Volume 648 Week 78 - Tuesday 24 June 2008 
Volume 648 Week 78 - Tuesday 24 June 2008 
[Volume:648;Page:16801] 
Tuesday 24 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Zimbabwe—Presidential Election 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House express outrage that violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe have led Morgan Tsvangirai to withdraw from the second round of the election for the presidency scheduled to take place on 27 June; note that Mr Tsvangirai won the most votes in the first round and had strong prospects of victory in a second round had it been free and fair; urge the United Nations Security Council regional organisations in Africa and Zimbabwe’s neighbours to work for the holding of free and fair elections; and call on President Robert Mugabe to step down for the good of his country.  
The results of parliamentary and presidential elections in Zimbabwe on 29 March made a change of Government seem possible giving new hope to the people of a country that has been brought to its knees by a dictatorial regime. The Movement for Democratic Change and others opposed to Mr Mugabe won a majority of seats in the Parliament. Morgan Tsvangirai polled highest among the three presidential candidates but his vote was reported as falling short of the 50 percent required for victory—a result that was suspect in the eyes of many observers. Since then a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation has been mounted by the Mugabe regime and its security forces against Morgan Tsvangirai’s party and its supporters. At least 80 people are reported to have been killed but the real figure is likely to be much higher. The Movement for Democratic Change officials at a seminar in Pretoria on 20 June said they believed the figure could be closer to 1000. 
In addition to those killed very large numbers of people have been beaten tortured maimed detained or driven from their homes; State hospitals refuse to accept Movement for Democratic Change patients for fear of reprisals; many victims are in rural areas and are unable to get to any hospital State or private; physical intimidation is being accompanied by other means; all food supplies are controlled by troops; there are stringent restrictions on the movement of people; and access to rural areas where much of the violence occurs is very difficult. 
The entire Movement for Democratic Change elections directorate is in hiding. There are arrest warrants out against a number of the Movement for Democratic Change MPs in addition to those who have already been detained. Last Friday a magistrate ruled that the Movement for Democratic Change secretary-general must stand trial on treason and related charges which seem to have been laid simply to prevent him from carrying out his party functions. The regime has also imposed limitations on the numbers of international election observers and denied access to observers from Western countries such as ours. In response to criticism of the political violence and associated human rights abuses President Mugabe has reported to have said that only God could remove him from office. 
Against this background Mr Tsvangirai concluded on Sunday that he could not reasonably ask the citizens of Zimbabwe to place themselves in harm’s way by urging them to vote. On 23 June he announced that he was withdrawing from the second round election scheduled for later this week. Yesterday the Movement for Democratic Change’s headquarters in Harare were raided by security forces. This morning it has been reported that Mr Tsvangirai has sought refuge in the embassy of the Netherlands in Harare. 
For some time now the Southern African Development Community has supported a course of attempted mediation by the President of South Africa between the parties in Zimbabwe. While there is a zero trust environment between those parties and no evidence that President Mugabe sees merit in a negotiated settlement that cannot succeed. Now a number of those Southern African Development Community leaders publicly and privately are calling upon President Mugabe to rein in the violence and allow a free and fair election to proceed. Similar calls have been made by African leaders further afield—for example by the president of Nigeria—and by the leaders of the Nordic States the European Union the United States Australia and of course New Zealand. 
Today the United Nations Security Council considered the disastrous situation in Zimbabwe. It condemned the violence against the political opposition and the actions of the Government of Zimbabwe. It regretted that those actions had made it impossible for a free and fair election to take place. It also expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe and the impact of the situation on the wider region. It called on the Zimbabwean authorities to cooperate fully with efforts to find a way forward through dialogue in order to allow a legitimate Government to be formed that reflects the will of the people of Zimbabwe. The New Zealand Government fully endorses the presidential statement issued by the Security Council. We send a strong message to President Mugabe and leave him and his supporters under no illusions about the widespread international abhorrence of their outrageous violations of the rights of Zimbabwe’s people. The New Zealand Government has made its position on the tragedy in Zimbabwe very clear. Mr Mugabe his regime and its actions are abhorrent to us. We are consulting other countries now about what further measures many of us might put in place against the regime. 
Zimbabwe has suffered enormously under Robert Mugabe’s presidency. A once prosperous country has been bankrupted and a once vibrant society has been intimidated and cowered. In its place is a repressive regime run for the benefit of a few under which human rights abuses are the norm. The results of the parliamentary election in March and of the first round of the presidential election expressed a clear demand for change. Mr Mugabe should accept the verdict of his people and stand down. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister that places on record the grave concerns of this Parliament regarding the situation in Zimbabwe and calls upon the nations of southern Africa to intensify their efforts to find a solution. 
Over recent weeks New Zealanders have witnessed on their television screens and in other media the appalling atrocities unleashed on the Zimbabwe people by the Mugabe Government. The ever-escalating level of violence has led to the decision of the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change Morgan Tsvangirai in the last 2 days to withdraw from the presidential contest. It is unlikely that Mr Tsvangirai had much choice about that in an environment where he his colleagues their supporters and their families were being targeted by thugs licensed by the Mugabe regime where ballot rigging had become widespread and where the current regime had made it clear that it would not relinquish power whatever the outcome of the election. In the words of a former judge of the Zimbabwe High Court on New Zealand television last night this regime has declared war on its own people. 
For us in this country the terrible scenes of violence have additional meaning. New Zealand is now home to over 8000 Zimbabweans people who have moved here to escape an imploding economy and serious risk to their personal safety. Many of those new New Zealanders have friends and families remaining in Zimbabwe. For them these are gut-wrenching times and our hearts go out to them today. 
For me there is only one word that encapsulates the disaster that Zimbabwe has become. That word is “tragedy”. That one of the most prosperous fertile productive countries in Africa could be reduced through the deliberate actions of its Government to being the total basket case that Zimbabwe has become today is surely both an economic and a humanitarian tragedy. That a nation that has enjoyed a democratically elected Parliament independent courts and all of the trappings of a parliamentary democracy should sink to becoming one of the most repressive violent regimes on Earth is surely a human tragedy of serious proportions. 
There is a sense of powerlessness felt by those of us in this part of the world that we can so easily see pictures of such appalling brutality on our screens yet be so incapable of doing anything meaningful to stop it. For those of us in this Chamber today it is sobering to be reminded that it is those whose crime has been to stand for parliamentary office and their families who have been the targets of some of the worst atrocities. 
It has been disappointing to say the least that some of Zimbabwe’s African neighbours and other nations like China have been prepared to provide cover for the Mugabe regime in the face of mounting international concern. Today we must send a clear message to the Mugabe regime that its contempt for the rule of law its abuse of the democratic process and its brutality against its own people are totally abhorrent utterly despicable and absolutely unacceptable to all decent civilised citizens of the world. What we have seen on our television screens in recent days is the result of nothing less than State-sanctioned butchery and murder. 
Today we must also send a clear message to those other nations that have been prepared to run interference and provide support for the Mugabe regime both in Africa and on the councils of international bodies like the United Nations. For them to continue to provide cover for this disgraceful regime is to share responsibility for the situation that now ensues. To President Mbeki of South Africa in particular we would send the clearest of messages: the time has come to stop pretending and to stop defending. Alone amongst the Governments of the world South Africa has the capacity—if it has the will—to bring the ugly stand-off in Zimbabwe to an end. That is what the world now expects and demands. 
These days are sad for Africa. These days are a tragedy for Zimbabwe. So today the National Party joins other political parties in condemning the outrageous actions of Robert Mugabe and his henchmen and in calling on those who have it within their power to bring change to now face up to their responsibilities. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The decision of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change to withdraw from the second round of the presidential elections in Zimbabwe follows a deepening crisis affecting that country. We must respect his decision. It has been made in the context of increasing violence intimidation and murder directed against his supporters and most probably against the background of his having won the first round despite all the flaws and manipulation in respect of that election. 
There can be no fair election when violence prevents people from exercising their right to choose a Government. All indications are that the violence is one-sided and is being perpetrated by groups linked to Zimbabwe’s security forces and the ruling party ZANU-PF. So far at least 85 Movement for Democratic Change members have been victims of targeted killings while several thousand innocent citizens have been injured and thousands more either displaced or unlawfully detained. 
New Zealand strongly condemns this blatant violence and blatant violation of the democratic process. The results of the elections on 29 March demonstrated that Zimbabweans want change. Mr Tsvangirai’s withdrawal from the second round of voting is a serious desperate blow to their hopes. Mugabe has completely lost the confidence of Zimbabwe’s people who once welcomed him as a liberator. Recent statements made by prominent African leaders have confirmed that they too find his behaviour intolerable. 
The next few days are therefore critical. We look to African leaders including President Mbeki of South Africa to engage with real strength and resolve in efforts to bring this crisis to an end. We wish to reiterate New Zealand’s unwavering support for the efforts of African organisations particularly the Southern African Development Community and the African Union to hold Mugabe’s regime to account. The United Nations Security Council today has discussed the situation in Zimbabwe and New Zealand welcomes the Security Council’s condemnation of the Mugabe regime’s campaign of violence which has been delivered in the strongest possible terms. New Zealand will continue to work with the UN and like-minded countries to determine a way out of the current impasse. Zimbabwe has suffered deeply under the current regime. It is an absolute and total tragedy. For the country now to have any chance to develop and prosper and have peace democracy and stability is a decision that the rest of the world—but most particularly the neighbourhood in which Zimbabweans live—must resolve and act upon. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully supports the Prime Minister’s motion and we are pleased that it has incorporated some of the Green Party’s motion that was to be moved today. The Mugabe regime has been an utter disaster for the people of Zimbabwe and has been able to survive for so long only because of support from some neighbouring countries particularly the Mbeki Government in South Africa. We are very glad that is now changing. 
It is clear that free and fair elections cannot be held purely under the auspices of the Mugabe dictatorship and the resolution before us is right in calling for Robert Mugabe to step down as President. Whether or not that happens immediately I think the world must at the very least insist that the regime allow in a peacekeeping force tasked with stopping rampaging thugs from intimidating supporters of the Opposition and also with establishing a climate in which fair elections can be held. Although such peacekeepers be they military or police would predominantly come from African countries I think it would be a good gesture and would be welcomed by the people of Zimbabwe if New Zealand offered to contribute to such a force. There must also be international monitors inside any electoral process in order for the elections to be truly free. Last time the Mugabe regime stopped Zimbabwe’s electoral commission from releasing the result of the presidential election for some weeks and there was very much doubt as to whether it was an accurate result. As the Prime Minister has just said it may well be that the Opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai actually won that election. 
The world cannot stand idly by while the people of Zimbabwe suffer so much under the heel of the dictatorship. It is our responsibility in every international forum—and I am glad that the Prime Minister and the other speakers have talked about this—and in any forums where we have links particularly with the Government of South Africa to press the United Nations and the Commonwealth for very strong action. The world has dallied enough and let the Zimbabwe people descend into the abyss. We must help them at this critical time. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 In October 2007 we in the Maori Party met with leading Zimbabwe political figure Sekai Holland. The meeting had a profound effect on us all. We heard in graphic detail about the extreme violence that had characterised the attacks of 11 March. We learnt about the fatal shooting of Mr Gift Tandare youth chair of the National Constitutional Assembly in Harare. We heard of the numbers of members from the Movement for Democratic Change who were assaulted and taken into custody including Sekai Holland herself. So we come to this discussion today knowing too of the fresh violence in Zimbabwe in which again it is reported that Morgan Tsvangirai and the supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change are being targeted. But we have learnt too of the willingness of Morgan Tsvangirai to be open to negotiation with Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party on the condition that the violence cease. 
So we rise to speak to the motion reminding ourselves of the emphasis on manaakitanga—manaakitanga in which the interests of other nations are considered and manaakitanga as demonstrated when we respect other nations and their peoples for their ability and capacity to find solutions that come forth from their own unique culture and indigenous approaches. We know that the African nations have indicated that mediation and talks are important in the pursuit of reconciliation and liberation. They are committed to a better Zimbabwe and they know that liberation will involve all leaders of the Southern African Development Community working together. We recall an honourable initiative taken previously by the Southern African Development Community in bringing together Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and other member nations to talk to listen and to negotiate. 
We have learnt of the emphasis being given by both the African Union and the Southern African Development Community to discuss what they can do together to cease the political violence and we remember the calls that have come from the Movement for Democratic Change and many of the peoples of Zimbabwe for the United Nations to give urgent priority for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance and we endorse the call for President Mugabe to step down. 
The issues confronting Zimbabwe are indeed substantial as are the issues in the conflict for the Tibetan people in China the conflicts that are occurring in Myanmar Turkey Iran and so we could go on. In condemning the violence in Zimbabwe we must have confidence that the people can determine their own solutions but we should also speak in order for these people to have a voice. 
History tells us that unless the peoples of the land are involved in determining their solutions to conflict peace will always be fragile and temporary. We absolutely agree that the international world must have a strong opinion in condemning any abuse of human rights and democratic freedom but long-term reconciliation is best settled by those people themselves. We support the motion as a vote of confidence in the people who struggle in defence of their human rights and democratic freedoms every day and we condemn any regime based on violence. We know that the hope of the people in Zimbabwe and their sister nations is for long-term peace and legitimate leadership that embodies what we value as tino rangatiratanga. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future unreservedly endorses the resolution that the Prime Minister has moved but we cannot let this occasion pass without observing that the awful series of events now unfolding in Zimbabwe does not come as any great surprise and is not a great triumph for international diplomacy. 
For years people in Zimbabwe have been warning of this rapid slide towards anarchy and towards terror in that country yet for years international institutions have chosen to turn what is effectively a very blind eye to that situation. I welcome the involvement of the United Nations Security Council today but it is too late. The efforts that the Commonwealth has taken over the years have been a little bit too gentle to make real change and the attitude of the South African President Thabo Mbeki demonstrates a lack of touch with reality that really does not befit his status. None of these things condones the violence the butchery and the abhorrence of democracy that the Mugabe regime has demonstrated but they do point a finger at our collective conscience at our failure as free and democratic countries to act soon enough to prevent Zimbabwe’s descent down this path. 
I admire the courage of Morgan Tsvangirai and his supporters in all that they have had to endure since the March election but they have endured that terror day in and day out for years now. The violence has been escalating in all that time. The warnings have been ignored. The message must surely be that all of us in this Parliament the United Nations and the Commonwealth and the peoples of southern Africa have got to take much more responsibility for having let this intolerable situation develop to the point where it is today. Zimbabwe depends on its ability to trade with others. It depends on its interaction with the international community. We say now that the responsibility lies with South Africa and that it should do all it can to bring this regime to heel. We have that responsibility we have had it and we have ignored the opportunity to take it. So although I think this resolution is important—and I hope that it will be supported by similar resolutions by other Parliaments around the world—we have to do a little bit of head-hanging-in-shame at having allowed this situation to develop to this point. 
I hope that our efforts this time will succeed in the removal of the dictator. I am mindful of a similar situation some 60 years ago in Europe where continued appeasement and the passage of general resolutions did not result in the removal of the dictators but simply resulted in more human misery and suffering along the way. I hope that this time a more successful outcome can be achieved. I hope that the people of Zimbabwe whose long national nightmare continues can soon look forward to some relief but I do not have a great deal of confidence on that score. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive party has no hesitation in supporting the Prime Minister’s motion and no hesitation in standing alongside human rights and democracy. On Saturday I joined others in Christchurch on a vigil in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe. Among us were some of the 7000 former Zimbabweans who have made their homes here in New Zealand. Many who would have been there were not because they were fearful of their families being brutally targeted back in Zimbabwe. My sympathy and my support go out to them as they look at the shocking violence in the country of their birth. They are watching as the world watches the political violence and killing the intimidation the strangling of the Zimbabwean economy and the crushing of democratic freedom. They are watching as Mr Mugabe has the breathtaking gall to show up at a global conference on food in Rome which I attended a few weeks ago to lecture the rest of the world. I had no difficulty in choosing to skip that outrage. 
Last year one of the most notable books about global poverty ever written was released. It was written by an Oxford University academic and former World Bank economist Paul Collier. He looked closely at the causes of extreme poverty around the world. He found very clear patterns. The poorest people in the world invariably live in countries that are cut off from trade with the rest of the world countries that are devastated by violence particularly war and countries where corruption is rampant. Mr Mugabe has done a tragically good job of importing all of those conditions to Zimbabwe. The use of violence to shore up his faltering authority tears at the fabric of the country and his corrupt vote-rigging has destroyed the opportunity for Zimbabwe to change course. Land confiscations and poorly designed price controls led the economy to contract and exports to falter. Mr Mugabe’s Government responded by printing money which has led to hyperinflation and the economy is imploding isolating it still further. 
Paul Collier also identified that the world can make a huge difference to the fortunes of countries like Zimbabwe. He showed that pressure from the outside can lead countries towards the sunlight of democratic freedom. So I want to express my disappointment that the United Nations has not made a stronger statement of condemnation about Mr Mugabe and could not call on him to stand down. I am disappointed also at Zimbabwe’s southern neighbour. Those who under pressure stood alongside South Africa’s repressed majority and helped to bring freedom to that country and end apartheid now look to Thabo Mbeki to display some moral leadership and call for change in Zimbabwe. 
This whole episode shows the need for the world to agree on a standard of behaviour and a process for intervening when countries go rogue. In recent years international law has extended to look through sovereign immunity and hold to account former leaders for criminal behaviour. It is logical therefore that the world should intervene against dreadful Governments when they cling to power. This motion in Parliament condemning Robert Mugabe’s regime and calling for change is a beginning because if we want to rid the world of dreadful Governments we have to speak out. We have to be a beacon for Zimbabwe’s people in the dark hours of this nightmare they are going through. We are telling them that they are not alone and they are not forgotten. We stand alongside them because I think we in New Zealand have the strength to care for people like Zimbabweans just as we should be strong enough to care for each other here at home. So we say from this Parliament to Zimbabwe’s people: as you try under almost impossible odds to march towards democracy and towards being a free country we in New Zealand will stand with you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Physiotherapists—Funding 
1. Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What progress has been made in responding to the recommendation from the Government-appointed reviewer David Goddard QC that physiotherapists needed a 33 percent increase immediately as “ACC funding arrangements for physiotherapists are unsustainable.”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have asked officials to work with the physiotherapy sector to establish a funding model to address the sustainability of physiotherapy services. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is it appropriate for physiotherapists to bear an unfair proportion of the cost of treating injuries; if not what will this Government do to address this concern? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Officials are currently engaged in exploring how physiotherapy services may be sustainably funded. 
Sue Moroney 
: What adjustments to funding have physiotherapists received previously? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: Several. For instance the Labour-led Government has raised the regulated physiotherapy rates by over 28 percent. However a previous funding adjustment in 1992 resulted in funding to physiotherapists being slashed by 15 percent. That generous adjustment happened under the previous National Government. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What action will the Minister take to prevent physiotherapists from leaving for better pay in Australia or opting out of the profession altogether for greater security less stress and better pay in other occupations? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The reviewer noted in fact that there was no evidence to suggest that New Zealand was materially out of step with comparable jurisdictions in retaining senior members of the physiotherapy profession. 
Peter Brown 
: In light of that answer will the Minister scotch a particular rumour and confirm for the benefit of this House and the wider public that the Government is more than satisfied with the review the manner in which it was conducted and the analysis that the reviewer obtained in order to make his findings; in short will she confirm that the review was very well done and the reviewer came to a justified conclusion? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The review was very competently done and addressed the questions and the terms of reference set down for it. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that the physiotherapy profession conducted itself in a proper and responsible manner in calling for this review and was totally supportive of it and will she confirm also that physiotherapists play an exceedingly important role in rehabilitating accident victims; if she can confirm those two assertions can she advise why the Government in the recent Budget did not move some way at all towards a 33 percent increase and instead treated these people like overlooked women and men? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can confirm those two things. However the evidence needed to ensure that a sustainable rate of pay is arrived at for physiotherapists was not present in that review. 
Migration—Net Position and Australia 
2. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 on behalf of  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that New Zealand is losing labour to Australia but the Government is satisfied that New Zealand has positive net migration; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because it is true. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the latest statistics that show that in the last year 80000 people left New Zealand permanently to live overseas—the highest exodus of New Zealanders since 1979—and that net migration to Australia has grown by 53 percent in the last 2 years alone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My response is that for the last 8 years under Labour net migration to New Zealand has been positive. For the last 2 years of course of the previous National Government the figures were negative and I also note that in every year under National from 1991 to 1999 inclusive there was a net outflow to Australia. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the latest edition of  
Trans Tasman 
 which points out that because of international factors such as soaring fuel prices and the credit crunch in the last month in New South Wales alone 17000 net jobs were lost; and does that suggest to her that Australia is not simply the land of milk and honey? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It certainly does and of course it is a matter of record that unemployment is higher in Australia than it is here. I also note that young New Zealand family people are being quoted in our media as talking about how the higher cost of living for families really kicks in for them in Australia. Their small children are generally not getting free health care as they would get here and they have to pay to get on to the kindergarten waiting list. And of course in some places the public schools are so poor that people are paying hard-earned money for private education. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she has seen the latest June report from the Reserve Bank which forecasts that we are going to face the number of 95000 more unemployed and that that will cost $7.4 billion through our economy and will also mean minimal growth for this economy for the next 4 years; and is she not now coming to the conclusion that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—so beloved of the old political parties—simply does not work for an export-dependent nation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen the Reserve Bank’s forecasts. I note that they are probably the most pessimistic of those of any forecaster around at the present time. In relatively recent memory New Zealand has gone through years of extremely high inflation. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act brought that steadily down and it has maintained low inflation. I think that has overall been to the benefit of New Zealanders and savers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement made before the 1999 election by the then Leader of the Opposition: “The real issue this election is whether we are going to build an economy that can retain our talented and skilled people because that’s the only way we’ll prosper.” and how does she see that statement in the light of the recent emigration statistics? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When I am looking at year after year after year of positive net migration to New Zealand I know this country is very capable of attracting and retaining its best and brightest. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters for a supplementary question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tell us about the emissions trading scheme! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The what? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You’re worried about the cost to the economy. What about the cost to the economy of the emissions trading scheme—do you have a position? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He suffers from a condition called recognition hunger. I do not want to help him out today. If the Reserve Bank forecasts are the same as Treasury’s forecasts in respect of minimal growth in the economy and a virtual doubling of unemployment when will this country begin to understand that an economic theory that was designed for an economy that exports 8 percent of its GDP does not fit one that is designed to export 38 percent of its GDP and understand that that economic theory now sees us paying the highest interest rates in the Western world while seeing a currency movement of 34 percent in just 3 years; and how is that designed to help this country in the future which is the position sadly that the two old parties have taken? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My recollection is that there is quite a variation between the Treasury forecasts and the Reserve Bank ones. Treasury continues to predict 1.5 percent growth in the year to March next; the Reserve Bank came in at 0.9 percent as I recall. Treasury also had rather more optimistic forecasts about the labour market. But the Reserve Bank in its last Monetary Policy Statement did say that it thought it would be in a position to reduce interest rates later in the year. That in itself had a downward impact on the currency which is of course beneficial for exporters—and I know the member’s concern about that matter. But of course one person’s nirvana is another’s misery and there is no doubt that if the dollar comes back a little that will feed into other imported prices. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact that thousands of people are leaving for Australia—in fact in record numbers—means that she failed to do what she said the 1999 election was about which was to “build an economy that can retain our talented and skilled people”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the member is making rather a big mistake in isolating only the figures for Australia. One has to look at the figures for the whole world and at who is coming and going. Those figures continue to be very positive. I would also note that in this international slow-down New Zealand is in a far better position than it was in the last one of 1997-98. Let us not forget that in that last recession Bill English was part of a Government that cut New Zealand superannuation and sold one of the jewels in the crown of our State-owned enterprises: Contact Energy. That was a ridiculous decision which this country has rued ever since. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is the easiest one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is coming. Does the Prime Minister have any reports about the last time we had a tightening in our economy occasioned by the Asian monetary crisis which saw us lose in some cases 6 percent of our export markets; and at a time of such international crisis was it the right response to tighten liquidity on the local market which is exactly what Bill English did? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the implication in the member’s question—that at that time of slow-down the National Government did exactly the opposite of what it should have done. It took away spending power from our superannuitants it kept the purse strings tight on health and education and it sold a State-owned enterprise so the Government could try to pay its bills. That had a contractionary effect on New Zealand’s economy and that is not the approach of this Labour-led Government supported on confidence and supply by the member and his party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is now Labour’s policy to argue over what happened 10 years ago while 80000 people have left New Zealand permanently to live overseas; and is it now Labour’s policy that it is unconcerned about near-record levels of emigration from New Zealand so long as the number of people arriving from overseas is greater than the number of New Zealanders leaving? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No it is Labour’s policy to tell the truth about National’s policy which it will not tell itself. National has the cheek to talk about it being time for a change but it will not tell the voters what it would change. We are very happy to fill in the gaps. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how in her election campaigning around the country she has been able to avoid all those hundreds of people who come up to us and say that if Helen Clark and Labour win the election they are going to leave New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. On the contrary I am approached by hundreds of people who say they fear the possibility of a National Government because they know that National has voted against every progressive thing this Government has ever done. Working for Families has no future under National KiwiSaver has no future under National 20 hours’ free education for early childhood has no future under National and Kiwibank has no future under National. Those are things valued from a Labour Government which is why I believe we will prevail. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to that last question from Mr English has the Prime Minister received some reports to suggest that given the financial funding by the big corporates of a certain political party such a departure to Australia would be by only 18000 people—the total membership of the National Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed the National Party today is not the party the member joined many years ago. It is a party that he left because it stopped caring about New Zealanders and was always running us down and trying to claim Australia was a better place than New Zealand. If that is the way the National members feel they should join their mates who have gone there. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister not realise given that she is meeting people around the country who support everything that Labour has done that if she wants to win an election she needs to talk to some people who are neither members of Labour Party electorate committees nor Labour candidates? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can assure the member that countless hundreds of thousands of people out there live in terror of Bill English the two Smiths Murray McCully Tony Ryall and Maurice Williamson—the same tired old hacks from a discredited former National Government—ever getting near the Treasury benches again. 
Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers 
3.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received about the number of people receiving benefits? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received a report saying that at the end of May this year there was a total of 255000 people on benefits. That is 5000 fewer people than at the same time last year. This includes all people on unemployment domestic purposes sickness and invalids benefits. Under a Labour-led Government people continue to move off benefits and into paid work. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the main reason for people to move off the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to enter paid employment. It is simply not true to allege as the National Party does that a large number of people move from the unemployment benefit to the sickness or invalids benefit. Between March 2000 and March of this year there were close to 1 million cancellations of the unemployment benefit; 8.8 percent of those cancellations were because of a transfer to the sickness benefit and only 0.3 of 1 percent were because of a transfer to an invalids benefit. The main reason for people leaving the unemployment benefit is to move into paid work. 
Judith Collins 
: Can the Minister provide a straightforward answer to a reasonably straightforward question—why is it taking more bureaucrats especially in the communications and policy units to administer fewer benefits? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I explained to the member at the select committee and in the House last week it is our policy to ensure that people are aware of and receive their full and correct entitlements. That is a primary role of a core Government department and that is why people now do not complain about Work and Income in the way they did when that member’s party was leading the Government. 
Election Advertising—Political Party Logos 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that all political party logos must carry a promoter statement in the regulated period no matter what the context in which they are used; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Electoral Finance Act 2007 sets out the rules to be administered by the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer. It is to those independent agencies that the member should direct his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can she confirm reports that almost 7 months into election year after 2 years of Labour putting the Electoral Finance Act through Parliament the Electoral Commission has still not decided whether party logos by themselves are election advertisements; and can she understand the frustrations of MPs and party activists given that we still do not know the answer to the basic question of whether a display of a party logo is legal or illegal under her Government’s law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware of a comment made in the  
New Zealand Herald  
by Dr Catt from the Electoral Commission that there were some differences of opinion amongst commissioners and they are working through that. I am also aware that she said that she disputes the claims made by Bill English that she had suggested during a private meeting of political parties in the Speaker’s office last week that logo advertisements needed authorisation. It seems to me that Bill English was up to his old tricks of making things up for political purposes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell the House the answer to this question: if I am making it up why could she not answer the primary question which she has had since 10 o’clock this morning which is this: is it Government policy that party political logos must carry a promoter statement—can she answer that question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. On what the Minister previously said I wonder whether she could explain to us how Mr English believes that Ministers get copies of questions at 10 o’clock when they are not delivered until close to an hour later than that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is an interesting point but it is not a point of order. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the member that it is not Government policy to do anything other than to obey the Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister who seems to think I am making it up seen the statement by Helena Catt on the issue of whether party logos are a political advertisement: “this is a ‘pressing issue but it is not an easy issue so we have to work through differing views’.” and what are MPs meant to think? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: MPs should think the commissioners are working through the issues. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister of Justice answer this question which is directly relevant to what the Government does not just MPs: will it be legal to have a party logo on the ballot paper as has been the tradition now for many elections without an authorisation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not give an opinion on that. It will be up to the independent agencies to decide that not me. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us when the independent agencies will make up their minds about party logos given that the law has been in force now for 7 months and no political party or member of Parliament knows whether it is legal to display their party logo on a pen on a piece of paper or on a T-shirt? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member should look up the word “independent”. The agencies are independent; they are not told by Bill English or by the Government what they should do. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister take advice about her own party logo that is sitting on her bench in front of her which appears to be the only one in the House that does not have an authorisation on it—and therefore while she is answering questions she is also breaking the law in regard to the Electoral Finance Act? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If Bill English is such an expert on what the Electoral Finance Act means having just given a ruling I suggest he applies that to his own party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister just explain to the public and the House whether the situation is that Labour spent most of this term putting together the Electoral Finance Act after 2 years of official advice it spent about 8 months pushing it through Parliament and select committees and now 7 months into an election year it cannot answer one simple question and that is whether we can legally display a party logo—how bloody ridiculous is that? 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not my understanding that swear words are permissible in the House and I would ask that that word be withdrawn. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In the context of the question that word was unnecessary and added nothing to the question. Would the member just withdraw it please. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I can tell the member is that the National Party has spent 7 months of this year wasting its party finances on disputing every part of the Electoral Finance Act because it does not like the fact that it cannot spend the war chest that it thought it would be able to spend before the election. National now has to be transparent it has to be honest it has to say where its money comes from and it has to declare whether the money comes from its big backers like the Exclusive Brethren. That is what National does not like. 
Liquor Licensing—Communities 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What action is the Government planning to ensure communities have a real say in liquor licensing decisions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Among the law changes that are being proposed we intend to give local councils and their communities real teeth to establish plans that include setting things like opening hours one-way door policies limitations on outlet density and proximity to other premises like schools. Communities have made it clear that they want a say in licensing decisions and we intend to introduce a bill to allow just that which is why that proposal has been so warmly welcomed all around New Zealand. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Government considered taking measures to prevent activities that may promote excessive consumption of alcohol or binge drinking? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Parliament considered this issue in 1999 when I moved an amendment to make it an offence to promote excessive alcohol consumption on licensed premises. Prominent MPs on the other side of the House voted against the amendment including Bill English Gerry Brownlee the then Minister of Justice Tony Ryall and surprisingly Pansy Wong. Fortunately good sense prevailed and the amendment was passed. I am surprised that some of the people who say they support stronger measures today did not support even that most basic measure to limit binge drinking just a few years ago. 
Simon Power 
: Why when a review of alcohol issues that was commissioned in 2006 included in its terms of reference the number of alcohol outlets is this matter now being further kicked to touch to the Law Commission? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The issue of the number of outlets was referred to in terms of reference to the things that had changed but it was never actually the subject of that review. That review produced a whole lot of good measures that this Government is proceeding with. One of those is the “three strikes and you’re out” rule and another is the removal of the defence of “reasonable belief” for serving alcohol to a minor. A significant change that we have made to the announcement we made last year is that there will be a ban on adults supplying liquor to under-18-year-olds unless the adult is a parent or guardian or has the consent of a parent or guardian. That is a major change that we are making. I heard Simon Power say on TV over the weekend that National has spent some months calling for action on the proliferation of liquor licences; well I could not find anything about it. 
Gangs—Government Approach 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement last year regarding her Government’s approach to gangs that “No one has been idle here. People have been very proactive.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes; because this Government and Government agencies have taken criminal gang activity seriously. For example in 2007 over 26000 separate charges were placed before the courts against persons identified with gang connections. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that if the bill she has just introduced had come to the House immediately after it was signed off by Cabinet on 9 July last year then every gang member who has offended in the past year—like those who allegedly cut a swathe through a Hawke’s Bay party at the weekend using machetes and baseball bats—could have their sentences doubled if found guilty? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member may not be aware but this Labour-led Government is a minority Government and does require support from other parties. It would have been interesting to see whether the National Party would have supported that bill having spent most of the last 8½ years opposing the justice bills that have come before this House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Police and Department of Corrections’ estimates are that around 40 percent of all known gang members are currently in prison; if that is the case is that not evidence that the police have been targeting gang members involved in organised crime and have been successful in getting them arrested convicted and imprisoned? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It certainly is working because I can confirm that the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections’ estimates are that around 1500 gang members or 40 percent of the New Zealand gang population are already in prison for various offences. Those involved in organised criminal activity can expect to be targeted and dealt with. The prison figures reflect this and the police are being effective in doing just what we expect them to do. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister heard the comments of her ministerial colleagues who continue to say that there are only 3500 gang members associates and affiliates in New Zealand when a former Minister of Police George Hawkins told the House in 2002 that there were 10000 in 1995 when the same Minister told us in 2003 that the number in 2002 had risen to 21882 and when the Police Association said on television last week that the number could be as high as 60000—is the Minister seriously telling the House that she believes there are only 3500 gang members in the country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member asked me this question last week. I took the time to get the New Zealand Police to get me the details of gang members and the latest figures it has. I gave them to the member in the House last week. I also said that the police were actively working on reviewing the figures because they stressed that obtaining accurate figures was difficult due to factors such as people being dishonest with the police about their gang membership or associations and the fact that not all gangs wear patches. Certainly organised criminal gangs like our white-collar criminal gangs— 
Hon Member 
: Leave the National Party out of it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —yes I will leave the National Party out of it—and those who have come in from Asia are very hard to identify. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm reports that the previous Minister of Justice Mark Burton had been too busy to find the time to table the bill last year because he was dealing with the electoral finance legislation; and what should New Zealanders think when her Government puts dreaming up an undemocratic campaign-finance law above the need to deal to gangs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. I do not know who the member gossips to but that is certainly incorrect. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister understand the scepticism of the public who see gang members wearing their colours every day of every week of every year in the streets and in their communities and who see the violence and mayhem in Wanganui Hawke’s Bay Tauranga Manurewa and Manukau yet who hear this Government minimising the size of the issue by telling them there are only 3500 gang members associates and affiliates in the whole of the country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member would be incorrect to say that the Government is minimising the issue of gangs and gang membership. I gave the member the figure provided to me and I must take at actual value the information provided to me. I certainly say to the member that the Government does not underestimate the impact of gangs. I noted the comments made this morning on the radio by Denis O’Reilly who in fact as the member will know was a former gang leader. He had this to say: “These occurrences we have just seen were quite common in the 1990s. But these things can occur when there is simply a change of someone coming out of prison or a change in a local gang hierarchy and local politics.” which means we always have to be vigilant about those who would participate in criminal gang activity. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that urban design is now to blame for crime after the Minister already claiming it was the sun and the moon and a Budget 17 years ago; if so why do Cabinet papers show that she passed up the opportunity to strengthen laws that would have made it easier for the police to tear down the real urban design problem—that is gang fortifications—as National proposes when it is these forts that have been the target of recent gang warfare in Invercargill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell the member that the Prime Minister certainly is not as superficial as the member’s question. The Prime Minister has always taken a comprehensive approach to issues like crime looking at all the causes of crime—not just coming up with a flash slogan one can get out just before an election. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that Ministry of Justice officials attempted to set up a workshop with other Government agencies involved with gangs to be held in June 2005 with the aim of establishing an organised crime task force but that this workshop and the inter-agency task force were both dumped and no further work was undertaken for a further 2 years until the death of Jhia Te Tua in May last year; or is this just another example of her Government’s proactive approach to gangs? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. But I can confirm that when Simon Power made a speech about National getting tough on gangs one could ask why it took National years to come around to being tough. It took them till May 2007 to become tough—incidentally after there was a drive-by shooting of a young child—even though we know that a similar drive-by shooting identified by Ron Mark just this morning happened in the mid-1990s. I can tell the member also that of his four-point plan this Government has already accomplished three of the points. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that according to Cabinet papers the new Organised and Financial Crime Agency is supposed to be established “at the point of the enactment of the enabling legislation planned for 1 July 2008”; and how confident is she that that bill will be passed by 1 July—next Tuesday? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That bill will not be passed by next Tuesday. It requires the support of this Parliament and we have been working with our confidence and supply partners in terms of votes for this. It is interesting that National members are so interested in this issue—they refuse to support the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and they voted against the transitional clauses going to it. 
Simon Power 
: We voted against the disestablishment of the SFO. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The very powers that are in the Serious Fraud Office are transferred over to the new agency for them to be used not for just financial crime but for organised crime as well. National members are not able to grasp that fact though everybody else seems to have been able to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the record of a National Party spokesperson on police saying that the day after the election he would bulldoze down the gang headquarters around New Zealand. That was John Banks of course. 
Document not tabled. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The level of noise in the Chamber is almost becoming impossible to hear over. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table an answer from a former Minister of Police saying that in 1995 there were 10000 gang members associates and affiliates— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table another answer from a former Minister of Police George Hawkins saying that in 2002 there were 21882 gang members— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Violent Offending—Youth 
7.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House last week: “I do not have any evidence to suggest that family breakdown would be the predominant cause” in reference to crime in South Auckland and elsewhere? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the Prime Minister be surprised therefore that the Principal Youth Court Judge has released figures from a study of youth crime showing that 12 percent of offenders were living with both parents 28 percent were living with one parent—usually the mother—and that a staggering 60 percent were not living with either their mother or their father; and is that not compelling evidence of the link between family breakdown and crime? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not seen those figures but of course there are quite significant numbers of families in our country where parents or partners have split and where the children live with one or the other. I do not have those figures to hand either but I would say that sadly it is rather a feature of our society that many children do not have a home where there are two loving parents present. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Manurewa Community Board member Alan Johnson that what is needed in areas like Randwick Park are a lot more resources directed towards children; if so will her Government for example require the Ministry of Education to take urgent action to increase the number of early childhood education places available there? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have some sympathy with what the member has quoted from Alan Johnson on the community board. He is someone with a long history of concern for people and their families down on their luck. I am sure that increasing the number of small children in early childhood education would be a very very positive move for those areas. I am conscious that there is less provision for that in parts of the Counties Manukau area. It is something the Ministry of Education will be asked to look at more closely. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Ministry of Justice in its strategic policy brief of August 2007 that amongst other factors “Poor educational outcomes are known to be linked to later criminality” that “people of low socio-economic status are more likely to participate in crime” and that “individuals already prone to involvement in crime offend more frequently when they are unemployed.”; and what specific investment will be provided to South Auckland communities to address some of these known risk factors? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member will be aware the overall crime rate is down. I think it is almost certain that that is linked to the very substantial fall in unemployment across New Zealand and of course also in Counties Manukau. That has been very positive. I also agree with him that low educational achievement and a short number of years at school are an issue. That is an issue the Government is addressing through the Schools Plus policy. So I have no problem with the general prognosis he has quoted from the Ministry of Justice and I think that in a number of ways we are addressing those basic factors. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that numerous studies indicate that children raised by a married couple have by far the lowest chance of becoming criminals; if so does she realise that when she says marriage has “inappropriate connotations” and then prescribes the ways in which loving Kiwi parents can train and correct their children many people now see her Government as being part of the problem rather than part of the solution? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government stands second to none in the support it has offered our families through Working for Families through low State house rentals through bringing back support for young couples owning their own homes through the B4 School health checks through the low numbers of children in new entrants classes through the 20 hours’ free early childhood education and through cheaper doctors’ fees and prescription charges. All these policies every single one of them opposed by the National Party make life easier for families. That is why I can say that all over New Zealand I have hundreds of people approaching me saying they would be terrified by a change of Government because they do not want to lose the substantial provision for families that Labour makes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table the statistics from the Youth Court in New Zealand that I mentioned. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I seek leave to table the Maori and safer communities symposium strategy policy brief for the Ministry of Justice. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document that outlines that marriage produces less crime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
State Services Minister—Mary Anne Thompson 
8.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: When was the Minister of State Services first briefed formally or informally on issues relating to allegations of unlawful decision-making involving the family of the head of the Immigration Service? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 As I recall the first mention I heard was when Minister Cosgrove advised his Cabinet colleagues in brief terms that the new Chief Executive of the Department of Labour had informed him on 14 December that there had been an independent investigation into employment matters under the previous chief executive. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was very carefully worded. I did not ask the Minister when he was first briefed; I asked when the Minister of State Services was first briefed. The question was on notice and the Minister has had some hours to obtain the answer to that question. I accept that he personally was not the Minister when this issue first arose within the State sector. My question specifically asked when the Minister of State Services was first briefed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought actually that the Minister addressed the question but I can see how there could have been an ambiguity in the question. I ask the Minister whether he wishes to add anything more to his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: My understanding is that the previous Minister was not briefed any earlier if that answers the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister is being slippery. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member accuses me of being slippery; that is an attribute that attaches to the National Party not this Government. I did read and answer the question. The member then posited the question with a different inference in that he asked whether the previous Minister of State Services had heard any earlier. I have just checked with the previous Minister of State Services who said that she had not. I think that directly answers it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that is correct. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the Minister of State Services was not briefed in February 2007 on an issue as significant as potentially unlawful decision-making involving the head of the Immigration Service given that the State Services Commissioner told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that the State Services Commission was aware of the issue as early as February 2007? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course these are issues that we have asked the Auditor-General to look at and the facts of who knew what when and whether information was acted upon appropriately will be determined by the Auditor-General in his inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Did the Minister of State Services discuss issues relating to an inquiry into unlawful decision-making involving the head of the Immigration Service with the Minister of Immigration in 2007; if so when did those discussions take place and what was said? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not in a position to answer that question because I have not checked with the previous Minister. I can say that the first discussion I had in respect of these suggestions with the current Minister of Immigration was from memory around 21 April. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the State Services Commissioner who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that when he read the Oughton report he could see that it clearly did not relate only to employment matters; if so what other matters were raised by the Oughton report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I said earlier the facts of who knew what when who should have known what when what their responses were and what their responses ought to have been will be considered and answered in the Auditor-General’s report. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What exactly did the Minister mean when at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week he questioned the lack of action in response to the Oughton report and what action does he believe should have been taken immediately following the completion of the Oughton report? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: My recollection when I criticised the lack of action being taken within the State Services Commission was the surprise that Ministers felt on learning that the issue relating to qualifications that had been raised with Mr Wintringham had gone no further either within the State Services Commission or certainly from within the State Services Commission to Ministers at the time. 
Biofuels—Price Impact 
9.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What recent reports has he received on the impact of biofuels on fuel prices? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I have seen a briefing from the Ministry of Economic Development to the Local Government and Environment Committee that advises that with the recent increases in the price of oil the biofuels obligation is likely to lower fuel prices by around 1c per litre. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Nick Smith received that briefing yet he continues to use out-of-date information to claim that biofuels will cause fuel prices to rise. This proves once again that National will oppose sustainability initiatives no matter what evidence is put before it. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What other evidence does the Minister have that biofuels can be sold more cheaply than normal fuels? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The most compelling evidence— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —which again Dr Smith denies is that Gull Petroleum is already selling a 98-octane blend of petrol and bio-ethanol for less than the price charged by other companies for high-octane fuels that do not contain any biofuels. In addition I have also seen advice from a number of local bio-diesel producers who say they can produce bio-diesel from tallow and break-season oilseed crops at prices that are now competitive with those of traditional diesel. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister make the ridiculous claim that having a biofuels sales obligation will reduce the cost of fuel when of course people would buy it anyway without compulsion if it were cheaper; and can he confirm the Christchurch  
Press  
report today that Environment Canterbury is abandoning its bio-diesel buses because they have become “a casualty of economics” in that the price of bio-diesels has become so high that the cost to the ratepayer is too great? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In respect of the Christchurch situation I understand that those biofuels are produced in Auckland and shipped in small quantities to Christchurch which would explain why they might be expensive in that particular situation. In respect of why we need mandatory obligations to bring forward this new infrastructure few producers will commit to the cost of the change in infrastructure if they do not have guaranteed uptake of their product because otherwise they would face the risk that they would produce these biofuels and the oil companies would not buy them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Radio New Zealand National interview this morning in which the Minister said the tallow price has dropped. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table information from the Parliamentary Library that shows that the price of tallow has soared— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Ministry of Economic Development to me today that shows that the price of tallow has dropped by— 
Document not tabled. 
Incandescent Light Bulbs—Importation 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: From what date will conventional incandescent light bulbs be unable to be imported into New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 It is intended that from October 2009 the sale of inefficient light bulbs will be phased out where we have cost-effective alternatives. This move is supported by the industry it will save consumers money and it will help the environment. Yet National opposes it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why has the Government opted for a legislative sledgehammer by banning the importation of conventional light bulbs when the evidence shows that around half of all New Zealanders have started to use energy-efficient light bulbs because they choose to and why can the Government not let people make that choice rather than making a blanket ban and treating us all like children who must obey nanny State? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This has been done under the minimum efficiency performance criteria which we apply to fridges and washing machines. We are doing it with Australia; they are doing the same thing. Why are we doing it? We are doing it because as members can see here we have efficient down-light light bulbs we have efficient ordinary light bulbs we have screw-in light bulbs we have bayonet-fitting light bulbs—we even have light bulbs for chandelier fittings which are efficient for members of the National Party—we have small ones we have big ones we have dimmable ones and still the National Party opposes it. The National Party cannot even change a light bulb. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is this not just another crackdown on consumer choice from a busybody Government that loves telling New Zealanders what to do when to do it and how to do it; and can he confirm that the next items on the Government’s banned list will be petrol-powered lawnmowers hedge trimmers and garden vacuums? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I really do think this is rather pathetic. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Government consider it somewhat ironic that while it presses ahead with a ban on conventional light bulbs the mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs makes it uneconomic to recycle them meaning that the disposal of them will ultimately add to New Zealand’s toxic-waste stream? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This one here is actually a fluorescent bulb. It saves 80 percent power. These ones here are not—they have no mercury in them but they still save 35 percent. So these savings are in the range of 35 to 80 percent. Some of them have a little amount of mercury but it is far less than the old fluorescent light bulbs we used to have. Yes we need to do better in the future in terms of recycling these things but I am confident that we will. It is just another excuse for delay on the part of the National Party 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that broken compact fluorescent light bulbs emit mercury vapour at a rate of 100000 nanograms per square metre and if so—[ 
Interruption 
] I see it is all funny it is just a joke; putting a bit of boot into the choice of New Zealanders is a joke—can he assure the House that a broken compact fluorescent light bulb does not pose a health threat to New Zealand households particularly those with young children in them? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would point out that if I stuck this light bulb in my mouth there would be less mercury than if I stuck a thermometer in it. The member’s press release yesterday said his objection to these things is because they are not dimmable. He might be dim but the reality is we have dimmable versions of these light bulbs and National still opposes them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite the Minister to give us a demo by shoving the light bulb into his mouth and swallowing it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are on the verge of being silly again. 
Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill—Airspace Protection 
11.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What is the reason that an airspace protection provision for Ngati Uenukukopako is not being considered within the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The Crown received a request for airspace protection above Ruamata Marae on 3 June 2008 clearly too late to be included in the deed of settlement. In any case such matters do not normally fall within the ambit of historical Treaty settlements. However I have asked the Minister of Transport to contact the representatives of Ruamata Marae regarding this issue which is better dealt with as a relationship issue not as a Treaty claim issue. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What assurance can the Minister give to Ngati Uenukukopako that their Treaty rights will not be breached in the future requiring the people of Ruamata Marae to move their ancestral meeting house again as they did in the 1960s as a result of the threat created by the use of aircraft in the airspace immediately above their marae and Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Ruamata which adjoins the marae? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: These are matters for civil aviation authorities and obviously also involve Rotorua District Council as the potential promoter of changes at Rotorua airport. I would not regard this as being a historical claim issue at this point but certainly as one that is best dealt with by discussions between the relevant parties. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What response did he make to Blanche Hohepa-Kiriona of Ngati Uenukukopako who has described the forced relocation of their marae in the 1960s the impact of their land being taken for the airport and the adverse impact of aircraft operations on the marae and the people at one of the “telling our stories” hui which gave affiliate iwi of Te Pumautanga an opportunity to express various Treaty grievances; and what criteria are used to describe what is an accepted Treaty grievance and what is not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It obviously varies very much from case to case. In terms of matters that happened in the 1960s then in so far as they were part of any Treaty claim any legislation that settles those Treaty claims settles that particular matter. What the member is referring to at the moment is proposed plans as I understand in relation to changes at Rotorua airport in terms particularly of international flights and how those might affect the marae itself. That is best dealt with as I say by negotiations between the parties currently involved rather than trying to insert that matter into a historical Treaty claim bill because this is yet to happen in the case of what is now being proposed. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker tena koutou katoa. How does the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu settlement relate to the Central North Island Iwi Collective Crown forest land settlement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Central North Island Iwi Collective Crown forest deed of settlement will supersede the licensed Crown forest land redress negotiated in the 2006 affiliate Te Arawa deed. In the 2008 deed the Crown has recognised the financial contribution that Te Pumautanga has made to enable the transfer of the central North Island licensed Crown forest lands to the Central North Island Iwi Collective. I would like to pay tribute to the patience and flexibility and determination of the leadership of Te Pumautanga in agreeing to these changes. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Further to the discussion the Minister has offered are any courses of action available to Ngati Uenukukopako to achieve a settlement on their airspace protection claims that they have not as yet already followed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not sufficiently well briefed on that matter. As I have said I have asked the Minister of Transport to talk to the relevant transport authorities and people who actually have control over airspace issues. Obviously we will want to follow up that further and as a Minister with an interest in these matters I will want to be kept informed around that and will appreciate further briefings from the member in that regard. 
Public Health Bill—Hairdressers 
12. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he taken into account the full implications of the Public Health Bill on all sectors of the economy; if so how? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The bill is hugely important and will bring many benefits to all New Zealanders. For example the bill updates previous provisions on communicable diseases and for the first time provides a legislative response to non-communicable diseases which are the major causes of ill health and premature death in New Zealand and accordingly are the major drivers of health expenditure. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How many people during the last year have become sick or have died as a result of going to the hairdresser? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am well aware that that matter is being covered by the Health Committee but if the member wishes to have specific information on that it would be as well to put it in a primary question. 
Lesley Soper 
: Can the Minister comment on public submissions on the bill? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the consideration of the submissions is a matter for the committee I am aware that two-thirds of all public submissions were in favour of the bill. I am further advised that most of the remaining third focused on specific issues that I am confident the select committee and ultimately the House will be able to address. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Why then if the Minister has no evidence that hairdressers are the new public health menace is it the intention of the Public Health Bill that hairdressers be required to prepare a public health risk-management plan which must be independently audited by assessors and then reported to the Director-General of Health who maintains a national database; is that not bureaucracy gone mad? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s question is quite fascinating in two regards. In the first place I am advised that hairdressers have for many years been regulated as to the substances they can put on the heads of people including children. There is no legislative change in that regard. The second fascinating thing is that the member is asking the Minister in the House a question when she has had access to the Minister’s officials through the select committee process for the last 3 months. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How will it make any difference to the public if a hairdresser has to complete a public health risk-management plan that identifies the risks to the public from hairdressing and how those hairdressing risks will be prevented or minimised and then sets a timetable for how the hairdresser will manage those hairdressing risks; is that not just nanny State out of control? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are about 300 pages in this bill. The best example the Opposition can come up with in order to criticise the bill is one provision about hairdressers which was in place long before the bill was consulted on. I would say that it is obviously very sound legislation. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Does the Minister realise that hairdressers will not only have to prepare a public health risk-management plan but also have to apply for a certificate of approval of their public health risk-management plan as well as applying for a council consent to be a hairdresser; and does not all that bureaucracy plus the nonsense on light bulbs end up putting cost pressures on to consumers who are already struggling under the skyrocketing costs of living? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: A small step for humankind; a giant leap for a natural blond. Will the member object next to the same contaminant provisions that regulate shellfish toxin poisoning or legionella bacteria from cooling towers or object to the reporting of communicable diseases such as HIV and AIDS or indeed object to the potential to regulate damaging non-communicable conditions like the obesity epidemic—or is that member focusing on one little thing that is particularly close to her own skin? 
Questions to Members 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am advised that the Hon Mark Gosche who chairs the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is not present. The question to him will be held over. I am further advised that the Hon Peter Dunne will not be present tomorrow so the question will be brought up again on Thursday. 
Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I move  
That the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Maori Affairs Committee.  
I would like firstly to welcome the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu people who have joined us today for this historic occasion. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. The grievances of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu are significant longstanding and well founded. This bill settles all of the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu other than those relating to the central North Island forest lands and in so doing recognises and addresses those grievances. As such the bill has to be considered in conjunction with the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill which will receive its first reading tomorrow to get the full picture of the redress proposed.  
The affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu are a collective group of iwi and hapu from the Rotorua and Kaingaroa areas with approximately 24000 members. The historical claims of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu relate to breaches by the Crown of its obligations under the Treaty which include the operation and impact of the Native Land Court 19th century land purchases by the Crown Maori land administration in the 20th century and the compulsory acquisition of land by the Crown via public works and scenery preservation legislation.  
In 2002 and 2003 the Crown held high-level meetings with central North Island claimants to begin discussions over how to progress their claims. As a result of those meetings the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu appointed negotiators and began Treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown in 2004. In April of that year the Crown formally recognised the mandate of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu negotiators and in November the parties signed terms of negotiations. In September 2005 the Crown and affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu signed an agreement in principle and in September 2006 a deed of settlement was signed after an overwhelming majority of voters in the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu showed their support by a postal vote. At the same time arepresentative transparent and accountable governance entity the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust was ratified. The Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust will receive and manage the settlement assets. 
Since then much has happened. The path to get us to this point has taken on some unexpected turns. The settlement became the focus of cross-claims political controversy and tribunal hearings which meant that to proceed to legislation would have been risky and indeed more than that I think it would have upset and caused difficulties in a whole range of Treaty issues. Subsequently a proposal to settle the claims on a collective basis over the central North Island forest lands was put to the Government by central North Island iwi led by Ariki Tumu te Heuheu. That provided a path forward. 
On the basis of my assurance to Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa that a revised settlement of its claims would be at least as valuable as the already signed deed it became possible to pursue a recasting of that settlement alongside the broader central North Island land negotiations. The success of this process was dependent upon the generosity of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa in working with the collective. In fact Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa went further than that. I want to applaud its decision to participate fully in the collective; that showed both strong leadership and a strong commitment from the membership. I am enormously excited by the prospect that this presents for all of the central North Island groups including affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. 
The introduction of this bill signals the final stage of a long journey for affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu to have their grievances resolved. Settling these claims is also an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims. This week apart from the first reading of this bill today we will sign the deed of settlement for the central North Island forest lands tomorrow morning; we will have the first reading of the bill relating to that tomorrow afternoon; we will sign the terms of negotiation with Raukawa early tomorrow evening; and we will sign the final deed of settlement with Taranaki Whanui (Wellington) on Thursday morning. This is an extraordinary week in the history of claim settlements within New Zealand. 
The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown in the 2006 deed of settlement. It includes firstly the offering of a Crown apology for its clear breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and principles; secondly the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to Te Arawa iwi and hapu; and thirdly redress that will enable increased input into management over Crown-owned land and protocols with certain Government agencies. In addition to reflect the flexibility demonstrated by Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa additional redress has been negotiated. This redress includes the gifting of land under five Rotorua schools with lease-back arrangements to the Crown; the gifting of the Ngatamariki geothermal assets based on the value of $5 million; a statement acknowledging affiliate Te Arawa’s interest in the upper reaches of the Waikato River; and forgiveness of the current Whakarewarewa Village debt. 
I want to acknowledge the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu people who suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who carried the grievances. I particularly want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us who have waited long for this day. I acknowledge the Kaihautu Executive Council and its successor Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Trust including the members of the negotiating team. Their dedication commitment and tenacity have been vital in the long and often difficult path towards achieving this settlement. I pay particular tribute to the chief negotiator Rawiri Te Whare who has had some extraordinarily difficult meetings not just with the Crown but with others during this process particularly over the last few months. It has been a great pleasure to be across the negotiating table from Rawiri. I thank the other Ministers and departments involved in this process and colleagues in other political parties who have been supportive through this process over recent times. It has taken significant collective efforts from across the Government to reach this point. 
As New Zealanders we can all be proud that real and significant grievances suffered by Maori are recognised and settled peacefully and within the law. The public can be reassured that the Crown is confident of the validity of the claims that will be settled by this bill and that the settlement has been negotiated with the interests of all citizens in mind. In particular there have been issues in both this settlement and tomorrow’s settlement around access matters. It is not possible to compensate affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu fully for all the prejudices and loss their people have suffered. One thing that sometimes upsets me particularly in this portfolio is that there is sometimes commentary in the media and from the general public that suggests vast sums of money are being transferred to Maori as part of the Treaty settlement process. In fact the transfers represent in many many cases really only a small fraction of the total damage that has been done over the course of our history as a country. I want to acknowledge the courage and foresight of affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu in recognising this prospect moving forward and accepting this settlement and looking to the future. I have no doubt that it will be a prosperous one. 
The people represented here today in the galleries have waited a long time to have their grievances against the Crown addressed. They have worked hard and sacrificed much to reach this settlement. They seemed just 2 years ago to be on the point of proceeding to legislation and then saw it almost snatched away from them and the prospect that in fact they might not achieve their settlement. Thanks to their generosity and thanks to their courage they have been able to reach this day today. That is one reason why this bill is the first this week in terms of the number of things that are going on in the Treaty settlement area. For those reasons I consider the bill should proceed without delay to the Maori Affairs Committee and I hope the committee can deal with this bill reasonably expeditiously. That will allow for the timely transfer of settlement redress to affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. 
I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
A e aku koroua e aku kuia e nga whaea e nga papa Te Arawa waka Te Arawa tangata tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa. 
[ 
To my elders my elderly womenfolk aunts fathers the canoe and people of Te Arawa greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all. 
] 
I am very pleased to stand to speak on the first reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. National supports the bill being referred to the select committee and is pleased to do so. 
I personally am pleased to be here in the House this afternoon. I stand here in the presence of whanaunga and it is a great privilege to be here when this bill is being presented to Parliament. Notwithstanding that we are whanaunga I congratulate those who negotiated this settlement on behalf of the hapu and iwi of Te Arawa because I along with everyone else in this House know the complexity of the matters involved in achieving such a settlement. Their achievement in negotiating a settlement with significant support across the waka is no mean feat. I am very proud to be part of the consideration that the bill will have in this House. 
The other reason that I am very proud to be here this afternoon is that looking at the bigger picture this settlement today follows in the path of others forged over the last two decades on the Treaty settlement platform developed by Sir Douglas Graham and the National Party under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. That platform has continued into this decade—albeit with mixed effort and mixed results up until recently I might say under the Labour Government but it has continued nevertheless. It has continued up to this settlement today to another major settlement tomorrow and to others to follow in the future—there is no doubt about that. 
The important feature of these settlements is that they are testament to the efforts of a small nation that is leading the way internationally in many respects and to how a nation State treats its indigenous population in terms of addressing longstanding historic injustice. Fortunately New Zealand has long since moved on from the time when this process was condemned more than it ever deserved to be and that in my view is thanks to the patience of iwi; to their faith in the law and their perseverance; to the inherent fairness of the Kiwi character the New Zealand character; and to the almost universal acceptance by parliamentarians across the House of the importance of settlements. We have made great progress since the land marches and occupations of some 30 years ago and we will continue that progress until we complete the process. 
With these settlements Maori see that the laws and Government of their country however imperfect they may seem at times are capable of representing their interests and the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders can redeem its honour for questionable conduct in the past. These things are important for all New Zealanders and the settlement that comes into the House today is part of that process. It is a huge process it is complicated but it is necessary. We have made great progress and the part that Te Arawa have played in it is very important. 
I turn to the bill before us. Dr Cullen has reviewed its contents. Importantly the bill contains an apology. If we think about it we realise that much of the grievance that gave rise to this settlement had its genesis back in the 1880s I would suggest with the rearrangement of title by the Maori Land Court which as we know was set up to convert collective title into individual title so as to make it easier for ownership of land to pass from Maori hands into those of the Crown or settlers. So this bill has a longstanding genesis; again I think that adds to its importance. 
I commend the Minister for his efforts in bringing some considerable momentum to a process that by last year was exhibiting all the signs of Treaty meltdown. I refer in that regard to a rather scathing report from the Waitangi Tribunal that criticised the Crown for certain things—we will not go into that for the moment. What these settlements show I think is that passion effort energy and enthusiasm must be put into this process to ensure that the momentum is maintained. Fortunately that momentum has come back into the process now. I might add though that it may be that the Labour Government in appointing Dr Cullen to the position of Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations has learnt something; in the end we have rangatira negotiating settlements on behalf of their people and in a way they look for equivalence in terms of the negotiator on the part of the Government of the day. It may be that in terms of getting iwi and the Te Arawa affiliates—and the other tribes involved in tomorrow’s settlement—back to the table the appointment of Dr Cullen was an important factor. 
As I said earlier the apology is important and all our settlements contain an apology. In that respect it is important not just for the consideration by the House but also for New Zealanders at large to remind ourselves that the settlement settles all historical claims of the affiliate of tribes and that henceforth when this bill becomes law the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal will have no further involvement in considering anything to do with the settlement. That is important. 
In terms of issues that have been raised briefly with me—and National members will raise them in the select committee—there are issues around whether private land is involved. The briefing note that the Minister supplied us with says that it is not involved and we will want to make sure that that is the case. The other issue is whether public access will be maintained and a statement in the briefing note says that generally yes it will be. The select committee process gives us an opportunity to look at those matters. Another matter which has been raised on the iwi side is the combining of tribes which is seen to be problematic particularly if one is asking Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa to be represented by one voice. Clearly those issues are still capable of resolution and if my colleagues and I can play a part in addressing them I am sure we would be very happy to do so. 
In terms of the set-back I suppose that was put upon this process last year we can take lessons from it as to what seems not to work and those things that seem to work well. It may be that in relation to the settlement that is before us today and the one that comes before us tomorrow there are lessons for us all to learn. I think the biggest lesson is that in the end the iwi must feel that their rangatiratanga is intact all of the way through the process. Any hint that the Government of the day and ultimately the Crown are imposing anything on them or being prescriptive will not work. That seems to have been the point reached last year. 
Happily National supports the settlement. We will work with the other members of the select committee to make sure that the process that gets under way—the scrutiny of the bill—brings into effect the settlement that Te Arawa iwi have negotiated. I look forward to that process and we give our commitment to it. In closing again I would like to say congratulations—very good. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
Otira Te Arawa waka Te Arawa tangata kua neke mai ra mai i nga roto o Te Arawa koutou ra nga karangaranga hapu kei waenganui nui i a koutou a tae atu ki te Whare Ariki a te Heuheu Ngati Tuwharetoa oku kaumatua kuia tuakana teina tuahine tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou. Tena koutou i te ahuatanga o te kaupapa i kawe nei koutou mai ra i te hau kainga a ki roto i te Whare nei e kia nei te Whare o nga Raiona kia tutuki kia tu enei ahuatanga ki roto i te ture. No reira tenei ra ta koutou mokai kanohi kai roto i te Whare nei e mihi ake nei ki a koutou tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa.  
[ 
To the canoe of Te Arawa and the people of Te Arawa who have moved from the lakes of Rotorua you indeed the subtribal callings amongst you including the chiefly house of te Heuheu the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa my elders elderly womenfolk older and younger siblings and my sister greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you. Greetings to you in regard to the nature of the proposal that you have brought all the way from back home into this House referred to as the “House of the Lions” so that these circumstance are met and enshrined in law. So here indeed is your servant and representative in this House acknowledging you; greetings greetings and greetings to you all. 
] 
Madam Assistant Speaker it will come as no surprise to you that I stand in support of this very important legislation. In doing so I declare a conflict of interest. 
I join with previous speakers in welcoming this very very important delegation from Te Arawa. I acknowledge every iwi hapu and whanau that has come here today to represent what we call the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I identify the iwi who are to take part in this very very important occasion. They are Ngati Ngararanui Ngati Tamahika Ngati Tuteaiti Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara Ngati Tura Ngati Te Ngakau Ngati Te Roro o Te Rangi Ngati Tuteniu Ngati Uenukukopako Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao Ngati Tahu Ngati Whaoa and Ngati Pikiao. They are here today to stand with the Crown as its Treaty partner in the final stage towards the settlement of the historical grievance. 
It is not possible for this Government as previous speakers have stated with some sadness to compensate the iwi of Te Arawa for the full extent of the grievances that have been imposed on them by the wrongful actions of the Crown. I am humbled today by their courage and by their commitment to let bygones be bygones and to move on in a positive and constructive manner developing a future for the descendants of Te Arawa whanui. The affiliate Te Arawa group must be commended for its negotiation skills as outlined by my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and for its ability to view the process for which these negotiations were carried out with pragmatism and practicality. The group’s futuristic vision and willingness to come to a mutual settlement encompassing all the resources available to it is a testament to its dedication and commitment. 
The faith in which the Crown and the claimants came to a settlement is a result of the claimants’ astute participation in decision making. I am sure that would add much to the astonishment of various members of this House who in the past have accused the Government of offering “take it or leave it” deals to the Treaty claimants. That is simply not the case. I have never met anyone on the face of the earth who can produce a “take it or leave it” deal to Te Arawa. This Treaty settlement has been reached by the two partners iwi and the Crown sitting down and coming to a constructive and realistic agreement. I am particularly proud of that fact. We have reached the final leg of this journey—a journey not without trial and tribulation—yet we find ourselves standing in Parliament here today to introduce this historic bill. 
After the Crown and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu signed the original deed of settlement in September 2006 there was much debate about the settlement and the best way to settle claims over the central North Island forests. In order to give the central North Island iwi sufficient time to develop a proposal for the collective settlement of their interests in those forests the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa agreed to defer the introduction of the legislation to give effect to the settlement. That decision is of historic importance because it paved the way for the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu to join a collective of other iwi with interests in the central North Island forests and for the collective to present the Crown with a proposal for the settlement of those assets. The proposal replaces the commercial forestry redress included in the 2006 affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu settlement. Instead the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu will have a share in the central North Island collective’s forestry assets. 
The affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu have significant assets now and a bold claim to manage them going forward which will benefit future generations. That is a very very important fact. Such a plan will benefit the whole of Te Arawa in economic terms. I wish to acknowledge the leadership shown by the Kaihautu Executive Council and the success of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa in terms of their flexibility unity and leadership. The longstanding issue of the best way to settle claims over the central North Island forests could not have been addressed if it had not been for their patience and indulgence. 
I would like to acknowledge the patience that the people of Te Arawa have shown since the deed of settlement that was signed in 2006. The introduction of this bill has been a long time in coming. The new settlement contains several new items as outlined by Dr Cullen of redress and is recognition of the flexibility shown by the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu. It is also indicative of the generosity of the Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen that it includes the gifting of the land under the five Rotorua schools and of the Ngatamariki geothermal assets. I credit the vision of the leadership of my colleague Dr Cullen second only to that of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu leaders—and they are present in the House today; they were instrumental in reaching this very important point. I look forward to the continuance of such Crown leadership in settlement negotiations in the future particularly when we sit down to negotiate with other iwi in the wider Bay of Plenty or Te Waiariki. 
In 2006 as the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations I stood to support the first reading of the Te Arawa lakes settlement claim. I stand again to support the introduction of another monumental bill that will benefit the people of Te Arawa in much the same way that the Te Arawa lakes settlement claim is now benefiting Te Arawa 2 years after the legislation was introduced into this House. However on looking back I take some comfort from the comments made by the previous speaker the Hon Georgina te Heuheu that National will support this settlement bill and I hope that that will be the attitude adopted by all the Opposition parties in the House today. I can recall standing in this House and listening to speeches that opposed the return of the Te Arawa lakes to the people of Te Arawa. Some very very patronising statements were made by members in this House in relation to the way in which the negotiations were conducted. 
This is very important legislation that is being introduced today and it follows closely behind the return of the Te Arawa lakes to the Te Arawa people. Tomorrow will also be an equally important occasion. Although I do not want to put pressure on my Maori colleagues in other parties we have to accept that the people of Te Arawa are making the decisions and no one else. It is our role in this House to support their decisions. Te Arawa like many other iwi around the country is into development mode. It is moving forward. Although we have a very very long history of grievance we have turned that grievance into development and we are going forward. Anyone who stands in the way of Maori development should look out. That is all I can say in relation to the support that these very important issues require in this House. 
My call at this point in time is a speech that is very brief and to the point. I want to finish by acknowledging all those who took part in the process leading to this point. My colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs basically gave myself Dr Cullen and the other Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Shane Jones all the support required to ensure that all the necessary milestones were met and that the channels of dialogue between ourselves and the Crown and the negotiators for Te Arawa affiliate were kept open. It is because of that commitment and support that we are at this point today. I say congratulations and well done to the people of Te Arawa who were involved in the negotiations. Tena koutou. Ka nui nga mihi atu ki a koutou otira ma te wa tonu ka tutuki pai ai. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you collectively. I have much regard for you. It will be fulfilled well in time. Greetings to us 
.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too want to congratulate Te Arawa and welcome them here today. I also want to congratulate Dr Michael Cullen. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu has said that in the settlement procedures it behoves us all to have a large amount of passion in trying to come to arrangements and agreements and I want to personally commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his passion since he has taken the role of Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I cannot say the same for the Ministers before him. I do not want to be nasty and use the occasion to be nasty but why break the habit of a lifetime? 
This is just another chapter in the long running story of Te Arawa. The chapter will be about battles fought and won with the Crown—it does not matter who was in Government. The story so far is that there are lots of people to congratulate—those who are not even here and those who unfortunately we will never see again. But the lifeblood of iwi is their story—the whakapapa not only of us as individuals but of things that happened and of how we got from point A to point B. I feel very privileged to be able to give my 10c worth on this historic occasion. 
There will be those in our community who say: “Well now that Te Arawa has settled its Treaty settlement hopefully it will go out and sort out the troubles of young people in Manurewa in Rotorua and all over the land.” Well that is not the iwi’s job. That is the job of all of us to do. I wish Te Arawa well in their journey and in the new chapters that are to be written from now until the end of time. 
There are those who have issues with this settlement and also with tomorrow’s big story. My wish for the Maori Affairs Committee is for those who have issues with this settlement to front up to the committee and put their submissions to it and then let us see where we go from there. I have another wish and it is for those who are in the gallery today who represent the other side of the settlement to take the opportunity now while the bill is in the select committee process to go and grab those people who are against this settlement and try and try—I know people have but God loves a trier. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Talk to your colleagues! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely I will talk to anybody who wants to push this forward and make this a long-lasting settlement. 
I will not speak for too much longer but I want to say that this is unlike other settlements. Its path to where we are now has been very rocky indeed. Ngai Tahu Tainui and the others who have come and settled have had a somewhat easier pathway and easier ride. So I congratulate Te Arawa on staying the course and on having an immense amount of patience. The patience does not go back to 2002 the patience does not go back to 1960; it goes back to when Maui was a little boy—that is how far back it goes. So I want to congratulate those who have stayed the course and I hope in my heart that those who have some worries about the settlement front up and use what has been put in place—what has been put in front of them vis-à-vis the Maori Affairs Committee process—to air their concerns. 
Not only is this another chapter in Te Arawa’s beautiful story but it is a chapter in our story as well. I think that all of us can be proud to be part of that story. One day when we are over this and over beating each other up saying “you did this and I did this and blah blah blah” we will have a vision for our nation and we will have an identity for our nation which will not be when we are playing in the Rugby World Cup of 2085 when most of us will not be here— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: And winning! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and when we will be winning. Instead of the woolly sheep as our identity it will be us as our identity that is on parade around the world—uniquely ours uniquely New Zealand’s uniquely Pakeha and uniquely Maori. This is the only place in the world where one could find such a gathering. 
I send congratulations to Te Arawa and to the Deputy Prime Minister. I look forward to the thousands and thousands of submissions that we get in front of our great select committee. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
A tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker tena hoki tatou o te Whare nei. Ka huri nga mihi ki a Arawa waka Arawa tangata tena koutou. Tena koutou i tae mai ki roto o te Whare nei koutou hoki e noho tonu ki te wa kainga a puta noa i te motu i are taringa mai i matakitaki mai hoki. Tena hoki koutou nga kaikawe o te kaupapa nei ara ko Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa. E tika ana kia tukuna atu nga mihi hoki ki nga hunga o koutou i rupeke ki tua o Paerau mai i te wa tuatahi i takoto mai tenei kaupapa ki mua i te aroaro o te taraipiunara me te Karauna hoki tae noa ki tenei wa. Ka ea te wahi ma ratou. Ka hoki mai ki a tatou nga maramara o ratou a tihewa mauri ora. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us this House. Greetings turn now to the Te Arawa canoe and the people of Te Arawa: greetings to you collectively. Salutations to you who have arrived here in this House you as well who have remained back home as well as those of you listening in and watching. Acknowledgments also to those responsible for this proposal Te Pumautanga. It is fitting as well to acknowledge the ones amongst you who have passed away from the time this proposal was first placed before the tribunal and the Crown to the present time. The part for them has been fulfilled. We come back to us their splinters and behold the sneeze of life 
.] 
Like the member from Rotorua I too have to declare not so much a conflict of interest as a vested interest. Although I am from the north I know our Te Arawa relatives will know that there is a connection. While I will not be a direct beneficiary of this bill I think it is important that I acknowledge that link. Na reira aku whanaunga karanga maha tena koutou. 
[ 
So to my relatives of many callings greetings to you collectively. 
] 
If the Rotorua lakes settlement legislation was the first course then this bill is certainly the second. Tomorrow we will receive the dessert with the third course to be signed. It is important that I should articulate the names of the iwi and hapu that this settlement concerns. Although this has already been done I thought there may have been an oversight on the part of the speaker who mentioned the particular tribes. So I will now articulate the names of those hapu and iwi: Ngati Ngararanui including Ngati Tamahika and Ngati Tuteaiti Ngati Kearoa Ngati Tuara Ngati Tura - Ngati Te Ngakau Ngati Te Roro o Te Rangi Ngati Tuteniu Ngati Uenukukopako Tuhourangi Ngati Wahiao Ngati Tahu - Ngati Whaoa and Ngati Pikiao. I say Ngati Pikiao excluding Ngati Makino. I do so because that is what is actually written in the bill. Also included are Ngati Rongomai and Ngati Tarawhai. 
As I read the bill I see that all this covers 75 different claims. It also signals what I regard as being a very important and special issue—something that will give a lot of satisfaction to those who argue the case for hapu as I do. Given that in many cases it was representatives of hapu who signed the Treaty I am of the view that it is only proper that settlements are made with hapu as well. This bill reflects the revised deed of settlement between Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa representing the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu and the Crown. It has been said that this result will lay the foundation for settlements throughout the region. Of course this has yet to be proven. The affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu has a membership of approximately 24000 and it asserts interest in an area of over 500000 hectares a large portion of which is licensed Crown forest land. 
Like many other iwi negotiators in this area of Treaty of Waitangi settlements Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa have had to exercise determination patience and flexibility. The deed of settlement which has already been articulated by previous speakers includes a formal apology from the Crown to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi; an amended financial redress package to reflect the participation of Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa in the Central North Island Collective; the transfer of 19 areas of Crown-owned land of special significance to the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapu; redress that will enable increased input into management over Crown-owned land; and protocols with certain Government agencies. 
The revised settlement no longer includes redress over forestry assets. Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa have agreed that their historical claims to the central North Island forests will be settled in any future Central North Island Collective settlement. Such settlements I understand will be signed this week and the subsequent bill will be introduced soon thereafter. I am pleased that this agreement to delay their claim to these forests has been recognised by way of enhancement to their claim in that particular matter. 
As I mentioned arriving at this stage has needed patience determination and some flexibility. The process has not been without some angst between some of the claimants. It can be said that much of this has been brought on by the dual process available to claimants. I refer to the tribunal hearing and direct negotiation with the Crown. Given the time that these claims have taken to get to a settlement the dual process was perhaps seen as a way to reduce the time from when the claims were lodged and the actual settlement. 
Of course one could argue that this process has been brought on by the haste to complete the Treaty claims by 2010. However I understand that the tribunal process by being run in parallel with direct negotiations actually split some hapu into two groups. Separate research units that were set up were very soon at odds with each other for a number of reasons. The claim was lodged and allocated a Wai number when the tribunal announced it would start the inquiry. Approaches were made to go into direct negotiations at the same time. When a mandate was canvassed a rival group obtained the mandate to negotiate the settlement immediately thereby triggering the long-running dispute that probably contributed in no small measure to the time it has taken for the bill to get to this stage. 
The fact that we are now seeing the introduction of this bill into the House today certainly suggests to me that most of the conflict has been sorted out. However should any conflict still remain the select committee process is an opportunity to deal with it so that the settlement is not compromised. I am therefore suggesting that some changes may have to be made to ensure that any matter caused by the process that has a claimant group feeling disadvantaged does not leave that claimant group feeling as such. We in New Zealand First would not want to see any substantial conflict remain with what we regard as a very important bill to Te Arawa iwi and hapu and indeed to New Zealand. To this end I invite any individual or group affected by this settlement to participate in the process in order that the select committee can also give regard to their concerns. 
New Zealand First supports the bill being referred to a select committee and looks forward to giving further consideration to it which will allow interested parties to present any concerns they may hold. This bill will when legislated assist in allowing affiliate iwi and hapu of Te Arawa to move from grievance to focus on economic and social development. 
Before I sit down I take the opportunity to acknowledge the chief negotiator Rawiri Te Whare for the good work that he has done and that has been acknowledged by the Minister. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Eru George who under trying conditions has had to steer the group to be able to reach this stage. Just as important I acknowledge the former chairman of Te Arawa Maori Trust Board Anaru Rangiheuea. His efforts in guiding that particular board on behalf of his people have been recognised by his recent award of a Queen’s honour. Here we have a gentleman who as a consequence of the change in processes of settling claims has continued after the termination of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board to maintain an interest and to serve his people in a manner that can be expected only of one born into leadership. 
Na reira e te rangatira horekau e mohio mehemea kei konei koe i te ra nei engari ka mihi hoki ki a koe. Nau nei i arahi te iwi o Te Arawa tae atu ki te wa i hangangia Te Pumautanga. Tua atu i tena e Eru kei a koe te rakau i aianei na.  
[ 
So to you the chief I am not sure whether you are here today but I acknowledge you and the part that you played in leading the people of Te Arawa up to the creation of Te Pumautanga. Further to that I acknowledge you Eru. You have that leading role now 
.] 
No reira I just reiterate that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill going to the select committee and through all its stages. Kia ora ano tatou. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
Te manuhiri tuarangi nga kaumatua nga rangatira o Te Arawa kua tae tautoko mai i tenei ahiahi nau mai haere mai whakatau mai. 
[ 
To the visitors from afar the elderly the chiefs who have arrived here in support this afternoon welcome welcome draw near 
.]  
I will make only a short speech this afternoon on behalf of my Green Party colleague Metiria Turei. The Green Party will be supporting this first reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. We will be following the progress of this bill closely through the select committee process especially the submissions received to understand better the mandate the Government has secured for this settlement and for the concerns of the cross-claimants. The return of the 24 cultural redress properties amongst other key elements in this settlement package has been a very long time in coming and the Greens are pleased to see this bill finally before the House. 
We warmly welcome the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa and their bill to Parliament. We want first to recognise the incredibly hard work by the iwi and the negotiators on their behalf who have been working through the Government’s negotiation process. It is and has been a difficult costly time-consuming and often agonising process. 
As the House may already know the Greens have a continued and sustained objection to the Government’s Treaty claims settlement process. We believe that it is fundamentally unfair to the claimants. The redress offered by the Government amounts to only a tiny fraction of the value of land taken from Maori by insatiable European settlers or a Crown all too ready to side with them. The conditions that iwi must agree to in order to gain redress for the wrongs committed in the name of this Parliament are in our opinion simply unconscionable. Our criticism of this settlement bill has been and will continue to be squarely directed at the Government’s settlement framework and the small amounts the Government has set aside for possible redress. 
However having said that I say that this is also a moment full of hope not only for the people of Te Arawa but for all of us. After all we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. We are all responsible to ensure that justice prevails in these lands and when it does we can all share in the prosperity of living in a truly just society. I hope that this settlement works out in a way that is beneficial for all iwi members. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi engari he toa takitini. Kia ora koutou. 
[ 
Our strength is not as individuals but is as a collective effort. Greetings to all. 
] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Kei taku ariki e Tumu tena koe. Kei nga iwi o te kainga kua tau mai ki te Whare Paremata i te rangi nei tena koutou katoa. Kei te mohio tonu tatou mo te parekura o-mate kua tau mai ki runga i a tatou i nga wiki tata kua hipa hoi ana ko ta tatou ko te tangi ko te tuku i te roimata me te hupe kia heke hei tohu i te mamae o te ngakau. No natatanei ko tera o tatou o Tuhourangi ko Sonny Sewell. I mua i a ia ko Hamihuna ko Riparata ko Leah ko Sharon ko Ani ko Mihipeka ma a kati. Waiho ratou kia moe. Anei tatou kei te Whare o nga Raiona i korerohia mai e ratou ma. No reira tena koutou kia ora tatou.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you my paramount chief and greetings to you all the people from home who have arrived here today in Parliament House. We are mindful of the calamity of death that has descended upon us in weeks just past and so ours is to mourn shed tears and release the mucus as a symbol of the pain within. Just recently there was that one of ours of Tuhourangi Sonny Sewell; prior to him Hamihuna Ripatara Leah Sharon Ani Mihipeka and the rest; enough leave them there to rest. As for us we are here in the “House of the Lions” as they refer to it. So greetings to you collectively and to us 
.]  
Let me acknowledge all of those who have travelled here today. As the translator said the settlement has been a long road. I want to reflect on the many Te Arawa koeke who have passed on without seeing the end results of the mahi. I speak of Bishop Manuhuia Bennett Archbishop Whakahuihui Vercoe Pinda Pirika my own Sam Hahunga Bonita Morehu and many others. We think of those who have passed the battle on to another generation simply because settling grievances is a tiring and stressful business. I think of all of them this afternoon. I pay tribute to the actions of the new Treaty negotiations Minister Dr Cullen in driving a wider settlement of central North Island forest claims. There have been significant changes in the process over the past 18 months and we recognise the impact Dr Cullen has made in that time. 
The number of settlements coming quickly to the table is of course of interest to the Maori Party. I ask myself what has happened to up the tempo and make settlements a reality when over the last 12 months claimant groups in the Waiariki region were bogged down in tribunal hearings and in fact were heading to court. This settlement itself was halted because the Crown was taken all the way to the High Court—all to do with the settlement that we will be debating tomorrow. I ask why we could not have had intervention earlier when tribunal report after tribunal report said there were issues with the process. Things could have been far and away easier. 
I acknowledge also the part that may have been played by the negotiators on behalf of the Crown in possibly facilitating some of the discussions more recently because inevitably that would have had an impact on the outcomes today. I also acknowledge all of those involved in bringing this settlement to the House i tenei rangi nga mea nga ringaringa nga waewae o tenei kaupapa. [ 
today the things the arms and legs of this scheme 
.] Tena koutou katoa. 
I want to place on record some korero about this settlement from someone who was there and who was involved in some of the phases of the development through to this day. I will draw on an analogy. On 15 October 2007 the Tuhoe tribal nation was invaded by the police force and although things have settled down and the court cases are still to happen—and Tame Iti is able to go about his acting career—if people have been to Ruatoki they will know that one is constantly reminded about the consequences of police actions on that day. It seems however that no one has really taken any interest in the people and in how they are or are not coping. Similarly although it is not openly discussed the process used to get to this point in this settlement has had significant impact on individuals whanau hapu and iwi and my hope is that this is recognised today. For when people are driven by time lines and political conditions whakapapa relationships can be left to the side. Kinship ties of hundreds of years can be forgotten all because of the dangling dollar. These are the issues that will be spoken about on our marae for years to come when maybe many of us are gone. So a comprehensive settlement that could have had all of the Te Arawa confederation settling together and therefore utilising our collective strength as stated in our korero Nga Pumanawa e Waru o Te Arawa did not quite happen. We see about half of Te Arawa here today and thankfully again Dr Cullen has heard the issues and has taken appropriate steps to look after the interests of those who have been left to the side. 
I believe that if a process is not set in place properly from the very beginning things are doomed to fail or be punctuated with problems along the way. It is my experience that this is what has happened and Dr Cullen alluded to some of that as did other speakers. How do I know? I have been there I have felt it I have seen it and I have learnt from it. There have been four Waitangi Tribunal reports: in 2004 and 2005 a mandate and two particularly damning statements in 2007. In June 2007 the tribunal report expressed concern for Te Arawa as a whole and found “serious flaws in the way the Crown consulted with non-settling Te Arawa groups.” The report itemised the gross dissatisfaction of a number of iwi concluding that the tribunal was left “fearing for the customary future of the Te Arawa waka.” 
Just 2 months later in August 2007 the tribunal added more parties to the list of those aggrieved criticising the Crown’s failure to communicate proposals to affected parties such as the Crown Forestry Rental Trust the New Zealand Maori Council and the Federation of Maori Authorities. In fact the tribunal could not endorse the Te Arawa settlement in its form at the time as it held grave concerns regarding potential negative impacts of the settlement on overlapping iwi and the durability of future central North Island settlements. 
The August report detailed further Crown failures to protect the customary interests of various tribes condemning a “dearth of direct engagement” with the overlapping claimants. The tribunal laid it all out for us to see—that aspects of the deed of settlement and the Crown’s process are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that the experience with the Te Arawa settlement process was likely to have a negative impact on the durability of future central North Island settlements that the tribunal had grave concerns regarding the adverse impact on overlapping iwi that with the Crown picking favourites there was high risk of significant prejudice being experienced by central North Island iwi outside of Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa and that the Crown was making decisions in isolation based on inadequate information. As a consequence the tribunal urged the Government to delay the proposed settlement recognising that failure to achieve reconciliation amongst iwi could create enormous conflicts within and between iwi. 
That I think has been one of the singular most tragic outcomes of this whole process. Not only has the process exacerbated tensions between the Office of Treaty Settlements and iwi but it has also pitted iwi against iwi. Against this backdrop of disengagement and division it is actually quite remarkable that we are even here today. 
I have a deeply personal interest in this legislation by virtue of whakapapa through Ngati Rangiwewehi. No we are not a signatory to this settlement but I will tell some of the story—the story of Rangiwewehi—to give substance to the grief that some have experienced in getting to this point. In June 2004 I appeared before the Waitangi Tribunal to speak to the Te Arawa taumata claim. My submission outlined how distressed the tribal nation of Ngati Rangiwewehi was by the way in which Crown agencies and the former Kaihautu Executive Council had misrepresented our interests. 
In essence our aspirations in looking to resolve a Treaty settlement were that we would participate in an open and honest process free of manipulation. Unfortunately that was not our experience. I have seen the outcomes of advertised hui of Te Arawa declared invalid by the Crown even when the hui were advertised by an accepted facilitator. I have seen hui called on consecutive days—one by the elected governance group and one by the management group—that told me that there were communication problems. I know of physical confrontation on marae over issues of mandate that went on to court and was finally settled by a vote of around 400 to 500 people that was won by a dozen votes. I know of Ngati Whaoa’s case in being tied to Ngati Tahu when there have been three Waitangi Tribunal reports telling the Crown to call a hui to sort out the issue of mandate once and for all. I know of people who have been allowed to vote more than once at mandating hui while other individuals have not been made aware of or allowed that privilege. Ngati Rangiwewehi ourselves were excluded from the mandating process until after the executive council was elected and we have been offended at times by the way in which a number of our submissions appear to have been given less weight than the mandate from the iwi. 
Over months and years the relationships have deteriorated as demonstrated by key presenters walking out of hui and subsequent ambiguity being recorded relating to resolutions passed in hui where the full story was never heard. Yet despite that officials recorded that “The [mandating] process undertaken was fair open and transparent.” and that “The Executive Council has demonstrated strong support from the iwi and hapu of Te Arawa”. 
There is a huge gap between fact and fiction and the Crown has been complicit in it. This was not the experience of Ngati Rangiwewehi in isolation—other tribes have shared it also. But that was but a small part of the history that we have come past. With this bill we can put it behind us and start to build relationships that at this point in time need to be rekindled. Whakapapa should never be compromised. This first reading I hope signals not just a new era in respect of the economic and social development of those who will benefit from the settlement of this bill but more so a determination from all of us—including me—to link us to each other once again kia taea ai te ki Te Arawa upoko takitahi. 
[ 
so that we can say Te Arawa of a single head 
.] 
The Maori Party will support this bill at the first reading and hope the progress remains positive. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill which records acknowledgments and an apology and gives effect to the deed of settlement. This is an affiliate whose area of interest covers 500000 hectares and a population of approximately 24000 people—11 iwi and hapu groups from the Rotorua and Kaingaroa areas. This bill highlights acts of omission and commission and acknowledges those things in writing. It progresses historical claims through to a place where today some finality can begin. 
The affiliate chose to forgo the right to have claims heard by the Waitangi Tribunal and instead favoured entering into direct negotiations with the Crown based on a willingness to settle the historic claims of the affiliate in the most effective and efficient manner possible. In April 2004 the Crown recognised the mandate of the Executive Council to negotiate a settlement and the process continued through to the signing of the agreement in principle and then through to a stage where of those who are entitled to vote and chose to 97 percent voted in favour of accepting the deed of settlement. 
This bill contains a lot. It contains a series of acknowledgments by the Crown of areas in which it has failed these people. It acknowledges the taking of land it acknowledges the generosity of Te Arawa in gifting land for the good of the nation and it also acknowledges the loyalty of this people to the Crown in many ways historically. It sets out a formal apology and then proceeds with the vesting of lands. I was very interested to note that it also establishes by agreement a relationship between the affiliate and the Ministry for the Environment to allow discussions of the performance of local government in the affiliate’s area of interest regarding the Treaty and the provisions of the Resource Management Act. United Future welcomes that particular provision because we understand that Te Arawa value the land beyond the realm of the commercial. We welcome the longevity of resource management that that provides for that area. 
United Future has a policy of supporting all settlements that are the result of robust negotiations between Maori and the Crown. The hard work that has been done means that it is the role of this House to come in behind the outcomes of that process. United Future does not enjoy representation on the select committee that will be processing this bill but we look forward to receiving assurances that this written word accurately reflects the intention of Te Arawa. We congratulate those gathered today who are chaperoning this bill over the legislative line and we also congratulate and acknowledge those who have championed the negotiations but never got to see this important step. We are happy to support this reading. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As my colleague Mrs te Heuheu has said National will support the first reading of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. She Mr Henare and I very much look forward to working on it in the Maori Affairs Committee of which the three of us are members. I also endorse everything that Mrs te Heuheu has so eloquently said about the value of Treaty settlements. For over 10 years she was a distinguished member of the tribunal and was an Associate Minister to Sir Douglas Graham. She instinctively understands these matters and I can do no better than endorse what she said about the importance of Treaty settlements. 
The Te Arawa affiliate is a collective of 11 iwi and hapu groups from the Rotorua and Kaingaroa areas. Their area of interest covers over 500000 hectares and they have a population of around 24000. This settlement settles all the historical claims of the affiliate. As the Minister observed in his speech the bill contains Crown acknowledgments relating to the Crown’s failure to protect the interests and needs of the affiliate and the taking of lands for public works and emphasises the loyalty to the Crown of the affiliate. It sets out the formal apology that the Crown has offered. It vests 24 cultural areas in the trustees of the affiliate; it transfers Crown forest land with a value of $4 million and associated Crown forestry rentals; and it provides Crown recognition of the significance of various sites and of the association the affiliate has with certain sites. Finally it gives effect to the deed of settlement that was signed a few days ago. 
It is very interesting that when reading schedule 2 of the bill both Parts 1 and 2 one observes just how long the people of Te Arawa have had to pursue their claims—since Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Government expanded the jurisdiction of the tribunal in 1984. Part 1 deals with “Claims to Waitangi Tribunal that relate exclusively to Affiliate (or representative entity)” and one can see that claims start with Wai 57—the Ngati Tahu lands claim—and go all the way through to Wai 1252 just a few years ago. By my reckoning Wai 57 must have started in the very early years of the historical settlements process around 1985. Part 2 deals with “Claims to Waitangi Tribunal that relate to Affiliate (or representative entity)” and unbelievably the first one mentioned is Wai 7 which deals with the Te Ariki lands claim. In the course of his speech Mr Henare said that Te Arawa have been waiting since Maui was a little boy. Just before he left the Chamber he challenged me to come up with a more colourful expression but I have to confess that I surrender—I cannot. He hit the nail on the head. 
The legislation has been introduced very soon after the signing of the deed. As I said earlier clause 3 records that the deed was signed on 11 June and I hope all interested parties have had an adequate opportunity to digest all the detail of the agreement. As the explanatory note of the bill states an initial deed of settlement was signed on 8 August 2006. A number of other iwi and hapu raised concerns about the proposed settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal intervened urgently and then released a number of reports that were very critical of the Crown’s behaviour during the negotiating process. I record and I praise the steps taken by Te Arawa to allow the concerns of other iwi and hapu to be heard and to allow other negotiations to proceed. The affiliate generously agreed to delay the introduction of legislation giving effect to the 2006 deed of settlement. During the course of negotiations between the Crown and the various iwi and hapu interests in the central North Island Crown forests lands the affiliate agreed to participate in those negotiations and to amend the 2006 deed of settlement so that its interests would be addressed through the central North Island iwi settlement deed. I think that is wonderful statesmanship and I join with other members in applauding its actions. 
The explanatory note of the bill does not refer to some of the criticisms of the tribunal. Of course this is a day for rejoicing and a day for multi-partisanship; it is not a day for tendentious criticism but I briefly mention some of those criticisms that the Crown had usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu and had failed to act fairly and impartially towards all the claimants. They were very critical reports and that it why it is so good that we have moved beyond that kind of criticism to this positive day today. 
The legislation being introduced this week will if passed this year triple the number of Treaty settlements that Labour has taken from start to finish in 9 years. The present record is that to date it has taken just one settlement from start to finish. 
Let me emphasise that I congratulate Te Arawa on the faith they have shown in the process and on being prepared to work things through with other iwi for the benefit of everyone. I am pleased for them that this matter is now to proceed and I can assure them that the members of the select committee will take a good look at the bill and try to progress the parliamentary stages of this matter as quickly as possible. There are as Mrs te Heuheu said a number of matters that will require careful scrutiny and I can assure the affiliate that the members of the committee will do just that. They will look at issues for example relating to public access to land and other issues that other members have raised. Let me end this part of my speech by congratulating Te Arawa once again on the great leadership shown by real gentlemen as Mr Paraone described the negotiators. I really enjoyed my meetings with them and look forward to working with them in the future. 
This is certainly one area of politics that should be bipartisan or in these days of MMP—and I see Mr Paraone just about ready to scold me—multi-partisan. If possible there should be no place for party politics in the resolution of historical grievances. It is the responsibility of all parties to cooperate to progress these matters. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: You’ve changed your tune. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That sounds a bit like the Prime Minister who said that she was waiting for the National Party to agree to any Treaty settlement but the member well knows that that is wrong. He knows that we have voted against one or two because of our concerns about durability. We have been enthusiastic supporters because we initiated this process and we strongly believe in it. I have respect for that member and I would advise him not to make those kinds of misrepresentations. I fully endorse what Sir Douglas Graham brilliantly expressed during the third reading debate of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Bill when he said: “For answering a cry for justice must be above politics. If we are to ensure a just peaceful and prosperous future for those to follow we must continue as we have begun.” and I say amen to that. In that spirit I too want to congratulate the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on his achievement here today and in doing so show him the generosity of spirit he has never shown anyone else during the course of his parliamentary career. At least I can say he has done a good job here. He has not bungled the settlement or got in the way of iwi as they have negotiated this settlement. 
I conclude by saying I am very pleased that this matter is being referred to the Maori Affairs Committee of which I am a member. I look forward to working on the bill with my hard-working colleagues on that committee. We will do our level best to get it through all parliamentary stages as quickly as possible. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
I a koutou o Te Arawa whanui e mihi kau ana. Tena koutou mo te kaha ki te tae ake ki konei ki te Whare Miere i te mau hoki ake ano te take nui nei me nga ahua katoa i roto i a koutou. E tino mihi hoki. Ae e tika i waihotia ake ano wetahi i waho ra. No reira tena koutou. E mohio ake ano tatou te roaroa hoki a te take nei. 
E tangi hoki te ngakau mo nga rere haere pera i te matua a Sonny tetahi o nga hoia toa o te ropu ra e mohio ake ano tatou e whai atu i tera wahi hei tu kaha penei tonu mo tatou katoa. No reira i a koutou katoa mo nga rere haere katoa nga mate e tuku ake ano e tangi hoki te ngakau. No reira tena tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To you of Te Arawa at large I acknowledge you. You are to be complimented on your efforts in respect of getting here to the Beehive bringing this important matter here and all your thoughts about it. What a wonderful effort! Yes it is correct that some were left out of it. However that aside congratulations. We know that the process has been a very long one.  
The heart grieves for ones like Sonny who has since passed away a stalwart of the group and his efforts for all concerned. So to all of the departed I mourn your loss. Greetings to us as well 
. ] 
I stand today to support the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. I recognise the effort made by those people from the affiliate who are present here today. I recognise their tenacity their perseverance and their effort in getting here to express what they have been through. The journey has not necessarily been smooth; rather it has been rocky over generations. I mihi to Rawiri Te Whare the negotiator for the fashion of his practice in relation to those issues that were relevant to the bill being here today. I also mention Eru George and his trustees and everybody else. 
I a koutou o Whakaue e pihopa e mihi kau ana. E nui ake ano nga whakaaro i roto i a au mo wetahi e kore i konei e mau kaha mo te take nei. 
[ 
To you of Whakaue a real tribute to the bishops. There are others too who have since died whose contribution to this matter has been enormous. 
] 
It is in my mind that I sat with a whole lot of people who were on this journey and who are not here today—who have passed on. They were great people and this settlement could not have been reached without them. It is those people whom I want to remember today and some others I will leave out. I can recall sitting down and talking about this settlement with Kapiti Wikiriwhi and Patariki Rei—gentlemen of their own time. That has been espoused in the way that the people have dealt with the Crown and have managed the settlement and we need to respect and recognise that—even though they may be from other hapu te koroua ra te pihopa a ratau ma the bishops who have at times agreed and at other times have disagreed. 
It is important that we show unity today and that we are not sanctimonious and trying to prove what could have been what should have been and what has not been because it has been done under the fine stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. And for that I recommend him to Te Arawa iwi who have had to deal with him and his two colleagues Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones. I also remember the effort that Margaret Wilson put in during our first session on the marae—and Mark Burton for that matter. They have been effortless in the sense of supporting this settlement. 
The speakers today from across the parties have supported the settlement. We can pontificate at length about what should have happened and what could have happened but this settlement is about to happen. Today is a historic day in this fine House. It is a day of coming together. The raupatu and the dastardly deeds that were done are etched in the waters of the lakes that Te Arawa iwi manage and control and the business assets that they have looked after. They do not need the Government to help them to tell them how to run them. I for one understand that there will be fine stewardship in managing this settlement. 
I commend Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa for the way that when things were getting ahua up and down they stepped back. They stepped back so that others could come forward then they stepped forward again then they stepped back again. That is real rangatiratanga even as there is disagreement. I want to say to one of my colleagues in this House that indifference is an unnatural thing and Maoris at times tend to set to arguing with each other. It is no different from what I dared mention that has happened in the Churches over successive generations. What is new though is that Te Arawa iwi have had the courage to step forward on behalf of all the future generations to agree that now is the time to settle and the time to move on. We do have a great future. 
The redress package has been cited and stated and I will not go over it. But I want to think of some people. I want to think of Auntie Bubbles. Another member mentioned all the blokes but I want to mention Auntie Bubbles and all the other great women. I want to mention Maria Tiini and other people whom I shared time with during this journey. It is really important that Te Arawa iwi go forward with this settlement. It is important that with the opportunities that are available it is managed well. Over time Te Arawa iwi will have the opportunity not only of managing their own forest but also as major producers of moving into higher-value areas of the timber industry. This settlement will represent an enormous step forward for the Te Arawa people. They will move from earning wages as workers for the big forestry companies to becoming industry leaders in their own right. We will not continue to have just a generation of manual labourers—although there is nothing wrong with hard work whether it is pruning thinning or whatever else. 
This settlement is a serious challenge to all of us. It is a commitment that the Government has made under Dr Cullen’s leadership to get on with the business. In this regard Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa has shown considerable flexibility to accommodate the needs of those Te Arawa iwi and hapu who are not party to this settlement. That includes arrangements with Ngati Makino in relation to the Matawhaura and Otari Pa sites. I refer to the agreement that an undivided half share of the Te Ariki site be held by the Crown in trust for other iwi with an interest in it and the agreement with Ngati Whakaue in relation to the Whakarewarewa family reserves. It takes a lot of leadership and courage to come to that sort of agreement. It is time that we recognise that. 
The thing that I have relished in watching this journey go forward is that our rangatira Michael Cullen has met and talked with the iwi’s rangatira and that is how business should be done. It should not be done as it was in the past me nga mea tamaiti hoki te tae atu hei korero ki nga mea pakeke. 
[ 
with the young ones also being able to talk to ones older than them 
.] 
The unique lakes and geothermal sites of the Rotorua district are of huge significance to Te Arawa iwi. That is reflected in the cultural redress sites mentioned in the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. These sites include land adjacent to lakes lake beds and land containing iconic geothermal sites. The cultural redress sites in this bill amount to over 670 hectares. The transfer of these sites recognises the cultural and historical ties of the affiliate Te Arawa iwi to the whenua of that area. 
I commend again those of Te Arawa who have come here today. I thank all my colleagues for the effort they put in—our team and the other parliamentarians who have supported the bill generally. I am really pleased that a member of the National Party has said that the bill will be passed quickly because it is business that can be done quickly if we all agree across the House. I come from a great area called Tai Rawhiti. We write songs and we are very good at it. We are not as good at te hakahaka haere o nga tamariki. [ 
the children carrying on 
] I know that Dr Sharples and others think they are better! But we are good at writing songs. 
E mihi kau ana tenei uri o te wahi i tuku ake ano te waiata o “Paikea” i a koutou e whai kaha mo to koutou waiata. Tena tatou. 
[ 
This relative from the place that gave you the song “Paikea” acknowledges that. Greetings to us 
.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
A e te Whare tena tatou katoa. Hei timata e oku matua e oku whaea mai i tera waka rangatira o tatou a Te Arawa tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Me penei e hara ma nga korero. Te tuatahi ko Houmaitawhiti katahi ka puta ko Tamatekapua raua ko Whakaturia haere atu ki te kimi i te mokai Potakatawhiti. Kitea rawa atu kua pau i te tupuna o Ngapuhi a Uenuku. Arumia katahi ka kahakina nga poroporo tapu mai i te rakau. Ka mau ka haria ka whakaturia ki roto i te Whare ka whakapaoaangia ai. Otira to tupuna a Tamatekapua ihumanea ka puta katahi ka huri e kore te riri e mariri. Ka hangaia he waka he waka rangatira he waka kei nga hau e wha o te ao Maori e korerotia tonutia ana.  
Te ingoa ko Te Arawa. Katahi ka tope te rakau ki Tawhitinui ka haria ki te wai ki Hauhou. Katahi ka whakaterengia ka oti i a Rata i a Wahieroa i a Ngahue i a Te Parata. Tenei waka ka oti i a koutou i tenei rangi tona pai tona rite tona hohonu penei me te waka i mauria mai ai o koutou tupuna ki Aotearoa. Koia tena te tauira hei korerotanga ma tatou i tenei rangi. Ko ta tatou i tenei ra he whakatu i nga nawe mai o te ao kohatu. Atu i te whakatutanga he whakaterenga he whakarewanga o te waka hei hari i nga moemoea i nga wawata o te iti me te rahi ki te whitinga o te ra. Na reira tena koutou tena tatou kia ora tatou katoa.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to us all the House. To begin greetings to my elders men and womenfolk of that chiefly canoe of ours Te Arawa greetings greetings and greetings to us all. The story goes like this you know. First there was Houmaitawhiti who begat Tamatekapua and Whakaturia who went in search of the pet dog Potakatawhiti. Eventually they discovered that Uenuku the ancestor of Ngapuhi had eaten it all up. They followed that up by stealing the sacred poroporo fruit from the tree but were captured trussed up in the meeting house over a smoking fire. Yes your crafty ancestor Tamatekapua escaped and to defuse the situation set about to build a canoe a chiefly one at that and the envy of the day. It continues to be talked about throughout Maoridom even to the present day.  
The name of the canoe was of course Te Arawa. The tree was felled at Tawhitinui and taken to the sea at Hauhou. It was set afloat and Rata Wahieroa Ngahue and Te Parata finished it off. The quality and depth of this craft that you will end up with will be similar to the one that brought your ancestors to Aotearoa. That then is the model for us to talk about today. Ours is also to settle past grievances create the craft set it afloat and launch it to take the dreams and aspirations of the minority and majority in the direction where the sun rises 
.]  
I have greeted the leaders of the Arawa people. I have recounted—admittedly with a slight Ngapuhi flavour to it—the history recounted to me by my own grandmother and corrected occasionally by my former bishop Manuhuia Bennett. The Arawa canoe which was made from a fantastic tree came from Hawaiki after a dispute involving him whom we Maori call te ihumanea—the crafty skilful one—Tamatekapua to save his brother. The children of Houmaitawhiti realised that salvation for them lay in committing to a voyage across Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa away from Te Korokoro o Te Parata to arrive in Aotearoa. Really the vision and the promise that we celebrate today are not unlike the journey that Te Arawa’s own ancestors took to arrive at te whenua hou Aotearoa. 
This is a day for celebrating the passage of history so that we feel that we have dealt with honour with the debts of history. We can look with confidence pride and belief into the future that will be acted out and eventually embodied by not only young Maori but all future New Zealanders. That is why we come here today saluting the Arawa leadership and saluting Dr Cullen who shows that there is no alternative to a career that spans from 1981 up to this day. The fact is he has been able to cobble together competing agendas and bruised personalities; agendas that quite frankly ought to be sorted out on the marae I say to Mr Flavell and not in this House. This day is not about acre rood and perch; this day is about New Zealanders backing an attempt to put our history on a level playing field so that we can all go forward and capture equity opportunity and fairness. That is why I stand to support the Arawa today. 
The leadership has already been named but I single out Mr Rawiri Te Whare. I sat in Dr Cullen’s office for some of the meetings and as my old tupuna from Ninety Mile Beach would have said Rawiri Te Whare ko to tuara ehara i te ngorengore kahore. Otira he maroro. Kua pau katoa i a wai ranei te karawarawa e tu tonu ana koe: the backbone of that man Rawiri Te Whare is not made of sap; it is made of something very durable because it has been scratched poked and prodded and much to the amazement of his own people he is still standing! I say to Rawiri Te Whare that this is a day for him his iwi his whanau and his supporters including Eru George including my fellow Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commissioner Anaru Rangiheuea Te Poroa Malcolm Pihopa Kingi—koutou katoa. It is a day to go home and celebrate that the prestige of the Arawa people still looms strong and they will be the dominant force in their own turangawaewae the Bay of Plenty. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Waiata; haka 
. 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Supplementary Estimates 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time 
. This legislation is introduced against quite an interesting economic background at the present time. Nearly every developed country in the world is facing very similar problems at this stage. The environment is the most challenging global economic environment that we have seen in at least a decade and in some respects for longer than that. We are facing first of all the consequences of a subprime mortgage crisis in the United States—a classic example of a divorce between risk and return—and then the cleverness of those in the financial markets who created pyramids of derivatives which then collapsed like decks of cards once in fact those risks started to eventuate. 
We have seen the pressure on global food prices coming from the growth of demand in the great economies of China and India—the emergence of substantial middle classes—and also from some ill-judged policies around the world including restrictive trade practices and unwise policies in promoting inefficient forms of biofuels in the United States and elsewhere. We have seen extraordinary increases in the price of oil over recent months also as a consequence of the growth of those great economies of China and India and the instability in the Middle East and in Nigeria and again because of the actions of speculators in the financial markets. The combination of these factors has bitten deep into the pockets of ordinary New Zealand families and individual New Zealanders. 
These challenges are very real. As I said to the select committee last week the combination of these challenges plus the effects of tightening monetary policy over the last 3 years plus the effects of the drought that had a very substantial impact upon rural New Zealand in the first few months of this year will almost certainly see a negative GDP figure for the first quarter of this year. But it is not a time necessarily to be totally gloomy; in the longer term New Zealand is in a highly favourable position. We are in a highly favourable position for a number of reasons. Firstly we have had a Government that for some years has adopted prudent fiscal policy which has meant that debt is now much smaller as a proportion of GDP and the money we spend on servicing that debt has been much reduced. It means that we have built up a pile of cash assets that we will be able to draw down over the next few years to help keep the economy moving along without excessive borrowing leading to rising debt—a burden therefore upon our children and grandchildren. 
We also face a much more favourable long-term environment globally than we have seen for the last 50 to 60 years or more. Firstly we are seeing successful trade negotiations for New Zealand in terms of China and now there are the prospects of India South Korea Japan and elsewhere. But ironically the global food crisis will also probably give an added spur to the success of the Doha round of talks which will remove some of the barriers for New Zealand’s trade that have been so strong. It is often said in New Zealand that we love to beat our breast and to blame ourselves and say that we have slipped in terms of our relative standard of living—but not our absolute standard of living. My goodness me I remember my parents bought a black and white television set in 1961. It took about 8 weeks of my father’s pay to pay for what I think was a 16-inch black and white television set. Our standard of living is immeasurably higher than it was 50 years ago although it has slipped in comparison with some others. But we have been competing in a highly unfavourable international climate where almost every other developed economy whether in Europe America or Japan has actually discriminated against the things that we do best. Almost the entire developed world has been in a kind of trade conspiracy against New Zealand in relation to the things that we are capable of doing best in this country. 
That is why we are a country that follows a strong trade liberalisation policy and now of course we are seeing our trade liberalisation opening up in the agriculture area. On top of that we are seeing—for the first time perhaps for 150 years or more—relative price movements moving in favour of food exporters such as New Zealand. For the last 50 or 60 years we have tended to see our export prices reducing in relation to the prices of other goods that we have to import but in more recent years we have seen those terms of trade moving around. So New Zealand faces both improving terms of trade and a more favourable trade environment over the next 20 or 30 years on top of which we are in a better position than almost any other developed economy—other perhaps than Australia—to deal with the challenges of an ageing population over the next 25 to 30 years. And that is not by chance; that is because of good planning by this Government. 
Yes the year 2008 will be a tough year economically. I do not believe there will be a recession but there will be a negative first quarter. Yet in the longer term this country has better prospects than many other developed economies around the world and we need to stop flagellating ourselves and instead recognise the options that that will open up. 
To take advantage of the situation we must continue to address the issues that have been concentrated on by this Government—that is issues of skills development and of making sure we are producing the skills we need in this country. We need to bring in as New Zealanders people who are skilled rather than those who are simply in the “other” categories that have dominated immigration policy until more recent years and we need to invest in our infrastructure—our roading our soft infrastructure our water and sewerage schemes—all those elements of infrastructure. This Government has massively increased capital spending as a proportion of GDP and restored it to the levels of the 1960s and the 1970s after a long-term period of decline in our capital spending and capital investment. We need to address issues of saving and investment. I could pretty well guarantee now that we have passed the total of 700000 people who have signed up for KiwiSaver and we are already getting comments about that feeding the growth of capital markets within New Zealand. That is what we are doing in this Government—all of those things and many more besides and particularly the long-term agenda of sustainability which is crucial to our success. 
So what does the Opposition offer? This afternoon we heard what it offered. It offered that we should not do things about light bulbs—that it is some kind of nanny State thing to say we should actually assist people to buy more efficient more effective and cheaper light bulbs in terms of usage because that is some kind of intrusion into personal freedom. We should let everybody consume whatever they like and then try to provide the energy required to sustain that! Indeed that offering led to the joke: how many members of the National Party does it take to change a light bulb? The answer we know is zero because they like to keep us in the dark. That is certainly the answer to how many National MPs it takes to change a light bulb because what is the National Party telling us about its plan for the future? Its plan for the future is to do whatever it takes—that is the plan. To do whatever it takes to bribe the electorate—that is the policy. 
Telecommunications was offered a big bribe but what of the detail? That will come after the election. When will we know National’s tax policy? Well maybe before the election but we cannot be sure. Will there be borrowing? Well probably. What about the selling of State assets? Well actually yes and no but maybe; who knows—possibly. Certainly there would be privatisation of accident compensation; we will come back to that later on but certainly the desire is there to do that. Would there be changes to Working for Families? Well yes and no and maybe—they are not sure; they are still trying to make their minds. What about education policy? Well National members say they stand for standards. Well that is great is it not? Goodness me Nick Smith who is semi-illiterate stands for standards in education in New Zealand! 
Look at the National front bench! Mr Ryall has had one policy announcement in the entire time he has been spokesperson on health—releasing the cap on doctors’ fees—and he had to backtrack on it in the space of about 3 or 4 days. Mr Power is supposed to have a policy on law and order but nobody can find the press statements in which he has actually said it. Mr English does not have a fiscal policy except that he has said that he is confident about New Zealand’s future. Well that is great to know. And Mr Key has no policy at all. He just wakes up in the morning and thinks about his Merrill Lynch shares but over the last 6 months he has gone back to bed again because the story has been so bad at that particular point. Who else does National have? Mr Brownlee’s energy policy is to use expensive inefficient light bulbs. That is the National Party’s energy policy. 
The party opposite thinks that it can sleepwalk to victory. It has no policy and no ideas but of course it does have a hidden agenda. We know what it wants to say and what it wants to do. It wants to say it will go back to the Employment Contracts Act it wants to say it will sell State assets it wants to say it will drop the tax cuts for those on lower incomes and transfer the cuts to those on higher incomes and it wants to say it will promote private health-care and say “Be blowed!” to the public health-care system. It does say that it will give no more money to public schools but double the money going to private schools—that is its one bit of policy. We are really waiting for the guts of this election campaign in October or November this year because we are waiting to hear when National will finally produce a single policy. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I think the story that Dr Cullen and Helen Clark have been telling their caucus for about 18 months is: “We’ll just wait for another couple of weeks because then some rabbit will jump out of the hat.” Well the bad news for the Labour caucus is that not only is there no rabbit but there is no hat either. One of the reasons there is no hat is the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance got up in the House today to lecture us about fiscal policy. Actually fiscal policy is not that complicated but Dr Cullen has managed to make it very complicated. He is the man who has spent 8 years saying that anyone who offers tax cuts to New Zealanders is reckless and furthermore anyone who offers tax cuts—and therefore has to borrow more money—should be taken outside and have his or her head pushed under the water and held there because that person is so stupid. Of course after 8 years and 6 months he discovered that the public were right and he was wrong. So what did he do? He turned around and offered significant tax cuts and the effect of that is that he is now going out and borrowing almost all of the money he will need for those tax cuts. 
That is why however elegant and sophisticated his analysis sounds no one believes him. People do not believe him because he did not believe himself. He said that he would never do it that it was bad and that it would wreck the economy to offer tax cuts but he went and offered tax cuts. He said that any attempt to borrow another dollar would downgrade our credit rating and wreck our economic future yet according to his current Budget he has gone out to borrow $13 billion. That is why no one believes Dr Cullen—he never believed himself. 
He is also suffering from the delusion that every member of the New Zealand public thinks the Government knows how to take advantage of the economic opportunities that are offered to New Zealand. Well the track record of this Government in recent weeks has shown New Zealanders why they should not trust those people in Labour to make the important decisions that need to be made so that New Zealand can take those opportunities. Yes National stands for standards in education—unashamedly. And do members know what? We do not stand for more “Wassup!” in education. That is the difference. The hugely literate Dr Cullen has a strategy for lifting standards in education which is the distribution of badges with “Wassup!” written on them. That is his strategy. Another badge says “I love Maori success”; as if any Maori 15-year-olds will look at that and feel that the Government has deep respect for their capacities—of course they will not. That is the difference between National and Labour. Yes we stand for educational standards and now it is absolutely clear that Labour does not. It stands for wasting taxpayers’ money patronising people who it thinks are dependent on it and leaving progress in education to hand-wringing and counting the failures. 
I do agree with Dr Cullen about the big opportunities that New Zealand has but did members not notice that when he introduced this bill and talked about the opportunities ahead for New Zealand he did not mention anyone except the Government; it was as if he thought the only people who would grasp these opportunities were those in Government. Well that shows a big difference between National and Labour. Labour sees the future as being about what the smartest politician—and Dr Cullen thinks it is him—can dream up. We see the future as being about enabling millions of New Zealanders who are innovative who are enterprising and who are self-reliant to get on and grasp those opportunities. We think the Government should be less of an influence on the future not a growing influence on it and that is the difference. Dr Cullen talks about the redemptive power of the State and we talk about the power of the people. That is the difference. 
Our economic policy is unashamedly based on creating the environment where business individuals and organisations can get on and seize opportunities because they are there. The terms of trade are shifting in New Zealand’s favour. The weight of international economic activity is gradually moving towards us. These things are the best news since Britain went into the European Common Market and left us pretty much on our own. But taking advantage of those opportunities will require the use of the talents and the innovation of every single New Zealander. 
Let us look at a policy where the Government does talk about infrastructure. New Zealand is the only country in the developed or semi-developed world that has a bizarre objection to the use of public-private partnerships in the building of infrastructure. Public-private partnerships are important not only because someone else supplies some money for investment in infrastructure but because they enable the Government to harvest the disciplines and skills of the private sector—in managing risks in particular in taking a long-term view about investment and in bringing those skills into the substantial public investment in infrastructure that any Government has to do. Why is it that Labour does not do it will not do it and has refused to do it and regards anyone who even suggests that it does it as some kind of extremist maniac? I do not know the answer to that question— 
Hon Member 
: They don’t either. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and I do not think that Labour knows. It is just that that is something Labour believes in. A couple of weeks ago I had the good fortune to spend some time talking to two Australian Federal Labor Ministers from the new Government—Mr Lindsay Tanner Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Mr Anthony Albanese Minister for Infrastructure. I have to say that if they gave the same speeches in New Zealand as they give in Australia they would be accused by Dr Cullen Mr Duynhoven and Annette King of being Roger Douglas extremists. They talk openly—openly—about the virtues of profit the benefits of private enterprise the need for a Government to harvest the best of private enterprise— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: So do we; what’s wrong with you? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is what they do. That is why that member is going to struggle to hold his seat because in New Plymouth they have a strong sense of the potential of New Zealand and they have an even stronger sense that the Labour Party and the Labour Government stand between themselves and the potential that could be realised. 
Infrastructure is just one example where the Government has shown that it is just unsuited for the challenges ahead of New Zealand because those challenges are going to be considerable. We have an economic downturn and the public know that Labour is the “party” Government. Those members in Government had a good time while there was a party but now there is a hangover they have all got bad-tempered and want to keep their toys away from everybody else. Helen Clark in particular has been caught flat-footed. They do not know how to deal with an economic downturn except to complain about it and to say that the Government has done something to make it not as bad as it might otherwise have been. 
National is unashamedly forward-looking with its economic policies. We will be outlining to the electorate our plans covering tax cuts infrastructure and standards in education. We will also be unashamed about our ambition for New Zealand. Most New Zealanders are ambitious for this country but the problem is that the Government is ambitious only for Labour. It is ambitious only to try to get Helen Clark’s name in the history books for a fourth term. But New Zealanders actually have more important things on their minds. That is all this is about; it is now all about Helen Clark while two million New Zealand households out there are trying to make ends meet. The public know that the Government has taken a much bigger share of their income than it should have. They know that the Government books are in great order while theirs are running overdrafts. They know that 80000 people left New Zealand last year. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Tell us what your policy is. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We meet people in the street every day who say that if Mr Duynhoven gets back into power they are certainly going to leave. I can understand that. Some say: “I’ll stay because I think it is important that we see him off.” That is what people are saying out there. That is why the Government— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You are a liar Bill. Not one person has said that to you; not one. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Not one—the member is right. In New Plymouth we cannot find one person who says: “I’m keen to vote Labour.” and I can tell that member that we have looked very hard. There are some who will vote Labour because they always have but none of them really want to. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Labour has set out our agenda in terms of Budget 2008. New Zealanders know what we are planning to do and what we stand for. We continue to build a sustainable economy to invest in health and education to provide additional support to our old folk and to invest in our infrastructure in a way that has not ever been seen in this country. 
I am talking of transport infrastructure and I take issue with the comments made by Bill English. You see National members have had a conversion on the way to the ballot box. They are now great promoters of the panacea for infrastructure—public-private partnerships. But National was in Government for 9 years and I am told by Maurice Williamson that Ruth Richardson said he could not have any money for transport and that is why National could not invest in transport. So why did National not turn to the private sector and use public-private partnerships from 1990 to 1999? We are told that National is a great believer in public-private partnerships but it never put in place legislation to enable public-private partnerships to take place. Which Government did that? It was a Labour Government in 2002. The National Government never took the opportunity to put its mouth money and policies together. 
Now National members are great supporters of public-private partnerships. Bill English said that we would not even entertain public-private partnerships and we refuse to even look at them. Where has he been? Is he so busy running around drumming up support for a party that cannot even give New Zealanders a policy to know that Labour has set up a public-private partnership steering group for the big Waterview Connection project? Who is on that steering group? There are people from Business New Zealand the Auckland chamber of commerce and the private sector working with the Government sector to look at the feasibility of a public-private partnership on our biggest roading project in New Zealand. Did that come from the National Government? Could National have done that when it was in Government? Of course it could but it did not. We cannot trust National because what it says now does not back up its record in Government. 
I believe it is now time to turn the spotlight on a would-be Government National. Today I want to raise some policy questions—questions the National Party has refused to answer but New Zealanders deserve a response to them. It is time for the National Party to stop treating the public of New Zealand as if they are dumb or as if they are sheep that are able to be led to the slaughter at the ballot box. That is what National is doing to New Zealanders now. It will not give them policy answers until 3 or 4 weeks before the election because it says other people might steal its policies. There is nothing to steal from the National Party because it does not have anything to steal. It is sleepwalking to victory. The arrogance of that party is palpable every day of the week. 
I want to ask some questions of the National Party about policy. What will that party do about climate change? What is its policy on climate change? Who was the person who said climate change was a hoax then said he had always believed in climate change and only a few weeks ago he took the steps back saying we should not be leading the pack; we should wait to see what happens? What is National’s policy on climate change? It is time its members told the people. I believe there will not be an emissions trading scheme in place if the National Party gets into Government. Three years will go by and there will not be an emissions trading scheme in place. We know what that will do for New Zealand’s economy at the end of the day. When the countries that receive our exports look at New Zealand and say that it is not taking climate change seriously they will say “Let’s take some action against that country because they are big polluters.” That is what we will face. I predict now that if National gets into Government there will not be an emissions trading scheme because it does not have the conviction to carry through its “great” commitment to climate change. 
The next question is what National will do with asset sales. Its members tell us that there will be no asset sales in the first 3 years. What a funny thing to say: we will not have them in 3 years but give us a chance and we will get ready for them. I have listened to the speeches made by National members on the buy-back of rail. They absolutely opposed the buy-back of rail. They opposed the buy-back of Air New Zealand. They said it was a dismal failure it would not work and it would be bad for New Zealand. Air New Zealand is performing incredibly well and has been bought back by this Government. That buy-back was opposed by the National Party in Opposition. Its members opposed the buy-back of rail but National will sell rail. There is no doubt about it. I believe that National’s asset sale agenda is submerged it is hidden it is secret but it has not changed from what its members have always believed. 
Let us look at KiwiSaver. Will the National Party keep KiwiSaver employer contributions at the same rate and in the same time frame as they are now? You see the truth came out. Kate Wilkinson let the truth out. I think she is an honourable member. She believed she was talking about the National Party’s policy because it is National’s policy. When she mentioned it in a speech and it became public once again the women in the National Party had to be suppressed. They were not allowed to speak the truth. We have seen that before. Kate Wilkinson told New Zealanders the National Party’s policy on KiwiSaver. National will get rid of it—listen to that New Zealanders. Around 700000 New Zealanders have now joined and the National Party will not support it. Kate Wilkinson let the cat out of the bag. What about energy? What is the National Party policy on energy? Will it privatise again by stealth the remaining energy companies and infrastructure in New Zealand? National sold Contact Energy. It is proving to be a disaster for this country. Will National do it again? It did it before. The answer is yes. 
What about education? Why is it that the National Party wants to create a two-class system whereby children will be unable to go to their local school because National wants to remove zoning? I know that in my own electorate there are many many children who if zoning is taken away will not be able to attend their local school. But does National care about the kids who live in the neighbourhood? No it does not. National’s philosophy is that kids should be able to go to school where they like and to hell with the consequences for those who live within those communities. What about health? Where is National’s policy on health? It has one policy on health and that is to take away cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper prescriptions. National is going to take away the $3 prescription charge. When Tony Ryall was caught out putting out the policy National rushed in and changed it because otherwise it might lose a few votes. I say to New Zealanders that National’s policy is what its members said it is. Do not be fooled by the cover-up that is going on. 
Then we come finally to tax cuts. National will show us the size of its tax cuts just before the election. Why? It does not want any genuine scrutiny on them. It does not want people to really know the impact of what it wants to do. How will it pay for the tax cuts? Here is the doozy of them all. National is going to pay for its tax cuts which will be bigger and better than anybody has ever seen by getting rid of public servants. I tell this House that work has been done on what the size of National’s tax cuts would be if we got rid of a few public servants. I can tell New Zealanders that if we got rid of 1000 public servants we can look forward to tax cuts of 58c a week. That is what we would get by getting rid of 1000 public servants. So let us get rid of 10000 public servants and have $5.80 a week. That is what we would get by getting rid of public servants. But then what if we do not get the services we want because we have got rid of good public servants who are there to provide the services? 
It is time the National Party fronted up on a policy position. We are in a debate around a Budget. National did not disclose a single piece of policy when its shadow finance spokesperson spoke today—not one. He said “We’ve got a great economic policy.” but there was not one piece of information about that policy. The time is now— 
Nathan Guy 
: You wait. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not a matter of waiting. Those members should stop treating New Zealanders as fools stop treating them as dumb and front up to what their policy is so there can be a real policy debate in this country. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First agrees with Dr Cullen and with the Hon Annette King for that matter. We would like to see some policy from the National Party as well. But that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about some of the things that Dr Cullen mentioned when he talked about a great future. I believe as he does that we have a downturn at the present time. We have a downturn in front of us but Dr Cullen does not believe it will be a recession. I say that is yet to be tested but it will certainly be a downturn. But following that things are looking great for our exporters. He said and I think he was very very positive that we are looking better than we have looked for 150 years. I am not quite as old as Dr Cullen obviously but I have to say that in my lifetime the situation has never looked better than it does at present on the exporting front. 
In New Zealand First we have a concern because we will not be the only people who can work that out. We know that the people in China and India—people with whom we have no problem; we are not anti-Chinese anti-Indian anti-Russian or anti any of those sorts of people—do not intend in the future to pay world prices for their food. They do not expect to pay world prices for their inputs into food or into anything else. They intend to come out here and one way or another take control of the source of supply. In New Zealand First we say that is what we would do too if we were them. So our concern is that New Zealanders—New Zealand farmers New Zealand producers New Zealand exporters and New Zealand citizens—enjoy the fruits of their labour and enjoy the benefits of the profits that are before us. We must resist at all costs those countries coming over here just when things are going to get good for us and taking a slice of the action for themselves. We in this House must always remember that we are elected on behalf of New Zealanders—not on behalf of the Chinese the English the Americans or anybody else but just New Zealanders—and that that is whom we must represent. 
We in New Zealand First are also concerned—and it was interesting to read the Reserve Bank of New Zealand forecast which is quite gloomy and which brings to the fore an issue that we have been on about for many years—about the changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. I have quite a big report here from Business and Economic Research Ltd which states that we could be looking at job losses in the region of 95000 in the next 3 years and we could be looking at losses to the economy in the vicinity of $7.4 billion if we just keep the focus on inflation and nothing else. Business and Economic Research Ltd says as we say that we are missing out on the benefits of our hard work. Many of the benefits of our hard work are going to overseas lenders and overseas investors and in fact if we are not careful they will go to overseas owners of our sources of production and to the people who manufacture our products at the final stages. 
Sue Kedgley 
: That’s quite right. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I recognise Sue Kedgley who says that I am right. I agree with her—she has been saying similar things. 
We must make changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and the Business and Economic Research Ltd report states that we should ensure it is not just inflation that we are worried about in this country but also employment exporting and the cost of our dollar—in other words the level of our dollar apropos that of the currency of the countries we are exporting to. If we do not take into consideration those issues other people will reap the rewards of our hard work. We have not been through the hard times that I have seen in my lifetime and that others who are out there beavering away have seen in theirs to see the benefits flow offshore. We like the Greens and like Sue Kedgley are sick of seeing substandard products—agricultural products for Heaven’s sake—coming into this country when we ourselves can produce those products at a better quality and at a better price and can ensure that our people actually know what they are consuming. We have backed legislation in that regard and we will do so into the future as well. 
I heard Dr Cullen talk about the extraordinary rise in the price of oil. I do not see anybody in this country going across to buy a chunk of the oilfields be they in Canada Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. I suggest to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to the House that if we tried to do that we would not have a snowball’s chance of getting in the door because those countries know that the way to maximise one’s profits and maximise the benefits to one’s country is to wrap it up tight and not let anybody else in. We are at the wrong end of that situation but we can be at the right end of the coming boom in agriculture and food products—not to rip people off but just to make sure that we as a low-cost provider can do that ship our products to foreign markets and provide the very best that we can offer those markets at a reasonable price. But that price is going to be far better than it has been in past years. 
This Business and Economic Research Ltd report is quite sad in so far as it paints quite a dismal picture in the short term. It criticises those things that have made that come to pass. It states in black and white that our concentration on one target for the Reserve Bank is costing us in this country big time. We have said that and it is pleasing to see that stated in a report of such depth and length. We say that if we continue in that way we will not be as wealthy as potentially we could be. Even today we are not as wealthy as potentially we could have been. There is no reason for us with the coming boom just around the corner to be shedding jobs. We should not be looking at a downturn of the magnitude that I think we are seeing here. We have seen an economy that favours importers we have seen an economy that favours consumption and we have seen an economy that punishes exporters and producers. That cannot be right. New Zealand First intends to continue the fight to get the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act widened so that it can be more favourable to our exporters thus returning better profits to our producers and through them to our citizens God bless their souls. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 We are here tonight to debate the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill and also the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. When reading through the bills as I did over dinner I found that the pity of it was that it is the same old same old. It is the same stuff; there is nothing new. The Government will give itself the authority to spend more taxpayers’ money and impose more costs on to ratepayers. The ratepayers and taxpayers of course are the same people. The Government has its hands via central and local government in both pockets. The pity of it is that we will end up with more of the same old nanny State stuff. And what a pity that is. For the last 8 or 9 years as a consequence of the foundation that was left by the previous National Government this Government has had the best economic times that one could have dreamt of. This Government had the opportunity to give the people of this nation the right and the freedom to stand on their own feet and start making decisions creating job opportunities for themselves creating opportunities for people and their communities and creating opportunities for their children and their grandchildren. But what have we ended up with? Sadly we have ended up with a country that is dominated by a left-leaning socialist Labour Government that wants to control every facet of the lives of everybody in this country. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: And redistribute our money. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is quite right. Instead of allowing people to create and build wealth and to have a better community the Government wants to take it off them put it in its pocket and control everything from finances to social lives to what people do on the sporting paddock. 
The Government wants to control the lives of New Zealanders. Let us look at some of the ways in which the Government has done this. Just recently the Government introduced a bill into Parliament called the Public Health Bill. One would think that nothing is wrong with that; there is some stuff in there that needs to be addressed. But one of the areas that will cause more cost for the taxpayers and for the ratepayers is the issue around hairdressers. One wonders why the Government— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We won’t go will we? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have to say to Mr Tisch that he and I are probably not people who frequently attend the hairdressers. 
Chris Tremain 
: Neither does Mr Tanczos. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes one or two others in this House are of the same ilk. The point is that up until now the hairdressers in this country have got on and done their job for people. They have even had a go for people like Chris Finlayson. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What about Nandor? 
JOHN CARTER 
: We have already talked about Nandor. The fact is that those people have got on with their lives and got on with the job. They have cut hair and done hairdressing and they have made people more beautiful. I have to say to Ron Mark that in his case and mine that job has been more challenging for them. Nevertheless the fact is they have got on and done the job that people have expected them to do. Now the Government has decided that that is not good enough that there are too many risks around allowing people to be hairdressers and that they have to be controlled. So the Government will spend some of this money on ensuring that there are more controls and regulations around hairdressers and they will also tell local government that it has to police this. What we will now have is not just more taxpayers’ money being spent and the health department looking after rules and regulations in respect of hairdressers; we will now have the local authorities going down and spending more ratepayers’ money on issuing permits so that people can be hairdressers. I have to ask where it will stop. 
Let us look at the Department of Building and Housing. This seriously is a major worry. The costs that this department imposes on taxpayers and on to ratepayers are unbelievable. In 1999 31.5 full-time equivalents were employed in the Department of Building and Housing. Last time I looked just a few weeks ago 389 people were employed in that department. The Government is now going through the accreditation of local government. It has now accredited a good number of the local authorities in New Zealand to allow them to issue permits and carry on being involved in building but this is at a cost to ratepayers of at least $8 million. This is some of the crazy stuff that the Government is doing. 
Just recently I learnt that the Department of Conservation has about 300 huts—generally in parks up the sides of mountains and in places that people like to visit. These are not places that one would expect to be able to just walk into; some of them are a bit challenging. The Department of Building and Housing has issued rules and regulations about all sorts of things. One of them is about how to cope with people with disabilities. There is nothing wrong with making sure that there is proper access—there should be; in fact this is one of the things that the National Party absolutely supports. But I have to say there is a limit when the Department of Building and Housing writes to local authorities to ask whether they consider it necessary for wheelchair access to be mandatorily put into a Department of Conservation hut that is 3000 feet up the side of a mountain. I have to say that if someone is capable of getting up to that hut in a wheelchair the last thing that person will want or expect or demand is wheelchair access or disabled toilets. Yet the Department of Building and Housing is spending our taxpayers’ money and putting costs on to ratepayers by asking whether this should be something we have to do mandatorily across the country in the 300 Department of Conservation huts. We have to ask ourselves where this nanny State stops its control. It is just unbelievable that we would have that sort of thing. 
The other day I was in a rural village where there was an outlet for farmers. I was talking to the shopkeeper who told me that all sorts of stuff was sold that one would expect people in the farming community to purchase such as grain weed spray machinery—all sorts of different stuff. An occupational safety and health inspector went in the other day. The shopkeeper has a warehouse around the back with a certain variety of goods in it. On one side he has grain and food for the stock and on the other side he has weed spray so that the farmers if they need to control their weeds can purchase that and do whatever they need to do to control the weeds. The inspector told him that it was very dangerous to have stock food on one side and weed spray on the other and that a farmer could get very confused. The inspector came up with the following solution—and the shopkeeper had to do this. He said that on one side of the warehouse footprints going towards the stock food had to be painted in blue and on the other side footprints in yellow going towards the weed spray had to be painted. So when a farmer came up to ask for some weed spray the shopkeeper would have to say: “Yes but when you go out the back you must follow the yellow footsteps to get the weed spray and please don’t follow the blue prints to get the food stock because you might get mixed up and feed your cows weed spray instead of food stock.” 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What happens if he is colour-blind though? 
JOHN CARTER 
: There is a problem. I am not sure what happens if he is colour-blind. That is the sort of nonsense we are talking about. If somebody can tell me that a farmer cannot understand the difference between weed spray and food stock then I have to say that that person is not capable of farming. It is that sort of stuff that this country has had to put up with. 
This Government is wondering why 80000 people left last year to go over to Australia or further abroad permanently. This Government is wondering why people have become sick and tired of supporting it. This Government is wondering why we are having outbreaks of crime that we have never seen before. This Government is wondering why people in this country are dispirited. This Government is worried about what it has done to this country and the only people who cannot see the problem are Helen Clark and her Labour-led Government. The fact is that this country has got sick and tired of being told what to do. This country is built by people of initiative. This country has tonnes of people with fire in their belly. This country has tonnes of people who want to have the opportunity to get on with their own lives. The people in this country do not need to be mollycoddled. The people in this country do not need to be controlled by nanny State. The people in this country just want a Government that will get out of their lives and let them have the opportunity to carry on building and rebuilding this nation. I say to the people that they should just hold on a little longer—hope is on its way. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I wish to speak on the supplementary estimates relating to intelligence services that come under the name of Vote Communications Security and Intelligence for the Government Communications Security Bureau and Vote Security Intelligence for the Security Intelligence Service. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: That’s an oxymoron. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes my colleague behind me said that security intelligence is a bit of an oxymoron. I am particularly interested in the Government Communications Security Bureau because three very well-motivated and moral people from the Ploughshares Christian group Brother Peter Murnane and a couple of his colleagues visited one of the Government Communications Security Bureau establishments at Waihopai near Blenheim recently. They thought they would go inside and have a look but happened to pop one of the two big balloons that were there. Members might have seen the photographs in the newspaper. They have not been charged with any serious offences because I think the Government does not really want a court case that brings out the true purpose of that spy base which I think relates to the problems in the estimates. I thought: “Well let’s find out what this Waihopai spy station is all about. It comes under the auspices of the Government Communications Security Bureau so let us have a look at the estimates and the supplementary estimates and see what sort of money is spent on that and what it’s all about.” 
When we look at the estimates and the supplementary estimates which are just a few lines long we see there is just one figure. There is no breakdown whatsoever and this is consistent with the estimates and supplementary estimates in previous years. There is no breakdown of the figure into wages capital expenditure and different departmental costs. There is certainly no breakdown of what the Waihopai satellite communications interception station costs. All there is is one gross figure of $39288000 for the Government Communications Security Bureau which was expended last year and then the supplementary estimate of $1057000 making a total of $40345000. This all comes under the one heading of “Advising and assisting government departments and agencies on matters related to the security and integrity of classified or sensitive information processed communicated or stored by electronic means and information to meet the national intelligence requirements of the New Zealand Government.” That is the whole shooting box—there is no breakdown whatsoever. As I said that is consistent with previous years. 
In the Budget this year we notice that the total budget for the Government Communications Security Bureau which was $42 million in the year ended 2007 went down a bit to $40 million last year but in the current Budget it is going up to nearly $49 million. Surely Parliament if it is an open society and responsible to the people and the people’s watchdog should know a bit about the nature of that $9 million increase but there is no explanation whatsoever. I had a look at the latest annual report of the Government Communications Security Bureau. That has only one figure in it too with no breakdown of figures for the past. All it says in its statement of purpose—and this may relate to Waihopai although it does not actually say—is: “providing foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) to support and inform Government decision making;”. It says nothing about the fact that Waihopai spy base operates mainly for the purposes of a foreign power—namely the United States—and most of the information that is collected there which is filtered through key word systems and origin and destination phone numbers and fax numbers is sent to the National Security Agency in America. That is the dominant intelligence partner in the five-nation Anglo alliance that runs the Echelon network of which Waihopai is a part—the Anglo nations being New Zealand Australia Canada Britain and America. 
None of that is in the documents; all we are given is one bald figure. Of course we have a watchdog body called the Intelligence and Security Committee which is not a select committee; it comprises appointees of the Labour and National parties. Last Wednesday it tabled a couple of reports in Parliament on communications security intelligence—that is the Government Communications Security Bureau and security and intelligence which is the Security Intelligence Service. Both are two-sentence reports with no explanation whatsoever stating that the committee recommends the appropriations in respect of Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence etc. be agreed. So we have in the Government Communications Security Bureau a completely opaque institution. 
Lately I have been thinking about the Bill Sutch case that has been in the news recently. One good thing that the Security Intelligence Service has done recently under its new head Warren Tucker is open up some of the files in relation to the Sutch case in the mid-1970s. There is an article in the latest  
Listener 
 where Graeme Hunt says that he still thinks Dr Sutch was a spy. But two questions came into my mind. What secrets would Dr Sutch who was a social and economics expert have had to give to a foreign power in an open society like New Zealand where virtually everything is open? Dr Sutch would not have had access to defence secrets. I am on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and virtually nothing in the Defence Force is a secret. So what secrets are there for any so-called spy to give to a foreign power? 
Then I thought well no—secrets are not about the real secrets that cannot be disclosed internationally; the real secrets in New Zealand are the things that the people of New Zealand cannot be told about. The reason why they are not told about Waihopai is that if they really knew that Waihopai is operating for George Bush’s foreign policy according to what I have read—if they really knew that—they would be very upset. So who is the real security danger in New Zealand? Who is hiding things from the people? Who is undermining our democracy and accountability not only in the financial terms we are discussing tonight but in general terms? It is agencies like the Government Communications Security Bureau and parties like National and Labour that will not tell people the truth about what is going on in these agencies. 
David Lange in his introduction to Nicky Hager’s book  
Secret Power 
 said that he was in charge of this agency—the Government Communications Security Bureau—and they never told him what Waihopai was really about. So even the then Prime Minister was not fully informed and unfortunately did not delve seriously into finding out while he was Prime Minister. It appears that other leaders of our great nation and the leaders of National and Labour have likewise just accepted that it is in New Zealand’s interests and we do not need to know much more about it. 
I think that is a bit of a disgrace and I ask this rather toothless Intelligence and Security Committee—which meets for only about 3 hours a year according to the information I have received through written questions—to do its job a little better if it is going to justify its existence. Its members should not go there just for coffee and to listen to the Security Intelligence Service head Warren Tucker or the Government Communications Security Bureau head Bruce Ferguson give a little briefing sign everything off and go away. We deserve more. 
In overseas jurisdictions like the United States for example there is a much more thorough accountability system and people would not get away with that level of lack of scrutiny. So in that respect I think the United States is a better model for us to follow for more accountability even though as I said I object and the Green Party certainly objects to our having a spy station here that is basically in the interests of the Bush administration which as we know is engaged in a war in Iraq that we do not agree with and the betrayal and undermining of the human rights of people in places like Guantanamo Bay. It is not that sort of foreign policy that we should be helping through the Waihopai spy station. Thank you. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand tonight to support the motion before Parliament that the supplementary estimates be approved so that the Government can continue spending public money to try to make New Zealand a better fairer and more inclusive and decent place to live. I am really proud of this Government. I am proud of the things we have achieved working together with the country over the last nearly 9 years. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I don’t think New Zealanders would agree with you Darren. New Zealanders would have a different view. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am proud of the fact that when we took office from people like Dr Wayne Mapp 161000 people relied on the unemployment benefit every week for their income yet now fewer than 19000 people a week have to rely on a dole payment for their income because we have lowered the unemployment rate so significantly in this country by putting people back to work. This Labour Government has been focusing with energy on getting people back into work and we have been rigorous in our approach to make sure that jobs are an opportunity for every family in New Zealand that their own income is the result of their own labour and that they are making a difference for their families. That is what I am proud of. 
I am proud of the fact that the 130000 children who used to live in poverty when Dr Mapp was a member of the previous National Government do not live in poverty today. Those kids now grow up in homes where they do not pay a market rent for their State house and where their parents go into jobs where the wages go up every year not down. That is not just because wages have gone up 3.4 percent in the last year but because this Government has taken the minimum wage from $7 an hour right up to $12 an hour—an increase of $200 a week for the poorest workers in New Zealand. 
When Dr Wayne Mapp was a member of the previous Government when National ruled this country those members could not even get the minimum wage up by 80c an hour over 9 years. We have put it up by over $5 an hour over 9 years. I would ask Dr Wayne Mapp whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I want to know whether Dr Wayne Mapp supports the minimum wage increases of the last 9 years. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why have 80000 people left New Zealand? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh he cannot answer that. He has been interjecting in that staccato way since I started but he cannot tell me why when he was in Government he saw the minimum wage increase by 80c an hour. In Opposition he has opposed it being raised by $5 an hour and his only contribution was to try to sack people after 90 days. Well he should be grateful that that law did not apply to members of Parliament in the 1990s because his career has been such an utter dismal failure that after 90 days in 1996 National would have wanted to get rid of him. 
Ron Mark 
: His wage went up. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Mark is quite right. The wages of the National Party MPs have gone up every single year that Labour has been in Government—every single year. Their taxes get cut on 1 October. 
Some of those members have business interests and those taxes went down on 1 April. I know that Mr Tisch is a businessman; I know that he has business interests. Mr Tisch voted against taxes coming down for businesses. Mr Tisch ought to do one decent honourable thing: he should get out his cheque book write out the difference in the tax rates and pay the 33c rate on his business tax this year because he voted for a higher rate of business tax in this Parliament than a Labour Government will achieve. So Mr Tisch should be honest about it and pay the difference seeing that his vote in this Parliament did not follow his financial interest. 
Right around the world Governments populations and communities are facing troubles. This is true. Oil prices are making an impact on the country and on communities food prices are hitting people and it does not matter whether the masthead on the newspaper is in the 
 Kapiti Observer 
 the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
 the  
Washington Post 
 the  
Guardian 
 or even papers throughout the Far East or Asia—all of the headlines are the same. Food and fuel prices are causing problems. During those times people look to who has the experience who has the judgment and who has the record to lead them through those periods. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s absolutely right Darren. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Dr Mapp is interjecting like crazy. I want to know why he is busy in Parliament tonight interjecting on me instead of being upstairs at a seminar on the role that traders are playing in keeping food and oil prices high. I think that he knows somebody quite well who could give him an explanation about why some of these commodity prices are being kept artificially high for ordinary working people. Those involved in the financial scene and the global economy are making a lot of money at the present time off the back of these future markets. I wonder whether that is a question a discussion a debate or a raised eyebrow that might have come up from time to time in the National Party caucus. I think that those members know one or two traders who know one or two things about trading in these commodity items and I think they ought to look at that. 
One of the big things we hear about at the present time is National members going around the country saying that it is time for a change. In this debate we have 3 hours where we have a wide-ranging debate. Our ordinary business is suspended so that we can talk about the financial state of the Government and the financial affairs of our country. One would think that during that time the National Party could answer this one question that Labour MPs have for them: change to what? That is the key question that we put to the Opposition. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: More growth more jobs and more prosperity. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Dr Mapp says “more jobs”. More jobs have been created under this Labour Government in 1 year than were created under 9 years of the right-wing ideology that confronted our country when National was in power. National went down the track of the far-right ideology that they would return to again. 
I know that the National Party likes a little bit of copyright fraud. I know that it likes to play the occasional song from a Coldplay DVD that does not quite line up with international copyright laws. But those members are going a step too far when in effect they corrupt Senator Barack Obama’s message. He is out there saying “change you can believe in”. The National Party is going out there saying “change you cannot believe in” because nobody can believe that the change the National Party is talking about would benefit working families in our country at all. How do I know that? I know that because the policies that have been the most popular in this country and that have had the biggest effect on this country in terms of making it a better fairer and more inclusive place have all been opposed by the National Party in the beginning. 
I ask Dr Richard Worth who is sitting in the back row—which seems an appropriate place for him—whether he voted against the KiwiSaver 40 times. 
Shane Ardern 
: No; definitely not. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Yes he did. Yet the National Party will in the end presumably turn up at the election with a policy in favour of KiwiSaver. I tell people not to believe it and here is why. Bill English has started changing the tone of his language and we all know what a great strategist Bill English is. Bill English is the great man of the National Party. The “born to rule” arrogance of 21 percent and falling is what Bill English achieved but somehow he has those members in his grip again. How National members fell for it the first time was a mystery to Labour but like the sheep they are they have fallen for it a second time. They have allowed Bill English and the folks that surround him to colonise the National Party once again. It is a delight to watch. Once again we saw in question time today which was delayed because of the Zimbabwe motion that the Leader of the Opposition could not ask his own question so he got Mr Bill English to ask it. We saw again those glory days—2001 to 2003—and why that man could not be the Leader of the Opposition. 
However Bill English somehow has control of the internal National Party machine again. He said that the current world economic situation creates an opportunity for a Government to look at things afresh again. I thought to myself as a student of political history that we have heard that before. The National Party in 1990 campaigned on one set of policies and then it got into office and said: “Well woe betide me. Things are a little different from what we thought. We will have to have a 180-degree different policy agenda to the one we just campaigned on.” Bill English is laying the bones of that right now with the strategy of having National members not mentioning any policy lest they scare off anyone by telling them they will raise doctors’ fees like Tony Ryall did last year. Those members are hiding all of that because it might not be very popular. 
Then National decided to adopt the approach of saying that the world economy creates a position for an incoming Government to look at things a little differently. That puts KiwiSaver at risk. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh Dr Mapp says “Rubbish!”. Well let us wait and see what happens. Just because Kate Wilkinson told the country the truth it does not necessarily mean that the rest of the caucus plans to do that. 
The Working for Families package which means that a lot of this country’s families pay no tax on their income at all so that they can do the most important job of all which is to raise children is one of the things that our supplementary estimates will support in this bill. We have cheaper doctors’ visits. If Labour had not become the Government in 1999 then doctors’ fees would be double what they are today. Yet National members put out a discussion document where they said that doctors’ fees would go up because they would remove the cap. Then they did not want to talk about that any more and they have gone silent at the moment. 
Then the granddaddy of them all was interest-free student loans. Let me ask Dr Mapp whether he campaigned in favour of or in opposition to interest-free student loans at the last election. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I didn’t campaign on that issue. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He says that he did not campaign on that issue. That will not be correct. I will be asking the  
North Shore Times  
what he said about that and for fun I will take it to the Privileges Committee—for fun alone I will drag it to Parliament’s powerful Privileges Committee. 
Let me ask Chris Tremain about this. Chris Tremain is the kind of MP who would follow the book entirely. I can guarantee that Chris Tremain would never think an original thought of his own. He would follow whatever head office said. I ask Chris Tremain whether he was in support of or in opposition to interest-free student loans at the last election. 
Chris Tremain 
: I was against it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He was against it at the last election. At the next election will he campaign for it or against it? 
Chris Tremain 
: You’re not here to question me. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh he said he was for it. He is in favour of it for this election. This is great. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why don’t you talk about your policies? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Interest-free student loans are our policy I say to Dr Mapp. That is the whole point. This policy is the Labour-led Government’s policy. The National Party in Opposition bereft of any ideas or principles turns up holus-bolus at the xerox machine to copy Labour’s policy. I tell those members to show us the whites of their eyes. We will have a campaign on that and we will beat them fair and square. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Was that not a brave face from a lost soul over there? He said he is proud to be in a Government that is going down the tubes has lost the confidence of New Zealanders and has squandered its opportunities. This Government has no idea about what makes the world go round. It has no idea about innovation about entrepreneurship or about growing the cake so that some of it can be redistributed. It wants to do its redistribution after it has taken taxes from people. 
I want to refer to an organisation set up by this Government some years ago—namely the Small Business Advisory Group or “SBAG” as it is called. On 26 March I asked the Minister when the Small Business Advisory Group would present its 2007 annual report. His reply was: “I am advised that the Small Business Advisory Group does not produce an annual report.” Technically that may be right but on 7 April the Small Business Advisory Group put out its 2007 report. It is a very very comprehensive document. It contains 16 recommendations which it put before this Government for its consideration. It came out before the Budget not since. And guess what—not one of those 16 recommendations are included in the Government’s Budget. 
The previous year the group had 19 recommendations. But guess what—not one was implemented by this Government. Last year when the group decided it would critique the performance of this Government it gave it 4.5 out of 10. [ 
Interruption 
] We are just waiting to see what the group’s critique on the Government will be this time around because now that the Budget is out and now that we have the group’s report I can say having spoken to many of those who are part of the Small Business Advisory Group that they are not impressed one little bit with this Government. So why set up an organisation whose purpose is to advise on matters pertaining to small business? 
We are a nation of small businesses. We have close to 450000 small businesses. That is a big segment of our community. We have a Government organisation made up of people who are in business who know what it is to invest and who know how to take the hard knocks. They want to make an impression on and a commitment to their communities and they want to employ staff yet this Government just kicks them in the teeth. The Small Business Advisory Group made 16 recommendations and not one of them has been implemented. 
Here I have an article from  
NZBusiness 
 which states: “It’s time for action.” It gives some of the recommendations that were articulated at the time. But I think it is very salutary to note the last comment in this document. It says that the Small Business Advisory Group provides a useful voice for small to medium sized enterprises and that it is however limited in scope and influence. It goes on to say that it is better than no voice at all since New Zealand politicians rarely talk openly about the importance of small to medium sized enterprises to the country whereas in Australia and the United States for example senior politicians discuss the importance of them often. It also says that the lack of open support for small to medium sized enterprises is a sad indictment on our politicians and shows up the woeful level of business knowledge and experience in their ranks. Well—that article sums up where this Government is. It does not understand— 
Chris Tremain 
: Minus four. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes it will get a score in the minuses. 
I have here an article dated 22 May which states: “Small business calls on Government to do more”. The cries are coming out for this Government to take notice of this very important part of our community. If we want to grow the cake and have wealth so that everyone does better and if we want to lift New Zealand’s living standards instead of dropping from number 20 in the OECD to number 22 then we have to be enterprising in what we do. That did not come out in the Budget. 
The previous speaker talked about reducing the business tax rate to 30 percent. Well most of those 450000 small businesses are not companies. Sure the company tax rate came down from 33 to 30 percent but most small businesses are sole traders or partnerships. What happened to them? Their tax rate stayed the same. It stayed at 33 percent or 39 percent. So when the previous speaker tells people to write out a cheque because they are in business I can tell him that maybe companies might do OK with a reduction to 30 percent—that is what Australia has. But we have to remember that as a nation of small businesses most of our small business entrepreneurs are actually sole traders or partnerships. 
So here we are trying to lift New Zealand’s living standards and our performance has to be smarter than in the past. Australia and Ireland have moved their living standards up. Dr Cullen said in the Budget debate that we needed 4 percent growth. Then he acknowledged that we will get only 2.5 percent over the next 4 years. How can we have growth of 4 percent when he acknowledges that will be only 2.5 percent? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s a failure. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a failure. That is evidenced today by so many who are deciding to make their fortunes offshore. Every week 800 Kiwis are deciding to go to Australia.  
Chris Auchinvole 
: I wonder why. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We know why. The reason is that this underperforming Government does not take notice of or recognise the contribution these people can make. Another 40000-odd have decided to go elsewhere. There will be many in this Chamber who know of folk and young people who have decided to go offshore. Both my children live and work in London. They are not just on an OE; they have decided that that is where they will make their home. I want them back here. I want them to contribute. They are part of the brain drain. You see of the 80000-odd who have decided to go offshore 80 percent are under 40 years of age. They are the ones we should be retaining. They are the great contributors to any economy. They are the ones who have decided to go offshore. Out of that 80 percent who are under 40 years of age 40 percent have tertiary qualifications. They are the ones the taxpayers of the country have put through our tertiary institutions. We have become the nursery for the world. We are the ones who are providing the people with the wherewithal and they are going to make their contribution elsewhere. 
National believes that these people are important. We want them back. Our policies will be around making our environment globally competitive. That is what we want. We want an economy that will prosper and grow the cake. That is what we want. We want to have a tax system that is fair and equitable. We want a tax system that caters for people across the board not just for a few. We want higher standards in education. If we are to grow and prosper then we must have higher standards in education. We want to build opportunities for everybody. That is what we want. We want that fairness and equity. 
I am ambitious for New Zealand. National is ambitious for New Zealand. We have a great future ahead of us. We have lost the opportunities of the last 9 years. This Government is down the road. People are looking for some new ideas for some energy and commitment and that is what they will get from a National Government in a few months’ time. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In my electorate of Tamaki Makaurau the appropriations that relate to the expenses incurred and capital expenditure for 2007-08 are not what people are talking about. The loss of three lives in South Auckland in as many weeks is what is on their minds. What is on their minds is the impact of the number of liquor outlets the pervasive harm inflicted by P—methamphetamine—the hopeless grip of unemployment for some and the relentless fear of street violence and gangs. If it is not the wave of crime that occupies their waking thoughts it is the skyrocketing price of petrol rising food costs and the prevalence of loan sharks and pokie outlets that prey upon the more vulnerable members of their communities. It is the struggle to survive the pressure of housing costs and the impact of fuel poverty where households need to spend at least 10 percent or more of their income to keep their homes warm. For these people a contestable fund for deployment of marine energy devices will mean little in their day-to-day lives nor will the projected movements in net assets for each department and Office of Parliament. That is not to say we in the Maori Party should not be scrutinising the appropriations by which Parliament authorises the Government to incur expenses and capital expenditure. Indeed the situation and environment in South Auckland propels us even more strongly into ensuring that Parliament is authorising what the people need. 
In schedule 3 of the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill we find the Community Partnership Fund under Vote Community and Voluntary Sector. Will this new investment enable the community change we require? Will it address what editorials have described as the signs of a deep social malaise the dangers of our indifference? How will the Community Partnership Fund restore hope to those inhabiting the suburban wastelands those individuals whom we describe as brutally alienated people? Tapu Misa challenges us to all consider these suburban scenarios with more compassion taking up the collective challenge to care. She said: “It’s easier not to care for those in prison for the children of beneficiaries for the poor if they look different from us if we can blame their failings on race or define them as the underclass.” Is this where we have come to as a community as a nation—that we withdraw from one another each becoming the nameless faceless and feared stranger to the other? It is easy to dismiss blame reject and imprison; easy to rob harm and kill. 
What will allow us to reconnect? What will allow us to care about other people’s children as much as we care about our own; to care rather than simply stop and stare? We protest against the thugs on the mean streets. We talk up large on zero tolerance. We call for tougher sentencing we create petitions to allow parents to physically assault their children in the name of discipline and still we complain that New Zealand is too soft on offending. The Maori Party will not collude in the fierce battle as to who can be tougher meaner and more punitive in dealing to crime. We truly believe that the answers lie in working together to make our homes streets neighbourhoods and communities safer. The solutions lie in creating more caring places in which to live. Our urban jungles fenced off by high walls and thick bushes leading into dead-end cul-de-sacs make for great places to hide and even greater places to fear. Of course better environmental design would have helped but we cannot wait for the town planners and the architects to make the change we know is necessary now. Our care can make our communities more caring. We need to restore faith in our suburbs that we have the resources within ourselves to watch out for each other to keep our kids safe to strengthen the sense of community. If the Community Partnership Fund can do that the investment will be well spent. A community leadership fund might be even better. 
The other key appropriation in this light is to Vote Internal Affairs with the Significant Community Based Projects Fund. The Maori Party is committed to supporting what we call opportunity communities. Opportunity communities are those that have never had the opportunity to reach their potential. Opportunity communities of course are not just those in our urban suburbs that are subjected to high levels of poverty and then left to deal with the fall-out. Opportunity communities also respond to the short-sighted policy that stigmatised some 259 locations throughout Aotearoa as limited employment locations or no-go zones. The limited employment locations policy introduced in 2004 was primarily to instigate sanctions against unemployment beneficiaries so that if they move to such locations they may risk losing their benefits. Yet as research from Gabriel Kiddle revealed one of the primary findings of a case study based in Opotiki was that for Maori beneficiaries who chose to move to these so-called limited employment locations the importance of home was uppermost in their motivations. For these beneficiaries the opportunity they were seeking in returning home was a desire to maximise their living standards and to take advantage of the social family and cultural networks of their whanau hapu and iwi. The series  
The New Migration 
 
currently on Maori Television explores in depth what a younger generation is seeking when they leave homes and jobs in the cities and return to their roots to their turangawaewae and also the very real contribution they make to their tribal communities and to future generations. Yet ironically the opportunities they desired were being denied to them through decisions made at the centre to punish them by means of economic deprivation. 
When the Maori Party comes to the supplementary estimates bill we seek a commitment that community-based investment can be used to advance opportunity communities. We seek an assurance that the unique social and cultural resources of communities may be considered as providing the viable infrastructure for developing greater economic potential. It was pleasing yesterday to learn of the support of more than $400000 being promised by the New Zealand Bankers’ Association to help fund a trial programme on financial literacy in schools. We would hope that the Community Partnership Fund and the Significant Community Based Projects Fund could come alongside of the country’s banks to enable a more comprehensive community-owned investment in financial education. 
Finally I was saddened by an article published yesterday in  
The Aucklander 
 entitled Neighbourhood Botch” which demonstrated how people are losing their sense of security by the reality of neighbourhoods facing inwards and failing to watch out for each other. A member of the Manurewa Crime Watch Patrol Toa Greening remarked that trying to make a difference out there on the streets is like a drop of water in a raging ocean. If I could say one thing to all our brave heroes out on the street our caring neighbours our watchful whanau it would be to remind us of the expression: “Tera tatou te pohehe he patuwai noa iho tatou i te moana o te ora engari tera taua moana te memeha iho mo te kore o aua patuwai; there are those of us who believe that we are just drops in the ocean but that ocean would be nothing but for those drops.” Each tiny drop makes a difference—it does make a difference. The challenge on us all is to make sure that it receives the support it needs to change the tide and to make the difference that we all seek and desire. Tena koe. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I am glad that Mr Ardern is looking forward to my speech as well—but probably not quite as much as I am to giving it. I was interested in Dr Cullen’s opening remarks where he described the New Zealand economy as beginning to feel the effects of what is quite clearly a challenging global economic environment. He described the global increases in commodity prices—the cost of food and petrol is increasing significantly here at home and internationally—and obviously there are fears that those increases could impoverish tens of millions of people in developing countries. There is the continued fall-out from the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States and the resulting global credit crunch. Those have led to higher mortgage rates and a weakening of the housing market domestically squeezing the budgets of existing homeowners and reducing household spending and investment growth. 
Two other factors are worth noting. One is the weakness of the US dollar which has been an important driver of a very strong New Zealand dollar until very recently and that has made life very difficult as we know for some exporters. Finally farmers have been battling drought in a number of regions and GDP growth will clearly have to slow as a result of that phenomenon in particular. 
Although those challenges are not of New Zealand’s making they are clearly affecting a wide range of New Zealanders today. The challenges we face are significant but the New Zealand economy faces them from a position of remarkable and one might even say unprecedented strength. Our recent Budget enhances the public investment in education health care the social agencies and other important services and I am very proud of it. Through that Budget it can be said quite fairly that we are addressing both the pressures of today which I have just described in part and the needs of future years. 
This Government has managed the public purse responsibly and it has not squandered resources in times of great optimism. [ 
Interruption 
] It is always a pleasure to have Dr Mapp agree with my sentiments. We have seen 345000 more jobs created. We should be very proud of that record I say to Dr Mapp; there are 345000 more jobs giving more families a stake in our economy. Unemployment has fallen by more than half and it has stayed at below 4 percent for over 4 years. One hundred and forty thousand fewer people are relying on a working-age benefit child poverty rates are falling dramatically and inequalities in health outcomes are finally starting to narrow after the 9 years of investment that this Government has made in that sector. 
All of that strong economic growth has now allowed us to fund increases in superannuation that have seen married pensioners more than $30 a week better off. That means that fewer of our seniors are living in poverty and that is a very good thing. We have also been able to reform the welfare provisions in order to promote employment and that combined with the strong economy that we have enjoyed over the last few years has seen us achieve the lowest unemployment ever recorded and a 25 percent increase in real household incomes. Those are achievements to be very proud of and they have allowed us as a Government to reduce the cost of seeing the doctor and getting a standard prescription to expand access to health services screening and immunisation to provide 20 hours’ free early childhood education to control the cost of tertiary education; and to build thousands of new State houses while restoring income-related rents for them. 
We have also begun a major assault on income inequality in retirement through using KiwiSaver which has seen huge numbers of young and low-income workers start to save for the future—never mind those predictions that there be middle-class capture of that programme; we are seeing Kiwis from all walks of life enrol which is something to be incredibly proud of. The total number of people in KiwiSaver has now passed 67000 after just 10 months of the scheme’s operation. 
Shane Ardern 
: Will they be able to afford to keep paying? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: “Will they be able to afford to keep paying?” asks Mr Ardern. Let us hope so because the more people we have saving for their retirement the better it will be for them and for the country. 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s less likely if National cancels the employer contribution. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is right. If we saw the employer contribution cancelled which we understand is the policy of members opposite what a devastating thing that would be to KiwiSaver. 
It is useful to contrast the record I have described with that of members opposite. I was really interested to read what Gordon Campbell had to say on the Scoop site yesterday. I want to read a little of what he had to say. John Key says National has its first 100 days in Government planned out should it win the election. What exactly does John Key have planned? Because he is not telling Kiwis. Campbell says: “Economic uncertainty is National’s latest rationale for why they are not releasing their main policy positions and costings until the election campaign has virtually begun. Off hand it is hard to think of a serious pretender to government in any other modern democracy that could get away with concealing the nature and cost of their policies for so long merely because it suits them tactically to do so.” 
Campbell goes on to observe: “A week ago … as No Right Turn pointed out the  
NZ Herald 
” had 
Mr Key “being voted the country’s sexiest politician and … Nelson MP Nick Smith getting engaged by writing his ‘Will you marry me?’ proposal in the sand with a stick. Spare us. Early this month National claimed to have already released some 14 count ’em 14 policies. Yet apart from its $1.5 billion promise to roll out broadband by 2012 none have any costings attached—a rather essential ingredient if voters are to judge how affordable the ‘policies’ are and the levels of debt that may be required to finance them. Counted on the list of 14 is the vague promise that by 2050 National will (somehow no details provided) reduce New Zealand’s carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050”—never mind the opposition to the emissions trading scheme—“and equally vague promises to adopt Labour’s nuclear free policy and to continue … [the] policy of targeting aid to the Pacific.” 
Campbell says: “Given the virtual information blackout National has imposed about its plans it would be surprising if fears about its hidden agendas  
didn’t 
 arise. Frankly it seems (a) scary and (b) infuriating to be this close to a possible change of government without National being willing to tell us how it proposes to care for the sick fund schools and universities manage the workplace protect the environment and run the economy. Just what has it got in its policy kitbag that it needs to hide?” 
In conclusion all I can say is that I hope Kiwis do not get too caught up in the media’s promotion of the “time for a change” agenda because with National and its policy vacuum all that would mean would be the taking of a great leap into the dark. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise tonight to take a call on the Appropriations (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill particularly following after one of the “brightest stars” to quote various newspapers write-ups when the member who has just resumed his seat came into the House. I say to that member that he came about 5 or 6 years too early because he is destined for a long period in Opposition and he would have been better serving his time back in his law practice. 
I say to the House that I have searched the Estimates to find the new initiatives and investments in the areas relating to the portfolio I am in charge of as the National Party spokesperson—biosecurity and forestry—and I have not been able to find them. In the past 5 years there have been 254 new incursions of unwanted organisms into New Zealand. In 2007 there were 157467 biosecurity-risk goods that were seized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That is good; we know they have caught those ones. But they themselves will tell us that at best in their own audit 10 percent get through. There were 4669 fines issues and 71 percent of those were given to visitors to this country. So where in the Estimates was there any extra funding to stop this flood of biosecurity risks coming into New Zealand? Where are the initiatives to raise instant fines to a level that shows we actually take our clean green environment and the protection of our health and economy seriously? I have not been able to find them. I am sure someone will take a call after me and explain where they are—they are simply just not there. 
I say to the member who has just resumed his seat Charles Chauvel that the reason we have seen the growth rates that he spoke of in this country is simply because of the growth within the primary production sector of the economy—the agricultural sector—which is so vulnerable to these incursions. 
There is no money in this Budget for combating didymo. It looks to me that this new organism has been given immigration clearance to settle in New Zealand. Ninety-four waterways in the South Island are confirmed as being infected by this organism. That is the latest information that I have been given. I would not have a clue as to whether that is accurate but the figure is likely to be higher because of the way the organism has travelled across the country. Treasury estimated some years ago that eradicating didymo could cost $285 million. I suspect that if didymo hits the North Island the figure could double or even treble—who knows. 
As for the varroa mite well that is a fiasco if there ever was one. While the Minister procrastinated about whether to try to eliminate varroa in the South Island Rome was burnt so to speak and it spread at a rate that the Government could not keep up with. The line in the South Island moved steadily down the island and as was predicted the cost has now exceeded $300 million. Cabinet said to the Minister for Biosecurity that there was no guarantee that he could stop this movement at the border so it would just have to accept that this would spread across New Zealand. And it was right because if we look at this Minister’s track record in this area I think we see that Cabinet made the right decision. His record is woeful. 
Styela clava 
 or sea squirt as it is commonly known is now being discovered in the new Marsden marina and it is widely established in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf. Is there any money for dealing with this in the Estimates? Well I cannot find it; it is not there—it definitely cannot be seen. Apparently there is no hope that this  
Styela clava 
 will be cleared up. It appears to me that there is an open border for many of that family’s relatives to be imported into this county and to be established here. 
I looked seriously at this Budget in regard to training money because this is a major area in biosecurity. We have had a mass exodus of skilled and trained personnel in this area—in science and in other aspects of our biosecurity portfolio area—and nothing has been allocated. 
We recently had the fiasco of coco peat from Sri Lanka where 28 new weed species were imported into New Zealand and established throughout the nurseries in our country. This will come as a surprise to the Labour Government but we are a pastoral nation. We depend on our ability to grow pastures in this country in order for a large part of our economy to be competitive and here we have 28 new weed species that are likely to require huge amounts of chemicals and other such substances to control them. Yet when we look in the Budget to see what was allocated we find to our surprise that in 2002 MAF Biosecurity conducted an assessment of this proposed import health standard—that is for importing this coco peat into New Zealand from Sri Lanka—and it found that there was no import health standard as such. It found that there was no reason as to why the status quo could not continue. If that is not short-sightedness in the light of the recent incursions then what is? Here was a chance to address the problem and nothing was done. It is a mess and the appropriations for 2007 will not help for the simple reason that one needs a Minister for Biosecurity who actually takes the matter seriously. At the moment we are clearly lacking in that area. 
A question was asked about whether the allowances for biosecurity surveillance and incursion response within Budget 2008 were expected to be adequate based on current expected activity levels. It is an important question because there is an expectation that under Minister Anderton there will be more incursions—hence the need for more incursion-response money. There will be a need for more surveillance because it all seems to sit around what can be found at the border before it takes hold here. The reality is that there is a little bit of extra funding there but it is so minuscule in relation to the increased trade and activity going on in this area that clearly it will be inadequate. 
That leads me to another portfolio that Minister Anderton is in charge of which is forestry. I would not be surprised if he did not want to remember he is the Minister of Forestry as he does not have a proud record to be remembered for. Here is an example of the headlines: “Worst deforestation figures in 50 years revealed”. “The worst ever loss of 13600 hectares of forest last year is a disaster for the environment and makes a mockery of Labour’s climate change commitments …” to being a carbon-neutral nation. It continues: “New Zealand proudly planted more trees than it felled every year from 1951 until 2003 building a forestry resource of 1.9 hectares of trees.” Then what happened? The Government made a policy announcement that it would drag this industry into an area where there was huge uncertainty in terms of investment and we had what has been dubbed the chainsaw massacre of 3.4 million trees with no sign of any abatement in that. What steps in the Budget— 
Hon David Parker 
: Yes it has. It’s virtually stopped this year. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues says that it stopped this year. He said in the House about a week ago that about 250000 hectares of new forest would be planted. I want to know where in the Budget there is anything that will bring about that kind of massive change. When I speak to members of the industry about what has brought about this massive deforestation they say that they have tried to set up new processing plants here but they come up against the Resource Management Act. They say they look at how they could get around that and invest in this country because they can grow pine trees and other exotics here quicker than anywhere else in the world but there is too much uncertainty and too much cost and delay under the Resource Management Act process and in terms of depreciation levels compared with other nations. They say there is too much unreliability in the energy supply and when they proposed putting in cogeneration using the waste material from their own industry there was once again too much cost and delay under the Resource Management Act. The list goes on and the Minister says: “Well we’ve halted the chainsaw massacre.” It used to be that this country grew more trees every year than it cut down. I ask the Minister what happened to that proposal. 
This Government has failed in both of the portfolio areas I have mentioned. Its ambition to become carbon neutral is nothing more than the same hollow rhetoric we heard when the Prime Minister said that she wanted to lift New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD yet we have gone down. The Government’s approach to the economy full stop not just in the two areas I have spoken about is absolutely woeful and we know that when we hear member after member trying to defend what cannot be defended as we have heard in this House from recent speakers in the debate. This Government is tired it is on its way out and the election cannot come soon enough. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future in this debate and in the 5 minutes that I have I want to focus on looking at the money that has been announced for tertiary students. The Budget contained $130.8 million worth of additional funding over 4 years to improve access by tertiary students to a living allowance. One of the things that has amused me over the last few years is that most of us currently in this House represent the generation that got its tertiary education pretty much for free. In fact some of us were paid to be trained. We are now the generation that chooses to impose quite enormous costs on our children and the following generations for the very selfsame privilege. 
New Zealand tertiary students are the only sector in society that is required to borrow to live. This discrimination is not based on age gender or race but is based on the intention of an individual to improve his or her contribution to New Zealand society. People who go on to the unemployment benefit are not asked where they live—whether they live at home with mum and dad or are out on their own. No one will ask them how much their parents earn. We are very happy for people to fill out the forms to provide them with a living allowance. But as soon as people want to do something productive for their future and the good of the country then we sting them hard. One other interesting factor is that the parents of these students are not entitled to Working for Families credits even though they are still financially held accountable for their upkeep. 
I want to be clear that United Future’s overall policy is for a universal living allowance for students although we acknowledge we are not the only party in Parliament that would support that change. This year as part of our supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government we negotiated a lowering in the age limit for student allowances against parental income testing by 1 year—from 25 years to 24 years. That change will benefit about 5000 students in the first year and about the same number each year. That change for students was not the only one announced by the Government and we acknowledge the other additional gains. There was the welcome 10 percent increase in parental income thresholds for full student allowances from 1 January 2009 but in respect of that policy gain we have to recognise that eventually it will be overtaken by inflationary creep. So students will be back asking for those thresholds to be readdressed. But when we drop the age limit we put in place something that is much more long term and will not be undermined by things like inflation. 
For United Future that is a step towards a principle that we believe in and we believe it to be in the best interests of New Zealand. It is also a step towards a long-term solution which we believe would be a universal student living allowance. We believe also that future Governments could explore much more the way the country should invest in the long-term outcomes of New Zealand tertiary students and ultimately to see a better return for taxpayers. Currently taxpayers are trying to reconcile the number of graduates exiting New Zealand against workforce shortages which are a concern. We think there are a number of attractive options around bonding and debt write-offs that should continue to be explored and used particularly if we want to reduce the workforce shortages in essential professional services. We believe also that we should be looking strongly at the accommodation allowances given and we need to make sure that those are better matched to the rental environments in each separate university city. 
United Future welcomes this additional money but believes that it is merely a step in the right direction and that much more must be considered. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I advise members that the call for the member will be 5 minutes. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe ki a koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e hoa ma. I rise to contribute to this debate by referring to Vote Treaty Negotiations. In doing so I acknowledge the importance of this moment set between the first readings of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill earlier today and the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill tomorrow. It is indeed a day to be thinking about the effectiveness of the departmental output expenses the policy advice the Waitangi Tribunal representation and the Crown contributions. 
Since the settlement process began there have been grave concerns about the process itself the terms of settlement the amount set aside for the settlements and the agency charged with managing settlements. Those concerns have come from nearly all claimants and their lawyers from all parts of the country. This afternoon in the case of Te Arawa I spoke of how the preservation of tribal relations was adversely affected how hapu were in contest with other hapu and how the interests of overlapping hapu were threatened. That clearly is not a fitting outcome for the Crown’s investment in Treaty negotiations. We also heard about the results of the departmental output expenses. The tribunal found that the Office of Treaty Settlements failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations process. The Office of Treaty Settlements was shown to have failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties. It was noted that the Office of Treaty Settlements did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. That too is clearly not an effective use of the Crown accounts. But the good news is that the landscape has changed with Dr Cullen’s approach and that is to be applauded. 
A huge amount of emotion comes with reaching a settlement: the power and the passion of the people in having finally achieved a point in their long journey towards self-determination. We understand that as with Te Arawa today there is a wish to move forwards and we in the Maori Party fully recognise that desire. We know that the divisions and the conflicts of the settlement process have taken an enormous toll—and because of it the longing for resolution is intense. Our people yearn for the restoration of respectful relationships to repair the damage that has been done. But the healing will not occur when there are still groups left behind or forgotten. Healing will not occur when the Crown alone determines the rules under which negotiations take place. Resolution will not result when some negotiators have felt the Crown has used its dominant position to control the entire negotiations process and had an adversarial approach. 
So we in the Maori Party look to a different future a future where the Maori Party has the influence and impact on the Treaty settlement process that our people are calling for. And what would that look like? For a start we would promote the concept of sitting kanohi ki te kanohi—face to face—and having discussions chief to chief. Negotiations should take place between equally resourced and informed parties ideally on a level playing field with full disclosure of information at the outset of proceedings. Another bone of contention has been the inadequate level of resourcing that is associated with the negotiations process. The fact that all groups are required to pay for their own mandating expenses before the Crown even agrees to negotiate with them creates a level of injustice and hardship before one even gets to the table. Claimant funds should be reviewed and increased so that the opportunity for development is indeed not compromised. 
The questions of who has permission to enter discussions with the Crown and of who purports to speak for the hapu before and during negotiations are of huge interest for hapu and iwi. That needs to be sorted out early. Similarly where there are issues of cross-claims we believe that those can be sorted out by discussion and before we get to a settlement so they do not come back to haunt the process later on down the line. There have been other issues with regard to the Crown negotiating directly with large natural groups of iwi and hapu to the detriment of smaller hapu whose claims have been lost or ignored by the larger claim. 
The Maori Party looks forward to being able to put our experiences of being on both sides of the table—as members of Parliament and as members of whanau hapu and iwi—to good use after the next election in the interests of the durability of future settlements and the long-term path to nationhood. Kia ora tatou. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 While hard-working Kiwis throughout New Zealand have struggled this Government has become a bloated bureaucracy. Over the past 8 years the Government bureaucracy has grown out of all proportion to those parts of the State sector that actually serve the public. That is a real concern and a very real issue. How do we know that? I will give members some examples. Since 2000 the number of teachers in State primary and secondary schools has grown by 12 percent and that is a good thing but over the same period the number of people employed in the various educational bureaucracies has grown by 40 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s wrong. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Clearly those on the Government benches are sitting up and taking notice. We have a figure of 12 percent as opposed to 40 percent and things are not getting any better. Last week the Government spent $52000 on badges; one of them says “Wassup!”. The schools said it was an absolute disgrace and a totally incompetent use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. These Government benchers are fiscally irresponsible. 
Going back to more about bureaucracy—[ 
Interruption 
] The member can say whatever he likes. Since 2000 the number of doctors and nurses employed by district health boards has grown by 28 percent but over the same period the number of people employed in the Ministry of Health has grown by 51 percent. It is no wonder patients are lining up in hospital corridors for days on end in some cases and not being seen and not having their needs addressed. The Government is failing those people in our health system. It is more interested in people producing plans rules and more and more paper that other people have to fill in just to justify their positions. The bureaucracy is incredibly bloated. Also since 2002 the service delivery part of the Ministry of Social Development namely Work and Income and Child Youth and Family has grown by 23 percent. That is the service delivery side and we are talking front line. But over the same period the policy analysis research and corporate units of the ministry have grown by a whopping 109 percent. 
Judith Collins has expressed her concern and the concern of National time and time again in this House about the loss of front-line staff as the Government builds up the bloated bureaucracy in Government departments. We are losing all those good people who deal with those much-needed cases who work at the front line and look after those people on the front line. Does this Government care? No it does not care because it keeps on doing it. It just cannot seem to get it under control. Treasury reports show that between 2000 and 2006 employment in Government departments that mainly provide services grew by 34 percent while employment in policy departments grew by 72 percent. 
Talking of policy departments let us take the Ministry of Education. I received an answer from the Minister of Education to a parliamentary question. He said that yes it does have common sense and adherence to policy. Quite frankly the ministry cannot do both and it is quite clear from the changes the ministry is proposing to the school bus run from Tairua and Pauanui to Thames for the students who go to Thames High School. Right now at no extra cost to the ministry the bus goes about an extra 10 kilometres to pick up students to take them to Thames High School and the ministry wants to can that. Why would it want to do that? The ministry is being saved money because the bus company out of the goodness of its heart is taking on the extra cost. 
The bus picks up students from Tairua rather than somewhere out in the wop-wops on a State highway where the speed is 100 kilometres an hour. Bearing in mind the safety and the convenience the bus goes into Tairua to pick up these students. What is happening? The Ministry of Education wants to change that. It wants to stomp all over that. It wants to deny those parents and those students their place of educational choice. The ministry is now thumping all over it and the Minister says “Oh yes we consider common sense and adherence to policy.” in the same breath. What a load of codswallop. How fiscally irresponsible is that? We really have to wonder whether the Minister knows how to add. 
We can talk about lots of percentages all over the place but to get a picture of the whole State sector we need to look at survey data from the quarterly employment survey and that shows that since 2000 the number of bureaucrats has grown from 26200 to 36000. That is tantamount to around 10000 more bureaucrats in Government between 2000 and 2008. If that is not bloated bureaucracy I do not know what is. This Government just cannot seem to get a handle on that. It thinks it knows how to manage money. We would not see householders doing that because they are struggling. They could not afford that bloatedness. They are appalled at the growth in bureaucracy. That growth in the number of bureaucrats represents a 37 percent increase. Over the same period the number of other State sector employees grew by only 10 percent. 
In addition this survey shows that the number of jobs in the economy as a whole grew by 22 percent which means that bureaucrats are increasing as a proportion of the total New Zealand workforce. We now have a situation where one in 50 workers in the economy is a bureaucrat. I do not see that as productive; how does that help us here in New Zealand? How does that help the small businesses that my excellent colleague Lindsay Tisch talked about before? How does that help them? How does it help the schools? There are more people in the Ministry of Education than there are out there on the front line teaching. What do they do? They create more bits of paper for the schools to fill in to justify the existence of those bureaucrats back in the departments. Why do they have to keep doing all of these safety assessments around the school buildings—how often is it every 6 months I understand? Why cannot that be dealt to? 
What is it about this Government that it just cannot seem to address that bloated bureaucracy? It is dreaming up more and more ways to pass costs paperwork and red tape on to every single organisation entity business and person. It is definitely out of control. It is not just the number of people in bureaucracy that has grown out of control it is also what they are paid. Kiwi households are tightening their belts and it is way past time that this Government tightened its belt as well. It needs to curb its excess of bloated bureaucracy but I cannot see any will on the part of this current Government to do that. 
That is something National will certainly do. We will make a difference and we will certainly curb that excess growth in Government bureaucrats. We will address the issues around compliance costs and red tape which are absolutely crippling small businesses and also crippling the ability of educational providers to provide the education they want to without constantly having to fill in bits of paper. We will certainly support the education sector and all of those people on the front line who provide those services. They are the ones who really matter not the ones who are sitting back in the office trying to justify their existence with more and more bits of paper. We will not be spending money on putting out little badges that say “Wassup!”. Schools are in dire need of extra funding and the Government has spent $52000 on little badges saying “Wassup!”. How good is that? What benefit is that? I agree with my most excellent colleagues Shane Ardern and Lindsay Tisch that we cannot wait for the election to come forward. Why does the Government not just announce the date and get it over with? We will all be happier. Then those members might get to hear some of the policy which they are absolutely hanging out for. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 That was like listening to an unmuffled chainsaw and about as interesting too. I ask that member: what do those 37 people paid for by the taxpayer in John Key’s office do? What does the webmaster do? Are they doing policy in that office or is it just spin? We would like to know and the taxpayers who fund it would like to know. 
I think I did hear a policy at the weekend from Simon Power of all people. He has been disallowed from saying anything since he made those stupid comments about the Americans. He said that the National Party is going to build a prison. That is a policy. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Where? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: He did not say where but that is a good question. I remember that when I was the Minister of Corrections I went to three different parts of the country. I remember the National Party MPs raging against the building of prisons anywhere near those places. Maybe those 37 people are thinking up policies that their mates will oppose. 
They try to be tough on law and order but we all remember the 540 jobs they were going to get rid of because of a certain failed computer system. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Were they bureaucrats? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: No no they were front-line police. Of course cardboard cut-outs would have been just as good and a computer that did not work would catch the crooks! 
So when we think about National members saying they are hard on law and order we remember them opposing the prisons in the South Island and the North Island—everywhere there was a prison to be built. We were building prisons at the beginning of our term of Government and the National Party members were opposing that and leading campaigns against them in their local communities. But no Simon Power let loose on the media at the weekend announced that National’s big answer to the law and order problems in New Zealand would be to build a prison somewhere. But he will not tell anybody where because people would oppose it and his mates in caucus would oppose it. 
I heard earlier in this debate some quite serious comments about the law and order issues. They were aimed in particular at the South Auckland community the place I was born in. It is a place I represent and am very proud of. I just want to point out that in this Government’s Budget we have been looking at communities like that and we have been doing some very serious things in our Budget. The $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts will help those communities. We are not like the National Party who would give the money to the rich. We are spreading it through the poorer paid New Zealanders the middle-income people and the families. That is why there is $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts. That is why there is $1.1 billion worth of increases to the Working for Families package. And we do not forget the elderly. We have a superannuation increase coming in October and in April and that will see a lot of superannuitants who rely on that Government superannuation for their everyday living better off by $45 a fortnight. 
We do not stop there. I heard a previous speaker going on about education. Well what is this Budget and this debate about? It is about our future. It is about what we spend in educating our young people. So whilst there was a bit of a complaint coming from some schools about the increase in the operations grant which is 5 percent what did we hear from the National Party spokesperson Anne Tolley? I ask that previous speaker over there to listen to this. Anne Tolley has said that there will be no extra funding for education on top of the cost of living. Is that 5 percent? Is that the 5 percent that we have not just promised but delivered on in this Budget? No it is not 5 percent. We know that it will be less than 4 percent. 
National members speak about the need to spend on education for the coming generations but we know—if they are to be relied upon and we cannot always do that because they change their minds so rapidly when they announce policies—that schools would have their funding cut under a National Government. We have given a 5 percent operations grant in this Budget on top of the significant funding increases that have gone in over the last few years. But the National Party is promising to do less. However it will give more to the private schools. It will be at the cost of our public sector schools. National will take money off them and give it to the private sector. 
Well I am waiting for the North Shore principals to say something about that. I am waiting for them to come out and roundly abuse the National Party for promising a cut in the operations grant because it would only be fair for them to do that. The schools have said that there is not enough money. I have been a board of trustees chair and I know there is never enough money. One is always wanting to do more for one’s school—for more computers new buildings new this and new that. That is why one gets elected to boards of trustees. That is why teachers and principals are in that profession. They want to do better. Let us be fair. If it is a case of 5 percent versus less than 4 percent I think that most people out there with any basic education would say that the better deal is coming from Labour. 
It does not stop there. We have a growing economy. We are up against some trends in the world that are very difficult. The whole world is suffering from the cost of oil the food shortage etc. But what is this Government looking at? Well we have a skills package of $168 million to lift literacy language and numeracy skills amongst the existing workforce as well as things such as apprenticeships and investment in tertiary education. We are saying that we want to invest in people who may have missed out along the way but who are badly needed in our workplaces. That is excellent spending I believe in terms of investing in the people from my community. 
So when I look at the issues in South Auckland and the crime that is in the headlines from time to time—which quite rightly upsets people—I think about what the Government is doing for those community organisations that are doing the work at the grassroots level. What is the Government doing for them? Well $446 million has been promised and some of that money is already on the way. We are making sure that those community organisations who deal with our young people our elderly people and those people in the community in need particularly in communities such as South Auckland will get fully funded for the first time in their history. 
That is what this Government is about. It is about growing the economy investing in the future through education and looking after those in need. Those communities that need more will get more from this Government. There is an extra $3 billion for health spending and $30 million is going into Healthy Homes. There is $180 million more for police and I can say that in communities like mine when someone picks up the telephone and says: “Look there are young people drinking in a park there’s a liquor ban there can you get out there and attend to it?” it happens. I can say that in my community that happens. In the community I represent the police are now resourced sufficiently to be able to get out there and do the work. They are out there lowering the crime figures in my community. They are dealing with some pretty tough streets and some pretty tough people but they are giving confidence back to a community that was low in confidence after the 1990s. 
We have more people in work and fewer people on benefits but we still have to mop up generational problems that have come through from the 1980s and 1990s because of economic reform and under-investment in the basic things such as education health and policing. One does not fix up those problems overnight. This Government believes in getting alongside the community using the police force to work with the community and helping the schools that struggle with low-income children who come to school without the best resources and without the best family background. We are succeeding and our communities in South Auckland are proud of what we are achieving. We do have our problems but they know they can count on this Government to give them the policing they deserve the housing they deserve the health services they pay for an education system that moves them upward and an economy that can withstand the buffering that is going on at the moment. 
I am proud to be part of this Government. I am not proud of the Opposition members who sit over there making up stories about the number of bureaucrats and attacking the Public Service as if it is evil. I know why we did not get anything built in the 1990s. It is because those members ran the Public Service down to the point that when I became the Minister of Transport I was told I would have to wait 3 4 or 5 years for the policy to be written let alone implemented. That is what one does when one runs down the Public Service—the infrastructure suddenly collapses and the education system falls apart. We saw that in the 1990s. We will never repeat that mistake. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call on the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and I am pleased to add my thoughts to a wide-ranging debate. But as this is also a bit of a reflective exercise looking back and a bit visionary looking forward I am also pretty disappointed—for this reason. 
For most of this last decade which has had the governance of this country in the hands of Labour we have known prosperity in New Zealand for a sustained period like we have not known probably since the gold rush of the 1860s. In terms of a period of sustained economic growth we have had an excellent opportunity. That is all it was it was an opportunity because what has happened now? Can we ask if we are being reflective what the governance of this country has done to lock us into a future of prosperity? We had all those slogans about moving to the top half of the OECD but they were merely slogans because nothing has been done to grow the economy. Oh yes the Government has grown its size of the operation. Since it came to power in 1998 it has shifted the Government spend from— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 1999. 
ERIC ROY 
: Sorry 1999. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: All the facts are wrong in this speech. 
ERIC ROY 
: No they are not. The member should check this one out. When the Labour Government came to power its spend was just under $37 billion and today it is about $62 billion. The Government understands that more money growth in its economy does things but why has it not mirrored that in the wider economy? 
I will give Labour a bit of advice. It is a bit disconsolate at the moment about where it is at in the polls. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh no! 
ERIC ROY 
: Well it will probably get worse unless the Government makes amends. Let me tell members why that is. During all of the period where we had excellent growth Labour members said: “It’s all us. It’s all what we’ve done. It’s our hand on the tiller. We’ve delivered this. We’ve lowered the number of unemployed. We’ve created this economy.” But now when it starts to go to custard we hear that this is due to external factors. 
The electorate that answers questions in the polls is not silly. People are simply saying that Labour cannot have it both ways. I am essentially disappointed that we have not locked into the New Zealand economy a growth mentality and put in place those things that reward individuals create ambition and create pathways to wealth that would set this country going for the next decade or so. That simply has not happened. 
What we get on a regular basis from Labour is: “Where is your policy?”. Well whenever we release policy Labour ignores it or adopts it for itself if it is any good— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh no! 
ERIC ROY 
: —like it did with the charitable donations policy I say to Mr Swain. Let me give members one piece of policy right now and then I will expand on it. I have just listened to the Hon Mark Gosche asking where we will get the extra money for education. You see one of our policies is smarter and better Government spending. 
I will give members one little example that I am aware of in terms of how to get extra money for education. In my electorate of Invercargill right on the border there is a school called Dacre School. This school received a visit from the education people who wanted to make sure that everything was tickety-boo there. They assessed the school and found that the administration block of the school was under code. That meant that there was not enough room for the people who did the administration. So architects were brought in and they drew up plans got a consent and built an administration block that was up to code. They spent $143000 on this. 
That is wonderful but we need to know that the school roll had been declining for about a decade. So eight pupils were at Dacre School and $143000 was spent. The people from the education department said not only that the administration block was under code—and that this was not helping their children learn—but that they had looked at the boiler it was sadly in need of replacing and that would cost another $53000. The board of trustees at Dacre School comprised pretty laconic good rural business people. They took their hammers their leavers and their chippers and they looked at the boiler. They looked at the welding and the pipes and they said that there was nothing wrong with the boiler and that they would not waste taxpayers’ money. Then the education people said that if the board of trustees did not spend that money and the boiler broke down they would not fix it. So the education department in round terms wanted to spend $200000 on eight kids. This is factual. 
About 4 years ago the Hon Trevor Mallard when he was the Minister of Education did some terrible things in Invercargill without consultation. Someone on the ninth floor told him that he would not be closing any more schools in Southland because he had done it all wrong. So $143000 was spent on Dacre School and they asked: “Why not spend another $53000?”. Then the part of the education department that managed school transport said it would not renew the bus contract. So the money had been spent and then the school had to be closed because the transport department would not provide transport to bring the kids to school. This is factual; it actually happened. 
But it does not end there. I am not sure whether the school was technically closed because the board of trustees said that this was a nonsense and that a better environment had to be found for kids to learn in than at this shrinking school. The education people said that the school had not yet closed and that a principal needed to be appointed for 4 months so that if someone came they could be told that the school was not taking pupils. This is absolutely true. 
Then we had the whole process after that 4 months where it was decided who would receive the assets of the school. The school had received big contributions from the local community that helped to build the covered swimming pool and provide for all of those things that happen in a rural school. And the Hon Mark Gosche stands up and asks where we will get the money from to deliver these extra things in education! I can tell the member quite clearly. It is funny but it is sad. We have a governance system that has completely lost the plot and that has been totally ruled by bureaucrats who either have not been getting instructions or have been telling the Government what to do. When we say we will deliver in education and we will do so in a smarter way with wiser spending Labour members ask where the money is coming from. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: One-off spending. 
ERIC ROY 
: It is not. I can give the member more examples. If this happened at Dacre School I can tell members that it is happening on a much wider basis. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Are you going to reopen the school? 
ERIC ROY 
: Of course we are not. The school should never have had the $143000. If it had not been for the resilience of the local community that said: “You’re not spending any more money. You’re not spending the $53000.” it would have all been much much worse. 
Do we have any policy? We sure have heaps of policy. We will be able to fund most of it through smarter spending. The bureaucracy is out of control as a result of a Government that either does not understand does not care or does not have the business nous to actually run business. We are ambitious for New Zealand. We want to see that growth. We want to lock in the things that will give us an advantage and make our kids find that this is the place they want to invest in do business in and buy homes in rather than head overseas. We have heaps of policy. 
This has been just a very short speech that has given us one little example of where only one of the Government agencies is severely out of control. When we look at estimates appropriations or an imprest bill it is timely that we reflect on a Government that either does not know or does not have the will to know how to spend its money properly. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Four words describe that speech: “Bring back Mark Peck.” The entire increase in education spending funded by National will be fixed by saving a boiler in a school in Dacre! That is how it will all work: it is simply a case of taking out a boiler and saving that money and that will fund all this increase in education. “Bring back Mark Peck” I say and I bet that is what people are saying down in Invercargill. 
This is a wide-ranging debate. I am old-fashioned having been here a little while. What is supposed to happen is that we are to compare policies. What happens is that the Government puts out its policies and looks towards its vision. Then the National Opposition is supposed to say a few things in order to compare its policies. The problem is that the debate has been one-sided because we have not heard a dicky-bird about what National will do. The Labour-led Government of course has done heaps. The previous speaker Eric Roy said that there has been great prosperity in New Zealand over the last 8 years and that is true. I will come back to talk about that in a moment. 
But it is true that people are feeling stressed at the moment. It is true; that is the case. We have rising oil prices primarily driven by speculation in other parts of the world. We have food prices— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh rubbish! Demand’s driving it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh the member says that demand is driving this. I was almost going to bring somebody into the debate which I am not allowed to do but the member says that demand is driving this. Speculation is driving price and most people who know anything about this would know that. Food prices are rising driven by a shortage. On the one hand that is good for our farmers but it is affecting consumers. And of course interest rates are rising due to the subprime mortgage situation in the United States and the credit crunch. We recognise that people are facing these difficulties. 
The National Party has railed against this so I ask what National members would do about the rising oil price. Let us start with Simon Power. What would Simon Power do about the rising petrol price and oil price? 
Ron Mark 
: Buy Saudi Arabia. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Buy Saudi Arabia. Well we would love to hear at least one little policy. What about Chris Finlayson? What would Chris Finlayson do about the rising world food price? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Your rhetorical devices are so boring. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member says that our rhetorical devices are so boring but do we hear an answer? That is all we want; we just want to hear an answer such as National would do X or National would think about doing Y. 
Let us try one other one then. What would National if it were ever in Government—fortunately not in my lifetime—do about the rising international pressure on interest rates? 
Simon Power 
: That’s easy—wasteful Government spending. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Here we go—back to the boiler in Dacre. That is what it is all about. It is back to the boiler in Dacre. Well this simply will not wash; it will not do. 
It is the case at the moment that there is a general feeling and a mood around for change. There is no question about that. Members on this side of the House are asking a change to what? Let us look at a change to what. Let us look at this because National members will not say what they would change. Do members know what? It sounds to me as if the hollow men are still at work—that is say nothing before and then do it all after. 
Let us look at a couple of things that Labour will do. The Labour-led Government has introduced tax cuts to come in this year in October. 
Simon Power 
: That took 8 years. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes it is good news because we adjusted and made sure that some of the basic infrastructure in health education and transport was fixed in those first few years we squirreled some away for the difficult times and we are now handing it back in tax cuts. That is the way it should be done. So there are tax cuts this year in 2010 and in 2011. 
You see the National Party has criticised the tax cuts. That party called the Budget the “block of cheese Budget”. Does the House know what the most surprising thing for National members was? It was that cheese comes in blocks. They did not realise that cheese comes in blocks until someone actually said so. They thought that it came in round packets with names on them from France. That is what they thought. So when they heard “block of cheese” they all rushed out to the supermarket. “My word!” they reported back to the caucus. “They are right; cheese does come in blocks. How long has it been like that?” they asked. That is because those members are out of touch. Cheese comes in round packets and in blocks. 
Given that the Labour-led Government has said what it will do let us ask Sandra Goudie how much people will get—here is a simple question—under National’s tax cuts. 
Simon Power 
: Wait and see. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh I am to wait and see? No I want to hear from Sandra Goudie. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Simon does not know. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No; the member says that he knows but I do not think that he does know. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s on the outer. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think he is on the outer. There is the kitchen Cabinet and then there is the outhouse Cabinet which I think unfortunately Simon Power is in. [ 
Interruption 
] His stocks have slipped suddenly but to be fair I think they are coming back a bit. But I do not think he knows what the tax cut package is and I think that New Zealanders deserve to know. Why will the National Party not tell people? 
Lesley Soper 
: Because they don’t know. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh well they do not. One thing is that the members do not know but then again maybe it is also that the cut is not as big as what they thought they might be able to promise when they look at the books. Those members do not want to go into an election saying “Well as we have done with all the other Labour policies”—just photocopied them all and handed them out—“the tax cuts will be about the same as the cuts Labour gave.” 
Let us look at some of these other things. Let us look at some of these other policies. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: KiwiSaver. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What will the National Party do about KiwiSaver? There is a simple question. Lockwood Smith is probably in the inner Cabinet do members think? Or is he— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Just resign and we’ll show you. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No no. Well maybe he is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s on an outer planet. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I do not think he is on an outer planet to be fair. I think he is actually further away from the outhouse. He is probably way way down the backyard. But let us ask Lockwood Smith what the National Party will do about KiwiSaver. Well there is no answer—no answer on KiwiSaver. I thought that what would happen was that the employer contribution would be scrapped. Who said that? Kate Wilkinson said it. But then John Key said: “Oh no. She is only the employment and industrial relations spokesperson; she doesn’t know anything. She is not even involved in the policy.” There she was trying to be frank and give people a bit of a view. 
What will happen to Working for Families? Well let us ask Chris Tremain. What will happen to that? No; there is no answer. What about cheaper doctors’ visits? Did Tony Ryall not say that they would be scrapped? Then John Key came out and said: “No no. We did not mean to say that. No that is not true.” 
And what about 20 free hours of preschool education? What about asking Georgina te Heuheu who has always been a frank open person. What will happen for example to kohanga reo and 20 free hours’ early childhood education? What will happen there? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Don’t worry about that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member says we are not to worry about that. I am worried about that because I want to hear the answer. What about the minimum wage? I bet we will not get any answer to that. 
You see this should be a debate where we say what we are doing and the National Party should respond. They are the hollow men. They will not say what they will do right up to the last minute and then they might not even do that. Then they will say that they promised no asset sales but that the economy is so bad they will have to sell a few. The public will not wear it. 
As it gets closer to the election the public will demand some answers and we will find the slippery slope of the National Party when either it will not be prepared to commit or if it does it will try to say things similar to what the Labour Party is saying. So I ask a change to what? Well that is the whole point of this—that in the end people will say that they will stick with what they know. They will say that they will stick with what they know rather than trust the slippery shadowy faces of the hollow men under the National Party. It will come down to a very simple choice and Labour is well on the way. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 That was not quite vintage Paul Swain; it lacked a certain finesse. I have a message for the Hon Paul Swain from the office of the Leader of the Opposition: Stop sending us your CV. We have six copies and that is all we need. We have it on file just leave it alone. 
We are dealing here with the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and it is worth starting the discussion with a round figure that members will be more than familiar with that came out of Treasury in the 2002-03 year and which is the latest official statistic we have in this particular area. What we know from Treasury is that in that year the cost of crime to the economy was $9.1 billion. Listeners at home might be saying to themselves: “Well that makes a bit of sense. If you include the court system the prison system and the police in that then maybe it is $9 billion.” But no two-thirds of that $9 billion is made up of private money. Two-thirds of that is dollars that have to be spent to remove graffiti from walls to have car doors knocked out and re-panelled to take dents out of them to replace goods that are stolen from homes in burglaries and to have insurance premiums increased because houses have been robbed yet again—two-thirds of $9.1 billion. Dear old Paul Swain asks where we would make some savings. Well if we could cut the crime rate in this country we would have far more surplus moneys for meaningful investments like education health and the like. 
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are fond of saying that crime is tracking across all categories at a reasonably steady level. That is true except for one area—violent crime. Since this Government took office violent crime has risen by 43 percent. We know that since this crowd took office youth violent crime has increased by 47 percent over that period. This is the same Labour Party that in its first pledge card—I am not sure who paid for that one—said it would attack crime and the causes of crime. Well there has been a 43 percent increase in violent crime across the board. 
When we talk about supplementary estimates and a Government’s ability to spend money and to budget properly we know that in the law and order and justice areas this Government has been incapable of doing even the most basic things. The Government has had six Ministers of Corrections in the last 8½ years. They budgeted $400 million to build four new prisons which turned out to cost over $1 billion—a $600 million budget blowout. Paul Swain gets up in the House and asks where the National Party would save money. Well I say to Mr Swain that I have a few ideas where we can save some money—the $11 million to landscape those four new prisons. That money could have been spent on work programmes and drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses in our prisons. Instead—and it would not have happened under Paul Swain if he were still the Minister of Corrections—the Labour Party goes out and spends $11 million on ferns and pavers. I say to Mr Swain that I can find plenty of areas to save money in the justice area and plenty of good places to put it. 
We have policy coming out of our ears in the law and order area. As my friend Darren Hughes alluded to the justice policy was delivered up to the leadership of the National Party on 1 November last year and we have seen four announcements so far in that area with another three or four to come before the election. We have seen policy announced in the areas of police gangs victims and youth crime and the Government—and we are flattered by this—is adopting those policies like they are going out of fashion. In the area of gangs when a document was approved by Cabinet on 9 July 2007 or thereabouts the Government sat on its hands and did nothing while Mark Burton played around with the Electoral Finance Act. The Government put rorting the electoral system ahead of dealing to gangs in New Zealand. The Minister of Justice’s priority was rorting the electoral system in favour of the incumbent rather than dealing with the gangs and violent crime that were going on in New Zealand. That is what this Government’s priorities are. It is looking after its own neck and not worrying about the New Zealand public having to face down the massive increase in violent crime that we have seen since this Government took office. 
Two points out of our four-point plan on dealing with gangs have hurriedly been adopted by the Government in the last week in a way that just reeks of desperation. So quick was the Government to try to quell the growing public concern over its inability to deal with violent crime that when the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill came to us to tick off it still had Mark Burton’s name on it. He has not been the Minister of Justice for well over 12 months. This was badly prepared terribly reactionary and badly thought through. We say to Labour members that if they think our policy is so good they should adopt the other two points from our four-point plan for dealing with gangs. Let us see getting surveillance and interception orders from the court made easier. Let us see the Local Government Act amended to make sure we can storm gang fortifications on the basis of reasonable expectation that a crime has been committed on those premises. While we are at it let us adopt National’s police policy which is also a four-point plan. Let us adopt National’s victims policy which was widely endorsed by third parties when it was released earlier this year. While we are at it let us adopt National’s platforms for dealing with youth crime and changes of youth sentences. 
I sit here and listen to the Labour Party members talking about lack of ideas and lack of policy so let us have a debate about ideas and policy in the justice and law and order areas because we are winning this debate hands down. It is a debate that is being won on ideas and policy head-to-head. We are winning that debate. My colleague and friend Dr Cullen scoffs; it is his Cabinet that is adopting our plans as if they are going out of fashion. I just wish that as Leader of the House he had reminded Annette King to change the name on the front of the bill from Mark Burton to Annette King when she decided to introduce a paper that had been ticked off by Cabinet in July last year. Mr Burton was too busy dealing with the Electoral Finance Act to worry about gangs and violent crime in New Zealand. So when we talk about Government spending and waste and the policy debate that this country will have leading into this general election let us have a debate about law and order justice corrections police and youth crime issues—anywhere any time. National has a plan and we are announcing it Labour is adopting it and it is going extremely well. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to add to the korero about the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill as a member of the Labour-led Government and in support of Dr Michael Cullen. 
Dr Cullen is a man whom we all love on this side of the House—and I know that the Opposition is envious of us for having such a brain in our ranks because it does not have anyone like him on its side—for his brilliance in his role as Minister of Finance and for his deeds today and tomorrow as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Michael is loved not just by his whanau in Labour but maybe by iwi leaders who in light of the massive deals brokered under Dr Cullen have recently called for future Ministers of Finance also to hold the Treaty of Waitangi negotiations portfolio. I think it is more about Michael and the way he operates than merely about his holding these dual portfolios. 
Labour is still delivering for our country and it has so much more to do. We know what we want to do. We do not just tell people what they want to hear; we talk to them and tell them what we believe in—no slogans just good and substantial policy. I admit we do not have 14 policies; actually we have hundreds of policies. In fact we like to announce these every day. We will not be waiting until after the election like the Opposition. 
I note that in the last week Maurice Williamson has said that the detail of National’s supposed broadband policy will not be released until after the election. Brave are they not? Not even! And what about Anne Tolley on education funding? To the North Shore principals she gave a commitment to a 20 percent increase in operations grants costing up to $370 million. Then in the  
Oamaru Mail 
 it was reported she “made no pragmatic commitment” and to the Auckland Primary Principals Association breakfast on 19 June she said there will be no extra funding for education on top of the cost of living. So it was more money for one; oh no better keep it the same for another; and oh no actually you are going to get less for the third. That is what is called great and principled National policy. 
That is what happens when people do not know what they stand for and when they adjust their speeches to fit the audience. We know that National’s real intention is privatisation. John Key has been clear that he wants more money for private schools. He said on  
Agenda 
: “—look I’m not gonna put a number on it today but maybe it’s 30 million you know that sort of range I don’t know the exact number.” Oh yeah! And on the sale of State assets he said it would not be “in the first term of the National government” but the public does not want to hear that so maybe it would be not at all. Yeah right! National is all about user-pays and looking after oneself not about caring about one’s fellow Kiwi and certainly not about caring about workers. 
So I come back to our policy because Labour has plenty and a plan for the future. What have we done recently for workers? Here is some good policy announced by Minister of Labour Trevor Mallard at the weekend. To better protect casual and temporary workers he has committed the Department of Labour to developing a code of employment practice for casual and non-standard employment which will make it easier for employers to understand and comply with their obligations to casual and temporary workers. This will help to better clarify whether a worker is casual or permanent and what entitlements he or she can get. I quote the Minister: “The proposed changes demonstrate the government’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of the workforce and to providing an employment environment that is conducive to all parties conducting their relationship in good faith.” Not bad Trev! That is in addition to raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour. I note again that when we became the Government in 1999 the minimum wage was $7 for adults and $4.20 for under-20s. Today it is at $12 and it will not stay at that level. 
On Labour’s watch we have seen 345000 more jobs created seen unemployment fall by more than half and seen it stay below 4 percent for 4 years. What other policies of ours can I highlight? What about the reduction in the cost of seeing the doctor and getting a standard prescription; 20 hours’ free early childhood education; and the expansion of access to health services screening and immunisation? Not bad. 
But wait there is more! Let us look at a runaway success—in fact a policy that would be a six in any politico’s playing field—and that is the mighty KiwiSaver. We will ensure that employer contributions and employer tax credits continue because we believe in workers and their families saving for a future and in their employers contributing to this which is contrary to what the National Party believes. More than 670000 Kiwis love the scheme. As I have noted before National members voted against it not just once; oh no they voted against it 40 times. 
So what is National’s plan for the future under the leadership of John Key? I do not think National mambers know but I know that he loves our policies. About our student loan policy John Key said in November 2005 that it was unaffordable and an irresponsible cost to the country. But in January 2008 he said: “We will keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students.” Labour has the policy; National has none. About being nuclear-free John Key in October 2003 said it was bad news for economic growth and for our job market. John Key said in September 2007: “we’re going to stick with the anti-nuclear legislation.” Labour has the policy; National has none. 
Now I want to highlight someone else who thinks that Labour has the policy. In the Salvation Army’s May 2008 press release it said of our Working for Families tax credit and income-abatement increases: “Lower-income working families will really benefit from the changes to tax thresholds such as the new lower 12.5 per cent rate for income up to $14000 as well as increases to Working for Families. This is good news. … It is pleasing that the Government has been able to fund these initiatives while at the same time protecting existing social investments.” That is exactly what we aim to do: to continue to add value to and enhance public investment in education health care social agencies and other important services. 
Finally I want to comment on what Chris Tremain said in the House during the debate on the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill when he said: “I am a relatively new boy to this House. I am from a generation of people who are not interested in the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s—the debates over the Viet Nam War or the Springbok Tour.” He says this not as a representative of those of us who were still at primary school at the time—I was 9 and he 12 by all accounts—but obviously as a member of the National Party under the protection of a leader who cannot remember what position he took on such issues. 
We know where Labour stood and we know where we stand on these issues. We can all remember because our actions then and now are based on principles of fairness and justice and on ensuring that the rights of those who are most vulnerable are protected. And yes we believe in being part of an international community. And yes we did not go to Iraq because of the same principles and values that made members on this side of the House fight those political battles of the 1980s and 1990s and that have relevance today. 
Finally I have faith in Kiwis. The media are championing “Time for a change” because our leadership is stable and consistent and knows where it is going. But just like last time we are the underdogs and from the viewpoint of our collective national psyche there are no better winners than those who had no chance. 
Election 2008: may the best team win. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bills read a second time. 
Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time. 
Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 1 is the main part of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) and I trust National will be allowed to take many calls on this very important part. I myself will certainly take quite a few calls on this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] It is wonderful to hear that people are looking forward to them! 
The first point I raise is a new provision brought into the legislation to compensate those who during the course of their employment witness a traumatic event. The major objection we have against this provision is that the officials themselves had a lot of problems estimating the consequences of it. The cost estimates provided by the officials range from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. That basically means they have no idea of the impact of this provision and we will expand on that. 
Secondly we object to the fact that the Government’s provision will affect only claimants who will fall into the work account category. The Government thinks it is good enough to compensate witnesses to a traumatic event only if their employers are paying the levy. If the witnessing of the event does not happen in the course of employment—if the compensation has to come from another category that is funded by general tax—it will not be covered. We would like the Minister to take a call to explain the equity of that. Why is Labour favouring one class of New Zealanders over another one? Those members are saying that people who are in employment deserve to be compensated but people who are not in employment should not be compensated. That is very strange coming from a Labour Government that persistently says how valuable for example women who stay at home to look after their family are. On the other hand if those women witness a traumatic event because they stay at home and take care of the children and are not in employment they will not be compensated. 
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) has issued a press release. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.