armstrong column about how clever Labour was how it rushed it in and how smart it was to outfox National at the campaign launch. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interjections started on my left here when I called the members’ leader to ask a further supplementary question. I ask both front benches please to be reasonable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister claim that the net cost to the taxpayer of the collapse of South Canterbury Finance would be $400 million when the man sitting alongside him the finance Minister admitted that it would be three times that amount—$1.2 billion? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because at the time I made that statement that was the belief of the officials who were advising me. Obviously at the time they were very concerned that Labour had ensured that the New Zealand taxpayer had to wear such a large amount but as they said it was all rushed and put together for the campaign launch of Helen Clark in the election of 2008. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If Treasury and the Minister of Finance had acted as the Auditor-General suggested how many hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money could have been saved? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: None and the reason for that of course is that the scheme was put together—[ 
Interruption 
] You see Labour members want to reinvent history but unfortunately we all have the newspapers; we have the story from John Armstrong about how clever Labour was. I remember picking up the paper on the Monday morning and reading all about how clever Labour was and how it had outfoxed National— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No one believes you. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I did not believe John Armstrong at the time but that is where it was: in the paper. You see Trevor you rushed it through for political reasons— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —and taxpayers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just ask both front benches to take a deep breath—[ 
Interruption 
] Both members will cease immediately. The right honourable Prime Minister should be reminded that the Speaker did not rush anything through prior to the last election because “you” is referring to the Speaker. Both members will please take a deep breath and bring the House back to order. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Prime Minister understand that if a bank offers a guarantee the bank does not have to agree to an extension of lending and liability under that guarantee and if the Prime Minister understands that why can he not explain to the House why the Crown could not stop additional lending via the likes of South Canterbury Finance in order to stop that liability growing—where the Crown was the guarantor rather than the bank being a guarantor? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that was the way the scheme was set up by Labour as it rushed it through for its campaign launch in 2008 because the photo op counted for more than the quality of the scheme. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat for the moment please. I say to the National backbench on this occasion that they heard a point of order called and made a lot of noise. Those members know that is out of order and I ask them please to treat the House with a little more respect. I understand that the Hon David Parker has a point of order. 
Hon David Parker 
: My point of order is that the Prime Minister did not address the germane point of that question which was whether the liability could have been stopped growing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House knows he should not interject on a point of order. The Prime Minister answered the question. The Prime Minister answered rightly or wrongly—and it is not my job to judge—that the design of the scheme prevented the Government from taking that course of action. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the design of the scheme provide two opportunities for the Government to cease the liability to South Canterbury Finance; if so why did the Government not take them? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes at the time it would have been always possible to toss someone out of the scheme. That would have caused their immediate collapse. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear this question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the Prime Minister’s earlier denial that the Auditor-General had said there was capacity to manage the risk does he deny this direct quote from the Auditor-General: “There was still some capacity to manage risk within the Government’s policy settings.” and that the Minister’s Government failed to use that capacity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I agree with that but that is not what the member said. The member should check his  
Hansard 
. He got up and said that our actions had cost hundreds of millions of dollars. That is not right. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members that I cannot hear. Is this a supplementary question? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes. Does the Prime Minister disagree that the following is a quote from the Auditor-General’s report; if he does disagree can he tell us why he thinks this might be the fault of the previous Government? “The Crisis Response Plan that was written in late 2009 should have been prepared before the first financial institution failed.”—in March 2009. “We found no evidence of formal senior management oversight such as a steering committee to provide senior strategic direction and to ensure that all aspects of the Scheme’s implementation were addressed.”—all matters that were the responsibility of his Government. There was no reaction no crisis response plan over a year after the scheme was introduced. Can he deny those quotes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. Of the four he is doing the best so far but I am sure there will be more to come by the time we are finished. It is a little bit like the All Black backline: there are lots of options with Dan Carter but there is no Dan Carter right at the moment. The answer is that the Minister of Finance has said that Treasury could have done one or two things better. But let us go back and understand the history. Labour put together the scheme. Labour rushed the scheme for Helen Clark’s speech. Labour told the finance companies they were in and that if they were not in they would have gone broke if Labour had not done all that. We had to go and backfill everything. The facts of life are that for political reasons Labour decided to do something at its campaign launch and it is now trying to rewrite history. I suggest that when Trevor Mallard leaves the House he gets a copy of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reads what John Armstrong said and realises that he is starring front and centre stage. 
Mine Safety—Prime Minister’s Statements 
3. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the safety of mining in New Zealand; and does he consider his Government has met all its responsibilities arising out of the Pike River mine disaster? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and yes. 
Kevin Hague 
: When was he first shown or told about the image recorded in the Pike River mine on 24 November before the second explosion showing an opened box likely to have been one containing self-rescuers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge I have not seen that picture. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that the police and mine management did not take him into their confidence over what the image from the mine had shown? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have a memory of the image that the member is talking about. If he wants to show it to me afterwards I am more than happy to look at it. Between the time of the first explosion and the second explosion I did not see any footage other than the video footage that was immediately released once I saw it into the public domain—and that was the image of the first explosion taking place. 
Kevin Hague 
: How does he reconcile his statements to the miners’ families that no expense would be spared to recover the miners’ remains with evidence given to the royal commission by Doug White the mine manager at Pike River that he was told not to use the word “recovery” because it was politically unacceptable and that insufficient money was allocated for the recovery operation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no knowledge of what Doug White has been told but he certainly has not been told anything by the Government or by our office. The member knows I think full well what the situation is at Pike River which is that there is a plan to get in. It is a ventilated plan—going up the main shaft. The families have met both Steve Ellis as the mine’s statutory manager and the liquidators about this issue. The Government is working alongside them as best we can. I have always said that when there is a credible plan and a safe plan we will go into the mine. It is not a decision for politicians to make; it is a decision for those who have expertise in this area. With all due respect 29 people lost their lives. If that member thinks that I will have political interference and send another 10 blokes down there to get killed he is dreaming. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does he stand by his statement on 22 November 2010 that “I have no reason to believe that New Zealand’s safety standards are any less than Australia’s and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes at the time that I made the statement. 
Kevin Hague 
: If the emergency exit from a mine can meet minimum standards yet be impossible to use does it not suggest to the Prime Minister as it does to every other New Zealander that those standards are in urgent need of reform? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is ultimately a matter for the royal commission. The Government has given the royal commission very wide terms of reference. It is allowing the royal commission to come up with a set of recommendations which I have no doubt it will do at which point the Government of the day whoever that Government is will clearly go and consider that. The second thing I can say is that the Government has acted in other areas where it can while it waits for the findings of the royal commission. They include an immediate safety audit of all operating underground mines in New Zealand and the establishment of the High Hazards Unit. As the member will be aware the Minister of Labour has been working on those issues. She has been more than happy to keep the member up to date with those issues. I understand that the member met with the Minister this morning and will continue to be updated if he so desires. 
Kevin Hague 
: Given that the establishment of the High Hazards Unit has demonstrated that it is possible in fact to take steps to increase safety prior to the royal commission reporting how can it be morally acceptable to allow men to go underground every day until such time as the royal commission reports when we know that the regulations governing their activity underground are inadequate for the task? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Following the Pike River mine disaster there was an immediate safety audit of all operating underground mines in New Zealand. That audit as I understand it did not come back with any significant recommendations which is why we continue to have people working underground. That does not mean that no recommendations will come out of the royal commission. I think the second thing that it is important to note—and it has been one of the challenges of Pike River—is that every single mine is bespoke and unique. What took place in terms of design of Pike River can be completely different from the design that took place at Spring Creek Mine or at any other underground mine in New Zealand. One should not necessarily draw the dots between one mine and another. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Has the Prime Minister spoken to the receiver personally; if so did he place a time line on the sale of the Pike River assets including the mine licence? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have spoken to John Fisk personally. I did that the day that I met with the families as I promised them that I would. I also wrote to the families’ representative Bernie Monk with a list of all of the commitments and my understanding of what took place at that meeting. I did not discuss the sale at any great length with John Fisk. What I was ringing him about was the frustration and concerns that the families expressed to me about Steve Ellis the statutory mine manager. I wanted to make sure that the receiver was well and truly aware of that. What did happen was that John Fisk gave me an absolute commitment that they would continue to work on the credible plan; he detailed the plan at some length to me. As I said to Mr Hague my understanding is that they have met with the families including Harry Bell and my understanding is that that was deemed to be a constructive meeting with the families. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Did the Prime Minister give an assurance to families that the sale of Pike River assets would not be delayed by an Overseas Investment Office process such as that which continues on the sale of the Crafar farms and which would further prolong the delays and anguish for the families of the 29 men whose remains lie within the mine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would need to go and check the file note but I do not have any recollection of that. What I did say to the families was the same thing that I said publicly which is that the expectation of the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources is that in the case of a sale what is required is a transfer of the mining licence and in order for that transfer of the mining licence to take place the purchasers would have to demonstrate that they had a credible plan to undertake body recovery. We would expect that to happen as soon as they practically could but as we all know this is very very complex. 
Government Financial Position—Current Account Balance and Net International Investment Forecasts 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the latest official forecasts for the current account balance and the net international investment position over the next four years under his Government’s policies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Probably the most recent official forecasts are the Reserve Bank forecasts released 3 weeks ago which show the current account deficit for the next 3 years as minus 3.5 minus 4.6 and minus 5.4 percent which means an average of about minus 4 percent over the next 3 years—less than half of the average between 2005 and 2008. The bank did not include projections of the net international investment position. However that has improved from being 85 percent of GDP down to 70 percent of GDP over the past 2 years. It may move out again beyond 70 percent but— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a perfectly straight question on notice. It was clearly about the next 4 years. The data is set out in the Government’s Budget and economic and financial update and the Minister is not addressing the forward-looking question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the questioner needs to be reasonable. I must confess that I was reasonably impressed with the amount of detail the Minister was seeking to give because the question asked for the latest official forecasts and the Minister of Finance was referring to some forecasts more recent—in other words later—than the Budget data. That is what the question asked for and it seems to me that the Minister of Finance was being pretty good in answering the question. I think he probably got out all the information he had. Does the member have a supplementary question? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that the Government’s net international debt has tripled under his watch and how does he relate that to Standard and Poor’s statement that it downgraded the Government’s rating because of “the nation’s weakening fiscal and external positions”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the Government inherited forecasts given to this Government in I think November or December 2008 that showed ever-rising deficits—or 10 years of deficits a decade of deficits as outlined in the 2008 pre-election update—and ever-rising debt reaching 60 percent of GDP and continuing to rise. We have managed in the circumstances of a global recession and the earthquakes to put a plan in place whereby Government debt peaks at 30 percent of GDP because we will reach a surplus by 2014-15. So the outlook now is significantly better than it was back in 2008 despite the challenges we have had to face in between. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In respect of his continual excuse about the international situation is the Minister aware that less than one quarter of OECD countries have been downgraded in the last 3 years and that New Zealand is in the company now of Greece Ireland Iceland Spain Portugal Italy and the United States; if so why does he continue to try to blame international factors for the double downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I know there is a funny little world where Labour should still be in Government and the global recession never happened. But in the real world it is different—fortunately. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the question asked how he could reconcile his continual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to spare the House the pain. I ask the member to please sit down. The member should go back and read his supplementary question. If he wants to get simple straight answers he should not ask questions like that. Does the member have a further supplementary question? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Absolutely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and there is nothing further. The member asked if I remember correctly as to when the Minister will stop using excuses about something. That is an opinion being inserted into a question. It is actually out of order but I will not interfere all the time. If the member wants to raise points of order about Ministers’ answers for goodness’ sake ask straight questions. Then I will help him. When he asks that sort of question which is actually technically out of order I cannot help him. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When the straight— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I have dealt with that one. OK? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek your guidance. When a straight question is asked about forward-looking data the Minister quotes history and makes excuses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat straight away. If he is referring back to the primary question I pointed out to him that he asked in his question for the latest official forecasts. The Reserve Bank is an official forecasting body of the Crown. So the Minister referred to the latest forecasts he had. I thought that was a pretty decent answer to the question. But the member has to curb his desire to inject political comment into his questions if I am to help him with answers. 
Amy Adams 
: What have been the trends in New Zealand’s net international investment position over the past decade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Between 2001 and 2008 in dollar terms our net international investment position almost doubled—that is the amount of dollars we owed to the rest of the world went from $79 billion to $153 billion and relative to GDP from 64 percent to 85 percent. Since then we have been working hard on the difficult job I must say of trying to influence household behaviour and change Government behaviour so that those international liabilities will stop rising. Actually we have had some success. Having peaked at 85 percent of GDP our net international liabilities have now reduced to 70 percent of GDP which is still far too high by global standards but at least we are headed in the right direction. 
Courts—Alternative Court Processes for Child Witnesses 
5. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What progress has been made on the development of alternative court processes for child witnesses? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Very good progress. Earlier today I announced a comprehensive package of inquisitorial-style reforms to dramatically improve the way the criminal justice system treats child witnesses. The reforms which include the introduction of specialist intermediaries and pre-recording a child’s entire evidence before trial will ensure children are not rebrutalised by their contact with the system and that their cases are dealt with in a much timelier fashion. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the main features of the reform package? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The key reforms include two new legislative presumptions for child witnesses under the age of 12. These two presumptions will make it standard for children of that age to give their evidential interview by video recorded on closed circuit television and to have their entire evidence including cross-examination and re-examination evidence pre-recorded at a hearing significantly earlier than the trial. There is an expectation that the judiciary will take a much more active role in determining whether questions put to child witnesses are appropriate and ensuring all child witnesses have an automatic right to a support person when giving evidence in court. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Ownership of Shares 
6. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In light of his statement yesterday regarding foreign-owned assets that “we need to generate the kind of savings that will help New Zealand buy back those assets” is it still the Government’s policy to sell State assets if it is re-elected given that up to 30 percent of the shares he proposes selling could go to overseas buyers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If re-elected in November it is the Government’s policy to extend the mixed-ownership model retaining 51 percent Government ownership in four energy State-owned assets and allowing investors to buy a greater share of Air New Zealand. Under the model the same one as Labour put in place for Air New Zealand the Government will retain 51 percent and Kiwi investors will be in the front of the queue. It is a win-win; New Zealand savers get to invest in good Kiwi companies—and we expect 85 to 90 percent local ownership—and the Government gets to free up $5 billion to $7 billion over 3 years to pay for new assets like schools hospitals and ultra-fast broadband without having to borrow more debt from overseas lenders and pay them interest rather than pay dividends to Kiwis. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Government formulated any policy to ensure that shares sold under his privatisation plan are not purchased by foreign buyers either at the initial float or subsequently; if not when will he be releasing such a policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The policy is pretty clear: Kiwis will be at the front of the queue. We would expect 85 to 90 percent local ownership and we are pleased to see that on the New Zealand Exchange local ownership has tended to increase in recent years. We would expect that under the mixed-ownership model State-owned assets would benefit from that trend. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that by his own estimate confirmed today up to 15 percent of the companies he proposes selling would be bought by foreign investors would the subsequent loss in dividends to those foreign investors worsen or improve New Zealand’s current account deficit and overseas debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No and that party will have to explain how it will pay for schools prisons and hospitals without borrowing an extra $5 billion or $6 billion from foreign lenders. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: By how much are Government assets projected to grow over the next 4 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In a well-run and moderately growing economy we expect that Government assets will grow by about $34 billion over the next 4 years. That is the total value of Government assets will rise to $258 billion. However rather than borrow all of the extra $34 billion the Government will recycle the proceeds of the part-sale of some of its current assets so we can put that money into high-priority future investments like schools hospitals and broadband. Parties that campaign not to sell the assets will have to borrow an extra $6 billion or $7 billion from foreign lenders and pay interest to foreign banks rather than dividends to Kiwi savers. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to reflect on the answer to my question and I ask for your ruling— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well if you shut up I will raise it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can deal with this. The problem the member got into when raising his point of order was that he wanted to reflect on a supplementary question from a whole question ago. Points of order are not about reflecting on matters they are meant to be to do with the procedure of the House; they are meant to be expressed tersely. As for reflecting on an answer if the member had a problem with the answer he should have raised it straight after the question. It is most unusual to go back to a supplementary question. I do not want to deny the member the chance to be heard especially since there was an unfortunate interjection during a point of order on the other side of the House so I will hear him but it had better be a real point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In answer to my question which was whether the subsequent loss of dividends to those foreign investors would worsen or improve New Zealand’s current account deficit or overseas debt the answer the Minister gave was “No”. He then proceeded to attack the Opposition. No to what? How can the Minister address a question with an answer that is “No”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wanted to make sure there was an answer that could not be misinterpreted in any way there should have been only one part to the supplementary question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There was one part. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If there was only one part to the supplementary question then “No” therefore applied to it and was a perfectly reasonable answer. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In light of Standard and Poor’s comments that “Downward pressure on New Zealand’s ratings could re-emerge if New Zealand’s external position continued to deteriorate” why will he not reverse his asset sales policy given that it will inevitably worsen our external position when dividends begin to flow offshore? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: From the point of view of the rating agencies the alternative is significantly worse—that is having to go to international financial markets and borrow an extra $7 billion paying interest to foreigners rather than the partial sale of 49 percent of current State-owned enterprises which will mean the Government will get the money off Kiwis and be able to pay them dividends. 
Credit Rating Downgrade—2025 Taskforce Report Recommendations 
7. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he think that implementing the 2025 Taskforce’s recommendations in November 2009 would have avoided New Zealand’s double credit downgrade; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No; because the reasons for the change in ratings are first the long-term accumulation of external liabilities particularly the fast build-up under the previous Government; and second the very depressing mood—if not semi-crisis mood—that is currently enveloping world financial markets. Fulfilling the recommendations of the 2025 Taskforce report would not have made any difference to either of those factors. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: In light of Fitch Ratings’ statement that one of the reasons for the downgrade was that public finances have “deteriorated in the past 3 years” does he accept that his failure to come anywhere near meeting the task force’s goal of reducing spending to 29 percent of GDP is in part responsible for the downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We believe that the Government has made balanced and considered decisions about how to handle a pretty severe recession. There are some such as the authors of the 2025 Taskforce report who felt that we should have slashed Government expenditure in the face of that recession which would of course have stalled the economy cost lots of jobs and hurt our country’s most vulnerable people. There are others on the left who advocated very high levels of stimulus which would have been irresponsible. The Government has charted a balanced and considered course between those alternatives. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: If the Government had had the courage to scrap interest-free student loans overhaul Working for Families scrap doctor and pharmacy subsidies for high-income earners and radically reform the Resource Management Act as recommended by both the 2025 Taskforce and ACT on many occasions would the credit downgrade have been more or less likely to occur? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not a matter of courage; it is a matter of judgment and the Government stands by the judgments it made. I think most New Zealanders would stand by those judgments. It is not at all obvious that taking the measures the report advocates would have avoided the downgrade. For instance if we had followed that path we may well have stalled economic growth and we could have ended up with our external liabilities as a higher proportion of GDP than they are. On that basis the ratings agencies may have been more likely to downgrade us. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the double downgrade and the deteriorating state of New Zealand’s public finances not confirm what the 2025 Taskforce and ACT have been saying all along: if the Government is serious about turning round the economy it would have been better judgment to stop tinkering and start being bold? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has taken a number of bold measures including a very substantial tax switch back in 2010 and in the last Budget it set out a very tight path to surplus—one of the faster fiscal adjustments among developed economies. In fact our public finances have stopped deteriorating. The peak of that deterioration was the last financial year. In the current financial year we would expect the deficit to almost halve then halve again in the subsequent financial year and by 2014-15 reach surplus. 
Aged Care Home-based—Funding for Wellington Services 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he been advised of a reduction in funding for home-based health support services in the Wellington region? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Health: I have been advised by Capital and Coast District Health Board as part of ensuring it gets the best home-based health services for its investments that after a competitive tender process it is changing providers. I have also been advised that the chief executive has said: “There will be no reduction in services people currently receive. All clients will continue to be regularly assessed and their health needs met”. I understand from the board that the purpose of the change is to seek some savings in management and administration costs by reducing duplication of activities while maintaining services to clients. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does he reconcile that answer with a reduction since 2010 of $4 million or 30 percent of the budget for home-based services? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I was replying on behalf of the Minister of Health. The member will appreciate that as a Wellington member of Parliament I have also been briefed by Healthcare New Zealand and will be meeting shortly with the board. I am aware that there is some debate about the figures that have been applied but I do note that funding to the district health board has increased significantly some $86 million over the last 3 years during the term of this Government. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does he agree with Ken Douglas the former deputy chair of Capital and Coast District Health Board that quite simply the budget being proposed for this service and the expected service volumes do not match and that this will have the inevitable result of significantly reducing the quality and quantity of care available for elderly people or forcing the contracted organisation to subsidise the care itself; if not what assurances can the Minister give to patients in the Capital and Coast District Health Board region that they will receive the same level of services based on a comprehensive health needs-assessment? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I note that Healthcare New Zealand the unsuccessful tenderer has just filed papers in the Wellington High Court seeking interim orders prohibiting the district health board from proceeding at this point. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to provide ministerial comment on the matters the member has raised. As I indicated in response to Mr Robertson in a non-ministerial capacity I have met with Mr Douglas and I am very aware of his views. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister confirm that as part of the retendering of home-based services Capital and Coast District Health Board has reduced client volumes from 3482 to 2500 which is a reduction of almost 1000 people receiving the services? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not in a position to confirm that information. 
Kris Faafoi 
: What message does the Minister have for Christine Miller Shirley Stanway and Barbara Bruce—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Kris Faafoi 
: We know about wanting to sound like Paul Quinn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will settle down. The member should just ask his question. I ask the members on the front bench to please cease the cross-interjection because I could not hear the member at all. 
Kris Faafoi 
: What message does the Minister have for Christine Miller Shirley Stanway and Barbara Bruce who all work as home support workers and who contacted my office worried about their jobs and the fact that there will now be no help for over 400 elderly people who are unable to shower or go to the toilet without assistance? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I have actually had the same contact as the local member of Parliament. I have met at least one of the people concerned and I have discussed the situation with them. As I say given that the matter is subject to court action at the present time it is inappropriate for me to comment on a matter that might influence the court in its determination. 
Prisoners Employment Training—Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 
9. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any progress reports on the implementation of the Government’s Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The goal of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy launched by this Government in 2009 was to increase the number of prisoners engaged in work training and skills development by 1000 over 3 years. We have achieved this goal a full year ahead of schedule. After 2 years of this strategy 1028 additional prisoners are engaged in skill gaining and employment. This achievement means that there are now record numbers of prisoners engaged in employment and education. We have also seen much better Maori participation rates across the board with more Maori prisoners undertaking employment and educational activities and achieving New Zealand Qualifications Authority credits. Hundreds more prisoners are receiving literacy and numeracy training as part of other employment and training activities. There has been a 46 percent increase in credits achieved under the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework and a 44 percent increase in the number of national certificates achieved—extremely good results. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Has the Minister been advised of the results of any research on the impact that employment training in prisons has on the rate of recidivism? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. Recent research carried out by the Department of Corrections shows that prisoner employment is resulting in reduced rates of reoffending. The research found that the rate of reconviction within 12 months of a prisoner’s release reduced by 8 percent for those who took part in inmate employment and by 16.7 percent for those who participated in the Release to Work programme. Over the next year the Department of Corrections will double the number of prisoners participating in the Release to Work programme and deliver a range of trade training opportunities to prepare prisoners for the rebuilding of Christchurch. It will also work closely with other agencies and employers to find stable employment for prisoners on their release. 
Parity with Australia—GDP Per Capita 
10. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: By how many percent has the GDP per capita gap between Australia and New Zealand widened since his Government took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In September 2008 Australian GDP per capita was 37 percent higher than in New Zealand. In June 2011 the gap was still 37 percent so it has not widened. In fact if we adjust the figures to reflect changes in purchasing power parity as the OECD does we see there has been a narrowing of the gap over that time from 40 percent to 36 percent. Thank goodness this Government is starting to turn things round after 9 years of economic mismanagement under Labour. 
Stuart Nash 
: Is he aware that the $37 billion he has borrowed in less than 3 years is the fastest run-up in Government debt in percentage terms since the New Zealand Wars and that the financing cost of the mountain of debt he has built up is now $10 million a day with no growth to show for it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the primary question was about GDP per capita I guess if the Minister has the information he may answer that question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am aware that it is one of the more rapid debt build-ups and I am very pleased we did not take any of the advice of Labour to borrow a whole lot more money. Labour members need to understand that policy that is going to continue to increase— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was talking about Labour policy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be silence. The dilemma I have is that the primary question asked “By how many percent has the GDP per capita gap between Australia and New Zealand widened since his Government took office?”. The Minister gave some comprehensive information in answering that question. The supplementary question the member then asked was about borrowing or debt levels which is significantly away from the primary question. In allowing the Minister of Finance to answer it it is very difficult for me then to pull him back to a supplementary question that really was well away from the primary question. Just because a question is asked about an economic issue does not mean any economic issue is available for supplementary questions. The supplementary questions should relate to GDP issues and the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. That is why I am loath to pull up the Minister of Finance because his answer might not have been quite what the member wanted. I can be much more stringent on answers when questions are more disciplined. 
Hon Annette King 
: But his first one was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been an interjection while the Speaker has been on his feet that the first question was and I will deal with it. The answer to the question was actually a very comprehensive answer. I heard all of the interjections come in when the Minister introduced the issue of purchasing power parity but he was perfectly entitled to do that because that is the way that the OECD looks at GDP per capita relationships. So there was nothing wrong with the answer. The Minister gave two sets of information. It was very comprehensive. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled it out of order for Ministers opposite to discuss Labour policy or attribute matters to Labour in answer to questions about the Government’s performance or in particular forward-looking questions where data is available that could answer them. There have been several occasions today where straight factual primary questions have been asked and the response from Ministers has been to talk about Labour policy which leaves us in a dilemma. Firstly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient from the member. It does not need me to explain to the member why he has to think more clearly about the questions being asked. The member is the finance spokesperson for the Opposition. If he asks questions to do with debt there is no way I can stop a Minister. Debt does not just happen overnight. There is invariably—and I should not be giving a lecture to the finance spokesperson—a history associated with it. I cannot stop a Minister from reporting on that history. But I promise the member that when he asks a straight question that is clearly related to the primary question I will try to pin Ministers down for him. I regret if I have given the member the impression that I am not doing that because I feel it is my responsibility to do that. I apologise if he feels that I have not done that but I do ask that he just think about the questions. Where questions relate to debt it is very difficult to stop a Minister going back over the years where debt accumulates. 
Stuart Nash 
: Has he considered resigning due to his failure to keep his promise to close the gap with Australia his failure to keep his Budget promises on growth or for being the first finance Minister in 13 years to lead New Zealand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not going to interrupt but the suggestion from the Prime Minister that “you don’t need to resign” I think was a bit outrageous on the second to last day. He has been here for a while and I think he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that at the moment the Standing Orders do not prevent members from raising points of order about the use of the word “you” but we are heading to a situation where that should be a matter for the Speaker to determine so that it cannot be used to interrupt questioners. But I would just remind members that the member is right and I would remind the Prime Minister that every time he refers to “you” he is referring to the Speaker. I hope the Speaker is not responsible for some of the things that the Prime Minister has just been alleging or about to do what the Prime Minister has been suggesting! Could Stuart Nash start his question again please. 
Stuart Nash 
: Has he considered resigning due to his failure to keep his promise to close the gap with Australia his failure to keep his Budget promises on growth or for being the first finance Minister in 13 years to lead New Zealand into a credit downgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. And that member may be saved the trouble of resigning because despite what he thought was a secure place on the Labour list he may well not be here in the next Parliament. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How has the GDP per capita gap between Australia and New Zealand changed over a longer-term period? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In September—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to please come back to order. I do want to hear the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker that is because it is an interesting answer. In September 1999 Australian GDP per capita was 18 percent higher than New Zealand’s. By 2008 that gap had blown out to 37 percent. Again if we adjust the figures in the way that the OECD does to reflect changes in purchasing power parity there is still clear evidence of a blowout from 30 percent in 1999 to 40 percent in 2008. That is just one more measure of how far New Zealand’s economy went backwards under the stewardship of Labour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 11 Nikki Kaye. [ 
Interruption 
] Jabs like that invariably are going to get interjections and that is not very helpful to the order of the House. 
Broadband Ultra-fast—Roll-out to Schools 
11. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: How many schools will benefit from ultra-fast broadband in the first year of the roll-out? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Good news. The roll-out of ultra-fast broadband enabling fibre to schools is progressing well and will see 221 schools around the country connected by the end of June next year by Crown Fibre Holdings partner Chorus. In addition four schools in Tauranga four in Whanganui and one in Hamilton will be connected by Ultrafast Broadband Ltd and a further 12 schools will be connected in Whangarei by Northpower. All up this will see nearly 100000 school students benefiting from ultra-fast broadband in just the first year of the roll-out. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What has been the reaction of schools that have already been connected to fibre? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: They are absolutely delighted with the high-tech service and the opportunities it is bringing to their children. The technology means their students can instantly access the best teachers and the best online resources from anywhere in the world. Manaia View School principal Leanne Otene said that she was delighted with the possibilities of the new fibre service. I quote: “UFB is making a significant difference already. We’re uploading and downloading video incredibly quickly and the iPod Touches in use in our classrooms are humming. We now have an innovative broadband service to max the way we teach.” However I have to point out that kids could miss out on accessing one of the most wired education systems in the world if the project were to be unilaterally changed as promised by Labour’s information and communications technology spokeswoman Clare Curran. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Can he advise the House on the input of Nga Pu Waea in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband to ensure that kohanga reo kura and wananga will benefit from it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I was actually with the Minister of Maori Affairs the other day and we signed the final terms of reference with Nga Pu Waea and the contractors that are involved in rolling out the broadband programme. I am pleased to report that they are working well together and that one of the areas they are focused on is ensuring that the wananga the kura and the kohanga reo get the opportunity to be signed up as soon as possible for the benefits of ultra-fast broadband. 
Earthquakes Canterbury and Christchurch—Potential for Commissioners on Christchurch City Council 
12. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Does he stand by all of his statements on Canterbury’s earthquake recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Yes but as the member will note I have had to reconsider my position on several occasions as the seismic events of the last 13 months have unfolded. 
Brendon Burns 
: Having told the  
Press  
that the Government saw no need to install commissioners into the Christchurch City Council “at this time” will he now confirm that the Government is in fact discussing such an option for implementation after the 26 November election? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I cannot speak for what the Government after 26 November will be doing. 
Brendon Burns 
: Will the Minister confirm— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear Brendon Burns. 
Brendon Burns 
: Will the Minister confirm that among the reasons the Government is ruling out commissioners only “at this time” is that he knows that Christchurch City councillors will fight tooth and nail against the Government’s agenda to force the council as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation allows to sell Christchurch’s $2 billion - plus in public assets to help pay for Christchurch’s earthquake recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have responsibility neither for the next Government nor for the Christchurch City Council. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister aware of comments made to the  
Timaru Herald  
recently by his colleague Dr Nick Smith who “stopped short of saying ECan would eventually return to having an elected council” and can the Minister identify a democratically elected council in Canterbury that is not under threat from this Government if re-elected? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not read any quotes in the  
Timaru Herald 
. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek to table research conducted for me by the Parliamentary Library that shows that Orion New Zealand owned mostly by the ratepayers of Christchurch has returned to those ratepayers since 1993 some $976 million in dividends and other payments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Members 
Inquiry into the Identification Rehabilitation and Care and Protection of Child Offenders—Consideration 
1. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: Will she call a meeting to consider the Inquiry into the identification rehabilitation and care and protection of child offenders; if not why not? 
KATRINA SHANKS (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 I do not intend to call a meeting. 
Su’a William Sio 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I can prevail upon you. This is the third time that I have had this question—the same question—on the Order Paper. She has answered the first part. I wonder whether you could require her to answer the second part: “why not?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises a fair point of order actually. It is a primary question and did ask “if not why not?”. I ask Katrina Shanks to please answer that part of the question. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I cannot answer that question as the answer would reveal a confidential decision of the committee. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Has she been advised that a notice of motion to deliberate on the inquiry has been given; if so what further advice does she need to assist her to make a decision about calling a meeting before the House is dissolved on 20 October? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I do not intend to call another meeting of the committee at this stage to discuss any business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The questioner did not actually ask that. I ask Su’a William Sio to repeat his question in case it was not heard—repeat it as closely as he can. He asked about a notice of motion to deliberate and what further information the chair felt she needed to act or something along those lines. Will the member repeat his question please. 
Su’a William Sio 
: That is right. Has she been advised that a notice of motion to deliberate on the inquiry has been given; if so what further advice does she need to assist her to make a decision about calling a meeting before the House is dissolved on 20 October? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: With regard to that business before the committee a resolution has been recorded in the minutes as to when we would sit again. Therefore it is a confidential committee proceeding. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It still didn’t answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems to me that an answer to the question has been given. The supplementary question asked whether the chair was aware of a notice of motion and the chair has confirmed that she is aware of that notice of motion. That is all that she is required to answer in that supplementary question. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. For 3 years this National Government has been saying that maintaining New Zealand’s credit rating has been the mark of its economic success. How many times did John Key tell the country about the dire consequences of a credit rating downgrade? He threatened the country that this would lead to a 1.5 percent rise in home mortgage interest rates. Do members know what that would mean for a family with a mortgage of $300000? It would be another $90 a week. Then he promised that if we downgraded—[ 
Interruption 
] 
A disturbance took place in the gallery and a member of the public was removed.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members will take their seats please. I say a big thankyou to the security guard. Would the Serjeant-at-Arms please be involved and ensure that things return to normal. Thank you Serjeant. Members may resume their seats. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. We have had enough interruption in the Chamber. The member of the public has been removed. Therefore I call the Hon Phil Goff who will commence his speech again. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Remember honourable members when we point one finger at someone else we often have three pointing at ourselves. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Can I acknowledge the work done by security in preventing that sad incident and say that it is even sadder that the Prime Minister would have tried to blame that on the Labour Opposition. I think that is an absolute disgrace. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. The practice of members engaging in heckling and a constant barrage of interjections is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber. This is not a public house. This is Parliament. Let us show some respect for each other. Courtesy is contagious and we will all benefit if we abide by the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: For many years this Government has been saying that maintaining the credit rating— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Say goodbye. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is not a lie I say to Mr Henare; it is what the Prime Minister actually said across the floor of the House and he should have withdrawn and apologised for that. What we have seen is two major credit rating agencies—[ 
Interruption 
] It was an appalling remark by the Prime Minister and the ongoing barrage from the Government backbenches does not help that situation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members leaving the Chamber please show some restraint and allow the speaker the Hon Phil Goff to proceed with his speech. Courtesy is contagious. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The downgrading of the credit rating of New Zealand—which blindsided the Government—by two credit rating agencies last Friday is a reflection by those credit rating agencies that they lack confidence in the economic management of this country. 
Hon Members 
: Shame! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is a shame. I hope that the election campaign will be conducted with a little more dignity than the Prime Minister showed in the Chamber earlier today. The truth of that credit rating downgrade is that it will hurt New Zealanders. It will add to the mortgage interest rates faced by home purchasers. It will add to the cost on all of us as Kiwi taxpayers for what we are paying for the increasing level of Government debt. 
That increasing level of debt led Standard and Poor’s to that downgrading because we have moved from a situation where the Government account was in surplus to a situation where the deficit on the Government account is now 30 percent. We have moved from a situation where this country was actually starting to engage in the process of saving through KiwiSaver and through the Cullen superannuation fund which would have enabled us to meet the demands and the costs of an ageing population. But National cut KiwiSaver after it had promised the country before the election that it would not do so. This Government has failed to invest in the Cullen superannuation fund though its well-being today depends on the return that we are getting on that superannuation fund which it has now undermined. 
I remember the Budget and I remember John Key saying: “Phil Goff might not like this Budget but Standard and Poor’s does.” 
Hon Members 
: Ah! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Standard and Poor’s does! Well clearly it does not. For the first time in 13 years this country has suffered a credit rating downgrade. That has happened for the first time in 13 years and that comes 3 years into the term of this National Government. This National Government has no one but itself to blame for that situation. 
You know it is just not good enough as John Key advised that we would muddle through our economic problems. Muddling through is not good enough. It is not good enough when our economy has stalled—0.1 percent growth in the last quarter—when John Key said that we should be having aggressive recovery from recession. It is not good enough that the gap with Australia is growing. I say to Mr Power that if it is not growing why is it that 100000 New Zealanders—100000 New Zealanders—have left this country permanently for Australia under John Key’s watch? Those 100000 people have voted with their feet. 
It is not good enough that inflation is at the highest rate in 21 years. At lunchtime today we saw the workers who clean our building and they are on nearly the minimum wage. They are on just over $13.50 an hour. A lady there Jaine talked of her dream of being able to properly care for her kids and grandkids. It was a dream that she cannot realise despite the fact that each night she cleans the Prime Minister’s office. It is wrong that in this country people should be struggling—struggling—to put food on the table for their kids when they are working a full working week. 
Every New Zealander deserves a living wage and Labour will provide a living wage with a $15 minimum wage rate. Instead of cutting the taxes on the wealthy—giving the top 150 wealthy people including the Prime Minister an extra $1000 a week in tax cuts—we will use a capital gains tax to apply a tax on those who pay no tax on their income so that all New Zealanders can get their first $5000 free of income tax. For those families I met today that will mean another $1000 a year in their pockets so that they can feed their kids healthy food. Cutting the GST on fresh fruit and vegetables by 15 percent will help them make that choice as well. The choice at this election is very clear. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table charts of the American stock market Standard and Poor’s index and the  
Financial Times 
 index showing the stock markets— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Where is the information from? 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am seeking leave to table the Standard and Poor’s indices for the US stock market the  
Financial Times 
 UK index— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The member may table. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for my confusion. There was an application from the member to start with to table I think three documents including stock market indices for an undefined period. But then I think there were two other things. I think the member got leave for the first document but not for the other two and I wonder whether he wanted to finish. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was trying to save the House’s time. I will seek leave to table four separate documents in four separate points of order if that would please the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action— 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding was clear that the way you moved that motion was that the first three documents had been put and we agreed on those. Whether there is a fourth one is another matter but I was pretty clear that three had been voted upon. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are three that have been agreed to. If Mr Boscawen has a further one he should seek leave now. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a chart of the New Zealand Exchange index over the last 12 months showing that the indices have dropped and had we borrowed money to invest in New Zealand stocks as the Labour Party is promoting we— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Listening to the Leader of the Opposition go through Labour’s policies earlier really really did reinforce the earlier comment made by the Minister of Finance that some people live in a little world that is in some sort of parallel universe. They are not aware that there has been a global financial crisis from which the entire world’s economy has taken a battering. They think that somehow New Zealand’s figures should still be exactly as they were. They claim that if the Labour Party was in power there would be nothing but sweetness and light. Then the Labour leader went on to document all the saving policies that would save this country if Labour were to get into power. 
Let me deal with one item in the parallel universe. Right now this House—yesterday today and over the last week or so—has been listening to valedictory speeches from members who have chosen to leave this place before the next election. The sad thing about valedictories is that there is a huge number of Labour MPs who will not get a chance to give a valedictory because they will not be here after the next election. No matter how many times their leader keeps promoting the failed policies that Labour trots out it keeps dropping in the polls. I have copies of all the five major polls and the averages of those. As Labour keeps wheeling out policy—and we hope Labour keeps wheeling out some more policy—down in the polls it goes. 
Let us take Labour’s polling on say Sunday night in the TV3 poll. Now TV3 polls are not normally very complimentary to National so we do not ever look at it and say that the results are good. 
Sue Moroney 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Sue Moroney laughs but I can tell members that in the past the TV3 polls always looked like they had a bit of a bias towards the Labour Party. But let us go with it for the sake of the argument. It showed 26.6 percent support for Labour. That means that Labour would have 32 members coming back to this Parliament after the election. 
Hon David Carter 
: That many? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes that many I say to Mr Carter. Now let us have a look at Labour’s list because it is just a juicy thing to be looking at. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Who’ve they got? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Hang on; let us go through it. First of all there are 19 sitting Labour constituent MPs of whom I think the majority will come back. I think there are a couple of doubts. In the case of Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove may have some real difficulties coming back. He is sitting on a very small majority of something like 390. If we want an indication of how worried Clayton Cosgrove is let us look at what he has said in the past. Was he on the party list in 1999 when he first stood? No. Was he on the party list in 2002 when he stood? No. Was he on the party list in 2005 when he stood? No. 
But more important listen to what he said in the Christchurch  
Press 
 about party lists. He said that staying off the party list gives him a choice not to be on the list preferring to get a mandate from the people of his electorate to go to Wellington. He said it gives him a degree of independence from the party and makes him directly responsible to his electors. That is what Clayton Cosgrove said. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but I advise members that interjections should be directed to the member who has the floor. It is not a time to have a private engagement between members who do not have the floor and have a disagreement. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate but I wish to ask you whether it is appropriate for the member Tau Henare to give a Mongrel Mob salute or sign in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speaking to that point I call the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is actually “hang ten” in Hawaii. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members will come to order. I call the Hon Maurice Williamson to continue. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: But for this election miraculously after all that pandering and saying that he would not be on the list—that he did not need to be and that he did not want to be beholden to the party—Clayton Cosgrove is on the list. This has to be the first example in history of a rat swimming towards a sinking ship rather than away from one—the first example in history. 
But there is more. If we gave them the option of winning those seats—if we gave them the option of winning all the seats they hold plus the three more that they will possibly take it will mean that Labour will get 10 members from its list. There are no guarantees by the way but let us assume that Labour will take three more. Let us assume that Dave Clark wins Dunedin North Megan Woods wins Wigram and Phil Twyford wins Te Atatu. I do not know whether he will but let us assume so. Even if that is the case it will mean that Labour will get 10 members from its list. 
Those members should not be laughing over there. They should not be smiling. I have to say to Mr Stuart Nash that he is way outside the cut-line. He will be gone. When we took Labour on in the mid-1990s when they were polling 16 percent I remember making humour of that— 
Hon Members 
: 14! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No no. At the time Labour was on 16 percent. We made a joke about the movie  
The Sound of Music 
 because it had three songs in it that were appropriate. The first one went “I am sixteen going on seventeen”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: But the most— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just check that we start the clock about the time I will start shortly or was it started during Mr Williamson’s discussion? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will get 5 minutes as per normal. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Thank you very much. Kia ora tatou. Yesterday in question time the Minister of Police when asked about the levels of recorded crime in New Zealand made an interesting statement. She said: “Frankly focusing on someone’s race is not going to make it any better.” I think that is an interesting statement with due respect to the Minister because immediately I think it distances her from the Government’s policy direction advanced by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Maori Affairs and given sign-off by Cabinet. I am talking about the drivers of crime policy which is a whole-of-Government approach to reducing offending and victimisation with a particular focus on Maori. The Maori Party would I think love to pretend that ethnicity is not an issue in the justice sector but anyone can look through the Government’s own reports to know that this is simply not true. 
Let us take some of these for starters: the New Zealand Police and Ministry of Justice data tells us that Maori were four to five times more likely to be apprehended prosecuted and convicted than their non-Maori counterparts. The Department of Corrections report  
Over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system 
 tells us that Maori were seven and a half times—seven and a half times—more likely to be given a custodial sentence and 11 times more likely to be remanded in custody awaiting trial. It is not as if the system itself has not realised it has a massive issue in what the reports are calling the impact of discretion. A Ministry of Justice report identifying and responding to bias in the criminal justice system made two key recommendations: first to develop responses that identify and seek to offset the negative impact of neutral law structures processes and decision-making criteria on particular ethnic minority groups—which is really just a flash way of saying that it is institutional racism—and secondly to enhance cultural understanding and responsiveness within the justice system and to improve public accountability via monitoring and publishing data on rates of ethnic disparity. The outcome of this apparent discretion is tragically seen in the collective impact upon whanau of Maori being imprisoned at a rate of six times that of non-Maori—six times. 
For the purposes of assisting the Minister to answer her own question—why focus on ethnicity—I will take a moment just to look at the role that discretion plays in the New Zealand criminal justice system. Opportunities for discretion to operate present themselves in situations from the decision to report an incident as a crime—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just ask that if members are having a discussion they could tone it down? I am struggling to hear myself in this very good speech that I am delivering to the Parliament of the land. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise members that it is a convention in here that if they wish to have a private conversation they should do so outside the Chamber. It is discourteous to the member who is trying to address the House. We are all honourable members and every member shall be given the opportunity to make a good speech. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I was talking about discretion and opportunities for discretion to operate present themselves in a range from decisions to report an incident as a crime through to prosecuting decisions on whether an incident should even end up in court and from the impact of jury discretion right through to sentencing and the decision to grant parole. Although discretion may be good in theory there are some anomalies and that is where we have some problems. 
I will take members to two things that happened in my electorate of Waiariki—two cases. Here they are—Paul Quinn whakarongo! In case one at Rotorua: a 17-year-old was killed when he was hit by a jet ski at Lake Okareka. His two friends both Maori were found responsible for his death after one of their jet skis performed a manoeuvre that threw up water obstructing the other’s view. The two Maori boys were charged with operating a ship in a manner likely to cause unnecessary danger to persons or property and they pleaded guilty in March 2011. They were sentenced in June and discharged with conviction. They were discharged with conviction even though the judge admitted that they had done everything possible to right the wrong. During their court appearance the young men were supported by their families the family of the boy who was killed and their school. Their school principal told the court that the two were academic achievers who would do well in their futures. Both lawyers for the defendants pleaded for the young men to be discharged without conviction. That was case No. 1. 
In case No. 2 in Tauranga a Pakeha man was killed in the harbour after his Pakeha friend accidentally steered his boat into a beacon. The Pakeha man like the two Maori boys was charged with operating a ship in a manner likely to cause unnecessary danger to persons or property and pleaded guilty. The person was discharged without conviction after paying a $3000 donation to the Tauranga Coastguard and $500 in court costs. The judge in this case said that the donation and the fact of the defendant having accepted his responsibility for the tragedy carried a deterrent effect. He said that the defendant had paid a significant emotional price—both him and his family. From my perspective both parties in this particular instance paid a significant price so what is the real lesson here? Is it that money counts? In every other respect these cases are absolutely identical apart from one thing—the ethnicity of those accused. All I ask is that we investigate this before we dismiss it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 This is the last general debate of this parliamentary term. It is the last week of this parliamentary term. National’s summing up of its achievements was heralded by the great Maurice Williamson. Where was the Prime Minister? Where was the Minister of Finance in a week when economic history has been made? It is also the last week of the school term and I guess the public could be forgiven for confusing the two because sometimes this place resembles a schoolyard brawl. 
But occasionally we get the opportunity to rise above that or we get it enforced upon us: a report card or two that do not come from within this classroom but from assessors outside it. It is appropriate that this House reflects in this week of all weeks upon the report cards that have been given to New Zealand. Can we imagine when Mr English gets home and opens his school report that he finds he has a D—indeed a DD? It is a DD based on an objective assessment not of national standards but of international standards—international standards that have been laid bare for all to see. 
The first one is for total debt. He got a D for that because New Zealanders have borrowed too much and he has done nothing about it. The total level of debt is now close to that of southern Europe. This Government has put New Zealand in the company of the only one-quarter of OECD counties that have been downgraded in the last 3 years the others being Greece Ireland Portugal Spain Iceland Italy and the United States. That is the performance of this Government according to the international referee—the international assessment. The Government has got a D for not applying itself to the capital gains tax that could have solved that international debt problem. 
The second criterion in the international standards is the current account deficit; the Government got a D for overdependence on commodity exports. It got a D for a widening current account. The Minister of Finance might like to spend his whole time in question time talking about previous Governments but the fact remains that in his Budget the current account widens every year for the next 5 years to 7 percent of GDP in round numbers. That is the standard that he has been assessed upon. Forget parliamentary debate; just think about the facts this week. The public has access to an international assessment. 
He also got a D for savings performance. That is hardly surprising after cutting KiwiSaver and starving the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. How was he going to get a pass mark on that one? The recommendation is that he apply himself to a strong savings policy like the other kids at school are bound to do. We will see whether he does. 
If that was not enough in this last week of term as well as international standards the Government got a dose of its own. It got national standards from the Auditor-General no less. The answer to those national standards was not to try harder—“could do better”—it was that the Government has lost billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money because the Minister could not exercise the most basic routine oversight. What did the national standards assessors say? They said that the New Zealand Treasury was not even up to monitoring finance companies that it had guaranteed the loans of because it did not want to intervene. Hang on it had already guaranteed the loans! Money was flooding in to expand its debt books by a factor of 1000 percent and Treasury did not want to monitor it because it would have been interventionist. Is that not ideology gone wrong? What did the Minister of Finance do about it? In the face of this appalling lapse of governance he did precisely nothing. 
Did he believe that the market would solve all these problems? We had 10 finance companies go belly up. The most important was South Canterbury Finance. The Minister intervened there to make sure the Government did not accept a recapitalisation package that would have limited the taxpayers’ loss to $500 million. How much have they lost now? It is $1.2 billion—$700 million extra. At lunchtime as Phil Goff said we had the honour to attend a lunch paid for by Parliament’s cleaners. They paid for it and we enjoyed the lunch on them. They are paid $13.50 an hour and this Government lost $700 million because it believed in the righteous market. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague Allan Peachey who has today announced his retirement due to ill health. I am sure many of us will know that Allan has suffered from ill health for some time and I am sure we would all like to wish him well. 
Amongst all the stories this week there has been a fantastic story about the crime statistics in New Zealand. I would like to personally thank the New Zealand police and all the other contributors to bringing down crime in this country in the very tough economic times that the world has been going through. I congratulate the police in particular and certainly the Department of Corrections on their work in rehabilitation and all they have done to try to make New Zealand a safer place. Despite all the doomsayers they have succeeded. We announced the crime statistics on Monday: a 7 percent decrease around the country. Of course in some parts of the country that figure was substantially more and in some it was less. Actually every police district of the country recorded a drop in recorded crime per head of population. I think that is a fantastic result. That is of course on the back of the fact that we had a drop in recorded crime for the calendar year to the end of December last year as well. That was about 6.8 percent. So we have had two drops in a row which is a fantastic effort. 
What response came from the Labour Opposition? Well there were two responses if members would like to know. I am sure members here would like to know. The first response was from the Hon Phil Goff and that was that it was all his work that he did it. Three years after Labour got thrown out of office it was all Labour’s work. Now that is despite the fact that Clayton Cosgrove—who used to be the Labour Party spokesperson on law and order before he went quiet a year ago—said when statistics came out in 2008-09 and crime had gone up about 3 percent that that was all National’s fault because we were the Government. Suddenly 3 years later it is all Labour’s work. Well it is not; it is the work of the police the Department of Corrections all of the other agencies involved in this and actually it is also the work of this Parliament because we have given the police the backing and the tools and we have said to them that they should get out there and do what they think is best. 
Part of that is Policing Excellence which is a fantastic programme. In fact a comment was made today by Labour that members may not yet be aware of. It came from the de facto spokesperson on law and order Mr Michael Bott who apparently is standing against my good colleague and friend John Hayes in the Wairarapa. It is good to know that Labour now has a spokesperson on law and order. Mr Bott’s answer to the crime statistics coming down was this: “Reported crime is down because fewer people are being charged …” and that is apparently all because alternative resolution is part of policing. In other words it is smart policing work. Of course Mr Bott is wrong. There is a huge difference. Mr Bott is supposed to be a lawyer. He says that reported crime and people being charged is the same thing. No there is a huge difference. I say to members of the House and to those two people who will have read Mr Bott’s press release including myself that in respect of alternative resolution when police use their common sense and discretion to deal with an issue straight away rather than clogging up the court system for a very minor matter and a slap over the wrist that is all recorded as a crime too. It is an offence and therefore it is counted and Mr Bott is wrong. But no he launched into a personal attack on my good self using the nickname that Labour gave me—oh what a shame—and then he went on to get it all wrong. 
There has been a third response made all through this year by Labour from the Hon Pete Hodgson. Week in week out I have had written questions about the Diplomatic Protection Squad and the costs of keeping the Prime Minister the Governor-General and dignitaries coming to New Zealand safe. We have seen in the House this afternoon an example of why we need to have those people here available to assist the Prime Minister. We have seen a Diplomatic Protection Squad member of the New Zealand Police today assisting in a very difficult situation. Frankly nobody should resent the Diplomatic Protection Squad doing its job. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just remind the member that there should be no comment on matters that happened in the gallery according to Speaker’s ruling 8/4. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think the Diplomatic Protection Squad does a fantastic job. I do not resent for one moment the fact that it needs to do its job helping to keep visiting VIPs the Governor-General the Prime Minister and anyone else safe. I offer my congratulations to the Diplomatic Protection Squad. I must say that I get the most fantastic responses from visiting VIPs about the work of the New Zealand police. I am very proud to be their Minister. Well done to them. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the decision to put a  
Gazette 
 notice out in respect of three further synthetic drug products likely to be synthetic cannabinoids under the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act that were passed by this House in August. I will take some time this afternoon to explain what is going on and what the next steps in this process are. 
At the time that we put the changes through the House with the cooperation I acknowledge of just about every party bar the Greens they were to stop what is becoming a significant problem in New Zealand with regard to psychoactive designer drugs synthetic cannabinoids etc. They were also put through to give us an interim regime prior to putting in place the recommendations of the Law Commission next year that would shift the onus of proof to suppliers and manufacturers to demonstrate that products are safe before they could come on to the market. In the wake of that original piece of legislation I gazetted some 16 items which effectively removed 43 products from the shelves at that time. 
Despite what some now say proves the failure of the legislation in that we have had to act again I made the point then that this would be part of an ongoing campaign and that if anyone doubted our determination then they merely had to test it. The suggestion was that if we ban this sort of range of products then a new variant arises we ban that and we keep on going and we keep on going and one day someone will run out of energy. Well yesterday’s decision demonstrated that we are not about to run out of energy. If the industry thinks it can reformulate change names repackage or do whatever they are welcome to do so. But we will catch them and we will put in place the mechanisms to take those products off the shelves every time until the permanent legislation is in place around the middle of next year. 
But there is another dimension to this. I say this very clearly because I think it will make it more difficult for those seeking to thwart the provisions of the amendment legislation. The exercise that led to yesterday’s decision was the interception of material at the border. In other words it was not product that was being distributed commercially already; it had been intercepted by customs and police prior to getting to the point where it was available for distribution. That makes it that little bit more difficult for the suppliers here to get their supplies in to reformulate them and to put them out on the market. I am appalled by the determination of this industry to carry on despite our equal determination to be better or to match them in that respect. My strong advice to them today is to stop testing our patience because we are determined we are diligent and we will stop every intervention that we find. The sooner they get the message in that respect the better. 
Up and down New Zealand there are parents there are teachers and there are community leaders who are very concerned about this issue. They have little tolerance for those who are seen or who they believe seek to be seen at the edge of the law trying to manipulate it and twist it in this way. I think there is little tolerance in this House for that sort of behaviour also—that was evident during the earlier debate we had. Yesterday’s decision was a wake-up call to those people that we are on the job and that when we become aware of products or substances that are being manipulated in such a way as to try to get around the prohibition we will act and we will act quickly and those products will be off the shelves within a matter of days. That is important for the people of New Zealand because there is a concern about what was seen to be an uncontrolled spread of these types of products. 
I will make this point in addition: I have received a lot of correspondence from people saying: “It is all very well that you are cracking down in this area but what about alcohol and tobacco? They are far more serious dangers to public health in New Zealand. Why aren’t you applying the same vigilance to those products?”. Well the answer is very simple. In the case of alcohol we have legislation before this House at the moment that moderates the conditions under which alcohol is made available and supplied and that is the appropriate course of action to take. In the case of tobacco there is a whole raft of legislative interventions that have been made over the years by my colleague to my immediate left the Hon Tariana Turia most latterly and they control the use and the spread of that product. To say that because those items are on a different regime we should not take a strong action regarding synthetic drugs is I think an irresponsible point that completely misses the point at issue. I want to make the point that we are vigilant and that we will continue to be so. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I pass on my regards to Allan Peachey. I wish him a speedy recovery and good health in retirement. I also pass on my thanks to Dennis Laplanche the security guard who saved the poor individual from jumping down here or from whatever he was trying to do. He has suspected broken ribs and it is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have just cautioned the previous speaker. Members cannot refer to events that happened in the gallery and that is set out in Speaker’s ruling 8/4. 
STUART NASH 
: I also want to mention that when this happened John Key said: “You should be ashamed of yourselves; that’s down to you guys.” All I want to say is that I think Mr Key— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Less than a minute ago you told that speaker that he was not to refer to the— 
STUART NASH 
: But it didn’t happen in the gallery. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a point of order on the floor. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: —incident in the gallery. He has done it again. That is the third time. 
STUART NASH 
: I am referring to something that the Prime Minister mentioned when he was sitting in the House right over there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has been dealt with but I again caution the member that he must not refer to something that happened in the gallery. There is Speaker’s ruling 8/4 and the member is warned. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Henare I have already dealt with the issue but I will hear the honourable member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It says in Speaker’s ruling 8/4: “A member is not in order in referring to what is happening in the gallery.” I seek your ruling on the word “is”—it says present tense. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It does say present tense Mr Henare but can I say that in keeping with the situation that we have had in the House today I think the ruling that I have made is entirely appropriate. 
STUART NASH 
: All I would like to say is that Mr Key actually said: “You should be ashamed of yourselves; that’s down to you guys.” when he was looking at Phil Goff. I say to Mr Key that I think he needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and I will leave it at that. I say to Mr Williamson to quote a former Governor of California: “I’ll be back.” 
I would like to quote from an article by Gareth Morgan and Susan Guthrie. Gareth Morgan is a well-known economist and economic commentator in this country. He said: “At last we have arrived at the point where the most conservative proponents of market economics admit that the past 30 years since Reaganomics and Thatcherism were unleashed has resulted in a serious distortion of our tax regime. The only opposition to significant reform is now the ugly Hard Right rump which favours jungle economics … It is indeed a revolution that has swept the world’s financial press as finally there’s recognition of the damage wrought from policies that have allowed greater and greater wealth disparity in most developed economies. … Taken together with so-called taxation reform that in effect has exempted the rich from tax on the credit-fuelled capital gains we have ended up with a grotesque polarisation of wealth.” I would like to repeat that: “we have ended up with a grotesque polarisation of wealth.” Only Labour in this House has been listening to the IMF the OECD the World Bank Warren Buffett and the vast majority of tax practitioners in this country and all but two OECD— 
Paul Quinn 
: Comprehensive capital gains Stuart not cherry-picked! Read the whole thing. 
STUART NASH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not too sure which Speaker’s ruling or Standing Order it is but I am led to believe that a member cannot leave his original seat to come down to another seat and interject in the way that Mr Quinn just has. 
Paul Quinn 
: The particular ruling the member refers to refers to advancing one’s position for the purpose of interjection. I think it is well acknowledged that my beautiful baritone voice carries magnificently across— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 and 63/3. I tell Mr Quinn that the rulings go on to note that when a person does move to facilitate interjection if that interjection continues and it becomes overriding the member can be asked to go back to his or her original seat to interject. I have not done that yet but I am listening. 
STUART NASH 
: Only Labour has a plan to truly reform the tax system. Only Labour has a plan to ensure that all New Zealanders pay their fair share of tax. Labour will put money back into the pockets of all New Zealanders not only the very wealthy. Labour will make the first $5000 tax free we will increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour and we will take GST off all fresh fruit and vegetables so that every New Zealander has the chance to make healthy choices. Our tax reform will allow us to pay off debt and keep our State assets. National’s plan includes keeping a flawed tax system and selling State assets. Labour will reform the tax system making it fairer for all. Labour will never ever sell State assets we will never sell our power companies we will never sell Air New Zealand and we will never sell Kiwibank. 
In New Zealand under this National Government we have seen tax cuts for the very wealthy paid for by an increase in GST for everyone. In fact the increase in GST was done even though John Key stood in front of the people of New Zealand and said he would not increase GST—and he did. He promised he would not and he did. So all New Zealanders paid for the tax cuts for the very wealthy. Let me give the House an example. Someone who earns $1 million a year—and about 700 New Zealanders do—received a tax cut of $1000 a week. Someone on the median wage in Napier received around $11 a week. That is very definitely not enough to cover the increase in the cost of living. That simply is not fair at all. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Otira tena tatou katoa. It has already been mentioned this afternoon that this is the last week of this Parliament. It has given me cause to think back to December 2008 when I had the honour to deliver my maiden speech and to reflect on whether my aspirations as articulated at that time have shown some meaningful gain over the 3 years of our Government. In December 2008 I talked about quality citizenship I talked about the characteristics of that and I talked about my hope that we would be able to deliver real and substantive change that would allow us to experience quality citizenship. I also talked about one of the significant challenges to our achieving that which was the disease of dependency the very kinds of policies and philosophy that characterise the other side of the House and the sorts of things that this Government came into power having to deal with the legacy of. 
Our Government in this 3 years I am proud to say has been able to focus on sustainable and systemic change. I want to give just a few highlights in fact and these are the facts that give the lie to the kinds of assertions that are often made by members on the other side of the House. In respect of the economy and the cost of living this Government has seen that floating mortgage rates are now about half of what they were under Labour. Three-quarters of all earners now pay a top tax rate of no more than 17.5 percent. After tax the average wage has increased 7.4 percent in the past year keeping wage growth well ahead of inflation at 5.3 percent. What did we see under Labour? Well I think New Zealanders are sick of the litany of statistics that peppered that administration but the statistics were all heading in the other direction. 
In education we will see 12500 places for 16 and 17-year-olds by 2014 including those in our trades academies and service academies—eight trades academies this year and 13 more in 2012. By 2014 4500 students a year will get practical skills and $550 million per year for the next 4 years will go into early childhood education. We are spending $14 billion on health this year. That is the most ever. There will be a thousand fewer back-office staff but 800 more doctors and 2000 more nurses. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am being asked how many. The news is so good that it bears repeating: 800 more doctors and 2000 more nurses. That is translated into 27000 more elective procedures a year compared with the number in 2008. There will be 500 more procedures every week and we have a target of 4000 extra procedures a year. There will be 1800 more doctors nurses and midwives signed up to our Voluntary Bonding Scheme in hard-to-staff areas and specialties and we will have 200 more places at medical schools by 2013. 
What did we have under Labour? There was another litany of failures including 30000 patients culled from hospital waiting lists. Some patients waited up to 15 weeks for cancer radiation treatment whereas under this Government we have now hit the world benchmark with the time from seeing a specialist to getting treatment being within 6 weeks. What we saw under Labour was 9 years of lost opportunities. What we have seen under this Government is 3 years of hard-fought-for opportunities when we have been in a world with a global financial crisis. 
Here in New Zealand we have suffered our own significant setbacks in terms of the Canterbury earthquakes the loss of life at Pike River and the failure of some of our financial and insurance institutions. Notwithstanding all of those challenges this Government under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key has been able to leverage as many positive and optimistic opportunities out of those as possible. Why? Because we are a Government focused on building a brighter future. We have an unassailable belief in the power of the potential of individuals their families and their communities. We completely understand that it is businesses that build growth and productivity and with that growth and productivity we can look forward to better jobs and higher incomes for more New Zealanders. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The date of 26 November marks election day for us but I want to talk about an anniversary that will occur 1 week before then on 19 November. That will be the anniversary of the first explosion in the Pike River coal mine. 
From my kitchen window I look out to a view of the Paparoa mountains and I am conscious every day of the 29 men who still lie underneath those mountains entombed in the mine. I am conscious of the efforts that still need to be made to recover the bodies and remains of those men in order for their families to find some kind of closure and in order for my community—the West Coast community—to reach some sort of closure. I reflect on the sad history here—and I referred to some of that in question time today—of Pike River mine management being told in December that it was politically unacceptable to refer to “recovery” being given the impression that recovery was no longer on the agenda and being given only half of the resources required for a recovery operation. 
That evidence before the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was given further credence by the Government’s decision in January to transfer responsibility for the mine from the police to the receiver. The receiver of course is bound to some strict statutory rules that require it to work in the interests of shareholders meaning that the recovery of bodies would occur only incidentally to a commercial decision to reopen that mine. 
Clearly the Government has rethought that and I pay tribute to Bernie Monk and to the Pike River families for having achieved that Government rethink. The Government has indicated that it may well tag the mining licence to require the recovery of bodies if that is acceptable and that it may well contribute to funding the cost of that recovery operation. I give notice to the Government that I will be looking at the small print in those undertakings because it seems to me that given the Government’s track record it may well look to escape from the commitments that the families believe have been made to them. 
One of the other issues is the payment of creditors and there has been some progress on that front too. There has been a very belated and very partial payment to creditors. That is better than nothing but it is still far short of adequate. It still needs further work. 
I want to praise the Government for its action in establishing the royal commission of inquiry. As far as I can see—and I have been present at around one-third of the hearings so far—the royal commission appears to be doing an extremely good job of its task of attempting to discover the causes of the disaster and related matters. I do not want to canvass those same issues. I just express my deep sorrow that the Government decided not to fund the Mines Rescue service to be able to participate fully in that process. I believe that that is also indicative of the Government’s attitude towards this issue. 
I want to focus in particular on the issue of regulatory reform. As this is the last general debate on one of our last sitting days here in this House in this forty-ninth Parliament I want to reflect on the particular courses I have been following in the House in question time. I believe that this disaster has demonstrated the inadequacy of our infrastructure for mine safety and I praise the Government for its action in instituting the High Hazards Unit. I believe there is still some progress to be made on the reinstatement of check inspectors in mines and the High Hazards Unit is a good start. 
But I believe that the Government also needs to take action now on regulatory reform and not wait until the royal commission reports. We have heard a catalogue of woes about this mine: inadequate drainage unsafe drilling practices unfamiliarity of managers with mine layout inadequate evacuation drills no fresh air base and above all this disastrous emergency exit that is impossible to use. The regulatory framework that has allowed those issues to develop in that mine is what guarantees safety in other mines. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. In the general debate last week comment was made from this side of the House about the fact that gone from the Labour Party hoardings was the brushed photo of their leader. There was not any acknowledgment of someone called Phil Goff who apparently is the leader of the Labour Party. In fact they are all running. I do not know I am not too sure but I have heard on good authority that even in Mount Roskill there are no photos of Phil Goff. I have not vetted that for myself but I have heard it on good authority. Of course this week Labour Party members have realised that going it alone in one’s own electorate and running a constituent campaign does not work either. So what have they decided to do? Well they have decided to climb on the bandwagon of the All Blacks. Now we see these banners saying something like “When things look black we’re at our best.” Do members know what? If they were to substitute the word “back” for “black” then they would be right. When someone or the community or someone whom Labour members do not like looks back looks them in the face and confronts them then they are at their best. Do members know what that best is? It is nasty nasty politics. That is what we get from them. We look at them we front up to them we have them on we challenge them and what do they do? They get nasty. They get very nasty. 
Let us have a look at some examples. The most recent one is Darien Fenton who said of Sir Peter Leitch: “I choose not to buy stuff from those who support Tories” and that he is a sycophant. She accused him of sucking up to the Prime Minister. Well hello! When did I hear her talking about that when Sir Peter Leitch was entertaining Helen Clark? 
Let us have a look at Clare Curran. She said she has“had a gutsful of the white-anting of Labour from both the right and the left of politics.” She then climbed into the Greens for encroaching on Labour Party policy—GST off vegetables and food. This is the Greens’ policy which Labour has pinched. Labour has no ideas of its own. 
Stuart Nash 
: What? Maurice! Help him out Maurice. 
PAUL QUINN 
: As for Mr Nash I will come to him in a minute. The fact of the matter is that we have all heard the story about rats and mice and sinking ships. The problem with the Labour Party is that talent is being sacrificed. That is the problem with the Labour Party. Their talent is being sacrificed. Let us look at Kelvin Davis. On current polling Kelvin Davis ain’t going to make it and neither is Stuart Nash who has a few hiccups but has promise and some talent. It is just a pity he does not quote on the floor of the House the full Gareth Morgan quote about a capital gains tax. Gareth Morgan is on record as saying that a capital gains tax works only if it is comprehensive and not cherry-picked. It is about time that Stuart Nash faced that. If Labour is going to have a capital gains tax at all it cannot cherry-pick. Every authority tells us that. 
I see that Mr Mallard has arrived. Let me quote from the  
Dominion Post  
in March. He is the member who said he would not be standing again for Parliament if Labour is not going to get into Government. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a little bit ironic hearing from Paul Quinn about list spots. “Mr 58” is so respected by his own colleagues that he is dead last on their list of MPs. 
I want to talk about a serious issue rather than talk about polls signs and list spots. The major arterial road that links Manawatu to Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa is the Manawatu Gorge. Since 18 August that road has been closed due to a series of slips that have continually piled more and more rocks debris and mess upon the narrow winding two-lane road that traverses Te Apiti. Yesterday we heard the news that the road is expected to be closed for at least another 2 months. That is close to 4 months that Palmerston North and the Manawatu will have gone without a primary transport link to the east. 
That is bad enough but even more disheartening is the knowledge that once the clean-up is completed further closures both of the minor and regular nature that we have become accustomed to and on the massive scale of the current closure are inevitable. With the exception of 2 days of snow which managed to find its way even into the city centre the weather events that have precipitated these slips have not been remarkable. It is simply the nature of the terrain and the road that without substantial investment the continual closure of that most important piece of transport infrastructure is unavoidable. 
One of Palmerston North’s strengths one of our comparative advantages is its central location in the lower North Island. Because of its geographic location businesses such as Foodstuffs Progressive Enterprises EziBuy and service providers such as Enable New Zealand have located their distribution centres in the city. Palmerston North has a growing reputation as an important distribution hub for the lower North Island being easier to access than Wellington and within short travelling times of both coasts the capital city and north beyond Taupo. Our central location also makes us the perfect place to host sports events and conferences. We have successfully bid for or created a number of cycling events even though our bid to be the home of the cycling centre of excellence was unsuccessful. 
Economic development in the Manawatu is dependent on quality transport infrastructure. The ability of our region to play to the strengths our location gives us is heavily reliant on central government playing its part. Central government is not playing its part. Steven Joyce’s roads of national significance policy means that we in the provinces are totally overlooked. It is all about the urban centres and it is all about roads. Regions and rail do not get a look-in. While the Minister is busy building his holiday highways in the north the Manawatu Gorge remains closed. The Manawatu-Wanganui region has about 10 percent of New Zealand’s roads but we get just 3 percent of the funding. That simply is not good enough. 
There is no easy solution to the Manawatu Gorge problem. Building a tunnel or a suspension bridge are gold-plated options that have been considered in the past and they have been passed over. It is possible though that the solution lies in upgrading both the Pahiatua Track and the Saddle Road both of which are struggling under the weight of the additional volumes of traffic which are now at such levels that travelling on both of those roads is incredibly dangerous. The Tararua District Council spent $1 million just trying to convince Steven Joyce to take exactly that action. The mayor said at the time that after submitting that proposal she felt completely fobbed off. 
Speaking of money spent clearing the road is conservatively expected to cost well in excess of $1 million and Palmerston North is losing $60000 a day in lost economic activity and lost productivity. Investing in transport infrastructure for the Manawatu would help avoid these ongoing costs. Investing in transport infrastructure for the Manawatu would help the city of Palmerston North play to its strengths and help grow our region’s economy. But National has tunnel vision. Under its policy provincial transport is neither significant nor a priority. We need to change those priorities. The only way to change those priorities is to change the Government and the only way to change the Government is to vote Labour on 26 November. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I got it wrong I say to Trevor Mallard. It is not “hang ten”; it is “hang loose” so I say “Mahalo to you too brother.” Clayton Cosgrove said earlier on this afternoon that he wanted to reflect. Well OK let us reflect. Stuart Nash says he wants to be like the Terminator—“I’ll be back.” The fact of the matter is that in the next  
Terminator 
 movie the Terminator dies. So if the member wants to be like that I tell him to go right ahead. 
I want to talk about working-class heroes and one of those working-class heroes I love is the Mad Butcher—“Go the Warriors”—who to me is a true New Zealand working-class hero. He is not the sort of working-class hero in this picture who drives around in a flash as Mercedes-Benz and parks outside the office of Nicholas Jermyn Shirtmakers. Here is the thing. Look closely at this picture. What does it say? It says “Chauvel Labour”. It is a Merc. It is a brand new Merc. But here is the thing. He is not even driving his own car. He has somebody else to drive it for him. Talk about  
Driving Miss Daisy 
. 
How dare Darien Fenton have a go at our man—and he is our man—from New Zealand from South Auckland the Mad Butcher. I can understand that. I can understand being in Opposition and faced with the appalling travesty that is about to happen on 26 November. Well it is not a travesty; it is actually good luck. Actually it is not luck; it is just good—it is just good. Labour is at 26 percent in the polls— 
Darien Fenton 
: No. 40. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely—no. 40 in the polls. Our 40 is the equivalent of 15 in the Labour Party. So who goes? Who goes from the Labour Party? Who does not get to have a valedictory? Well we know it is Stuart Nash. And I feel sorry for that member because he has actually done a lot—OK he has not but he is a nice man. There is Carmel Sepuloni who I think is talented but she is not coming back either. There is Steve Chadwick. Well she has been here for a while so she can go. 
Then there is Iain Lees-Galloway. Now we have just heard from Iain Lees-Galloway. He wants to put a tunnel under the Manawatu. He wants to put a tunnel there so there are no more slips. My goodness me! That is not going to get him in. I have two words for Iain Lees-Galloway—two words. 
Hon Member 
: Bye-bye. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No the two words are Leonie Hapeta. They are two words that will continue to play on that member’s mind. 
Then there is the very very unpatriotic Phil Twyford. He has the gall to open up an office across the road from me. I can handle that. I wave out to him every morning I go to work but I have flags on my office: New Zealand flags All Blacks flags and flags of all the nations of the Rugby World Cup. And what does he have on his office? Nothing—nothing but an ugly red picture that has been photoshopped and one that we know has been photoshopped. So I say to Phil Twyford: if you want to come to Te Atatu—not you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson though actually I know you would like to come to Te Atatu. If he wants to come to Te Atatu and represent the people of Te Atatu then he had better be patriotic about his country. He had better be patriotic about his nation because I tell you what: it is a pretty bad look. To not even be able to find the turn-off to Te Atatu—that is another little lesson I want to leave Mr Phil Twyford from the Labour Party. They will all be gone on 27 November. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought the traditional time for valedictories was 10 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order and the member knows it. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The bill confirms and validates 12 Orders in Council and one set of regulations made under eight separate Acts. The bill must be enacted by 31 December 2011 to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. 
The bill was introduced and read a first time in July this year and referred to the Regulations Review Committee. The committee asked the six relevant Government agencies responsible for administering the legislation to explain why confirmation or validation of the orders is warranted. The committee was satisfied with the responses it received and presented its report on 18 August recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. 
I note the committee’s suggestion that the current process for considering subordinate legislation bills allows for only limited scrutiny although I do not agree that passing the bill “takes up a substantial amount of House time”. I would suggest that the next Government could ask officials to bring forward its proposals for the bill earlier in the year to enable a fuller consideration by the committee. I thank the committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill and commend it to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) is about scrutiny and in this House we have all learnt to welcome scrutiny. It was an extraordinary spectacle to be present for the last speech that we heard from the Opposition member Tau Henare in the general debate— 
Paul Quinn 
: Opposition? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Government. I beg Mr Quinn’s pardon; it is easy to make that mistake sometimes when Mr Quinn or his colleague are on their feet. From a person who was recently caught abusing a constituent while driving his Audi it is a bit ironic to be mocked. My partner is a working class man who spent 15 years as a cop started a business and did well enough for himself to buy a nice car. I am very proud to sit in that car—in the back or the front. When my partner is driving his mum and needs to go into the pharmacy to get her some medication I sit in the back only to be snapped by some National Party spook lying in wait to do some dirty tricks in the election campaign. Well you know we have come to expect this but we know that people will actually focus on the issues and not on this sort of nonsense and distraction that we get from Tau Henare and the rest of the cream of National. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The brains trust up today. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: And the brains trust. I will not even respond to the homophobic reference about  
Driving Miss Daisy 
 that we heard in that speech because the voters will judge the urban liberals—well the old Tories who seek to masquerade as urban liberals—opposite. 
Turning to the substance of the bill the Minister of Justice referred to the Regulations Review Committee report on this bill. These bills are an annual feature of our Parliament. They do take up House time. The Minister as Acting Leader of the House knows this and I am surprised he does not think it is an issue given his frank lack of progress in getting measures through the Order Paper in this Parliament. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s right. I’ve done very little work—very little work! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well I would not measure the work by volume I tell Mr Power but I certainly would measure it by quality. If it is a question of trying to get quality time on the Order Paper then we do have to ask ourselves going forward whether these annual Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills are the best use of the House’s time. I think not. The committee thinks not and it reported unanimously including its National members. So it would be useful if whoever is Leader of the House from Labour or National after the election has a good hard look at the recommendations made which the Minister so glibly brushed off. 
The futility of this legislation is also pointed to by the procedure that will be adopted today for dealing with it. We are having a truncated second reading debate. There will not be a Committee stage or a third reading debate as I understand it. So really this House is performing no effective scrutiny except for that which the bill received from the Regulations Review Committee. As I pointed out in the report that scrutiny consisted of writing six letters to the departments concerned asking them whether there was any need to continue the measures contained in the bill receiving an assurance that that was the case and being unable to take it any further reporting to the House accordingly. If members think that this House doing its job consists of that kind of scrutiny then I have to question whether members have an accurate appreciation of what that job is. 
Yes it is important to have scrutiny of tax measures and levies. Yes it is important to have scrutiny of delegated legislation that amends primary legislation. Those are the two types of measures in this bill. But I am sure that if the Standing Orders Committee had a good look at this question got some expert advice and looked at what other Parliaments do in these sorts of cases we could find better-quality uses of House time. On that note I will commend the bill to the House to the extent that I can in light of the scrutiny it has received. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I take the floor simply to reiterate what was said by my colleague Metiria Turei in the first reading of this bill: that although the Green Party supports virtually everything in the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) we oppose the Hong Kong and China free-trade agreement. Because that is contained in this subordinate legislation we have no option but to oppose the passage of this bill. 
I just add parenthetically that the procedure of the House might be improved if we were able to make a division of these kinds of bills into separate individual votes such that we could record our vote for the overwhelming majority of legislation that we do support while recording our opposition to free-trade agreements. As long as they are lumped into one we will be voting against all of them with some regret. 
I do not want to take any more time of the House other than to say that if this is the last piece of legislation—unless I am wrong—before the House for which the Minister Simon Power is responsible let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the very singular contribution he has made to this House in the course of his career. I think it is hugely valuable. Even though we oppose quite a lot of the legislation for various reasons I none the less salute him for his capability and his hard work and determination and I think the House is poorer for his departure. He goes with our best wishes. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for giving me the opportunity to speak to the second reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). I begin in the same tone as the previous speaker Kennedy Graham and wish the Minister in charge of this bill the Minister of Justice all the best. I understand he is giving his valedictory later today. Both as a member of Parliament and a former journalist I thank him for his support and wish him all the best. 
It is a pleasure to speak. I also reiterate what Charles Chauvel said earlier about this bill—that it is about scrutiny. We came into contact with this bill in the Regulations Review Committee which I have had the pleasure of sitting on for the last 12 months. I also pass on my thanks to Charles Chauvel and to Tim Macindoe the deputy chair of that select committee for their guidance over the last 12 months. 
This bill looks at 12 orders and one lot of regulations and although those at home might think that during an eventful day in Parliament this may be mundane there are a number of issues of interest contained within this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there are a number of them I tell Dr Prasad and I will go through them now if he gives me the chance. A lot of them concern levies for eggs and tamarillos—levies that we surely do not want to see lapse through the sunset clauses contained in the bill. 
I say in all seriousness that there is a provision in the bill to make sure that excises on tobacco do not expire in the time we are here. If there is one thing I am proud of during my time in Parliament so far it is that this House has taken some serious action towards cutting down on the horrible effect that tobacco has on our community. I think about 21 percent of our population aged 15-plus smoke tobacco. It is responsible for thousands of deaths and about $1.5 billion in costs to our health system. If this bill contains provisions so that we are putting price pressure on tobacco I think that is a good thing. 
There are also a number of other things that I think should be mentioned quickly. The bill has some provisions to prevent the export of pounamu which I think is a good protection for a very precious stone that is relatively unique to New Zealand. There are also some provisions about the export and import of trout which I am sure will be of much interest to the fishing industry. I also say that we have reservations about the process here as Charles Chauvel pointed out but we commend this bill to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Much has been said about the purpose of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3). I thank the Minister responsible for this bill the Hon Simon Power and I wish him good luck. I look forward to his valedictory. 
As my colleague Charles Chauvel said earlier this bill is about scrutiny. What is worth noting is one particular piece of legislation an order made under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 which came into force on 1 April 2011. This particular order is validated and confirmed. It amongst other things increased most benefits pensions and allowances. Under this National Government there are more people on the benefit. The number of people receiving an unemployment benefit has increased by 10.6 percent and the number of people receiving the student hardship grant was up by 234 percent from June 2011. Since June 2009 40481 more people are now recipients of New Zealand superannuation and this number will undoubtedly only go up in the coming years. 
Talking about superannuation I wish to bring to the attention of this House two important and meaningful articles by Brian Gaynor. The first one was published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
in 2007. It is entitled “How Muldoon threw away NZ’s wealth”. The second one “Key’s compulsory super talk music to ears” was published in August 2010 also in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Both articles touched upon very important issues concerning our superannuation funds and schemes. Let us look at Australian and New Zealand figures on a per capita basis. Australians have A$56000 of superannuation funds whereas New Zealanders have just NZ$5500 of superannuation funds. Australians have A$29200 of net overseas debt while we have NZ$35900 worth of debt. The irony of this is that we once had a fantastic and better superannuation scheme which was terminated by a National Government in 1975. I quote from that article. This was the worst economic decision by any New Zealand Government in the past 50 years and turned the country from being “the potential Switzerland of the Southern Hemisphere into a low-ranking OECD economy [that is falling further and further behind its next-door neighbour].” 
If the New Zealand superannuation scheme was still in place I believe that New Zealand would be much better placed in this modern and ever-changing world. Since coming to office this National Government has borrowed NZ$37 billion in less than 3 years and has delivered nil growth to show for it. In fact it has repeatedly failed to meet its growth projections and GDP per capita has fallen. That failure has now resulted in the credit rating agencies downgrading our credit rating. I would like to quote what the Prime Minister said before the Budget. Prime Minister John Key confidently predicated that the political humiliation of a downgrade would be avoided. I quote: “It would add 1-2% of interest on the amount the government borrows which is around $600 million each year. … ‘That’s every homeowner every business everybody paying 2% more. That would be irresponsible in my view for the government not to act’ Key says.” 
This is the last sitting week of this forty-ninth Parliament. Reflecting on what the ever-popular National Government has achieved it is fair for me to list the following facts: the National Government has borrowed more debt it has created fewer jobs it has frozen the superannuation fund it has no real plan to grow our economy and the only answer it has is to resort to selling the family silver. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I te tuatahi hei wawahi i te ahuatanga o taku korero e hangai tonu taku korero ki te Minita ki a Honore Simon Power ko ia tenei ka riro i tana turanga i te ra nei. Ko taku ko te mihi ki a ia na runga i te ahuatanga o tana korero ka puta a ko ake nei me te mihi ki a ia mo te mahitahi me te aro mai o ona taringa ki nga korero a Te Pati Maori. No reira koia nei te mihi ki a ia me te tumanako ia ka riro ma te wahi ngaro ia e manaaki e tiaki tae atu ki nga mema ka puta i te Whare Paremata apopo. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa me ki haere e hoki ki te wa kainga kia rongo koutou i te mahana o te whanau a ka mutu kia mohio ano hoki kua ea te wahi ki a koutou. No reira e te Minita tena koe ka nui te mihi ki a koe e mahitahi me matou ka mutu ma te wahi ngaro koe e manaaki. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Greetings to us all. Firstly and as an opener to my address I direct these remarks to the honourable Minister Simon Power in his move to other things today. I pay tribute to him ahead of his valedictory statement which he will make later on and to his ability to collaborate and to take into account statements made by the Maori Party. Thus I pay this tribute to him with the genuine desire that the origins from which all things come protect and look after him including members who exit the House of Parliament tomorrow. I wish you all good tidings. Return home to the warmth of the family knowing full well that the part you have played here as a collective has been satisfied. So salutations to you Minister. We very much appreciate you working together with us. Finally may the origins from which all things come protect you. 
] 
I just acknowledge the Minister Simon Power I wish him well as I said in Maori in his move on into other things. I also wish the same to the other speakers this afternoon but I just pay tribute to Simon Power for the work he has done with the Maori Party not only at the Business Committee I might add but also on legislation that has been pretty important to us. I wish him well. 
I will take just a brief call to look at the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) which basically validates and confirms Acts that might otherwise become obsolete. As others have said the purpose of the bill is to prevent the expiry of certain subordinate legislation that lapses at a stated time unless it is earlier confirmed or validated by an Act of Parliament. Again others have said that the bill contains 13 items of subordinate legislation that would lapse unless they are validated and/or confirmed and they have also given time to the detail of the bill talking about the intricacies of the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the War Pensions Act and the Wine Act as I am told it is called. 
My small and humble contribution is really intended to step back a little bit and question the power vested in Parliament to revisit legislation—which is a pretty important issue actually; it will be an issue tomorrow—the ability of Parliament to confirm to validate and to otherwise authorise Acts on a retrospective basis and indeed the ability to make the unlawful lawful. The classic recent case of this was the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill which was moved through Parliament under urgency in October 2006. For those who have forgotten this shady past following the 2005 election there was widespread debate about the dubious practice by political parties of breaching election or parliamentary spending rules in some respects. So legislation was introduced to validate the invalid—to rectify the expenditure that the Auditor-General had concluded went beyond the appropriations and was deemed unlawful. 
Legislation to confirm to validate and to redress unlawful practice is not just a contemporary thing. I was fortunate to get some information about another piece of legislation so that the history of this has some whakapapa dating back to legislation called the Indemnity Act of the 1860s. For those members who do not know it basically rendered military officers and others immune from prosecution for anything done by them while they were acting under the authority of the proclamation of martial law back in the 1860s. Basically the Government of the day passed the Indemnity Act to prevent itself from being taken to court for its illegal actions in Taranaki in around the 1860s. Taranaki is where my wife and my in-laws come from. 
The tragic story of this bill can be traced through the  
Hansard 
 of 29 October 1860. It describes the events surrounding the storming of Parihaka on 25 January 1860 against the people of Taranaki who were gathered there in a state of peace. I particularly refer members to the  
Hansard 
 record of the Hon Mr Swainson who described in full the establishment of martial law in Taranaki and provided the House with this pretty eloquent conclusion. He said: “But Acts of Indemnity cannot bury our actions in oblivion nor can they shield us from the judgment of posterity … It is hard to say indeed whether to Great Britain victory or defeat would be the more painful humiliation : either result would certainly be followed by a bitterness of feeling between the two races which in all probability would never be effaced and which would too probably end in the extermination or oppression of the Maori people a lamentable and humiliating fulfilment of the proud professions with which the colonization of New Zealand was commenced.” One always hopes that we learn from our experience and that our history informs our present. 
In this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) our focus is mainly on timeliness: ensuring we are keeping up with the time frames established on the 13 various pieces of legislation that would otherwise lapse or fall into oblivion. My point in taking us back to 2006 and even further to 1860 was to simply encourage us to all think about the power of the executive and how we make the best use of the parliamentary authority vested in us as members of Parliament. It is a question that will no doubt as I said rise again tomorrow when urgency is once again called upon to basically make the unlawful lawful. We will see what rolls out tomorrow. Koinei taku ki a tatou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
This then is my tribute to us so thanks. 
] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call just to make a couple of points but before I do that like everybody else can I acknowledge Minister Simon Power for his contributions. In the 3 years I have been a member it has been enjoyable working with Minister Power in the two or three bills he was responsible for that I have debated. I appreciated his acknowledgment that we have supported the kinds of legislation around children and families that he is so passionate about. So are we. I thank him for that and wish him all the best over the next period and I look forward to seeing what transpires in his career next. I think we all do. 
When the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) was first introduced it was the first Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill that I have taken a call on so it was useful to try to understand the House’s procedure on it. Then having a look at the 13 different areas that this bill addresses I got into the debate quite a bit because we were not aware of a lot of the provisions—I certainly was not—and we know there is a process to decide whether to confirm or validate some of them. 
The bit that is disappointing—and my colleague Charles Chauvel talked about this earlier—is that in reading the report from the select committee we do not get an idea as to what level of examination there was of the necessity for the 13 pieces to be either validated or confirmed. The select committee has pointed out quite rightly that there is a problem in that this is a ritualistic procedure that we are going through in the House looking at subordinate legislation in this way. I hope the new Parliament looks at that anew to see whether there is a simpler and more efficient way of doing it rather than taking up as much time of the House as this. With those comments I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
Points of Order 
Standing Orders—Debate 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is relatively unusual for you to approve of any point of order that looks like it is time-wasting or filling in time but I think it would probably be appropriate if we can use the next 5 minutes until the valedictories are due in some way that is slightly more positive than starting a debate on the Standing Orders for a short time. I think it is better for that to be taken as a coherent whole. So what I might do is get in front of the— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Sing sing. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I will explain to the member. 
Grant Robertson 
: Don’t sing don’t sing. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says “Don’t sing.” I will explain to the member that when I was in the fourth form the inspectors came to our music class. Noel Lynch was the teacher at the time. He was a good music teacher and a very good English teacher. At the time when the inspectors came we as kids thought the inspectors were inspecting us. Lynch said to me: “Mallard can you go in the back row of the choir please and will you mouth the words.” He had my musical ability right and therefore I will not impose any song on the House. But I think it is important given the fact that we have given a time for the beginning of the valedictories that the—[ 
Interruption 
] That is the 5-minute bell. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. A 5-minute bell on the— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. We will start them. 
Valedictory Statements 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is nice to see that we are running a bit ahead of time. I am sure that there will be some considerable time taken with the valedictories. 
Being a member of Parliament is a rare privilege and I am deeply honoured to have had that privilege and been able to represent the people of the Coromandel and elsewhere. I am proud to have achieved the goals I set myself which were to win back the Coromandel for National; to increase the majority in the Coromandel; to ensure that the people have had the help support and representation they need and which they had not had for a long time; and to advocate on some key issues within the caucus. I am pleased and proud to say that I achieved each of those goals. 
Firstly with the help of many others we won back the Coromandel for National and over the last 9 years have developed a healthy majority being the 10th highest electorate majority in New Zealand. Secondly and more important people have had the help and support of me and a hard-working electorate office so much so that regardless of ethnicity or voting preference people know that they can come to me for assistance and that we always do what we can. Lastly but by no means least I am sure that my colleagues can all rightfully say that I did not hold back when making my views known. I will always be a champion for the agricultural sector but no one could do it better than my excellent colleague Shane Ardern with his trip up the parliamentary steps in Myrtle. Fantastic! It was a good one. 
At the 2002 election I was the only one to win back a seat for National and I entered Parliament alongside Prime Minister John Key the Hon Judith Collins Don Brash and Brian Connell. I did enjoy Opposition—there is no doubt about that—but could not begin to imagine how New Zealand would survive without a National Government led by Prime Minister John Key. He is an extraordinary man with a great sense of humour and depth of intelligence and he provides unparalleled leadership the likes of which are rare. John is surrounded by an outstanding group of Ministers and backbenchers whose depth of talent and capability ensures continuity for a sound Government well into the future. 
Equally exceptional is Judith Collins. My special thanks go to Judith for her friendship and support which have been invaluable. I have always appreciated and admired her leadership and her ability to deal with any situation with such remarkable clarity. Judith famously stated in this House that “all work is honourable” and that set a whole new benchmark for the Opposition. 
I acknowledge the huge sacrifice that every member of Parliament makes to be here—in particular the burden now carried by Gerry Brownlee as he manages the herculean task of restoring Christchurch. We are mindful of the added personal sacrifice Gerry is making and proud of the work that he is doing. 
As someone who believes deeply in individual responsibility hard work honesty and integrity National was always the natural choice for me. I began life with two hard-working parents who started married life in poor and humble beginnings. They managed what little money they had and did all they could to ensure that their five children had a roof over their heads sufficient clothing and good food. Dad always had a garden and still does to this day. They did not smoke they had the occasional beer or wine and they did not have pets as that would mean another mouth to feed. Our lives were rich with love laughter energy and games. 
Like my parents and most of us here I began my independent adult life from scratch. I am like the many people I have been elected to represent in the Coromandel and see no reason why anyone else cannot do the same. People need to do only two things: work hard and take responsibility for themselves and their own decisions. I have little sympathy for whingers bludgers and people who hold out their hand with the expectation of getting something for nothing. I am appalled by the ignorance of those who expect either local government or central government to fund all manner of items on their wish list with no understanding of how that wish list is funded. 
Mr Speaker you have said that what is most important is what one learns and I thank you for your considered guidance and leadership. In answering your question Mr Speaker I have learnt heaps and in this instance particularly discretion is as they say the better part of valour. 
I will just touch on some of the highlights such as Judith Collins consistently wiping the floor with the Opposition and Gerry’s humour ably supported by Paula and Chester and my back-row buddies Maurice and Simon Power. Paula’s gift of an orange scarf with black leopard print is a standout in my wardrobe—all that is lacking is the shoes. Being invited by Chris Finlayson to work on legislation in which I have a particular interest was a real bonus. Time spent enjoying the company of “Blondie” also known as Katherine Rich was also a highlight. I am sure that the purple cardy has worked wonders and continues to do so. Other highlights are holding portfolios in Opposition—mangroves and the Kopu Bridge to name but a few. 
I have loved my time representing the Coromandel and its people the many functions and events and the thousands of miles travelled in my faithful purple Ford Falcon V8 affectionately dubbed “The Falcoon”. No other car could parallel a cruise in my “Falcoon” particularly with me driving. My deepest thanks go to the people of the Coromandel for their generosity of spirit and support and for making the Coromandel a wonderful diverse place to be. 
To my family I say that I could not have done this job without your love and support. I am looking forward to finally not feeling like a displaced person and to being at home. To Barry Coleman and Marco Marinkovich I say thank you very much for being there for me. To my friends electorate committees and volunteers I say thank you for all your efforts and support. They will never be forgotten. Having a good team of people around you who are equally passionate about the work involved is essential. I say thank you to all those who generally assisted with hoarding sites billboards and scrutineering. To Ken Brokenshire I say keep up the good work. To Bob Clarkson I say that your work on housing and leaky homes was not in vain. My very special thanks go to my electorate and parliamentary staff for the last 9 years particularly to Cherie and Justin and a big hi to Cherhys. 
My sincere thanks go to parliamentary staff at all levels for their hard work and my condolences on the recent loss of two much-loved colleagues; I know they will be missed. I fully appreciate that this working environment is unique and not always easy with so many demanding personalities. Parliamentary staff do a great job. I leave Kevin and Craig the big clock. If any of them are in the Coromandel they should come to visit—that is a sincere offer. 
To the National Party board members for the last 9 years I say thank you. We are fortunate to have had—and we continue to have—an excellent board. My special thanks go to Michelle Boag and Judy Kirk who were there at the beginning of my foray into national politics. I have met many wonderful people involved in National over the years and you could not meet a better bunch. I do hope that they call in for a cuppa if they are in the Coromandel. I shall have the privilege of being at home to make it. 
Finally to my National Party colleagues I say that I feel equally honoured and privileged to have worked with you all. You are an awesome group of people. I leave knowing that this wonderful country of New Zealand is in great hands and will be for as long as National holds office. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 E te Mana Whakawa tena koe. E nga whanaunga e nga hoa o te hunga kainga i haere mai i tenei ra ki te tautoko i ahau tenei te mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. Ki aku hoa mahi o tenei Whare tena koutou. Ko Tongariro te maunga ko Taupo te moana ko Tuwharetoa te iwi ko te Heuheu te tangata. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. Also to relatives friends and those from home who travelled here today to support me this heartfelt acknowledgment to you all. To my colleagues in the House greetings. Tongariro is the mountain Taupo is the lake Tuwharetoa is the iwi te Heuheu is the man. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. 
] 
The opportunity to serve in this House came through the National Party list with the first MMP election in 1996. Political parties were able to top up their lists with members who might bring different or specialist skills to complement those already in place. I think it fair to say that there were not many Maori involved with the party at the time. To that point my career had brought me into close contact with Government policy in a wide range of areas including law reform the arts heritage health and Treaty of Waitangi claims. Although I had not contemplated a career in national politics when an interest was indicated in my competing for a place on the list the opportunity to contribute to decision making at the highest level was something I felt compelled to take. By our position as tangata whenua Maori are born into politics and I welcomed the challenge. 
My upbringing revolved very much around notions of independence and included a responsibility to contribute to the common cause—the greater good. My father-in-law the late Sir Hepi te Heuheu put it this way: “You’re a lawyer; I think you need to go and give them a hand.” My late mother Te Uira Winnie Manunui said: “Yes. Well I was wondering what you were going to do next and when.” I am by nature a person who seeks consensus to cement agreement shares information to enhance understanding and works to forge alliances—political or otherwise—to progress mutual benefits. As an aside when on my first day in Parliament I bumped into New Zealand First MP John Delamere on the walkway we exchanged the hongi and then like two excited kids we hugged each other. That interaction was caught on camera. The next day in my first caucus a former colleague who remains very close to me said: “I saw you hugging the Opposition.” which startled me somewhat. When I realised what he was referring to I said: “He’s a relative!”. Back came the retort: “He’s the enemy!”. I considered that but only for a second and replied: “The enemy he might be but he’s a relative and I’ll hug him when I like.” Welcome to the world of politics! Thinking back on that incident reminds me of Graham Henry All Blacks coach supremo saying in the Air New Zealand ad: “We can’t have that kind of disruption in the team.”  
I must say I have admired the willingness of the National Party to work in concert with leading Maori of other parties since 1996. I acknowledge in this context the leadership of the Hon Tau Henare in his earlier guises and that of the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia in this term working with our Government in areas where Maori insights are either patently necessary or highly desirable. The opportunity to work alongside the Maori Party members has been one of the highlights of my time in the House. I began quietly building a bridge with them when they first arrived. It fits our Maori way not least because many of us share kinship ties. For as many years as I can remember Maori have worked together on the big issues despite differing political and tribal affiliations. To my personal delight we have seen a significant step in that direction here in Parliament in the current term. It is also good for the country that the Maori Party should work in coalition with others for it represents our growing New Zealand way of respecting difference as a positive means of working together.  
I pay tribute to our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key for his genuine respect for all people and cultures and for seeking mutually beneficial ways to encourage increased respect. With such leadership in the House the importance of building networks and relationships and of providing insights oftentimes gained from working behind the scenes is given more meaning. In that role I have endeavoured to support Maori development and enhance Pakeha and others’ understanding of Maori endeavours. There have been some hiccups in advancing the way our cultures relate to one another but looking back I think good progress has been made in understanding our bicultural beginnings and providing a strong platform for our growing multicultural dimension.  
The special place of Maori is an area that often gives vent to strong emotions that tend to cloud our thinking. Consequently there remains a tendency to see any special attention to Maori as unwarranted given the several cultural minorities in New Zealand today. But there are distinctions to be made. The first concerns the proprietary rights that flow from prior habitation. The second is that the Maori culture unlike all others survives only in New Zealand but its survival remains tenuous and the issue for Maori is not one of cultural tolerance but of cultural survival.  
A landmark day for me was the day that John Key took over the leadership of our party. At his first-ever press conference in that role he was asked for comment if I recall about the place of Maori in New Zealand. His reply was: “Maori are tangata whenua of New Zealand.” I do not think I had heard a leader make that statement. Whether he appreciated fully the impact of the statement at the time I was not certain but I applauded him for it. Among other things it signalled a return to the place we had been in the 1990s and from whence we had temporarily strayed when we came into Opposition. There is no turning back on this one.  
I feel privileged that my work in the House has provided me with myriad opportunities to meet extensively with many New Zealanders in different walks and many places. I have sought to shed light on the Maori position in order to engender confidence in what we as a Government are endeavouring to achieve in supporting Maori independence and what it is that Maori have to contribute to the betterment of our nation. Building and sustaining connections with representatives from overseas is also an area that has presented opportunities to promote better understandings. I have debated in a variety of situations our New Zealand approach to managing cultural difference. Our approach may not be perfect but our insights have been received with considerable interest by overseas representatives who have not always appreciated the soundness of our methodology or who have sometimes confused our efforts with separatism. I think their understanding of the intelligent nuances in New Zealand’s management of these issues is important in building our global connections.  
Particularly in my role as Minister of Pacific Island Affairs I have also valued my association with the various Pacific communities. Their cultures too are in need of support. The role of the New Zealand Government and indeed of the people of New Zealand in supporting their initiatives and aspirations has long-term benefits for them and for us in identifying us as a leading Pacific nation—one that seeks to grow strong Pacific communities here in the Pacific and further afield. In any event they are family.  
In my maiden statement I disclosed a special interest in the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims. A significant reason for choosing what would become an extended stay in this House was my desire to support the National Government’s resolve to address the resolution of historical Treaty injustices. I remain admiring of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham the founders of the settlement process. I acknowledge too the Hon Chris Finlayson as the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for in temperament capacity and all else he follows well in their footsteps. Sixteen settlements concluded in this term is an outstanding result. The work in this area is in every respect about investing in the future. The spin-offs in Maori economic development have become self-evident. I am proud to have been in this House at this period in our history when this Parliament in my view has done some of its best work in advancing the settlement process. I hope that New Zealanders are proud as well.  
The work of the House is never done nor should it be. Over the years the National Party has worked to rid New Zealand of excessive controls that inhibit private enterprise. Going forward there will be a need to review the Maori Land Court’s role in the administration of Maori land. I think there are no businesses in the country that are so constrained by external control nor do I know of any enterprise anywhere that would want to manage its business through the vagaries of judicial decision-making.  
I was raised in the backblocks of Tuwharetoa in the middle of the North Island observing leaders who were committed to the principle of autonomy in all matters including land administration. Enterprising measures will eventually be developed to replace the outworn system of the Maori Land Court so that Maori enterprise can blossom. I find that 15 years on the need to build bridges to enhance understanding to grow relationships and to forge and maintain economic and political alliances is even more critical than when I came in given our country’s increasing diversity and the need to reconcile seemingly competing interests. Such approaches are important as well for a small but feisty nation of people working hard to find our way on the global stage. Our future well-being as a nation depends upon our ability to maintain strong relationships both at home and abroad. 
I take this opportunity to share a vignette which kind of departs a little bit from what I have been talking about but I have to tell it anyway. Back in 1999 when New Zealand hosted APEC President Clinton came to New Zealand to attend. I was part of the official welcoming party along with the Hon Tau Henare and the Hon John Delamere. While waiting with the official party dressed in our korowai I asked my two colleagues: “Do you think we should hongi the President?” to which of course they agreed. At that point I alerted Ambassador Beeman who at once gave me a startled look and said: “Just wait a minute. I’ll need to alert the President’s security.” who were of course on Air Force One which was at that moment getting ready to land. As he radioed Air Force One to alert the President’s security of our intention we and the people from my office who were also watching this plane coming in noticed it doing another circle over the airport. Within minutes Ambassador Beeman came back and said: “That’s fine but it was important that we let them know because we don’t want any security people suddenly jumping on you guys when you approach the President.” I hope that in future times when I am recalling my experiences in Parliament I will talk about my time involved in supporting say Treaty settlements but I am likely to tell that story because it is the day that I kept the President of the United States waiting. 
For 15 years I have had two families: the home family of Tuwharetoa and the family of National Party colleagues both former and current who have largely supported me in my endeavours and when I think of them all I can say I have enjoyed their company each and every one of them for all of the 15 years. The first family have of course without reservation supported the need for me to be here even when the second family has from time to time I suspect harboured doubts. None the less I will miss this House. I had the great privilege of serving in Cabinet under the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley in the 1990s and now under the Rt Hon John Key and of having responsibility for a number of areas all of which I appreciated immensely and not least in this term being the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control which was something completely different from what I had ever thought I might have responsibility for. In that role I was very proud to lead New Zealand’s delegation to overseas conferences and observe the huge respect with which New Zealand is held in matters of nuclear disarmament and arms proliferation. 
I will always be grateful for the support I have had from all including loyal staff over the many years and particularly my current ministerial staff. To the many many others who make the House of Representatives function well for our fellow New Zealanders I acknowledge your dedication to this august place. I thank the National Party for the privilege they have afforded me of serving in this role. Judy Kirk in particular I mention. She was for some years my electorate agent in Taupo before she took over the role of president of the National Party. One day I was her boss; the next day she was mine. That is politics. More important we remain friends. 
Finally I acknowledge the unconditional support of Timi and our two sons Tuirirangi and Manunui and in his own little baby way our mokopuna Rongomai-te-Ngangana te Heuheu. Now another bell is ringing no less strident than the one to which we are accustomed in this House. It is a call from the hearth and it is time to go. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Kia ora. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Fifteen years ago following the formation of the first National-led coalition under MMP three members of Parliament were invited by Ngati Hine to Otiria Marae. Each member was presented with a gift. Two of the gifts were weapons of war; one was a waka huia. The three members were the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Hon Tau Henare and myself. There is no prize for guessing who received the waka huia. 
The kaumatua told me to fill this treasure box with those things I most valued from my parliamentary life. So what have they been? First and foremost I have greatly valued the support of North Shore over five elections. North Shore is a vibrant place where people roll up their sleeves to achieve for their families and for their community. As their representative I have listened to the voice of the Shore through clinics through meetings through coffees and through catch-ups. I have carried their voice to this Chamber. It has been a great honour to serve the people of North Shore. 
I came to Parliament believing in the power of ideas to improve people’s lives—here those ideas could actually be actioned. Freedom of choice is a fundamental tenet of a free society. That has been at the heart of so many debates in this Chamber. I believed then as I do now that New Zealanders are best served by an open and free economy to enable them to take charge of their own lives. Ideas for change and their implementation can occur whether in Government or in Opposition. My Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill which had been a member’s bill was subsequently implemented by a Labour Government. The 90-day bill reached a select committee and was the precursor of Government bills in 2008 and 2010. 
To have the opportunity in this fifth National-led Government led by Prime Minister John Key to be both the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Science and Innovation has been a great privilege. In the area of innovation during our time in Opposition a North Shore group and I had prepared a blueprint to get our country moving. We believed that New Zealand had failed to take advantage of the 10 years of relative prosperity preceding 2008 to really lift our country. Yes there had been some useful initiatives but there had been no real sense of urgency. Other countries had not been so complacent: Finland Denmark Israel and Singapore and Queensland with its Smart State Strategy just to name a few. As a result they have achieved faster growth and greater confidence in their future. 
So my focus as Minister of Science and Innovation has been pushing an agenda for growth. We have simplified the system and provided strategic direction. That is why the Ministry of Science and Innovation has been established. We have provided a long-term approach for Crown research institutes and crucially this Government has connected science to a broader economic agenda. I believe the effects are starting to be seen. There is a greater sense of aspiration particularly amongst younger science entrepreneurs. There has been an increase in total expenditure on science and innovation from 1.2 percent to 1.3 percent of GDP. Whilst that is a modest gain it is a start and in fact it has been achieved during a period of recession. This is actually an area of political consensus but a committed national effort is required. That is the key lesson from the countries that I cited earlier and it is the biggest opportunity that faces our nation. 
The defence portfolio was likewise in need of reform. There had not been a white paper for 13 years. The last significant work had been the cross-party select committee report  
Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 
 on which myself and the Hon Derek Quigley had worked very closely together. The previous Government had implemented some of those changes but new challenges emerged. The 2010 defence review and the capability plan launched this week provide a coherent Defence Force relevant to New Zealand’s needs and our place in the world. The most significant challenge in the next two decades is the changing balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. I believe that as a small country we can make a vital contribution to enhance stability and prosperity within our region. 
However it is not reform that is the most testing part of defence. It is that we ask our young men and women to put their lives on the line in the service of our country. Over the last 3 years nine young New Zealanders including last week Lance Corporal Leon Smith have died either in operations overseas or in fulfilling their roles within New Zealand. I know that their loss is keenly felt by all of us in this House and by all New Zealanders. 
A valedictory is a time to reflect on lessons learned. The most important of those lessons is that trust and integrity are the guiding values for decision making. It is how we develop our party’s policy it is how we debate our ideas in caucus and Cabinet it is how we serve the people and it is the expectation that each of us should have of ourselves. These values are critical when making the hard decisions some of which relate to New Zealand’s place in the world. 
In Afghanistan we are part of a coalition of 49 nations. Virtually all of these nations share common democratic values and are the most internationally engaged nations in the world. These are the nations with which we have our strongest links. All of these nations have experienced acts of al-Qaeda terrorism. I remind this House and indeed the country that seven New Zealanders have been killed by acts of terrorism in the last decade. We have a common commitment to Afghanistan so that it can become a functioning member in the family of nations rather than an outlaw State harbouring al-Qaeda as it was under the Taliban. On this I stand with the Prime Minister. We do not honour our fallen by running when the going gets tough. We do not honour our country by shirking from our responsibilities. And we do not honour each other when we resile from our principles. 
We are all part of a team. The leader of our team John Key has the vision and sets the direction for our Government. I thank you Prime Minister for giving me the opportunity to serve in Cabinet. I also thank you—and I believe this will be shared by all of my colleagues—for allowing us such a large degree of autonomy to develop the direction in our portfolios. I believe that the freedom you have given each of us is one of the secrets of your success as leader. The Prime Minister’s sense of what New Zealanders expect from the Government and my colleagues’ steady competence have engendered confidence and stability in these difficult times including dealing with the Canterbury earthquakes and the Pike River mine disaster. 
MPs arrive in this Parliament as a group. In my case it is the “class of ‘96”. There are now only three of us left out of 10—Gerry Brownlee Georgina and myself. On 27 November there will be only Gerry but he is big enough to stand alone! I have appreciated working as a team with my fellow North Shore MPs: Murray McCully who has been a friend since the age of 18 and Dr Jonathan Coleman. I wish my colleagues every success in the upcoming election including a future colleague Maggie Barry on the North Shore 
The team of course extends well beyond parliamentarians and I pay tribute to my parliamentary and ministerial office staff who have put in so much hard work over the last few years. I also thank the many parliamentary staff whom we all depend on and who are always quick I might add with a cheery word—the messengers security receptionists Bellamy’s cleaners Parliamentary Library staff the travel office and the VIP Transport Service. 
I especially want to thank Adrienne Frew who has worked with me for 10 years. She has been very efficient and at times I think she has had quite a bit to put up with. I also acknowledge my ministerial adviser Stuart Boag. We have known each other for many many years and he has been invaluable as we have chewed over a wide range of political and defence issues. On this occasion I also acknowledge Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant General Rhys Jones and his predecessor the Governor-General Lieutenant General Sir Jerry Mateparae. I also acknowledge Rear Admiral Jack Steer who has been Vice Chief of Defence Force throughout this time and the service chiefs but especially the wider defence family in which I believe that all of us in this House have so much pride. I acknowledge John McKinnon Secretary of Defence. He has provided as all senior civil servants do wise counsel from time to time. It often goes like this does it not: “What the Minister really meant to say was …”. I also acknowledge Dr Brook Barrington for his work on the defence review and Des Ashton for some pretty difficult procurement issues.  
I have been particularly fortunate in the last 3 years to work with a person of Sir Peter Gluckman’s stature in science and innovation and in the ministry with chief executives Dr Helen Anderson and Murray Bain. I say to Murray that he has a tremendous opportunity to lead real change in science and innovation.  
The National Party in the North Shore has been one of my fundamental pillars of strength. There are too many to name—many of them are in the gallery—but from my electorate office I thank Joan Finlayson Mel MacDonald and the current team of Tracy Kirkley Jane Taylor and Sean Topham. I acknowledge longstanding friends—president of the party Peter Goodfellow Peter Kiely and Andrew and Vicki Caisley. All have been my mentors. I also acknowledge members of the North Shore team specifically: Joan and the late Ross Finlayson Terry Dunleavy—Terry has been known to test a few National Party leaders—Bob Keating Barrie and Fay Mason and Jean Allen. From the current executive team I thank Lorraine Campbell Matt Kemp Richard Gates and of course Cam Calder who is now here as a member of Parliament.  
At this time thanks must especially go to one’s own family—the Mapp and Henare whanau particularly to my parents Heather and Gordon my sisters Sheryl and Wendy my brother-in-law Chris my late sister-in-law Darlene whom I miss greatly and also of course especially to my wife Denese. Denese has always provided her love and support and her wise counsel—and in a typical Henare fashion Tau—in a rather forthright fashion. I could not have entered political life without her support.  
I say to all members of this House that I wish them well. I also acknowledge my colleague Allan Peachey for his decision today. As we who are giving valedictory addresses all know it is a bittersweet moment in leaving but the waka huia that I received some 15 years ago now brims with treasures that I will long remember. But it is a time for new beginnings and I have often found that some of life’s greatest rewards come from making a fresh start. Thank you. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have been surprised by some of the reaction I have had to my decision to retire. All sorts of motivations have been ascribed to my decision. One of my Cabinet colleagues who is always concerned about how these sorts of things will look for the Government was keen to spread the rumour that the real reason could be traced to the existence of a series of incriminating photographs. I was alarmed at the speed at which Murray McCully was able to invent such a scenario—well maybe not. Some think it is unnatural that a politician might choose to leave politics well before they absolutely had to. As recently as last month a constituent wrote to me angrily demanding my resignation. He will get pretty excited when he catches up with the news. 
Although I prefer to focus on the past 3 years there is no escaping the fact that I have been here for 12. I was elected to Parliament in late 1999 as a 28-year-old following a very narrow victory in the great seat of Rangitikei by 289 votes. When I first came to this House I was encouraged to be partisan an aggressive debater and a contributor to the partisan approach and told that the most important thing in Opposition was to hold the Government to account. I say thanks to Roger Sowry. That was a view that I passed on to others who came after me and on one level it remains fundamentally correct.  
I am not one of those who yearn for a question time devoid of robust exchanges where members might acknowledge points made by their opposite number with a genteel “Well played sir.” Question time is for those who know how to use it still the best opportunity to fulfil one of Parliament’s primary functions: scrutiny of the executive. But my perspective on politics changed dramatically in my third term in Opposition when I nearly went round the bend with the grinding negativity and lack of progress that can become so entrenched on the Opposition benches.  
So I began to plan for Government not knowing whether we would win as a means of doing something constructive. With a few close colleagues I started to piece together what a justice and commerce agenda might just look like. Politicians must have a plan; a plan that is in place early and one that they are prepared to lead. I believe that politics is 90 percent preparation and 10 percent execution. 
At a day-to-day level politics particularly at ministerial level can quickly deteriorate to the daily management of tasks: dealing with papers the media Official Information Act requests question time written questions and expectations from colleagues and your party—tasks that can become all consuming and tasks that in the end do not improve the lives of New Zealanders at all. That is not why we run the Parliament. We run to lead agendas to improve the lot of our countrymen to push change and to execute on ideas. 
People do not spend years getting elected more years wanting to get into Cabinet to then say: “Well I’ve managed that week well. I’ve minimised risk had no view took no decisions and stayed out of trouble. Well done me!”. Once in office you have to do something and that is why having a plan matters. 
Ideas also matter. In politics ideas matter more than the political players themselves because all of us will come and go but the ideas will endure. Politicians should manage less and lead more. I love the quote from the influential Republican media adviser Roger Ailes who was moved to quip: “When I die I want to come back with real power. I want to come back as a member of a focus group.” 
Actually taking a position and selling it persuading and debating is what politics is all about. Yeah it sounds idealistic and maybe it is but I always told myself I would leave politics before the idealism left me. That does not mean that we should not be open to compromise where it improves the eventual decision in a more democratic way. 
A formative experience in my last year in Opposition triggered a fundamental shift in the way that I viewed politics. As chair of the Privileges Committee in the last term of Parliament I had to chair the inquiry into the matter of certain donations to the New Zealand First Party. My view of politics and how best to participate in it was altered from that point on. This was a highly partisan issue in front of a parliamentary committee that had a history of being above politics. I realised then that working with other political parties to reach consensus where possible was a legitimate way to advance legislation and to progress an agenda. Not everyone agrees with me on this approach but I know I am right. 
My experience has been that expanding the decision-making mandate without sacrificing the kernel of the idea has improved the quality of the legislative product immeasurably. That means not being afraid to back down not being afraid to reconsider a position after listening to an alternative view and at least in one case not being afraid to amend the bill on the floor of the House in response to high-quality debate. It may not have been understood by all and you have to grit your teeth a bit through the inevitable “Government Back-down” headlines but with the support of the Prime Minister and the freedom he gave me to operate in that manner on many many bills it worked. 
So much of Parliament’s time is spent attacking each other trying to outmanoeuvre each other and just plain loathing each other. It can be an incredible waste of energy and time and whenever I was sitting in frustrating cross-party discussions or in the House during a particularly rough debate I was always reminded of Michael Corleone’s edict: “Never hate your enemies. It just clouds your judgment.” 
Good and meaningful policy is also informed and shaped by personal interactions. To the day I die I will never forget sitting in the lounge of Gil and Lesley Elliott in Dunedin listening to them describe to me their experiences of the justice system. It had a profound effect on me and the way that I viewed our legal system. Good decent kind people whose lives were destroyed by tragedy deserve our help not a slow-motion replay of the horror that they went through. My interactions with the communities that deal with victims of sexual violence have similarly affected my view on how our justice system should operate. Likewise the way our court system deals with children is unacceptable: long delays barbaric practices all in the name of tradition and precedent—all abject nonsense. 
There is still so much for others to do and many problems remain deeply embedded in our country’s culture. What the hell is it about the psyche of this country that we feel the need to go home and hit someone be it a partner a child or another family member? This is totally unjustifiable. It is wrong and it is an indictment on us as a society. Our legal system needs to protect these people and I hope I have made a small contribution to remedying these despicable acts of injustice and cowardice. 
The decisions we face are often difficult but that is why we are here. I was surprised to learn when I became Minister of Justice that many of my predecessors had delegated the royal prerogative of mercy applications to an Associate Minister. I have found this to be some of the most interesting and challenging work I have done as a Minister. However I remain troubled by a number of these cases. Though I do not criticise those involved in the process at all I think there is merit in reinforcing the independence of the advice from the Ministry of Justice and moving decision making to a separate independent body. Although the Peter Ellis matter was straightforward in the end—because appeal rights had not yet been exhausted; a basic requirement of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy—the wider case worried me and continues to worry me. 
It is our job to tackle the tough issues the issues the public pays us to front up to and come to a view on. There are many many debates that Parliament does not want to have for fear of losing votes or not staying on message: abortion adoption law children’s rights and sexual violence issues. I do not share this timid view. The truth is if we do not have those debates here where will we have them? 
Surely people do not run for Parliament claiming they want to make a difference only to vote for the status quo. Otherwise presumably they would be so satisfied with the way the country was running they would not feel the need to seek public office in the first place. Phrases such as “It wasn’t like that in my day” “Precedent and tradition matter” or my personal favourite “It never did me any harm” to justify no change simply do not reflect the new reality of a fast-moving modern country. 
I have a great deal of confidence in the New Zealand public’s high level of intelligence and engagement in discussing those issues at some point whenever that may be but I also have great confidence that Parliament is capable of rising to the challenge and dealing with those issues with dignity and distinction. 
I have been privileged to serve with some wonderful people. Some have said that I am going too early; some have not. But I have loved every minute of it and that is exactly the right time to go. 
A few specific thanks are in order. 
To the Prime Minister whose confidence I have enjoyed and who has given me plenty of rope some of which I have used. Of the 462 papers I took to Cabinet on only one did you phone and say: “I can’t support this one Simon.” and I am extremely grateful for those that you did Prime Minister. Thanks for everything John. You have been great to work with. 
To my friend Bill English. Loyalty in politics is sadly a rare commodity but it matters in this game. Thanks. Your depth and breadth on policy matters and personal grit I greatly admire even for a dour South Island social conservative. 
My benchmate Gerry has the best instincts in the game is often ahead of the pack and has a wonderful self-deprecating humour. I have really enjoyed your company on the benches Gerry. Nothing sums Gerry up more acutely than the time we went to get fish and chips for the caucus during urgency in the early hours of the morning in the year 2000—it must have been about 4 o’clock in the morning. He stormed into the fish and chip shop. There was this tiny little man behind the counter and Gerry stormed up and said: “I want 42 pieces of fish 40 scoops of chips and 31 hotdogs.” Then he looked at me and he said: “And what do you want?”. [ 
Interruption 
] Half true? 
To the class of 1999: Tolley Tisch Heatley and Hutch. We still have a drink every Tuesday the House sits and you have provided me with a wealth of grounded opinions and reflections. 
To my friend Chester Borrows for your gentle common sense. 
To my old political friend Katherine Rich a great source of advice and wisdom. The “dark years” as we called them were better for a whisky and a chat about the day’s events. Katherine you would have been a stunning Minister. 
To my team in the Rangitikei: Bruce Norma Suze Jacky Sonia Christine Viv Stuart John O Merv Marion Helen and Di. Thank you for everything. Thank you for getting me here. 
To the people of Rangitikei I will always be grateful for your confidence in me. 
To GJ. I would not be here if it were not for your help in 1999. Thanks very much. And of course the Mole. A plan conceived in a pub in Auckland in 1997 was executed. Thanks Mole. 
To Professor Margaret Clark for first turning my mind to a political career and for keeping me on my toes since then. 
To Peta Bamber who spent 5 years with me in Opposition—grim times; I do not know how you coped. Thank you. 
Thanks to my seconded departmental private secretaries who bought into the cause and to Sarah for keeping my whereabouts orderly. To my ministerial staff the best in the Beehive. To the Pit: Stephen Kate Brent and Rachael. They are simply the cleverest hardest-working fairest people I know in politics; utterly objective scrupulously honest. You are all stars. 
To Jemma my senior private secretary who has been with me for 7 years and who is referred to in my office as “the left side” as in “the left side of his brain”. Jemma you have run my life for so long that you will be ready for something new outside of Parliament. I have never met anyone or worked with anyone as professionally competent as you are. Thank you for everything and you can feel free to roll your eyes behind my back. 
Finally to my friends and family. Friends put up with so much when one is in politics. As my close friend James said to me when I told him I was retiring: “Thank God. You’ve become such a pain in the arse.” Well I am keen to make up for it and brothers I thank you for your patience. 
To my family. Thanks for your unstinting support mum and dad when I decided to get in then out of politics. 
And to Lisa Sam and Harry. I think some of the best advice I got as a Minister was on the sports field sidelines on Saturday mornings watching the boys’ sport and that is where I intend to spend more time. Each day while I was shaving I would look in the mirror and ask myself the same question: will those two boys be proud of what I do today? I hope you will be. Lisa thank you for everything. Private life awaits. It will be fun; I guarantee it. 
So Mr Speaker I bid you farewell and leave you with one thought. We all know that it is a privilege being a member of Parliament. But the most satisfaction should come from doing rather than being. 
Sitting suspended from 6.05 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Standing Orders 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
on behalf of the Acting Leader of the House: I move  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. 
The Acting Leader of the House joined the Standing Orders Committee quite late in the piece as replacement for Gerry Brownlee so there will be other members able to speak with more authority on the breadth of the committee’s work. However the Acting Leader of the House does want to make a couple of points on a few of the recommendations particularly in light of his tenure as Acting Leader of the House since late February this year. In that role he has become very conscious of the availability of House time for Government business particularly this year. Due to the election and Rugby World Cup there were only 23 sitting weeks scheduled compared with 29 and 31 in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Although they were entirely appropriate responses the early adjournments that followed the Pike River disaster and the February earthquake also resulted in 26 fewer hours of House time—the equivalent of 2 sitting weeks. 
On the demand side of the equation around the middle of the year the Government needs to set aside 31 hours or the equivalent of 2½ weeks for Budget debates alone and that excludes any Budget-related tax legislation. Then there are smaller parcels of time required for various Government notices of motion that must be progressed with 4 hours for 16 valedictory statements this year. 
Understandably some of my ministerial colleagues have also been keen to see progress on some of their legislation before the election. So from that perspective the Acting Leader of the House is very supportive— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. I am listening very carefully and I have been involved in both Standing Orders and adjournment debates previously. I just want the Minister to check that she has not picked up the wrong one of the two speeches. I think this might be the one for tomorrow which reviews the progress in the House through the year rather than being the one on the Standing Orders changes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did listen very carefully to her commencement and she read the motion word for word. The Minister may wish to respond. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Speaking to the point of order this is the speech in relation to the Government motion for the review of the Standing Orders but I thank the honourable member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Proceed. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you so much. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is quite all right. 
Understandably some of my ministerial colleagues have also been keen to make progress on some of their legislation before the election. So from that perspective the Acting Leader of the House is very supportive of the committee’s recommendations to allow the Government to obtain extra hours of House time by moving that sitting be extended to a Wednesday or Thursday morning or by agreement of the Business Committee to a Thursday evening and Friday morning. Although this would not remove the need for urgency from time to time it would provide a pressure valve for an Order Paper groaning under the weight of a busy Government’s agenda. I suspect that this may also have the effect of narrowing the scope of urgency motions to focus on specific measures that require a particularly expeditious passage or to fix up problems with existing legislation—and there have been a number of those this term. Similarly I note that there is another recommendation for a Minister in moving urgency to state the reasons with some particularity which is something the Acting Leader of the House has attempted to do. He anticipates that future Leaders of the House may look at using extended sitting hours once every 3-week block for example just to keep what is largely non-controversial legislation flowing through the pipeline. 
The Acting Leader of the House is also pleased to see the Standing Orders Committee give a bit more formal recognition to cognate bills. Last year he drew a precedent from the 1960s to seek leave for debate on two interconnected bills to be taken together as cognate bills and since then we have used it on three further occasions to facilitate legislation on which there is broad agreement. 
However we recognise that the review of the Standing Orders is also a balancing act requiring give and take between Government and non-Government parties. In this respect one of the trade-offs for extended sitting hours is the recommendation that an instruction to truncate the select committee consideration of bills to fewer than 4 months be debatable unless agreement can be reached at the Business Committee. Balancing this out the Standing Orders Committee also recommended the debate on such an instruction must be confined to the subject matter of the motion. 
One of the underlying themes to emerge from the review of the Standing Orders is the growing status of the Business Committee as a mechanism by which the Government and other parties can make the best use of House time to advance measures with broad-based support. The Acting Leader of the House wants to add his appreciation to the members of the Business Committee for their constructive engagement this term. 
There is only one final comment concerning the Standing Orders Committee recommendation to reinstate the requirement to record and publish members’ attendance at parliamentary business. To the Acting Leader of the House’s mind members have an obligation to Parliament and the public to at least attend the House or other parliamentary business if not actively participate and the public have a right to know how their elected members perform in meeting this most basic requirement. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Minister of Police and I apologise to her for interrupting before she got to the substance of the debate on the motion to adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders. I acknowledge the work of the Acting Leader of the House in the Business Committee and also on the Standing Orders Committee. I as did he came relatively late to this process and I acknowledge the work of Mr Speaker as chair of both of those groups. In my opinion Parliament is a better place for the work that has occurred in a constructive way. 
Although it might cause him some embarrassment I also acknowledge Rodney Hide and the work he has done within this. I was surprised at the number of occasions when we agreed as we progressed through the Standing Orders and I think that having someone who has had a period as a poacher and who to a certain extent has turned gamekeeper was useful. It was useful having his view on the importance of Parliament and where the balances lie. People who look carefully at this report will see that it is one that very slightly tips the running of Parliament in favour of the Government but provides some safeguards to that. Those of us who have been involved on both sides of the House think that that is something that could be useful going forward 
I have another preliminary comment to make though because I think there has been a lot of focus here especially around extended sittings—which I will make some more comment on—to help progress Government business. But I am concerned at the growing habit in the House of considering the adjournment weeks as weeks in which select committees do not sit. It was certainly the intention of previous Governments that when there was a 2-week adjournment at least the Wednesday and Thursday of one of those weeks would be taken up for select committee business. It would give the select committees the ability to travel more often to go to where people were and listen to their concerns and in that way to make Parliament more accessible and the select committee process more acceptable to people around the country. I do not subscribe to the group who think that most members of Parliament go on holiday for 2 weeks but I think we do need to get the balance between our electorates and our select committee responsibilities. o In my opinion having select committees sit as often as they do while Parliament is sitting but having members not do select committee duties during adjournment periods is a step backwards and I hope that it can be looked at going forward. 
Going to some of the recommendations there is one that I would regard as the “Hone Harawira amendment” which is a requirement to promote compliance with the proper form of the oath or affirmation. This is an amendment where I think it is fair to say that although we from Labour on balance have gone along with the change—in fact Rick Barker who is a regular member of the committee and I have slightly different opinions on it—it is a change I go along with with some reluctance. What is being required here is absolute compliance with the words of the Act without any addition to them. My opinion has always been that if people want for example to say “Madam Clerk” beforehand or to say “thank you” afterwards that should not result in their oath or affirmation being ruled out of order as they are being sworn in. In the interpretation we have now that will be ruled out of order. I think clearly if people depart from the oath and add words that somehow negate it as we have seen then that is a different issue. 
I think this highlights the need for a focus on the Act itself. There are certainly some people in the House who do not have the same understanding of “heirs and successors according to law.” I have relied pretty heavily on the “according to law” bit of that in the hope that some day it will change. At that stage I will rely on that part to indicate that maybe my loyalty to Her Majesty is something that will not be ongoing for the time when we inevitably have a republic. 
Although I am less comfortable with that change I am probably more comfortable than many of my colleagues with the set of arrangements around the extra hours—the extended sittings—of the House. I have had a role in Government business before. I know that things do not work neatly and that therefore it is too easy for Governments to move to urgency in order to get through business that of itself is not urgent. Urgency has too often been used as a House management tool rather than as a tool to progress urgent business. I think the extended sittings give the right compromise there: select committees cannot sit at the same time as the House except with leave; notice is given; bills are not taken through more than one stage at any one time; and the extended sitting occurs only once a week unless the Business Committee agrees. In my opinion that will give the Government a bit more power but will move it back from using urgency in a way that I consider to have been inappropriate of Governments for just about as long as I can remember. 
I am of the generation who can remember when Parliament did not sit until May. It would always sit the week before the Labour Party conference when Muldoon was Prime Minister and urgency would be taken in order to disrupt the Labour Party conference through the weekend. That was the standard form of doing things. It was vindictive it was vicious and I think it led Geoffrey Palmer to make a number of reforms some of which we are now working on further reforming or refining. 
There is I think quite a lot of extra power going to the Business Committee. Again I reiterate my surprise at how well that committee is working. Frankly Mr Brownlee and especially Mr Power with whom I have worked more often on that committee recently have been open with the committee as to their intentions. The meetings have been slightly better planned maybe than at some stages in the past. You Mr Speaker in the way that you have chaired the committee have also tried to seek consensus although there has been an occasion or two where you have been the only person who has had a particular point of view. It is probably fortunate for the other members of the committee that you do not represent a party on that committee. 
That leads me to another point which is slightly at the edge of this debate. I say Mr Speaker that it is a pity you are not taking a call in this debate. Back in the old days changes to the Standing Orders were made in the Committee stage. There was therefore an opportunity for the Speaker to come into the Committee to take a call. It did not happen in those debates but I can remember occasions when Speakers did that. I think Mr Speaker that you have been actively involved in this and I hope that at the end of this debate you will give your views rather than just putting the question. I know it is slightly harder to do that from the Chair in which you generally sit than from a speaking place in the House. 
The other area that I think is a major victory for Parliament over the executive is the requirement to make debatable in the House instructions to select committees that shorten their consideration of bills to a period shorter than 4 months. I think—much more so in fact with this Government than with previous Governments—there has been a habit of almost automatically shortening up the time for the consideration of bills in select committees. That often stops the public from having a decent go and often forces the debate or the committee hearings into the sitting times of the House as well and I think that that is unhealthy. 
These reviews are always compromises. I do not totally support everything in here but through your chairpersonship Mr Speaker there is nothing in here that any party is fundamentally and absolutely opposed to to its core. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This Standing Orders report and its recommendations reflect a huge amount of work over the past year. I pay tribute to the Speaker as the chairman of the Standing Orders Committee for his handling of this critically important exercise. I also acknowledge the officials Mary Harris and David Bagnall especially for their perceptive and tireless work in clarifying matters for committee members. The recommendations that have emerged in the report are good enough as far as they go. The report aims as the Speaker puts it to offer significant opportunities for improving how the House deals with its business. 
The Standing Orders review is a triennial exercise usually undertaken by each Parliament. The report from this forty-ninth Parliament has focused on promoting a constructive engagement through the Business Committee about how the time of the House is arranged. The aspiration is that members can scrutinise bills more effectively and debate matters that are important to them. Under the committee’s proposals there will be greater incentives for all political parties to negotiate in this way. The principal changes focus on this goal. There will be extra hours of House time without urgency and with certain balances and safeguards. The rules for raising matters subject to judicial decision will be revised. There will be more provision for cognate bills to be facilitated with broad agreement. There will be more flexibility for arranging the Committee of the whole House stage for bills and for dealing with amendments. Motions that shorten the time for select committees to consider bills will be discouraged. Members will be able to gain support for their own bills before they win the ballot. There will be strict compliance with the proper form of oath when members are sworn in. 
The Green Party supports these recommendations. We shall be voting to adopt the recommendations contained in the report. We think they represent progress in refining the rules of procedure on which Parliament is run. 
That said we are also of the view that an opportunity has been lost for reforming the institution more thoroughly than the recommendations in this report allow. The Green Party submitted a number of recommendations to the committee—some 19 altogether. A number of our proposals were accepted others were not yet we appreciate the considerable lengths that the Standing Orders Committee has gone to in order to reflect our views in the report. This enabled the committee to submit the report as a unanimous view without any minority report. We believe that the report is stronger as a result. I do not wish to relitigate here every one of the points we originally made. I shall confine myself to five issues that we still believe need to be seriously considered by the fiftieth Parliament. The first is the oath the second concerns the prayer the third concerns petitions the fourth concerns denial of leave and the fifth concerns standards of conduct. 
The Greens were pleased that a majority of the committee recorded the view that in the course of the fiftieth Parliament the wording of the oath or affirmation should be subject to a review. We all have total recall of the difficulty some members face in taking the oath in its current form. It is of course important that members take the oath in the precise form that the law requires. The Green Party believes however that the oath needs revision to reflect the broader society that New Zealand has become and the richer understanding of our historical roots that we have acquired in recent years. I recognise that National and ACT recorded a minority view on this particular point. We appeal to them to understand that a conservative outlook on our national character does not preclude change to reflect an accurate historical identity. Let us at least review the oath in the course of the next year. 
The same view applies to the prayer. In the Greens’ view the Speaker could constructively convene a panel of recognised authorities to consider ways in which the prayer could be broadened to reflect the multicultural society that New Zealand has become. Who could oppose that? The Christians among us would scarcely be disadvantaged. They have nothing to fear; this is not the Middle Ages. We can acknowledge our common spirituality without renouncing our religious convictions. To do otherwise is to demean ourselves. 
Concerning petitions we remain concerned about reports that petitions that have accumulated a huge number of signatures can be summarily dispatched to the void by an arbitrary decision of a committee. That accords committees and especially their chairs undue power. There need to be some guidelines that committees must observe in their decision making on this. 
The fourth issue is denial of leave. We deplore the fact that any member of this House can exercise a sole veto on two things: the tabling of a document in the House and a personal explanation by an aggrieved member. Denial of such leave should be confined to representatives of each party perhaps the leaders and the whips. 
The fifth issue and perhaps the most important concerns the code of conduct of members. We have a problem and like any addict the first requirement is to acknowledge that the problem exists. The New Zealand Parliament is rated poorly by the public yet we as parliamentarians are in denial. To quote the committee’s report: “Public attitudes to Parliament are often seen as negative because the public rate parliamentarians poorly as a group. This negative perception needs to be put in context. We have a highly successful parliamentary democracy and should celebrate its strengths.” The report then describes the strengths and merits of the select committee process. The issue is not the public involvement in the select committee process; the issue is the public perception of question time and the general debate. It is not the conduct of members in select committees that causes negative public rating of Parliament; it is almost solely the conduct of members during these two sessions. So it is illusory to think that we can improve the public regard of Parliament without moving purposefully to improve the conduct of the House during these sessions. That will require significant amendment to the Standing Orders. 
The Greens proposed two amendments that would go some way towards improving question time. The first amendment would set a higher threshold of behaviour by members. A new Standing Order would make it clear that a particular standard of orderly conduct is required during question time and the general debate. The Speaker would ensure that members conduct themselves in a manner that brings no disrepute to the House. The second amendment would require the Speaker to name a member who persistently uses offensive or disorderly words. Neither of these proposals was accepted and we in the Green Party regret this. Nothing gives the New Zealand Parliament more of a bad name than the schoolyard antics that are tolerated and even justified in the name of free and healthy vigorous debate. In particular the clapping and cheering of each captain’s loud performance should not be permitted. Interjections are one thing; clapping and cheering is another. It is not simply sportive; it is childish. 
The final point is this. It is a self-delusion to believe that reviewing the Standing Orders by itself will solve our problems. It will not. Continual refinement and improvement of the technicalities of an institution will not resolve the fundamental nature of an institution if there is something fundamentally wrong. Reviews of the Standing Orders are good and necessary but something much bigger something more creative is required if we are to seek to ensure that parliamentary procedure and democratic integrity are properly aligned. For that we need a larger vision. We need a different kind of review and I shall have something to say about that in the adjournment debate tomorrow. With these comments the Green Party is pleased to commend the report of the Standing Orders Committee to the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Kia ora tatou katoa. I am pleased to stand to acknowledge the important amendments that have been made in the Standing Orders Committee especially as I have been privileged to be a member of that committee. I really enjoyed the contributions made by members of that committee particularly those members who have been around for some period of time—the likes of the Hon Rodney Hide Trevor Mallard Simon Power and Rick Barker—and I acknowledge the leadership given by Mr Speaker. It was really good to have the cooperative nature of the whole of the committee working together. 
If I can follow on from the lead given by Mr Kennedy Graham this evening I have a few points to mention that were highlighted. The very first amendment—to add a new paragraph to Standing Order 13—is one we have considerable interest in. Indeed we believe it is fundamental to good government. It is the amendment that would allow any member taking the oath to use only the words required by law. I really enjoyed the debate on this for a number of reasons. We were talking about subtle things around the legislation like if it is counted if someone wants to say something just before the oath. It was all that sort of stuff and it was quite interesting. 
Our interest is I suppose in two regards. Although we endorse the importance of consistency in formalising the most sacred oath of allegiance to this House we did not necessarily agree that the current wording of the oath is sufficiently robust as an oath for Aotearoa. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our founding document and people who hold public office should not be deprived of giving it some recognition. 
Two months ago my colleague Rahui Katene announced that the Maori Party is proposing a member’s bill that will give politicians police officers members of the judiciary and public office holders the option to uphold the nation’s founding document when they swear their oath of allegiance. As I said the Treaty is a fundamental basis of our identity as a nation and it provides us with the foundations for our Parliament in this country Aotearoa New Zealand. The Oaths and Declaration Bill will move us forward on the journey to nationhood and is another step in upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In effect the impact of our member’s bill is that any person who elects to state that they uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi may do so by making the following statement at the end of the affirmation: “I will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ka whakaungia e au Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” So it is a pretty minimal change. 
The Maori Party has been lobbying to bring legislation into the context of statutory oaths and declarations since July 2006. As I have said we uphold te Tiriti as our founding document and it is incumbent on Parliament to deal with matters involving tangata whenua in particular on the basis of the Treaty principles—namely things like mutual respect reasonable cooperation and the utmost good faith. Endorsement of the Treaty would be an easy and efficient way of expressing this commitment. We would hope that ideally the proposed amendment would be supported on the understanding that we seek to amend the oath as an immediate priority in the new Parliament to best reflect our adherence to Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a founding document of this land. 
The most significant advance that we would like to acknowledge in this debate is amendment 14 which amends Standing Orders 139 and 151 which refer to the casting of proxy votes. The Maori Party raised the issue of the Standing Orders for casting proxy votes because we believe that they are pretty unfair particularly to smaller parties. Prior to this report a party could lodge only up to 25 percent of its votes by proxy. In this sense the Standing Orders penalise minor parties with more than one MP. We say this because single-MP parties can be absent but their vote still counts although a party with four or five MPs can have two members in the House but still not be able to cast a full complement of votes. We believe that this is pretty unfair and we are pleased to see the amendment to Standing Orders 139 and 151 to enable any party with up to five members to have its votes cast on its behalf notwithstanding the need for the party to still have members in the precinct. 
A third change I refer to is amendment 19 which affects Standing Order 248(1). It now states that the Government must not more than 60 working days after a select committee report has been presented present its response. This issue arose for us following the Maori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry and the difficulty of considering an extremely complex issue within the constraints of a condensed report-back time. The report back was scheduled over the summer break so it greatly condensed the amount of time during which officials could respond over the Christmas holiday period. Following the tabling of the Government’s response my colleague Tariana Turia wrote to the Speaker asking for consideration of a consistent time frame for report-backs. She asked for consideration to be given to working days rather than the 90 calendar days referred to in the Standing Orders to ensure fairness. I am pleased to say that this was an issue that was raised and highlighted by us and there has been movement there. 
We had a little bit of a struggle in supporting amendment No 6 which was the proposed change to Standing Order 277 which suggests that “urgency may be accorded to the first reading of a bill despite the bill not being available to be set down for first reading.” The recommendation suggests that this amendment would allow the Government to introduce a bill without having to wait for urgency to be accorded thereby making bills dealt with under urgency available sooner to MPs and the public. We believe that it could in fact set a precedent that the first reading of a bill could be taken under urgency without parties having access to the bill in advance. 
I articulate the support of the Maori Party for the new initiative described under the heading “Cognate bills”. This issue is specifically addressed in amendment 20 which provides for the Business Committee to determine that bills can be regarded as cognate bills. This initiative first entered this House in May I believe of this year with the passing of the first reading of three bills: the Nga Wai o Maniapoto (Waipa River) Bill the Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngati Pahauwera Treaty Claims Settlement Bill. We welcome the opportunity for Parliament to consider bills concurrently—bills that are debated together but voted on separately—and we acknowledge that the opportunity remains for the select committee to report them back to the House individually. 
I refer to the issue raised at the end of the report and brought together in a section described as “Communicating Parliament”. Over the last few weeks and even tonight in the process of valedictory speeches we have heard various comments passed about the war zone if you like that we call a debating chamber. Mr Kennedy Graham also alluded to this in some of his speech. The conduct of some of the members in the parties within the House it seems is quite simply unacceptable for the elected leaders of the country. Shouting across the Chamber while others are speaking organised heckling and jeering etc. by some needs to stop. 
I am mindful that in 2008 the minor parties signed a voluntary code of conduct for the House. The measures within the document I think are pretty reasonable and would contribute to a more honourable showing in the House. Our submission on behalf of the Maori Party suggested that a code of conduct should be considered as a part of the Standing Orders. Another suggestion we made was that a kawa Paremata which guides the behaviour of at least the Maori Party MPs could work alongside the code of conduct of the House. The kawa Paremata at its core is about respecting other people and showing whanaungatanga to others. 
Finally I refer to the comments about the attendance of members which is mentioned on page 19 of the report. It specifically states: “A member’s first duty is to the House.” We wholeheartedly agree with the requirement for members to be in attendance in the House and that it is pretty important to maintain the respect for the institution of Parliament. Although it would possibly be inappropriate and indeed a breach of the Standing Orders to name a member who was not in the House I cannot avoid making mention of the fact that a significant absence of one political party—which during July and September failed to even lodge a vote with a staggering 20 bills going through—was pretty much a statement in itself. It is not as if those bills were of no consequence. They were identified as extremely controversial bills—the Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill the Student Loan Scheme Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill to name a few. I repeat for the record the key statement in the reference to attendance of members which states: “The House would be brought into disrepute if members were seen to be able to simply abandon their duty to it without penalty.” We think that stands up quite well. 
In conclusion the valedictory speeches of departing members have consistently repeated the concept that to serve in the House of Representatives is a privilege and an honour. I endorse the sentiment and hope the amendments to the Standing Orders we debate here tonight will help us and enable us to continue to uphold that solemn duty responsibly. Kia ora tatou. 
Motion agreed to. 
Road User Charges Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 October. 
Part 2 Road user charges  
(continued) 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of this bill and it deals particularly with an issue that I have some concern about which is the moving from calculating road-user charges based on nominated weights to one based on maximum gross weights. To put that in a nutshell at the moment if somebody owns a fairly heavy truck then basically they estimate what they are going to be carrying—let us say any sort of truck—and they might carry 3 tonnes one day and 5 tonnes another day. They will pay the road-user charges for the number of kilometres they are expected to do at a certain weight. This change means they will pay road-user charges for the maximum weight of the vehicle regardless of the load that they are carrying. This is a significant departure in practice from what we currently have and it is one that I am concerned about. Some trucking operators who have large vehicles that travel one way with a full load and return empty will end up paying significantly more. Under the present system they can travel one way with one set of road-user charges for the laden weight carrying the full load and they can return empty or with a lighter weight and they can pay less. If we are talking about a truck travelling from say Wellington to Auckland that is not an insubstantial distance—700 or 800 kilometres—and therefore they will buy their road-user charges at the different price for the different weights to reflect that. Under this rule change if they take a big truck from Wellington to Auckland with a full load and they bring it back to Wellington empty they will pay the same road-user charges regardless even though clearly the wear and tear on the road will be significantly less from an empty truck than from a very full one. 
It will also mean that companies that have trucks that are used for a variety of different carrying purposes—some days they will be carrying a very large load and some days they will be carrying a smaller load—can accommodate that at the moment with the existing road-user charges regime. Under this regime they will not be able to do that. So we will see companies having to change the make-up of their fleets which is potentially quite a significant cost for some trucking companies. I think we will see a move to more smaller trucks on the road rather than a greater number of larger trucks on the road and more distance being travelled by those smaller trucks simply because if they are having to pay the full cost even when the truck is partially empty many of the operators will decide that it is better to increase the number of journeys with a smaller truck rather than have a large truck that will end up being empty part of the time. So I am concerned about this particular change. Although I am concerned about the number of very heavy trucks that we have on the road—and I would like to see a reduction potentially in that number—goods have to get from A to B somehow and this change potentially increases costs significantly for a large number of industries in our country that we rely on. I will give members an example of a cattle truck. A cattle truck fully loaded with cattle will weigh more than an empty cattle truck. Under the current road-user charges regime that is allowed for; under this one it will not be. Operators of those trucks will be paying the maximum cost of the load for a full load of cattle even if they are not carrying a full load of cattle. 
David Bennett 
: They have to pay anyway. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No under the current regime there is provision that if they wanted to they could prepay road-user charges for different weights for that truck. It is quite possible under this law that a number of trucking companies will end up— 
David Bennett 
: Book every truck one way then the other way? Yeah right! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am looking forward to David Bennett’s contribution to this debate. He obviously was not paying any attention to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we discussed it even though he was chairing the meeting but that would not be particularly unusual in the case of David Bennett the member for wherever he is from. 
Darien Fenton 
: Not for much longer. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Not for much longer no. That is right. I think the Government needs to explain and to justify in greater detail why it wants to potentially increase significantly the costs for a number of our trucking operators. The Government has not made the case for why it wants to make this change. Government members argue that it will be more administratively efficient; I am not entirely sure that it will be. 
In fact one of the other changes in this bill introduces an electronic system for booking road-user charges. That is a really welcome move and we certainly support that. One of the reasons we support it is that it will make it more user-friendly and flexible for trucking companies so that they will be able to more easily book the required number of road-user charges that they need to pay for the different weights that the vehicles may be carrying. It seems that on the one hand we are moving to a system that offers more flexibility and on the other hand by moving the basis on which road-user charges are calculated from one that is quite sensible in my view based on estimated weights to one based on maximum weights we are actually taking that flexibility away again. That does not seem to make an awful lot of sense to me and that is the main change in this particular part that Labour members have significant concern about. 
The second aspect that we have significant concern about is the process by which these regulations will result in road-user charges rates being set. Road-user charges are of course a form of taxation. In the Labour members’ view that should be set by a bill through the House not by a regulation. The old saying in our view applies: no taxation without representation. Under this particular legislation taxation can be applied by the Government without going through this House—the people’s House—as all other Budget taxation measures need to. So we are opposed to that particular provision. 
There are many things in this bill that Labour members support. We want to see a crackdown on those who avoid paying their fair share of road-user charges. Trucking does result in significant wear and tear on our roads—possibly billions of dollars’ worth of wear and tear on our roads. It is only fair that those who are doing that pay their fair share. There is avoidance at the moment and we want to see that cracked down on. In fact I acknowledge that the Government wants to see that cracked down on. There are measures in this bill to do that and we wholeheartedly support those. There are many measures in the bill that we support. 
I mentioned briefly earlier the issue of electronic booking of road-user charges. I would like to see us in time get to the point where there is an online system which is much more flexible for companies where they can manage their own accounts online. That is where we could get to. I have a couple of trucking companies in my electorate and I have had a little bit to do with them over the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament. I know that they would like to have much more control over this area of their business. They have struggled with some of the regulatory framework and I think that many of the concerns that they have— 
David Bennett 
: You’re the mascot for the Irish rugby team. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —are being addressed by this bill. David Bennett would be well advised to calm down a little bit rather than interjecting and insulting me while I am speaking and giving credit to the Government for many of the provisions in this bill that I think are really good ones. He has gone all red and I know he gets very excited when people are talking about him because they do not talk about him where he comes from so he likes coming to Parliament where other people talk about him. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: The top of his head lights up. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He literally lights up when we are talking about him and I know that he thoroughly enjoys that. 
I hope that the Minister will outline the Government’s case for why it wants to make this change from a system of calculating charges based on estimated weight to one based on maximum weight. I think it would be good if the Minister in the chair engaged in this particular part of the debate because that change is fundamentally the main point of contention in this bill. Most of the other provisions in the bill are ones that we support and as for the ones that we have some reservations about we would probably be willing to let them go if we could get some reasonable debate on this issue which is the most fundamental issue in the bill. I certainly hope that the Minister in due course as the debate progresses will take a call or two on this issue and set out the Government’s case on why it wants to do this. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The first comment I make about road-user charges in general is that earlier in the day I talked about the fact that the Manawatu Gorge has been closed for a great length of time and is likely to be closed all the way through to December and that has resulted in significant additional costs to some businesses and in lost productivity. One of the sources of those additional costs is the road-user charge simply by way of the fact that vehicles have to travel a longer distance to take one of the two alternative routes to get round the Manawatu Gorge. Thus their road-user charges increase as a result of that extra distance travelled mostly in getting between distribution points in Palmerston North over to the Port of Napier or distribution points over in Hawke’s Bay. Another one of the effects is that these two roads are not really built for the type of traffic that is travelling on them currently. The normal traffic volumes are about 600 vehicles a day on those two roads; currently they are carrying 7000 vehicles per day and many of those vehicles are heavy diesel trucks carrying freight and goods between Palmerston North and Napier. The effect on both of those roads is now quite significant and with that will come obviously additional costs in maintaining those roads. I just thought that was an important point to make about road-user charges. 
What we are concerned about in Part 2 of the Road User Charges Bill is that the argument in favour of shifting from a system of nominated weights to gross weights for the setting of road-user charges has not really been set out. We have not heard it articulated by the Government why this change is necessary and how it will improve the system of road-user charges. All we are clear on is the fact that for many operators this will increase costs. Again going back to the example of goods that would ordinarily be carried through the Manawatu Gorge should a vehicle have to go from one point to the other carrying those goods then have to travel back empty this change will significantly increase those costs. Yes we could argue that it is an incentive for trucking firms to organise their logistics in a way that tries to ensure those trucks are not travelling without any cargo on board but often that is simply not possible. Often the nature of the cargo and the nature of the points between which they are travelling means—especially when a vehicle is specifically designed to carry a particular cargo particularly liquids and gases—it is not possible to ensure that a vehicle travels from point A to point B and can then pick up more load at point B and travel back to point A or on to another point. It might be logistically possible for some firms to arrange their affairs in a way that is more efficient but for many products many loads that is simply not possible. 
One of the other arguments that I recall from one of the submitters—I do not remember which submitter it was—at the select committee was that the change to gross weights for setting road-user charges might be an incentive for transportation firms trucking firms to ensure that their vehicles are fit for purpose—that is that they do not have a large vehicle carrying a small weight a weight much less than that vehicle is capable of carrying. That again I suppose on the surface of it sounds like a reasonably sensible argument but for many trucking firms that would require a significant investment in capital and it actually reduces flexibility for those firms. They have vehicles that are capable of carrying a range of weights so that those vehicles can be flexible in the goods they carry and to require firms to have a range of different vehicles to be specific to the weight and volume of goods they need to carry would require a heck of a lot of investment. For many operators I think it would reduce their ability to be flexible and to provide a flexible service to their customers. I suppose there needs to be an element of realism here in terms of what transportation firms will actually be able to do whether we put those incentives in place or not. It is not clear in my mind whether that is the goal of this change because as I said I do not think that the Government has particularly articulated the case for making the change. That suggestion actually came from one of the submitters. 
Chris Hipkins also mentioned EROAD or the electronic registering of the road-user charge. What I have heard from a number of operators is that specifically because this legislation mandates the change from nominated weights to gross weights they are less inclined to take up the electronic road-user charge option because it is a cost. It is a cost outlay for them which would make sense if they were able to reap the rewards of electronically monitoring a change in weight and their road-user charge could be purchased as they went according to the weight they were carrying. But it makes no sense to make that investment in those electronic devices if they are not going to get that benefit—if their road-user charge is going to be based on the gross weight of the vehicle. There would be no advantage whatsoever in monitoring the weight of the vehicle and using an electronic system for doing that. If we are trying to encourage transportation companies to shift into the electronic age and to make use of those sorts of systems the change to gross weights is precisely the opposite thing to what we should be doing to achieve that—and that is direct feedback from the industry which is interested in innovation. Industry members are interested in improving their efficiency but they have to see a reasonable cost benefit from the investment they would have to make. 
There is also some concern that driving trucking fleets down to smaller and smaller vehicles will mean we have a greater number of smaller vehicles on the road and that could have impacts in terms of emissions and also of vehicle congestion on the road. So given all the concerns related to what perhaps some of the unintended consequences of this change may be I think it would be really useful for the Minister to articulate what the purpose is of this change. I think that would be welcomed by members of the Opposition and then we could have a conversation about that once the Minister has explained it. So I will take my seat and hopefully the Minister will get to his feet. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 We have had good discussion on Part 2 this evening on this very important bill. I think it is worthwhile mentioning a few things in terms of what Part 2 covers which is basically the administration of the road-user charge system: the requirement of course to pay road-user charges which includes obligations on the owner or operator of a vehicle; distance recorders; the issuing of licences; and the management of refunds which is an important point. It also covers the approval of service providers dealing with electronic methods and the approval and management of hubodometers which is included in Subpart 6. 
It has been interesting to hear the debate this evening from Opposition members. I think that Chris Hipkins gave an example of a trucking firm that could be operating from Wellington to Auckland. Statistics show us that most of those operators that travel those long distances are indeed licensed for their maximum combined weight and that example would be 44 tonnes if they were doing a long haul from Wellington to Auckland. Some choose to operate at their tare weight which some have called the naked weight—that is not loaded at all. Then they choose to purchase a supplementary road-user charge licence. Not many operate in that area. Some indeed operate at the tare weight and then we are left wondering whether they travel with any loading on their axles. Of course we can all safely presume that they do carry a load from time to time. We do not have a clue as to how much revenue the Government is missing out on. So in essence this will tighten that bit of a loophole for those who choose to game the system. That might be a small number of operators; it might indeed be a larger number than we are aware of. 
I guess to conclude the reasons for the change are a reduction in the evasion and also a reduction in the administration and overall compliance costs of the current system. There was also a comment made in terms of the electronic road-user charge system from the member for Palmerston North. Indeed the voluntary use of an electronic system will make it a lot easier to claim back those distances travelled off the road. In essence it will be a lot easier to claim a refund than it currently is. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 2 of the Road User Charges Bill. I thank the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport for his contribution. Part 2 is about road-user charges and the first clause clause 7 which is about the requirement to pay road-user charges has been an ongoing debate. Thirty years on key players in the road transport industry still say that we should be looking at charges related to diesel and that we should be looking at a diesel tax. So I am really pleased that the Minister and the Government seem to have accepted that our road-user charges system is actually very innovative. 
One of the interesting things for me during the select committee process and in meeting some of the players in this industry was having people report to us that the road-user charges system we have in New Zealand is extremely innovative. It is new and it is different. Even though it has been around for 30 years in New Zealand in Europe and other countries that are starting to consider how they get people to pay their fair share—particularly for heavy vehicles on roads with all the damage they do—they are starting to consider New Zealand’s system of road-user charges. They have had a system based on a petrol or diesel tax and it does not work. 
As innovation occurs as we get more and more electronic use and as we get more efficiency in the trucking industry the truth is that the system we have in New Zealand is now a great innovation that is being made available to the world but not through this Government of course—not through this Government. That was one of the very very interesting things from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee apart from the fact that there are issues around the calculation of road-user charges which will continue to be a thorn in the side of this Government. Its friends in the heavy transport industry will continue to agitate about this. It will continue through the election and beyond. 
I think it is very exciting actually that we have an innovative system in New Zealand that we are now starting to see picked up throughout the world. It has been picked up throughout Europe. It has been picked up and is being considered in Australia. People understand that with the increasing freight that now goes from one country to another in Europe and with what happens in Australia the charges that have been laid on heavy trucks are not working. New Zealand is an example. It is great that we have an example here. 
The other very exciting thing that we heard during the select committee process was the innovation. We heard from innovators such as EROAD and others. In fact I have visited many of them in this industry. The innovators are determining that there is a market not only in New Zealand but internationally. And they are marketing not only the road-user charges system that we have in New Zealand but actually the innovation we have through things like electronic road-user charges. 
This bill touches on that. It is very much a voluntary system and there was quite a lot of suspicion I have to say from what I might call the backward-leaning parts of the industry. But the forward-looking parts of the industry are demonstrating to New Zealand and the world that we can do things in the road transport industry that are saleable to the world. It is about not only our system and not only road-user charges but also how we monitor them and how we charge for them. 
We heard in the select committee from EROAD and I have to say again that there was a lot of suspicion from the National members. They were suspicious about EROAD’s motives and its opposition to the calculation of gross vehicle weights. But I have been to see EROAD and I have looked at the product it is producing. This is one of the firms—along with others actually—that we should be celebrating in New Zealand. This is one of the firms that is actually developing things in New Zealand that are saleable to the rest of the world. It is out in Australia and in Denmark too selling its product and doing a wonderful job and I think we need to be encouraging that. It was a bit disappointing to see some of our leading companies like EROAD treated with what I thought was disrespect during the select committee process. 
I encourage members in the Committee to support Part 2 “Road user charges”. There are concerns about the calculation of gross vehicle weights. As I said there will continue to be agitation about that. I talked about that matter in debate on Part 1. I think there is a lot of discontent in the industry about the fact that there has been so little consultation about the change from driver-nominated weights to gross vehicle weights. There have been concerns about what it means in terms of road safety in New Zealand and also concerns about good firms being penalised for trying to do the right thing and big trucks getting an advantage. As other colleagues have said the right of no taxation without representation is a considerable concern. 
I am also really concerned because although we support road-user charges a whole part of this bill does not exist. That is the part that relates to what happens for people who drive through the Manawatu Gorge who get up at 4 o’clock in the morning who drive on a 13-hour day as they are able to do at the moment who buy their vehicles who mortgage themselves in an unsustainable way who speed through the gorge who falsify logbooks and who breach work-time regulations. I know that the Minister of Police over there is saying that the police are on to that. Yes they are. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No no no. They’re blocked at the moment—the Manawatu Gorge. They’re not speeding; no one’s speeding. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: OK; it is blocked. I am sure there are plenty of other highways that we can talk about. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I thought the Government would have cleared that mess by now. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is true. That is right. We would have thought the Government would fix that up especially that Minister over there because she fixes everything. She takes credit for everything and— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: No I don’t. Phil Goff takes credit for stuff that I’ve done. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Ha ha! That is right! Going back to what I was saying about Part 2 there is a problem that this bill does not address and previous bills brought forward by this Government did not address it either. That problem is in respect of truck drivers in our industry who—OK they have to pay road-user charges but all that does is add to the burden that they have of unsustainable contracting. They are required to sign up to agreements with providers that mean that they mortgage their homes and themselves and they have absolutely no way of making a sustainable living because they have no rights. So although there are some regulations about speeding work-time regulations and so on we have a trucking industry where we are seeing every week one or two people killed in a truck-related accident. I am disappointed that Part 2 does not deal with that issue. 
I am pleased that it deals with some other things about building sustainability and modernising our fleet. I am pleased about that but I do not think the Government is addressing the fundamental issue of the link between rates of pay and safety in this industry. There is a link between rates of pay and safety in this industry where truck drivers are not getting full cost recovery including in respect of things like paid waiting times fuel reimbursement and for that matter road-user charges. They are being pushed to make a living. We have had a dreadful few weeks on New Zealand roads. I do not want to blame the truck drivers; they are just trying to make a living. They are just trying to get on and do a job and do their best. But I think this Government is letting us down and letting the industry down by not addressing those issues in this bill. 
Although we support the provisions in Part 2 we think that the Government continues to not go far enough. Until there is an examination and an understanding of the link between pay and road transport safety all of the things that are in this bill will not solve the problem. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Assessment of unpaid road user charges 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. First I acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport. He did something unusual this evening: he stood up and spoke and much of what he said proved to be lucid. I only hope that that lucidity helps him as he seeks to justify why this inordinately large amount of money is being wasted on an unnecessary extension of the expressway in his area but that is another matter. That is another matter. No doubt the good burghers and voters of that part of Aotearoa are turning red by the minute and will see red as he fails to provide a suitable explanation. He is a Minister who has a practical level of experience having come a wee bit like me from an agricultural background—although it has been a long time since the udder of the cow provided me with my direct income. 
I want to talk about Part 3 and I want to direct our attention to ensuring we enable people who feel they are being hard done by in the transport industry to enjoy a suitable opportunity when they are pinged to have—figuratively—their day in court. The system will work in a fashion that is not unlike the Inland Revenue Department. The regulator the road-user charges collector—either the Minister or through delegated authority the agency—will be required to pursue the laggards and those characters. I hope they are not to be found in Kaitaia and other such pleasant climes enjoyed by Kelvin Davis and occasionally but distantly by me. Those people from time to time will find that they have not followed the rules and regulations accurately. 
These things happen because under this Government the rules regulations and red tape have just grown like Topsy. I actually imagined that the transport sector would enjoy a purge a clean out but not a single bureaucratic prune has been administered by this Government in relation to simplifying the regulatory thicket that afflicts the transport sector. As I said last night if one is to bring in new regulations—and let us face it a lot of this stuff will be administered by dint of regulation—then strip two three four and administer a handsome dosage of Epsom salts to the bureaucratic body. Those of us who are the politicians will come and go but the administrators of the system by dint of their professional status and the fact that there always has to be a regulator will continue. The point I am making is that when an operator receives an assessment let us be very very loud in insisting that that operator have a decent opportunity to put their side of the story. 
I hope that the regulator has the balance between collecting revenue for the Government’s accounts—which are going further and further in the wrong direction so revenue is needed—and showing a pragmatic and even-handed approach. Many of the operators will own these vehicles and I think we will see a lot of these vehicles getting smaller not larger. It is a disappointment that despite the arrival of these road-user charges and the new regime etc. the larger vehicles are not actually on our roads because Steven Joyce the Minister of Transport has starved local government of improving the roads and the bridges that actually have to bear the weight of these large vehicles. But that too is another issue for the voters. The voters will be busy on 26 November as they find new and fresh ways to punish. It will not be David Bennett because unfortunately he will not register in this debate. I see Sue Moroney and a host of other very talented people circling their wagons around his declining fortunes in the Waikato. 
For firms that are operating—and I think of the firms in the provinces where the margins are slight—the system needs to cut them some slack. Cutting them some slack does not mean degrading the quality of the freight vehicles of the fleet but showing when we administer the system—we being the stewards of the State—that we can be pragmatic. It is possible under this particular part for the road-user charges collector to cancel a penalty. Well that is very unlikely because from time to time— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Thank you Mr Chair. There is nothing like quality to continue to persist and carry the waka forward. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: Yes certainly let’s have some of it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: That was an unfortunate remark from the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. In another world she was very appealing but now her own people quail because she sided with the mining industry. They live in fear that what passes for their environment is about to be turned into a great oil slick. But I am prepared to back her as the new Minister of Education. There are hand gestures—I see hand gestures coming from her. That is private; she should keep it to herself. 
I need to come back to the bill at hand. There is a faint connection. After all these freight fleet vehicles require oil of some description to continue. Of course we will hear from the Greens that there will be no more oil. We will hear from the Greens shortly an unfortunate observation that somehow we will have a fleet that will no longer be able to operate. It is good that they are provocative and it is good that they make those contributions but unfortunately it is the investors—it is the owners of the fleet at the end of the day—who need to make the changes. I hope that this bill enables them to do that when they are struggling through the bureaucratic thicket that comprises this legislation. 
There are a host of other provisions we must make note of in the Committee stage. After all we will be supporting this bill but such is the hallmark of the Committee stage in this House which is part of our constitutional process. Thousands of New Zealanders will by this time be watching the Rugby World Cup or whatever is happening tonight which is a very very disappointing feature of their night-time viewing as they are missing the opportunity to learn about having to pay more levies and being further penalised if they are in the position of being unfortunate enough to own a trucking business. It will be further weighed down if we are not careful by excessive levels of red tape. 
It is all very good to modernise electronic technology but one should choose the right type of technology. There is a host of options and we need to be confident that the Government is putting substance into the rhetoric of productivity innovation and a variety of other things and actually improving the options for the owners of the fleet to upgrade. 
I come back to the importance of keeping vehicle inspection records etc. which are mentioned in this part. If we have the right kind of technology—the application of electronic technology—then the owners of the firms and the owners of the vehicles will not be cursed or blighted by maintaining mountains of paperwork etc. in relation to the inspection of records and other sources of information that may unfortunately be used in the future to hammer them. I send not a siren call but a warning from those of us who have had experience in the private sector and who know that it is not all beer and skittles to own a transport firm. Not only are the compliance costs quite onerous but also one has to find skilled staff and maintain their wages at a competitive level. An element of parity has to be maintained so that we do not lose everyone to Australia. Unfortunately that is happening and not much that the Government has done passes muster in relation to stopping people from disappearing in that area. 
Part 3 provides for rights of appeal. Those rights are very important because during the implementation and the transition from the current regime to the new system there will be hiccups. 
Darien Fenton 
: There will be. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There most certainly will be hiccups. They are happening as we speak. 
Darien Fenton 
: Maybe a truckers strike. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I am not entirely sure whether the trucking fraternity is a little bit more French in their approach and they might visit their displeasure on the current Government. The only thing French about truck drivers that I know of does not bear repeating in this House so we will just taihoa and I might find another ethnic analogy in that regard. 
As I said there is an option for appeals and reviews but I sound a warning about anyone thinking that the option contained in clause 64 is usable. One would have to have an enormous amount at stake before one would want to go to the High Court to appeal on a matter of law. When one is confronted with an egregious level of wrongdoing by the State one can go one of two ways. One could go to a politician to the Minister and work up through the bureaucracy or if that fails one could hire a Queen’s Counsel and trot off to the High Court. Thank you very much. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on Part 3 of the Road User Charges Bill the topic of which is the assessment of unpaid road-user charges. It is absolutely right and correct that the Crown should have a method for assessing what it deems to be unpaid road-user charges. It is a belief on our side of the Chamber that everybody should get a fair go and a fair chance and that they should pay their fair share and the same goes for people and firms who are liable to pay road-user charges. 
We have to have a method for assessing those road-user charges. Part 3 also deals with the associated penalties for non-payment and the avenues through which those who are I suppose charged with non-payment can appeal their being assessed for unpaid road-user charges. 
It is excellent to see the Government putting through legislation that tries to tidy up the issue of unpaid road-user charges because before the last election there was a massive protest by trucking firms led by former National MP Tony Friedlander against the Labour Government. The Labour Government was trying to ensure that people who were liable for road-user charges did not try to game the system especially when the road-user charges were changed. The charges were changed without notice to ensure that no one shirked their responsibility for paying road-user charges. 
There was an outcry. In fact the truckers did exactly what Shane Jones suggested they did and they clogged up a number of our roads. I remember John Banks being in huge support of them. He was very excited about them expressing their right to protest and the right to free enterprise by clogging up the main streets of a number of our cities—and absolutely; I support anybody’s right to protest. That protest was about the method that was used to ensure that road-user charges were paid. 
I think it is right and proper that we ensure that unpaid road-user charges can be assessed as allowed for in Part 3. The provisions are not ones that Labour has any concerns with. There were some minor adjustments made at the select committee particularly on what information could be collected from electronic system providers. 
I know that some concern was expressed by some submitters that the power to collect information through an electronic system could be used to collect information that perhaps had less to do with road-user charges and more to do with some other aspects of safe driving. I know that for instance information on the distance travelled over a certain period of time could be collected and it was suggested that that might be used to determine whether vehicles had been speeding during that time. There was also concern about a number of other bits of information that could be collected. 
But this bill is about collecting information for the purposes of assessing what road-user charges are liable to be paid. That is specifically what it is about. To be honest I do not know why a trucking operator who was operating within all the laws they could be assessed on using that other information would be concerned about it being gathered. If they are operating in a lawful way and a safe manner on the road they will have nothing to fear from that information being collected. But I did note the concerns that were raised. 
The bill states: “any distance recorder information reported to the RUC collector by a vehicle inspector following an inspection of the RUC vehicle under section 58(1) or provided by an enforcement officer;”. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 There are a couple of points that I would like to make. First of all members heard Mr Jones say that if people had doubt about an assessment there are a number of routes to take and one of those routes is to go to see their local MP. I suggest to everyone out there who has an issue with their assessment that they book an appointment with Mr Jones and go to see him. He will no doubt organise a solution—or did I hear wrongly? Mr Jones also mentioned that people could get a Queen’s Counsel. But a fine for an individual is only $3000 and I think Queen’s Counsel charge about $1000 an hour so I do not know about that course of action. But it was not a bad legal point. 
There are a couple of questions I would like to ask. They are pretty standard I suppose. I am looking at clauses 45 and 46. Clause 45 is with regard to the removal and retention of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are not on clause 45; we are on Part 3. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes OK well the same applies. The same applies because what we are talking about here is the— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Similar issues. 
STUART NASH 
: They are similar issues. It is about what is reasonable. I notice that if someone has reasonable cause to assume that an offence has been committed then they may take action. The reasonable person test is one of the very first tests one learns in Legal Systems 101. What does the reasonable person expect? And how is that reasonable test met? Often in law—the bush lawyers over on the other side will not tell us; there are no lawyers on that side. Simon Bridges would tell us. Mind you Simon Bridges may get it wrong because he was the first to admit that he had won only about half his cases. 
Talking of lawyers goodness me I very much enjoyed Simon Power’s valedictory speech. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: It was a very good speech. 
STUART NASH 
: It was a very good speech. He is a very hard-working Minister. I do not know whether I am the only one but I thought there were a couple of digs at a lot of his colleagues. He is a hard-working Minister— 
Hon Members 
: No you’re the only one. 
STUART NASH 
: OK there were maybe one or two digs. 
The reasonable person test is often one that is left to the courts to determine. It is left to the courts to determine. Therefore it opens up a gap. Whenever I see the words “reasonable person” or “reasonable grounds” I often wonder whether that leaves a little bit of a hole in the system for someone to challenge in court. Because these bills go from one part to the other and they all have to be interlinked I suppose what this comes down to when I look at penalties is that someone may well challenge the imposition of a penalty because they think that an inspector has not acted in a reasonable manner. I cannot think of grounds off the top of my head. 
I have a fire engine. It has a monitor on it and I pay my road-user charges. I pay my road-user charges before they expire. They are not very cheap. They are not very cheap with the price of diesel these days which under this Government is more expensive than petrol was a couple of years ago. I am astounded at how much the prices have increased but anyway that is a discussion for another day about the cost of living I suppose. 
I will talk about the imposition of penalties in Part 3. We come to clause 54 “RUC collector may cancel penalty”. I am wondering whether the road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty because they are challenged around that reasonable grounds test by someone who has been pulled up under this law. There are a number of reasons why a road-user charges collector may cancel a penalty. Mr Jones has talked about those; Mr Lees-Galloway has as well. Basically if the road-user charges collector thinks that it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case he may cancel the whole lot or a part of it or refund it. When I read clause 54 I think it is actually not 100 percent clear under which circumstances they may do that. 
Hon Member 
: Not really; I think that needs to be explained. 
STUART NASH 
: The road-user charges collector might think “Is it a mate?” “Is it worth a dozen beers?” or “I know that guy. He works really hard. I think I’m going to cancel that penalty.” and might say “Just pay a little bit; that’ll be fine.” It is not as clear as a lot of laws can be. I am not saying it is bad law at all. I am not saying it is bad law at all and I am not saying we disagree with it; it is just slightly unclear— 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I think that was a very very useful positive and helpful contribution from my colleague Stuart Nash. Actually I am very very disappointed that the outgoing chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett—never to be returned after 26 November—has not bothered to take a call. We spent quite a lot of time in the select committee on Part 3. 
Labour supports most of this part albeit with the questions that have been raised by my colleagues. The first question is why the compliance with road-user charges needs to be improved. I welcome the fact that the Government is trying to address the fact that we have road-user charges evasion which is conservatively estimated at around $30 million a year $30 million a year for heavy vehicles alone let alone any other vehicles. What that means is that the honest people the honest players the people who are trying to do business and do it in an honest way in this industry are subsidising those who evade payment. The Government is not able to collect that revenue to invest back into the transport system. 
We support Part 3 which strengthens the whole system around collecting road-user charges. There was quite a lot of suspicion on the select committee about nominated weights versus gross vehicle weights and there was suspicion about electronic systems but there was particularly suspicion about the ability in Part 3 of the regulator to get information and enforce road-user charges. Quite a lot of suspicion came through from the industry and I am a bit sympathetic with that; with a National Government in power I would be suspicious as well. However Part 3 proposes some changes and I think the select committee took those changes on board. 
We can see from the report that there are some recommendations from the select committee to amend Part 3. There is a suggestion from the select committee of an amendment to clause 57(b) around the information that is obtained from the road-user charges collector how that information is retained and how it is used. There was quite a lot of unease from the industry about the ability of the Government to collect information on road-user charges that it may use for other purposes. There was a lot of suspicion actually. I am pleased that the select committee listened to that and has recommended an amendment that the road-user charges collector may retain only information taken from the vehicle management system regarding the distance travelled by the vehicle. The other information cannot be used for other purposes. 
The other debate was on how far the information went back and how extended the records were. There was quite a lot of discussion and debate on that. So in terms of the select committee report we support the amendments to clause 59 to remove any retrospective effect. There we go. There is that phrase “retrospective effect” and have we not been talking about that quite a lot recently? Will we not be talking about it tomorrow? Have we not had acceptance from this Parliament and actually from the Government that retrospective effects are not a good thing? They are not a good thing. So there is an amendment to clause 59 recommended by the select committee to remove that retrospective effect and reduce the time that records need to be retained for the purpose of assessing a person’s road-user charges payment obligations. There was concern as I said from submitters and the select committee discussed that. There was discussion with the officials about the scale of the records to be kept and the time for which they should be retained. 
We have also recommended an amendment to clause 60 that requires the road-user charges collectors to provide a receipt for records or other information removed from an operator— 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I came down to the Chamber not intending to speak on the Road User Charges Bill but I have been listening in my office to the debate and thought that if the opportunity arose I would just ask a few questions. We are on Part 3 and I was somewhat surprised when listening in my office to the debate because it seems that it is quite a complex bill. From a Government that has stood on a mandate and promises—empty as they may be—of reducing compliance and reducing regulations this is bizarre legislation. Anyone who reads through this— 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the member going to vote for it? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: In fact the farmers I say to the Minister of Agriculture David Carter will be absolutely flabbergasted to read this bill. There might be some who are watching this debate on Parliament TV and there may be some who are on the internet. They will not be able to download the bill because it is quite thick and they will not have broadband that is capable of it but anyway the farmers who were told that this Government would come in and reduce compliance costs will be shocked. 
Just picking up Part 3 I see that clause 48(1) states that the road-user charges collector may issue an assessment for unpaid road user charges “If the RUC collector forms the opinion …” which is obviously somewhat subjective and in subclause (2) there are the qualifications to forming the opinion. But none the less we have handed to an individual a quite significant power which we hope is never abused but there is an ability to step in here and make assessments. 
There will be many farmers up and down the country I suggest to Mr Carter who are running 3-tonne trucks 5-tonne trucks or bigger ones perhaps. They use them from time to time and on occasions they may forget that the road-user charges they have purchased have expired or they may have gone a few kilometres over and they are in the middle of the harvest season and for some reason they have not been able to get to the post office. Maybe there is not an agency close by that is open. They may be forced inadvertently to go over their road-user charges limit. 
The penalties in the bill are quite harsh. Let us be quite honest about this. This complex legislation designed to streamline the system we are told—and we are certainly supporting it on the basis of streamlining the system—is none the less a whole lot of regulation of bureaucracy and compliance costs. Although we as a Government were criticised for being the nanny State and for imposing unnecessary costs on industry this Government is no better. 
Let us get that on the record. This Government is no better at all because the reality is that we do need some regulations and we do need to have some guidance through legislation. There are double standards I guess. There is a word beginning with “h” that I am not allowed to use; yes I am allowed to use it. The hypocrisy of the situation is that a Government that claimed it would do no more in terms of regulations and compliance costs is having to do exactly the same things that the Labour Government had to do when it was in office and was unfairly criticised for. The difference is that the Labour Opposition when it understands the need for sensible regulation and guidance and sound legislation will support the Government from time to time and this is one of those occasions. But let us not kid ourselves that this legislation will not impose greater compliance costs greater obligations and a higher level of scrutiny on anyone using a heavy vehicle in this country. The National Government will say that is necessary. When we were in office of course National members said that it was unnecessary. 
I can see all the members over there are shaking their heads; well they should be anyway because they understand that. But here we have legislation that has been considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee altered and improved drastically and it is designed to ensure that we have a fair system of road-user charges whereby owners of heavier vehicles pay more. I understand that some vehicle owners will pay considerably more and that for them will be an additional cost on their business that has been brought in by the National Government. The National Government is imposing greater costs on business. That is the reality of the situation that this legislation will lead to. Let us not kid ourselves otherwise. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Enforcement and other matters 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that Part 4 clauses 67B to 89 and schedules 2 and 3 stand part. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Part 4 is all about enforcement and other matters. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 79 which will enable regulations on road-user charges to be specified. An important point here is that this clause empowers the making of regulations that set the road-user charges rates. The regulations must be published in the  
Gazette 
 at least 6 weeks before the rates come into force. Also there are administration regulations that need to be set for road-user charges licences; the payment of road-user charges; refunds of road-user charges; regulating the use of information held by electronic service providers; regulating the fitting maintenance and replacement of distance recorders; regulating the management of information downloaded and retained by the road-user charges collector for the vehicle management system; and setting infringement fees. 
Finally yesterday I alluded to the exemption in Supplementary Order Paper 287. The paragraph which has several subparagraphs contains the regulation-making powers for the new exemption mechanism for light road-user charges vehicles—that is vehicles that are under 3.5 tonnes and that the owner-operator chooses to operate off the road. Officials will have to consult as they will do on those other parts I have mentioned very widely in terms of exemption. The Ministry of Transport officials advise me that they will be consulting not only through their website but also the stakeholders who have shown an interest through the select committee process: obviously the agriculture and transport sector the likes of the Automobile Association and the Motor Trade Association and also the electronic service providers. So wide consultation is due to occur very soon on the important regulations. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Part 4 of the Road User Charges Bill is where we get into some disagreement with the Government and there are also concerns from those in the industry who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee particularly around the issue of regulations—regulations that will set the bands of the costs for road-user charges. It gets back to that argument we have been putting all the way through this debate about taxation without representation. It is a fundamental part of our Parliament that there should not be imposition of tax which is essentially what road-user charges are without representation. It should not go through our parliamentary system through a regulations process. So I think what we will find is that apart from the calculation of gross vehicle rates in the new calculation and the nominated weights this is the part of the bill that the industry most objects to and I do not blame it actually. 
What we heard through the select committee was that there was a weak consultation process more than 2 years ago which arose after the truckies’ strike before the last election which people have alluded to that I must say was quite politically motivated. Annette King the then Minister of Transport handled it extremely well and set up a committee to look at the whole issue of road-user charges. So part of this bill does come back from the report-back of that committee. It was very very interesting for me after all of that politically charged issue before the last election to have a bill from this Government that now proposes to impose new road-user charges on truckies but without proper parliamentary scrutiny. There was no one who came to the select committee apart from National’s friends who was convinced about this process. They said: “How can we support this bill when we have no idea what the costs will be? We have no idea other than that it is some sort of broad band calculation that was done 2 years ago. We do not know what the costs will be for our industry. We want to have a say in that.” 
I think that is fair enough because we are talking here about big business and also about small business which I thought National supported. This change will have a significant impact on them and I think they have a right to a genuine say on that through a select committee process. But as we know with a regulations process there is a way of dodging around that. So what the industry is calling for is genuine parliamentary scrutiny on these charges. They are saying they do not want these charges imposed through regulation. They want them in the bill as they have been in the past. They want this Government to honour the commitments its members made when they lined up when the truckies went rolling past in the strike in 2008 which as I say was politically motivated— 
Hon David Carter 
: They didn’t like that Government. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No well they do not like this Government either actually. I have to tell that member that they do not like this Government. They are let down by this Government; they have been let down by this Government. They are saying that this part of the bill is one of the things they are completely opposed to. It is appalling that there will be charges imposed on this industry and the people who actually have to do the work and run their businesses will have very little say. At the end of the day there will not be proper parliamentary scrutiny. 
These charges should be in the bill; they should not be done through the process of regulations that are proposed by the bill. Actually I think there will be quite a few protests when this bill goes through. I certainly know that the truckies are organising themselves not only around the calculation of nominated weights versus gross weights but also about the fact that they will have charges imposed on them when they do not get to have a proper say on it. 
So that is the major objection we have to Part 4. This is why when we came to select committee we reserved our position on this. We reserved our position on this and we will vote against Part 4. There are good things in this bill— 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 4 of the Road User Charges Bill. This part of the bill sets out the infringements that can be imposed on anyone who transgresses in terms of the new regime for road-user charges. I am looking at clause 67B where in the case of an individual it is a fine of $15000 or more and in the case of a body corporate it is in the area of $75000 or more. In terms of whatever fine is imposed upon a person or a body corporate the accuracy and the fairness of the regime will be paramount. 
I guess in terms of that we have some reservations especially given that part of the evidence that can be used which we saw in Part 3 is the electronic monitoring system that can be used to track road-user charges especially when last month that electronic system essentially packed up. We think that maybe in terms of the law and the practicality of the bill as it stands now there may be some way to go and we may be slightly ahead of ourselves in terms of being able to have an accurate measure of how some of these road-user charges will be calculated in terms of the infringement fines in Part 4 that may be imposed upon some people. 
In terms of that electronic management system last month vehicle owners were not able to renew their registrations or update their road-user charges or change of ownership details at New Zealand Post shops so some serious questions need to be asked about the reliability of that system in terms of being able to use that as evidence to put infringement notices upon a company or individual. This goes back to the fairness and accuracy of the new system moving from gross weights to nominated weights. There are some major concerns from some people and some companies within the industry as to whether the accuracy will actually be accurate. Instead of being accurate and fair the provisions within this bill are basically another muddle through to make sure that we can catch everyone. 
I have an honest question for the Associate Minister of Transport who I understand is leaving the chair at the moment about the level of evasion that occurs within the industry—the percentage of just how much of a problem there is at the moment. 
I turn to an issue that my colleague Darien Fenton was talking about in terms of setting out the levels of road-user charges and the fact that that will no longer have any public scrutiny but will now be done by regulation. As my colleague said this breaks with the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. There is major concern on this side of the Chamber that there will be no scrutiny of that. I believe that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in terms of the final numbers being available for scrutiny to make sure that the bill could proceed I understand that they were not available and that the actual charges will be set by officials at some later date. That is what my colleague Darien Fenton was getting to: how can we scrutinise this part of the bill in relation to the setting of the levels of road-user charges when in fact we do not know what they are? Those are two major concerns around infringement and the fact that these new charges will be set by regulations which we have issue with in Part 4. 
Going back to my original point about infringement fines of $15000 and $75000 I do not think we will have any major problem about that. But again I just reiterate the fact that we need to have an accurate measure of the evasion within the industry because if we do not have that we may be fixing a problem that does not actually exist. In that respect we ask whether there was actually a problem that needed to be fixed in a manner that will massively increase the amount of road-user charges that some of our truckers will have to pay. In terms of that there is serious concern within the industry and those concerned made their voices heard in the select committee. I have glanced over a number of the submissions made at the select committee and there is real concern about the level of road-user charges that some companies will have to pay. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I will make a little extra contribution particularly about clause 81 of the Road User Charges Bill. But before I do that there have been some almost inaudible interjections from David Bennett about making sure we read the bill and our putting up members who were not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Well David Bennett was on the select committee and he has not taken a call. Mike Woodhouse was on the select committee and he has not made a contribution either. Jackie Blue was on the select committee and she has not made a contribution either. I would have thought given that this part of the bill was one of the more controversial areas where submitters had quite a bit to say on it it would be good to hear from the Government. It would be good to hear from Government members about why they think these provisions are so good and why they are an improvement. I commend the Minister Nathan Guy for taking a couple of calls on the bill so far but if Government members are going to chip in so much whilst Opposition members are on their feet it would be nice if they could take a call and explain their position themselves. 
The principal concern that submitters had about the fact that so many of these provisions and regulations can be made under Order in Council is related to their ability to plan ahead. If regulations can be changed with regard to road-user charges vehicle types road-user charges weight bands road-user charges licences the display of road-user charges licences and payments and electronic system providers—all of which potentially have significant cost to trucking firms and transport firms—then those affected want to have some certainty around what those costs will be. The concern of submitters was that if these regulations are being made by Order in Council rather than any changes being made through legislation then things could change quickly and without an awful lot of notice and that would ultimately have an effect on their bottom line. It just makes it difficult to do business. I would have thought a National-led Government would have sought every possible avenue to make it easier to do business—that is their mantra anyway. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: A Labour Government wouldn’t—is that what you’re saying? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well actually Mike— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Are you saying a Labour Government wouldn’t do that? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well what I am trying to say is that that is the rhetoric we hear from the National Government but then we see in legislation like this that the facts do not necessarily back up the rhetoric. One would think that a Government that prides itself on being so business-friendly would do everything it could to make it easier to do business and to make it easier to plan. On this side of the Chamber we share those concerns and we are not convinced that using the Order in Council process is the right way to set some of these regulations—for instance in respect of clause 81(n) “ 
Electronic system providers 
” which states: “regulating the collection storage use or disclosure of information relating to road user charges that is held by an electronic system provider in addition to the provisions specified in this Act:”. This goes back to what I was talking about in the last part about some of the concerns that many of the submitters had about what information would be collected what that information would be used for and their fear I suppose that the goalposts could be shifted rather quickly by the Government. The consultation processes would not be robust enough to give them an opportunity to have their say in any changes that might occur. 
The same goes with payment methods: “prescribing the methods of payment of road user charges including different methods of payment for different types or forms of licence:”. That could have a significant impact on how trucking firms do their business what systems they have to have in place maybe what information technology systems they have to have in place and what payment systems they have to have in place. Again it could be done with significant haste without the full legislative process and could see them having to change their business operation rather drastically. So we think that the track record on consultation is not good and that firms have every right to be concerned about which changes might occur. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Sitting down here and reading through a bit more of this Road User Charges Bill I am again scratching my head. Part 4 as the Associate Minister of Transport pointed out and tried to explain relates to enforcement and other matters and I am going through it and looking at the provisions relating to search warrants. Search warrants was a very emotive issue when it was raised a few years ago by farmers in proposals that were originally on carbon tax and then on emissions trading as I understand it around the ability of people to come in and search farms I think. The Minister in the chair David Carter could maybe take a call and explain what the emotion was about. I think it was related to the principle of the police being able to come in and search someone’s private property for things that were related to legal matters but were maybe not of such import that they could get a warrant to bust into a person’s home. 
This is one such situation dare I suggest because clause 72(2) says that a warrant will be given “even though the offence is not punishable by imprisonment.” Many people in New Zealand think that search warrants are justified if the potential offence is a serious one—that is where the police have to bust into a property to get evidence for something like serious drug offending fraud or major crimes such as murder and serious sexual offences all of those things. But what are we talking about here? Road-user charges. The Minister might explain why the police should have a warrant—and quite a complex piece of drafting here relating to search warrants—for offences relating to road-user charges. 
I have to say off the top of my head that reading through some of this complexity begs the question of why we do not just have a tax on diesel and be done with it— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —and then not have people trying to avoid it. Well it does beg the question. I am not sure whether it has been considered by the Government. I think it was considered by us and we rejected it. But if we have to end up with legislation like this—highly complex and quite a burden on anyone driving a diesel vehicle—to make sure that we get our road-user charges then it begs the question of whether there is a simpler process. 
The members over there are feeling quite uneasy because they know that they preached on the hustings at the last election—they will not be able to do it this time—that they would slash Government bureaucracy and they would slash the costs of compliance for businesses and they have done nothing. In fact in the second to last day of Parliament of National’s first and last term in Government it has passed legislation here relating to the payment of road-user charges which quite frankly will bamboozle most people using diesel vehicles in this country. It does beg the question that I go back to of whether there is a better simpler way of doing this. 
I go back to the part that we are referring to here. There is another question relating to when a warrant is carried out and a person knowingly discloses information acquired during the inspection or the search. So if the police get a search warrant and bust into a farmhouse to get some information because they think that the farmer might be getting up in the morning to drive his truck down the road it might be just over the limit and he may not have paid road-user charges so he has knowingly gone out there and offended and the farmer’s wife is there and discloses some information—knowingly discloses it because she tells the police—she is liable to a fine not exceeding $25000. 
There may be an explanation that the Minister in the chair can get up and tell the Committee but dare I suggest that this part is so complex and has so many provisions in it that this compliance legislation— 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Mr O’Connor the previous speaker on the Road User Charges Bill brings up a very good point and I would like to reiterate it a little bit more. He was talking about Part 4 “Enforcement and other matters” and particularly clause 73 “Offence relating to disclosing information acquired during inspection of records or search”. Clause 73(1) says: “A person commits an offence if the person except in the performance of the person’s duties knowingly discloses any information acquired during—(a) an inspection of records …” or an authorised search. 
There are two things here that strike me. First of all the fine for an individual is $25000. That is a lot of money; of that there is no doubt. For a corporate it is $100000. But to take Mr O’Connor’s point a step further I would have thought that a clause like this may in fact stop people from coming forward and saying: “Shivers! Look OK I admit I have done wrong here”— 
Darien Fenton 
: Shivers! 
STUART NASH 
: —shivers—“I have committed an offence under this Act. I am really sorry. Let me cough up pay the charges and let us get on with it.” With that sort of regime there is a bit of scope and we talked about it in Part 2 I think it was where the road-user charges inspector had the ability to waive the fee. But what it is saying here is that if a person knowingly discloses information during the course of an authorised search or an inspection then he or she is liable for a fine of $25000 and I would have thought that that is a very good incentive to actually keep quiet—zip up shut up. I would have thought that having this provision in place would discourage people from owning up. 
There are a couple of other points I would like to make. Clause 71 lays out a defence for a person caught avoiding these road-user charges. I agree with subclauses (1) and (2) but subclause (3) is quite interesting. It says: “It is a defence in proceedings for an offence of operating a RUC vehicle without a properly working distance recorder … if a defendant proves that—… (c) a properly working distance recorder was fitted to the RUC vehicle or the distance recorder fitted to the RUC vehicle was repaired as soon as practicable after the commission of an alleged offence.” Again “as soon as practicable” is one of these very subjective tests that is hard to measure. 
I am wondering whether the Associate Minister of Transport will be answering these questions because I can see he is busy reading about Auckland manufacturing and that it is probably slowing down. Many of us who work in the provinces and the rural sector know that these trucks are on the road 24/7. The drivers of course change but these trucks— 
Darien Fenton 
: They work long hours. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes the truck drivers work long hours but these trucks are a piece of machinery and people have to get a return on their investment. So what does “as soon as practicable” mean? I suspect that those words may end up being defined by the court if there is a fine of $25000 for an individual or $100000 for a corporation. If a logging truck is coming out of Wairoa and Napier Road it is going 24/7 so is “as soon as practicable” the next time the driver stops for petrol or the Sunday after the offence is committed or is it the 20th of the month when people stop to pay their bills? I am not sure what “as soon as practicable” means in that context. I am sure that smart lawyers will probably be able to wheedle their way through that. 
My other point relates to clause 72 “Power to issue search warrant in respect of alleged offence”. That is pretty wide. It relates to when an offence has been committed and that provision makes sense. It relates to when an offence is suspected to have been committed. If there is good suspicion then a warrant will be issued. I understand that. But it also relates to when an offence “is believed to be intended to be committed.” So road-user charges collectors could get a search warrant if they believe that an offence is intended to be committed. 
That is a pretty wide definition I would have thought. I would say that it puts a lot of pressure on a defendant and it is a wide scope for any collectors of road-user charges. All they have to say is: “I believe that an offence is intended to be committed.” and if asked: “How can you prove that Mr RUC Inspector?” they need only say: “I believe that an offence is intended to be committed because I saw him driving and I thought that the truck had been on the road too many times and the driver could not have stopped because it was not practically possible for him to have done this.” 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Mana 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the amendment relating to the Sentencing Act 2002 and substitute: 
Sentencing Amendment Act 2011 (2011 No 47) 
Section 27(4): new section 137(3)(fb) of the Sentencing Act 2002: omit “section 9 of the Road User Charges Act 1977” and substitute “the Road User Charges Act 2010”. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou Mr Chairperson Tisch. You are moving at a trot and given the connection that is enjoyed by yourself and a host of others with that pedigree stock I should not be surprised. I draw our attention in clause 1 to “the Road User Charges Act 2010”. For the sake of the large numbers of Kiwis who have wondered what on earth we have been talking about as a consequence of the Government promoting this legislation being thunderously silent and being unwilling to explain what is behind the name of this Act I say that behind the title lies unfortunately creeping red tape. This could have been changed but I draw our attention to “the Road User Charges Act” and remind us that the income derived as a consequence of this bill—that is from those users on our roads and in particular the owners of fleets of heavy-freight vehicles or if we were in the UK lorries—[ 
Interruption 
] It does actually remind me of some of the pronunciation on the other side of the Chamber; it is not Maori but “Morries”. But it is one of those terms of the English language that fortunately did not make a full transition to the Land of the Long White Cloud so we tend to regard them as heavy vehicles or trucks. 
But the title reminds us that it is important that as the revenue is collected and paid to the New Zealand Transport Agency—and the agency is responsible for allocating this revenue to meet the costs not only of capital development but of the maintenance of our roading infrastructure—I remain hopeful that the current Minister and the board of the agency will see fit to allocate a proportion of the road-user charges gathered under the new regime to the transport system beyond heavy-freight vehicles. I have no doubt that over time we will hear an announcement of that nature from the current Minister. I have no doubt that the current Minister will show that the road-user charge moneys—the levy that is collected perhaps more electronically as a consequence of the passage of this bill—will no longer be confined to roads and bridges. 
It is unfortunate that I use the word “bridge” because vast numbers of our bridges have been starved and are in an anaemic fiscal state as a consequence of the funding priorities yet the funds are being taken from the users of the heavy vehicle fleet. It is about time that these funds were deployed in such a way that all modes of the transport system can be supported. I am confident that we will have an announcement from the Minister that he will head in exactly that direction. I imagine that that is the only place where the Minister will be able to find—that is in road-user charges and related moneys—funds to meet the costs of the debt. That man—or the Minister; I must not personalise this and say “man” or “woman” because it is the position of the Minister; it is just unfortunate that it is occupied by that unworthy character. However such are the vagaries of the National Government that it has promoted him above my friends—and they are my friends—on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I see a great opportunity for Mr David Bennett. He does share certain similarities with the current Minister even if it is only in the anatomy starting with the top of the head but I think there is a great opportunity for him to be promoted. Unfortunately that power does not lie with this side of the Chamber. It does however lie with the voters and hopefully down in his neck of the woods they will see great virtue in the candidates on this side of the Chamber. They are already causing him to sweat. They are causing him to expire—well I will not say expire but perspire—and it is quite a sight to behold when someone follicly challenged like him perspires but that is another matter. 
I want to come back to the fact that without a doubt the current Minister will be showing New Zealanders how easy it has been—or will be for him—to dip into the New Zealand Transport Agency fund and use it to meet the costs that he has imposed upon himself by taking this very parsimonious approach. Without a doubt the current Minister will be sort of accessing the hypothecated fund which derives a lot of the underlying revenue from road-user charges registration charges and petrol tax. Only one of those three things is really covered by this bill—that is road-user charges. I am quite confident that we will see an announcement come from the Minister that these road-user charges revenues will be dedicated to meeting the Crown’s costs associated with the loan required to upgrade the rail transport system in Tamaki-makau-rau/Auckland. I am predicting that not with my usual unerring accuracy but I am making a political prediction. 
When this takes place he will have demonstrated that the funds being taken from the heavy trucking vehicle fleet are being deployed and used for another category of transport. That is not necessarily a bad or a good thing but it is a disappointment that the Minister has not risen in the context of the Road User Charges Act and elaborated on or shared that with the Committee. But it will happen in the usual circuitous fashion. It will happen without a suitable level of debate as is one of the problems with this bill and will happen in the circuitous and somewhat furtive manner in which regulations will be brought into the legislative sphere imposing under the Road User Charges Act another level of red tape and another level of burden. 
It is a problem that the Act does not fully capture what will happen here. People who own firms will be used as a consequence of this legislation. They will not find the task of owning a trucking firm or a transport firm made any easier they will not find that the transition is blight-free and they will not find that modernisation and electronic technology which ought to be the hallmark and foundation influence of this legislation will actually come to pass. So the term “user” will have both a negative and a positive connotation. 
But it is important we bear in mind that these funds were originally dedicated for bridges roads and vehicles. They were not dedicated for purposes beyond that. I look forward to hearing the Minister of Transport demonstrate why he is justified in dipping into those funds to meet the costs—and I predict it will be the interest-related costs—of the $500 million that has been imposed on the transport division of the super-city Auckland. That did not happen in Wellington so Wellington was treated differently and given that I have such esteemed colleagues from Wellington I imagine that it reflects their advocacy. But given the disdain with which senior Ministers of the current Government have treated Aucklanders it does not surprise me. It does not surprise me that the Minister of Transport having failed to dislodge Mayor Brown and having demonstrated that he shows nothing but belligerence that he shows nothing but hostility and that on occasions he even deploys my fellow Northlander a fellow member of the Golden Oldies rugby team Mr McCully to show bellicosity anger and a level of militarism whereby they declared martial law over the Viaduct— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Let me come back. Let me move away from the Viaduct Basin and let me come back to the title of the Road User Charges Bill. 
I remind everyone that the funds associated with this regime are meant to be dedicated to the maintenance and capital development of our bridges our roading system and our associated assets. I predict that these funds will be broadened and used in ways that may not be unenlightened but that ought to be the subject of a public policy debate. Their use ought to be the subject of a statutory disclosure. This man Steven Joyce has demonstrated that disclosure is not something that is in his political lexicon as we learnt through his association with MediaWorks etc. But the Government has made its decision and it does not seem to bother the Minister at all so let us see what the voters feel about that. But I predict that the moneys gathered and revenue levied will be used for rail purposes. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Can I say in my opening comments about the title of this bill how disappointed I am with the outgoing chair and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who sat and listened to submissions from the industry on the Road User Charges Bill yet have said nothing in this debate. I think they have demonstrated their contempt for the industry by not making any contribution. I would have thought that in the last stages of the debate on this bill on the title at least we could have a contribution from David Bennett. But of course we all know that his parliamentary career is a bit limited and he certainly will not be the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We know that there will be issues after the election. 
David Bennett 
: Me and the Mad Butcher; we’ll get you! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Now the member has woken up. 
I want to address the issue of the title because clause 1 says: “This Act is the Road User Charges Act 2010.” I ask the Minister in the chair the Acting Minister for Economic Development—I know he is looking at his magazine reading stuff and not really paying attention—whether that is intentional or whether he has not quite caught up with the fact that it is now 2011. It is not 2010 any more; it is now 2011. 
David Bennett 
: Darien Fenton lost 1 percent of the Labour Party vote. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member can have his joke but we will talk about that after the election. I have a serious question for the Minister in the chair and he is not answering. I would like him to take a call. Is it 2011 or is it 2010? I do not hear the “ex-chair” of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee pay any attention to— 
Hon Member 
: Say something useful. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. The chair does not even know it is 2011. He has not even worked out that there is an election this year. He is still living in the past as this bill shows— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Road User Charges Bill and no progress on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.