Volume 625 Week 87 - Wednesday 4 May 2005 
Volume 625 Week 87 - Wednesday 4 May 2005 
[Volume:625;Page:20221] 
Wednesday 4 May 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Tabling of Documents 
Petition of Larry Baldock MP and Gordon Copeland MP 
The Clerk read petitions for presentation. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the 203000 signatures collected seeking a referendum on the question: “Should the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 be repealed?”. 
Document not tabled. 
Questions to Ministers 
Police—Former Commissioner 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday in relation to the information she provided to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 regarding then Police Commissioner Peter Doone “I do not believe that incorrect information was provided.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because I am confident that I would have drawn their attention to the fact that what was said by Police Commissioner Doone was contested. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and its lawyers would never have published the alleged Doone statement without tapes of the Prime Minister’s own voice affirming the story and given that why will she not allow the release of transcripts of those tapes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not for me to comment on what basis the  
Sunday Star-Times  
publishes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she have any evidence to back up her claim that she thinks she told the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that the allegation was contested or is she just relying on her memory? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am confident that I would have drawn their attention to the fact that the facts were contested because what was in front of me were two official reports where it was very clear that what was said was contested. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If the statements made by the Prime Minister on this matter are true what does she have to hide by refusing the release of the transcripts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This matter was dealt with extensively in the House yesterday. I have referred to the fact that journalists’ notes were made available to my lawyer and I have also referred to the fact that litigation is threatened and it would not be appropriate for such matters to be released. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the transcripts will become public at the time of any defamation proceedings and can we therefore conclude that her game is merely to stage a cover-up until after the election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No such proceedings have been filed and it is simply idle for the Opposition to speculate how a case might be defended. 
Taxation—Business 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What recent announcements has the Government made on business tax and what response has he received? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Last week I announced a raft of changes: cutting the most important fringe benefit tax rate simplifying a whole range of tax measures in relation to fringe benefit tax and provisional tax a subsidy for small businesses to assist with the employment of payroll companies and other matters. Those were warmly welcomed. One tax practitioner for example described them as cutting out a huge amount of compliance work for small businesses. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Have there been any other further reactions or reports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes the managing tax partner at Deloitte Thomas Pippos noted that the fringe benefit tax changes in particular were likely to benefit a large number of firms. A PricewaterhouseCoopers spokesperson said that the changes should drop a lot of firms out of the fringe benefit tax net altogether and even the National Party said that they were a practical step towards reducing compliance costs. 
John Key 
: What is the logic behind today’s announcement of a new carbon tax that has the perverse outcome of seeing a large number of businesses paying a new tax that will in part be used to subsidise a much smaller group of their own less efficient competitors? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The carbon tax is a market-based mechanism designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would have thought that the National Party would welcome market-based mechanisms as opposed to purely regulatory ones. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question put by my colleague John Key asked why efficient businesses should subsidise inefficient businesses and was not about whether greenhouse taxes are appropriate. The Minister did not address the question. He mentioned the words “carbon tax” which does not mean that the question was answered. The question was about whether a business should be subsidised by another business. The Minister should address that question. The fact that he mentioned the words “carbon tax” does not mean to say that he addressed the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. This is another example of a member not perhaps getting the answer he or she wished to get. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister stand by his reported statement that those announcements plus those to come in the Budget are equivalent to a 2c in the dollar reduction in the corporate tax rate; if so why does he not just simplify things and reduce the corporate tax rate to 31 percent thus maximising the encouragement to new business investment in New Zealand including that from overseas? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is absolutely apparent that given the propensity in New Zealand for the payout of any profit doing that for onshore investors would simply result in a taxation timing change and for offshore investors would result simply in net profit being repatriated out of the country. Neither would necessarily do anything to lift the rate of economic growth—as opposed to enhancing investment as opposed to simplification and as opposed to the use of new equipment. 
Police—Former Commissioner 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she confirm for the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that it was correct in asserting the Police Commissioner Peter Doone told the officer: “That won’t be necessary”; if not what did she confirm for them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The substance of its story—that the commissioner had intervened—was confirmed in the official reports that were before me. I am confident that I would have drawn the paper’s attention to the fact that what was said by Commissioner Doone was contested. 
Rodney Hide 
: Who are we to believe: the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 
which told the court that the Prime Minister confirmed to it that Peter Doone had said “that won’t be necessary” or the Prime Minister who tells this House that she did not confirm it for the paper? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am confident that I drew the paper’s attention to the fact that what the commissioner said was contested. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can I put it to the Prime Minister that many people believe that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and its lawyers are sitting on tapes of conversations with the Prime Minister that would show her statements to this House to be utterly false; and can I challenge her to allow the release of those tapes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have told the House notes from the journalist were made available to my lawyer. I do not have any evidence that tapes exist. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is it not the position now that the Fairfax newspaper has said that it published the statement “That won’t be necessary.” because the Prime Minister confirmed that that statement was true and that the Prime Minister has told the House that she made no such statement; and if there are transcripts as the Fairfax newspaper says there are is she not now in the position where an overseas newspaper can blackmail the Prime Minister of New Zealand at any time in the future by threatening to release those transcripts—is that not undesirable and should she not insist that the transcript be released so that the public is not in the position of thinking that an overseas newspaper is possibly blackmailing her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said I am confident that I drew the newspaper’s attention to the fact that the facts were contested. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s repeated statements to this House and to the public of New Zealand that she is confident will she request Fairfax and the  
Sunday Star-Times  
to publish the transcripts they hold or is she not prepared to do that because she does not have that confidence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do have confidence that I drew their attention to the fact that the facts were contested. As the member knows various litigation is being threatened and it is not appropriate for me to take any further action. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My specific question was quite clear. I asked the Prime Minister whether she was prepared to request that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and Fairfax publish the transcripts. In no way did the Prime Minister address that. She could stand up in the House and say: “Look I am quite happy that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
publish the transcript in full because of my confidence.” That was what my question concerned. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Prime Minister did address the question. She addressed the question of whether the transcript should be released. She may not have given the answer the member wanted to that question but it was addressed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Could the Prime Minister confirm that when the Fairfax newspaper revealed she was the source it broke one of the core principles of a free press—that the name of a confidential source is not released unless that source has lied—and if that is the case is the explanation that the Fairfax newspapers say she misled them or are we in a position where the Fairfax newspapers in this country do not give a hoot about the principles of journalism; and can she imagine them doing that with regard to John Howard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
lawyers placed no such qualification on their decision to seek a subpoena. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did the Prime Minister confirm to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that Mr Doone said “That won’t be necessary.” when she had both the Police Complaints Authority report and the Robinson report stating that no such words were used? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The fact that I had both those reports before me strengthens my confidence that I would have drawn the newspaper’s attention to the fact that what Police Commissioner Doone said when he intervened and inhibited a constable from doing his duty was contested. 
Carbon Tax—Impact on Electricity and Petrol Prices 
4. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Does the Government intend to impose a carbon tax; if so what are the estimated impacts of this new tax on household electricity bills and petrol prices? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The Government’s intention to introduce a carbon tax was announced 3 years ago in 2002. Today’s announcement confirms that policy. The estimated impacts were also indicated in 2002 and today are confirmed at around $4 per week for a typical household. 
John Key 
: Why is it necessary to put an additional tax burden of around $200 per year on every household at a time when the Government in the last 6 years has collected an additional $50 billion in extra taxes and continues to run surpluses in excess of $6 billion per year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member fails to understand a very fundamental aspect of the carbon tax which is this: it is not a tax increase; it is a tax—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will please quieten down. They have expressed their view. Now let us hear the Minister. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is not a tax increase; it is a tax shift. The percentage of GDP flowing through the Government will not change. In fact it will be reduced a little as we shall see in 2 weeks’ time. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do apologise. It was hard not to laugh but the Minister said that it is not a tax increase—that it is something else. I do not think anyone heard what the “something else” was. I wonder whether the Minister could just say what it is if it is not a tax increase. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did ask members to keep their voices down for that very reason. I will ask the Minister again but I will not make a practice of doing that when members have been asked to lower their voices. Of course they can express themselves as they did but to go on so that the Minister cannot be heard does not seem to be reasonable. Would the Minister please repeat the last answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am grateful to the House for a chance to explain Government policy which is that the carbon tax does not represent a tax increase. It is a tax shift by which—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Do members wish to hear the answer or not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —I mean that all revenue collected through this carbon tax will be recycled through other tax changes to be announced in the Budget. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Who supports the introduction of the carbon tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Besides ongoing support from many businesses—for example Fisher and Paykel Infratil and Toyota—there is support from environmental groups across the spectrum from Greenpeace to Nick Smith’s Bluegreens which states today on its website www.bluegreens.org.nz that to introduce a fiscally neutral low-level carbon charge is a critical but achievable step in National’s next term of office. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will be quiet please. I know that this is a particularly humorous topic although no one else would have thought so until today. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers does the Minister accept in any way shape or form that this increased tax—or cost if he wants to put it another way—will impose a financial burden on fixed-income low-paid people on small-business people and that it will give them some incentive to move offshore; secondly can he tell the House how long he has been guided by Nick Smith’s policies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It would appear if I am to understand Nick Smith’s policies that he is guided by us. However the member referred to people on fixed-incomes. Of course as those costs go up they will be reflected in any consumer price indexation of superannuation or similar. As far as businesses are concerned the member may recall that we have a policy called negotiated greenhouse agreements for large businesses and another grants policy which is only a couple of weeks old for small energy-intensive businesses. There will not be an economic downside. There will be in fact when we see the other half of this deal an economic upside. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is there any chance or hope that the Convenor and his Labour Cabinet colleagues will at this late stage come to their senses recognise the damage that the impact of their climate change policies will have on the New Zealand economy and adopt ACT’s policy and simply dump the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: None whatever. This Government is about protecting our environment—and as I explained earlier is not about raising revenue through the process. It is about ensuring that there is no failure to act because if we do fail to act that does threaten New Zealand’s economy and quality of life. I would suggest to the member that this House does have a responsibility to take action for future generations. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury’s policy development work on the operation of a carbon tax was done under a National Government in the 1990s and has he received any suggestions at all from the National Party since Simon Upton failed to convince his colleagues of what measures New Zealand might take to address this most serious environmental issue or have those members made none? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Apart from the Bluegreens led by Nick Smith and recently endorsed by the leader of the National Party Dr Don Brash when no one else was listening the National Party has done nothing but support the idea of the Kyoto Protocol and a carbon tax while in Government and oppose it while in Opposition. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is this not really just a case of the Government giving and the Government taking away and still leaving our businesses facing competition from our major trading partners that will not face a carbon tax and from China which we are entering into a free-trade agreement with and is there not a better way of incentivising investment so that we can actually solve this problem through new technology rather than giving our economy in this country a smack over the head with a piece of four-by-two? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Any incentivisation will need to wait 2 weeks but I remind the member that the negotiated greenhouse agreements announced 3 years ago some of which have been completed are designed precisely to ensure that we get an environmental benefit with no economic disbenefit. It takes a bit of imagination but we can get there. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Could the Minister tell the House who else has supported the development of a carbon tax in recent years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One group has a policy and I quote it: “To support current targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and the introduction of a fiscally neutral carbon tax should these targets not be achieved.” Another group has consistently pledged a coherent plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. The first group is United Future and the second group is the New Zealand First Party. 
John Key 
: What is the logic behind punishing New Zealand companies that burn coal while at the same time doing nothing about the fact that this very coal is likely to be exported to China where it will be burned with no carbon tax being applied? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has a very limited understanding of the Kyoto Protocol. There is no carbon charge placed on New Zealand coal exports in the same way that Saudi Arabia does not pay a carbon charge for petrol exported to New Zealand. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that if the carbon charge was recycled in the economy as a flat reduction in personal income tax for all taxpayers they would each get about $180 per year which is enough to tune their cars properly wrap their water cylinders install some energy-efficient lights and reduce their energy bills by more than they would pay in carbon tax; if so why does he not give them that opportunity? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret entering an arithmetic debate with the Green Party but my best guess is that if we were to give tax-free status for the first $5000 of income as is proposed by the Greens then the carbon tax would need to be not $15 a tonne but certainly in excess of $60 a tonne. 
John Key 
: Why does the Government want to put New Zealand at a competitive disadvantage to Australia and America both of which have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol or to add a carbon tax because they know that that would be bad for jobs and bad for the economy; or does this Government care more about workers in Australia and America than it does about the ones here at home? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member still does not get it. We will try again. The way the Kyoto Protocol policy in this country has been designed—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not interrupt the member when he was asking his question. The Kyoto Protocol policy in this country has been designed so that there will not be a competitive disadvantage to New Zealand. In fact the carbon charge has been fully modelled—it is in the public arena—and it is almost impossible to discern any effect at all. Contrary to the member’s view one could easily argue that by bringing the future forward one advantages the New Zealand economy rather than damaging it. 
Immigration—Visa Approvals 
5.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many visa applications under all categories from people whose country of origin was one of the 54 high-risk countries have been approved by New Zealand Immigration Service offshore offices since the Government was formed in 1999? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that from 1 December 1999 to 30 April 2005 approximately 385800 applications have been approved by offshore offices in respect of 46 countries considered to be of security concern. The balance are considered to be a risk on matters other than security. 
Dail Jones 
: Why in the post - September 11 climate did this Government continue to allow and employ foreign nationals in at-risk countries to process visa and other applications despite repeated warnings from New Zealand First about the dangers of this practice? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: We were continuing a process that had been in place when for example New Zealand First was in Government. 
Pansy Wong 
: Oh come on! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is true. Secondly we are moving now in stages to bring that process of approval back to New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What else is the Government considering following recent events regarding the two Iraqi visitors? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has identified a gap in the consideration of applications for entry to New Zealand from countries of security concern that has existed for decades including during National and New Zealand First Governments. These applications are referred to the SIS for assessment to consider whether people are a security risk. The meaning of “security” is a narrow one contained in the SIS legislation. It does not cover judgments on whether applicants would be desirable or suitable to be in New Zealand. These judgments need to be taken by the New Zealand Immigration Service supported by other agencies and I am taking steps to ensure that this occurs. 
Dail Jones 
: Why is New Zealand unlike other Western democracies not part of the high-level intelligence loops with a list of names of potential security threats that come up with a red flag as soon as these people try to gain entry; or does New Zealand have to resort to Google searches on the web to confirm information to the New Zealand Immigration Service once foreign nationals have already been approved for entry? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: In fact we are part of security loops around the world and there are flags that come up. The problem in the cases that have been raised just recently which is a problem that goes right back through the 1990s and 1980s is the fact that for example somebody who is not a security risk as defined by the SIS legislation but should not be here is not considered for his or her suitability to be in New Zealand. That is what we are going to change. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Since it is the responsibility of the Security Intelligence Service to scrutinise applications from high-risk countries with security concerns is it not the case that at the moment the Government is blaming overseas offices of the Immigration Service for the problems that have arisen instead of blaming the Security Intelligence Service whose Minister just happens to be the Prime Minister? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Minister interfering in the normal immigration process by expelling a former Iraqi diplomat Zuhair Mohammed al-Omar halfway through the processing of his family reunification residency application an application that I understand is backed by documentation from the new Iraqi Government? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Primarily because we do not consider that person suitable to be in New Zealand. 
Dail Jones 
: Has the Minister received communications of any kind from say Australian officials their staff or any other nations sympathetic to New Zealand who are now fearful that New Zealand may have become a stop-off point for back-door entry into their nations via New Zealand for suspected terrorists and those associated with the Saddam Hussein regime and if he has not received communications why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I cannot recall receiving any representations such as the member has outlined and as to why not I suppose it is because they have not written to me. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Immigration Service identified any other Iraqis of concern; if so what are those details? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As we announced yesterday there is a major review of applications from those countries going back 2 years and I will be able to give the member the results of that in due course. 
Dail Jones 
: What has been the point of the $3 million Advance Passenger Screening system and the $20 million boost to help the New Zealand Immigration Service manage risk when now he is having to apply damage control to this national security mess which is being resolved only as a result of the information being made available by New Zealand First despite the fact that the Minister has a multihundred - million dollar department to support him? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is important to point out for a start that this is not a national security risk. As I said to the member these people do not meet the standards of security risk under the Security Intelligence Service legislation; that is the first point. What is the advantage of the Advance Passenger Screening system? Well it has actually been extraordinarily good because for example in 1997-98—a period that the member may be interested in—2627 refugee-status claims came through the border and for 2004-05 as at February this year there were 277. A lot of that has been brought about because of toughened border control and extra money that this Government has put into these things. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister give an assurance that the checks that his department will be undertaking of Iraqis who have come to New Zealand in recent years will include those who have been granted refugee status; if so can he assure us that his department would be able to locate say a member of Saddam Hussein’s police force who may have been granted refugee status in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: We are going over all applications and as I said if the review is going to be as thorough as the member requests—which I agree with—then it will take some time. 
111 System—Ghost Units 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many 111 calls were referred to so-called “ghost units” in the past year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that the number of 111 calls that the police receive per year is approximately 495000. Many of those are not emergencies. The police have always recorded some incident reports for intelligence purposes rather than for immediate response. The police do not specifically record the number of 111 calls dealt with in that way. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the superintendent in charge of the Northern Communications Centre has confirmed that 61000 calls in the last year were referred to so-called “ghost squads” and how many of those reports would have been dealt with by police officers had the police actually had the staff they need? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Those incidents that the police refer to are seen as ones where there is no need to make an immediate response. Those incidents do not form part of the crime stats and they never have. In the days of paper-based systems such incidents would never have found their way into the crime stats either. In other words the police gather intelligence for the purpose of resolving crimes overall. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Have police Intel units made a difference to policing in New Zealand? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes. Police Intel units have contributed to the overall crime reduction of 8.2 percent in the past year the lowest rate for more than 20 years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the police have all the staff they need and can he advise the House of the total staffing of his “ghost squads”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: First of all I want to say that there are no “ghost squads” in the New Zealand Police. We have intelligence units and that is completely different. I am satisfied that the police are very well resourced under this Government and that we have more police than we ever had in the past. 
Prostitution Reform Act—Policing 
7.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he stand by his reply to my supplementary question in the House on 26 March 2003 concerning the Prostitution Reform Bill when he said: “if it is passed the Government will make sure that the police are adequately resourced.”; if so why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes because the police have never been better resourced. 
Larry Baldock 
: How does he reconcile his answer with the finding of the Prostitution Law Review Committee report page 38 which states that in Auckland City alone there are 243 businesses of prostitution and 360 street workers 20 percent of whom are under age yet there is only one police officer with 45 percent of his time dedicated to prostitution? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police actively police this. Of course one would have noted that yesterday a person was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for hiring an under-age person to work in a brothel. 
Larry Baldock 
: What specific police resources will he dedicate to stopping under-age prostitution in light of the statements made by Manurewa’s Maori wardens on TV3 on 11 April when they said that every time they are out on the streets doing night patrol they see under-age girls as young as 13 or 14 years some of whom are willing to sell their services for as little as 5 bucks and that there is no one out there to police it? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The resources that the police put in are over to the commissioner. However I would say that the Manukau City Council is drafting a local bill on this matter and I will be most happy to present it to the House. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: In light of the answer to the supplementary question with respect to the outcome of the court case in Christchurch yesterday where the judge said it was clear that while the law legalised prostitutes it landed heavily on those who broke the rules is the Minister satisfied that the resourcing of the police is actually leading to good results? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes the police are actively policing that matter. The result of the court case yesterday will send a very clear message to the community. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that given that the report identifies that 20 percent of the 637 street workers are under age one prosecution in 2 years is an absolute disgrace and a sham and that not enough will be done about under-age people soliciting on our streets unless the police are given more resourcing and special units to deal with these under-age people? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There has always been prostitution. The new law toughens up in this area and protects young people. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share our surprise on this side of the House that United Future now complains about the lack of police resources after docilely rolling over and committing to supply and confidence for 3 years regardless of anything or does the Minister regard United Future as a “Poodle Party”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Police resources have never been better. I do not mind repeating that again. Of course there is always crime out there and the police are now better handling it. They are getting better results and that member must know they are better resourced than when his leader was Treasurer. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer was not addressed in terms of the way the question was asked. The question commented on the coalition partner. I point out that there is no responsibility for the Minister to give an opinion on another party in this House. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister received an approach from the Mayor of Manukau City Sir Barry Curtis requesting him to introduce a local bill banning street soliciting because of the problems with under-age sex workers and the increase in soliciting in general in Manukau and has he seen the video surveillance footage of Hunter’s Corner showing girls as young as 12 and 14 selling themselves; if so will he do the whole country a favour and introduce legislation to ban street soliciting in the entire country and prosecute those who try to purchase sex from them? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I have had discussions with the Mayor of Manukau about this. The council is currently drafting a local bill that as I have already indicated to the House I will be pleased to introduce. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
PETER BROWN (NZ First) 
: 
 My question is set down for the Minister for ACC. I do not notice her in the House so I seek leave to defer this question until she is here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Accident Compensation—Audit of Physiotherapists 
8.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her answer to written question No. 5163 (2005) as it applies to physiotherapists that ACC’s fraud unit is undertaking a survey of all treatment providers who invoice ACC on an hourly basis and that the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists endorsed the audit protocols? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for ACC 
: In respect of the first part of the question yes. In respect of the second part no. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that many physiotherapists who have been surveyed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) fraud squad do charge ACC on a per-patient basis not on an hourly basis and that the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists has not agreed to any audit protocols—in other words is the Minister aware that the written answer she gave me is not worth the paper it is written on; and if that is true what is the Government going to do about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To answer the last part first I will do exactly what I did just now which is to say that the first part of the question was answered correctly. In relation to the second part the Minister was advised that the society had endorsed the audit protocols. In fact what happened was that the society was involved in discussions around them and wrote to the corporation. But in general the society considers the protocol to be thoroughly and clearly— 
Peter Brown 
: So half-right is OK is it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In general the society considers the protocol to be thorough and clearly presented. That of course does not amount to a specific endorsement. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister concerned that physiotherapists being surveyed by the ACC fraud squad are in the main being told that it is a random audit—which it is not—and that they are being interrogated rather than being interviewed and is she aware that several have just been cleared already in recent months by a more orthodox random audit; and if the Minister is concerned about that what will be done about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly the interviews are based on targeted selection by billing patterns. ACC has taken steps to try to ensure that when people are being approached about this they are told that these are regular audit processes and that it is not being implied necessarily that any fraud has occurred. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister concerned that some very significant and distinguished physiotherapists and I am talking about physiotherapists who have been physios to the All Blacks and people like them are highly brassed off—and that is a polite term I might add—with the attitude of ACC that they have not been consulted and indeed never have been; that the accreditation standards are flawed if they exist; and that the cost of accreditation for a physio with a practice certificate in New Zealand is somewhere between $20000 and $30000 and the process takes 18 months whilst in Australia it costs $500 and takes a matter of weeks; and if she is concerned—[ 
Interruption 
] well the Minister answering might take it lightly—will she insist that ACC sits down and has meaningful discussions with those physios in order to address the issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that the member is complaining that ACC is having too meaningful a discussion with some of the physiotherapists. He needs to remind himself that the corporation is in charge of a large amount of money that has been extracted from people in businesses in New Zealand and it needs to ensure that it is getting value for that money. I am quite sure that if any physiotherapist were discovered by the leader of New Zealand First to be committing fraud particularly if he or she was a non - New Zealand - born physiotherapist he would be the first person in this House to complain that we should never have allowed the person into the country in the first place. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it not the truth that the Government wants all physiotherapists to sign up to the flawed and unfair endorsed provider networkscheme and has given instructions to ACC to adopt bully-boy Gestapo-like tactics to ensure that that is so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Student Allowances—Applications 
9.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When did the Government become aware that the number of student allowance applications received by StudyLink at 13 February 2005 was “22430 fewer than were forecast for the October to mid February peak period”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On 17 February. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will the Minister now admit that he was misleading the people of this country when he said on 9 March that: “The Government is investing around $223 million over the next 4 years to extend access to the student allowance scheme. This is designed to benefit an extra 36000 students.” when the Government had already been told by his own admission on 17 February that the number of people who received student allowances was down? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because it was so designed. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why are student allowance applications fewer than were forecast? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is a variety of reasons why students have not applied for allowances in the numbers that we expected including a decline in enrolments because among other things students are staying at school longer. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement literacy and numeracy requirements mean that university students now need to be able to read and count. Record low unemployment has made it attractive for some students to go directly into the workforce rather than to undertake study. There is a move towards more students studying part-time rather than full-time. More students are finding that they can earn much more through part-time work than by taking an allowance. Parents’ incomes have increased more than expected driven by wage increases and a drop in unemployment—for example amongst 45 to 49-year-olds a major parent group for university students where unemployment fell from 2.1 to 1.2 percent. There are a number of other reasons including people being involved in industry training organisations. Part of the problem with this issue is that it is just all good news. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Has the Minister considered that the reduction in student allowance applications is due to the changes to the criteria that now disqualify married couples and independent adult students who have worked for 2 years and will he give active reconsideration to United Future’s proposal to restore the independent circumstances allowance? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly those numbers were taken into account in the original arrangements so that has not driven the difference although of course people who were otherwise eligible are now no longer eligible. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: If it is “just all good news” to use his own words and if the Government was told on 17 February that fewer students were receiving an allowance this year than received one last year why did the Government wait for a student journalist to dig up the facts before issuing a statement; why did it not come clean and tell the students the truth when it found that out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We gave them the information to write the article. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Why has the Labour Government continued to travel around campuses even last month telling students that more of them are receiving allowances such as during the panel discussions in Christchurch last month where Mr Donnelly was and which he will confirm? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I hope what people are saying is that more people are eligible for allowances. The fact that 11000 fewer people are studying full-time because they have jobs—[ 
Interruption 
] That member may not like that but some people on the Government side of the House had jobs when they were students rather than having the silver spoon in the mouth as Bill English did. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Trevor Mallard may be used to being a “wooden spooner” but that epithet was out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken objection to the silver spoon comment. I would ask the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am absolutely happy to withdraw the silver spoon comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a totally inappropriate way to handle the situation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I was establishing exactly what the objection was. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That statement was well outside the Standing Orders. We thought that towards the end of the last parliamentary sitting before the last adjournment you had established with Ministers that when answering questions they were not to add inappropriate comments at the end of their answers and that there would be difficulties for the House if the sorts of derogatory comments that Mr Mallard is so well known for were to be added to ministerial answers all the time. You may remember one day when Mr Swain for example persisted in adding all sorts of things to the end of his answers. He must have spent all his hours looking for those little comments to make. He certainly was not looking for any overstayers; that is pretty clear. However to have said today that you are prepared to ask the member to withdraw and apologise only because Mr English has taken offence will see us get into a difficult situation. The Chair should have come down on Mr Mallard much harder right from the start. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The comment was not well outside the Standing Orders but it was irrelevant to the question. I accept that and that is why when the member rose I established that he wanted that comment to be withdrawn. I immediately asked the Minister to do so and to apologise which he did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that I did not actually apologise and I do now. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Are the Minister’s answers not just sophistry and is it not the real issue that fewer students are receiving an allowance this year than did so last year despite the Government’s promises that an extra 36000 students would benefit from the allowance changes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government has increased the upper limit of income for families from $50000 to $62000 over the 2 years. That is an increase in eligibility— 
Hon Bill English 
: So it’s the students’ fault. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member interjects again. He does not like it when he gets a response. He runs away; he cries when he gets a response. He is a bit like a dog I knew that chased cars and barked— 
Hon Member 
: What happened to that dog? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That dog got run over of course and the member will be too. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Would the Minister please explain to the House what happened to the $223 million that the Government claimed would extend access to the student allowances scheme and benefit an extra 36000 students now that we all know that in fact fewer students have access to an allowance than did so prior to last year’s Budget; and will the Minister be using any of it to pay the invoice for $54 million from the New Zealand University Students Association on behalf of the students who are not receiving a student allowance when the Government promised that they would? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: They will be back in 10 years for a tax cut—the same ones.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I note the Minister of Finance’s comments about those students being back for a tax cut. I just remind the member that in a number of areas—student allowances are one of them pensions are another and unemployment benefits are another—we set the policy and the rates and if more people are eligible than we forecast then the very generous Minister of Finance does not cut the pensions unemployment benefits or allowances. It works the other way too: if fewer people are eligible the Government does not divvy up the extra cash. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table the invoice from the New Zealand University Students Association for $54 million on behalf of students who are not receiving a student allowance when they were promised they would receive one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection; it will not be tabled. 
Carbon Tax—Response 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What response has the Government had to its announcement on carbon tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The announcement has received broad support so far from for example Contact Energy the Sustainable Business Network the Business Council for Sustainable Development Meridian Energy the Tindall Foundation TrustPower the Waitakere City Council the New Zealand Wind Energy Association New Zealand Refining Shell—both here and in Australia—IAG Honda Fletcher’s Fisher and Paykel and so on. Of those who oppose it some think we are doing too much. That includes the Greenhouse Policy Coalition and a number of MPs in this House. Of those who think we are doing too little I instance Greenpeace the Environmental Defence Society and Toyota. 
David Parker 
: Why do those New Zealand businesses think that having a carbon tax is a good thing rather than a bad thing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are all sorts of reasons. Sustainable Business Network companies such as Honda IAG and Fisher and Paykel say that much more needs to be done to protect our climate. TrustPower and Meridian Energy say that it will cause us to better value our renewable resources. Contact Energy and TrustPower say that it will improve certainty. The Wind Energy Association and the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development say that it will lay the path for the future of emissions trading. The Tindall Foundation notes that New Zealanders occupy a wonderfully privileged position in the world and that the Government’s leadership in protecting that is to be supported. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is this not just another blatant Labour tax grab that will cost jobs push up the price of electricity and fuel and further erode our international competitiveness given that three out of our four largest trading partners—Australia the United States and China—have no intention at all of putting in place a similar tax? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer is the same as when Dr Brash’s offsider the National spokesperson on finance asked the same question in question No 4: there is no disadvantage to New Zealanders’ competitiveness. I want to know why the Leader of the Opposition said recently that the Bluegreens are the best thing since sliced bread when they are in favour of the carbon tax that he now opposes. 
Tairawhiti District Health Board—Patient Referrals 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What remedial treatment is she going to organise for the 591 patients sent back to their GPs by the Tairawhiti District Health Board without a first specialist assessment an action described by Dr Jonathan Simon as suggesting “the hospital system was so overwhelmed that it could no longer deal with routine cases”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There is no need for me to take any action remedial or otherwise in relation to the patients sent back to their general practitioners by the Tairawhiti District Health Board over an 18-month period for the following reasons. Firstly prior to any patients returning to their general practitioners their cases had been read by hospital specialists. Secondly some cases needed more information. Thirdly some patients no longer needed an appointment. And fourthly those who did not meet the criteria for an appointment are monitored by their general practitioners and should their conditions change are referred back to their specialists. That is a big improvement from the time when they sat on an unpublished and hidden waiting list believing that one day they might get an appointment. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How many more patients will be culled from district health board waiting lists around New Zealand after they have waited for longer than 6 months or are the 2000 patients who were culled from Counties Manukau District Health Board’s lists on 1 April and the 591 from Tairawhiti District Health Board’s lists the only ones who will be thrown back to a life of uncertainty and often pain by the Government? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The good news about the system that we have now which was brought in in 1998 is that people are not culled. They are sent to their general practitioners to be monitored until a time when they meet the criteria for an operation which is not what happened in the past when they sat on a list for years and years and nothing happened to them. 
Moana Mackey 
: What measures has the Tairawhiti District Health Board taken recently to improve access to surgery? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to say that the board has done very well. It has increased its surgical services by 4 percent in the last year. It has also appointed more specialists and it now has nurse-led clinics which have increased the ability for more people to be seen. It is doing rather well. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has the Minister got around 120000 people waiting for first specialist assessments—over 28000 of them waiting longer than 6 months—when she blustered while in Opposition that having 96000 people on the waiting list was “criminal” and that “people could be dying”; and can she deny that the number of people waiting over 6 months has surged by 25 percent in the last 4 months? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Ninety-six thousand people were not waiting for first specialist assessments; they were waiting for an operation. The number of people who were waiting for first specialist assessment was not even counted. I tell the member that the real figure we look at is how many people wait over 6 months and she has raised that issue. I am pleased to say that it has dropped from the year 2000 when there were 40000 waiting. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Who does the Minister think is to blame for the Government’s waiting list fiasco: the district health boards as the ministry claims or the ministry as noted by Professor of Surgery Dr Bryan Parry who said: “The Ministry of Health has some explaining to do itself. Blaming health boards is a patent distraction ploy. A double jeopardy now exists. The elective surgical booking system has degenerated into the elective surgical blocking system.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not agree with that statement because we have more people having operations than ever before. For example 1000 more people had first specialist assessment from the Tairawhiti District Health Board in 2004 compared with the year 2000. That is an improvement in anyone’s language. If the member wanted to put blame on anybody I need to tell him that the system started in 1998. We have continued with that system. We should perhaps look back at the architects. I am not going to blame them. I think it is a much better system than we had in the past. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is from the  
Gisborne Herald 
 dated Wednesday 4 May which states that there were hundreds of patients taken off the referral list. As at March 2005 the number of people waiting for a first specialist assessment was 1674. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 written by Jonathan Simon and entitled “Just how sick do you have to be to get a hospital bed?”. It states: “When we look at the significant investment in the health sector over the past four years it is devastating to see how little effect it has had.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The third article is from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 27 April. Professor Bryan Parry says: “A double jeopardy now exists. The elective surgical booking system has degenerated”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr Hutchison to me that is about a patient with the patient’s name removed who waited 12 years for knee replacement surgery—most of that time under the National Government. I am pleased to say that this person has had a procedure and is due for another one very soon. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table a newspaper article from the  
Evening Post  
dated 19 August 1998 which states that 96000 people were waiting for a first assessment not for surgery as the Minister stated. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act—Reports 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the implementation of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act 2003? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Reports from around the country show widespread acceptance of the laws. A report released last week found that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. The same survey shows that 42 percent of smokers themselves now support the ban which is up from 22 percent in November. We consider this an outstanding success due to good law from this Government. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What have been some other positive outcomes from the new law? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Hospitality Association of New Zealand reports that the industry is coping well with the changes. Over 50 percent of its members surveyed said that their takings had increased or stayed the same since 10 December. An additional benefit is that Quit Group has measured a 44 percent increase in the number of callers in December and January compared with the same 2-month period last year. More people are wishing to give up smoking and that is good for this country. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask the Minister to clarify that answer. We could not hear it properly but I think he said that the takings of 50 percent increased or stayed the same. Does that mean that 50 percent lost money? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but does the Minister very quickly want to clarify the answer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The takings of over 50 percent of them have increased or stayed the same. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Carbon Tax—Introduction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a Government announcement that the carbon tax will be set at $15 per tonne and will be introduced in April 2007. This announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as Speaker’s ruling 154/7 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. In this case as the carbon tax does not take effect until April 2007 I do not believe that there are grounds for an urgent debate to be held on it today. I therefore decline the application. 
General Debate 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. It is no surprise today that New Zealand First wants to discuss a matter of very recent public interest. It is well summed up in the  
Dominion Post  
headline “Oops wrong Iraqi”. This Government has many hundreds of millions of dollars available to it to run the immigration system of our country and it cannot get things right the first time. It has spent another $23 million especially to manage New Zealand’s immigration risk situation and it has failed to do that. Who has resolved the problem for the Government? New Zealand First has. Can we fix it? Yes we can and we will continue to do so. Who is the effective Leader of the Opposition in this House? It is the Rt Hon Winston Peters—that is who it is. He is here and we are ready to go at any time on this issue or on any other issue. If Labour wants to have an election next week New Zealand First is ready for that as usual. 
Why can the Government not get this matter of immigration right? The issue has been going on for years and years and we have warned the Government about it for years and years. The Government is a dreadfully weak organisation. It has changed its Minister of Immigration time and time again yet the Prime Minister maintains Paul Swain in that office. There he sits abjectly in front of the television cameras saying that he thought he had got it right but no oops it was the wrong Iraqi. The Government just cannot get it right. Are those the only two examples? Are there more to come? There may be more and people should watch this space in New Zealand First where the news will come out first. I am sure that the Minister of Immigration is worrying himself silly as to just what will happen next. 
Why can the New Zealand Immigration Service not get it right? Why is it left to people in Bangkok to try to come to grips with Arab names? We warned the Immigration Service about that years ago. It is finally taking New Zealand First’s advice and bringing all those cases back to New Zealand. After all that person Mahdi Saleh Khashaly was travelling not just on a UN passport but also on an Iraqi passport. One would have thought someone in the Bangkok office would have realised that an Iraqi passport backed up by a UN passport should be cause for concern but no there is obviously no link with Wellington in the Bangkok office. Its staff do not think twice and they let those people in. 
I asked the Minister today whether New Zealand still had any links with other countries in the loop. In his first supplementary answer he seemed to say yes but then when I asked him whether he had received communications of any kind from Australian officials or their staff or from any other nations that are fearful that New Zealand may have become a stop-off point for back-door entry into other nations via New Zealand by suspected terrorists and those associated with the Saddam Hussein regime he said no he had not received any communications. We are outside the loop as Dr Mapp picked up on so promptly at question time. We are not in the loop. We have been rejected by other countries; we are no longer within the loop. 
Despite all that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade may say and try to do our foreign affairs policy is also in tatters. Mr Goff can travel here there and anywhere and people may say anything to him. But really if we were in the loop—where Mr Goff should have put us—we would have answers and support from Australia and other countries. But we are not getting that any more. We are really beyond the fringe in so far as our former allies are concerned. They no longer care to assist New Zealand because of the policies of this Government. 
I also say as a New Zealand First member of Parliament that the Government used to accuse us of racism because of our questioning of immigration policy. I ask the Government whether it stands by that accusation now. I really think and believe that Middle Eastern people living in New Zealand today are being badly served by this Government. There must be many people of Middle Eastern origin who have come to New Zealand lawfully and who are going about their business and are doing everything correctly but who are now under a cloud because this Government cannot run the Immigration Service adequately. I feel terribly sorry for the Iraqis Iranians Syrians Jordanians and perhaps Egyptians who are living here because every time that they go out they must wonder whether New Zealanders think that they are al-Khashali or some other person who is hiding in New Zealand. We in New Zealand First say to them that we will do the job properly. We will catch those sorts of people before they come to New Zealand and if necessary we will pass legislation to get rid of them. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 It is fascinating as we draw closer to an election that the Opposition parties seem consumed by sideshows and circuses rather than a focus on the sorts of issues that interest ordinary New Zealanders. The speaker who has just resumed his seat failed to demonstrate in any way that although there is some interest in a bureaucratic botch-up in Bangkok the man he is so concerned about and has spent his whole speech on is not regarded as a security concern by New Zealand by any of its intelligence partners or by the United States; in fact as I understand it he has been through a number of those countries. 
What the member failed to say however is what the Minister of Immigration and his predecessor have done in terms of improving the immigration system in this country. There were 2500 spontaneous asylum seekers when the leader of that member’s party was deputy leader of the Government Deputy Prime Minister in 1997-98. Each year more than 2500 spontaneous asylum seekers came to this country and flushed their passports down the toilet—and Winston Peters did nothing. He did nothing in 2 years of being Deputy Prime Minister. 
What has Paul Swain achieved? He has that figure down by 90 percent. The latest figure is 277 illegal asylum seekers in the last year under Paul Swain. There were 2627 illegal asylum seekers under Winston Peters as Deputy Prime Minister. The public can draw their own conclusions about who was effective in immigration. 
Then there are those other worthless parties of Opposition—the National Party and the ACT party. What are they interested in at the moment? They are interested in defending Peter Doone as Commissioner of Police a man who was judged by two independent reports to have acted unwisely and inappropriately when those members were in Government. They are trying to dredge up some ancient history because they have no policy. They have no direction; they have no leadership; and they have no support from the people of this country. 
When the electorate goes to the polls this September people will make their judgments on the fact that things have become better in their lives under the last 5½ years of a Labour-led Government. They know that this country has outperformed every other country in the Western World in terms of growth—growth rates are the best in the Western World. 
New Zealand has the lowest unemployment rate in the Western World. When the average New Zealander elector goes to the polls he or she will know that 264000 additional New Zealanders are working paying taxes and earning a good living—better off than ever before. New Zealanders know that under this Government they are spending $1.2 billion less on the unemployment benefit. There are 85000 fewer New Zealanders on the dole and 6000 fewer New Zealanders on the domestic purposes benefit. 
What is it about that that the National Party does not understand? That is why those members are languishing and low-polling in Opposition and they will not do any better. They will not do any better because they have absolutely no credibility. 
Their leader Don Brash has promised this week to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on roads—in what area? The Waikato! By the time that he gets to the Bluff it will be tens of billions of dollars that he will want to spend. 
And he is going to spend another $200 million on defence. Sean Plunket asked: “Well what are you going to do with it?”; the answer was: “I don’t know.” “What’s your policy?” Sean Plunket asked; “We will have one by the election.” Don Brash promised. 
That Leader of the Opposition has failed to perform. The front bench has been hopeless. Those members have no policy they have no vision they have no direction and they do not have the support of the average New Zealander who knows that he or she is better off than ever before under what this Government is doing. 
On 1 April this year 300000 New Zealanders received an improvement in family support to help with raising their kids. Who in this House would oppose that move? Those members did! Ordinary working families who needed the help now have money in their pocket because this Government recognised their need and is managing the country’s economy in a way that that need can be met. As a result of this coming Budget 300000 elderly New Zealanders will receive rate relief. What people will vote for in this country is another Labour-led Clark-led Government. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was the most encouraging speech I have heard from the Labour Government in a long time. It is encouraging of National’s aspirations and prospects because—let us be very clear—the golden rule in politics is that one never attacks anything that one is not worried about. So that rowdy attack from the angry young man of the Labour Government is an admission that Labour is on the back foot is disconnected from ordinary New Zealand and is likely to take a pounding in the coming election. 
It is inappropriate in this House to refer to another member as a dishonest person a liar or a hypocrite so I will not say any of those things. But I will ask that people consider the record of the Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has long been the rule that members using methods of pretending they are not using words to describe a member and then using them have been ruled out of order by Speakers. The member has just done that and I ask you so to rule him out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is true although it was not quite clear to me where the member was heading. It was not that clear but what the other member says is true. It is absolutely right and I would just remind the member of that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to talk about some things that are factual. I want people to make up their own minds about how they interpret those things. The first thing is the issue with regard to a Mr Yelash. Do people remember the situation with Mr Yelash? He was defamed by the Prime Minister and the taxpayer coughed up $56000 to cover her. Then there was the case of the Auckland surgeon who was defamed. The Prime Minister had to apologise publicly for that defamation. 
There was the “corngate” scandal in which the Prime Minister initially denied that she had been part of a cover-up—part of a process to make that release legal—but was finally caught out. We had the issue of the Historic Places Trust payout when the Prime Minister decided that rather than telling the public exactly what the payout was she would confuse the figure with a whole lot of others. She was eventually caught out. Then we had the “paintergate” scandal. Do members remember that? The Prime Minister initially said she had no recollection—she could not remember—but she ultimately had to confess to signing at least six other paintings having a friend buy that particular painting and having her office burn it on her behalf so destroying the evidence. 
More recently there has been the issue of the speeding motorcade charging across the Canterbury Plains at 140 kilometres an hour. But she had no recollection of how that happened. She did not know it was happening. She did not see that the police were stopping people in the small towns and boroughs of Canterbury as she flashed by. She had no recollection and took no responsibility and now five policemen and one civilian are before the court. Later this year she will be in the court to give her view on that. 
The issue is that no responsibility has been taken. The interesting thing is that this pattern of saying: “I don’t remember; I have no recollection; it was not me.”—or as Homer Simpson would say: “I was not there; it was not me; it did not happen.”—is consistent with the way the Prime Minister has behaved from the day she became leader of this country. 
We have seen in recent days the most disgraceful obfuscation of answers around questions relating to her involvement in the constructive dismissal of then Commissioner of Police Peter Doone back in 2000. I do not want to go into matters relating to the commissioner’s behaviour or otherwise; that is not for me to do. What I do want to talk about is the extraordinary decision by the Prime Minister to tell a newspaper that it was on the right track—that what it wanted to publish as having been said by the commissioner on that particular night at that particular event was not wrong even though she had on her desk two reports that made it clear that that was not correct. For her to come into the House today and yesterday and simply to say she has no recollection cannot remember is sure she would have done so etc. is simply part of the pattern that has marked her style since becoming Prime Minister. 
I think that the Prime Minister owes New Zealanders the truth in this circumstance. It would be so easy for her to make it go away by releasing the brief of evidence that she provided to the court in Mr Doone’s case against the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. She could do that quite simply—perhaps by tabling it in Parliament or by releasing it to one of her favourite journalists—in order that her good name might be protected. One has to ask the reason for the hesitance she clearly has about doing so. The idea that it could be because more litigation is coming is nonsense because if there is nothing wrong there is no basis for litigation. So I want the Prime Minister to accept her responsibility to tell the truth to New Zealanders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The schedule I have in front of me indicates that United Future is due to take the fourth call. If some arrangement has been made to swap those particular slots around to help out the Labour Party I think that the rest of the House is owed an explanation as to what is going on in this deviation from the schedule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but the swap is by arrangement between the parties concerned and those spots are all tradable. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They don’t like it! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is not a matter of whether we like it; it is about the procedure here. The Speaker says that he has in front of him an order of speakers. I want an explanation then from the Speaker because I think we are owed it. We have the same list in front of us. Are you now Mr Speaker not sticking to the list in front of you? By what process is that list changed? The list we have is not the one you have now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that but it was unnecessary; I had dealt with the matter. I have no doubt that the list he has in front of him is the same as the one I have here and I also have no doubt that he will be able to follow it from here on. [ 
Interruption 
] No further explanations need be made. None will be made. This arrangement is perfectly in order. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is it a new one—a fresh one? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. Does this mean that we will still have 12 slots today and does it mean—I ask because it matters to us—that United Future has given up its slot and will now take a Labour Party slot; if so which one? I think we are owed an explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. I would have thought that the issues you have raised were quite obvious but I say that the United Future member will take the next Labour slot. That is the swap. I think that that clears it up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Let us get the facts right in this situation. Peter Doone then Commissioner of Police had been drinking. He had been drinking for 4 hours. He got out of his car and stopped the young constable who had the sniffer and was about to breath-test Mr Doone’s partner who had also been drinking for 4 hours. He interfered with the young constable who had the sniffer. Mr Doone’s partner Robyn Johnstone had been drinking for 4 hours and was driving in the city with her lights off. She was driving around town with her lights off after drinking for 4 hours. 
The Commissioner of Police claimed he and the constable exchanged pleasantries—that was his first reaction. We know now that that was not true. He was found by the Police Complaints Authority to have acted in a way that was undesirable. He was found by the Robinson report to have acted in a way that was inappropriate. Let us make this clear. The Robinson report made it clear that Main and Haldane the two constables had been on duty for 5 hours and they were sober. The report also makes it clear that Doone and Johnstone had been drinking for 4 hours and had both consumed alcohol—at least one of them a considerable amount. Johnstone drove around town with her lights off. 
The National Party criticised them; Jenny Shipley set up the inquiry. And now what is National doing? It is defending the driver who had been drinking and the Commissioner of Police who interfered with a constable in the course of his duty. That is the National Party’s approach. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it would help in this situation if I made it very clear that the National Party members are not defending any of that behaviour. We are simply asking why the Prime Minister engaged in dishonest discussion with the  
Sunday Star-Times. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not a matter of what you are asking. That is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do want to make it clear as the Prime Minister has made it clear in this House and outside that it is absolutely undeniable that she said that what was said was contested. 
I frankly do not think it makes a helluva lot of difference when the Commissioner of Police wanders up to a young cop who is attempting to breath-test his partner and says: “We’ll be on our way then.” which he claimed he did in the end. First of all he said that they exchanged pleasantries and then he said: “We’ll be on our way then.” This is what the National Party is defending. It is defending a Commissioner of Police who intervened and stopped a young constable. National members are saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that there was a contest of views between the sober Main and Doone who had been drinking as to what was said. There was a contest. One thought one thing was said and one thought the other. We know that that is true. They had different views and the Prime Minister pointed that out. She pointed out that it was contested. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Get her evidence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She told the House. She said clearly and absolutely to everyone that there was a contest of views as to what was said. But even if we take the generous view—the Doone view—of the event the Commissioner of Police said: “We’ll be on our way then.” to the constable who was wandering up with the breath-testing device to test a former Land Transport Safety Authority official Ms Johnstone who had been drinking and was driving. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 We have just seen an excellent example of the rot at the heart of the Labour Government. Trevor Mallard has just now tried to make a fact out of an assertion that Helen Clark made in the House today. He is wrong. It is not undeniable that she told the press that there were contesting views about what was said. I will tell Mr Mallard what Helen Clark said—that she was confident she would have advised the journalist there were contesting views. Then Trevor Mallard got up and said that it was an undeniable fact. Well I welcome him to have that discussion with the  
Sunday Star-Times  
people who spoke to Helen Clark five times. 
What was the Prime Minister of New Zealand doing having five conversations with newspaper journalists pumping another bullet into a Police Commissioner who was already dead for all the reasons that Trevor Mallard has outlined? Why was she doing that? Here is the next question. Why did the newspaper get it so wrong after five conversations? Why is it that there were five conversations and that the newspaper published the story based on the Prime Minister’s confirmation of what was said? She got up and she did not actually deny it. She just said she was confident she would have advised—because she cannot remember. 
Well here is a new word for parliamentary use: a “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”. Has that been sprayed around this House a lot in the last 5 years by a Prime Minister who has a record of form as long as one’s arm! 
I ask long-serving members in this House what Prime Minister of New Zealand has been involved in two serious police investigations. I ask members to name one Prime Minister who was asked by the police to answer their questions about the Prime Minister’s activities and who would not answer them. In the “paintergate” inquiry Helen Clark would not answer police questions about things such as destroying evidence. She would not answer the questions. Now she is in a police investigation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is in the Standing Orders that interjections should be rare and to the point. Through both of the National Party speeches so far Trevor Mallard has interjected almost without stopping even for a breath. I ask that I be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not need any assistance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will raise a fresh point of order if you want to rule Mr Speaker but it is not quite related to this. Of course the member has the right to silence and any member who cannot take the heat can ask for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That request has been made and we could adhere to that but I think it is better to have a little bit of noise in the Chamber—I think we would all agree on that. I was about to pull the member up but I thought that he was going to desist at that point. I have to say that when the Hon Phil Goff was speaking there was far more noise from a far greater number of people than there is now. But the member’s interjections are consistent and I ask him to cease doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is also in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that members should not ask rhetorical questions because if they do they will get a response. The member asked about four in a row and he got a response. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is a debating issue yes. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been two serious police investigations. There was the defamation suit when the Prime Minister tried to hide from the House the fact that she had made a payout. We then had “corngate” a trail of half-truths and spin that culminated in the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet withholding all the incriminating documents a month before an election. 
Then there have been any number of incidents in this House when the “Clarkism”—“something you can’t remember you never said”—has been used. I will give just one example. When some business leaders made public statements that the Government should try to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD Helen Clark decided that that had never been a target the Government had set despite the fact that Government members had talked about it for 2 years. She decided that they had never said that—that it had never been Government policy. It was not just that the policy had changed but that it had never ever existed as a target. 
The point about all this is that the half-truths and the manipulations are what hold this Labour Government together. That is how it is run from the top. Each one of these investigations half-stories forgetfulnesses and “Clarkisms” are just little snapshots that the public gets of the way this Government and this Prime Minister do their business. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to address the House on the first report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the nature and extent of the sex industry in New Zealand released by the Ministry of Justice just a few weeks ago. The committee was required by law to give an assessment of the number of sex workers in New Zealand as soon as possible after the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act—and I concede that one positive feature of the Act is that we are able to get better information on the nature of the sex industry in New Zealand. I believe we should have had that information before we looked at changing the law. However at least now we do have some information. 
The report which was tabled in April 2005 almost 2 years after the Act passed is rather late. Nevertheless it is useful. But with the make-up of the committee mandated to include two persons nominated by the Minister of Commerce to represent the operators of prostitution businesses and three persons nominated by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective out of a total of 11 members I think many New Zealanders wondered whether the report would be so biased as to be of no use. It comes as some surprise really to see that the report seems to be reasonably factual—as factual as can be expected in the light of the difficult circumstances associated with gathering information about the sex industry. Paul Fitzharris is to be commended for his role as chair in guiding the committee and I would like to take the opportunity to pay respect to one of United Future’s nominees to the committee Sue Martin a former national coordinator of End Child Prostitution Child Pornography Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand)# who had to resign after illness and passed away last year. I thank the Minister for appointing Mr Alan Bell the new ECPAT New Zealand national coordinator as her replacement. 
One of the most disturbing findings of the report though is the number of under-age young people predominately female involved in the sex industry in New Zealand particularly those involved in street soliciting 20 percent of whom are estimated to be under age. That is something we should all be very concerned about because those who supported this legislation 2 years ago said that the legislation would do something about it. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective part of the report of course tries to downplay that issue and deny it by stating on page 49: “However the NZPC”—the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective—“did not consider there were significant numbers of under age sex workers working in the industry.” I want to ask the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective what it considers to be significant numbers. Two hundred young people in New Zealand under the age of 18 being caught up in the web of prostitution is I consider very very significant. I wonder whether the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective would be concerned if there were 1000 of them. How many would it consider to be significant? I believe we ought to consider even one person in this country being caught into the inherent exploitation and degradation of prostitution to be very significant indeed. 
But then it may not come as much of a surprise to find that the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective does not consider the number of under-age sex workers to be significant because with at least $300000 of taxpayer funding it is promoting prostitution as a glamorous occupation. If one looks at the magazines it produces such as the  
Siren 
 magazine one will see that it often encourages young women to go to Europe and engage in prostitution in order to pay for their OE which is something I believe that the Government should be withdrawing its funding from immediately. We should consider that even to have one under-age young life on the streets is significant and that something should be done about it. 
What is being done about this appalling situation? Two hundred under-age people are out most nights of the week—perhaps many more than that number if the truth be known—according to reports that have been appearing in the newspapers lately. On the mean streets of Hunters Corner Mama Tere acknowledges she is finding more and more young people and in fact she has seen prostitution quadruple in her experience over the last 2 years. We see headlines such as “Act fails to protect girls”; “Number of prostitutes rises 40 percent”; “Enforce the law”. That is really the problem. The law is no good if it is not going to be enforced by the police. The report reveals that in New Zealand where we have the incredible situation of so many young women being involved in under-age prostitution there is one police officer in the Auckland City Police District who is given 45 percent of his time to oversee something like 243 businesses of prostitution and to somehow monitor 360 people on the streets who are engaged in street soliciting. It is appalling. The Minister of Police in answers to my questions to him earlier today proudly proclaimed that one prosecution has been made. One prosecution after 2 years is appalling. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I rise in today’s general debate to shine some light once again on the question of Kaitaia Hospital. I realise that the Minister and her associates are rather tired of this topic and wish that the concerned residents of the district would just shut up and accept what the ministry and the Northland District Health Board have decided—that is that we must make do indefinitely without 24-hour 7-day-a-week surgical cover and rely on other means to get to Whangarei Hospital hours away over difficult terrain. However it is not as simple as that. Many residents of the far north simply do not accept our fate. 
I attended a public meeting of the Northland District Health Board in Kaitaia on Monday afternoon of this week when the venue was so packed that not everyone could get a seat or even get in the door. I doubt whether there are many district health board meetings around the country that are so enthusiastically attended. I commend the district health board for its courage in holding the meeting and for its clear presentation of the planned $9.3 million redevelopment of our hospital. However I believe it is the Minister the ministry and the Government that must be held to account in this matter and that the district health board is simply doing its best to implement decisions made basically at another level here in Wellington. That is why the future of Kaitaia Hospital is actually a critical political issue in this year’s election campaign for any candidate or any party that wants to win northern votes and I hope that the local community will continue to make its feelings known to candidates from all parties in the months ahead. 
There are a number of questions I would like to put to the Minister of Health and to the Labour Government. Why when the Far North District is one of the fastest-growing districts in New Zealand and welcomes ever-increasing numbers of tourists each year does the Government believe it should accept sub-standard hospital care? We are not asking for a high-tech hospital such as the hospitals provided in Auckland or Wellington or even in Whangarei. We are asking simply for access to basic services like the possibility of an appendicitis operation or the setting of a broken arm 24/7. Why is cost used as a reason for not restoring 24/7 cover to Kaitaia when many thousands of dollars are wasted all the time in transferring patients by helicopter and ambulance to Whangarei and when the board is currently operating a $2.5 million surplus? 
Is the Minister aware of the huge costs placed on a low-income population members of which are often obliged to find their own transport to Whangarei and back—and that is in an area where there is zero public transport? Is she aware of the practice at Whangarei Hospital of discharging—during the day or in the middle of the night—some far north patients in their pyjamas with no money or personal support? Has the Minister heard of some of the sad and ridiculous situations that are arising such as that of a patient with an appendix problem who was expected by Kaitaia Hospital to get himself to Whangarei even though he was sedated and in considerable pain or of patients with comparatively minor injuries such as cut fingers or broken wrists likewise being required to find their own way south to seek help because it cannot be provided in town? 
That is a ridiculous and an unacceptable situation in 21st century New Zealand. All of us should be able to expect a reasonable level of hospital care within the district where we live. For many people in the north the trip to Whangarei is not the 2½ hours it is from Kaitaia which is bad enough but up to 4 or 5 hours if someone comes from one of the more remote settlements. Members in this House will be aware of the explosion that took place in the engineering workshop at Kaitaia College a few weeks ago. Although the service provided by the hospital at that time could not be faulted—indeed I acknowledge all the effort that went in that day in helping to ensure that no lives were lost—at the same time I think that unfortunate incident raises yet again the question about what would happen if we had a crisis of even greater magnitude. For example what would happen if a tourist bus went off a cliff or if there was a major vehicle accident or fire? We are a district that engages in high-risk occupations like fishing farming and forestry. We are a growing economy whose people deserve the same standard of care as the citizens of other provincial districts around the country. 
The solution that has been offered to us by the Government and the district health board although well meaning is simply not acceptable and simply not enough to meet our needs. I call on Labour to rethink its whole position on Kaitaia Hospital. This is an issue that will not go away and I challenge the Government to have the daring and the foresight to admit that it has made a mistake and to start again with the goal of providing the services the far north needs and deserves not an endless second best. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to talk today about the total disrespect that Don Brash has shown to the voters in the Waikato—a huge taxpayer base in this country—and to share with the House something I read this afternoon in a newspaper: “It’s nice to know Don Brash cares. This week in Hamilton the National Party leader said he would get the Waikato Expressway—all 95km of it from Mercer to Cambridge—finished within 10 years. … Sadly” says the writer “it sounds more like something you’d read on a Tui billboard than anything that might be achievable.” Yeah right! “But then we are just months away from a general election when political spending pledges multiply like pollen spores in spring. Close examination of Dr Brash’s promise quickly reveals some fatal flaws.” 
This is the first: “Among the most obvious is the overhaul of the Resource Management Act required if National is to push through the Expressway project in a decade. That is not a simple task and will require extensive consultation and persuasion to convince anyone it is in the country’s best interests. By its own admission National says the act that exists to protect the environment would need ‘gutting’. Politicians will be extremely wary of such an assertion.”—and I am sure that Simon Upton would agree. 
Secondly: “Then there is the issue of cost. National says it will fund the $450 million project by doubling the allocation of petrol tax revenue that goes towards roading from 18c a litre to 36c”— 
Darren Hughes 
: It won’t add up. 
DIANNE YATES 
: It certainly will not add up and the figures keep changing in every speech that Don Brash makes. I also remember distinctly that in this House Don Brash and his cronies voted against that motor spirit tax. 
The article continues: “Don Brash has yet to say what that will mean to local authorities ACC and other groups that are currently funded by the petrol tax. Thirdly the feasibility of negotiating with landowners completing design work and finding enough skilled labour to get the work done within such a constrained timeframe is highly dubious.” 
It goes on: “While this region desperately needs the Expressway completed and any initiative to push it along is welcome a reality check is required.”—and where did I find this comment? I found it in the very esteemed newspaper the  
Waikato Times 
. 
Simon Power 
: Let Winnie Laban speak. 
DIANNE YATES 
: No I tell the member that those words are from the editor— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a well-known Labour Party rag! 
DIANNE YATES 
:—Exactly!—of that well-known Labour Party rag the  
Waikato Times 
. 
Would members believe that Don Brash came to Hamilton on Monday and launched—supposedly—a billboard in Hamilton and that that billboard was second hand? It had been up in Auckland for a couple of weeks yet he came to Hamilton on a very rainy day claiming he was launching it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He just can’t remember. It’s one of those things about getting old. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Exactly—he cannot remember. I read in the paper this morning that he should be given the “limp jandal” award as well. 
In the same newspaper yesterday is the headline: “Brash pledges Waikato Expressway haste”. Then right alongside we have another headline: “Drivers enjoying new road stretch”. I am sure Paul Hutchison will be pleased about that. The article states: “Drivers on the Waitako Expressway to Auckland are enjoying some of the best conditions in years with the opening of a new section of just-completed road. The southern end of the Longswamp to Mercer section of the Waikato Expressway was opened at Anzac weekend. Transport project manager Eric van der Wel said motorists were now travelling 1km along the north-bound lanes while work began on the two adjacent southbound lanes. The new section takes out dangerous bends. It begins at the end of the Hampton Downs straight”—which I am sure Paul Hutchison will be pleased with—“and finishes near the entrance to the Meremere dragstrip.” 
So recent comments made by Don Brash to the Automobile Association in Napier when he said he was going to put Auckland first have now been countered by the same person. He does deserve the “limp jandal” award. Then in Hamilton as I said he promised $450 million. I have seen other evidence that he has promised $100 million a year over the next 6 years. It really is a strange turn of events. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The only thing the previous speaker proved to this side of the House was that she does not understand anything about road funding. 
Darren Hughes 
: Does Don Brash? 
PETER BROWN 
: No Don Brash does not; but neither does the honourable member. I have to say to my colleague Larry Baldock that it is not acceptable for him to come into this House and rave on about prostitution. His party has prostituted itself—big time! It could have stopped that legislation in its tracks. The member claims that his party stopped the cannabis legislation. That would have been in the same mould. He claimed that but we know that Jim Anderton would not have allowed that legislation to go ahead. It is in the same area as GST on rates—big noise outside; nothing in here. Smoke-free legislation: the same—big noise outside; nothing in here. Civil union legislation is another one—big noise outside; nothing in here. Even with the definition of “family” that party makes a big noise outside but has no knowledge of what a family is when it comes to approving legislation. However that is just me giving vent to a little steam. 
I want to talk about the physiotherapists in this country. Some time ago the Government brought in what it calls the endorsed provider network and it wanted every physiotherapist in the country to sign up. In theory the scheme is good because it means that an accident victim does not pay anything. Visits to physios would be free basically. The taxpayer pays. But because the deal put to the physiotherapists was so poor and because there had been no meaningful consultation many physiotherapists would not accept it. A few in Christchurch accepted it but effectively none in Auckland and very very few in the Waikato area and other areas did. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The member opposite thinks it is a joking matter. Let me say that it is far from that. The Minister for ACC through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has given instructions to bring these guys into line. It is the biggest bully-boy tactics I have ever heard of in New Zealand. They are being told that they are subject to a random audit but in fact they are being audited by the ACC fraud unit. The ACC accreditation standards are flawed. Some argue they are non-existent. 
The cost of accreditation for a physiotherapist with a practice certificate in this country is somewhere between $20000 and $30000. In Australia it is $500. In this country it takes 18 months to become accredited. In Australia it takes only a couple of weeks. Is it any wonder that some senior physiotherapists in this country are closing their doors? Is it any wonder that if some have not already closed their doors already they are considering such action. It is my understanding that the ACC fraud squad consists of several former South African police officers. It is not an interview that they subject physios to; it is an interrogation. It is in-the-face interrogation. It is a deliberate tactic by the Accident Compensation Corporation with the Minister’s knowledge to bring physios into line. 
Today in the House I asked a question of the Minister for ACC in relation to her answer to a written question but as she was not here the Minister of Finance answered it. He had to state that it was only half right and the half he said was correct was wrong. He was right when he said that the half that was wrong was wrong. In other words the answer to the question was absolute garbage. I am prepared to say that it was actually a pack of lies. Whoever compiled that answer knew what he or she was putting down on the piece of paper. I tell Government members that that is not good enough. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member may have accidentally—in confusing an official and a Minister who was responsible—suggested that a Minister had lied to the House by way of a written answer. I am sure what he meant to say was that the Minister was misinformed. He would not have said what he did if he had thought about it carefully. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure that that is what the member intended to say. Thank you for raising that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think he does have to withdraw and apologise for what he said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes because it did come out the other way. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually said something along the lines that the advice received by the Minister was flawed but I concluded that it could well be a pack of lies. That is the conclusion I made. But I accept that because I want that Government to do something positive about that issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member’s time is up. We have resolved that issue. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa and warm Pacific greetings. As the Labour MP for Mana I stand with dignity and pride to participate in a debate about remembering the 1990s and celebrating the present and the future under Labour. 
This debate shows that Dr Brash and National are suffering from short-term memory loss. They forget that National was tossed out in 1999 by the people of New Zealand. They forget how bad things were during the 1990s. We need to remind New Zealanders of what happened under the last National Administration and what Labour has done to turn the tide. 
Labour has clear policies. We are implementing them and we are doing more. We have kept our word. This Labour-led Government has spent the last 5 years reversing the trends of the previous decade which was a decade of despair. A deep loss of hope and powerlessness were felt by many New Zealanders during that time. We have turned around unemployment to a 20-year low. Do we want to go back to the 1990s when Maori unemployment was 18 to 19 percent? It is now only 9 percent. Pacific Island unemployment was 15 to 16 percent. It is now only 6 percent. Labour has turned those bad statistics right round. In the area of unemployment remember the 1990s! 
In terms of defence our Defence Force was seriously run down in the 1990s and Simon Power publicly attested to that. Our Government has recently announced additional funding of $4.6 billion over the next 10 years to restore and develop our Defence Force. Our Government is committed to a modern Defence Force with a motorised and readily deployable Army an enhanced Navy and an updated Air Force. The additional funding announced this week is the biggest funding initiative for defence in a generation. Our Government is extremely proud of the New Zealand Defence Force. Our military personnel are deployed around the world at the highest operational level in a generation. The outstanding work of the recent deployment to assist in the tsunami-devastated Aceh is a recent example of that. Our New Zealand Defence Force already has an excellent international reputation. Remember the 1990s! 
With our family policies we have also turned round the situation for families. From April this year about 55 percent of New Zealand families have been entitled to more money through the Working for Families package. Those changes will—and have already—put more money in the pockets of low to middle income families through increased support for living costs housing and childcare. Family support has increased by $25 a week for the first child and $15 a week for each additional child. From October there will be a 10 percent increase in child subsidy rates on top of last year’s initial 10 percent rise. That means working families will be eligible for up to $156 per week per child in childcare assistance. In addition to those changes childcare assistance is now available to families also on higher incomes. Remember the Budget cuts of the 1990s! 
We are also supporting vulnerable families. Family Start is providing assistance to families with children aged up to 5 years where their circumstances place them very much at risk. It is an effective early-intervention programme that helps children and their families achieve their potential later in life and greatly reduces the chances of abuse. Last year more than 4000 vulnerable families with pre-school children were helped by that service. We are currently investing over $18 million in Family Start and that will increase to an annual investment of nearly $29 million. 
In business growth the tax changes that have been announced pre-Budget will also help small and medium businesses. The focus of tax changes in this year’s Budget will be on facilitating savings increasing New Zealand’s access to worldwide labour skills and capital and ensuring their effective use so as to increase productivity and grow the economy. There will also be more money—$2.7 million—for business start-ups and the business incubator sector to help our companies grow innovate and develop a cutting edge. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 With “Doonegate” we have a question about the honesty and integrity of Prime Minister Helen Clark. It goes like this. A journalist hears from a source that Mr Peter Doone interfered with a young officer going about his duty and that when the young officer went to breath test the driver of the car Mr Doone told him that that would not be necessary. The reporter rang Helen Clark the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Members may be surprised as to why he did that but he rang her because she was leaking like a drain on Peter Doone. She was in a position to know what had happened because she had Rob Robinson’s report. The Prime Minister of New Zealand assured the reporter that if he wrote that he would not be wrong. 
Of course the reporter being a good reporter had his tape recorder going. The reporter rang the Prime Minister a second time to confirm the story and Helen Clark did. It is not correct to say that she said it was contested—she confirmed it. Indeed the editor then rang to confirm it with the Prime Minister which she did. 
Of course what the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 printed on 16 January 2000 was untrue and if it were untrue it was highly defamatory. The  
Sunday Star-Times 
 did not publish the story until it took it to its lawyer. The lawyer OK’d it having listened to the tapes and seen the transcripts of what the Prime Minister said. Everyone in this House knows that if the Prime Minister had said: “Actually that’s contested.” the paper never would have run the story because it would not have been safe. 
On the Sunday of publication Mr Peter Doone said that the story was wrong and that he was going to sue the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
That was well reported at the time. So both the reporter and the editor rang Helen Clark who was going through the process of deciding whether Mr Peter Doone should be disciplined or sacked. She confirmed for them that what they had written was correct. She told them she had the report in front of her and to hang tough. That is what the Prime Minister of New Zealand said. 
What did the paper do? On 23 January it editorialised that Peter Doone should go and repeated the defamation. How could it be so confident? Well it had every reason to believe that what it was saying was true because the Prime Minister of New Zealand who had the Rob Robinson report had said it was. 
On 25 January Mr Peter Doone resigned his post. The Rob Robinson report was released and holy moly what Helen Clark had said was in the report was not. Peter Doone then spent 5 years and a lot of money pursuing the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
A couple of weeks ago Mr Doone discovered that the person who had confirmed the story and who in fact had encouraged the paper to run it was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] At that point he knew he was suing the wrong party. I want Trevor Mallard to think about this—why would Peter Doone suddenly stop suing the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and start suing the Prime Minister? Mr Doone realised that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
had the perfect defence because Prime Minister Helen Clark had assured it that what it had written was true. On that basis after the Lange decision Mr Doone’s suit would not stand up against the  
Sunday Star-Times.  
The  
Sunday Star-Times  
and Fairfax say that Helen Clark confirmed the story. That is what they have told the court. Helen Clark has told this House that she did not confirm it. So someone is telling an untruth. It could be Fairfax telling the court that Helen Clark confirmed the story when she did not. But she has put in a brief of evidence supporting its contention. Helen Clark has not contested what Fairfax told the court but she has come to Parliament and said the complete opposite. I think that Helen Clark is lying over this. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may not have heard because you were calling my colleague Lynne Pillay but right at the tail end of Mr Hide’s contribution he made a most unparliamentary remark. I think he should be made to withdraw and apologise for that comment. He knows exactly what he said. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said that I think Helen Clark is lying over this. That is what I think. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please withdraw and apologise. I would appreciate that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: To please the Speaker I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not to please me. If the member could just leave off that comment. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Was not that typical of the ACT party? ACT is now polling less than half of the margin of error. How low can one go? Well one can go pretty low if one is a member of the ACT party but one can go very very low when one is Rodney Hide. I am not here to talk about negative stuff. I am here to talk about positive stuff today because that is what this Government is about. Let us look at our industrial relations now. Over the last 6 years we have had six increases to the minimum wage. We now have improved health and safety we have fairer labour laws we have 4 weeks’ holiday on promise for all New Zealand workers and we have paid parental leave. 
What would Dr Brash do? He was going to scrap the Employment Relations Act. He was definitely going to scrap 4 weeks’ holiday. Now who knows? Who knows what Dr Brash is going to do now? What do we know? We know that Dr Brash and the National Party think that workers should have no rights—nothing like a minimum wage. Who needs that in New Zealand? Dr Brash was opposed to the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is becoming a habit but I am sure you did not hear the interjection from Gerry Brownlee which was grossly unparliamentary and out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In fact I did hear it and I was about to do something about it. The member should withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Dr Brash is opposed to the minimum wage. He does not like fair holidays for this country and he does not like safe workplaces. That is not what National is about. 
Let us look at industry training and apprenticeships. There are more opportunities for young people and more skills for business in New Zealand. That did not happen in the 1990s but it is happening now. Again National members grizzle and whine but offer no alternative. National is the party that absolutely wallows in negativity. We can see those members wallowing now. Let us look at Gerry Brownlee wallowing. According to National members and their mates—whoops their former mates; the “Hover Around 2 Percent Party”—there is nothing good in this country. What happens in the National Party if one of its members excels in negativity and dumping on people? That member gets promoted. I say congratulations to Judith Collins—she is a star. What happens finally? If a National member finds all the negativity is just too much he or she is gone by lunchtime. This Government stands by its record for women and for families. Paid parental leave will be for 14 weeks and will cover all women including self-employed women by 2006. Is that not great? No say Opposition members. New Zealand families think it is great. New Zealand women including self-employed women think it is great. 
Dr Brash now wants to cut public spending. Minor changes on the margins simply will not do the trick so what will go? Will it be the 2700 extra teachers we have employed? Will it be the 3300 extra nurses we have employed? Will it be the 950 extra medical staff we have employed? Will it be the 1250 extra non-clinical support staff we have employed? Will it be the 398 extra social workers the 138 extra probation officers the 820 extra prison officers or the 1080 extra police we have employed? I can see Gerry Brownlee over there on the Opposition benches looking really miserable. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Stop telling lies. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is the truth. I have never seen anybody look as miserable as that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I can intervene; I do not need the point of order. Please do not make that reference in the House. I know the vein in which it was being used but I ask the member to please withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For goodness’ sake! Nobody could know better than me whether I am feeling miserable. If I am asserting that I am not miserable and the member is asserting that I am where does that leave the member? It is a bit like Helen Clark over the Peter Doone issue when we start to think about it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That was an unnecessary reflection on Mr Brownlee but let us move on. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am sorry but if that is someone who is looking happy I would hate to see— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctantly in the House because I was going to take a point of order before as you are aware but you ruled it out of order. There has been a repeat of a very similar assertion from that man down there—Mr Hide I think his name is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: All I can say is that if Mr Brownlee is looking happy I would hate to see him looking miserable. 
Moving on I want to talk in closing about a great event. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that if the member who has just sat down sought an extra 2 minutes to tell us about the greatest event in her life the House would grant leave for that in a heartbeat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is the member seeking leave for that? 
Rodney Hide 
: She has to do it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The time for this debate had ended. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 May. 
Part 4 Cultural redress ( 
continued 
)  
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Last night I concluded by asking what effect the inclusion of cultural beliefs into legislation has and how they are to be enforced. Will those beliefs by virtue of their inclusion in this bill be what future generations of New Zealanders are required to believe? 
I repeat that the claimants in this bill are entitled to their own beliefs but I think it is clearly wrong for this Government to continue to have those beliefs legislated for by inclusion in this bill given that their inclusion will in no way affect the quality the legitimacy and more important the durability of this settlement. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter further with a number of my colleagues and they were unable to shed any light on it for me particularly in terms of those parts of the narratives that clearly reflect what—one would say—are tribal beliefs and understandings. I reiterate the point that we in New Zealand First in no way deny the beliefs that Ngati Tuwharetoa may have but we certainly have some concern that those beliefs are now by virtue of their inclusion in this bill being foisted on the rest of us in New Zealand. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I just want to clarify for the member and repeat what I think I have said previously that firstly the statutory references—statements of association—are not exclusive and secondly they are a recognition of what those people believe. They are not in any way an encumbrance on the belief of any other New Zealander. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Commercial redress 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the part that makes possible the transfer of various properties from the land bank to in this case Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty as part of the redress and the accumulated settlement arrangement. It is relatively straightforward and I do not think we need to spend a long amount of time on it. But I ask the Minister whether he would explain for the public record a couple of provisions in this part. 
The first is clause 124 “Roadways and rights of way”. It reads: “The permission of a council under section 348 of the Local Government Act 1974 is not required for laying out forming granting or reserving a private road private way or right of way required by clauses 6.3 or 6.4.6 …”. If that clause does in fact exempt Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty from Resource Management Act provisions over land that is clearly not theirs but gives access to particular sites that are part of the settlement then I think that the Minister should explain why that is. The second provision relates to the issue of the Crown forests—or should I say the Crown forestry licences—on redressed licensed land. The issue there is that the trees above ground and any buildings above ground are excluded but—and I presume that the Minister could explain it to us—Ngati Tuwharetoa gets some right to use that land at some point. That of course brings about the question to the Minister of just how long the Crown Forestry Rental Trust will continue in existence. 
I noticed earlier in the day Mr Chairman that you were wearing a very fetching scarf and I am wondering where it has gone now. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I deliberately paused before taking this call because I was hoping that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui would take a call. I think that my colleague Mr Brownlee has raised some very important issues. Some Ministers who sit in the chair frankly do not know anything about the bills they are in charge of. I do not believe however that that could be the case in this instance. The Hon Mita Ririnui knows in detail the nature of the settlement—he comes from the area even though I appreciate that he is not Ngati Tuwharetoa. Nevertheless he has an understanding of the issues in the area. I think he owes it to Parliament to answer the questions. 
I was also concerned about clause 121 which refers to the Minister of Conservation granting easements. That is a procedure whereby the claimants will get an easement over publicly owned land—land held on behalf of all New Zealanders which presumably therefore all New Zealanders have access to as a matter of course. Nevertheless the claimants will get an access easement. Members can see the dilemma that I am faced with. People have access as of right anyway by virtue of it being Department of Conservation land. But in this particular instance the claimants will get a special easement. I raise that as a question because I am assuming as I noted at the outset that the Minister knows the answer to this question. I believe he owes it to the House to give an answer. As my colleague said this part of the bill is quite conventional and I do not have any other issues with it. But I do ask that question and I think the Minister owes us an answer. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I share the concern of Dr Mapp. I think this issue needs to be fleshed out further and the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui owes it to this Chamber to give a clearer explanation. This is the provision that gives effect to clause 6.3 of the deed of settlement which states that the Minister of Conservation may grant these easements. It could well be that a block of land that has been put in the land bank and passed on to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty may be landlocked. There are blocks of land in that situation and I do not think anybody would have too much argument with a physical access being provided by way of easement over public lands with appropriate conditions as would be expected. However I draw the attention of the Chamber to some of the huge problems that other parties have had when dealing with the Department of Conservation. I would hate to think that the people who are benefiting from the settlement will suffer those problems. 
I draw the Chamber’s attention to the Pike River coal issue in the South Island. There is a very valuable seam of coal and a company has been trying to negotiate with the Department of Conservation for about 8 years to get access to its coalmine over a very small area of land involving about 2 hectares. One would not believe the tactics that the department uses to obfuscate delay and frustrate. I would hate to think that this great department of State which I believe is out of control under this Government will also be used to frustrate the people who will become the legal landholders following this settlement. That is one side of the issue. 
The other side of the issue is a concern I have not with Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty but with the deed of settlement that was negotiated over the bed of Lake Taupo with Ngati Tuwharetoa. In 1992 Jim Bolger’s Government signed a deed of settlement transferring the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa with some very important conditions. One condition was that full public access for all recreational pursuits and all scientific endeavours would be guaranteed at no cost. That was a condition of the deed of settlement. The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences had a major project studying New Zealand’s volcanology that involved the bed of Lake Taupo. It was very important work. 
In previous years a mini-submarine came out and a marvellous film  
Ring of Fire 
 was made. The  
Jago 
 a research submarine sat in a crate on Auckland wharf for the best part of 9 months at a huge cost because Ngati Tuwharetoa denied access for that scientific work in the bed of Lake Taupo. The Crown-owned institute bowed to the PC. It did not have the gall to stand up for what was a condition of that deed of settlement. I am sorry to say that the Labour Government which was the Government of the time was also not prepared to confront that issue. In other words it was browbeaten and the institute was denied what was agreed under that deed of settlement. 
There are two issues here. Firstly we are saying that Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty will have to run the gauntlet of negotiating with the Department of Conservation—the monster department that is out of control—and there are concerns about that. I also want some sort of assurance that other conditions in any of these deeds of settlement will not block access or replicate the situation that we had with the research submarine  
Jago  
regarding the bed of Lake Taupo. 
I have spoken to those scientists and they are still extremely frustrated that they cannot do this work. They say that it is critical for their research work which is important seismological and volcanological research. They are working on the Kermadec Trench with all its brown smoke as it stretches from the Bay of Plenty virtually up to Tonga. Some marvellous work is being done there and there are a lot of new discoveries but the scientists cannot complete their work by doing important studies on the bed of Lake Taupo even though the deed of settlement signed by the National Government in 1992 assured full public access for all recreational activities and scientific research at no fee. Ngati Tuwharetoa have reneged on that deal and are frustrating those research scientists who are trying to do their work. That is why I raise these concerns. It is all very well to sign these deeds of settlements but we need Governments with the gall to implement them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I thought the previous speaker’s focus on Lake Taupo and scientific research was a little bit out of kilter with the bill before us. 
I stand to support my colleague Dr Mapp’s query. As even the previous speaker Ken Shirley acknowledged it is an important question. We would like an explanation about the easements over Department of Conservation land referred to in clause 121. My colleague made the comment that we would assume if there was public access already granted then that would include Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty. So why are we now seeking these special access provisions? The other point that my colleague made was that the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui has particular knowledge of the area under discussion. My experience during the settlement bills is that he has always been willing to rise and answer our queries. I see him looking at his green notepaper so I assume he has some answers for us. 
Of course he will acknowledge that getting some clarity around these easements is critical in Treaty of Waitangi settlements because it is at this point that members of the public start to get a little bit uneasy about whether access or rights to certain sites and areas of land that they have enjoyed may be constricted. I am sure that that is not the case here and I am sure the Minister will reassure us of that. None the less in my experience it is sometimes at this point when commercial redress and statutory acknowledgments are being discussed—as modest as an acknowledgment or an access provision might be—that the hackles tend to rise on members of the public who do not always understand the reason for special provisions. Maybe that is rightly so in some instances. 
If the Minister covers that area then other access provisions that are present in Part 5 will also hopefully be covered by his reassurance to members of the public that none of the access provisions provided for in Part 5 of the bill will in any way affect rights that others have had up until now. In the end these settlements need to be seen in the context of being positive for all New Zealanders. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 As Mr Brownlee said during his speech this is a very straightforward part of the bill and it is not necessary to spend too much time on it. But I will attempt to address the issues that have been highlighted by all the other speakers as well as by myself. Gerry Brownlee referred to clause 124 “Roadways and rights of way”. Part 5 contains provisions that enable the Crown to transfer certain properties to Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in a way that enables access to be protected. So it guarantees access to those blocks that would otherwise be landlocked. Some members may be fairly familiar with the discussion we had at the Maori Affairs Committee in relation to a particular area of land that was described as KA30. If the provisions in Part 5 were not made we would basically give Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau ownership of land that it could not actually get to. A similar situation has applied in many of the previous settlements as well as this one. 
Mr Mapp was concerned about clause 121 “Minister of Conservation may grant easements”. Easements over Department of Conservation land ensure guaranteed access by Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as I mentioned earlier on because they will be the owners of the forest in that particular area in the future as part of the settlement. There are already many similar easements in place throughout Crown forest land in the central North Island that are in favour of the current licence holders so that they can maintain access to those areas. 
Mr Shirley was concerned about Lake Taupo. We are actually talking about Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the lake bed of Lake Taupo has nothing to do with that particular iwi although there is an association there. In the first reading of this bill the Hon Georgina te Heuheu pointed that matter out to Mr Shirley and this is probably an opportunity to do that again. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 5 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 5 agreed to. 
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 7 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 7 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 8 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 8 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 8 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 8 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 9 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 9 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 9 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 As the Committee well knows the reason for the referral of settlement bills to a select committee is largely for the committee to scrutinise whether a bill is basically in order with the deed of settlement—to make sure that the deed of settlement is being implemented. With that being the case however it does mean that the opportunity to amend settlement legislation is very limited indeed and mostly it is limited to technical issues only. 
In this case particularly with regard to the title and name of this bill I just make reference to the fact that the bill as introduced identified Ngati Tuwharetoa only. The Maori Affairs Committee in looking at the bill and also being very mindful of the fact that there are Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Bay of Plenty and Ngati Tuwharetoa in the Lake Taupo area itself came to the view that it would propose as the most appropriate title that the bill be called the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill instead of the “Ngati Tuwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill”. But to do that the Crown had to seek the agreement of the claimants although it was certainly a committee view that we should avoid any doubt as to which part of Ngati Tuwharetoa the settlement referred to. Obviously if we include “Bay of Plenty” in the title then it is very clear that this settlement is not applicable to those of Ngati Tuwharetoa—indeed my own people—who live by the shores of Lake Taupo. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They’ve got a monster claim as well. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: This is not a monster claim and nobody would refer to any claim as being a monster claim. But in any event under clause 10(2) of the deed of settlement the deed is able to be amended if the amendment is in writing and signed by or on behalf of Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty and the Crown. The bill as introduced actually matched the deed as it was originally called. 
Happily the claimants agreed to the change. I want to pay particular tribute to Bev Adlam who has driven the claim along with all the others—family I suppose I could call them in the end—and in particular I just want to pay tribute to the work that has been done by her. This bill is now more aptly and appropriately named Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill so there is no doubt as to which part of the Tuwharetoa tribe we are talking about. Hopefully the Minister Mita Ririnui will use his good administrations to make sure that the bill comes on to the Order Paper reasonably quickly for its third reading because he and I both know—as do others—that Bev Adlam has been very very committed and dedicated to driving this settlement through but it has taken its toll. So it would be a good thing for it to be passed into law. Of course I suppose the Minister hopes that he will get the bill through before the election. But I hope that he will get it through in any event because it would be great to see this settlement passed into law and completed as a tribute to Bev Adlam and the great work that she has done in this matter. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I think it was appropriate that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu spoke first in this final part of the Committee debate. She is of Ngati Tuwharetoa so she has precedence in a matter like this and we acknowledge that. 
The National Party does support settlements as a general principle and we do so for quite a deliberate reason which is that we want this country to move beyond being trapped in grievance mode. To some extent settlements have had an ironic effect. They have helped race relations and helped Maori move forward but at the same time I think they could almost be said to have harmed race relations. There is a great deal more friction these days I suspect than there has been in the past. Therefore the way to deal with that issue is to ensure that the process is done reasonably quickly. That is why National has committed to completing all settlements by 2010. Even Labour apparently now sees the wisdom of accelerating settlements and it had to be driven to that point by National. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Who had the idea first? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I wanted to make reference specifically to the ACT party and I had this set down as one of the points that I wanted to make but Mr Shirley has asked who had the idea first. Well I say to ACT party members that they cannot have a policy that states that they will settle everything quickly—and I acknowledge that they have said that—and not actually vote for anything. It is just such a bizarre irony. One assumes from the way ACT party members conduct themselves that unless the settlement meets their needs in every precise particular they cannot agree to it. Well the real world is not like that. One has to have a degree of compromise and seek something of a consensus. 
National has pointed out during this debate our concerns about the style of the preamble. I think there is far too much reference to people as they were back in time without enough acknowledgment of the way that people are developing and advancing. So I would like to see more balance on that aspect in the future. The second thing is that we made reference to our concerns about the inclusion of the principles of the treaty. Finally we referred to our concerns about the inclusion of myth and legend in the law of the land. I acknowledge that virtually everyone has a belief of some description or another. Even if a person is an atheist that is still a belief. We however do not expect beliefs to be included in the law. I would invite the Government to think very seriously about that issue. I was heartened in some respects to note that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations did acknowledge that concern which I think is now quite widely felt in this Parliament. 
I want to conclude on this point. We believe that settlements must fit within the criteria of building equality—equality within the law. A settlement that infringes that principle in a serious way would not receive our support and we have signalled our very deep concerns indeed about the settlements around the lakes in the Rotorua area. Essentially that does seem to take rights away from the wider community and we think settlements of that nature will prove to be harmful rather than helpful. So it is not likely that that kind of settlement would meet with our agreement. But as a general principle we do support settlements. We do vote for them. They may not be perfect in every particular but they do have a pretty broad consensus as I think the votes in this Committee have demonstrated today. It is perhaps a pity that ACT members do not also support the settlements—at least occasionally—as a testament of good faith to back up their own views about the need to conclude settlements. 
We will have the opportunity in the third reading to speak more broadly on this. I think this debate has been valuable. We are bound to signal our concerns about these settlements and the way we would deal with them in the future. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of New Zealand First and—as people tend to forget—on behalf of the only non-politically aligned party in this Chamber to support the speaker from the National Party who led off in the debate on these clauses and to speak particularly to the title clause. 
I originally had the intention of putting forward an amendment on a Supplementary Order Paper suggesting that the title should be all in te reo Maori. However I was taken aback by the decision yesterday by the Minister in the chair at the moment the Hon Mita Ririnui to decline the opportunity to support an amendment to recital (32) reflecting the amendment put forward by the Government in its Supplementary Order Paper to the English recital. I had hoped that in keeping with balance and the desire on the part of the Crown to ensure an enduring settlement with any claimants the Government would have the good faith to support the amendment that I wanted to make. But obviously that was declined so I will not put forward an amendment suggesting that the title be changed to include the Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty”. So I am obliged to support the title. 
I think it is important that the titles of these sorts of settlements reflect and identify the claimant groups that the settlements are all about. In this case we are talking about Ngati Tuwharetoa. As we all know Ngati Tuwharetoa is one of the major tribes of New Zealand. Under its present leadership and previous leaderships it has become well known not only in New Zealand but also on the international scene. The bill is appropriately named although I would have liked to see the full Maori wording for “Bay of Plenty” in the title. Given that the Minister in the chair represents that area—and I note that his electorate does have a Maori title—I would have thought he would be quite supportive of the extension of the Maori language. Unfortunately he is not so we in this Chamber are obliged to stick with what we have. 
In conclusion I think that the bill is appropriately named. It identifies which part of Ngati Tuwharetoa this settlement is all about—the group that is resident in the Bay of Plenty. We will support these clauses. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has opposed this bill. We recognise that it will be passed. The ACT party recognises that there are legitimate grievances that need to be resolved and we certainly favour the Crown expediting the settlement of those grievances. That has been the ACT position. We heard from the National Party spokesperson that National had initiated the idea of bringing the treaty grievance industry to finality. I think that that is an expansion of the truth. 
I remind the Committee that it was Derek Quigley the co-founder of the ACT party and an ACT MP in that period who brought a bill to the House for a full fair and final settlement of the treaty grievance industry. He outlined a provision whereby firstly all claims would have to be lodged by a set date. Secondly the Waitangi Tribunal would have been resourced adequately so that it could do the work and sort out the wheat from the chaff. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to that member. Thirdly the tribunal would have been wound up. 
What followed was an outrage. The National Party in Government had the opportunity to pass that bill. In Government it voted the bill down. Doug Graham and others actually called the ACT party racist for promoting that concept. Helen Clark in turn said it was impossible. Here we are in 2005 and the National Party to its credit has seen the error of its ways. It has adopted the ACT policy exactly word for word with the same date mechanisms. That was its policy in 2002 and it has been consistent with it. Good on the National Party but I ask it not to claim that it was the initiator of the idea. Of course Labour which said the idea was impossible and an outrage now in 2005 says: “Oh yes we have to set dates and time limits on the treaty grievance industry.” That is absolutely wonderful but Labour should not forget that ACT was the pioneer of that idea. It was a sound rational sensible policy when we announced it in 1997 and it still is today. 
I will come to the context of why the ACT party opposes this legislation. It is not because we are against settlement—far from it. It is because of the very fact Mr Mapp talked about. New Zealand First has railed against the principles of the treaty. Winston Peters has campaigned consistently about this nonsense of the principles of the treaty. I have to say to New Zealand First that this bill has the principles of the treaty in it yet Winston Peters and his merry band are prepared to vote for it. In other words they have to walk the talk. They cannot just say something at the election; when the rubber hits the road here in Parliament they have to walk the talk. I say to New Zealand First that that is absolutely duplicitous. 
Equally the National Party says that it is concerned about the style of the preamble. So is the ACT party. The preamble is all about metaphysical ill-defined concepts as Dr Mapp pointed out. That is why we are opposing it. That is why the ACT party says that this is not good enough. We are laying a bad foundation for the future when we perpetrate in legislation woolly-woofter conceptual feel-good mumbo jumbo that everyone may think is great but that no one knows the meaning of. I recognise the role of spirituality but it is not the business of the State and it is not the business of legislation. We are legislating for spirituality in this bill and in other treaty settlements. That is why the ACT party consistently opposes them—not because we are against a fair and final settlement. God knows all in this country—including those within Maoridom—are looking forward to the day when we can make these settlements and move forward as a nation. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is the title debate but I notice that the debate has been ranging across the bill more widely in quite an interesting way. 
I want to make it very clear to the New Zealand First member who stood up and introduced his party as being the only non-aligned political party in the country that no one believes that at all. New Zealand First is of course the Maori party proper. Everyone knows that. 
I am staggered by that speaker’s concern about the title of this bill. His suggestion that “Bay of Plenty” should have been in te reo is not a bad idea. He should perhaps have put forward an amendment to have that happen if he were serious. But if he were super-serious then of course he would be from the “Tahi o Aotearoa” party rather than from New Zealand First and I do not see New Zealand First racing out to the public to start publicising itself as that. Mr Winston Peters leader of the “Tahi o Aotearoa” party—I cannot see that going down too well. The moment we saw that title come across the screen Winston Peters would be confined to the very low levels in the poll that I think the election will ultimately deliver anyway. 
The ACT party speaker suggested that National is somehow doing a bit of a copycat on the proposals put forward by Mr Derek Quigley. He might remember that National backed Mr Quigley back in those days and in fact was quick to embrace the concept and that it was National that said back in the 1990s that we wanted to settle this whole grievance as quickly as possible. We put a 10-year time line on it. We did not quite get there basically because since 1993 we have had coalitions in this country which have not proved particularly prosperous as far as getting this sort of legislation through quickly goes. 
However if ACT thinks it has some sort of right to provide good ideas for the rest of the world to pick up on I would like to know where those ideas are at the moment. Where are these good ideas? Where are these earth-shattering new views of how to do things? There is a party that for the last 6 years has lamented the fact that it has not had the numbers to do anything. 
As to the concern from ACT about the reference in the bill to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi I think it would be a strange settlement bill that was put together on the basis of accepting Treaty of Waitangi issues as laid out by the tribunal that does not mention the principles. As I made clear to New Zealand First—my apologies “Tahi o Aotearoa”—last night there is a need to refer in some cases to the principles because those principles are littered throughout so much of our legislation and I mean that in its most literal sense. So what simply is being said in this bill is that it deals with all those issues. It tells Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty that they cannot go around trolling through bits of legislation to find new interpretations of principles that let them come back to the Crown and say “Let’s have another go.”—which they accept. So from that point of view we are happy with it. 
The bill of course is called the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill and we are at the moment discussing the title. It would seem to me that to refer to this bill in any other way at all would be quite ridiculous so we will support the title. 
I will just make a final comment on the concerns about metaphysical references mentioned by Mr Shirley from the ACT party. From the start of my involvement with the Maori Affairs Committee I have raised issues around this stuff. However I accept in this case that the references do have a geographic nature. In that regard I think defining the part of New Zealand that is special to Ngati Tuwharetoa Bay of Plenty in terms that they has always understood in their tribal history is not unreasonable because when it comes to this settlement bill it is about a giant step in the history of the iwi. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) 
In Committee 
Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal Act 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party has indicated that it will be very supportive during the Committee stage but looking at the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has provided for this process we continue to have a number of questions about this legislation. 
Part 1 basically involves substantive amendments to the principal Act. The first question that the National Party has is why has the Minister gone to the trouble of putting a Supplementary Order Paper out when changing clause 3 “Interpretation” is basically rewriting section 6(1) of the principal Act and restating a lot of the original information that was already in the legislation? If one looks at it the two clauses are more or less identical word for word. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why there is basically no substantive difference but Parliament has gone to the trouble and additional cost of introducing more paper into this process when in fact it may not be necessary. 
We also have a suggestion when it comes to clause 6 in which new section 19 “Key terms in this Part” is substituted. We think it is better to clarify that in this part of the bill we are talking about the principal Act. Although it is stated under new section 19 we believe that under the heading “Key terms in this Part” when the bill refers to changes to sections 25 and 27 it should be clarified that those are of course sections in the original Act and are not part of this bill. 
But probably more interesting to listeners in the discussion on Part 1 and I suppose it comes back to one of the aims of this bill is the provision to redefine medical misadventure and medical mishap and to start to talk about treatment injuries. One of the problems that many New Zealanders had if they had a wrong diagnosis or some kind of treatment went wrong is that they had to prove fault on behalf of the medic and go through quite an extensive process before they were able to get accident compensation. 
This bill brings medical misadventure and personal injury caused by medical mishap in line with other injuries such as falling off a ladder and other basic injuries that New Zealanders might face so that they do not have to prove fault before they can get that sort of cover. But if one looks at the definition of treatment it can be the giving of treatment the diagnosis of a person’s medical condition or a decision on the treatment to be provided including a decision not to provide treatment. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain to us whether in the decision on treatment or lack of treatment we are talking about the medics or in fact the individual. We have had some high profile cases in the past where some individuals have opted not to have treatment in certain circumstances and that has led to a deterioration of their condition. So I am unsure whether it is the doctor making that decision or in fact if an individual takes that decision whether he or she would still be covered. 
Clause 33(1)(d) states that a treatment injury can be the result of “a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:”. I would like the Minister to explain what happens to a New Zealander who has been on a waiting list for cancer treatment or any other kind of treatment and while that person has been waiting on a hospital waiting list there has been a deterioration in his or her condition whether we will see the State further in the gun for keeping people on waiting lists when that person’s condition can deteriorate. I do not believe that significant costings have been done on this bill. The Minister might like to take a call to talk about what costings have been done. If one looks at clause 33(1)(d) “failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:” the State might run into real difficulty if in fact the waiting lists are not addressed. I suppose the Government is on notice to try to make huge improvements there. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I want to raise some very serious issues and I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Taito Phillip Field will take a call with regard to the recognition of another acupuncture treatment provider. When this bill is passed by Parliament the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority Inc. will be recognised as a treatment provider for claims by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) alongside the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists the first to be recognised as a treatment provider before the 1990s. A High Court case challenging the process of the authority being recognised as a treatment provider was mounted but a decision was made to drop the case because Parliament was going to pass this bill to recognise it anyway. So I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain why when there was a High Court challenge to the process the Government insisted on debating and passing this bill to recognise the authority as an acupuncture provider. 
But there is a more serious issue. Two other groups have been challenging the process whereby acupuncturist organisations are recognised by ACC as having treatment provider status. They are the New Zealand Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners group and the New Zealand Chinese Acupuncture Association and Register Inc. 
Before 1990 ACC decided to recognise the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists Inc. as a treatment provider. The two other groups came before the Regulations Review Committee in 1990 and asked the corporation to publicise the process of recognising those treatment providers but nothing has happened even though the select committee concurred. Then 7 years ago in 1998 the same groups had to again complain to the Regulations Review Committee of which I am a member. Once again the select committee found the ACC process wanting in recognising those treatment providers. 
In 2003 the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson wrote to the groups and said that it was inappropriate and a waste of time for those groups to apply to become treatment providers. At the same time the corporation was considering the recognition of the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority Inc. I must say I become quite cynical in wondering whether the reason the two acupuncturist groups still have the doors closed on them is that they happen to be headed by New Zealand Chinese whose efforts in those processes have been frustrated. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The Labour member may find the whole thing funny and laugh during this debate but I am talking about a very serious issue. The two groups have been trying to get recognition as treatment providers since 1990 and I am wondering whether the fact that they are Chinese New Zealanders is the reason that the process has been frustrated for so long. 
The Minister in her latest letter to the groups in July 2004 said that this bill would make an amendment to the process of recognising future treatment providers and that the process would be by regulation rather than having to go through legislation which invariably takes a long time. However I read through the legislation quickly and did not quite see how that process is being incorporated in it. I therefore am taking no risk and have tabled an amendment to the definition. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call in relation to a point raised by the honourable member Katherine Rich which I think is quite important to be clarified. It relates to the amendment to clause 3. The reason for that amendment is that it is to allow movement of definitions alone or in groups because whereas some groups are statutorily recognised others are not. So this amendment provides for administration efficiency in the movement of definitions to regulations and I hope that clarifies what I think is a very good point raised by that member. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise in support of Part 1. Yesterday New Zealand First indicated that we would be supporting this. When we had a look at the term “treatment injury” we were very pleased to see that it had been simplified in this bill. Previously the definitions in section 32 of the Act were very complicated and extremely difficult for claimants to negotiate their way around. Many could not and consequently they did not even bother to. 
We were pleased to see too that the treatment has now been defined as clearly as possible. We are also pleased to see in this bill that section 32(6) in clause 13 includes trials. We know that there are many advances in medicine today and notice has to be taken of people who willingly undergo trials so that the rest of our people can be cured of some disease by some new medicine or treatment that has been developed. Quite often people innocently go along to these trials and have very high hopes but sometimes the outcome is not exactly what they wanted. So it is really good to see that in there. 
New Zealand First will be very interested in the interpretation of section 33 “Treatment” in clause 13. Subsection (1)(d) states that treatment includes “a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:”. We know that the provision of treatment in a timely manner is becoming more and more of a challenge in today’s hospital system. I am sure we have all read the article in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Just how sick do you have to be to get a hospital bed?”. We know that people have problems that have a significant effect on their daily lives and they cannot get the required treatment in a timely manner. So of course we are very interested in this provision. 
We are aware that new section 32(2)(c) excludes “personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”. We want to see the Government taking the next step to investigate how it can remove this unfair resource exemption clause as that does need to occur. We believe that any injury caused by a failure of resources should be considered to be in the same category as a treatment injury and should also be covered under this legislation. There was a suggestion yesterday from the Green member Sue Kedgley that her party would move an amendment to cover this concern that we have. I am waiting to see the amendment appear on the Table; yesterday we indicated we would support it and we are looking forward to doing that. 
We were pleased yesterday that the Minister reassured members that the acupuncture profession is working together to have one scope of practice under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. We look forward to seeing that occur because we cannot afford to have one group the acupuncturists with two different scopes of practice. That cannot be allowed to occur. We look forward to having a result there and will be following that very carefully. There was a suggestion from a submitter to the select committee that a time limit be provided on the resource allocation clause so that the health system could gear itself up to meet the resource standards recommended by the experts as being reasonable. We look forward to some action on that area later in the debate or we invite the Minister to comment. 
We were most interested to see that under new section 33(1)(e) the consent of a person to undergo treatment is required. Given the debate currently raging about electroconvulsive therapy and the significant number of people who did not consent to that form of treatment who experienced significant difficulties afterwards we wonder whether they will be able to undergo some of the processes for compensation provided in this bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on a point made by my very excellent colleague Katherine Rich in regard to costs. National has some concerns around the cost implications of this bill and Business New Zealand in its submission pointed out the omission from the explanatory note of any statement of likely cost increases arising from compliance in regard to increased administration and levy costs and any other expenses that may become payable. 
When we look “at any other expenses that may become payable” we need to look at section 32 “Treatment injury” inserted by clause 13. That provision has been alluded to by other speakers. Section 33 “Treatment” states: “(1) For the purposes of determining whether a treatment injury has occurred or when that injury occurred treatment includes—”. I will skip paragraphs (a) to (f). Paragraph (g) states: “the failure of any equipment device or tool used as part of the treatment process including the failure of any implant or prosthesis …”. Some people make a conscious decision to change their physical appearance and when they make that conscious decision they are fully aware of the risks associated with it. They may decide they want a breast implant so they are fully aware of the risks associated with having a breast implant. Paragraph (g) further states: “(except where the failure of the implant or prosthesis is caused by an intervening act or by fair wear and tear)”. In the terms of a breast one would ask the question what is fair wear and tear? 
Darren Hughes 
: You would know! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That might be more in the member’s expertise. Paragraph (g) continues after it talks about an intervening act or by fair wear and tear: “whether at the time of giving treatment or subsequently:” People need to give some thought to that. 
So a person actually makes a decision to have a breast implant to change the physical appearance. But of course it could be a male wanting an implant to enhance his pecs. One would ask what would be fair wear and tear and whether he should be compensated for failure of those pecs to perform. So people who have consciously decided to have implants being aware of the liabilities and risks involved will be provided with accident compensation cover for failure of those implants to perform. Why would we do that? Think of the costs associated! 
Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that the work on understanding the full cost implications of what is being promoted in the bill has not necessarily been done. Why would we give accident compensation cover to people who have consciously made decisions to change their appearance then expect the Government to compensate them for the failure of any body enhancements that have been sought? Tattooing is another example. There can be downsides to that. There are risks associated with that. 
Katherine Rich 
: Botox. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes Botox. There is a full range— 
Katherine Rich 
: Sex change operations. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes that is another one. Are we to start covering people who have made conscious decisions for any failure in association with those decisions? Those costs would be significant I expect particularly in the case of a breast implant failure. I understand that some of those failures have lifelong adverse effects and that they incur a substantial cost. 
If we refer back to subsection (1) we see that the term “treatment” includes the giving of treatment and a diagnosis of a person’s medical condition. Just failure to properly diagnose a condition means that that person may be liable for some accident compensation cover. How far does that go? It includes a decision on the treatment to be provided. If there is an error in that will that be able to be claimed for as well? 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from where the National Party member finished. The costs are a grave worry and I highlighted that point in the first reading debate and also in the second reading debate yesterday. It is becoming quite a pattern that every time we arrive at the Committee stage of any Government bill we seem to have a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces all sorts of new things. There is no opportunity for public scrutiny or ability for the select committee to look carefully through the new amendments that might arise and goodness knows what they might be. 
Supplementary Order Paper 348 inserts a proposed new clause 26A adding subsection (4) to section 167 of the principal Act. The subsection states: “The funds in the Employers’ Account must also be applied to meet the costs of entitlements …”. The Supplementary Order Paper also inserts a new clause 28A. It adds subsection (6) to section 197 which states: The funds in the Residual Claims Account must also be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for personal injury …”. Further new clause 29A adds subsection (4) to section 201 which states: “The funds in the Self-Employed Work Account must also be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for personal injury …”. The Health Committee should have been given the opportunity to scrutinise those amendments to consider their implications. Instead they will be rushed through tonight. I certainly will be opposing them on behalf of the ACT party purely on principle because we have not been able to scrutinise them properly. Also the public has not been given the opportunity to see them. 
The costs of this bill are a big unknown. There is a big question mark over what they will be. There is likely to be an increase in the costs of the scheme. In fact we were given information from the Department of Labour estimating a transitional cost of $12 million and an annual cost increase of $8.60 million. The department broke that figure down. Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) actuaries estimated that the corporation would accept around 1000 additional treatment injury claims each year with an average fully funded cost of approximately $9000 per claim. That was in the evidence they gave us. But we see when we look a bit further down the page that the Department of Labour background report had outlined the fact that it was very difficult to obtain data upon which to base claim number predictions and their costings. So they are saying on the one hand that we will have this many extra claims and it will cost X amount of dollars with a total cost of $8.7 million a year and on the other hand that really they have no idea and that this is in fact guesswork. This is something we should be very worried about. 
So the shortage of information about costs should be noted. It is also noted that the scheme is not funded in entirely the same way as other ACC accounts. That is where I am quite concerned about proposed new clauses 26A 28A and 29A on the Supplementary Order Paper. At the moment medical misadventure is dependent on levy income from the earners account with just under half coming from the non-earners account—that is Parliament’s appropriation. There are likely to be calls to reform the funding arrangements in the future and I think that those should be highlighted too. If the treatment injury fund is to become more closely aligned with other accounts in terms of funding—and I think the indications might well be there on the Supplementary Order Paper but they are something that none of us has had the opportunity to look at and investigate properly—then we should expect levies on health professionals to increase in the future. I think that is most likely to happen despite the fact that the Minister has said on many occasions that there was absolutely no intention to levy health professionals more to cover the increased costs. The Minister also said that the earner and non-earner accounts will be increased to cover the costs. 
So quite where the money—that unknown figure—will come from we do not know. We are really having a great deal of difficulty estimating how this whole thing will be funded. The taxpayer should be very concerned about that. We are just expected to take the Minister’s word for it that none of those things will happen. The bill is also quiet on compliance costs and several times during the process many of us on this side of the Chamber asked for a regulatory impact statement. The Minister said it would be coming. We have asked for it but we still have not seen it. We are expected to just pass this bill without having access to any of that very important information one would expect to have with any bill that will see an increase of costs because of taxpayer funding. Either the regulatory impact statement has been done and it is too scary to show anybody or it has not been done. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 At this stage I want to talk about the clause that has been mentioned by previous speakers with regard to resource allocation or the lack of resource allocation and the fact that such problems cannot be used as part of the definition of an injury caused by treatment. I want to clarify that matter because there are some important aspects to it. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) covers unexpected consequences. It does not cover consequences that are the result of deliberate delays. Therefore ACC is saying that it is not responsible for the health funding and treatment priorities of the Government of the day. 
However that does not leave patients with no redress. The question was asked as to whether it left health providers—and in most cases they would probably be district health boards—open to litigation. It certainly seems clear that where claims for personal injury caused by treatment as proposed in the bill are not covered because the personal injury is solely due—and the key words here are “solely due”—to a resource allocation decision the maker of that decision is potentially exposed to litigation in respect of that decision. That may well include district health boards. So I guess the point I am making here is that that provision does not leave clients or patients with no redress if they can prove that their condition has deteriorated because of a resource allocation issue. It just means that the accident compensation legislation is not the mechanism that they are able to use. 
I want to reiterate the point I made earlier that the word “solely” is very important in that context. If an injury is caused by both a resource allocation issue and a clinical action together then a patient may have a case to make with the ACC. An example we were given was of a patient for instance being mistakenly assessed as having 15 points on a waiting list instead of 50 points in a booking system and as a result being given the wrong priority for treatment. Because of the clinical error that goes along with that priority that patient may well be able to make a case to the ACC for his or her costs to be covered. However the availability of resources is not always reliant completely on policy. For instance we have known of staffing shortages that have been beyond even the control of the Government of the day. Sometimes there are worldwide shortages in particular specialities. Even if the funding is available the ability to procure the appropriate specialist to treat somebody is just impossible. Under those circumstances the corporation does not want to be held accountable for those kinds of things. I guess a case could be made that poor planning within the nation over a long period of time might have contributed to the shortage but it is a predictable delay. 
I want to make that point very clear because I think that we have been working under the mistaken belief that people who suffer injury through a resource allocation problem have no recourse at all and that is definitely not true. They certainly have recourse although it is not under this legislation. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I shall give a brief speech to introduce two amendments the Green Party has tabled. As we said in our second reading speech in general we support this bill and we are very pleased with its provisions. There are just two issues that we would like to see amended. 
We have an amendment to section 32(2)(c) in clause 13 which at present excludes “personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:” from the definition of “treatment injury” and therefore from cover and compensation under the Act. Our amendment will allow an injury caused by failure to treat a person for whatever reason—including the lack of a resource to treat the person—to be considered as a treatment injury and be covered by accident compensation. We believe that injury caused by the failure to treat a person for whatever reason should be considered as a treatment injury and be covered by the scheme. We think it is unfair and indeed inequitable that someone who develops an injury because he or she has not been treated properly by a medical professional is covered by the bill but someone who becomes ill because his or her treatment has been delayed because of resource shortages is not. That seems to us to be unfair. 
To give an example of what that could mean a person who developed cancer because of treatment delays caused by the failure to diagnose a primary cancer would be covered under the bill but a patient who developed cancer because appropriate treatment was unavailable due to a shortage for example of radiation therapists would not be covered. Similarly a person who became ill in an isolated rural area and developed serious complications may have accident compensation cover if the air ambulance was not able to locate that person. However if the complications developed solely because of delays in despatching an air ambulance because none were available then that person would be denied that cover. That seems to us to be unfair and inequitable. Because we are making progress in this legislation in making medical misadventure claims fair and able to be accessed by all we want to see that particular injustice also eliminated from the bill. 
We have another amendment a new clause 13A that addresses the discrepancies in the bill relating to lump-sum compensation. Under the current principal Act claimants who have cover for mental injury for work-related gradual process disease or infection injury or for medical misadventure injury are excluded from lump-sum compensation eligibility if the last causative event—as it is called—for their injury occurred before 1 April 2002 even if their date of injury is after 1 April 2002. That excludes applicants who have injuries with significant latency periods from eligibility for lump-sum compensation. Our amendment seeks to provide consistency and fairness to the lump-sum eligibility provisions so that all claimants whose date of injury is on or after 1 April 2002 are eligible to receive lump-sum compensation provided that they meet the impairment threshold set out in the principal Act. 
Frankly we think it is unfair that anyone is excluded simply because his or her injury happened before a particular and indeed arbitrary date. Anyone who was injured before 2002 is excluded under this bill. That seems to us to be utterly unfair. But that is a minor amendment which simply clarifies the situation for people who suffered injuries after 1 April 2002. 
As I have already said we will not be putting up an amendment as we had intended to do about the acupuncture provisions in the bill because we were assured by the Minister yesterday that there is agreement amongst acupuncturists now. Apparently they have reached agreement about a scope of practice. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). The National Party is supporting this bill because of the gross unfairness and problems that occur with medical mishap and error. The situation was a little bit like a lottery in that the “rare and severe” provisions relate to injuries that occur on less than 1 percent of occasions according to literature around the world. It varied quite a lot and resulted in individuals having to prove that there was a problem. That is obviously inconsistent with the no-fault system that parties in New Zealand generally have accepted as being appropriate. 
But clearly what we in the National Party are worried about is the absolute dearth of concern by the Labour Government about costs. There was not even an impact statement and when the Government did finally come out with it it was just a stab. When one looks at clauses 10 and 13 one sees much evidence of why that abandonment by the Labour Government of the reality of the costs is absolutely relevant. 
Firstly let us look at section 32(7) inserted by clause 13 which states: “If a person (person A) suffers an infection that is a personal injury caused by treatment injury cover for that personal injury extends to—(a) person A’s spouse if person A has passed the infection on directly to the spouse: (b) person A’s child if person A has passed the infection on directly to the child: (c) any other third party if person A has passed the infection on directly to that third party:”. It looks almost like an infinite chain of events. Say a methicillin-resistant infection were passed on around the community; the cost of sorting that out could be immense and certainly does not tie in in any way with the cost estimations by the Department of Labour which has calculated that under the bill costs will increase by $8.69 million annually and that there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. Once again it is a case of the Labour Government just not facing reality when it comes to true pricing. 
We go on to new section 33(1) inserted by clause 13 which states: “For the purposes of determining whether a treatment injury has occurred or when that injury occurred treatment includes—… (d) a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:”. I think it was Barbara Stewart who pointed out that we saw this morning in the  
New Zealand Herald  
a damning indictment of this Labour Government headed “Just how sick do you have to be to get a hospital bed?”. We heard Labour talk throughout the 1990s of blitzing the waiting lists of transparency and accountability. Yet what did it do in 2003? It took 25000 people off the waiting list. What did it do on 1 April this year? 
Darren Hughes 
: 40 percent more funding. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It took 2000 people off the waiting list at the Counties Manukau District Health Board and sent them back to the care of their general practitioner to live a life of uncertainty in pain. I heard Darren Hughes say “40 percent more funding.” That is the problem. The Government puts all this extra money in but with no result. There is no increase in outcomes whatsoever. In fact it is even worse than that. That is the very nub of the problem. The Department of Labour and the Government have estimated the cost of this bill at $8.69 million annually and that just is not realistic. I would like the Minister in the chair David Cunliffe to give us a true reality check of what is realistic. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I can persuade the Green member and the New Zealand First member to have less confidence in the assurance given by the Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson that the acupuncture sector will come together and start the self-regulatory process without the Government making some specific commitment to ensure that an establishment council will be set up. It has gone down that path before and has not come up with anything. In the meantime I would like the Government and all parties to consider accepting my Supplementary Order Paper which states that any treatment providers that apply for that recognition after due process with the final approval signed off by the Minister can have their status recognised through regulation rather than having to wait for another appropriate piece of legislation which is taking a long time. 
The reason I make that plea is that two of the potential applicants for recognition as treatment providers the New Zealand Chinese Acupuncture Association and Register and New Zealand Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners Inc have been waiting and fighting the battle for the last 15 years. 
My confidence in the process is further lessened by reading this letter from the Hon Ruth Dyson to the New Zealand Chinese Acupuncture Association and Register which raised the question about membership of the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority which this legislation seeks to recognise as the treatment provider. The question was whether their membership did cover 60 percent of the New Zealand acupuncture community. The Minister’s reply suggested that the questioner approach the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority directly and request that it publish its membership. 
One would think that if due process had been completed it would be very simple for the Minister to reply assuring the questioner that the applicant had membership that covered 60 percent of the New Zealand acupuncture community. I hope that it is not about one standard for the New Zealand - European dominated organisation and a different standard that applies to an organisation that is dominated by Chinese - New Zealand acupuncturists. Otherwise my confidence in the Minister would be shattered. 
I hope the various political parties will look at my amendment and assure those two applicants that after 15 years if they are being treated fairly and going through due process they can have recognition provided by regulation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am really pleased that the Hon Ruth Dyson is now in the chair because I know that the Minister is of a mind that the future recognition of treatment providers who have gone through due process and assessment by the Accident Compensation Corporation can be recognised through regulation rather than wait through a lengthy process for the appropriate legislation to accompany that. 
I read in a letter that the Minister specified that she thought this bill would have accomplished that but I have read through the bill and I could not get any indication that that may be the case. That is why I am setting out a Supplementary Order Paper—to ensure that that process can be achieved. It would be very reassuring if the Minister could take a call to assure me that this bill can do that because I cannot see it. If the Minister can assure me of that then I am sure that other political parties who have now indicated to me their support for this Supplementary Order Paper can take the appropriate action. 
As I said two acupuncturist organisations have been fighting the process for the last 15 years and once they are allowed to go through a due diligence process I hope that the recognition of them if they are successful will not be further delayed by a legislative process through Parliament. I await with interest the answer from the Minister as to whether the bill addresses this issue. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in response to the National Party member Pansy Wong’s amendment. 
I start by saying that I support her intention. I agree that acupuncturists—traditional Chinese acupuncturists in particular—have had a very long journey in trying to get their professional qualifications recognised. Over the years—and this is a separate issue from this bill—they have been courted by smaller groups with lower standards of qualification who are I guess trying to heavy in on the scene. It has just caused delay after delay. However—and I have explained this to the member—United Future cannot support the amendment purely because although the intention is right I believe the correct mechanism for resolving this is the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
I am hopeful that as the Minister says those groups are now close to a solution. If she is right that is absolutely excellent. But I was concerned again at an attempt to bring about resolution through this legislation by recognising outside of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act groups that had not submitted properly to the process that is available to them. I accept there has possibly been some real game-playing in that regard for some time and I certainly understand the frustration that traditional Chinese acupuncturists in particular have had to put up with. 
However I think I mentioned at the second reading that if I had my way we would use the motivation of finance to say that if a group cannot get registered under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act then it should not be entitled as a profession to Accident Compensation Corporation registration. I think if a time frame was put around that—if a group was given a period of time to get registered under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—we would find that acupuncturists would very quickly become motivated to sort out their little differences settle on a scope of practice with all that that involves and very quickly come forward with an application form. Then we could all move on as happy campers. 
So United Future will not be supporting this amendment although we absolutely share the concern about the issue that Pansy Wong is trying to amend. We will not support her amendment because we do not believe it is the right mechanism for what she is trying to achieve. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would just like to carry on the issues that have been raised previously with regard to cost. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson might like to take a call to explain some of the cost implications with regard to this bill and in particular to clause 13. 
Section 32(7) inserted by clause 13 states: “If a person (person A) suffers an infection … cover for that personal injury extends to—(a) person A’s spouse … (b) person A’s child … (c) any other third party …” and any other person who might be infected. There are a whole raft of infections that that provision could relate to. I wonder how far it is meant to be extended and what the range of infections is that it is meant to cover or whether that is fairly unlimited. It brought to my mind the question of AIDS through immigration. In talking to some people in the AIDS Foundation—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not know. What does this provision mean? It refers to people who suffer an infection. If they pass that infection on all those infected persons become eligible for accident compensation. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to explain just how far that goes. Let us face facts. It is my understanding that the only real way to test immigrants is to do so not only when they come into the country but also after they have been in the country 3 months particularly if they have spent any time in a refugee camp. 
I note with concern that in section 33 “Treatment” inserted by clause 13 there is no definition of “prophylaxis”. Perhaps that is an oversight. I have checked the Act and the bill and I could see no definition for that word. Perhaps we need a definition in the bill. The Minister might like to take a call to explain whether she intends to make provision for that. 
Certainly there is concern about the cost of some of the implications of these changes. Although National supports the bill—there are some real concerns that are trying to be addressed through it—the costs that will arise as a result of its provisions are substantial particularly with regard to section 33(1)(d) inserted by clause 13 whereby: “a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:” means someone has the opportunity to apply for accident compensation. When 2000 people are being bumped off waiting lists does that mean that if any of those 2000 people become sicker or more debilitated as a result of waiting for treatment they are then eligible for accident compensation? There are a whole raft of considerations. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call as the provision says: “a failure to provide treatment or to provide treatment in a timely manner:” and when people are being bumped off waiting lists or made to wait on waiting lists why would they not be eligible for accident compensation in that circumstance? Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call to give us an explanation for that and to give us some idea as to whether a definition of “prophylaxis” will be put forward seeing as there is not one in the Act or the bill. That is something that might need to be addressed. Certainly there is a concern around the suffering of individuals when they incur an infection and how far that might spread to others. 
I reiterate the concerns expressed by Business New Zealand about the omission from the bill’s explanatory note of any statement of likely cost increases both in respect of actual compliance with increased administration and levy costs and in terms of the expense of covering the liability issues with regard to people being able to claim. 
I also reiterate that section 33(1)(g) inserted by clause 13 refers to “the failure of any equipment device or tool used as part of the treatment process including the failure of any implant or prosthesis …” whether it be an implant for breasts or implants for developing masculine pecs. What is the definition of “fair wear and tear”? How many times do those things have to be handled before they start to wear out? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on Part 1 in order to specifically address an amendment raised by Pansy Wong. I want to address it specifically because I think that her intention is very genuine and I understand where she is headed with her amendment. I regret that I am not able to support it for very similar reasons to those that Judy Turner from United Future has outlined. 
I think the process that the Health Committee and the warring parts of our acupuncturist sector went through has made some progress in terms of ensuring that when we fund services through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) or the health system we can have some quality assurance. That is our primary consideration. We will not put taxpayers’ money provided through any system into a health service that we do not have some confidence in so we have to have that standard. We also wanted to make sure that people had better choice in the type of acupuncture services that they were entitled to receive. The committee put a huge amount of effort into the issue of acupuncture. From the comments that I have heard back it seemed to be the No. 1 issue. The progress that we have made in that area is I believe the right step at the moment. That does not rule out anything in the future but I think we should just wait and see how far that progress enables us to go. 
I also draw the attention of Pansy Wong and the rest of the Committee to clause 43 which outlines the procedure for defining and changing future health providers. That is where the accident compensation system has finally come entirely into line with the health system through the recently passed Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. That is the way that we should progress so that regardless of the system that patients or claimants use to access health services we can be assured of quality services. 
It is with some regret that I do not feel able to recommend to my colleagues that we support Pansy Wong’s amendment. I think she has done it with a lot of understanding of the situation that acupuncture— 
Sandra Goudie 
: What about the failure to identify cost issues? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There is some noise coming from the other side of the House. It may be interference in the speaker system. Although I think that Pansy Wong has prepared the amendment with a genuine intention I cannot support it at the moment. I hope she is able to support the process and encourage her colleagues in the wider acupuncture sector to use the processes available through the health legislation in order to progress their access to more claimant support. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was hoping that when the Minister for ACC rose to take a call she would talk a little bit about Supplementary Order Paper 365 which is in her name and in particular about the proposed clauses 28A “Application and source of funds” and 29A “Application and source of funds”. Clause 28A refers to obligations that the Residual Claims Account has and clause 29A refers to obligations that the Self-Employed Work Account has. It is late at night I have had a hard day and on top of that I am just a simple sailor but I have tried to work out where the dickens 1 July 1999 comes from. There must be a reason for the inclusion of that date. I guarantee to the Minister that the Government members do not know. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: They do. They asked me. 
PETER BROWN 
: Will the Minister take a call and explain these two clauses? I say that with a degree of jest but I am also serious. I have read these clauses over and over again and I have tried to work out why 1 July 1999 is included. Why not the year 2000? Why July? August is a nice month too—or September. Perhaps she could explain it. 
Darren Hughes 
: September will be very tough for that man. 
PETER BROWN 
: I invite the member to read these clauses—paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 201(4) in clause 29A in particular because they seem to counteract one another. Perhaps the Minister could explain it. This Supplementary Order Paper has not gone to a select committee there is no intention of it going to a select committee and I believe that nobody fully understands it. If she will not do it it is no good my asking her colleagues because they do not have a clue what this Supplementary Order Paper is about. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why do you think they contradict each other? 
PETER BROWN 
: To my mind they seem to do that. I will read paragraph (b): “the claimant was self-employed when performing that task or in that environment (regardless of whether the claimant was self-employed at the date on which the personal injury is regarded as having been suffered).” There must be simpler language to use to explain what I think that means. It sounds pretty damn complex to me. I guarantee that the average guy out in Kiwiland will say: “What the dickens is that telling me?”. It is not going to the select committee and nobody in the Chamber has spoken about it so I ask the Minister—who is an expert when it comes to accident compensation matters and understands the legislation inside out and back to front—to please take the time to give the Committee an explanation. 
In terms of the Greens’ amendments New Zealand First is particularly pleased with their amendment to clause 13. They want to omit from section 32(2) paragraph (c)—“personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”. If we are really to address medical misadventure it seems to me that if a person goes to a hospital and is told that he or she cannot be treated because the hospital does not have the money to do so and the person then gets worse he or she is entitled to be compensated. My colleague Barbara Stewart raised that in the first instance and the Greens took it up and came up with their amendment which deletes that paragraph from the bill. 
Judy Turner 
: All illness is under ACC. 
PETER BROWN 
: No no no. This is the case where a person who is ill and in need of treatment goes to a doctor and is told that there is not enough money for the doctor to treat him or her right then. The amendment deletes a paragraph in the bill to ensure that that person will be covered by medical misadventure. It is a legitimate concern. I know that ACT will not agree with it because it will cost a bit of money. But it is a fair issue that needs tidying up. 
Judy Turner 
: Does an illness become an injury? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am taking on the whole Committee here; it is like question time in reverse! It is medical misadventure in so far as it is embraced in the main legislation under medical misadventure provisions. The Government in its wisdom—[ 
Interruption 
] The Government got it wrong? We are saying that the Government did get it wrong— 
Steve Chadwick 
: They have gone—medical misadventure. 
PETER BROWN 
: But there is a provision in the bill that states those people will not be entitled to compensation and that should be addressed. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am glad to see the real Minister Ruth Dyson in the chair rather than the stunt doubles we saw earlier. I would like to direct some of the questions that I raised earlier in the debate to the Minister. In particular the Opposition was very concerned about the new definition of a treatment injury. We agree on the Opposition side of the Chamber that the definitions that we have had in the past for medical mishap and medical misadventure were unsatisfactory and caused unnecessary administrative delays and anxiety in the community as a result of having to find fault before cover and support were given. However we are unsure that the full implications of the new definition of treatment injuries have been thought through. For example section 33(1)(b) inserted by clause 13 states that treatment includes “a diagnosis of a person’s medical condition”. As we know making a medical diagnosis can be a very difficult process. Although medicine looks as though it is very scientific we know that it is not an exact science that sometimes medics will make mistakes and that some conditions diseases and complaints are not necessarily easy to discern. So we would like the Minister to explain that new part of the definition. 
We would also like the Minister to explain whether section 33(1)(c) which is inserted by clause 13 and states: “a decision on the treatment to be provided (including a decision not to provide treatment):” just includes a doctor not providing treatment or whether it also includes individuals deciding that they do not want to be treated. We have had some high-profile cases in which people have decided that they do not want any kind of treatment and that has resulted in a deterioration of their condition. 
I would also like the Minister to talk about whether she is confident about the costings that the Department of Labour has done on this bill. It has calculated that the costs will increase by $8.69 million annually and that there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. We did not really get into how that was determined. In view of the very extensive change to the definition of what constitutes a treatment injury there was some concern that there could be a blowout of costs because an increasing number of cases will now be able to be covered. We have not had a full discussion—although earlier in the debate a Minister in the chair attempted to explain this I think when I was out of the Chamber—on what happens if a deteriorating condition comes about as a result of being on a hospital waiting list or as a result of somebody simply not being able to get in and be given care in a timely fashion. For example if somebody has breast cancer and has not been able to get on a list to go in for radiation therapy or chemotherapy what happens if that patient’s condition deteriorates? I know that breast cancer is an illness or disease in the first instance. But if things deteriorate as a result of not being able to get treatment does that mean that the district health boards could be in a situation whereby they could be sued or would all of those people be covered? 
There are still some unanswered questions when it comes to the bill and it is important that the Minister take some time to explain some of the changes. We would also like her to explain some aspects of Supplementary Order Paper 365 in her name because some of the clauses look remarkably like some of the clauses in the bill. In fact in the amendment to clause 3 the words are exactly the same although there is a bit of a layout change. That amendment deals with the repealing of the definitions of various categories of health practitioners from acupuncturists to audiologists to chiropractors. I wonder why that clause has been put in the Supplementary Order Paper because there just seems to be a layout change. There does not seem to be anything different in the wording and I wonder whether anything is hidden there. Certainly I cannot discern a change so I would like the Minister to explain that as well as the other matters I have raised. 
Finally I would like the Minister to explain why she thinks there can be no choice in the sector. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) which is a major part. I hope the Chair will allow plenty of time for this part to be adequately discussed in the Committee stage because undoubtedly it is the major part of this very important bill and the changes are important. 
Firstly I would like to focus on the amendment of my excellent colleague Pansy Wong. I appreciate the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson commenting on her amendment but I really think that the Minister’s explanation was insufficient. After all the definition that has been arrived at in this bill is extraordinarily arbitrary in many respects. The definition in clause 3(1) states: “acupuncturist means—(a) a member of the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists Incorporated; or (b) a member of the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority Incorporated who—(i) is a qualified health professional …”. 
Clearly the practice of acupuncture in New Zealand has evolved over several decades and that definition excludes a significant number of people who have carried out acupuncture in good faith over time. I agree entirely that a definition or requirement of an acupuncturist in New Zealand must mean that the approval puts quality of provision foremost and that the group’s ability to carry out quality-assurance exercises peer review and continuous quality improvement is all-important. 
It seems curious that after 5 years of a Labour Government the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson has been unable to facilitate the various acupuncture groups in New Zealand to get their act together and agree on those fundamental principles. I acknowledge that at the Health Committee there was almost an expectation that the committee could do it. But this is a Government that said it would hold itself accountable and here it is clear that it has failed miserably once again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That was never in the manifesto. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Now she is denying it! Well that is a revelation. That is the Minister who in the 1990s went shrilly around with her colleagues Annette King and Helen Clark saying that they would deliver they would be transparent and they would be accountable yet they have failed in every single one of those promises. When the going gets tough they say: “Whoops no no!”. We have had a revelation from the Minister for ACC Ruth Dyson that the Government—it has admitted it—will no longer be held accountable. I think the people of New Zealand should be aware of that crystal-clear admission from the Minister for ACC that this Government will no longer be held accountable for what it does. That is a huge worry. 
As I was saying Pansy Wong’s excellent amendment states that thirdly a very important group of acupuncturists in New Zealand should be given the opportunity to be defined as an acupuncturist under the bill. All she is asking is that the following provision be added after clause 3(1)(b): “(c) a member of any other entity that ACC or a duly delegated authority approves after due process subject to the Minister’s final approval.” Well maybe the Minister is once again saying that the Minister cannot be accountable for it. She cannot trust her own judgment. I can understand that particularly after this latest revelation. 
But the vital thing about acupuncturists and their definition in the law is that they can demonstrate that what they are doing consistently treats patients effectively and has a scientific base behind it. I would like the Minister to take a call and assure the House and acupuncturists in New Zealand that she will be moving towards those standards. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I was a member of the Health Committee which laboured long and hard in relation to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). It is not a massive bill—although it is certainly more massive than it needs to be—but it took an inordinate amount of time. In particular it took a lot of time in relation to acupuncture. I would like to follow on from my excellent colleagues Dr Paul Hutchison Katherine Rich and Sandra Goudie who have been speaking about that very issue tonight. 
One of the concerns I have is about how the Minister came to decide on the two particular bodies that are to be the sole representatives of acupuncturists. It probably has not escaped the attention of members of the Committee that acupuncture was not invented in New Zealand. It was something that I think was brought to us from China at various stages. We have the particular bodies that were set up and I think in particular of the group whose members are mostly doctors. The attitude was very much that they make up a very small group that does not have particular training organisations or anything else but the members of that group seem to have the ear of this Government. As we have learnt from John Tamihere this Government does have tentacles in all sorts of places and some of them are incredibly unseemly. One of the things that Mr Tamihere told us was that there are friends whom the Government can rely on. I am very concerned that a group is being given the OK to OK people for acupuncture treatment and also for accident compensation payments because it is a very small group that obviously happens to have the ear of the Minister. 
My colleague Pansy Wong has made a very sensible suggestion for an amendment to deal with the fact that the bodies that are being given credibility in some way for acupuncturists are bodies that have set themselves up. They are not bodies that have been set up by this Parliament. They are bodies that this Parliament is now being asked to approve of really in terms of funding for accident compensation yet they have no particular statutory authority as I recall the situation. For instance they are not like the New Zealand Law Society which has statutory authority in relation to the legal profession. Nor are they like the Medical Council. They are just groups that have grown up ad hoc. 
Why are we in this Parliament legislating to give those bodies special powers when we have had no assurance or any reason to believe that they—those groups or associations—will necessarily continue or that their rules will necessarily be rules that we in Parliament think are appropriate? We actually have no authority over those groups in any way at the moment other than to bring in new legislation. So unless things have changed since the select committee days on this bill that is the situation. Here we are giving those people a seal of approval when we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to do that because we have had nothing to do with their set-up with how they run themselves or with their ethics. We in this Committee are being asked to go along with a bill that gives those groups not quite a monopoly right—but together they have a monopoly right—over who can be acupuncturists. So unless the practitioners of acupuncture who have come here from China belong to one of those groups they will suddenly be told that they cannot be called acupuncturists in terms of this legislation. Frankly that seems to be ridiculous. 
So I support Pansy Wong’s suggestion that after the Minister’s final approval the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)# or another delegated authority could in fact approve another entity if any such entity should exist or come along in future to be approved. Just doing that would actually free up the Minister and future Ministers and the ACC to actually do the right thing rather than to force current acupuncturists to have to belong to a group that they may have absolutely nothing in common with other than the fact that they are acupuncturists. Acupuncturists may not agree with the way the two groups practise with their ethics with their rules or with all sorts of things like the fees they have to pay but we are stating in this legislation that those two groups are the only two that we will ever look at. Well why are we doing that? I really think that the Minister should look at the sensible suggestion from Pansy Wong rather than just dismissing it out of hand because it did not come from the Government. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call. Before I get on to asking the Minister for ACC some questions now that we do have her in the chair I would like to say that I will be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment. Given that the acupuncture groups are not covered by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act I think Judith Collins is quite right to ask why only two groups should have approval when there may well be other groups out there that should be entitled to work as long as they meet the required standard. In the absence of the groups being part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act at the moment— 
Judy Turner 
: The Minister? 
HEATHER ROY 
: —yes the Minister—then they should be. So I will be supporting that amendment on behalf of ACT. 
Judy Turner 
: It’s not her job. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Well that is why we have the amendment—so that it will be her job. 
I say to the Minister that I think there are a lot of questions being raised and given that it is her legislation I myself would like to ask her some questions in addition to the ones being asked by other members on this side of the Chamber. I think Peter Brown raised some very good points on new clauses 28A and 29A on Supplementary Order Paper 365. I will just reiterate my concerns about that Supplementary Order Paper. 
As has been the case with many other Government bills of late it has come before us late in the process so that it is not able to be scrutinised by a select committee or by public submission. I think Mr Brown may have inadvertently missed out new clause 26A which is another clause where funds—this time concerning the employers account—are allocated. I think it was on the other side of the page I say to Mr Brown and he probably did not see it. But I ask the Minister whether she could take a call and explain clauses 26A 28A and 29A and what implications they may have because I think that is unclear. 
Unlike Mr Brown I did not read those clauses as including illness. I think we are probably still talking about just injury. But my concern is that funds from the employers account the residual claims account and the self-employed work account must “be applied to meet the costs of entitlements for personal injury caused by work-related gradual process disease or infection …”. Does that mean to say that the provisions are being broadened out so that funds no longer will come from only the earners account and non-earners account or will the levies from those two accounts—where medical misadventure is currently paid out from—be broadened? What impact might that have? By putting these clauses forward does the Minister have any intention that levies on health practitioners be included? 
I ask the Minister to clarify the situation—particularly for me the distinction between illness and injury with regard to these clauses. I did not see them as including illness. In fact that is one of ACT’s main objections to the whole accident compensation programme and to this bill—that unfairness does exist in that two people might have the same end product but one person who suffered an illness receives no accident compensation whereas the other person who suffered an injury does receive accident compensation. An insurance-based programme of some sort preferably one open to competition would get round that problem. If the Minister could perhaps address those things that would be very good. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise briefly in response to the debate that has emerged over the issue of acupuncturists and Pansy Wong’s amendment. It did seem to the Greens a very odd thing that when we were in the middle of dealing with an accident compensation bill on injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation suddenly a completely new definition of “acupuncturist” was introduced. It seemed to us to be quite a bizarre way of amending that definition. As the members of the Health Committee will know the Green Party opposed it because we felt that it was being done in a rather odd and arbitrary way. It seemed odd that the Health Committee had to listen to all those acupuncturists many of whom were in great contention with each other and to try to work out whether this particular group or any other group should be included in what is now a new definition of “acupuncturist”. 
As we were outvoted and as the new and rather arbitrary definition is now in the legislation the Green Party will be supporting Pansy Wong’s amendment because it seems to us that it is quite arbitrary to recognise just two particular groups. I am not quite sure why we should do that when there are several other groups seeking recognition. I know that some of the Chinese acupuncture groups have been trying for a very long time to get recognition. Some of their members are from China and they probably have much more extensive qualifications practice and experience in acupuncture than many New Zealand - trained acupuncturists. It seems odd to us that we are recognising one particular group in this legislation. A lot of questions were asked in the Health Committee about why we were singling out that group and amending the entire definition of “acupuncturist” in the middle of consideration of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) and why we were giving favour to one group and excluding other groups. 
I regret that the proposed amendment has been presented so late. I would have liked to have much greater consultation on it with members of the acupuncture profession. But in general because of the arbitrary nature of the new definition that has been parachuted into this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill (No 3) it seems to us that it would be preferable to have Pansy Wong’s amendment in place rather than have the Health Committee try to define in the middle of consideration of an accident compensation bill which acupuncture groups should be eligible to come under the new definition of “acupuncturist” and which should be excluded. Quite frankly we in the Health Committee did not really have that sort of expertise and understanding. It was all so arbitrary and this amendment does seem to us a preferable process. For this reason we will be supporting the amendment. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after paragraph (b) of the definition of  
acupuncturist 
 the following new paragraph: 
(c)a member of any other entity that ACC or a duly delegated authority approves after due process subject to the Minister’s final approval. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from the new subsection 32(2) to be substituted by this clause the words: 
“(c)personal injury that is solely attributable to a resource allocation decision:”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 13A be agreed to. 
to insert after clause 13 the following new clause: 
13A – Amendments to lump sum compensation eligibility 
(1)Section 36 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (4). 
(2)Section 37 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (5). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous Provisions 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I stand to discuss Part 2 “Miscellaneous Provisions” and the schedules that follow at the end of the bill. Here we have once again a reminder of the changes that were made to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) driven by the ideology of this Government because one of the first things clause 52 does is to take out all references to At Work Insurance Ltd. As many listeners will recall for a short space of time there was competition in ACC. A number of organisations entered the sector in good faith and structured their businesses to provide accident insurance. Although this system was in place for a very short space of time the results coming through were very good and very favourable. 
But when this Labour Government came to power like a South American dictatorship it decided to nationalise the businesses that had been built up by these companies and not only to kick them out of the sector but also to totally monopolise the sector. So what we have in clause 52 is just one of the clauses that take out any reminder of and any reference to the previous version of accident compensation. 
What we are seeing now I think is just changes as a result of ideology—no changes for logic or for the benefit of New Zealanders but some subtle changes in wording. I would like the Minister to explain the difference between an “earner premium” and an “earner levy”. Why would she expend the time of the Committee and the time of putting together lots of paper and cutting trees to make some very small changes which really reflect changes in ideology and politics rather than anything else? 
But there is a bit of a concerning part of this bill and it is one that I had not considered until this evening. Schedule 2 and sections 118 through to 128 are sections in the principal Act that deal with disentitlement I would like the Minister to take a call to explain what the impact will be of omitting the words “is not liable to” and substituting the words “must not” in the number of sections that discuss disentitlement for accident compensation. 
For example section 118(1) states that the corporation instead of “is not liable to provide a claimant with entitlements for personal injury caused by a work-related gradual process disease or infection if”—and then it lays out a number of different sections—changes the wording to “must not”. It really changes the entire meaning of those particular sections. The wording “is not liable” sounds as if the corporation has more discretion. There might be circumstances where the corporation legally is not liable to provide support but as a result of weighing up the pros and cons and sometimes the special circumstances that often Ministers are asked to consider the corporation might be in a situation where it does provide support for a particular person just simply because of the special nature of his or her particular situation. 
Changing “is not liable” to “must not” makes it very clear that the corporation has no discretion whatsoever. I would like to hear the Minister explain the reasoning behind that because I was not on the Health Committee at the time when it was discussed and did not have the opportunity to ask officials. But it seems to me although we are looking at taking out four words and putting in two words it does change those particular sections dramatically. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call to respond to the very valid question that Katherine Rich has raised. I understand that she was not on the Health Committee because she held a different Opposition shadow portfolio at the time. It was before— 
Darren Hughes 
: What was she? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Oh she was spokesperson on social development and employment I think but that was before she was demoted by her leader—and in quite an unjustified way in my view. But I know that she raised the question genuinely. Frankly we have now substituted for the expression “is not liable to” in some parts of the legislation as outlined in schedule 1 the expression “is not required to” and in other parts of the legislation we have replaced those same four words with “must not” for the very reason that Katherine Rich raised. She said that she thought that “is not liable to” meant there may be some discretion—that the Accident Compensation Corporation was not legally responsible for doing so and could not be held to be in breach of its statutory responsibility if it did not. That is what some of us may have interpreted that expression to mean but unfortunately legal opinion thought otherwise. In fact two legal opinions from my recollection thought otherwise and that is a clear case that one is on a hiding to nothing unless one clarifies the situation by changing the law. So that is exactly the purpose of the change in both schedules 1 and 2. 
Members will notice that starting with clause 4 in schedule 1 the words “is not required to” are substituted for “is not liable to”. Therefore the discretion exists but it is a discretion on a case by case basis. The corporation is not required to do so—it is not an automatic entitlement. A does not necessarily follow if B has happened whereas as outlined in the schedule that Katherine Rich referred to from section 118 onwards the corporation must not provide that. There is no discretion and no opportunity for the corporation to do so because we have made it very clear that the corporation must not. So it is for precisely the reason that the member has raised in her question that we have separated out the 29 examples I think—I may be wrong about the number but however many there are—of “is not liable to” that are in the legislation and instead of having that term which could mean one thing to one person and another thing to others we are making it really clear exactly what is meant by putting it in straightforward English. I know that Peter Brown will be ecstatic at the fact that this legislation actually states directly what it means. It cannot be misinterpreted so this is one part of the legislation that I know Mr Brown will celebrate. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am not sure whether Mr Brown is ecstatic over that but I am sure Ms Dyson knows better. In relation to Part 2 I would like to take up the point of my excellent colleague Katherine Rich who reminded us that unfortunately Labour felt the need to throw common sense out the window when it got into Government at the end of 1999 and got rid of any competition in terms of accident compensation. 
During the many debates in relation to accident compensation there is a lot of trouble effort and discourse around the Woodhouse report—a copy of which I just happen to have with me this evening. As I look again through the report I note that it was presented in December 1967 which is almost 40 years ago. As a report it has actually held up very well. But of course the world and New Zealand were very different places in 1967. In 1967 the Woodhouse report talked about housewives and women generally were not upset or insulted at being so referred to and nor should they have been and nor should they be now if they are in fact housewives. But that was a completely different world. The report talks about New Zealand as it was and even under a National Government it was a very socialistic place. Farmers were very protected by the fact that Britain was not with the Europeans. It took all our products. The world was very different in terms of oil prices. The people who had oil in their countries did not go around putting up the prices. There were no problems like that at all. So we could have a rosy view of things. That is why this particular report talks very extensively about a no-fault situation and about how we should not in fact look into how accidents have occurred. 
It is of course that rosy view of the world that has allowed all sorts of silly payments over the years to be made to prisoners who escaped from jail and got injured—thank goodness—and now under this Government we are talking about paying them money because their feelings have been hurt. Who cares frankly if their feelings are hurt because they did not care about the feelings of the people they hurt. But this Government does care. 
This particular report goes on to say that there is no place for private insurance companies in the scheme. Of course that was because in those days—almost 40 years ago—the thought of the private providers providing anything in partnership with a Government was utterly unheard of. The Government was of course doing such things in those days as giving farmers all sorts of subsidies that they did not need to produce stock and all sorts of silly things like that—in fact middle-class welfare which is very much what this Government currently does but of course not to farmers just to others. The farmers are very pleased not to have it because they are proud independent people and do not need middle-class welfare. But this is the sort of provision that we have here where we are in fact harking back to a time of almost 40 years ago and saying that everything is rosy and we do not need to change. 
Yet in our electorate offices we are consistently and constantly hearing complaints in relation to accident compensation either from people who feel they are being badly treated by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) or from employers who are feeling very badly treated by their levies. 
I was in private practice at the stage that the Labour Government changed the rules in accident compensation. I was one of those small-business employers who found that their premiums doubled overnight when I had to go with the Accident Compensation Corporation and could not have a private provider. Many other people found the same. Of course with private providers one does actually have the ability to say that one is a good employer and does not have any injuries and therefore that can be taken into account. 
By using that ideological reason for changing the whole scheme back to the past again instead of looking forward to the future in a positive way in partnership with business—by harking back to “good old 1967”—this Government demonstrates that it simply cannot see its way forward. It still ties itself to the view that all employers are evil that they are trying to rip off their staff and that they would rather have people working in slave conditions. In fact the vast majority of employers—any who want to stay in business in this country—understand that their employees are the most valuable people in their business and they cannot survive without them. They do not need this monopoly. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I wish to take a very brief call. Part 2 cannot pass without the ACT party having a say about competition and choice in terms of premiums. We did see some very positive changes for a very brief period—for 9 months I think it was—when the former National Government at the urging of ACT for 2½ years opened the Accident Compensation Corporation out to competition. It did that I understand when New Zealand First left the coalition. But as Judith Collins has just outlined we saw some very positive changes. Employers around the country were very happy with the changes to accident compensation around that time. As we have heard many employers noticed quite a significant drop in their premiums because competition was available. People were still able to insure themselves with the State provider if they so chose but competition did drive down many of the premiums. A small number increased in price but those were very few. I remember talking to a bookseller at the time. He complained that his premiums had gone up. It is a bit difficult to see how injuries in the workplace in a bookshop might have occurred but presumably competition meant that his premiums needed to be higher than they were. 
Katherine Rich 
: Paper cuts. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Perhaps it was paper cuts. Now with the provisions in this bill I suppose those will be covered by “infection”. However the cost of premiums did in fact go down. At the same time the number of accidents also decreased which also tells a story. It seems that personal responsibility was involved there. Employers recognised that providing safe workplace practices and having safeguards in the workplace were of benefit both to themselves and to their employees. It also seems that the employees took some responsibility for themselves as well. It was an ideal partnership—employees and employers working well together to achieve mutual benefit. It would be nice to see a little more encouragement from this Government for this sort of thing in the workplace because at the moment I do not think that that attitude exists. 
I would also like to support my colleagues in the National Party. They have made some very valid points on Part 2 particularly in relation to competition. Choice and competition are what make business successful in this country. If the Government does change after the election then I am sure that one of the first things to happen will be that competition is reintroduced into the area of accident compensation and that we can at that time expect to see lower premiums again for most employers employees individuals and business people and a further drop in the number of accidents. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to concentrate for a moment on section 87 in schedule 2. I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson will take a call and focus again on subsection (2) which states: “The Corporation must provide the vocational rehabilitation for the minimum period necessary to achieve its purpose but must not provide any vocational rehabilitation for longer than 3 years …”. I find it quite curious that here we have a Labour Government that has said that one of the major aims of the Act and of these bills is to focus on rehabilitation but it is actually putting in an exclusion to rehabilitate. 
Just the other day someone with a spinal injury from about 10 years ago came to my electorate office. He had had several fusions but had continued to live a life of pain. He came into the office unable to sit down. He tells me he is unable to sleep yet he is expected to turn up for repeated assessments to see whether he can carry out a job. Over that period of time his ability to be able to do different things has changed. Whereas 9 years ago he might have been able to work at a computer now he cannot even sit down for longer than a couple of minutes at a time. Yet the Accident Compensation Corporation expects him to train to be a computer worker. 
It seems extraordinary that the Minister is saying in section 87(2) that the corporation must not provide any vocational rehabilitation. Is it not cutting off any possibility of hope for individuals that as the course of their disease progresses or gets better they might not have a chance to rehabilitate? Surely this should be one of the main aims of this bill. I hope the Minister does clarify this— 
Jill Pettis 
: Where was this man in the 1990s? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is a pity that the member opposite continues to interject at such a pathetically low standard. This is a serious point because this Labour Government went about saying that rehabilitation would be a focal point in this legislation. Yet here we have the Labour Government saying that the corporation must not provide any vocational rehabilitation. It is important that the Minister take a call to explain that. As both my excellent colleagues Katherine Rich and Judith Collins have pointed out we are reminded in clause 52 of the very sad fact that this Labour Government removed choice of provision from accident compensation. 
Again we have a Labour Government that goes about saying that injury prevention is the focus of this bill just like rehabilitation. But what is the record of this Labour Government? Serious and medium accidents have actually gone up under this Labour Government despite its spending more. 
What happened when choice of provider came in? There was a tremendous commitment by industry to put in preventive programmes. That happened throughout every part of industry from forestry to domestic work and the rate of accidents decreased. Along with that came much faster efforts to rehabilitate which is the very thing that the Minister is suggesting will be removed—under certain circumstances I must admit. Certainly there was the tremendous result of people getting back to work faster. Also there was the added bonus of a dramatic change in the cost of premiums being lowered. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: HIH—a good cut at the apple; a very good company. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I can see the Minister there presiding over the monopolistic Accident Compensation Corporation which undoubtedly with time will become inefficient in the way that all monopolies do. This is exactly what this Minister wishes to happen and it is very very regrettable. Undoubtedly the facts were that the most dramatic changes—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot barrage like that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The most dramatic changes we have seen with injury prevention and rehabilitation occurred between 1998 and 1999 when choice was brought into the accident compensation arena. That was hugely positive for this country and it is very regrettable that the Minister appears to be gradually increasing the grip of monopoly. 
I understand that her other plan is eventually to equate all medical problems with injury so they are exactly the same. That is the hidden agenda. To extrapolate it even further she will have a great National Health Service a big monopoly just like in Britain—the third-largest employer in the world second only to the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railways. That is the plan of Ruth Dyson yet we see here in schedule 2 a requirement that the corporation must not provide rehabilitation services. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In carrying on from my colleague what are the words that Business New Zealand said? It said that the very words used to describe the Government members are “socialisation” and “de-privatisation” because privatisation is anathema to the current Government. The schedules talk about earnings and I note from new clause 36A on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson that the Minister does not have to comply with section 270(2) of the principal Act in having access to the employers account and the residual claims account or to the self-employed work account and that the Minister can direct the Accident Compensation Corporation to attribute in full or to apportion in part to the non-earners account the costs of lump-sum compensation for permanent impairment caused by gradual process disease or infection. That is part of the move to avoid having to have scrutiny of the changes by the Health Committee—to avoid that public oversight. 
What has happened is that the Government has brought in a substantial Supplementary Order Paper so that it can get access to all the funding it can get its hands on to help pay for the costs associated with the changes. I repeat my request for the Minister to take a call and actually explain some of the substantial cost implications in regard to this bill. They are substantial and they have been reiterated already. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call—or is it far easier to answer the other questions and not the ones about costs? After all this Government does not have a very good understanding of the fiscal implications of its legislation. I think the Holidays Act is a very clear example of that. The Government completely forgot about and did not take into account the cost implications of that Act on the health and disabilities sector. 
In regard to the amendments to schedule 1 of the principal Act I note that under clause 51A on the Supplementary Order Paper clauses 66 and 69 of that schedule are amended to add after the word “spouse” in both places where it occurs the words “or partner”. I just wonder what legislation that is in keeping with. Perhaps the Minister will take a call on that although we know the politically correct response we would get. Is that amendment consistent with all the other politically correct legislation that Labour has been putting through the House and expecting the New Zealand public to swallow? It brings to mind the transgender legislation which has been put on the back-burner being a little too much of a hot potato just prior to the election. The Minister may like to take a call and let us know whether adding the words “or partner” after the word “spouse” is actually consistent with current legislation. After all with all the changes that have taken place who would know? There is so much change that it is a bit hard to keep a handle on it all. 
I reiterate that given the substantial changes in the bill and also given that we have not had a chance to put all the stuff on the Supplementary Order Paper through the select committee the Minister may like to take a call and let us know what the cost implications are. The cost implications are great. We no longer have a choice about accident compensation levies. In my own circumstances we pay huge premiums on our farming enterprise. We do not have a choice. As was said tonight in the Chamber by Government members this move actually expunges it from the record. That further increases the monopolist grip on accident compensation as my learned colleague Dr Paul Hutchison said. Where does one go from there? The terms “de-privatisation” and “socialisation” are the words used with regard to this Government and that can be seen in every piece of legislation that it puts through this House. It is an absolute disgrace to the New Zealand public. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). I point out that although we have been discussing the whole accident compensation issue this evening the amendment bill does not deal with injury prevention at all and neither does it deal with rehabilitation. Although we have talked about compensation about changes to definitions of medical mishap and misadventure that the National Party supports we believe that a bill should be titled in a way that truly reflects the nature of the legislation. I would like the Minister for ACC to take a call to explain the name of the bill because it does not seem to reflect what is actually in the bill. 
We are also looking at the changes to the commencement date. It is quite clear that this bill has been running late for the Government. Changes in the bill were to come into force on 1 April 2005; that date has now been shifted out to July. 
So we are seeing some delays and I would like to hear the reasons for those delays. 
Also I would like the Minister to explain some extremely complex wording and changes. I know that we have already voted on her Supplementary Order Paper 365 which these changes are in but they relate to clauses 1 and 2. I shall read out some of the amendments because they do not seem to me to be at all clear. 
If we look at the amendments to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 365 we see—I shall skip the first amendment and quote from the second amendment onwards—“To omit the word ‘April’ and substitute the word ‘July’. To add to subclause (3) the words ‘; and 1 or more Orders in Council may be made appointing different dates for different provisions and different purposes including different dates for different repeals set out in section 3(2)(a) to (t)’ ”. That seems to me to be legal gobbledygook. It is not very easy to understand. The word “different” is repeated many many times. If the Minister can explain the impact of those changes and what they actually mean I will be very impressed. If members will look at clause 2 they will see that the amendments are as clear as mud—appointing different dates for different provisions and different purposes including different dates for different repeals as set out in section blah-blah-blah. That is not 100 percent clear to this side of the Committee nor to members on the other side I am sure. 
This bill is one for which there has been a lot of support. National members are a bit unsure about the title because there is nothing in the bill about injury prevention or rehabilitation. We agree with the changes in definitions that have been made. As many members who continue to do constituency work will know to prove that medical misadventure or medical mishap occurred is quite a process—having to find fault having to go through a process of first getting a medic to say that he or she has made a mistake then of proving that—and in the meantime a lot of anxiety is caused and there are lots and lots of delays. This bill allows treatment injury as it is now called—which does make it a bit clearer—to fall into line with the rest of the accident compensation system which is a no-fault system and which I think has cross-party support in this House and has done since 1974. 
Of course the key defining issue is choice and whether people are able to make a choice about how they get their insurance and where they get their insurance. We believe that the State is not the only organisation or group that is able to provide accident prevention education injury prevention insurance or accident insurance and we think that is one of the aspects of this bill on which there is a very clear difference between National and Labour. We have heard tonight about a lot of the costs and concerns relating to cost blowouts. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 When we are considering clauses 1 and 2 of this amendment bill I too would like to ask the Minister for ACC to explain the confusion that may well exist amongst some members because of the repeated use of the word “different” as read out by Katherine Rich. There may well be funding implications in amongst that confusing sentence in places and that is something I have repeatedly outlined. 
When we look at this bill we see there will be one or more Orders in Council. Obviously the dates will be determined by the Accident Compensation Corporation probably through the Department of Labour. It may be that some are held up for a while because funding has not quite been sorted out or it may be that they are rushed through. Despite my request to the Minister and that of some other members particularly Peter Brown from New Zealand First we never had an explanation from her about new clauses 26A 28A and 29A—on Supplementary Order Paper 365—in regard to the employers account the residual claims account and the self-employed work account. When we look at Orders in Council being used for the appointing of different dates for different provisions and different purposes including different dates for different repeals as set out in clause 3(2)(a) to (t) we see that that does leave us with a great unknown as to exactly what it means. 
As for clause 1 “Title” the National Party member was quite right when she said the bill is about compensation but does not deal at all with injury prevention or rehabilitation. We in the ACT party would agree that it is very important to have a clear title so that when those who do not have a legal background read the legislation they do in fact have a reasonable idea and expectation of what they might find in the bill or the Act that they reading. So the bill probably is not aptly named despite the fact that it is amending original legislation of that name. We do like to see some clarity in those things. 
It is worth reiterating why ACT is opposing this bill. I have mentioned the funding issues and the confusion that may exist with the provision in clause 2 for Orders in Council. We will be opposing that clause. The funding issues are a great unknown and we raise an objection to competition being ruled out completely from the accident compensation regime. The National Party members have also outlined as has New Zealand First that they would like to see competition existing within the sector but unfortunately they do not feel quite strongly enough about it to oppose the bill. That is a great shame. To have the courage of one’s convictions is a great thing. It seems that the ACT party is alone in making a stand about this issue tonight as we go through the Committee stage of this bill. 
Some clarity about the title would have been welcome as would an explanation from the Minister about the gobbledygook of the wording of those amendments to clause 2 on the Supplementary Order Paper. Some competition and choice within accident compensation would also have been very welcome but obviously that is not to be. However ACT will be registering very strongly in future votes its opposition to that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3). I want to reiterate the reasons why the National Party has indeed supported this bill which resulted from the review of medical error and medical mishap that has occurred over the last 2 years. The review identified the core problems that medical mishap criteria are arbitrary and often bear little relationship to the circumstances of the patient which results in claimants unfairly missing out on cover; and secondly that medical error criteria require establishing that an individual practitioner or organisation is at fault which is at odds with a no-fault system and hinders the medical misadventure claim process. There is no doubt that those are very unfortunate aspects and that they have gone on for a long time. They need addressing and have been addressed by this bill. 
I guess it is the other aspects of this bill however that worry us. Firstly I want to comment again on the excellent attempt by my colleague Pansy Wong to bring in a fairer solution to the problem concerning acupuncturists which the Labour Government and the Minister for ACC have failed to address. Surely after 5 years they should have managed to sort out a solution for acupuncturists. Instead they have caused the exclusion of a group whose members come from China and are of Chinese origin and who perhaps have not been as powerful advocates as the two traditional acupuncture groups that the Minister has included. I think it was a great pity that United Future was the only other party—there was the Progressives too but we do not count them—that did not support Pansy Wong’s excellent amendment which would have at least given the Minister a chance to address the anomaly concerning acupuncturists. 
I come back to the title: “Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3)”. I think Katherine Rich was quite right; the title does not reflect what this bill is about. This Government after 5 years of saying it wants to focus on prevention has a dismal record on it despite having spent $40 million a year—it is coming up to that—and increasing. We know that the statistics show there are more moderate and severe accidents every year in New Zealand than there were in prior years. So the Government gets a “fail” for that. As to rehabilitation there is a clause in this bill where the Government says it is going to stop rehabilitation. If we think back over the 5 years we realise we have seen some very curious and odd aspects of its rehabilitation methods. I think back to nasal lavage which was carried out in the Waikato under this Minister’s watch. Even worse down in the South Island near Oamaru the Government had Accident Compensation Corporation rehabilitation people writing their own epitaphs. That was a most extraordinary phenomenon and it occurred under Minister Dyson’s watch. 
Finally we have compensation. Indeed constituency MPs have all sorts of difficulties with the interpretation by this Government of what is fair compensation. Anomalies do arise from time to time and unfortunately we have a Minister who is particularly slow to address those anomalies. One of the other outstanding things about this bill is the Government’s reckless attitude towards how much it is going to cost. The Minister has not at any stage addressed that aspect. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support clauses 1 and 2. When we look at the title of a bill it should be very short it should be specific it should be clear and it should also leave the reader in no doubt as to what the legislation is about. In this instance the title is a little more difficult to decipher. It does not quite meet that test. We know that this is the third bill to implement reforms to accident compensation and this is one bill that we are particularly pleased to see. New Zealand First is of the opinion that claims and compensation for medical misadventure need to be monitored to ensure that claimants are treated fairly. We hope that this comes about with this bill. 
We like other MPs have received many complaints from constituents about medical misadventure so we are very happy to agree to the changes in the definitions contained within this bill. The processes in place prior to this bill definitely needed to be more streamlined more fair and more equitable for claimants. The rules and regulations governing accident compensation claimants need to be very clearly understood and very clearly applied and this will occur with this bill. 
In the past the punitive environment that was part of accident compensation was extremely short-sighted and we particularly like to see the attempt to implement a programme in the “no blame” system that has been put in place under this bill to improve the medical safety cultures of health professionals and their knowledge. That is really great. The biggest gains hopefully will be that there will be fewer claims for medical misadventure because medical professionals like everybody else can learn from their mistakes. 
Like other Opposition parties too we are concerned about the increased costs that may arise in relation to this bill particularly when the Department of Labour has calculated that costs will increase by $8.69 million annually and there will be a one-off transitional cost of $12 million. That is quite considerable particularly in light of the fact that the department commented that it had been very difficult to obtain data upon which to base claim number predictions and costings. We hope these costings are relatively accurate. 
Like the other Opposition parties we also want to see the anomalies concerning acupuncturists resolved very promptly. They have been ongoing for a lengthy time. We would like to see an end to this acupuncture debate and for acupuncturists to come under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. I see that the Minister agrees as well. So New Zealand First will be supporting clauses 1 and 2 and we look forward to their implementation. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The point has been made—and I will repeat it because it is a good point—that when we have bills like this or any bills they should have a title that clearly shows where to look to find a particular piece of law. In this Parliament all we do is create law and it is very important from an access to justice point of view that the name of a bill reflects fairly what is in it. Frankly the title Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) does not cut the mustard. 
There is one issue I would like to speak about and it concerns treatment. It concerns me somewhat in these final phases of the Committee stage. When we look at what is now to be defined as “treatment” in terms of what we used to call “medical misadventure” but we will now call “treatment injury”—which takes away any concept at all that anyone might be to blame for anything—there is provision under section 33(1)(f) inserted by clause 13 for the provision of prophylaxis. One of the great things about having a doctor in the House is that I quickly looked at this and said to my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison: “Paul doesn’t this include condoms?” and he said: “Well yes it does but it also includes antibiotics and other things that are used to prevent infection or other things from passing across.” The trouble is that it does not seem to me that there is sufficient definition to say that we are talking just about antibiotics and issues like that because treatment by its nature according to the definition does seem to include the provision of condoms. I cannot for the life of me believe that that is what the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson intends. Perhaps I am reading it wrong. I am hopeful that the Minister will take a short call to clarify the issue because it does seem slightly bizarre. 
In particular I mention a comment that we made in our minority report about the cost of this. Whatever we do with these sorts of provisions we need to be aware that someone pays a cost and the someone happens to be the employer and the employee. Everything that is paid by the employer in terms of compliance costs means that employees end up with smaller wages. It is one of the reasons why people on the average wage can shift out of this country go off to Australia and get themselves $9000 per year more than they can in New Zealand for the same job. 
The Health Committee had some estimates from the Department of Labour but frankly the stated cost of $8.6 million annually with a one-off cost of $12 million is a significant amount of extra compliance cost—and of course we do not know just how open-ended it will be. Some of us can remember that the domestic purposes benefit when it was first being promoted was going to cost a few million dollars a year and now it is a massive drain on the finances of this country. Sometimes with the best of intentions we may think that things will cost only a certain amount. Unfortunately the Minister has not taken a call on this issue. I would like to give her that opportunity. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 365 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 and the following amendment in her name to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “47” and substitute the expression “47(1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill arises from a review of the Police Complaints Authority conducted by Sir Rodney Gallen at my request back in 2000. The bill was introduced in December 2002 and was reported back by the Law and Order Committee in late 2003. It was around that time that allegations of serious misconduct were made against members of the police. A commission of inquiry into police conduct was established to investigate the handling of the allegations by the police. However its process and report were deferred due to criminal investigations being undertaken and criminal proceedings have subsequently been issued in relation to the allegations of sexual assault. The commission is now continuing under a new mandate that will allow it to pursue its brief at the same time as the criminal processes are going on. The intention originally was to wait for the commission’s report before proceeding with this bill. However the amendments made by the bill are important to the work of the authority particularly in relation to its capacity to investigate and resolve complaints in a timely manner. Therefore we have now decided to proceed with it at this time. 
The decision to review and amend the Act did not reflect overall dissatisfaction with the authority’s track record. Over its existence there has been confidence in the independence impartiality and accountability of the authority. None the less there was a perception that because the authority had to rely on serving police officers to investigate their colleagues that might detract from its independence. The major decision that resulted from the review was to provide the authority with an enhanced investigative capacity of its own independent from the police. Although the authority already had the statutory authority to conduct its own investigations in the past it lacked the resources to do so. 
Two years ago I gave the authority the necessary resources for that and it has made good progress with implementing the reforms including the appointment of independent investigators. The authority has employed four individuals with a wide range and depth of investigative experience both internationally and in New Zealand. They are independent impartial and can be expected to be conscientious in investigating serious complaints about the conduct of the police. The authority is using its independent investigative capacity to deal with complaints or investigations of serious matters such as when an offender is shot or injured as a result of police action. Its investigators have been engaged in an oversight role in relation to the conduct of the police in investigating the historical sexual assault allegations and the recent email investigations. They have in addition worked with the police to develop procedures and protocols enabling the engagement between the organisations to operate effectively each independent of the other. 
The bill implements the remaining recommendations of the Gallen review. It changes the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. The membership of the authority is increased from one to three members. The chair of the authority will be a current or retired judge supported by the two other members. The bill also provides for a number of matters relating to the administration of the authority and it gives the authority the powers of a commission of inquiry in order to strengthen procedures for example for the conducting of hearings. The bill requires the authority and staff members of the authority to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge as a result of the exercise of their functions. There are limited exceptions to that such as information disclosed in order to justify the authority’s conclusions and recommendations. 
During the drafting of the bill an issue was raised regarding a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The concern was that the authority may become privy to exculpatory information which is information that may point to a defendant’s innocence and that the current secrecy provisions would prohibit the authority from disclosing it. Withholding such information could obviously impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The bill as introduced included provisions for requests to be made to the authority for exculpatory information to be disclosed to a court. The select committee recommended that the draft disclosure provisions be revised to achieve the objective of a defendant’s right to a fair trial in a more simple way. 
Under the revised provisions the authority has the discretion to disclose exculpatory evidence directly to a defendant that it believes may point to the defendant’s innocence in relation to an offence for which he or she has been convicted or charged. Where the authority has disclosed information it may issue a certificate that describes the circumstances and the manner in which the disclosed information came to the authority’s knowledge. A certificate is admissible and is proof of the matters stated in it. A limited exception to the rule against hearsay is created so that the authority is not required to attend court proceedings. That is because it would undermine the independence of the authority and public confidence in the process if members of the authority and its employees could be called as witnesses in court proceedings. The actual disclosed information itself is still subject to the rule against hearsay. I thank the committee for its careful consideration of that complex issue. I am confident that the new provisions strike the appropriate balance between a defendant’s right to a fair trial on the one hand and evidential principles and the ability of the authority to perform its functions on the other. 
The Government Supplementary Order Paper to be considered at the Committee stage makes a number of amendments required to align the provisions of the bill with the legislative changes made late last year by the Crown Entities Act and makes other amendments consequential to legislative changes made since the bill was reported back from the select committee. 
Recent events demonstrate that in a police force approaching 10000 sworn and non-sworn members not all will meet the high standards of behaviour and integrity we demand of the police staff in New Zealand. Notwithstanding that I believe that overall our police force is amongst the best in the world. Having an effective process whereby complaints against wrongful police behaviour can be heard and acted upon is an important assurance that such wrongful behaviour will be properly responded to and public confidence in the police maintained. I acknowledge the excellent work done by the Police Complaints Authority over the years. The new structure of and the resources given to the Independent Police Complaints Authority will ensure an even better performance in the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition—for the next few months—will be supporting the progress of this bill. We look forward to being consulted by the Government about the individuals who will be appointed to the Independent Police Complaints Authority in due course. In speaking in support of this bill and without taking too much time there are two matters that I will raise. The first is the amount of time that the authority takes to deal with police complaints and the second is the National Party proposal that would see the Independent Police Complaints Authority expanded to include the prison complaints service. 
Information I received from the Government on Monday indicates that the Police Complaints Authority currently has 2100 cases before it of which one in five are over 2 years old. The reason we raise this as a concern is that that number has continued to grow. It has grown dramatically in the last few years. I would like the Government to know what impact that has. The fact that there are more police complaints coming through that they are taking longer to be dealt with and that the caseload is larger than it has been before has a dramatic impact not only on the well-being of those who make the complaints but also on the police officers involved. 
It is to be expected that we would get an explanation from the Government that these cases are all being held over because we are waiting for the coroner to deal with this or some other agency to deal with that. But the fact is when there are 2100 cases they are not all sitting before the coroner or some other authority. In fact the number of cases sitting before the coroner could be counted on two hands. There is a real issue with the amount of time it is taking to get police complaints dealt with. I hope that with the new Independent Police Complaints Authority cases will be dealt with more quickly than they are at the moment. There has been an increase in the number of cases that we are seeing. One in five cases has been with the authority for more than 2 years. One in 10 cases has been there for over 3 or 3½ years. 
It is a long time not only for the complaints but for the police officers involved. I have had correspondence from a number of police officers who are the subject of Police Complaints Authority investigations. Although those investigations are important and must be dealt with fairly for the complainant we should also be aware of the cost they have on the well-being of the men and women of the New Zealand Police who put their lives on the line every day in the protection of our safety. 
The second point we raise is the principle—[ 
Interruption 
] Paint is being stripped somewhere around the countryside with that rather silly little interjection from the soon-to-be former member for Whanganui. 
Jill Pettis 
: I don’t think so Sunshine. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do think so and I am privy to some information that would suggest that that is absolutely the case. 
The second point is the importance of expanding the Independent Police Complaints Authority to include prison complaints. I think the argument that the Minister of Justice put forward of the need for the public to feel confident also applies—[ 
Interruption 
] I am absolutely awake when I say this unlike the Associate Minister of Education who came to Parliament and slept through his own Prime Minister’s questions— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Don’t be ridiculous. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I will say what is ridiculous: the Associate Minister of Education sleeping through question time. What does the House make of that? That was embarrassing was it not? 
National says let us have an independent police and prisons complaint service whereby we bring the division that deals with the complaints of inmates out of the Department of Corrections. Having talked to investigators it is apparent that the skills required to deal with prison complaints are transferable to deal with police complaints and similarly the reverse is true of the skills required for police complaint investigations. 
National supports this legislation. It is our intention when we are in Government to amend the legislation to incorporate the prisons complaints service. We look to the Government to ensure that there is sufficient resourcing of the new Independent Police Complaints Authority to reduce the number of outstanding cases and to reduce the age of the cases that are outstanding because that is the only way to deal fairly with the complainants and the police officers. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill first of all I acknowledge the good work of the committee particularly the work of our deputy chair Marc Alexander and I certainly acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker in terms of progressing this bill. 
It is very important that we remind ourselves what the bill does—and it is quite an important bill. In my view the key word in the bill title is “independent”. The authority should not just be independent but should be seen by all the parties to be truly independent. The bill amends the Police Complaints Authority Act by changing the name of the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Complaints Authority and increases the authority’s membership from one person to three people one of whom will be a chairperson who will be a current or former judge. 
As with the existing Police Complaints Authority the members will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The proposed name change and the increase in the authority’s membership which are provisions in the bill were in the view of the committee needed to enhance the authority’s independence. 
I would like to take the opportunity to briefly quote some of the other major provisions from the commentary. It states: “The bill also: establishes the Authority as a separate legal entity which recognises its change of status from a single-person office to a three-person body; makes it clear that the Authority may defer taking action on a complaint if a criminal investigation disciplinary investigation or both is being conducted by the police in relation to a matter; allows the Authority when deciding whether to hold a hearing to have regard to whether proceedings or a coroner’s inquest is pending or in reasonable contemplation; confers on the Authority appropriate powers under the Commissions of Inquiries Act 1908 for the purposes of holding a hearing; sets out a procedure that enables the Authority to disclose information that has come to its knowledge through the exercise of its functions about a defendant who has been charged with or has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment; provides for a number of matters relating to the appointment of members and the administration of the Authority that are consistent with the Government’s Crown entity reforms.” 
Obviously if members read the report of the Law and Order Committee—as members will have done—they will see that we go into more detail on a number of those very important issues. 
I want to stress—and the Minister in his speech stressed to the Parliament early on—that it is very important that we remember notwithstanding some of the current issues facing the New Zealand Police that we still have the best police force in the world in my view. I know there are some issues and problems but they are minor and minuscule compared with a number of police forces around the world. The whole point of an Independent Police Complaints Authority process is to have a fair process of hearings and investigation and also to honour and enhance the vast majority of people who work in the police and who are very very fine and dedicated men and women. 
Having an Independent Police Complaints Authority that will be perceived as a truly independent authority ultimately enhances the credibility of that authority and the integrity of its findings when it reaches those findings. 
In conclusion I stress that having an effective process whereby complaints against wrongful police behaviour can be heard and acted upon is an important assurance that such behaviour will be properly responded to and public confidence in the police maintained which is critical. Along with the Minister I personally acknowledge the excellent work done by the current authority over the years. The structure of and resources given to the new Independent Police Complaints Authority will ensure an even better performance in the future. I thank the Law and Order Committee for its work and I urge passage of this bill through the House. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. We are keen to see it pass through the House at a fairly rapid pace. For a long time now we have called for the Police Complaints Authority to be made independent and the fact that this bill does that pleases us. We also welcome the fact that the authority is to increase its membership from one to three. We think that is a good move. 
If we want to maintain a very efficient and effective police force—and I am not suggesting for one moment that we do not have just that—it is essential that we have an independent Police Complaints Authority. There are two reasons. One is the practical reason of ensuring that the complaints it handles are indeed handled in an independent manner. There is also a perception in the minds of many of the public that the Police Complaints Authority as it is currently structured is biased towards the police. I think most of us in this House do not share that view but that is a perception that many members of the public have. 
I endorse the comments of the chairman of the Law and Order Committee. He says that we have the best police force in the world. I do not know whether I can endorse those comments to the degree of saying that it is the absolute best in the world but I will say that New Zealand First has a very high regard for the people who make up our police force. One of the major problems—and maybe the Government will take notice of it in the Budget—is that there are not enough of them. On a per capita basis we have something like 18 sworn police officers for every 10000 members of the public. That is the figure that sticks in my mind. To put it another way we have 180 police officers for every 100000 members of the public. When compared with some other nations in the OECD that is a dismal number. We need more police officers in this country and we need them urgently. I know that from time to time Ministers stand up and say that crime figures are going down. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s good. 
PETER BROWN 
: It would be good if it were true. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s true. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is true for the last few months but I invite the Hon Phil Goff because I know he— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s true over the last few years. 
PETER BROWN 
: He should go and look at the crime figures in 1999 when Labour came into power and compare them with the figures now. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Crime is at its lowest since 1982 on figures taken on exactly the same basis as they have always been taken. 
PETER BROWN 
: No no. The member can shout at me as much as he likes but he should go and look at the figures for crime in 1999 when the Government came in then look at the most recent figures. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Burglary is down by a third for example. 
PETER BROWN 
: Burglary is a concern and it is good to see it going down but I am not certain it has gone down from 1999. Violent crime has gone up considerably since 1999. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes but it has come down over the last year and a bit. 
PETER BROWN 
: It peaked fractionally. But I tell the honourable member who clearly is listening to New Zealand First—and the best advice anyone will give him tonight is to listen to New Zealand First—that we need more cops and we need them urgently. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You’ve got another 1080 already. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member likes to muck around with statistics. He should look at the number of police on a per capita basis in a place like Ireland which has a similar-sized population of 4 million or thereabouts. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh look— 
PETER BROWN 
: Jill Pettis should not treat this as a joke. It is serious. 
Jill Pettis 
: Look at Ireland’s problems. 
PETER BROWN 
: I invite members to look at any reasonably sized OECD country that has more police then compare the numbers of police with the level of crime. It is not good enough to stand up in the House and say that crime has gone down because it peaked last year. We collectively as politicians and parliamentarians can bring it down considerably by having more police. Even the National Party which once committed to the notion that a computer would solve crime has recognised now that it is important to have more cops. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: And they cut out policemen. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think Labour was going to have shadow police in cars at one time. We in New Zealand First want real cops made up of flesh and blood who are fit healthy and prepared to put their— 
Jill Pettis 
: So how many extra police when New Zealand First was part of the Government? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think that in the 2 years we were in Government the sworn police numbers went up dramatically. The figure that comes to mind is 500. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: They cut it. 
PETER BROWN 
: No that was after we got the grand order of the boot. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The National Party cut the number of people. 
PETER BROWN 
: There were no cuts while we were in the Government. If the Minister does not believe me he can check the figures for himself. We increased the police numbers by quite a significant number and we would do that again—significantly. It is regrettable that members are taking me away from this bill but I want to make that point whilst I am making my speech. [ 
Interruption 
] No I am having a little bit of fun here because I can see that I have the Government on a bit of a guilt trip. Those members know that they can do more and I am giving them good advice on how they can do it. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill but more important we support having more police officers on the streets of New Zealand. That way we really will address the crime levels in this country. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. It is a step forward from the present situation with regard to the Police Complaints Authority where there are huge delays and huge resourcing problems and where a big problem is that a lot of the work done for the Police Complaints Authority is done by the police—the very people sometimes who are being investigated. In terms of the delays I can give a personal example. I put in a complaint in 1999 and despite reminders the complaint still has not been resolved 5½ years later. That is an indication of the workload before the present one-person Police Complaints Authority. The authority is expanding to three people which is good. It is being given a little more independence and the powers of an ombudsman which is very good. It can have access to more staff and it will rely less on the police to investigate situations. 
I had thought that this particular bill would be left until after we had had a report back on the rape allegations against police from the Rotorua district because one of the aspects of those cases which are proceeding through a commission of inquiry is that the authority itself seemed to fail in those particular cases. It would seem that the police who investigated the officers whose behaviour was referred to the authority misreported on the situation to the head of the authority and as a result of that the authority essentially covered up the situation. That indicated the problem with the police investigating their own and being largely responsible for the work of the authority on the ground. Hopefully under the new system there will be many more independent investigatory staff. Some of them may be former police officers because they have those investigatory skills. 
There is always a problem in a police force—and this is no criticism of this particular police force—that because police officers are often in very difficult situations and do very difficult tasks there is a very strong feeling of camaraderie. When one has been through a lot of difficult experiences with a fellow officer one is a bit reluctant to blow the whistle on him or her. So there is sort of a structural problem in having the police investigate themselves. If the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Authority is independent that will be good. Sometimes the police say that they are their own harshest critics etc. etc. There is an element of truth to that statement but I think that if we want there to be a proper investigation of complaints into possible police wrongdoing then it has to be done independently. Also the public of New Zealand will have greater confidence in the outcome of those inquiries if not only the three-person authority itself but also the staff working under it are independent. So the Green Party will be supporting this bill. 
I think the question of disclosure that the Law and Order Committee went into quite a bit is quite important too. The committee did not handle it too badly. It is true that if we want people particularly those in the police force to blow the whistle on wrongdoing to the authority they have to be able to do it fairly confidentially. A lot of the information that comes to the attention of the new authority will come from the police themselves. When an initial complaint is made by someone outside the police who is affected by a police action a member of the police force may say he or she does not want to be associated with the incident and may blow the whistle. But he or she may not want to blow the whistle publicly so the system needs to offer a bit of protection through confidentiality. 
The people who do the complaining may themselves be up on trial as the report indicates. Someone who is up on trial may have been beaten up in the cells or affected by some other wrongdoing and may want to bring that to the attention of the authority. That person may give the authority some information pointing to his or her guilt or innocence that he or she does not want to brought out in the trial for one reason or another. It would undermine the ability of the police and of accused people to go to the authority if they thought that that would compromise a later court trial. So the disclosure provisions in the bill as the committee presents them are more to the benefit of the accused than of the police. I think the bias has to be in that direction so that it does not undermine the tendency to go to the authority. The bill probably does not go far enough though in really establishing the independence of the authority in terms of its investigatory powers. 
There is also the problem we have seen in many cases—and the Steven Wallace case that of the man shot in Waitara is a case in point—of the authority’s investigations being suspended for very long periods often for too long for them to be effective because of coronial proceedings or as in the Wallace case a court trial. Proceedings may also be suspended for an internal police investigation. Even under this bill the authority has the right to suspend proceedings while an internal inquiry takes place. So there are various forms of inquiries or proceedings—criminal proceedings etc.—that can prevent the authority from moving forward. I think we have to work out procedures for an authority that is not held back in that way. Possibly the very fact that there is confidentiality in the system will enable the authority to proceed with a speedy investigation. 
For instance I think the complaint I made back in 1999 relating to police actions towards the protesters against the visit of the Chinese leader for APEC over the question of Tibet has been compromised. There was police wrongdoing in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch in relation to those protests. Some of that wrongdoing has been brought out in the Justice and Electoral Committee report. The authority could have done more on that matter and hopefully it will do more on it even though the events took place so many years ago now. I gave a lot of information to the authority and it took down the transcript etc. But despite my reminding it that the matter has not been rectified the delays in the system have been just too big for an adequate result to be achieved. People’s memories fade over time. 
I think the whole question of a police complaints system is critical. We have seen the police come under a bit of criticism—often not very justified criticism—in recent times. Often there is a distrust of the police. When the police are under pressure often they cannot fulfil all the requirements such as attending some burglaries—they are too busy trying to catch people with little amounts of marijuana and not doing enough on the burglary front. People lose a bit of confidence in the police sometimes not through their own fault but because of the directions that are imposed on them. So in order to keep up the confidence in the police so that they appear whiter than white it is important to have a proper police complaints investigation system. This bill moves in that direction. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. This bill changes the name of the Police Complaints Authority and sticks the word “Independent” in on the assumption presumably that someone thinks Sir Rodney Gallen and others who have been involved did not see with enough independence. I think it is amazing that when I listen to the speeches in this House on something that goes to the heart of the integrity of the police and confidence of the public in the police force I hear what are effectively a set of smoothing smug complacent speeches idly suggesting that there are some improvements we might deign to vote for. 
This bill is the result of an inquiry in the year 2000. The Law and Order Committee reported it in 2003. We have a police force whose reputation has been bombing. We know from the polls that the police are now regarded by the public—[ 
Interruption 
] We know that the polls are telling us that a police force that was regarded as being clearly the best in the world is now seriously under question by the public and we have a Government that has trashed it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Goff can scoff but he knows that his Prime Minister started her rule by tossing racist jibes at the police when Steven Wallace was shot in Waitara. She jumped immediately to the conclusion that it was a racist event made it public and the police were already on the back foot. In fact from then on in Waitara they were not even able to uphold the law. This Government then tried to redeem itself by suggesting that the police needed a new level of inspectorate and so Mr Goff was sent to ride to the rescue with a relabelled Police Complaints Authority. 
Well trashing the police reputation I think comes naturally to this Government. A uniformed disciplined force takes its cue for integrity and ethics from the leadership—a leadership culture of a Prime Minister who repeatedly lies in Parliament a Prime Minister who cannot tell the truth about a painting she signed a Prime Minister who is a fraud and a Prime Minister who has lied again today. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I do not need the point of order. I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise please. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw and apologise. I trust that the Speaker would understand that there was a certain element of giving as good as is got. I am not qualifying my apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept what you say. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The fact is that any disciplined effective uniformed force that works under force does form a strong culture and does take its lead from the ethics shown by its leaders—by those who give it commands. 
We have seen in a very clear instance that this Government does not trust the institutions that surround the police. The Police Complaints Authority was not involved when the rape complaints began to be investigated. Instead the Government leapt in and appointed two very worthy and proper people to be an independent inquiry—the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—in a panic reaction and we did not see anything of the Police Complaints Authority in all of that. The Government did not choose to accelerate the progress of this bill to buttress the institution that it says it now sees as so important. Instead it got two good judges the Hon Justice Bruce Robertson and Dame Margaret Bazley who agreed to come in and essentially tell us whether the police— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The member is terribly confused if he thinks that Margaret Bazley is a judge. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I did not say that. She is acting as a judge in this matter. Margaret Bazley is eminently qualified to exercise the powers of a commission of inquiry in this. 
But what do we find? The fact this bill has been brought back to the House in such a rush after sitting around since 2003 is I think to try to hide the Government’s embarrassment that Justice Robertson has decided he does not want to have anything more to do with this shonky process. Justice Robertson has said he has better things to do—and undoubtedly he has—than to stay around in a commission of inquiry that is supposed to be a whitewash of a Government that has trashed the police reputation. It has trashed it consciously. It has trashed it to get out of political difficulty. When that inquiry started and it was obvious to everyone that it was going to need criminal proceedings why did the Prime Minister leap in and appoint a commission over the top then have it sit there after spending a million dollars being utterly ineffectual? No wonder Justice Robertson said he had better things to do than be associated with such an ad hoc useless process. 
I am sure it is only a strong sense of loyalty to the public service that she has served so well for so long and fear that it is being destroyed by the Government that keeps Dame Margaret Bazley there. I am sure she will not be part of a cover-up but she is certainly being used as part of a cover-up by the Government for its lack of ability to run manage appoint support and look after a police force that can maintain public confidence. 
The police force cannot maintain public confidence because it does not have confidence in its own leaders. It does not have confidence in its relationship with the Government. It knows that the statutory independence of the Commissioner of Police has been compromised. What about the timing of the announcement of the so-called “porn-gate”? Who told the commissioner to announce that a week before he even knew how many porn pictures he had? Dr Michael Cullen the Attorney-General who is supposed to be the chief law officer of the Crown and uphold the institutions of law and order told the Commissioner of Police when to announce a porn inquiry. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Just an apologist. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order Mr Goff. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I challenge the Minister to take one of the calls left to the Labour Party and explain the role of Dr Michael Cullen in the premature release of the “porn-gate” fiasco. There are 330 people under suspicion because he forced the commissioner who did not have the spine to stand up to such a vindictive Government to come out a week earlier and announce an inquiry. We find now that there might be eight pieces of porn. What a way to treat a police force—forcing it through the humiliation of last week because Dr Cullen did not want an announcement coming out when the Prime Minister was about to return home! And the Prime Minister said: “Yes get them to do it.” And what do we see? Eight pieces of porn possibly in a police force of 6000— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Eight pieces of objectionable material. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Eight pieces of illegal material. So here we have an Attorney-General who does not know that his role is to uphold the mana of the law. He does not understand that if he and his Government so quickly stab the police in the back if they are so protective of their own political careers that they do not care what that does to the police force then it will be no wonder that the police force leaks information. The police force will be whistle-blowers on this Government and all appeals to loyalty that this Government tries to make will fall on deaf ears. The police will have a higher loyalty—a loyalty to truth a loyalty to someone who is loyal to them. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.