Volume 613 Week 41 - Wednesday 5 November 2003 
Volume 613 Week 41 - Wednesday 5 November 2003 
[Volume:613;Page:9703] 
Wednesday 5 November 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to do two things: firstly to table a press release from the Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand which clearly indicates that all members of Parliament are somewhat besmirched by the rather insensitive comments made yesterday by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen Deputy Prime Minister; and secondly to seek some direction from the member as to whether he intends to apologise to the foundation and to this House for besmirching all our reputations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second matter is not a point of order but the first one is. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Commonwealth Secretary-General—Second Term 
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does the Government support Commonwealth Secretary-General Rt Hon Don McKinnon's bid for a second term as Secretary-General; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The answer is yes. Don McKinnon is doing a good job. He is a New Zealander and there is strong support for him to undertake a second term. 
Rod Donald 
: In light of the high regard in which Mr McKinnon is held by this Government is the Minister concerned about Mr McKinnon’s statement in the  
Guardian 
 last Friday headlined: “Commonwealth fury at Whitehall meddling” and stating: “Britain and New Zealand have been interfering in the Commonwealth Secretariat’s internal staffing policies.”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I understand that that may be Mr McKinnon’s alleged comments but that Mr McKinnon does not have a problem with the role of New Zealand in that regard. 
Tim Barnett 
: Which countries are supporting Don McKinnon’s bid for a second term as Secretary-General? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: A range of Commonwealth leaders have expressed to Mr McKinnon their support for his securing a second term. For example at the recent Pacific Islands Forum in Auckland unanimous support was expressed for Mr McKinnon. At this point there are no other declared candidates for the position although I understand that Zimbabwe—suspended from the Commonwealth—has been trying to find a second candidate. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Given there is now a news release headline alleging: “New Zealand in plot to muzzle staff at Commonwealth Secretariat” what steps precisely has the Minister taken to check the validity of that news release allegation and what steps will he take to satisfy this Parliament that no New Zealand staff have been involved in any meddling in the employment of officials at the Commonwealth Secretariat? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The role of employment of officials within the Commonwealth is of course the responsibility of the Secretary-General and no outside country. That does not prevent— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Outside New Zealand staff. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member wants to listen to the answer I will give it to him. That does not prevent any country that has a particular concern about the behaviour appropriate or otherwise of officials from raising that concern with the Secretary-General. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that a meeting took place earlier this year between Robert Hole a New Zealand diplomat at our High Commission in London and Eileen Drage a senior official in the British Government at which they agreed to monitor the activities of Roman Grynberg a Commonwealth Secretariat official who happens to have views on trade at odds to those of the New Zealand Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I can confirm that a meeting took place between Rob Hole of the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and an Elaine Drage who I understand is employed by the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom. Concern has been expressed about the behaviour of a particular official and there are appropriate ways to take that up with the Secretary-General. I would expect those ways to be employed. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Minister seen the letter from Elaine Drage to Robert Hole that confirms that Mr Hole agreed to find out when Roman Grynberg’s contract expires and to ascertain the procedures for filling posts at the Commonwealth Secretariat and would he give this House a watertight guarantee that neither of these actions was ever taken by a New Zealand official? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen the letter and nothing that Rob Hole is accused of in that letter is in any way offensive a criminal act or in any way inappropriate. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister extend that view to the fact that Elaine Drage asked Robert Hole to leak her a copy of a draft “Development and Democracy” paper being prepared for the December Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting because she regarded the trade section as dangerous and protectionist and wanted it changed before a meeting of Commonwealth officials next week? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not sure what the document is that supposedly was to be leaked but if a New Zealand official as a member of the Commonwealth had that document I presume that a UK official also a member of the Commonwealth would also have that information and be entitled to it. 
Rod Donald 
: Notwithstanding that the document was being prepared by an Australian academic does the Minister agree that Don McKinnon’s job as Secretary-General is to work for all Commonwealth countries not just the rich Western countries; if so why is the New Zealand Government undermining this work by attempting to remove officials from positions where they can advocate for the interests of poor countries many of which do not accept this Government’s commitment to unrestricted free trade? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I agree with the first comment. I think the second allegation is wrong. If the member is trying to find some comfort in Don McKinnon’s statement for his position on international trade he will find none because Don McKinnon’s viewpoint on this issue as this Government’s is is quite different from that member’s. We are in favour of removing subsidies and we are in favour of removing barriers to trade not only to developing countries but also of course to efficient agricultural producers like New Zealand. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Elaine Drage who is a director of trade and development to Robert Hole a counsellor at the New Zealand High Commission. 
Document not tabled. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table the  
Guardian 
 article headed: “Commonwealth Fury at Whitehall Meddling”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Land Transport Management Bill—Government Policy 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that she believes the Land Transport Management Bill “is very good legislation. It is not the policy of this Government to put things ‘right’.”; if so has she communicated this view to the business and local government groups who have serious concerns with this bill? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by the statement. The Government is committed to fixing Auckland’s transport problems and not to imposing right-wing ideological prescriptions on them. I am sure the member would agree given that he believes that moving to the right is wrong and crazy and says that he cannot support it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given the strong commitment from the Prime Minister to fix the problems that are clearly wrong in Auckland is she concerned by the comments of the Employers and Manufacturers Association which said today: “This bill is a con-job being wrought on road users” and that her Government is “misleading road users into thinking the new law will help ease traffic congestion but all it will do is divert more taxes into non-road purposes.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I would not agree with a word of that. Effectively solving transport issues does require a multimodal approach. That means roads it means the public transport that rolls along them it means rail and it means alternatives to roading and demand management. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Prime Minister share the view that it is only proper that the Government releases the economic report it is preparing on petrol tax diversion before it imposes any additional costs on motorists as proposed under the Land Transport Management Bill; if she does share that view will she tell the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport in particular to stop sitting on their hands and get the report out so we can all digest it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand the issues referred to are being covered in a more general piece of work that is being done and the Minister will be happy to release it when it is completed. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Since she stands by her statement that the Land Transport Management Bill is good legislation can she tell us the latest date on which the eastern highway will be completed or does she not take responsibility for getting Auckland moving? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: She’s not a navvy! 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Minister of Finance said no I am not a navvy; I cannot give that date. The matter has not been approved by Transit. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister had any advice that yesterday in the House Mr Brownlee was claiming he knew nothing about the Land Transport Management Bill and had not read it; if so will she make her officials available to brief him on it so he will not have to rely on the roading lobby for his information? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have heard that such comments were made. Of course the Government would be delighted to make officials available to brief Mr Brownlee. My only other suggestion for him is that as he aspires to higher office perhaps he could hand over the transport job to someone better qualified like Maurice Williamson while Mr Brownlee prepares to move up the pecking order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As the Prime Minister is going to make officials available to Mr Brownlee would she confirm that these officials will not be the same ones who were at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Land Transport Management Bill who claimed to have no idea of any report in respect of excise tax for petrol diversions or is this just a clear case where the Greens and the United Future party are determined to impose a road tolling regime on New Zealanders regardless? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am certainly not aware that those two parties are prepared to impose a road tolling regime on New Zealanders regardless. However I am well aware of a minority report by the National Party on the bill that suggested that tolls should be able to be applied anywhere any time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that the Prime Minister has generously offered to make officials available to give me a briefing on this useless piece of legislation can she assure the House that those officials will be made available without the dead hand or agent of Heather Simpson present while the briefing is being given? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure Ms Simpson will be delighted not to attend. Personally I would be very happy to do anything I can to help Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am overcome. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was about to rule on the point of order but I too was overcome. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Despite her penchant of late to start speaking in the third person and giving herself all sorts of plaudits when did she become a miracle worker in the case of Mr Brownlee’s offer? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It may take a miracle but they are known to happen. 
Organic Agriculture—Promotion 
3.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What progress has the Government made in promoting organic agriculture and enabling consumer choice? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last night the New Zealand Organic Standard 8410 was launched. This is significant for the industry because it gives greater assurances to consumers that the products they buy really have been grown organically. Currently anyone can label their produce as organic in order to command higher prices. However that product may have been grown without any adherence to organic principles whatsoever. 
David Parker 
: What other initiatives has the Government carried through for the organic sector? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Also launched last night was the organic sector strategy which sets goals for the industry over the next 10 years. That strategy the standard and the small-scale organic certification scheme which has now grown into Organic Farm New Zealand are three Government-funded initiatives aimed at creating the necessary framework to enable the sector to grow and prosper and are now in place. The extent to which they do grow and prosper of course will depend upon the demands of consumers around the world and the ability of the sector to meet those demands. 
Hon David Carter 
: What progress has his Government made in promoting any agricultural export market particularly in view of the free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States which could be finalised before Christmas? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government of course has made tremendous progress in promoting our agricultural exports. The sector is very pleased with those results. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: In terms of promotion of organic agriculture what does he believe the appropriate balance should be between organic and traditional agriculture in New Zealand and what is the rationale in promoting one form of agriculture over another? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Many countries have thriving agricultural sectors—organic conventional and genetically modified—coexisting. There are niche markets that are profitable for organic produce. This Government favours our exports being targeted at profitable niche markets in whatever form. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How does the Minister reconcile his support for organics with the Government’s simultaneous lifting of the GE moratorium given that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has failed to establish an effective coexistence regime and that research commissioned by the UK Government shows that coexistence is a physical impossibility? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Many countries have coexisting thriving organic conventional and GE agricultural sectors. Those include the European Union and our closest neighbour Australia. In fact I am told that there have been something like 1775 GE releases mainly for field trials in Europe since 1991. That is the same sort of thing the Environmental Risk Management Authority is considering for onions in New Zealand right now. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—Record-keeping 
4.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What is the reason that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services does not know how many children are in its care and after 4 years in Government who does she think is responsible for this lack of information? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister replies I want to say that she advised me that the answer was going to be slightly longer and I advise the House accordingly. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 The reason the department cannot at this stage produce a total figure of the number of children in its care despite knowing the numbers at the case-management level is that the first information systems priority was the development of a sophisticated case-management information system to support front-line work. This is now working well. The next phase to be implemented as a priority in this and the next financial year is the development of management information systems capability. That will include integrated national planning and reporting capabilities. That work programme is part of the accountability arrangements that the chief executive signed with me as Minister. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the responsibility for accurate information about the children in the care of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services ultimately falls on management and the Minister does she agree with the comments of Judge Mick Brown that while there are some good people in Child Youth and Family Services there are some “drongos who need to be sifted out”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In direct comparison to my ability and responsibility to sort out said people in other political parties I am not responsible for individual staff members within the department. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite simple: does she agree with Judge Mick Brown or not? She did not address that question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not require assistance from any member of the House and two parties did so. The Minister did address the question. It might not have been the answer the member wanted but she certainly addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect she was asked whether she agreed with the comment from a former retired judge who is very experienced in this matter. She did not answer the question at all. What she did do was point to those she implied to be drongos in other political parties for whom she said she is not responsible or for sorting out those people within her department. She did not answer the question as to whether she agreed with him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not take any notice of that part of the answer because it was political. I took a great deal of notice of the last sentence of the answer which did address the question. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has she received any advice from the department on the effect of the previous Government’s funding of the department’s information systems? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Comments about this must be within the Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In its briefing to the incoming Minister in 1999 the department advised that at the time it was established in 1999 the constraints on capital spending meant it could not develop the information systems it needed without prioritising and sequencing the development. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Now that the department is ensuring that accurate records are kept are steps also being taken to ensure that foster parents are appropriately screened and regularly monitored in order to provide safe environments for these children in care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The answer is yes although that is not directly related to the primary question. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: On what exact date did the Minister first learn that her department did not know how many children were asleep in its care every night as identified in the Government’s baseline review and what action did she take? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The department is able to say how many children are in care but only by individual contact with every person responsible for the case management of those children. The system does not allow the department to push a button and get a national figure in one go. The date I learnt of that was when I first received the baseline review. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that since the department is unable to provide any figures of the number of children and young people in its custody who are not enrolled in school that is a damning indictment of its failure to achieve its statutory objective of preventing children and young persons from suffering deprivation; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not and the reason is that the information system has now been upgraded to include data on school enrolments. This will apply to all new cases and current ones as records are updated. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Child Youth and Family Services computer system Cyras has been upgraded in full so that fields to include whether a child is in care or in school have been completed and implemented so that the department knows exactly whether all its kids in care are enrolled in school? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is exactly the same question as the one I have just answered so I am happy to give the answer again in case the member missed it. The information system has now been upgraded to include data on school enrolments. This will apply to new cases and to current ones as records are updated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister was asked whether she agreed with the respected former judge Mick Brown’s comments about there being drongos in her department why did she not tell the House whether she agreed and will she do so now? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I do not have responsibility for the comments made by Mick Brown and I do not personally think that that is an appropriate term to use in reference to any other person. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking that junior Minister whether she has responsibility; I am asking her whether she agrees. Surely she has some opinions on the matter given the tragedies we are seeing around our country. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for an opinion and he is entitled to do that but the Minister is entitled to answer in the way she did. 
Katherine Rich 
: What has the Minister’s Government done over the last 4 years to retain the good people at the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and sift out the people whom Judge Mick Brown described as “drongos”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government has put a considerable amount of effort energy and resources into allowing and supporting the department to achieve the functions that we as a Parliament expect of it. As we noted in the debate yesterday that was after a considerable amount of neglect and underfunding by the previous Government. But in the end—as that member should know if she wants to keep her seat on the front bench—I as a Minister do not have any responsibility for the individual employment of staff. 
Broadcasting—Public Ownership 
5.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What is the contribution of publicly owned broadcasting to New Zealand's cultural and economic development? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Television New Zealand is an important asset both culturally and economically. A recent survey indicates that the new charter environment has seen an average of 70 percent of New Zealanders regarding TVNZ favourably and that its audience share is 71 percent. Of the top 100 programmes last year 88 screened on TVNZ. The network is a leader in broadcasting. Television One broadcasts 46 percent local content and TV2 broadcasts 20 percent. It is also a very sound company. The television business made a profit of $29 million in the last financial year and the transmission business made a profit of $11.2 million. Advertising revenue of $305 million exceeded the company’s expectations. 
Dianne Yates 
: What proposals has the Minister seen to change that situation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Last Wednesday proposals were floated to sell a number of State assets involved in the “competitive market” as it was put with TVNZ at the top of the list. By Sunday the originator of those proposals had hastily backtracked and had advanced the possibility of a fully funded non-commercial Television New Zealand along the lines of the BBC. That would require advertising revenue of $308 million to be replaced by taxpayer funding. Already the dithering by Dr Brash looks a lot like that of the person he deposed last week. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What answer can the Minister give to explain New Zealand’s economic and cultural development through charter-prescribed programmes like  
Willy Nilly 
 and  
Edwards at Large 
 when the New Zealand public does not watch either of those programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Edwards programme was funded by New Zealand On Air as was  
Willy Nilly 
 a comedy that a large number of people seem to find enjoyable. From my point of view I say to I think the National spokesperson on broadcasting—whose name is not yet on the website—that the company itself rather than the Minister has to decide what it will put on air. We are here to ensure we get charter television; the company decides on the programmes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that our publicly owned broadcasting system would be able to make an even more significant contribution to New Zealand’s cultural and economic development if it did not have to pay the Government a $7.8 million dividend this year; and why on earth does he not allow TVNZ to invest that dividend into making New Zealand programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Television New Zealand already invests a large amount of money in its own programming but I point out to Ms Kedgley and the rest of the House that we do expect this company to operate in a commercial fashion which means it should make a return. It will give a dividend and over the next 3 years it will give a very good one. 
Marc Alexander 
: In light of the fact that 80 percent of charter funding is being spent on Television One programming does the Minister concede that publicly owned broadcasting’s contribution to New Zealand cultural development is being delivered through only Television One while TVNZ continues to utilise TV2 as nothing but a cash cow; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No and I give one example. One of the requirements in the charter is for children’s television to be developed. Television New Zealand has been doing that. Most of those programmes will play on TV2. 
Drugs—Government Funding 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she say yesterday “This country has very careful mechanisms for assessing what drugs it is appropriate to fund and I am not aware that those mechanisms and procedures have changed substantially in recent years at all.” and further “I suggest the member put down a question on notice with specific reference to the question of Alzheimer's drugs. It is this Government's determination to provide proper treatment for people across the range of conditions.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Because both statements reflect what I believe to be the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister tell me why Pharmac is going to commence an Alzheimer’s drugs trial when at least 10 internationally respected agencies including the Federal Drug Agency in the United States have already done that and their countries have made those drugs available; is it because she is involved in penny-pinching at the cost of people’s suffering? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear to me that the debate in Pharmac about this drug is not about money; it is about efficacy. It is understood by Pharmac and those on the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee who advise it that yes the drug can have a limited effect for a limited time and they have not judged it appropriate at this time to fund it in New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Having been a previous Minister of Health why would the Prime Minister not answer the question I posed to her yesterday asking why this Government will not fund drugs for Alzheimer’s patients; and as these are the only drugs that offer any hope at all for patients with Alzheimer’s why will this Government not fund them as they are funded in Australia Britain and America? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Firstly it is not reasonable to expect me to answer a question on Alzheimer’s drugs with no notice at all—and there was no notice given of that question. Secondly it is 13 years since I was Minister of Health. Thirdly Alzheimer’s is a difficult and debilitating disease and I have no doubt that the member because of her specialist knowledge has treated patients with it. She will know there is no cure and there is no decent treatment either. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Prime Minister make a statement in respect of those drugs that would be disowned by any other First World country including Canada the United Kingdom Australia the USA a number of Latin American countries and Western Europe in total were it not for the fact that she is basically heartless when it comes to people’s suffering? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I recognise Alzheimer’s as an appalling and debilitating disease. I have recently had a relative die after many years of suffering dementia. I know how appalling it is. I am sure the Minister of Health will be very happy to make available to the member the advice that came from the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee which was that the drug should not be funded because it had only a limited effect for a small number of patients for a small period of time. 
Health Care—Resources and Monitoring 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the Ministry of Health monitor the amount of spare capacity in both the public and the private health-care sectors; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes the Ministry of Health monitors public capacity but has no jurisdiction to monitor private provider capacity. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How then can the Minister stand by her statement to the New Zealand Private Hospitals Association that “the Government is committed to public-private partnerships” when her ministry has no idea what capacity exists in the private sector; or does this reflect her inability to do anything more than encourage district health boards to engage the private sector leading to tragic situations like the one at Wellington Hospital recently where several patients died after their operations were postponed because the hospital refuses to make use of available surgical services at the private Wakefield Hospital nearby? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Although I cannot refer to the particular case that the member referred to I know that since 2000 district health boards have had in place a partnership protocol with the private sector that enables them to utilise any spare capacity in the private sector in the interests of public patients. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Government have a “State provider only” ideology? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No. In fact I will quote a letter from the Private Hospitals Association Chief Executive Officer Andrew Blair: “You may be interested to know that Chris Clarke the CEO of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and I showcased the successful public-private partnership that is evolving in the Hawke’s Bay for the good of the community. We both acknowledge your support for such initiative. Thank you again for your ongoing support of the New Zealand Private Hospitals Association.” That quote is from a letter to the Minister of Health and states clearly the Minister’s support for that protocol between the private and public sectors. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Is the Minister aware that as of this morning there is only one neonatal cot available for premature babies in all of New Zealand; and will we now have to use spare capacity in Australia to cover this New Zealand public capacity crisis? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I was not aware of the situation that has developed this morning. It is often left to the public sector to carry out complicated procedures to protect the people of New Zealand. In areas of health we have had to refer people to Australia on occasion. I am sure that the Government will do everything it can to ensure the best quality health-care for New Zealanders both young and old. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting the Minister’s answer that there is an effective public-private partnership in operation and bearing in mind the comments made earlier that there have been patient deaths at Wellington Hospital this year because there has been an unwillingness to utilise resources at the nearby Wakefield Hospital will he now inquire formally into why Wellington Hospital did not refer those patients on to Wakefield Hospital where surgery could have been carried out successfully and their lives saved? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I make a commitment to the member that we will investigate that situation. We are aware that there are sometimes problems in both the public and private sectors. The public sector is often left to pick up the pieces and there have been situations at Wakefield Hospital whereby complications have arisen and Wellington Hospital has been asked to tidy up those situations. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does that last answer not take us right back to where we started in that these sorts of issues would be best dealt with if the Ministry of Health monitored spare capacity in both the public and private sectors and treated the health system as one integrated system rather than as one with two separate arms and legs? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am sure that the successful public-private partnership protocol should identify spare capacity in the private sector. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a document about hospital cot status showing that Middlemore Waikato Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin hospitals have no beds for premature births. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is. 
Iraq—Defence Force Engineering Unit 
8.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Will the Government be increasing the defensive capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force engineering unit in Iraq in light of the injury of a soldier deployed there; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Defence) 
: No. Defence Force advice is that increased defensive capability such as armoured vehicles or heavy weaponry is not appropriate and would be inconsistent with the humanitarian and reconstruction role that Defence Force personnel are in Iraq to perform. It would be counterproductive to their ability to relate to those they are working with. Defence Force personnel however are appropriately trained equipped and armed for self-defence. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Government continuing with the policy of New Zealand troops in Iraq travelling in civilian vehicles instead of adequately armoured vehicles such as the armoured Land Rovers the British have brought in from Northern Ireland; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is important that the member knows this was not a patrol; it was a routine drive in a convoy and standard to the movement of personnel around this part of Iraq. The vehicle that the New Zealand officer was in was in fact a British vehicle and he was in the company of civilians and other military personnel. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Would the Minister please inform the House of the nature of the tasks in which the New Zealand Defence Force engineering unit is engaged? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: They are broadly reconstruction and humanitarian tasks. Specifically our forces are working on restoring infrastructure. One of the most important jobs they are doing is providing drinkable water in schools and poor neighbourhoods and I would hope that every member of this House appreciated the need for that humanitarian work and supported our forces there. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the New Zealand public objectively assess the justification for any change to our defence capabilities in Iraq when the only media permitted to accompany the Prime Minister on her recent visit to the troops was a State television crew who were specifically instructed to break with convention and not serve as a pool camera for ATPM feed to other networks; and was the Minister aware of that instruction? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am informed that that simply is not true. Secondly any media can apply to go to Iraq at any time to cover visits but even that member would appreciate that when the leader of a country goes to a place that is inherently dangerous one does not signal that beforehand. 
Simon Power 
: Were defensive capabilities altered with the Prime Minister’s visit to Iraq last week and why was it necessary to keep her visit so secret given the very public visits of Donald Rumsfeld Tony Blair and Colin Powell to Iraq in recent times? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I notice that the one person the member did not mention was Paul Wolfowitz. He signalled his presence in advance and a missile went through his hotel as a consequence. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister might have addressed one part of the question but there was an earlier part that was of some interest—certainly to me and I am sure to other members of the House. The question was about whether there was—I forget the phrase that Mr Power used—a rearrangement of defence forces in light of the Prime Minister’s visit. I was very interested to have that part of the question addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister could well answer that part. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am happy to do that. Yes of course the leader of any country who goes to a war zone like that will have appropriate defensive support as I had when I went to Afghanistan. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Through you I seek some assistance for the Minister. The Minister is in danger with the last answer he gave of terribly misleading the House for on CNN television it was made very clear that that missile was deliberately planned well in advance and it was coincidental that Wolfowitz happened to be present in the hotel at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. There is another way that the member can use those facts. 
Teachers—Information and Communications Technology 
9.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to support teachers to develop their expertise in using information and communications technology to help students learn? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Ten teachers have been selected from over 50 applications to receive the first-ever e-learning fellowships. These fellowships give teachers the time and support networks to research how best to meet their students’ needs in new and exciting ways. Over $4 million has been earmarked for 40 of these year-long fellowships over the next 4 years. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why is the development of teacher information and communications technology skills important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is vital that young New Zealanders have the skills that equip them for work in the 21st century. The one thing I do regret is that it appears that one of our main resources Mr Maurice Williamson is about to be given some real work to do in here and we will not be able to use him as a leader in those programmes. 
Jim Peters 
: When did the Minister realise that much greater expertise was needed as will be developed by the 10 educators next year; and what funding allowances are available now for projects such as FarNet for seconded qualified and innovative teachers to have collective learning programmes developed for the project and other projects next year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not have the specific amount of money that has been put into FarNet over a number of years but it is enormous. Also we are now up to an intake of 37 new clusters coming in at the beginning of next year—roughly 400 schools getting additional professional development and other support. This Government is putting its money where its mouth is in this area and I must say that the Northland principals have been very very supportive of the extra resourcing they have received. 
Petrol Excise Tax—Diversion into Crown Account 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Further to his answer to oral question No. 3 on 17 September when does he intend making available the result of the economic analysis of diversions from the petrol excise tax into the Crown account? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I was referring to the surface transport costs and charges study commissioned by the Ministry of Transport. That work is nearing completion with the final report due in the first half of next year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that the real analysis of the situation is that the motorist pays for example $27.25 in taxes for 50 litres and that only one quarter of that or $6.95 is spent on the roads does the Government intend to continue to treat road users as cash cows whilst it introduces road tolling? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly can assert that that figure is wrong. The member may cast his mind back to the period just before the election when the Automobile Association with the enthusiastic support of a number of political parties stated that if the full cost of roading were to be covered by the motorist a substantial increase in excise duty would have to be imposed. 
John Key 
: What does the Minister consider to be this Government’s biggest con when it comes to Auckland’s roads: the fact that over half of the 4.7c petrol tax is siphoned off to the Crown account; the fact that the Land Transport Management Bill is so absolutely hopeless that this Government has started work on new legislation before the bill is even passed; or the fact that this Minister claims that there are not enough construction companies on the entire planet to fix Auckland’s problems? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point that was a result agreed by the joint officials committee in respect of limits on construction. The member is entirely wrong on the 4.7c—all of that money went into land transport. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that Government revenue for 2002-03 from petroleum fuels amounted to $995 million and that income to the national roading fund from petrol excise for the same period was $601 million which leaves a balance of $394 million the majority of which would have remained in the Crown account; if not can he clarify those figures? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. As I understand it that is the correct figure for the 2002-03 year. It must be remembered of course that the cost of capital for roading is not covered out of the excise duty. That is the reason for the answer I gave earlier. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is it that the Minister of Finance alone seems not to know that the current year’s collections are in excess of $2.223 billion—the purpose of which is to build and maintain roads and for road safety—yet $1.29 billion is being spent; why is the taxpayer and the road user being robbed blind by this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The road user and taxpayer are not being robbed blind. Indeed even if the member’s assertions were correct the taxpayer would be the gainer. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister explain the large increase between the $394 million referred to earlier—diverted from the national roads account last year—and the $573 million forecast to remain in the Crown account from fuel excise and customs duty income of $1.128 billion as outlined in figure 2 of Transfund’s 10-year forecast for 2003-04? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that the first figure refers to petrol excise duty only whereas the second—the forecast—refers to petrol excise and customs duty. Therefore that figure is inevitably higher than the first. 
Wallaceville Research Facility—Closure 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Crown Research Institutes 
: Given that AgResearch's Wallaceville research facility has been described as in a “climate of fear” how does its likely closure fit in with the Government's aim of attracting training and retaining scientists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 AgResearch’s plans to progressively relocate staff from Wallaceville are part of a strategy to concentrate the institute’s resources where they can be most effective. Because some research teams are less inclined to relocate than others it seems likely that some scientists will relocate later and some others not at all. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does he accept that the climate of fear reported to be present amongst staff at Wallaceville is associated with widespread dismay and loss of morale and will he work with and encourage AgResearch to act on viable alternative options that are available whereby this internationally acclaimed world-class research facility is consolidated and strengthened rather than closed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I freely acknowledge the world-class science that goes on in Wallaceville especially with some of the teams. But the member has overlooked the advantages of a progressive relocation. For example he might wish to reflect that there is a strong science case to locate animal health research with veterinary teaching. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the board of AgResearch? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I certainly do. Restructuring plans are always difficult and sometimes traumatic for staff. I am satisfied that the board of AgResearch and particularly the chairman have made strenuous efforts to engage honestly and constructively with the staff at Wallaceville and continue to do so. 
Stephen Franks 
: How can the citizens of Wellington be persuaded that this decision is not just an attempt to put resources into a more marginal electorate instead of into a region where every seat has returned Labour members given the Government’s willingness to spend $25 million on Auckland University and its unwillingness to reopen this case when AgResearch says Wallaceville is still making money and there is no prospect that it will not continue to do so? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To the extent that relocation occurs it will occur mainly to Massey University—in one of the strongest-held Labour seats in the country. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does he agree that the Wallaceville Animal Research Centre facility has forged strong links with businesses in the Hutt Valley such as AgVax Developments Ltd Schering-Plough and Industrial Research Ltd and that there are strong opportunities for further growth with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and Victoria University but that these opportunities will be seriously affected by closure; why does he not encourage AgResearch to rethink consolidate and enhance Wallaceville? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes which is why for example Dr Ken McNatty and his team are more likely to stay here than leave. 
Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust—Tax Bill 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Did the Ministry of Health have any legal liability for the $74146.96 exclusive of GST tax bill owed on the koha payments made by Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust to voluntary staff; if not why did the ministry pay the tax bill for a health trust whose contract it had not renewed? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health:  
No. The Minister was advised that the responsible manager with appropriate financial delegation decided to pay the outstanding tax liability of the trust directly to the Crown because had the trust been aware of the tax liability at the time the contract commenced in 1995 the contract could have reflected the full costs of providing the service. It was not until 2000 that the Inland Revenue Department ruled that tax was liable on the koha payments to voluntary workers and required the backdated amount to be paid. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the Deputy Director-General of Maori Health Ria Earp have the appropriate financial delegation to make a payment of this amount when there was no contractual obligation to do so; if so who provided Ms Earp with the authority to make such a discretionary or ex gratia payment? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: My understanding is that she had that appropriate delegation and that the Inland Revenue Department made the demand on the Ministry of Health for the outstanding debts. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the other part of the question about who gave the delegated authority. I think that is the key part of that question. Perhaps he would like an opportunity to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member specifically ask whether she had the delegated authority and the Minister gave an absolutely straight answer to that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not relitigate this particular point. 
Rodney Hide 
: I perfectly understand that. I know you would not allow that and I would not test your patience. On this side we are a bit confused because the two answers appear to be contradictory. On the one hand the Minister said that there was no contractual obligation to pay the amount; on the other hand he said the Inland Revenue Department had presented the bill to the Ministry of Health. It does make it problematic for us in our next supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may well be but I am not here to judge the quality of the question or the answer. It was addressed. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What is the difference between a koha payment to a voluntary worker and a salary and can the Minister assure this House that the practice of making koha payments to voluntary workers has been stopped; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: My understanding is that the Inland Revenue Department made a judgment on the situation with regard to koha payments to voluntary workers. My understanding also is that no further direct payments are being made from the Ministry of Health to the Inland Revenue Department for such situations. 
Heather Roy 
: Is it policy for the Ministry of Health to pay any outstanding tax bills for non-government health providers or if this was a special case what was special about it? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: When the Ministry of Health took over responsibility for this matter in December 2000 it indicated to the trust that its contract might be terminated. Therefore the Inland Revenue Department was uncertain about where it should receive payment for the outstanding debts. That is why it went to the Ministry of Health. 
Heather Roy 
: What health outcomes did the $688000 paid to Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust for cultural and spiritual healing achieve and is the Minister prepared to tell this House that the health outcomes for Maori were better than if the same amount had been given to Hastings Hospital? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is a fairly wide question but I am happy to say that this Government is committed to providing funding for Maori health providers. I quote Mr English the former member of the National Party: “Maori health providers contribute the social and cultural capital that make services appropriate.” He went on to say: “As you know real partnership is about more than just sitting down and talking to people. For Government it means doing something hard handing over power and thereby empowering.” This Government commits to that positive statement. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member pleased be seated when I am on my feet. The Minister went too far with that particular quote and Mr English is still a member of this Parliament. Is that what Mr Hide’s point of order was about? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes it was. It was also to make a second point that the question was about health outcomes not about what Bill English said. We have still not had any statement about the health outcomes achieved by that trust. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was addressed. 
General Debates 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. As I lead off for the Opposition parties in this first general debate since being elected as leader of the National Party I am conscious of the comments made in recent days in a number of media outlets about my relative lack of parliamentary experience and about the bleak prospects of my forging a career as a stand-up comedian. May I briefly say to those critics that while I always try to achieve professionalism and competence in this Chamber I did not embark upon this career with any aspiration of becoming some sort of antipodean Billy Connolly. 
I should also say that if this Government were to continue in office there is little about New Zealand’s longer-term economic and social prospects that I regard as in the least bit amusing. I am heartened that many New Zealanders share a sense of urgency that we should address these important issues before it is too late. There is a mood for change and this spin-doctoring minority Labour Government is failing miserably to recognise this. 
I acknowledge with a mixture of pride and humility that my party has chosen me to provide leadership at this important time. I am not in the slightest troubled that Mike King and Marc Ellis have nothing to fear from my appearance on the public stage. But I will be very troubled indeed if by election day 2005 the need to face up to some key issues facing this country has not moved New Zealanders to see off this arrogant Clark Government. 
My commitment to New Zealanders as leader of the National Party is to deliver on five key goals. First we have to start narrowing the gap between our living standards and those of our cousins in Australia—a gap that sees every Australian getting nearly $200 per week more than the average New Zealander. If we do not narrow that gap we will not have the health care that Australians can afford we will not have the roads that Australians take for granted our teachers will not get the salaries that those in Australia earn and New Zealand mums and dads will increasingly see their kids and grandchildren growing up in Australia. We will end up as a distant Tasmania to the Australian mainland. That is not what I want and that is not what most New Zealanders want. 
Second we have to ensure that every child whatever his or her race whatever the affluence of his or her parents or whether he or she lives in Auckland or in rural Southland has access to quality education so that every child comes out of the school system able to read able to write and able to take his or her place in a modern society. At the moment they do not and that is a disgrace. Unless we do very much better we will never have a healthy society and we will never have a society where everybody can get a well-paid job. 
Third we have to end the creeping paralysis of welfare dependency. It is surely a scandal that at a time when the economy is buoyant 350000 working-age adults and tens of thousands of their children are dependent on hard-working New Zealanders for a handout. As a country we currently spend $20 million per day on social welfare—nearly $1 million an hour—365 days a year. For the sake of those receiving that money as well as for the sake of those paying it we have to fix that system and give all able-bodied New Zealanders the dignity of contributing to our society. 
Fourth we need to head off the dangerous drift to racial separatism in New Zealand—a drift that this Government seems intent on encouraging. We must deal fairly and finally with historical grievances but then ensure that all New Zealanders of whatever race or creed are treated equally before the law. 
Finally we need to ensure that all New Zealanders feel secure and that means not just dealing firmly with crime drugs gangs and vandalism but also ensuring that our relationships with new friends in Asia and old friends in Australia the UK and the US are put on a firm footing. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 For those New Zealanders who are sitting at home wondering who that was let me say that Michael Laws who was a member of this House for a little while and a member of that party for a little while described Dr Don Brash who has just sat down as an inoffensive if elderly man lacking either constituency or charisma. 
Over the last little while watching the National Party has been like watching one of those awful television reality shows. In this case I think the title would be  
When Tories Go Bad 
. The change of leadership from the hapless Bill English to the equally hapless Dr Don Brash took the outer limit of haplessness up to stratospheric conditions. Do not take my word for it. Listen to someone who should know. Jane Clifton said: “… this is by a commanding margin the most bunglingly vandalously conducted leadership spill … ever seen. The coup’s result … has been dangerously compromised by the manner of its implementation. Could these plotters have made themselves and more important their party look more desperate unstable and indecisive if they’d been secret Labour Party operatives?”. That is what Jane Clifton said. 
We have to ask whether Don Brash is secure now that this hapless coup is over. We know from the inside that Bill English thought he had the vote—so much so he was over the road celebrating with his mob before the vote was taken. We know that at least some people changed their vote from what they said they would do. We are told that the vote was 14 to12 but no one can confirm that. We know that so much stabbing in the front ineptitude and stupidity has gone on that at least one member is now confined to his bed. We know that. 
What we see is not a planned coup. National simply panicked. But at least now we have somebody who is honest. He is honest and we know what the programme is. The programme is to scrap the unemployment benefit and minimum wage laws; make the unemployed stand outside post offices waiting for work; raise the age of entitlement to superannuation; sell assets; privatise health and education; and cut taxes for the rich. If one earns over $100000 one gets $81 a week from Don Brash. If one earns under $38000 one gets nothing from Dr Brash. At least that is honest. What are people saying about this? What are the reviews on this? These are the reviews. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he must not interject while he on his feet and moving up and down the corridor. [ 
Interruption 
] Members are only taking away the Minister’s time. Please be seated. I let a lot of interjection go on because there was a bit of interjection in the first speech but not that amount. The number of interjections will now cease dramatically or else members will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What are the reviews of that performance? John Armstrong said: “There is a painful lesson for the National Party in the latest fracas over the leadership: if you promote show ponies”—I think he put the word “sick” in there—“from political nowhere straight on to the front bench you’re asking for trouble.” Brian Rudman said: “Brash brings with him a baggage of extremist economic policies that have been rejected by the mainstream political parties. It’s as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed him by unseen.” “He is”—states the  
Sunday News 
—“a pointy-headed ex-banker. He’s the kiss of death.” 
Those are not good reviews for the reality show so far. One would have to ask why they have done it. Why have the Tories gone bad? Yesterday Deborah Coddington referred to the fact that Don Brash and the ACT party as she put it will get the country moving. That is the clue. It is also reinforced by the words of Fran O’Sullivan who said: “The Welcome to Auckland party being hosted by a millionairess is another indication of Brash’s ACT party in drag.” 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I begin by expressing my deep sympathy for the National Party. All those people down the years since 1936 who once worked with that great party will be in tears today. I predict that within 6 months there will be signs around all the rugby paddocks saying “Bring Back Bill”. This debate is about humbug hypocrisy and cant. Labour is attacking National and National is attacking Labour but they are both the same—Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. The member was reading out the list of achievements of the 1987 Labour Government. It sounded so familiar. They are both arrogant born-to-rule we-know-best parties and they are trying to take New Zealand back to the two-party system. 
National we know remains a deep and divided mess. However the Prime Minister is becoming known for her callous attitude towards ordinary New Zealanders. She has no heart. The poor people of Afghanistan have had Russians the Taliban and now the Americans. What have they done to deserve the terror of Helen Clark paying a visit all dressed up like a desert-based bee-keeper? There she was on a secret mission—so secret that no one in to her office knew about it. What did the Afghans do to deserve her making that visit? On her first day back in the House yesterday she was asked about a condition that besets elderly people—and sad are the families and caregivers who have to look after those people. That condition is called Alzheimer’s. A former Minister of Health knew nothing about it. Whilst all First World countries are financing drugs to ease the lifestyle of those people and improve their period of life and their quality of life for years and sometimes for decades she claims that they do not work. She knows more than the Federal Drug Agency of the United States and all the equivalent agencies in Europe. The Prime Minister is more interested in financing weirdo loony-tune policies of her minority groups. However she cares not a whit for ordinary New Zealanders who are suffering and who should get hospital treatment in this country but have to go to Australia. 
 On her first day back in the House she demonstrated that she has but one objective; it is just power. She has no principles. There would not be a former Labour leader who would recognise this present Labour Party. There is after all no longer a democracy in New Zealand. Thanks to the Greens and United Future Labour is now running the country like a dictatorship. 
Let me ask members a question. What did ordinary New Zealanders have to say about prostitution? When were they ever asked? What do ordinary New Zealanders think about prostitution? Were they ever asked? No. [ 
Interruption 
] The United Future members voted for it. They thought it was a good idea. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will address the Chair not his own back bench. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is coming off the member’s time. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Are you telling me I cannot turn round in this Chamber? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You can every now and then but not continuously. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is called a debating chamber and I want to finish my point of order and not have you chipping in halfway through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am making a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now be seated. I make the point that I allowed the member—and I have stopped his time now—to turn round for a continued length of time but according to our Speakers’ rulings turning round for a lengthy period of time is not in order. The member must address the Chair. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will. What did ordinary New Zealand people have to say about same-sex marriages? What did they have to say about the foreshore and seabed debacle? What did they have to say about the treaty industry? What did they have to say and when did they get a say on the Privy Council? What did they have to say about genetic engineering? They were never asked. This is an arrogant Government—a totally arrogant Government. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They got an inquiry. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes they got an inquiry OK. The Government has set up a group to do an economic analysis excepting the report is a year after the Government abolished the moratorium. This is an arrogant “we know best” Government. In 1999 the people of this country in a huge referendum voted to have 99 MPs. They voted for stiffer penalties. Were they listened to? No. What does Helen Clark think of that? She thinks they are not worth the time of day. But I say to the Labour Party that I know and my party knows how flaky its vote is. We know that New Zealanders get no salvation from that side of the House and from over here but we do know—and mark my words—that by Christmas we will have shown them what New Zealanders really think. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 What we often hear in these debates is people pulling each other apart. That is not the way to build a robust and strong New Zealand. United Future under the excellent—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to be heard in reasonable silence. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I can speak up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. Whatever he might think I will not be allowing that sort of rabble to continue. Members will be leaving the Chamber. I want Mr Adams to be given a reasonable hearing. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: United Future under the excellent leadership of Peter Dunne is endeavouring to pull people together to build a better New Zealand. So if members have something constructive to say they should say it. But members should not just get up in this House at great expense to the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer to parrot on and to pull people down. Most New Zealanders are very sick of it and I do not blame them. This type of behaviour is totally unproductive and it is past time that we put a stop to it. To pull people together requires someone in the middle ground. That middle ground is called the centre and United Future is a true centralist party. Today I want to draw two groups together. The first group is the employers who are a very good and extremely hard-working group of people and in most part are people who care for New Zealand and also care for those whom they employ. Employers want to provide for their employees the best pay and working conditions that they can afford. Employees for many small-business owners are almost part of their family. 
The second group is the unions. Again this is a group of people who in most cases care for New Zealand and care for their members. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much noise. There will now be no more laughing and inane comments. The odd interjection is OK but that is it. The member has been unreasonably restricted from putting his point of view. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you say there should not be any more laughing. Can we laugh quietly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr Peters knows that I enjoy a joke just as he does but I do not enjoy inane loud guffawing and that is what I am referring to. The member must be able to be heard. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not having any further points of order. Please be seated. Please carry on Mr Adams. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a proper point of order or else Mr Mark will be leaving the Chamber. What are you going to do? 
Ron Mark 
: I am asking you to consider this point. Whilst I understand your serious desire to have an orderly debate one of the issues we have discussed—in fact you yourself have made comment on this in the House—is that one of the things that incites what one could only describe as not discontent but as bringing discredit is people who stand and read a speech. There have been great orators in here like David Lange. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Ron Mark 
: The member might as well table his speech and get out of here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber. I am not having him standing and shouting while I am on my feet. Please leave the Chamber. 
Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: My question today is: why do these two groups openly fight battles against each other when in most instances they are trying to achieve the same thing? United Future is going to make a huge impact on New Zealand when the New Zealand public really grasps what a centralist party is all about. Believe me they are beginning to understand. If unions genuinely want to see more take-home pay in workers’ pay packets which I believe they do and if employers genuinely want to see greater productivity then they both need to get together and lobby the Government to supply United Future’s call for tax cuts because this then becomes a win-win situation for them both. The only one that wins with an increase in the wage rate is the Government as it then collects more tax. But with employers and unions pulling together for tax cuts it becomes two the employer and the union against one the Government and the chance of success has to be far higher. The workers will be happy as they will have more disposable income and the employers will be happy as they will not have an increase in costs. Productivity could increase by taking on more staff thereby boosting the economy. The Government wins in the end as companies should become more profitable and therefore the tax take will still increase. 
 That is why we need less extremism and pulling other people down for political gain in Government. What we need more of is plain old common sense. It may not be sexy but by jingo there is an air about it that I believe every hard-working middle-of-the-road New Zealander would agree with. It is better to work together in order to achieve a common goal that works for both parties than to fight each and achieve little. Unions and business people should put their weight in behind United Future and support our consistent cry for tax cuts because we believe unions and business deserve better value for effort. Together we will build a better New Zealand. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 We have had the sermon and now we are about to have the lesson! We have here a shonky payment. Precious health dollars have been diverted to pay the tax bill of a public trust. The trust is the Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust which is based in Napier. The Ministry of Health wrote a letter to Mr Apera Clark the chair of the trust on 8 January 2002 inviting him to forward to the ministry an invoice for the final payment of $90665.33 GST inclusive and asking him to confirm that he would receive the money by signing the letter and returning it to the ministry. Some stipulations were attached to the letter one of which concerned the fact that the ministry had a tax bill from the Inland Revenue Department. The trust owed the tax department $74146.96. Once the ministry received the invoice it would pay the outstanding Inland Revenue Department tax bill on behalf of the trust. 
That raises many questions which the Minister of Health to date has been unable to answer satisfactorily. Why was a final payment being made to the trust when there was no contractual obligation to do so? The Ministry of Health had already written to the trust to tell it that its contract would not be renewed. The reason was that in August 2000 an audit of the trust had been carried out by the Ministry of Health. Of the 64 criteria that the ministry tested at the clinic run by the trust it failed 39. Those failed criteria included such things as basic hygiene and whether the practitioners were writing down the dosages of the medications they were dispensing which are very basic things. 
The spending was also in question. The ministry discovered that money was being spent not on providing health services to the Maori people of Napier for “cultural and spiritual healing” as the trust was contracted to do but by the chairman and his wife who was co-signatory of the trust chequebook on personal rent power groceries dog food spa pools digital and Sky television—not just one but two digital television providers— 
Brian Connell 
: Sounds like a hotel. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Absolutely. It was not five-star—the member should have seen the mess. The money was also spent on petrol and cases of muttonbirds. The question arises as to whether the ministry actually cares how precious health dollars are being spent. It seems that it does not because the ministry did not shut those guys down when they failed to meet 39 of the 64 criteria. What did the ministry do? It gave them a second chance. Mr Clark is a clairvoyant who provided traditional Maori healing. He provided spiritual and cultural healing to the Maori people of Napier. Any other health practitioner would have been shut down immediately and been struck off by his or her registering body. Did that happen? No. Mr Apera Clark who was the chair of the trust was responsible for helping to draw up the guidelines for traditional Maori healing in 1993. Then hey presto in 1995 when the Ministry of Health agreed to have a pilot scheme for traditional Maori healing who should get the contract but Mr Apera Clark’s trust? That is exactly what happened. 
The main problem here is that the tax has been paid by the Ministry of Health. Why did the ministry continue to pay Mr Apera Clark $2076 per week for 10 months after the audit that I have just described when he was running a shonky business? The answer is clear. He had a tax bill that needed to be addressed. The Ministry of Health knew about that bill and invited him to submit an invoice to it so that the bill could be paid on his behalf. That trust received special treatment. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The flags at the National Party headquarters will be flying at half-mast today. Why? Because we are witnessing the demise of the once-proud National Party. That party is now an endangered species. We are watching the demise of the blue-billed Mogadoned yellow-bellied flightless Tory tit. We are witnessing the end of that endangered species. Very very shortly the National Party will need a Department of Conservation recovery programme in which children around the country draw pictures of the blue-billed Mogadoned yellow-bellied flightless Tory tit and send off postcards in order to save it. 
Don Brash is now the new leader. There are heaps of unanswered questions roaming about this place. It is a great place for unanswered questions. One of those questions asks why National Party members were all called back last Friday night at 8.30. That has never been heard of before. I will tell members why. There was whispering gossip and people who knew stuff talking to people who did not know stuff. Everybody was talking. In fact what happened so we are told is that the vote was 14 to 12 in favour of Mr English and it was reported back to the caucus as 14 to 12 in favour of Dr Brash. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Treachery. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Treachery is what has caused the Nick Smith outburst. That is what got them back at 8.30. That is why there is so much bitterness and so much division over there and it has not ended. My prediction is that Gerry Brownlee will be the deputy leader before Christmas. If the huddles going on around Parliament at the moment are anything to go by—he shakes his head but he knows this deep down—my prediction is it will happen by Christmas. 
The problem then will be that these two Dr Brash and Mr Brownlee are ideologically opposed. Don Brash is last century’s man dragging New Zealand backwards trying to introduce the failed old-right policies that the country rejected at many many elections. He is Ruth Richardson in drag. Everybody knows that. He is ACT’s ninth MP and everybody knows that. What was his first king-hit speech yesterday as the leader? It was a debate on whether the Land Transport Management Bill should be called the Land Transport Management Bill. That was a huge one! Of course we know that Don Brash is an honest fellow. If he says he will cut taxes for the rich he will. That will mean that anyone earning under $38000 gets zero zippo and members of Parliament get at least $100 a week extra. 
If he says he will raise the age of superannuation entitlement he will do that because he is an honest bloke. If he says he will sell State assets again he will sell State assets again. Let us put that up against Gerry Brownlee who said there are those who say National is inextricably linked to the ACT party. He said they had their heads in the sand and all they could expect is their backsides to be kicked at the next election. I can tell members— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Say that again. It was pretty good. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: He said that those who say the National Party is inextricably linked to ACT have their heads in the sand so far and that all they can expect is their backsides to be kicked at the next election. I am looking at a lot of backsides—a lot of Tory backsides—that are going to be kicked at the next election. All we can see now is the National Party racked with division. It does not know where it is going to go. It has no leadership no vision no policy and no philosophy and it will have its backside kicked at the next election. 
Why has Shane Ardern for example been replaced by David Carter? What does he know about agriculture that Shane Ardern does not know? He cannot even drive a tractor. Those Tory backsides are going to be kicked and kicked good at the next election. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
:  
We in the Green Party cannot of course remain unmoved by last week’s ascension of Don Brash to the leadership of the National Party and although we congratulate Dr Brash on his new position I feel honour-bound to sound a note of warning as other colleagues have been doing this afternoon about what his elevation might mean for low-income workers unemployed people and beneficiaries in this country. It is not a secret but I think it is important that all voters remember that for the last decade Dr Brash has been promoting among other things further sell-offs of State-owned enterprises tax cuts for the rich deregulation of the labour market—including getting rid of the minimum wage—and an extremely right-wing manifestation of welfare reform. 
In perhaps his most famous utterance on the subject since he became a member of Parliament he advised the good people of the Orewa Rotary Club in January this year that abolishing the unemployment benefit could not be “done in isolation but it might well be done in conjunction with other measures such as having local governments become employers of last resort—offering a job to anybody who turned up at say the local post office at 8 a.m. with payment for that day’s work at the end of the day in cash.” This declaration seems to have been made in blissful ignorance of the facts that firstly post offices as such no longer exist; secondly local councils around New Zealand tend to be extremely wary of taking on job creation on behalf of central government having been badly burnt by such schemes in the 1980s; and thirdly if such a scheme were applied to all job seekers registered with Work and Income putting it into practice would cost thousands of millions of dollars more than the dole. 
Subsequent comments on welfare reform from Dr Brash reveal a slight retraction from this position possibly through the efforts of his colleague Katherine Rich who does have some real understanding of her social services shadow portfolio. However her new leader continues to make no bones about his commitment to time-limited benefits and to forced mass work-for-the-dole schemes. This is scary stuff. Although I know there are plenty of people out there who still think these things are a good idea I would have thought someone who had been heavily involved in economic matters in the 1980s and 1990s would know better. For example is Dr Brash not aware that a report written by the National Government’s own officials towards the end of its time in office showed that even the limited work-for-the-dole scheme in place at that time simply was not achieving the goals that Government had set for itself? Are he and his National Party colleagues not cognisant of the results of time-limited benefits in other jurisdictions where the real consequences are transience begging homelessness family break-up mental and physical illness crime and ultimately—for some—death? The idea of limiting the amount of time someone can spend on welfare in his or her lifetime to for example 2 years or 5 years may sound tempting to someone on $100000 or $500000 a year but have those people considered the reality of someone ending up in a situation where there is literally no means of support for that person and his or her family? 
These kinds of answers to unemployment and poverty trip off the tongue in Parliament and in the Rotary club but if they were ever implemented under a National-ACT Government they would bring the 1930s Depression revisited with bells on. Mass forced work-for-the-dole schemes and limits on access to welfare will mean in the end a society in which rich and poor are driven apart even further than they are now and in which crime prostitution and begging will become the only means of survival for many people. 
Dr Brash is right about one thing. We do have over 300000 people unemployed and a lot more should be done about it by the Government but the solution is not stopping the unemployment benefit or imposing workfare. Rather it lies in creating real jobs at real wages for all of those who need them. 
Alongside all of this National’s new leader appears to be trying to bribe his old mates back into the fold by offering tax cuts to the rich and a chance to loot more State-owned assets. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should not have to point out that the use of the word “bribe” in the context of an activity of a member of Parliament is quite unacceptable and should have been picked up by the Chair much more quickly. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I apologise. I did not hear that. If the member said that would she please withdraw and apologise. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I withdraw and apologise. I hope all those New Zealanders who think the National Party under Dr Brash is the shape of the future will have a little rethink about what kind of country they really want to live in. Instead of pandering to corporate greed at the expense of those who already have too little National should if it has any social conscience at all consider supporting policies like ours—full employment as a primary goal of economic policy; the first $5000 of income to be tax-free for all New Zealanders; a universal child benefit restored for all children; and a benefit system that is reformed but in order to create less inequity not more. We want to move forward into a secure more fulfilling future for all New Zealanders in the 21st century not back to the 1990s or the 1930s. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making his views so clear. I am one of the members of this House who have often asked National members what the National Party stands for so I am particularly pleased that Dr Brash makes no bones about what National policy is. I think that will be strongly welcomed by voters who have also been wondering what if anything National represents apart from it being a party that is prepared to sell thousands of State houses then complain that there are none. I think most of the members of this community will find it really useful to hear what Dr Brash says. 
I believe what Dr Brash says and voters in New Zealand should also believe what he says. He says that the most impressive MPs outside National are Rodney Hide and Richard Prebble. It is easy to see why he cannot find any in National. He wants further privatisation and further asset sales. On day one he started talking about selling TVNZ the remaining power companies and Air New Zealand. That will be a policy that is new to and welcomed by New Zealand voters! Dr Brash has been very clear that he would raise the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. He would give tax breaks to his friends the rich and give nothing to lower-income people. He supports a capital gains tax and perhaps most important of all he supports the continued privatisation of health and education services. I think we should all be very grateful that he has been so unequivocal about the new difference between the National Party and the Government. 
I think most New Zealanders now regard the National Party as a hapless bunch of two-timers. It took Dr Brash two goes to get rid of Bill English. It took 2 minutes for him to start talking about selling assets again. It took about 2½ days for the new deputy to get 2 weeks leave. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned it is just too good to be true! 
Let us talk about the strategic brilliance of it all. Let us talk about how National members waited until Friday evening to have a crisis that had been building up over 3 days. Let us talk about how they waited until Friday evening so that they could fill the front page of all the Saturday papers—the only newspapers that people in this country read—with their great secret. Most people know the expression “day of the long knives”. This party has given the language a new saying. This was and will go down in history as the “disastrous day of the Dick Long”. It was his finest hour. I congratulate Dr Brash and his team on the strategic brilliance they have brought to the National Party. I shall repeat the Jane Clifton quote in the current  
Listener 
 that we have already had read to us: “National could barely organise a coup [plot] so why would voters trust them with a country? … Could these plotters have made themselves and more important their party look more desperate unstable and indecisive if they’d been secret Labour Party operatives? The kindest thing you can say is that they genuinely thought they could save the National Party by destroying it.” 
What did actually happen? I defer to the extra information shared by my ministerial predecessor but I have heard a slightly different story. I believe that the actual scenario last week was that Bill English had 20 votes the day before and that was why his numbers men were over at the Back Bencher celebrating—because they knew that they had stitched up the 20 votes. What happened? Well they trumpeted it just a tad too loudly. There were people in the National caucus who were so disillusioned and so frustrated by the lack of leadership that they decided when it came to the vote to give Mr English a bit of a fright. So one or two of them changed their vote. Unfortunately it was just one or two too many. It was a monumental mistake. They wanted to send a message to Mr English—they wanted to give him a fright—but they gave him the wrong message. They simply stuffed it up. 
What does it mean? It means that the National Party is led by a minority leader. It means in simple terms that of the people who sit around Dr Brash fewer support him than support Mr English. Let us look at some of those supporters. Richard Worth will not be around after Rodney Hide rolls him in Epsom. David Carter and Lockwood Smith are great assets; they are despised by the rest of the caucus. What thanks did Georgina te Heuheu get for her support? She is in the third row now. Mrs Rich is a good supporter: she supported Jenny Shipley she supported Bill English and now she supports Don Brash. Frankly with friends like that and with a majority opposing Dr Brash he should be very very worried. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The arrogance and stupidity behind the content of the previous speech is why Don Brash will be the next Prime Minister of New Zealand immediately after the 2005 election. Mr Benson-Pope outlined in the House today very clearly why the Labour Government will lose the next election. The Labour Government will lose the next election because it has idiot Ministers like Paul Swain who came into the House today and told New Zealanders who are earning $38000 a year that they are rich. People like Mr Benson-Pope stood up and said that Dr Brash’s decision to raise the income level of New Zealanders will somehow be such a huge lurch to the right that New Zealanders will reject it. Let me tell the House that New Zealanders are poor when compared with their Australian cousins and this Government celebrates that. 
Earlier this afternoon another incompetent Minister Steve Maharey gave an explanation of why he is known as the “Minister for Institutionalised Poverty”. He is the man who presides over the lives of the 400000 working-age New Zealanders who derive their incomes from the benefit. Those 400000 New Zealanders take $1 million a day out of the pockets of people earning $38000 and less. If Labour politicians think they can stand on the floor of a factory and convince New Zealanders who work hard in difficult conditions that Labour is out there working for them then they have it wrong. Those people want aspiration in their lives. They do not want Helen Clark telling them what they can have what they can do and when they can do it. They will listen to Don Brash telling them that they deserve better because they do. 
October 28 was the day on which the Labour Government began to lose its grip on Government in this country. It was noticeable when Don Brash stood up this afternoon that all of those on the Government benches were full of nervous twittering. Some of them decided to grandstand and then walk out and we know that they then hung around the lobbies to hear the bad news. Others on the other side of the House sat glum-faced. Darren Hughes just smiled because he is a young man and he knows that in 2025 he will still be young enough to be a young Cabinet Minister the next time Labour gets anywhere near being in Government. 
I want to ask a couple of questions this afternoon. Do any Labour politicians think that telling New Zealanders it is OK to be $200 a week worse off than Australians will win them a vote? Do any Labour politicians think they can tell New Zealanders that we can no longer afford first-line drugs for simple conditions like Alzheimer’s that that is good for people and that they should therefore vote for that? The answer is no. Do any Labour politicians think they can go into the suburbs of this country and tell people that they cannot make choices about their children’s education and that they simply have to put them into the institution that the State decides is best for them? The answer is no. It is those points that will knock those guys over. 
That is why people like Mr—I cannot remember the guy’s name; he comes from Hamilton; he comes here only every second term and he is having the next term off—and people like “Dazza Hughes” the great white hope will be gone. He will do a “Phil Goff” and be on his backside next time. That chap from Dunedin—the guy that people still think is on the city council—David Benson-Pope he will be gone. He will be out. As for the member from Whanganui she should get the cardboard boxes into the office now and start filling them because she will be gone. I am afraid it is all over for my friend Paul Swain too. When New Zealanders wake up and realise that Helen Clark is saying that their current relative poverty compared with Australia is OK and that Don Brash is saying we should lift our aspirations grow our economy and see the incomes of average working New Zealanders grow there is no doubt whom they will follow. 
This Government lost its grip on 28 October. Don Brash will be the next Prime Minister of New Zealand and I look forward to serving in his Cabinet. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I say to the ladies and gentlemen out there in radioland that that was “Big Ger” Gerry Brownlee who when I saw him on television the other night—and I am not criticising any member who is not in the House at all—reminded me of the line in that famous play: “Friends Romans countrymen … I come to bury Caesar not to praise him”. “Big Ger” really enjoyed the fact that there was somebody else feeling far more miserable than he was on that day. 
I also say that the mood in the National Party is glum. Although the special atmosphere in Parliament may not seem that important out there in the big wide world in politics the feeling of party members is incredibly important to the morale and spirit of a party. I have to say that I have never seen that lot over there the National Party so dispirited in the entire time I have been in here—in fact for the entire time I have been an observer of politics and that is more than 40 years. 
Simon Power 
: That can’t be right. The member looks so young. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I know it does not look like it but it is true. I have to say that the mood over there is remarkable. I am commenting on it because it really is significant. There is no spunk. There is no fight. There is no verve. There is no get-up-and-go. It is no wonder I referred to Mr Brash as “Moga-Don” because I know that that is absolutely how those members feel and how they present themselves at the moment. In fact I suggest that Mr Brash might like me to take him to Smithfield market in Britain. An experience at Smithfield market could give Mr Brash a helping hand in elocution lessons. 
Simon Power 
: For television? 
JILL PETTIS 
: My word it takes them a long time to drop to a joke over there. They are not quick are they? I would be very happy to take Mr Brash to Smithfield market. In fact I would enjoy it because by golly gosh listening to him today he was as flat as a flounder. 
Simon Power 
: How much is flounder? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Flounder? Five bob. Any more bids on five bob? I would not give that party over there two and six at the next election. They are to coin another phrase dog tucker. So they would not be worth even two bob. 
One of the other flat-footed things they have done over the last 48 to 72 hours that concerns me is that they have completely abrogated their responsibility towards the women’s vote. They have completely given it away because they know they have only a miniscule level of it anyway. I have to say that those Tory women over there who think they got to where they are today all on their own are just proving how selfish and self-centred they are and how unable they are to think towards the future. No woman on that side of the House got where she is today because of her own talent charm and good looks. Those women got there because a good group of women in New Zealand fought for many many years for women’s rights women’s pay and better conditions for women—and that is why we need to have women spokespersons advocates for women instead of the selfish attitude that is portrayed by those members. The only woman on the National front bench mirrors the image of Ruth Richardson. She is almost her namesake. She is Ruth Richardson’s acolyte. She is a younger version and is not quite as tough as the previous one but she could grow that way. That appointment is not encouraging to me either. 
National Party supporters out there in the real world must be cringing. Sure there has been a tiny lift in their vote—we accept that. We knew that was quite likely to happen. 
Opposition Member 
: So death catches up! 
JILL PETTIS 
: Well it is actually a case of“ 
Dead Man Walking 
”. Members know it. We can read the body language. We can see the mood. We know that those members over there are not full of the joys of spring at all. I tell those members that a niche party a pressure group is not enough to be elected as a Government and that is all National is—a pressure group. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have not heard a noise like that since I was in standard 4 and my friend ran his fingers down the blackboard. That was an appalling display of articulation by that member. The allegation that members on the Opposition side of the House are doing nothing for the women’s vote is just appalling. Murray McCully has been more than making up for that in recent days and I am confident that we will deliver on that promise without too much difficulty at all. 
I just say this to Government members: Dr Brash provides a clear studied and articulate vision for this country and I want those members to know one thing very very simply. Dr Brash is above the smarmy backhanded comments that come from Dr Cullen in this House and above the niggling and nastiness that come from the Prime Minister during question time. Dr Brash is a man who has one thing on his mind and that is: what is best for New Zealand? That is why members on the Opposition side of the House will wait with patience until the 2005 election when Don Brash will become Prime Minister of New Zealand. As Gerry Brownlee said it will be a pleasure to serve in his Cabinet. 
What is the Government going to do in the meantime—between now and 2005? Well the Prime Minister articulated her vision leading into the 2005 election yesterday when she said it was not the policy of this Government to put things right. Well is that not the truth? Nothing has been put right by that Government in the last term. Members need only to look at what is going on with regard to our defence forces. Troops are being deployed as an instrument of foreign policy to make up for gaffes that the Prime Minister has made and to cater for a domestic political market that is out of step with what is going on in the international arena. 
I say to members of this House that Helen Clark is getting ahead of herself. The arrogance that surrounds the Prime Minister and her small cabal is absolutely clear and it is patently obvious to the voting public. She is now far too important apparently to deal with domestic political issues and simply swans off at short notice around the country leaving Dr Cullen to deal with every domestic problem that she leaves in her wake. What are those problems that the Prime Minister leaves in her wake as she travels around the country? Well rural schools are being closed by Trevor Mallard. Trevor Mallard is out there shutting down the lifeblood of rural communities in New Zealand. Auckland roading is in crisis and what does the Prime Minister say about that? She says: “It is not the policy of this Government to put things right.” That is just not good enough. That type of throwing away of responsibility just will not be tolerated by the electorate. Rates are climbing in local and rural districts because this Government’s new local government legislation has forced massive costs of consultation on to local government and I can tell members that pensioners in my electorate are furious with this Government and the implications of its local government legislation in terms of their rates rises. That is just not good enough. 
We know there is a problem with the Labour Party when Steve Maharey kicks off the debate for the Government. We know there is a problem when king hitters like Martin Gallagher are held back to let Steve Maharey kick off the debate and fine well-meaning debaters like John Tamihere have to just sit in their cabbage-coloured shirts and say nothing. It is just not good enough to have the likes of those Ministers leading debates. Where is David Parker? He is a man rumour has it who— 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s campaigning. 
SIMON POWER 
: He should be campaigning I tell Mr Hughes and I will tell that member why he should. Allegedly David Parker recently had a conversation with the chairman of Dunstan Hospital who when explaining the fact that the whole board was about to resign apparently said Mr Parker had no idea how difficult Katherine Rich was making his life in Otago. Let me tell David Parker and members of the Labour Party that she has not even started yet. The Otago seat is gone and it will come back to National at the next election. 
Whatever happened to Clayton Cosgrove? 
Hon David Carter 
: Who is Clayton Cosgrove? 
SIMON POWER 
: He was such a promising member in the first term. Now he is confined to the back benches far from the circles of influence and is frustrated about his ability. He is knocking on the Cabinet door asking whether anyone is in there and whether he can come in. He is being told no he has to stay outside until there is a change of regime and Phil Goff comes back in. I say to Mr Cosgrove that once Phil Goff is leading the Labour Party his chance will come again. Mind you at least Mr Cosgrove is attending functions in his electorate—unlike Darren Hughes who is renowned for no-shows all over the Otaki electorate. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The member should ask one of his colleagues about that. It is a pleasure to follow Simon Power who at age 35 is already yesterday’s man. Simon Power has twice turned down the deputy leadership of the National Party and National will not come knocking a third time. Other members like John Key will be lining up to take that place. Simon Power thinks he has the deputy leadership coming to him but he has turned it down once too often. 
This weekend the Labour Party goes into its annual conference in Christchurch and what a story this re-elected Labour-led Government has to tell. Our party will be talking in Christchurch about leadership and partnership. It will be talking about growth and innovation about fairness and security about opportunity for all about strong public services and about building a confident nation. We have a story to tell that the National Party can only dream of because it is in chaos everywhere with not a vote to count. 
We have seen an extraordinary change in the leadership of the National Party and we saw an extraordinary display during the general debate today. The election for the leadership was an oops election. It was “oops” because National members could not believe as a caucus what they had done when they had finished—nor can the country believe it any more than those members do. The brat pack walked into the caucus room with 20 votes in the bag but only 12 turned up in its favour. The brat pack members all betrayed and backstabbed one another and as they sit together in this Chamber they are trying to work out whom they can trust and whom they should not trust. It seems there were 52 positions on the leadership which was a shame when there were only 26 votes. The only person who was upfront about his support was Maurice Williamson and he was not even allowed to vote. 
But 14 votes do not make a happy family and National members are now about as united as the Spice Girls having elected “Ice Spice” to be their leader. Once again the National Party has panicked about its leadership change as it did when it changed from Bolger to Shipley from Shipley to Bill English and now from Bill English to Dr Brash. If it were an episode of  
The Simpsons 
 we would be calling Dr Brash “Monty Burns” the wealthy geriatric who runs a nuclear power plant while haplessly plotting the overthrow of the world. How fitting it is that Dr Brash is surrounded by other characters from  
The Simpsons. 
 I note that Gerry Brownlee is doing a very good impersonation of “‘Sideshow’ Bob Terwilliger”. It is very good that “Ned Flanders” in the form of Bill English has been allowed to stay on the front bench. 
But what have we seen so far? We have seen a policy of asset sales and a policy of tax cuts for the rich. For people earning less than $38000—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Mapp says that $38000 is not much money. He is right about that but in the constituency that I represent 65 percent of people earn less than $20000. 
John Key 
: Do something about it then. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: We are but we will not make those people work 5 years longer and make them retire at 70 while giving no tax cuts except to National’s rich mates. That is not a policy prescription that we sign up to. How rich it is of National members particularly the list member Katherine Rich to say that the Government should do more about the Department of Child Youth and Family Services when the National Party wants to give tax cuts of $774 a week to New Zealanders who earn half a million dollars. Then they cry crocodile tears about not having strong public services. That party has a record—absolutely! 
Dr Brash said he wanted to work with the devil to change the Government. I know that the ACT party is unpopular but I am not sure even we think that Rodney Hide or Richard Prebble is the devil. The ACT party was not offended by that of course because yesterday we saw a fawning Mr Shirley and a sycophantic Ms Coddington get up and pour praise on Dr Brash while National members sat there like stunned mullets wondering whether they had done the right thing. 
Mr Power said in his speech how proud he was of Dr Brash. It is a pity he did not vote for him though. Simon Power said Dr Brash is going to be a great leader but he did not even vote for him. It is just ridiculous. That is what was happening when Mr Power was speaking. We have read all sorts of comments about Dr Brash. One of the things he said in the paper when he was asked about his personal friendships was this: “I have found in recent years that I have allowed my close friendships to atrophy”. Atrophy! This is a man who is so right wing he has even restructured his social life. He made his mates redundant and told them not to come around on Monday—and they think he is a great Kiwi friend! But oh no this guy is going to be fantastic out on the campaign trail! 
Apparently the answer to Mr English’s leadership was simply to promote Mr Carter. Members of the brat pack will be delighted to know that all they had to do was to elevate somebody called David Carter and they could have ruled the National Party for years. 
The other interesting thing has been the role of Mr McCully. I have always found Mr McCully to be a very fascinating character. National Party members revere him. Mr Power looks on him as an older brother and they joke around. National members revere Mr McCully as some sort of great strategist and I cannot understand that. Mr McCully’s strategies saw National with 47 percent of the vote in 1990 and 20 percent of the vote in 2002. Kevin Roberts a peak-performing unit was a strategy that went nowhere. Putting in Bill English as leader was a strategy that went nowhere. Organising the countercoup with the brat pack to keep Mr English in the job was another strategy that went nowhere. Yet National Party members say Mr McCully is their strategist—their man—and he is ace. 
It is John Key who is laughing all the way to the bank. He is another first-termer who is going places but he could not wait to get into the  
Dominion Post  
today. In the first feature on John Key on page A15 he said what a centrist he was and that he was far more in touch with middle New Zealand than Dr Brash. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Land Transport Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 November. 
Part 3 Administrative provisions relating to Transfund and Transit and miscellaneous provisions ( 
continued 
)  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Bill sounds great but as we have found during the Committee debate it will do nothing at all to solve the transport needs of New Zealand. In fact it is a politically correct woolly-woofterish sop to the Green Party. Anybody who reads this bill will see all the Greens’ provisions in it—provisions that most New Zealanders do not know anything about. They think their petrol taxes actually go into building roads and improving the infrastructure of New Zealand. When they read this bill or when it is enacted and takes effect in their local area they will find out it is quite different. 
Let me give an example. One of the bill’s provisions is that Transfund Transit local authorities and every approved public organisation must consider the needs of persons who are transport disadvantaged. One of the rules of passing good legislation is to make sure it spells out very clearly what it means. I ask the Minister of Transport to explain what “transport disadvantaged” means. Does it mean somebody who does not have a footpath? Does it mean somebody who does not have a bicycle track? Does it mean somebody who cannot catch a bus or a train or a ferry or who does not have a car? Maybe it means somebody who has a Skoda instead of a different car. Maybe it means somebody who cannot drive. The problem with this provision is that local authorities will have to try to figure it out. They will have to go through endless rounds of consultation litigation or whatever it takes actually to figure out what “transport disadvantaged’ means. 
I can tell the Minister in the chair Mr Swain that local authorities are already sick to the teeth of the costs this Government has imposed on them. The Local Government Act the Gambling Act and the Prostitution Reform Act are examples of legislation that puts millions and millions of dollars of compliance costs and consultation costs on the back of ratepayers up and down New Zealand. The problem is that ratepayers do not know that because all that stuff has happened in just the last couple of years. It is disgraceful. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked through Part 3—which is quite a substantial part of the bill—the submitters raised a couple of issues that I would like the Minister of Transport to consider. 
One relates to clause 70 “Objective of Transfund”. It is quite important that the Minister notes in the Committee today that the select committee heard a near-unanimous view from submitters that they wanted Transfund to have the objective of considering the economic benefit of its spending decisions. I know that the Minister is prone to say that that is all about benefit-cost ratios which depend on how many people have been killed on a piece of road and that the Government is not going to do that because it means a new road is built only if someone has been killed on the old one. Well that actually was the case; if someone was killed on a dangerous corner that meant that corner might be more dangerous than one down the road and Transfund might spend some money on fixing it. That makes common sense. What the Minister is careful not to tell New Zealanders is that Transfund still takes that into account even though it does not use a benefit-cost ratio—that where a road is dangerous it will fix it. The Minister nods. I do not think for one moment he would stand and say that just because someone was killed there we will ignore it. 
I say to him that given that the Government does not want to go back to the benefit-cost ratio he should at least include in clause 70 words to the effect that Transfund should have regard to the economic benefits of any spending decision. Otherwise we will get into the situation whereby Governments will be accused of pork-barrelling. Already Labour has appointed its campaign organiser and president to Transfund. Already Mr Mike Williams the person who sits down and decides how Labour will hold the Otago seat is deciding how Transfund will allocate its money. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis of the marginal Whanganui seat says: “Don’t you wish that National had thought of that?”. I say to Jill Pettis that I do not believe that Transfund should be using its petrol tax money as some sort of large Labour Party re-election slush fund. That will now be able to happen because Transfund does not have to have regard to any economic impact at all. It can just decide that the seats that are marginal will get the bridges and the new money. I for one believe that is exactly what Labour will do. That is exactly what Mike Williams will do. 
That is exactly why the Minister will not put economic benefits into this clause. It has nothing at all to do with his going on about someone having to be killed in order to get a piece of road done. The Minister wants to ensure that Transfund has the ability to make political decisions. That is absolutely outrageous. I tell the Committee and that Minister that we will undo that. Roading decisions should be based on the economic benefit not on the political benefit for the Labour Party. That is why we will be strongly opposing Part 3. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why he will not support an amendment that stops political decisions from being made by the board of Transfund; that stops the Labour Party president and campaign manager from making decisions about where large amounts of Government funding for roading are allocated. I say to the Minister that it is outrageous that he has allowed that to happen. Never before has a party political president and campaign manager sat on a board dishing out funds like Mike Williams is doing with Transfund. The Minister could put a clause in here to stop it. 
Jill Pettis 
: I bet that’s a first. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a first. I know that Jill Pettis supports it. She thinks it is the best way to get roading projects done in Whanganui. She tells the people in Whanganui not to worry about that bridge because she can get it done. It is a marginal seat and she can ring the Labour Party president and get it done. [ 
Interruption 
] Well she asks about the “Road to Nowhere” or whatever it was—the road that Sandra Lee had money spent on even though it was not a public road. Taxpayer money went on that road because of a political decision that the Minister made in order to keep the Alliance in the tent. He spent taxpayers’ money for political purposes on that road and he will do it again to try to buy David Parker the Otago seat. He will try to do it again to buy Jill Pettis the Whanganui seat. 
We will be watching where that money goes. I suspect the money will not be going to areas that are of economic benefit for this country; it will be going to areas that are of political benefit. That is outrageous. That is why the system was made transparent. The one sneaky underhand thing that this bill does is to take his political appointments one step further. It says to the Labour Party president and campaign manager that not only is he appointed—and paid—to sit on the board of Transfund but he is able to make decisions about where the money goes without being accountable on any economic criteria at all. He just has to have his eyes on the politics of it and that will keep this Minister satisfied. 
I would like the Minister to take a call. I bet he will not take a call and deny it. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s appointment to Transfund. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s allocation of money to projects all over New Zealand based on political patronage—not based on the economic benefit of roading. That Minister will not do that and that tells us a lot. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is already saying she wants a new road. We will see whether she gets it. 
I also want to raise the issues in Supplementary Order Paper 165. There is a large Supplementary Order Paper with a range of clauses to be read into this part. Once again this Government behaves in this sneaky sort of way: it has submissions listens to everybody makes decisions and reports back then races off and does some sort of deal with the Greens and throws that in without anybody having an opportunity to have a say on it. That is what this Minister has done with this Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want the Minister to get up and explain why on Part 3 we have five pages of amendments about largely the transitional provisions. The committee went through those transitional provisions very carefully. The officials agreed. So why do we have an amount of backsliding from this Minister on those transitional provisions? Why have these amendments been written? Is it so that Labour can have a quick review of some of the funding decisions just to make sure? Do Mr Williams and the Minister want to have a look just to make sure that the money is going to their pet political projects? Is that why these transitional provisions are being rewritten in this way? That is what it looks like to me. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain those issues to us as well. He has not taken the chance to do that. 
Finally I note the provision that says a board member may well be on both Transfund and Transit at the Minister’s discretion. I predict that the Labour Party president and campaign manager will be dishing the money out and deciding the projects. He will be on Transfund and Transit deciding which project gets the money. That is political patronage at its worst. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was quite an enlightening speech from the Hon Roger Sowry. He talked about building roads for the economic benefit of this country. I remind members that National was in power for something like 9 or 10 years before Labour came in. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nine long years. 
PETER BROWN 
: Nine long years—and it did nothing. In fact a former Minister of Transport stood in this Chamber yesterday afternoon and made two claims to fame. One was that he had split Transit into two to become Transit and Transfund—one being the practical side of roadmaking and the other being the funding side. In the commercial world that would be laughable and I question the need for a two-pronged attack so to speak. 
His second claim was that he produced a book:  
Better Transport Better Roads.  
I read the book with interest. As I recall it illustrated quite clearly that road design road fault was responsible for 15.1 percent of road deaths in this country yet the National Government did nothing—so much so that the Minister the Hon Maurice Williamson would not even turn up to the select committee to talk about the book! At that time I was a new MP in my first term and I was really disappointed by that. 
What we in this country have to do—and this bill will not do it—is to identify the problems identify the roads that need to be maintained and the roads that need to be built specify the timeframe in which we need to do all of that determine the cost and work on a system that will provide the finance. First and foremost New Zealand First advocates that the excise tax that goes from petrol into the consolidated account is used for the betterment of roads and the motorist. We accept that there might be some justification for not using all of it; there might be a genuine reason why some of it should be diverted to the consolidated account but we want to see the rationale. We want the report that the Minister referred to some months ago to be tabled so that we can understand the argument. We believe that Transfund should have the ability to borrow. I believe that it has it now but this bill seems to prevent it. If the funding is adequate—if we can get that 18.5c from the consolidated account and use it on roading—then our problem is well on the way to being solved. If it is not adequate then Transfund should borrow the money and we will repay the debt against future traffic volumes. Traffic in this country is increasing at a reasonable percentage and so is fuel use. We all know that. 
If all of that fails or none of it stacks up—but that is our first option—then New Zealand First is prepared to look positively at a regional fuel tax. In other words we could ask the motorist to pay a bit more to accommodate the concern. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? 
PETER BROWN 
: I keep coming back to it because I do not think that member over there quite understands things: first and foremost we want to use the 18.5c that goes from the petrol motorist into the consolidated account. We believe there is a legitimate reason for using it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When the member’s leader was Treasurer what did he do then? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the Minister asked what my leader did when he was Treasurer but she was eating at the time. I am not sure whether members are allowed to eat in this Chamber. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’ve got a terrible cold. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think she can eat whether or not she has a cold. My leader did transfer some money from the consolidated account into the roading account. I do not know how many times we have to tell her that. In fact he transferred 2.1c a litre from the consolidated account into the roading account. The intention was to continue doing that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How come that didn’t fix it? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was the first movement from the consolidated account to the road account for years. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to carry on the little theme I began to develop last night about the tool-box. I think the Mayor of Auckland said it as well I have heard it said. He was looking for a tool-box with a range of features and functions to fix Auckland’s problems. Auckland’s problems have without doubt got to catastrophic levels. Major congestion used to be at peak times and at certain locations but now it is anywhere anytime—and if it rains it is everywhere all the time. In Auckland the traffic just locks blocks and stops. 
When this Government came to power it was given a pretty damn good blueprint to start from called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
. Because of its ideological views the Government said some of it was too right wing. I warned the Minister last night—and I keep warning him—that if he wants to get stuck into me about the right-wing tolling projects we were proposing I have wonderful quotes from some of his senior party people including his Prime Minister about how dreadful and evil it was to have toll roads and this bill has some of it. However 4 years down the track—and believe me Auckland could not wait 4 months to progress this; when the Government came to power in 1999 its first priority should have been to pick up on that and move—we see an emaciated looking bill called the Land Transport Management Bill entered into Parliament then gutted by Green members because of their opposition to the motorcar. 
I found that opposition the most bizarre part. When I was Minister I went to a number of public meetings when we were standing at election time. Green members would show up in their caftans and sandals and get stuck into me about why I was not funding public transport better and about how the car was an outrage. I used to get someone in my team or I would do it myself to wait outside the hall and watch people arrive. I used to ask the question at the end of the meeting: “Could I have a show of hands please? How many people came to the meeting tonight using public transport?” I never had one hand go up even though we sometimes met in a hall right on a major bus route with a bus stop straight outside. 
Green members used to say: “We couldn’t because we’ve got to go on to another meeting.” What they were saying was: “It’s not us—it’s them.” There is some nebulous “them” out there who should not use their cars but not “us” because we have another meeting to go to. I tell Green members that everybody in Auckland has another meeting to go to. They have to pick their kids up go to soccer or to the supermarket. 
The motorcar will be the central product for delivering transport in Auckland regardless of any pie-in-the-sky Green members who think that cycleways or walking tracks will fix the problem. Yes I would like to see a move towards making public transport better and quality public transport will help fix the problem but it is not the panacea it is made out to be. Jeanette Fitzsimons and other Green members would have us believe that if we did this bill properly everyone would give up their cars tomorrow and walk to work. It will not happen and this bill does not provide anywhere near the tools that are needed to fund it properly. 
The public-private partnership provisions of this bill are the weakest and most ineffectual I have ever seen. Larry Baldock told the House yesterday that he knows lots of people who will get into public-private partnerships yet he was challenged over and over again to name one company that says that if this bill goes through it will put money into a public-private partnership. The silence is deafening as members can hear if they listen carefully. It is the flutter of the wings as the chickens come home to roost. This bill does nothing. It does not give us the tool-box of tools. John Banks says so employers and manufacturers say so and the Automobile Association says so. To go through the list of interested parties we would have to seek an extension of the whole debate into tomorrow. 
Then there is the next bit with regard to consents. My God it takes so long to get consent for anything now—even something ordinary! But if the Government wants to fix Auckland’s major arterial routes it has to circumvent the old Resource Management Act processes or in 10 years it will still not have got those consents and there will be outrage from Auckland. If members of the Labour Party think the public do not want to pay for this I challenge any one of them to come with me on a Friday night at 5 o’clock and stand in somewhere like Stanley Street as the cars are trying to get up on to the motorway. They are locked blocked stopped and going nowhere. I challenge them to come with me and tap on all the car windows and say: “Would you pay 5 bucks cash right now to be home within the next 10 minutes?”. There would not be a car that would not say yes. This bill does nothing to fix that problem. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I took another call because I was really hopeful that the Minister would take the chance to take a call. We are now in a situation where Ministers decide that they will just not bother answering questions or talking about their legislation—it is all far too much trouble. This Minister is far too important to be bothered by answering questions around the detail of Part 3. He was too important to come to the select committee to explain the policy decisions behind the bill so he did not do that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I wasn’t invited. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is because the Labour members voted not to invite him. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was a majority decision. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It was a majority decision so all the Labour members voted not to have the Minister attend. I can understand that they know him better than we do. They know his performance and they probably felt it was better to have the officials explain. But now the Minister has an opportunity to stand up on his hind legs and tell members why he is allowing board members to be on both Transit and Transfund boards. I want him to explain that so that New Zealanders understand. Just as the Labour Party appoints its campaign chairman and president—who happen to be the same person—a person can also be on Transfund and Transit and we should know why. 
Jill Pettis 
: Write to him and he might respond. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: We know that that does not happen. I actually wrote to the Minister a few weeks ago and told him that if he wanted sensible land transport legislation National would work with him and vote with him and we would not have to be beholden to the sort of round-the-back-of-the-bikeshed deal that he has done with the Greens. The Minister has not even bothered to respond. I know from dealing with the Minister’s office on Land Transport Safety Authority and other issues that people bring to me that it takes somewhere between 4 and 5 months to get a response from the Minister’s office. It is not one of the quickest offices—but I have to say it is not the slowest. One always gets an acknowledgement within 4 or 5 days but no answer for 4 or 5 months. 
But now the Minister has an opportunity to explain to us exactly why he is so keen on Part 3 which enables people to sit on both boards. He can explain to us why he will not let one of the objectives of Transfund be an economic objective. The Minister has every other objective in there. Paragraph (b) of clause 70(2) states that Transfund has to take into account the views of affected communities. We are inclined to define that as being just about anyone anywhere in the country. It has to take into account the need for environmental responsibility and exhibit a sense of social responsibility. The board of Transfund is sitting down with a large amount of money—hundreds of millions of dollars—and has to show that the decision it makes is environmentally responsible socially responsible and— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Shame! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Greens say “shame”. OK that is fine. Let us have those provisions in there—we are not asking that they be taken out. But why not put in “economic”? Or do the Greens believe that one cannot be economically responsible and at the same time socially and environmentally responsible? That is the issue. The Greens have convinced the Minister that one cannot do things for the economy socially and for the environment at the same time so that is why “economic” decision-making has come out. 
Of course we do not have the clause that says that Transfund must not have regard to the political circumstances of the Government. I would like the Minister to stand up and assure the Committee that the Labour Party will not use Transfund as its marginal seat retention scheme because that is certainly the view in the community. It is the view in the industry that this is being restructured so that the Labour Party can put its snout in the trough and use it for that purpose. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome this second call this afternoon to clarify New Zealand First’s views on funding road transport. First and foremost we are advocates of using the 18.5c petrol tax that goes into the Crown account. If that is not justified or fair and if there is a genuine reason that all of it or some of it should go into the Crown account we would live with that if we could see a report that supported that assertion. Then we would look reasonably favourably at a regional fuel tax. It is important that we address the roading problems in this country. We hear that over $1 billion a year is lost to the commercial community in Auckland. I think the new leader of the National Party said that congestion in Auckland costs $1.4 billion a year. We say that the congestion problem is long past being reasonable. 
We do not support tolling across the board. We would support road tolling on an individual basis exactly as we have now where the legislation comes before the House and a case is put for a particular road to be tolled and only that road. It is not to go on to other roads etc. That is the case with Route K in Tauranga. We do not believe that the public-private partnership scenario in this bill will work. Larry Baldock asked yesterday as I recall why we are voting against this legislation if we do not believe it will work. Well in short it will not work because it is not flexible enough. It will not work because the risks are too high. It will not work because the profit is too low or is likely to be. 
But all that can be changed with a stroke of a pen and then the average New Zealander could be faced with road tolls here there and everywhere. We say “No” to that. We say that for every dollar that goes into a toll plaza firstly in part it has to pay for the physical cost of that plaza; secondly it has to pay for the manning of the plaza; thirdly it has to pay for the administration of the roading scheme; fourthly it has to pay the debt that the private investor has incurred by borrowing money to fund the plaza; and finally it has to pay for the profit—no profit no investment. Maurice Williamson alluded to no profit no investment; he not only alluded to it he stated it in very very firm terms and I agree with him wholeheartedly. If there is no profit investors cannot see money coming back to them and they will not invest in the scheme. Virtually every dollar that goes through a regional petrol tax or fuel tax goes directly into roading. The best part of half the dollars that go through toll structures I suggest would be lost. The best part of half goes into administration capital costs and what have you but every cent in every dollar that goes through the fuel tax system will go into roading. 
If Transfund had the ability from the Minister to borrow it could borrow sufficient money at reasonable terms to address the roading needs of this country in a relatively short time frame. We would pay it back through our petrol tax. As I say if a petrol tax of 18.5c going into the consolidated account can be justified and we have real doubts about it then we would be prepared to support a regional fuel tax. I say “regional fuel tax” because we seek to have it imposed on more than just the petrol motorist. It would be collected through a fuel tax on the petrol motorist and— 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 70(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 79(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In recommending the schedules to the Committee I point out that like most schedules they are pretty technical in nature. They apply to some tidied-up consultation provisions and to provisions relating to the safety administration programme—“SAP”—Transfund and Transit. Other matters relate to the performance agreement between the Minister and various entities and the last part concerns consequential amendments to other Acts. I recommend the schedules to the Committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister might have tried to get away with that little stunt but it just will not work. The schedules are huge. The Minister knows very well as do the submitters who opposed a lot of this bill that large parts of the bill are on consultation and the way that local government will have to consult on roading issues. All those provisions on consultation which were opposed during the process of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s hearing of submissions have been taken out of the main part of the bill and put in the schedules. The schedules now run to some 70 pages in length and that tells members the amount of detail that is contained in them. 
Perhaps the Minister may indulge the Committee and explain why the Government felt it necessary to have all the consultation principles which were opposed and to require regional councils local councils and the private sector involved with roading projects not just to consult and go through the Resource Management Act process and the local government legislation but now to go through a special consultative process laid out in new schedule 1AAB. There are so many new schedules. The Minister may think it was smart to remove the consultation provisions from the bill and put them in the schedules but they are onerous and will add a considerable amount of delay and cost to any project and particularly to any public-private partnership if somebody was to get such a project under way in that environment. In fact people from the private sector said that they just would not get involved in any project. They said they would not risk capital to get involved in roading partnerships with local and regional authorities with those consultative provisions. So lo and behold the provisions have gone from the main body of the bill and appear back in the schedules. Perhaps the Minister should explain why those people’s concerns were so wrong. 
The schedules also provide for the method of appointment of board members to a board. Appointments used to be made by the Governor-General but the Minister has now removed that provision. He wants to appoint board members directly. He is a Minister who wants a very hands-on political appointment process. There will be no going through the Governor-General now and no worrying about any minor problems that that might cause. This Minister wants to recommend his political mates and he does not want anyone to question them. He wants to make direct appointments and interestingly enough direct sackings as well. So someone who is appointed to the board of Transit or Transfund and who does not make a decision on one of those boards that is to this Minister’s liking will be gone. 
Perhaps the Minister who has been very keen to have that provision put in the bill could explain to the Committee where that method of appointment occurs in other legislation and explain what other legislation provides a Minister with so much power. Why does he want all the power with regard to this legislation? What was wrong with the old system? What was the problem with a process whereby Ministers had to recommend appointees to the Governor-General and had to go through a proper process in order to sack people? What was so wrong with that? Why do we now have to have such a ministerially dominated position if it is not because it is the only way I think that this Minister can make sure the people who politically support him are on the board and making the decisions that back up this Government in the marginal seats around the country? That is what people see this bill as doing. 
This would also have been a good time for the Minister to stand up and explain to us why he has allowed people to be appointed to both boards. That is in this part of the bill. I hope he will take a call. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The schedules and in particular schedule 1AAB import into the bill the consultation provisions that were developed last year for the Local Government Act. As many of the agencies making decisions under this legislation will already be subject to the Local Government Act this bill does not actually add any further obligations to their existing ones but it clarifies that the obligations in the Local Government Act that they are already under should also be used in their transport decision-making processes and it clarifies how they should be used. The provisions also apply of course to Transfund and Transit and that is new. 
What is different about these consultation principles is that they set out that consultation should take place early. It should take place while options are being considered and it should encourage people to have a say at that point rather than waiting until all the engineering work has been done and everything has finished before the consultation takes place. When that occurs if the community does not like the project it is told that that is too bad because it is too late to change the project. That is what tends to create all the hostility and the delays at the end of projects now. It has been the origin of a lot of discord and a lot of contention over consents. I am quite convinced that consulting earlier on the options will lead to a much smoother progressing of new transport projects. 
I want to look particularly at schedule 3 which sets out provisions for regional land transport strategies. Regional land transport strategies of course are already provided for under the Land Transport Act but this legislation amends that Act and provides what those land transport strategies should do. I point out to those members who have been rabbiting on for 2 days about the lack of any economic objectives in this bill about the lack of any requirements for economic efficiency or development or whatever that each regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy assists economic development. This is not the only place in the bill that those words occur. There is also an obligation on the Minister to do that when he approves concessions and tolling. If people would just read the bill they would find those words that give them so much comfort about assisting economic development. That is of course the first objective in the New Zealand land transport strategy which was published last year after its development by the Government and the Greens. We are not economic illiterates. The economy is provided for; it is just not the only thing that is provided for in this legislation. 
The land transport strategy has to take into account how it will assist economic development how it will assist safety and personal security and how it improves access and mobility. That is the “effectiveness” that Larry Baldock was talking about in the Chamber yesterday. As he said it is not about efficiency but about moving people around without wasting time. That is effectiveness and that is access and mobility. So that is there in the land transport strategy too. The strategy also takes into account how it protects and promotes public health so that we do not have traffic arrangements that will lead to more likelihood of crashes and more likelihood of air pollution and takes into account how it ensures environmental sustainability. 
Those objectives are then reflected further when we look at the membership of the regional land transport strategies. The regional councils are responsible for those strategies and we see that typically they have co-opted on to the regional land transport committee a whole lot of road users. There is nothing wrong with having road users on the committee but if we have only road providers road users and road funders on the committee then we will not take a balanced approach to the need for public transport to the need for alternatives to roading to the need for rail and so forth. Rather than having people who are representative of particular factions of transport provision we will now have people who represent the various objectives of the regional land transport strategy. So there will be people representing the need for economic development representing safety representing public health representing access and mobility and representing environmental sustainability. They will be able to argue on the committee for those values and to scrutinise the strategy that comes out according to those values. They are guardians if one likes of those five objectives. I think that is likely over time to lead to better transport planning at the regional level. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We should not be surprised that the Green Party comes to the Chamber and tells us it is OK for environmental sustainability to be put into the purpose clause of the bill and throughout the schedules as well ahead of economic efficiency because the Greens are financial and economic Neanderthals. Under their way we would have “fortress New Zealand”. We would be back where we were about 50 or 60 years ago. Under those conditions the walking bus that the Greens promote so heavily would work really well. We would be able to walk around the villages in our Roman sandals in between our morris dancers and we would have a lovely time. 
Those of us who want to live in the 21st century and take New Zealand forward need to refer to the schedules and to look at exactly what is being done to land transport in New Zealand. I want to talk for a moment about what the schedules are doing as they relate to the construction of the boards of Transit and Transfund. One of the great tragedies is that the schedules do not include structural changes to the way Auckland is constructed in terms of roading purposes. Anybody who knows the situation will know that Transit and Transfund which are referred to in the schedules play an important role in Auckland. But equally anyone who knows the Auckland situation well will know that we have a whole group of people involved. We have seven territorial local authorities the Auckland Regional Transport Network Infrastructure Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. They all have their own boards their own agendas and their own plans. None of them are put under one simple possible structure. I know that the Minister is doing his job up there privately and secretly with the joint officials group and if he is doing it properly he will be instructing it to look at that. He will not be worrying about the fact that the schedules set out the construction of the Transit board because that is not the solution to his problems. 
I want to talk for a moment about one of the things that the Transit board will be able to do under the new plan and that is to borrow money. That is not new. As I said last night the board has had the capacity for many many years through the Minister of Finance to borrow money but it has chosen not to do so. Today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee I asked Dr Michael Cullen what he thought the fiscal implications would be of the joint officials group effort in Auckland in terms of how much money would be likely to be applied to fixing Auckland’s roads and just what impact that would have on the Crown’s operating balance into the 2003-04 period. I was shocked and stunned by the answer. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Which was? 
JOHN KEY 
: The answer was that there would be very little impact. Dr Cullen is not intending to do very much for Auckland roads. That is just more and more of the Labour Party’s spin. Labour has had 4 years to fix the problem in Auckland and every year it has become worse and worse. The spin machine and the “Burns unit” have been wheeled out. That Government would wheel out anything—except the wheels of a car because they are not spinning in Auckland. We are losing $1.4 billion a year. That is $1.4 billion of lost economic activity. 
So I hope that the board of Transit is appointed via these schedules in a good and constructive manner. I hope that its members do not just become the Labour Party lapdogs that we know they have been in the past and that the Hon Roger Sowry indicated to the Committee they would be. We hope that this Government will not turn that whole exercise in Auckland into a vote-buying process that is merely an extension of the election but we know that that hope is wrong. 
We saw when Transit released its 10-year plan last year how cruelly Auckland had been treated. Auckland consumers and businesses came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and begged it to make alterations to the plan but that did not happen. In fact what happened was that Auckland was dropped from the vast majority of projects and projects in marginal Labour electorates were brought further up the list. That was the reality of Transit New Zealand’s 10-year plan and that will be the reality going forward under this Government because the Government cares more about staying in office about its own LTDs and about preserving power for the sake of power than about using it for the benefit of New Zealand. What a tragedy that is! 
I cannot wait until election day in 2005 when we will be able to vote that Government out and replace the boards of Transit and Transfund. Those boards will be full of Labour Party lackeys who do not deserve to be there. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Actually Mr Key is not correct. A new report has come out in the last few days that shows that the cost to the economy of the congestion in Auckland is actually closer to $4 billion according to the Employers and Manufacturers Association. I will put that in a different form. It is a week’s holiday every 2 months. That is what this congestion is costing the workforce. This Government would rather buy-off the workforce with the promise of an extra week’s holiday than do something about the Auckland roads. 
These schedules are an absolute disgrace for a huge number of reasons. Most significantly they give the Minister of Transport enormous powers to appoint to hire and fire and to take this country back to pork-barrel politics. I remember being driven when I was a child— 
Jill Pettis 
: That would have been a long time ago. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It was a long time ago. That member is right about one thing. It is the first thing I have ever heard her say in this Chamber that I agree with. It was a long time ago but I do remember—because I get the right drugs—going around to the western side of Lake Taupo and seeing what a certain Prime Minister had been able to do— 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s right; I agree with the member. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Exactly. That was pork-barrel politics and we will see a return to that under this legislation and especially under the provisions in these schedules. We are already seeing that in the actions of the board members of Transfund. As the Hon Roger Sowry has pointed out the Labour Party president and campaign manager the Eftpos machine man Mike Williams is already on that board. The reason why we have a motorway in north Auckland that ends in the middle of a paddock is that we are already seeing political manipulation by board members and we will see more of that. We will see more vote buying and more appointments to that board. 
Under the provisions of these schedules the land transport strategies of regional councils have to take into account all the items that Jeanette Fitzsimons reeled off. We will see boards appointed to represent all those different factions of the community and we will see paralysis by analysis because they will never agree. How can all those different sections of a community ever agree on how a road should be built? 
Paragraph 14 of Part 1 in schedule 2 states: “Any steps that Transfund intends to take having considered ways in which it might foster the development of Maori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making processes …”. I ask the Minister what on earth that means. What on earth is “Maori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making”? Is that what Kara Puketapu was talking about this morning on  
Mana News 
 when he said that Te Puni Kokiri is totally useless in terms of looking after the needs of Maori? This was not some “cheeky whitey” making those declarations. It was Kara Puketapu who said that Te Puni Kokiri is not serving the interests of Maori when it looks at all the legislation that goes through this House to see how it affects Maori. 
This is totally meaningless nonsense but I can see people lining up already to be appointed to the boards of both Transit and Transfund. Gone is the separation of those two areas which the Hon Maurice Williamson brought in as he pointed out—and a good thing it was too. I guarantee that we will see on those boards people like Gary Taylor from the Environmental Defence Society. The society has already been favoured by this Government with numerous contracts. He was working in the Minister’s office and has now gone but we have seen numerous payments from this Government to someone who used the Resource Management Act to its greatest advantage to delay and stall consents for people. We will see more wastage of money. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from where the last speaker left off. My lasting impression when I look through the bill including the schedules is that yet again we have a Government talking about obtuse concepts such as “ensuring environmental sustainability”. For the life of me I am not sure what that is and I am quite experienced in local government affairs. I never knew what it was under some of the legislation that we have had to look at previously. I never found—and I cannot find now—a clear legal definition to give to regional land transport committees so that they have some idea of what that actually means. This bill and the schedules lack that. If there is no adequate definition here it is because there is no such definition. Why should local councils and all the various people who are now to make up the new regional land transport committees have to work out what that obtuse concept is? Because it is a nebulous concept. 
It reappears over and over again—it is in schedule 3—but I am in doubt as to what it really means. 
We have yet again the same problem with the Local Government Act 2002 —which this bill will be a factor of—and with the Resource Management Act. There are sections in those Acts that are directly contradictory and they contradict this bill as well. The proof of that will be court cases at great cost to ratepayers and to citizens in order to find out that I am right and that the legislation has failed to pick up the fine legal intentions in the wording in this bill and in those two Acts. I said that last year and in March this year. I am absolutely certain—and I am backed by senior counsel in this city—that those Acts are contradictory on some important matters and only time will prove that. The lack of application of this bill to those principles in a legal sense will be a factor here too. Whatever the term “environmental sustainability” means it will do that. 
The other issue that concerns me as a member of a regional committee is what the new representation means. Does it mean that for the first time the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee which is part of the regional council will have to consider the “cultural interest” issue? Who are the people concerned with “cultural interest”? Is it the local arts council? Is it some creative body that does performing arts? What is it? I cannot find a definition here at all. This will be a very strange addition to the regional land transport committee. 
The other thing I want to speak about is the fact that there is nothing in the bill—and therefore in the Act when it becomes law—that tells a land transport committee: “Thou shalt give weight to the majority opinion”—as we do at most times and do in this House. The bill states that all those bodies no matter how obtuse small or representative of the local community they are have to be listened to and heard. This is not a majority opinion. This is a collective of minorities down to the smallest minority somehow in this unique bill having equal place and equal weight. I find that incorrect. In the practical sense as a member of a committee I am not sure how we will resolve it. 
 I go back to the other schedule that deals with long-term community consultation. It might just be that if we take the Local Government Act 2002 at its word—and that part in this bill as its final word—we can by tiredness and long-term consultation reduce issues. 
But that would also be undemocratic because the local consultation process will do that excepting for the small groups well financed and well represented who again will have a pervasive say in a democratic process because the majority will be overcome by lethargy and by time. So overall having been involved with land transport for the last 13 years I do not see this bill or the schedules as a huge improvement because as I said last night at the end of some of the good intentions in this bill and in the schedules one fundamental issue still remains and that is funding. This bill will not help the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). It is finished all done and not able to be processed because of funding issues at this point of time. The Minister should not shake his head. If he had the will ALPURT B2 would be under way now. Instead under this bill ALPURT B2 will go right back to the start and instead of the 7-year term which the Minister sought—of which he gained only 10 months—it will take 14 years to complete. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
The schedules are substantial and I want to talk about our amendments which we are hoping the Minister will support as well but before I do I want to raise an issue that has come to my attention. A special Automobile Association newsletter has just been put out and it rates the bill on 10 points. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Who put it out? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Automobile Association. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it. No? It appears that he has not. It rates the bill on 10 points and gives it two out of 10. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: That’s not bad. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister says that is not bad—such are his aspirations. I do not want the Minister to go out of here and do what his associate Judith Tizard does—ring up the Automobile Association yell at them down the phone and tell them that if they ever criticise the Government again they will not get in to see her office and will never get to talk to her again. I want the Minister to listen to this constructive criticism by the Automobile Association and I am happy to table it at the end of this exercise so the Minister can read it. 
One of the things in the schedules is the fact that cultural interest groups take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. An analysis of the bill shows that cultural groups Maori groups—and a colleague from New Zealand First was talking about this just before—take the place of the road users on the regional land transport committee. I say to the Minister that that is outrageous and that is why we are moving some amendments to the schedules. Our amendments would delete clause 52A of schedule 1 and clauses 14 and 25 of schedule 2. The Minister might not have read these clauses. I will start with clause 52A which tells us that as part of its performance agreement Transfund has to state how it will enhance its relationship with Maori and as part of its statement of objectives it has to state how it will foster development of Maori. It actually has to spend road-user money to increase the capacity of Maori to contribute to Transit’s land transport decisions. So Transit New Zealand which is making the decisions about where the roads and designations are going to be has to spend money to bring Maori up to speed so they can contribute to the decision-making process at that point. We think that is a nonsense and we are seeking to have that provision deleted. 
With the new provision the Minister has put in the annual report of Transfund now also has to spell out how many opportunities it gave for Maori to contribute to the decision-making process. I say to the Minister that this is just political correctness gone absolutely mad. On the Kapiti Coast we have been waiting for the western link highway for 20 years. It has been objected to by the local iwi and it has been changed because of their objections. The road has been diverted it has been to the Environment Court and it has been upheld. It has been back through a process with iwi the designation has been changed again and it has been back before the Court. The Court has now approved it and now local iwi are appealing. I defend their right to put the district through that process. That is the iwi’s right. They are using the law as they are entitled to. No one is arguing against that. But to say that they need to have more money from the road account to fund their objection is nonsense. No one else gets that. The farmer whose land the road goes through does not get any special treatment from Transit or Transfund. No one worries about the farmer’s capacity to object. No one worries about the environmentalist’s capacity to object. They do not get any special treatment or any special funding. But Maori do now in the new clauses that the Minister in his politically correct nonsense is engaging in. 
I invite the Minister to take a call and say more than he said at the start of this debate which was that these amendments are largely technical. They are not technical. For the first time ever the Automobile Association of New Zealand has put out a special newsletter which I have in the House today. The Minister has just admitted that he has not seen it. It marks the bill two out of 10 and one of the crosses is because cultural interest groups are going to take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. That is the effect of these schedules. This means in the Wellington region that the Automobile Association or the truck drivers—people who use the roads—will miss out on having a say on that committee because they cannot be included but iwi get on. I do not mind iwi being on the committee but why is the Minister taking the others off? Why is he limiting the numbers so that those people cannot get on the committee but then giving special places to iwi? I wonder whether the Minister will try to defend that in the Chamber today or whether he will just sit silent again all through this nonsense. I want to know this from the Minister: how much do Transfund and Transit have to spend—it will be in their annual reports—to satisfy the Minister that they have spent money to increase the capacity of Maori to object to roading projects around the country? That is what they are doing—they are funding Maori groups in order to increase their ability to object to projects. That is now a statement in law that they have to adhere to as part of their statement of principles and as part of the annual report. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Good one! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Maori member says “Good one.” How much money do they need? How much will be approved? Will the member answer that? Is there a percentage of money that has to go or is it a dollar amount? Ah! The member says no they will not say that in the House. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Ha! Ha! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Maori member giggles away. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Like I said we’re not going to put a benchmark on it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Ah! He says it finally. There is no benchmark on it says the Maori member. Well if there is no benchmark why is it in the annual report? How can it be there and be reported on if there is no benchmark? That is absolute nonsense and the member knows it. At the end of the day the Minister has to hold them to account and he cannot do so with it being so loose. That is why the Automobile Association has put out this damning special report which is critical of the legislation. I want the Minister to read the document and undertake in the Chamber that he will stop Judith Tizard his associate from ringing the Automobile Association people and abusing them. The last time the Automobile Association put out a statement criticising the Government Judith Tizard rang them up and said that if they ever did it again they would not get in her office. She threatened them. I said to the Automobile Association that I would take that as a promise. I would not bother going into her office. I was surprised that they still wanted to see her. I say to Minister Swain that I know he does not throw his weight around like that Associate Minister does. I know that he does not do that but I want him to bring the rest of the dogs into line. I want him to make sure that we do not get this threatening bullying behaviour. I hope that he will take a call and explain that to the Committee because this situation is unprecedented. Never before has the Automobile Association put out a special document solely to criticise the Government. Never before has it done that. I know that this Government likes to control everything but finally people are starting to see through it. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on schedule 1AAB about the principles of consultation particularly in light of some of the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made a little earlier. There was a lot of criticism of the bill in its original form in relation to the overly complex nature of consultation. I believe that we have done a very sensible thing in adopting principles from the local government legislation for consultation and placing things in line with in particular the regional land transport strategies. Although initially there will be some projects that are caught in the transition as this bill comes into force in time as consultation occurs through the regional land transport strategies there will be no need for duplication as from there projects will be put on Transfund’s schedule or private-public partnerships will be sought unless there are changes into a tolling scheme in which case there will need to be further consultation. 
We have to realise that in today’s age consultation is a part of life. If we want people to be on board with the things that we are planning then we have to get out there early and involve them in the decision making so that people feel they have ownership of the projects. Nowhere is this more evident than in Tauranga where a major roading project proceeded to the Environment Court and got its designation within the space of a year despite all the stories that we hear constantly about how long the Resource Management Act process takes. The project was granted its designation without any objections because the council took great pains—along with Transit and the Access partnership in Tauranga—to consult the community. As a member of the community there I also was very concerned about the project. It is one that will make a major impact upon the landscape because it is a huge concrete viaduct that will link the second bridge. 
I think it is a real credit to the council and to those involved in the process that the project went through without designation. It is a very good example of how good consultation can work. In my opinion it is also a very good example of why we should have had this bill many years earlier. I wish we had had this bill 3 or 4 years ago when we were at the conception stage of the project because the council was always forced to look for the cheapest option to provide a new link across the harbour. Had we had the option of tolling and alternative funding then I think we would have probably come up with a tunnel. It was one of the options that was pursued but was discounted because of its expense. However in terms of benefit for the community a tunnel would have been much much better and could have been provided if we had been able to toll it back in those days. The traffic volumes on the project will certainly be sufficient to guarantee that it is able to pay for itself. 
I have some other comments to make about the principles of the regional land transport strategies and about the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made earlier. She said that there is so much emphasis in the bill on economic development and that we do not need amendments regarding efficiency which shows that she simply misses the point again. New subsection (2)(b) which can be found in schedule 3 states that the regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy—“(i) assists economic development;”—the word of course is “assist”—“(ii) assists safety and personal security; and (iii) improves access and mobility; and (iv) protects and promotes public health;”. But when the bill gets to “environmental sustainability” it uses the word “ensures” which is a much stronger word. It is not about “assisting” environmental sustainability; it uses a very strong word and “ensures” environmental sustainability. It is because of the strength of that word— 
Jim Peters 
: What does it mean? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: There are questions about what it means but let us deal with the “ensuring” part of it. Because of the strength of that word United Future continues to promote the need for amendments that would bring efficiency into account so that the bill is balanced. True sustainability has three legs to it: the environment the social aspects and the economic aspects of any project. It is this that we want to see balanced by the amendments I have proposed. I am grateful there have been some amendments to further strengthen the emphasis on efficiency. Also in relation to the regional land transport strategy in subsection (2) there is paragraph (n) which states: “include a demand management strategy that has targets and timetables appropriate for the region;”. I confess that when this was first added to the bill I was horrified because it looked a heck of a lot like the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which was promoted by Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier. When I saw “targets and timetables” I was very concerned that we would be required— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I apologise because I should have done this after my speech but because the Minister has not seen the document I referred to I seek the leave of the Committee to table the special AA Advocate document analysing the Land Transport Management Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I spoke earlier about the structure of the Transit and Transfund boards and about the structure of roading in New Zealand. I believe that has been one of the great significant contributing factors as to why roading in New Zealand has failed to deliver the kinds of results we need. One of the great challenges for the Transit board when it looks at the plan coming forward is just how much money it will require. The honourable member from New Zealand First Mr Peter Brown has advocated in the Chamber over the last few days the desire for regional petrol taxes. 
Peter Brown 
: No not the desire; the second option. 
JOHN KEY 
: The second option of a regional petrol tax. I want to outline for the member what I believe is the potential cost facing Auckland. The member may be aware that at the moment about $150 million per year is spent on new roading in Auckland up from about $85 million last year as a result of the 4.7c petrol tax that was put in place across the country by the Government. Now $150 million sounds like quite a lot of money and one would think that it would go quite a long way but I will refer to the kinds of things that the Transit board will be forced to look at. The eastern corridor is now estimated to cost $2.9 billion. 
I came back to Auckland 2 years ago when John Banks campaigned on roads—John Banks that wonderful mayor in Auckland who was a fantastic National Party Minister and a great member of caucus for 18 years and who I have absolutely no doubt will bolt in during the election campaign of 2004 because he will campaign on “give me some roads”. He has been around to the Prime Minister’s house for lunch and has schmoozed up to her. I saw him give her a kiss on the Television One news the other night—at Vogel House or wherever it was—and if he does not get a few billion dollars for a kiss then I do not know what he will get. Anyway he is going to be out there campaigning and saying: “Give me some roads. Give me an eastern corridor.” Well $450 million was the first figure he gave me. He came back a few months later and said: “Look John the figure is going to be somewhere in the order of a billion dollars.” Quite funny as it may be I was filling up my car with petrol just the other day just before the announcement and John Banks came over to me—it was a Sunday afternoon; a glorious day in Auckland—and said to me— 
Jill Pettis 
: A glorious day to be out in the BMW. 
JOHN KEY 
: No it was a Commodore. He said: “It’s going to cost a bit more for the eastern corridor.” I asked him why he did not just tell me the figure. He said: “I can’t tell you; it’s a national secret. We’re going to announce it on Tuesday but don’t worry it’s just a bit more.” Just a bit more! It went from $1 billion to $3 billion. If that does not worry John Banks then I do not know what does. No wonder he is kissing Helen Clark. He will be hugging her. He must be sending her letters: “Give me the money. Show me the money.” It will be like  
Jerry Maguire 
—“Show me the money.” 
It will take $2.9 billion for the eastern corridor and it does not stop there. A billion dollars will be spent on State highway 20. Members may ask what electorate that goes through. Well it is Mount Albert the Prime Minister’s electorate. It could be fixed with about $175 million worth of roading but the Prime Minister would like some tunnels so that the roads do not actually go through the backyards of her constituents; she wants them to go underneath. I guess we have to excuse that as a sort of prime ministerial whim but it will cost another $850 million. Then there is the alternative harbour crossing which lo and behold is going to take 16 years to build and will cost $3 billion. I reckon it will be about $5 billion by the time that thing gets built—if it ever gets built. 
Then there is the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) and the promise that it would be fixed. There was a promise that it would be looked at. What happened to ALPURT B2? Let us remember that it involves the Orewa to Puhoi motorway which currently stops in the middle of absolutely nowhere. So what happened to ALPURT B2? [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. A person who is represented by Jeanette Fitzsimons went and got legal aid spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal aid tying up the Rodney District Council and the Environment Court literally for years and by the time we won the case—as the Crown always would have or the Rodney District Council always would have—lo and behold it was nowhere to be seen on Transit’s plan. So that was hundreds of millions of dollars. 
State Highway 18 is one I would specifically refer the Minister to. I hope he is listening because his brother lives right off that street and it actually happens to be in my electorate. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh yes. 
JOHN KEY 
: So if he could help that would probably be about another $500 million to $600 million. I could go on and on but I do not like to because this is a very important topic. The cost of trains will be $1.5 billion. Then there are the busways. The numbers are extraordinarily high. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 52A. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 14. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 25. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) 
Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2). 
 The report back of the bill represents in my view significant progress towards improving the emphasis on community safety and dog control. The impetus for this bill came about after a series of particularly vicious dog attacks that occurred last summer. In one of those incidents a 7-year-old child Carolina Anderson was almost killed when attacked by an uncontrolled dog in an Auckland suburban park. The pain and suffering Carolina endured prompted community outrage and rightly so.  
Following a review of dog control laws and a detailed survey of local authorities it became apparent that significant improvements could be made to legislation to improve public safety. Consequently the Government’s intention in progressing this bill is to strengthen the existing Dog Control Act rather than to completely revamp it. What this bill does very well is to strike a better balance between the desires of dog owners to be able to enjoy their pets and the rights of other members of our community particularly children to go about their lives without fear of attack or intimidation by uncontrolled dogs. 
There is nothing I would like more than to be able to tell the House that this bill will halt dog attacks once and for all. Unfortunately that is not something I can do. As long as we have dogs in our community and as long as we have irresponsible owners some attacks will occur. It is simply inevitable. There are however a number of practical steps we can take to limit the number and severity of attacks. Those steps are taken in this bill. Local government is given a full complement of tools to control the impact of dogs in our communities. 
One of the most significant changes the committee made relates to the issue of fencing. In the original proposal dog owners were to have been required to securely contain their dogs on their own properties and to provide unimpeded access for visitors to at least one external door of a dwelling. Having carefully listened to the view of submitters the committee has decided to require owners to confine their dogs on their property when not under their direct control. But the committee has stopped short of specifying how dog owners should do this. 
I think this amendment is sensible and practical and I will support it. The change achieves the primary objective of the original proposal—that is that dogs must be confined and not roaming the streets. The committee also proposes that the existing ability of territorial authorities to classify some dog owners as probationary ought to be retained. The committee proposes that this classification remain in the Act but as an either/or option for councils to use in conjunction with disqualification as a tool when dealing with problem owners. The committee also proposes that councils should have a specific power to require such owners to attend courses in dog ownership or obedience. Again I think that those are sensible amendments and I will support them. 
The committee has also adopted a somewhat different approach to the Government’s proposal on the issue of microchipping all dogs. The committee supports microchipping but recommends it be limited to just three categories of dogs: dangerous dogs menacing dogs and those dogs that are to be returned to their owners after being impounded. The committee also recommends that individual councils be empowered to determine for their own districts whether microchipping is to be compulsory. 
My view and the Government’s view—which of course are the same—is that the introduction of a system of microchip identification of dogs should remain unchanged. We take the view that microchipping can provide for a truly effective and affordable means of dog identification only if it is applied to all dogs. Most important a system of microchip identification can work effectively only if it is linked to a national information database and that database can work effectively only if it is linked to the introduction of universal microchipping. 
I believe there are a number of flaws in what the select committee has proposed on this issue. The first is that the committee’s proposals will require each council to purchase equipment to support microchipping for the use of only a handful of dogs in each district. The second is that the ongoing cost of the database that should accompany microchipping will have to be recouped from just a small number of owners making it almost certainly very expensive for those owners. It is estimated that the set-up costs for a national database on dogs would be in the order of $1 million. The Government has indicated that it is prepared to meet the set-up costs because there are quite clearly national benefits from such a database. In addition to the set-up costs of the database there would be annual running costs that would amount to about 53c per dog if all dogs in New Zealand were registered. That figure would be vastly larger if it applied to just a few hundred owners and therefore the issue of compliance costs is another compelling reason to support a national database. 
For that reason I will be moving an amendment to the bill at the appropriate time to provide for the universal microchipping of dogs. I would like members from other parties in the House who are currently not supporting that position to think again on this issue. I note that the SPCA the Veterinary Association and the New Zealand Kennel Club all support microchipping. 
Aside from the issues I have just outlined the bill remains largely as introduced. Under the provisions of the bill territorial authorities will be required to review their dog control policies and bylaws under revised public safety criteria to ensure there is far less likelihood that children will be forced to encounter unleashed dogs in public places such as parks and playgrounds. 
I would like to thank the select committee for the amount of time it gave in hearing the proposals. The bill is about keeping the public safer from dangerous dogs. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many submitters who participated so willingly in the select committee process and whose views on this matter were often very sincerely held. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This Local Government Reform Bill (No 2) will shortly become the Dog Control Amendment Act. National does indeed support this legislation and we were very glad to be able to work constructively in the Local Government and Environment Committee with the other parties on this very very important issue. However we do note that this bill has been languishing since 1999 and that it took a crisis before this Labour Government was prepared to do anything about the very serious problem it addresses. The statistics show that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks resulting in hospitalisation occur in New Zealand per year and there are many thousands of other dog attacks. 
The point is that a large proportion of them are undoubtedly preventable. The task of the select committee was to respond to the Government’s crisis response to the mounting concerns across New Zealand regarding dog attacks. There were indeed a cluster of dog attacks in south Auckland at the beginning of this year. They were on children and they were very serious; but there was a further attack in Ponsonby that horrified many people. It focused the attention of the news media and finally the Government. 
I believe that it is important to revisit the submission that was provided by the family of Carolina Anderson. It described the fact that the owners of the offending dog failed to control the animal failed to come to Carolina’s assistance failed to call the dog off gave a false name and number to family friends and failed to come forward to the police or the family in the days after the attack. When the police arrested the owners on a Wednesday of that month they were found seemingly attempting to change their appearance. 
The submission goes on to say that because of their actions Carolina will be scarred for life yet under the 1996 Dog Control Act they face a maximum fine of $5000 and a mere 3 months in jail on the charge of possessing a dangerous dog. Even at that early stage after the event the family knew that the cost to them—the victim and parents—would be substantially greater. Only a few days ago I spoke to Carolina’s father and he said she had just undergone yet another operation and this is very much an ongoing event in her life. 
The submission goes on to say: “In light of the spate of dog attacks in New Zealand in recent months and the hideous impact this is having on many sectors of the community but especially children our family our friends and our many supporters in the community urge the Government to make an urgent revision of the Dog Control Act.” As we know this bill was brought before the House some months ago and the select committee has deliberated constructively. 
 It is incredible to read in this week’s  
Sunday Star-Times  
that the owners of the dog that attacked Carolina now have another dog of a similar breed if not exactly the same in their care. It just seems incredible the insensitivity that they have displayed in taking on this friend’s dog. It is absolutely irresponsible that again they are apparently parading around Ponsonby with a dog that is potentially a very dangerous animal. 
It appears—on reading the Dog Control Act—that the District Court judge did not actually incur either a probationary notice on this pair or suggest that there be disqualification. I understand that as it reads it is only the territorial local authority that may do so. The reality is that while the new bill means that anyone who is on probation or is disqualified is no longer able to own or possess a dog there may be an anomaly in that if a District Court judge believes or recommends that that should happen the territorial local authority will not know about it or the owners might move from one territorial local authority to another. An important anomaly in the system that was not picked up by the select committee clearly has allowed this pair—Thomas Owen and Brian Hill—to flagrantly go about with yet another menacing dog under their care on the pretence that they do not own it but they are merely looking after a friend’s dog. We have a problem here and hopefully it will be addressed by an amendment. 
I point out that there was overwhelming support in the submissions that this amendment bill focus on owner responsibility that irresponsible owners should be penalised and that councils be required to demonstrate better enforcement. We learnt that there was considerable variation in enforcement around the country with some councils keeping statistics and doing a very good job and other councils not achieving the sorts of results or standards that we would expect in New Zealand. Undoubtedly the committee has to balance the consideration of not being too restrictive to dogs exercising and socialising; yet on the other hand not having universal prescriptive rules for urban and rural conditions. 
Undoubtedly the most contentious issue was that proposed in the Government’s amendment—the requirement to provide a dog-free access from the street to a door of any house where there is a dog. That was daft. That was a clear illustration of the daftness of the Minister the Hon Chris Carter. Fortunately the committee worked hard to convince him finally that that was a ridiculous anomaly put up by the Government and it has been thrown out in this bill—quite rightly so. 
There is great sense in ensuring that responsible dog owners are given incentives and they undoubtedly are the majority of owners in New Zealand. A clear indication is that discounts in terms of registration in terms of turning up for educative courses etc. and in terms of complying appropriately with best-practice guidelines should be given to responsible dog owners. 
I end by saying that it also is a huge concern that we do not have consistent nation-wide application of the Act in New Zealand. There is a big need to get best-practice guidelines right across New Zealand that will be applied by the territorial local authorities. I note in the commentary as an additional means of addressing this issue that the committee recommended a new section 10AB be inserted into the Dog Control Act to require a territorial local authority to report annually on the administration of its dog control policies and practices. A template for such annual reporting could be included in the best-practice guideline being developed by the department and Local Government New Zealand. This is hugely important in my view. It will allow benchmarking as a stimulus for territorial local authorities to provide optimal rules and to enforce them. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I was lucky enough to chair the Local Government and Environment Committee when it considered the amendments to the Dog Control Act and I thank members from all sides on that committee who cooperated to produce what is I think quite a good piece of proposed legislation. 
The committee was conscious—as is the Government—of the need to balance the rights of dog owners against the rights of the general public to be properly protected to the extent that it is possible from any nuisance and risk posed by dogs particularly in public places. The legislation goes some way to improving that balance. As the previous speaker said one of the problems with universal rules imposed at central government level is that the interests of densely populated areas where there is high density housing and high numbers of people are a bit different to the interests of councils in rural areas where populations are pretty thinly spread and the problems posed by dogs are not the same. So imposing universal solutions at a central government level can lead either to over-regulation for territories that are rural in nature or to under-regulation for areas where we do not want concentrations of large dogs wandering freely in the streets in city areas. What we have done with this legislation is find the appropriate balance. 
One of the proposals that was rightly put up for consideration was whether there should be a right of free access to the door from the street on all properties on which there is a dog. This arose from concerns in some south Auckland neighbourhoods in particular where there have been reports of posties not being able to deliver letters and also concerns on the part of meter readers. We did give consideration as to whether that was appropriate. Balanced against that was the right of property owners to let dogs roam around their sections to not have the cost of fencing to the front door and to be able to feel more secure about their properties because their dogs are wandering around the entire property. In the end the committee thought that while it is every person’s right to have a dog wandering around his or her property it is not every person’s right to have a dangerous dog wandering around that property. To the extent that people have a right in law—unless it is taken away by the landowner everyone has a right to approach the front door of a house that one is visiting—we thought that that right carried with it the right for people to be able to expect that any dogs on the property would not be dangerous. In cases of dangerous dogs on properties the local authority should be able to require that there be a fenced way to the door. In the end we have not imposed an obligation or suggested that one be imposed to provide a dog-free fenced access to the front door for all properties. However that requirement will remain in the case of a dangerous dog. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The next issue I wish to talk about is the proposal to microchip dogs. Microchip technology has become a lot cheaper over the years and these days it is commonly used by farmers particularly in the dairy industry. As it has become more cost-effective it has become a technology that is open to being used on dogs. It would assist in the tracking of dogs particularly when they go from one district to another or are let out without their collars. If a dog attacks stock and does not have its collar on it is hard for farmers to pin responsibility on the errant owner because they cannot prove ownership of the dog. 
There was a divided view in the committee as to whether microchipping dogs should be compulsory for all councils which would be progressively applied to all new registrations—it was not proposed that it be applied to dogs that had previously been registered. The Labour side favoured compulsory microchipping but there was some diffidence on the other side so there was a split view on that in the committee. The Labour Party still favours compulsory microchipping. In that scenario the Government would bear the cost of establishing a national database on which all registration details including individual microchip identifiers would be entered. If that were achieved then over the next 10 to 15 years all dogs would progressively be fitted with a microchip as new dogs were born and registered. 
Lastly I wish to make reference to fines. Some fines for serious offences and deliberate wrongdoing have been increased as have maximum penalties but we took the step that was recommended by some councils of reducing some infringement fee fines so that they were not too onerous and were more proportionate to the offence that occurred. Therefore they are more likely to be imposed by councils rather than being seen as overkill by councils. We also made it clear that those infringement fees when collected would stay in the hands of the council that had done the enforcement work rather than passing into the Government’s coffers. Those are the points I wanted to make and I thank again the committee members who assisted. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 First I wish to thank David Parker who chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee and fellow members for what in the end was a carefully considered and much more thoughtful response to an issue that earlier in the year was of great concern. 
I want to go back in time because if I just spend a moment or two looking at the past members will understand why at least one issue that of breed-specific content might not have been addressed in the minds of those who keep on writing to me—as recently as this afternoon—about what we have not done. This goes back to 1991 when Cabinet invited the then Minister of Local Government to conduct a review of the adequacy of existing dog legislation. The select committee reported back to the House after hearing about 400 submissions in July 1993. Older members will recall that the Dog Control Act was enacted in 1996. The issue of breed-specific legislation was considered and rejected and instead the training of dogs was considered the primary factor. Dog behaviour rather than dog breed became the determining issue of concern in that legislation. 
Throughout the 1990s the American pit bull terrier was often the subject of concern in the wider community. There was the death of Koro Dinsdale in April 1997 which the media implied had been caused by pit bull terriers. There was a sudden rush of concern throughout those years about the state of this dangerous breed why it was being allowed in and so on. Therefore it was no wonder that the then Minister of Local Government the Hon Christine Fletcher established a cross-party parliamentary working-party with the instruction that it consider what action should be taken under existing statutory powers to achieve the phased elimination from New Zealand of the American pit bull terrier then venture into difficult waters and consider crossbreeds. That working-party become known as the Brian Neeson working-party. It reported back in May 1997. Finally a bill of three parts came into the House just before the election in 1999 and that is the bill that our committee picked up. 
I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to Brian Neeson who is no longer with us. He was a good loyal honest and hard-working member of the National Party but for some strange reason he was rejected by the party and is no longer in the House. I would like to pay tribute to Brian whom I have known for many years. He will be very pleased to see that at long last his earnest efforts have been rewarded by this bill which comes to us in a more substantial form than his bill. 
As the Minister of Local Government has already said the committee heard a number of representations. I want to take the House through a few of them because they not only give us a lead as to what we were looking at but also leave us with some difficulties which I think the House will have to consider when the bill goes through the Committee stage next week. 
The Auckland City Council said that it was aware of the difficult issues in achieving a balance between the rights of responsible dog owners to own and control dogs and the right of members of the public to feel safe. That was expressed in our narrative to the bill. The council like us all deplored the increasing number of serious dog attacks. It acknowledged that the survey of local authorities—there was both an initial and a completed survey of local authorities—had indicated that a vastly disproportionate percentage of all attacks were by unregistered dogs. That was a cause of concern to us. The council said—and it is also our thoughts as expressed in the final report now before the House—that it is extremely important that we do not impose unnecessary restrictions on the majority of dog owners who are both law-abiding and responsible. That was one of the key concerns that we worked through in the committee. The Auckland City Council as a large city council with parks realised that one of the issues it had to look at and one that it might not have dealt with adequately in the past was the provision in its open spaces and parks of more stand-alone areas where dogs could be exercised. 
The Manukau City Council came to the committee on the same day. I found the Manukau City Council submission interesting. First of all it has roughly 14000 registered dogs and about 7000 unregistered dogs. The Manukau City Council covers an area that is known for having a large number of unregistered dogs. It wanted the committee—and I am not quite sure why it did not do it itself—to send a very clear message that dogs should be registered that it is not equitable for some dog owners to choose not to register their dogs and that it is certainly not equitable for the ratepayer to have to pay the total cost of enforcement in respect of dogs that are not registered. The council did not have a very clear position on microchipping. The Manukau City Council people thought it was of benefit but they were not clear in their minds about the technology that would go with microchipping. 
The other submission that I want to take the House through very quickly is one that I was particularly pleased to see and that was very precise—that is the submission from the Auckland branch of the SPCA. It raised four factors and I want to raise them here because they were the factors we looked at in our committee report. It talked about the consistency of law. I am sure the society meant consistency of law throughout all local authorities responsible for dog control. The survey that has already been alluded to showed quite clearly that there is not consistency of control. On the basis of reading it again this afternoon I have to say that of the 79 or so territorial authorities there might not be more than 23 to 25 that exercise reasonable dog control. 
That is not being negative because one of the issues of dog control is the issue that I started with—that is the cost to ratepayers. The district councils with two or three rangers running a $100000 operation feel that that is all that dog control is worth in terms of council funding. They are not likely to increase that funding unless there is some incentive to do so. But the councils—and I have talked to a number since the committee brought down its report—are not happy or unhappy; they just feel they could do better. 
I have raised with them the issue of microchipping. That was one of the issues the committee looked at very carefully and we walked away from it in some ways. The issue of microchipping is an important one. The select committee gave it due deliberation. The issue as I see it now—and our caucus has discussed it fairly completely—is that in the committee’s mind if we were to call for compulsory microchipping of dangerous dogs and for a national database and register throughout the country the cost to the councils of that would be so inequitable that it would not really run as a going concern. From that our caucus advanced our thinking to the point where we think microchipping should be universal. We had certain issues about it. The first is the state of the technology. The transponder by the way needs to be slightly bigger; instead of being able to view it from the distance between myself and that glass it really needs to be visible from a metre or so away. Secondly in our thinking about it I advanced to our caucus that there was no need for a collar and that microchipping could be done alone. I have come to feel that perhaps a collar is needed as well. 
The third thing I want to say—and I know that veterinary surgeons who have a vested interest are strongly in support of this—is that if we do support microchipping we would need to have qualified dog officers inserting the microchips. One vet told me there is nothing worse than the sight of a pure white 3-month-old dog whose microchip was not inserted very well; the owner fainting at the sight of the dog’s blood going down the back of its neck which is where the chip is inserted. 
The process is easily done. The transponder is an issue. The database would be sound. I think in the end the number of registered dogs would be greater. The cost could be borne provided that the Government meets the substantial cost as the Minister said today of the database and the continuance of the database. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 The introduction of this bill is very topical. As has been alluded to in this House it is just a few months since the rather horrific attack on young Carolina Anderson that clearly was the catalyst for the introduction of this bill. I was one of those unfortunate enough to view a photograph of that little girl’s face that was not shown to the media. Like everybody else in that room that day I was absolutely appalled at what I saw. If I may I will take a moment just to reflect that too often we do not recognise the people who quite literally put faces and people back together again. I think it is important to recognise the fantastic job that the medical profession does when faced with appalling circumstances like that of young Carolina. I am delighted to see that there has been a huge improvement and long may that continue as that beautiful young face and skin regenerate and the surgeons work their miracles as I am sure they will. 
Sometimes it is rather difficult to stand in the House and make a speech when one stands alone and bases one’s comments not on a lack of emotion a lack of understanding of what has gone on in the past but on certain principles that are quite important to me and indeed to our party. I am not sure at all—in fact I do not believe as indeed I am sure many in this House do not believe—that the passing of this law will suddenly be the panacea for dog attacks. That is just not going to happen. We have too many hugely irresponsible people in our society who constantly thumb their nose at authority whether it be a dog ranger a territorial authority or indeed the Government. Those are the people on whom the focus of this bill should always be. 
As a farmer I have some real interest in reading through this bill. I have owned many many dogs and some of them have been quite stroppy one might say. Many would be referred to as dangerous by those who do not know how to handle such dogs on a farm. A big huntaway with a young child can be quite dangerous. So I bring some understanding to this issue. But there should be an emphasis quite rightly on the dangerous dog as distinct from the law-abiding citizen as Jim Peters has just alluded to. Far and away the vast majority of dog owners are decent law-abiding sensible people who enjoy the opportunity of owning a dog. It is very much a part of the New Zealand way of life. How many of us have received a pup for a birthday or at Christmas time? Growing up with animals is part of who we are and what we are in this country. I would certainly not want to see that changed. 
But I ask this question of the House. Would the Governor-General’s dog which flew at a golden retriever in a very public way just recently qualify as a dangerous dog? That dog attacked another dog in an inappropriate way. That retriever was doing a fantastic job for its mistress and was attacked by that little whatever it was—it looked like a small pug or something. I do not consider that dog as dangerous but some might construe it to be so. 
A working dog or any dog that is suddenly woken by its master or indeed by a child or anybody else instantly reacts. I myself from time to time have had the jaw of a good dog clamped on my wrist or hand before it realised that it was the hand that fed it—literally. Even sensible sound dogs if not approached correctly can react. I have had dogs caught in fences. When I have rushed over to stop them from breaking a leg they have clamped their jaws on whatever part of me they can get hold of because they think it is me who is hurting them and causing them very real pain. So we have situations where members of the public unwittingly through wanting to help an animal in some distress are bitten. A dog with unrecognised pain whether it be in a leg back shoulder or whatever will react to that as well. 
We also get situations where dogs become very protective of their owners. They become very territorial. That is just an instinctive part of what a dog is. Some would regard a dog that attacked in a territorial situation as being dangerous. Well no that is not so. It is part of the natural process of that animal. The problem is the lack of understanding of the general public in not recognising that that situation will occur. 
I note with some humour on this rather serious subject that dogs that actually lunge or chase cars can also be regarded as dangerous. Well dogs often chase cars but once they catch one they do not have a clue what to do with it. That is often the way. Members of the public swerve to get out of the way of an animal whether it is a possum a dog or a cat and thereby endanger their own lives or indeed those of other road users. Again it is not so much the fault of the animal; it is in fact a lack of understanding by the general public of how to handle those situations. 
I mentioned earlier that part of the New Zealand psyche was the keeping of pets. All of us enjoy these concepts. I recall that just recently a tiger used in a show mauled its owner after many years of a perfectly fine relationship. Animals will react uncharacteristically sometimes in certain situations and we do not know enough about that. The reaction of our community is to ban dangerous dogs ban tigers being used in shows and ban horses. I have a neighbour who was kicked in the face by a horse and has had titanium plates inserted. We cannot turn round and react to those appalling situations—as they are—by passing laws to stop them. In fact that is not what happens. 
I am concerned as much as anybody else in this House about gang members and dog breeders who deliberately breed fighting dogs to gain some status or mana. That is absolutely outrageous. One problem is that the existing law is not being utilised to ensure that those people are not allowed to perpetuate that practice. Cross-breeding in the animal kingdom cannot be stopped. As any good breeder of any animal will tell us the straight breed is not the problem; it is the cross-breed. How do we stop that? How do we legislate for those concepts? Microchipping may well help in some circumstances but the predators in our society—those who live on the other side from law-abiding citizens—will not worry two hoots about this legislation. They will not line up to register their pit bulls Dobermanns or whatever they might be down at the local regional council office. We will penalise only the good decent law-abiding dog owners up and down the country who ensure that their dogs are well cared for and well looked after and have the right temperament. Regrettably we have to accept that if animals are to be part of our lives whether they be horses dogs or cats there is an element of risk. That is part of the price we pay and it was a rather terrible price in the case of little Carolina. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Gerry Eckhoff and the Minister of Local Government made the point that it takes good dog-owners to prevent attacks on children. The Green Party shared the concern of all New Zealanders when Carolina Anderson was savagely attacked last year. It is entirely understandable that Parliament should question the effectiveness of the law. There is always room for improvement. The attack on Carolina indicated some shortcomings in the law. It also indicated a law that was inadequately enforced. During the select committee hearings it became evident that some local authorities do a less than adequate job of dog control. None the less there are shortcomings in the law and the bill does seek to address those. 
We heard from dog control officers of their frustration at not being able to pursue problem dogs on to private property. They will now be able to do that. The bill also requires local authorities to report on their enforcement measures. The best-practice guidelines will include reporting procedures. How will those measures help? I suspect that local authorities will increasingly come under scrutiny over problem dogs. Those reporting procedures will help that scrutiny to be done more effectively. 
Submissions stressed the importance of the education of dogs owners and the general public. We would have preferred dog obedience classes to be mandatory for new dog-owners and their dogs. But there are good dog-owner provisions in this bill with the possibility of cheaper registration fees for dogs whose owners have taken them through dog-training courses. That will provide some sort of incentive. The Minister also spoke of his intention to proceed with public education on appropriate behaviour around dogs. We look forward to that happening. 
We have some concerns about breed-specific measures. There is little evidence around the world to show that it works. Although we have little difficulty with excluding dogs that have been bred for fighting which are virtually non-existent here—like the tosa the fila and the dogo Argentino—we note that American pit bull terriers are notoriously difficult to identify and are not a specific breed. Such a ban is likely to catch a range of breeds that have no more history of aggressive behaviour than most dogs that are not on the list of dangerous breeds. The call to focus on the deed and not the breed makes some sense. We are concerned that if we identify some dogs as dangerous and require them to be muzzled neutered etc. some owners will simply train other dogs to behave aggressively. We are also concerned that some may think that if a dog is not muzzled if it is not a fila a tosa a dogo or an American pit bull less care is required around it. 
Although posties meter readers and visitors should be able to approach a house without fear of being eaten we are pleased that the provision requiring a fence to the front door has been replaced by a simple requirement that the dog owner must make sure that his or her dog or dogs are under control and must decide how that should be achieved. I notice that the chair mentioned that for dangerous dogs such a fence will still be required. I did not know that was the case. I thought the owner could chain the dog up in the backyard or confine it to part of the section. 
In view of the fact that very few of the around half a million dogs here are problem dogs we believe that microchipping just dangerous dogs menacing dogs and dogs that have been impounded is adequate. The bill also provides for local authorities to make microchipping mandatory for all dogs in their jurisdiction if they believe that is the best method of control for them. I notice that New Zealand First is prepared to support compulsory microchipping so it sounds like it will happen. 
This legislation will cover one of my other concerns and that is the belief that all hunting dogs should be required to be microchipped. Escaped hunting dogs are believed to be major offenders in attacks on farm animals and wildlife. Owners of such dogs need to be accountable for their dogs’ actions and to be subjected to the provisions of the law that make them liable to be banned from owning dogs. 
We believe that there needs to be a national register of dogs that is funded by central government. We do not believe that microchipping is a prerequisite for that national register. 
Probably all of the over half a million dogs in New Zealand are capable of attacking and biting but overwhelmingly most do not do that. A tiny minority of dogs are problem dogs and most of them are roaming dogs barking dogs and dogs that foul footpaths. Most dogs are companion dogs. Far from threatening anybody they make their owners feel safer not because they are trained to protect their owners physically but because they are likely to warn of possible danger. When one has company even the company of a dog one feels so much safer. Any attempt to protect us against the rare and for the most part entirely unpredictable dog attack must be tempered by recognition of the fact that most dogs are loyal companions. I venture to suggest that for every dog attack there are literally thousands of occasions when the elderly the frail and the vulnerable feel safer out and about or at home because of their dogs. Because of their dogs they do things they would not otherwise do. 
This bill spells out again the responsibility of dog owners to keep strangers safe by ensuring that visitors to their homes are not threatened. Where appropriate physical constraints may be used but the bill also reinforces the importance of education of the dogs of their owners and of children and adults about appropriate behaviour around dogs. The bill recognises that most attacks occur by a dog known to the person being attacked and recognises the requirement to strike a balance between the need to provide protection against dangerous and menacing dogs and the needs of the overwhelming majority of dog owners and their pets who pose little risk. Although there are penalties and some of those have been strengthened there are also carrots for those dog owners who are prepared to earn the status of being a responsible dog-owner. 
We see the good sense in ensuring that areas frequented by children are free of uncontrolled dogs. We are pleased to note too however that the local authorities have a responsibility to make sure that there are areas where people can exercise their dogs. We hope most local authorities will be smart enough to realise that those areas need to be available around most neighbourhoods. Not everybody is able to go long distances to visit an appropriate dog-exercising area. It is important that the need of dog owners to exercise their dogs is provided for. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. The point has been made by others that it alone will not stop dogs from attacking but I hope it will persuade more dog owners to be more responsible and thus will make dog attacks in the future a little less likely. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill on behalf of United Future. Since its introduction in July 1999 the bill has undergone a somewhat elongated process. More recently following a recent spate of highly publicised dog attacks in particular the horrific attack on young Carolina Anderson it seems that the Government has been moved to respond by addressing the dog control laws and putting some new teeth into the regulations. It was particularly pleasing to receive a call today—and I imagine many members of the Local Government and Environment Committee may have received a call—from John Anderson the father of Carolina who indicated his pleasure with regard to the way that the bill has come out from the select committee. It is always rewarding to be able to make a member of the New Zealand public happy who has gone through such a horrific experience. 
I want to express my appreciation to the officials who helped us through the process and for the excellent chairmanship of the committee by David Parker who took us through the process very efficiently without any roadblocks or delays. It has been good to work on this bill because we have I believe come up with very good legislation and it has been great to see the cooperation in the committee stage. The committee has done a comprehensive job of striking an appropriate balance between public safety and dog owners’ responsibilities. That has included removing some of the more draconian ideas that were contained in the initial Government proposals—for example the fencing requirement that stated there had to be unimpeded access to the front door of a house. That has been abolished in favour of requiring dogs to be made secure on a property. Farmers’ working dogs will be exempt from that requirement. 
The committee also addressed the issue of breed bans. We heard a great deal on that issue from the submitters. While banning the importation of certain breeds such as the Japanese tosa the Brazilian fila and the dogo Argentino is fairly straightforward many submitters considered identifying the American pit bull terrier too problematic in respect of the number of crossbreeds and associated breeds in the country. Hence the amendment by the committee to define the pit bull as a type of dog rather than as a specific breed. The intended effect of that is to make enforcement of the new measures concerning pit bulls less prone to the technicalities with regard to crossbreeds. I believe that we have come up with a reasonable working solution. 
While the committee was still deliberating on this bill I was in Europe and managed to meet with the UK dog legislation people to check out that legislation. We heard a great deal during the select committee submission process about how the UK legislation was not working. I point out to the House that the UK legislation is very very different from what we are introducing here. For a start there is no dog registration at all in the UK and it completely stunned me to learn that. The UK has a ban on the ownership of pit bulls which enables the police there simply to apprehend any pit bull dog or any dog they consider to be a pit bull to remove it and to fine the person who may be the owner of it. We are not taking that measure here; we are not banning the pit bull. We are simply classifying it as a menacing type of dog and giving some power to dog control officers to require the owners of such dogs to muzzle them when they are in public. I do not feel that is too onerous a requirement for those who do love their dogs. We have a German shepherd and would be very disappointed if we had to get rid of it. We understand the sentiment behind many dog owners opposing the breed-specific legislation but I believe we have found a reasonable balance. I received a letter today from the New Zealand Veterinary Association. I believe there is still a lot of misunderstanding about what we achieved in the select committee because the association makes the comment that dogs should be classified as dangerous by their actions rather than on the basis of their breed. Well of course we are not classifying certain breeds as dangerous; we are classifying them as menacing. The requirements are reasonably light I believe. 
We also discussed in the select committee an exemption for those people who take their dogs to dog shows in the weekends whether it be to obedience trials or to dog shows. That is a very common and favourite pastime across New Zealand. If an owner has a dog that has been classified as menacing he or she can have an exemption so as not to have to muzzle it while it is performing or competing in the show. 
As far as United Future is concerned the issue has always been about better enforcement of the existing laws and providing dog control officers with the tools and resources they need to do that. To that end we are pleased that the bill contains a number of positive amendments to the principal Act. I am particularly indebted to the Tauranga District Council’s dog control officer John Payne who has an excellent knowledge of the existing Act and was able to give me some very very helpful guidance as we went through the process of making amendments to the legislation. He has come up with a number of suggestions which I am happy to say have been adopted by the committee and by the officials to improve the existing legislation. Dog control officers have been given increased powers and rights to enter private property in order to apprehend dangerous dogs and impound them. Councils will be audited to ensure that they are applying the law. That is very very important. We have a wide range of compliance across the country and it is important that councils do their part in applying the existing laws and these new laws that will be given to them in the near future. 
Infringement fees have been increased to some extent—in particular the fee regarding non-registration which I want to mention briefly. I believe we will have a discussion in the Committee this week. It is important we do not increase that infringement fee too much or else councils will not enforce it. The problem today is that many councils are not enforcing that fee. They are basically letting people not register their dogs and when they are caught they can then register them. That contributes to the problem rather than providing a solution. 
The probationary category of dog ownership will be retained and that is important. For most dog control officers dog control enforcement is not necessarily about heartlessly locking up people’s dogs if they have been found to be out of control and fining the owners. By and large their approach has been to try to work with dog owners and to educate them so that they can better control their dogs. Many dog control officers report that the probationary dog ownership status is an essential part of the process of producing good dog owners as it can require dog owners to undertake dog education and learn from those who are experienced with dogs. Dog control officers report that there are problems with the surcharge provisions within that probationary category. I hope we may address them in the Committee stage because those problems have often led to dog control officers not using that category which otherwise would be very useful. 
Of course there will always be dangerous dogs out there that need to be taken off the streets and their owners penalised for their disregard for public safety. The bill deals with those sorts of offenders as well. A jail term of up to 3 years or a fine of $20000 is a significant new deterrent to would-be irresponsible owners. However all the new penalties and infringement fees operate after the fact of an attack. They do not stop children receiving injuries and do not stop dangerous dogs attacking people. Preventing attacks will not be successful unless councils get tough on stray dogs and ensure that owners keep their dogs under control in the first place. 
One aspect of that is the establishment of a national database for dogs. It is United Future’s belief that essential to dog control enforcement is the ability of dog control officers to distinguish quickly and accurately between registered dogs with owners and strays. With effective identification through reference to a nationwide database strays can be impounded and the owners of registered dogs can be tracked down and dealt with appropriately. United Future is not presently convinced that the mandatory microchipping of all dogs is necessary for such a database to be effective. It is after all just a method of identification. Although in some cases it will provide a better method than those currently used we are still not fully convinced that the merits of requiring all dogs to be microchipped are there. 
However it is important that we see the establishment of the national database for that is really the key issue. We want to see the Government committed to establishing a standardised nationwide database so that when called upon accurate information about any dog can be retrieved quickly. Our present system of ad hoc local databases is clearly failing us. Presently many local councils do not bother to adequately maintain or update them. They all have different kinds of information on them. I believe that one idea which was not discussed within the committee was that it was not necessary to have mandatory microchipping in order to have that database. We could have a database based upon all the information already contained within councils relating to owners who register their dogs. So a combination of both would be a useful tool for dog control officers to use and we hope to see that advanced through the Committee stage also. 
There are many other amendments that again have been addressed through the help of the submitters. One in particular is concerned with the leashing of all dogs. There was a great deal of concern from submitters that we would mandatorily require all dogs to be leashed at all times in the public arena. We found a sensible compromise there by requiring owners to at least have a leash in hand so that if necessary they may control their dogs. I believe that results in a much better bill and I commend it to the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 7 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill to proceed. 
Name changed to Dog Control Amendment Bill. 
Architects Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Architects Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will be moving that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee to be considered alongside the Building Bill as it represents an integral element of the wider review of the Building Act and the actions we are taking to improve inputs into the building process. Like the Building Bill this bill has been the subject of extensive consultation with affected parties. During the drafting stages officials consulted the Architects Education and Registration Board and the bill reflects that input. 
In my speech in the first reading debate on the Building Bill I said that it was the Government’s view that buildings should be designed and built right the first time. This bill provides for the first element of that—buildings designed right the first time. It repeals the Architects Act and introduces a modern regulatory framework for architects. Competent people lead to competent building design. Both the Hunn committee and the Government Administration Committee inquiry into the weathertightness of buildings in New Zealand identified a need to improve standards in the building industry. This bill makes a number of changes to improve those standards in respect of architects drawing on recent practice in occupational regulation and in particular on the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act. It also fits with the architects’ desire to update their legislation which is now 40 years old. We have worked with the New Zealand Institute of Architects and the Architects Education and Registration Board in the development of this bill. 
Part 1 outlines the commencement of the bill and other preliminary provisions. Part 2 outlines the registration complaints and disciplinary processes and procedures that will apply to architects. A key feature of this part is the introduction of both initial and ongoing competency assessment for architects. The current legislation allows for only the initial competency assessment of architects. At the moment an architect can remain registered indefinitely provided he or she pays the applicable fees and does not act in a manner that may result in removal from the register. The current legislation fails to ensure that initial competency standards are maintained or indeed to recognise the potential for changes in design methods over time to require different competencies from those initially tested. 
Providing people with the information they need to choose competent individuals to undertake building design is also important. The bill does that by continuing to protect the title of architect and by establishing a public register that includes details of disciplinary action taken against an architect over the preceding 3 years. 
Enforcement and sanctions must also be meaningful in order for a regulatory regime to work as intended. The criteria for disciplinary action under the 1963 Act are considered to have set the threshold for action too high to allow the regime to work effectively. The bill establishes new criteria that set out the grounds for disciplinary action. Penalties have not been increased since the 1963 Act came into force. They are outdated and provide little deterrent to offending. The maximum fine for breaches of the Act is $200. The bill increases the maximum fine for breaches to $5000 in line with comparable maximum fines under the Chartered Professional Engineers of New Zealand Act. 
Part 3 of the bill establishes a new board—the New Zealand Architects Registration Board—to replace the existing Architects Education and Registration Board. This part of the bill also modernises the reporting and financial accountability requirements of the registration board its functions and other administrative processes and procedures so that they are in line with current practice for regulating occupational groups. 
The final part of the bill deals with miscellaneous provisions and the transitional arrangements to the new regime. It gives 1 year for the new board to develop rules and regulations governing architects after which the new controls will come into force. 
The bill is an integral element of the wider review of the Building Act and is complementary to the Building Bill which has already been referred to the Government Administration Committee. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I start by stating that the National Party will support the Architects Bill going to the Government Administration Committee. We will be watching it carefully as it proceeds through the select committee with a particular eye on the cost regime it will impose on people who use the services of architects. I say at the outset that I am a person who has on quite a regular basis used the services of architects. I congratulate the people in that profession on their creative ability and I say that over the time that I have observed the building industry New Zealand has made dramatic improvements in design and there are now buildings being created throughout New Zealand that will be seen as remarkable creations in their own right in the years to come. 
We welcome the updating of the legislation which is now 40 years old. We have had considerable problems with leaky buildings throughout New Zealand and in particular those problems have been associated with some designs in Auckland. There is no doubt that it is timely for the Government to take a look at the current regime for the registering of architects. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on taking the opportunity to review legislation that is 40 years old. 
On reading the bill I note that some work has been done on the regulatory impact and compliance cost statement. When I read that I was far from convinced that the legislation would not impose considerable additional costs on the people who use the services of architects. Ultimately those people are the consumers who are building houses up and down New Zealand. As the bill proceeds through the select committee the National Party members on that committee will be watching carefully to make sure that it is not something that imposes excessive costs as a means of ensuring a little more safety around the services of architects—costs that no doubt will be borne by the client of a particular architectural service. 
We will wait with interest as the legislation proceeds through the select committee. We reserve our position as to our long-term support for the legislation depending on the select committee process but we certainly welcome the bill into the House at this stage. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
I am very happy to stand in support of this Government initiative to update our architects legislation. It is much needed after 40 years. We believe the Government Administration Committee will do a good job in terms of a proper review and will perhaps come up with amendments to the legislation that will be warranted. So we are very supportive of the legislation and look forward to the select committee’s deliberations. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Architects Bill continues the registration regime replacing the current 1963 Act. That Act has been around for 40 years and is long overdue for an upgrade but not for a complete upgrade. The most important part of the upgrade in this bill is really to do with the fines: increasing the maximum fine from $200 which was probably quite a lot of money 40 years ago to a figure of $5000. That will probably hit the pocket of an architect who is out of line with the industry and who therefore probably deserves to be hit in that way. 
One of the issues we would like to explore in this bill is that people who are already members of the Institute of Architects and registered under the 1963 Act are to be automatically registered under the new legislation. Although they are deemed to be registered under the new Act they have to re-register prior to 30 June 2007. Existing architects are subject to the new legislation in full from the time it comes into effect on 1 July 2005 but they must re-register. We cannot understand that. Why do they have to re-register even though their registration has rolled over and they are covered by the new legislation? I cannot work out the reason for that provision. When the existing registration of architects is transferred over they fall under the requirements of this new legislation and those requirements provide that they comply with the legislation and the ongoing competency examinations to ensure that they are up to date with changes in design methods so that they know the design methods that are coming through and can identify them and use them in their building designs. 
The idea of re-registration was brought about by the weathertight homes inquiry. During that inquiry it was discovered that there was a wide range of causes of the problem and I would suggest that the competency of architects was not one of the major ones. The problem of leaky homes and what have you was not necessarily the result of ongoing incompetence in the practices of architects. Instead it was a combination of the Building Act a building code that encouraged design innovation and a climate of rapid development and cost cutting combined with the unexpected results of mixing newly introduced materials. Those results were unexpected and I do not believe that any amount of competency examination or ongoing training would have made any difference to the weathertight homes problem. 
After all the Building Industry Authority and the Building Research Association of New Zealand which are both responsible for monitoring testing and approving the use of new materials approved practices such as the mixing of monolithic cladding with untreated timber. Why therefore should any architect having been told that those materials were OK to use together be sceptical of that whether or not he or she had had any additional training? The Building Industry Authority refused to acknowledge that there was a developing problem during that time even though it was presented with examples of the rotting timber and the problems with leaks and also with numerous reports from overseas that confirmed a major problem was developing. I cannot see that the ongoing testing of architects for competency would have made any difference whatsoever in that situation. 
One major requirement we are asking for is that the Government and the select committee consider delaying the full passage of this bill until after the Building Bill has been fully considered and thought through. There are a number of issues within the Building Bill that could well affect this particular bill and I would hate to see the new Architects Bill pushed through the House and all of a sudden we discover after the Building Bill has been completed that this bill is out of step with that new legislation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s why it’s going to the Government Administration Committee so that you can deal with that issue there. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I am pleased the Minister is saying that this bill will go through the Government Administration Committee. I am pleased she is saying that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: Aren’t they rude? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: They are absolutely rude. They bleat all the time do they not? My request is that the House does not complete its consideration of this bill ahead of the Building Bill. The Minister is assuring me that because this bill is to be dealt with by the same select committee that is considering the Building Bill that will not happen. But because we have the Building Bill the building code will subsequently have to be revisited. I would hate to see this bill being superseded rapidly because of a change in the Building Bill and the new building code. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The building code has nothing to do with this bill. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The building code practices have everything to do with this bill. If architects do not understand the building code how can they possibly design a building that will fit in with and measure up to the required building code? The Minister is suggesting that we have a building code that is put around whatever is decided in this bill. The building code should be the measure that decides how people operate and how people build buildings. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: This bill is based on ongoing competency not 1 year’s competency and payment of an annual fee. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister wants to carry on about competency and the annual fee so I will talk about the annual fee and the ongoing competency requirements. 
Those measures will add huge compliance costs because there will be a considerable increase in the requirement for architects to upgrade and update their skills and to prove that they have upgraded their skills on a regular basis so they continue to be qualified for registration as an architect. If they fail to continue to upgrade their skills they will fall foul of this legislation. That is great. That is important but it will cost an awful lot of money. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The architects want this bill. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes the Institute of Architects is pleased that this bill justifies the institute’s existing procedures because it already has an ongoing registration scheme and an ongoing training and competency scheme. But the preamble to the bill suggests that a lot of architects do not belong to the institute. 
I would suggest that most of them do. They are properly qualified. Architects are fully qualified members of the institute and they already have to be registered under the current Act. 
New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the bill. It enables a good registration system for architects and we are particularly pleased that it makes provision under clause 67(1)(c) for a code of minimum standards of ethical conduct for architects. I think that is very important because there is quite a difficult problem in Auckland at the present time which has been highlighted over the last week by the  
New Zealand Herald 
— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have a problem over here. I am sitting right beside Keith Locke and I am having trouble hearing him because the senior Government whip is screaming at the Ministers Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson. I know that you noticed it Madam Speaker and I apologise but it is very hard in the House if they have long-range conversations. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite correct. If members are having conversations then they should be sitting down. I ask the Minister to please sit down while conversing. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I will talk about the code of ethics and its importance given that at the moment Auckland faces the problem of the very rapid development of apartment blocks and units. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 pointed out in a series of articles over the past week some of the buildings are of very poor architectural standard. There will be huge development—at the present time there are 45000 units in Auckland which is estimated to rise to about 500000 units by 2050. We need to accommodate an extra 100 people per day in Auckland so having the right built environment with architects playing the best role in it is very important. We just need to go through the streets of Auckland. I particularly dislike going along upper Symonds Street and seeing little boxes of very poor architectural standard. Throughout Auckland so many apartments are being constructed with poor noise insulation no outlook and often facing directly on to a neighbouring block. They are an eyesore to the community and to people passing by them and are certainly an eyesore for the people who live in them. People get quite depressed if they live in that sort of poorly designed unit and live in such units for many years. It is not good for people’s mental health and well-being.  
It is not just a problem for architects. It is a problem for the community as a whole and particularly for town planning systems. Auckland City and other cities are trying to address these problems. Auckland City has urban design standards but they do not really apply to the suburbs in the way that they should and Auckland City is trying to develop guidelines to rectify this. I think that architects can play a great role if they abide by the code of ethics and develop proper professional standards. They can make sure that the standards put forward by councils are upheld and implemented by architects and work in with the community. Architects can be models for working with the community. Around Auckland different communities are trying to insist on proper community design standards to protect existing heritage buildings etc. With this registration system and with architects being more organised on the basis of a code of ethics hopefully we can redress some of the problems. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
outlines exactly how it works. The problem is often that in designing apartments today the best architects—the ones who would insist on higher architectural standards—are not getting the work because developers come along and ask how they can build something the most cheaply sell it on and make the greatest profit for the smallest amount of expenditure. It is explained in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that if developers want to build 145 cheap apartments they will find an architect who will do it. The problem is that there are architects around who are not the best or are not quality architects who take this work and build these very bad apartments. I think that this bill will help rectify that situation so the Green Party will support it to the select committee. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is interested in this bill and we will support it to the select committee for its consideration. This does not mean that we will support the bill at the end of that consideration but we are certainly interested in what the public has to say. I was very interested in my colleague Keith Locke’s comments and I just wish that David Benson-Pope would cheer up and concentrate on what is going on in the House instead of being a snarling miserable member of the Government. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports the bill at the first reading as we are keen to allow the select committee to review the legislation. United Future understands the purpose of the bill but there are some important features that elicit concern. I will elaborate on the specifics of those concerns as I progress. Allow me to enlarge on what United Future sees as the intent of the bill. The public policy objectives are firstly to ensure adequate consumer protection; secondly to build a framework of regulations that is both effective and efficient; thirdly to ensure the proficiency of all who undertake work as registered architects; and fourthly to improve confidence in the building industry. Few could argue that these interrelated objectives are without merit and as such I support the policy rationale behind the bill. 
A common thread running through the public policy objectives is the continued statutory protection of the title of “architect”. The saying that it takes only one bad apple to spoil a barrel can be applied to many professional fields of employment. I do understand that good cannot affect bad and that only bad can affect good. Put the good apple in a bowl of bad apples and it is the good apple that changes not the bad apple. 
Simon Power 
: Can you just hand the notes out? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Power that one cannot legislate the human heart but we can build a nation that rewards excellence and stands against crime corruption and shoddy practices. United Future believes that we should remove the bad apples and encourage the growth of good apples. Let us look at the architecture industry. It is feasible particularly in a country the size of New Zealand that architects who fail to properly exercise their respective professional responsibilities will to some degree tarnish the good name of their profession. The application of a more modern stricter regulatory framework will mean that any bad apples will be dealt with before the barrel goes to market. However we might ask whether this is the most operative mechanism by which to ensure that standards are maintained for the benefit of architects and consumers alike. I believe that the bill has that potential. 
Let us look at the new requirements for ongoing technical competency testing. This would provide many benefits. It will be a measurement of best practice. It will ensure that architects tentatively maintain levels of technical proficiency. It will allow consumers to gain from the proficiency of those professionals truly dedicated to their industry its good name and their individual reputations. 
Architecture strikes me as a robust and innovative industry where boundaries are pushed and novel ideas are put into practice. It also strikes me as an industry that requires a solid bedrock of fundamental knowledge by all of its members. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to thank you to Rodney Hide; it is very encouraging. We should ensure that those who wish to work as architects are compliant with this core knowledge throughout their careers. The introduction of ongoing competency testing should accomplish this yet I believe we should be mindful not to over-regulate in a manner that would stifle innovation and suppress imagination. We should be mindful that an architect’s desire to pursue roads not yet taken is to be encouraged and does not need to be held back under the weight of regulatory compliance. In a nutshell we should be mindful that architects are not whistled out of the game that they should excel in. 
 Life I have found is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away. Great architecture can produce such a moment and should be encouraged. Let me be clear that I understand the need to introduce a modern regulatory framework. It is past due and the Architects Act needs to be repealed. However I have concerns with the new regulatory framework with regard to issues of compliance costs and issues of public disclosure. With increased regulations comes the inclination to increase compliance costs. Although the bill modernises the regulatory framework it does necessitate an increase in regulatory costs. Architecture will have to shoulder that yet ultimately it will be the consumer who will no doubt pay the price for increased compliance costs. It is highly likely that those increased costs will be passed down to the consumer. 
Another key area of concern—and this does really concern me—involves public disclosure. Allow me to draw attention to clause 19 of this bill. This clause allows for public access to a register of architects who have breached regulations and been censured within 3 years of the offence. I applaud both the concept of a code of ethics by which industry members are bound and the revamping of the disciplinary process. But let me add a caveat. It concerns the public disclosure of disciplined architects. We certainly do not discourage greater transparency with particular regard to episodes of gross negligence. This is most certainly not a list an architect would want to end up on. It could be mortally damaging to his or her career. 
Given the seriousness of being included in this register of shame I believe that there should be discretionary aspects in deciding who is included on the register of shame. Let me illustrate this by asking whether it is just for an architect who commits a minor breach of regulations and who is consequently disciplined to be painted with the same brush as an architect who commits a flagrant breach of the regulations and is clearly grossly negligent in duty. Absolutely not! More thought should be given to the nature of the conduct breaches. It is unfair for an architect guilty of late payment of fees to be grouped with someone who endangers life through gross negligence. The weight of these very different breaches is clearly uneven and should be taken into account when deciding on who should be included in a register open to public inspection. 
An appearance on this register would toll the death knell for an architects’ career. The decision to include a person on the register should take into account the substance of the offence. I hope that the select committee will consider these concerns. They need to be addressed in light of the far-reaching consequences for architects and consumers alike. 
Quite clearly the Architects Act should be dispatched to antiquity. It is outmoded and out of step with modern occupational regulations. The policy objectives of the bill are creditable and cannot in all logic be contested. However to make the bill truly beneficial to architects and consumers alike the aforementioned issues of compliance costs and public disclosure need to be addressed. Therefore in light of these provisions United Future will lend support to the Architects Bill being referred to the select committee. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee. 
Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will propose that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. This bill contains legislation needed for New Zealand to become a party to the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries which entered into force in 2001. The bill establishes new criminal offences for activities involving mercenaries that are not currently punishable under New Zealand law. 
The use of mercenaries in armed conflicts is an age-old phenomenon. In recent decades however the international community has tried to curb this practice. These attempts reflected growing concern that the use of foreign mercenary forces could impede the exercise of the right to self-determination and violate the fundamental rights of individuals including the right to life. New Zealand has long opposed the use of mercenaries. 
The involvement of mercenaries as an additional party to a conflict impedes peaceful resolution of that conflict. During the Bougainville crisis for example the Papua New Guinea Government considered the use of foreign military personnel. New Zealand opposed this arguing that the crisis would be resolved only through a comprehensive peace process. The mercenaries in the end were withdrawn and the ensuing peace process did prove successful. 
By passing this bill and becoming a party to the convention New Zealand will demonstrate its belief that the use of mercenaries is unacceptable as a method of conflict resolution and that this issue needs to be tackled at the international level. The convention identifies particular conduct involving mercenaries that should be proscribed. This includes the conduct of the mercenaries themselves and those who recruit use finance or train them. The convention also includes measures aimed at increasing international cooperation so that individuals who commit the specified acts can be brought to justice. 
The bill’s definition of “mercenary” reflects the definition in the convention. It encompasses two types of mercenary both of whom have the objective of making a profit from participating in conflict. The first type is a person who is recruited to fight in a foreign armed conflict. This definition is based on a provision in the first protocol to the Geneva conventions. In this context the monetary incentive must be measurable with the person being paid substantially more than members of the armed forces of the parties to the conflict for corresponding duties. The second type of mercenary is a person who is recruited to participate in a concerted act of violence in another country—for example an act aimed at overthrowing the Government. Again the person’s main objective in performing the act must be to make a significant financial gain. 
The definition of “mercenary” is not intended to catch those persons who join foreign armies on the same basis as locally recruited staff or those persons who are motivated to fight overseas by personally held convictions rather than profit. The definition would not catch New Zealanders recruited into the legitimate armed forces of other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Nor would it encompass those working overseas for companies or non-governmental organisations in security related activities as long as those activities do not include fighting in a civil conflict. 
These definitions reflect the international consensus on those who clearly should be regarded as mercenaries. There are however calls for the definition to be extended to reflect current realities including the increasing involvement of mercenaries in criminal activities such as illicit trafficking including arms and drugs and even selective assassinations. Extending the scope of the convention has been the subject of recent recommendations by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Mercenaries. However in this bill the definition of a mercenary remains as currently described in the convention. 
The bill creates five new offences each with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The approach taken is to model the new offences on similar existing offences where possible. For example the offences relating to recruitment and financing are similar to those in the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. The bill also creates two offences relating to the training of mercenaries as a precondition to or after recruitment. The bill aims to catch those who intentionally train people to be mercenaries in order that they can sell their fighting skills to other countries for profit. It does not therefore cover those in the New Zealand armed forces who train our troops or who as part of their duties go overseas to assist with the training of the armed forces of other countries. It would also not catch ex - New Zealand soldiers who assist with upskilling the armed forces of a particular country. What is caught however is the situation where those being trained are part of an army for hire prepared to go anywhere or fight in any war or overthrow any Government for money. 
Extraterritorial jurisdiction is taken in certain circumstances—for example allowing prosecutions of New Zealand nationals or of others alleged to have committed a convention offence who are found in New Zealand but for some reason are not extradited. Other provisions include those relating to cooperation with other States in their criminal investigations and proceedings and are similar to those in the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
These new offences will discourage the use of New Zealand as a base for mercenary activities. The broad jurisdiction allowing prosecution here for acts done overseas will help ensure that mercenaries do not regard New Zealand as a safe haven. The bill will put New Zealanders on notice that they cannot under our law agree to be recruited to fight and kill simply because it is lucrative to do so. This bill therefore reaffirms New Zealand’s long-standing position that it does not condone the use of mercenaries. I commend this bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 National intends to support this bill to the select committee but we will be watching its passage through that committee with some interest. My understanding is that there are some reasonably significant Western nations that are not party to this convention and it will be an interesting process to compare those countries’ views on the applicability of a piece of legislation such as this with the bill that will probably now proceed to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Whilst the bill will implement the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries—the Mercenaries Convention—there are questions to be asked about extraterritorial jurisdiction. In particular questions need to be asked about the way that this convention would impact on the domestic law of New Zealand and how that compares with other countries such as the US Australia the UK and Canada which I understand are not implementing this particular convention. So whilst the National Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee it will at the same time reserve the right to look closely during its passage at the matters I have just raised. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. My colleague the member for Roskill has already spoken about the reasons why the Government has brought this bill through. Just last Wednesday I returned to New Zealand after spending 6 days in the Solomon Islands. While there I saw what ethnic conflict and the militarisation of gang warfare can mean in a community. We live in a Pacific that has some tensions and hotspots. Papua New Guinea is another country in our region that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has spoken about and where mercenaries have been an issue. 
New Zealand has a proud record in international relations in supporting the UN and in being party to conventions to deal with a range of issues—from disarmament to preventing nuclear proliferation and mercenary activity. It is very important that this country be a powerful voice in the world community speaking out against the recruitment of individuals as mercenaries and the fuelling of conflict that can happen even in our region. I strongly support this bill. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will not be supporting the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill. From the practical military experiences of our caucus—not shared by other caucuses—New Zealand First believes that this bill is not well considered. In fact under this bill’s definition a member of our caucus would have been a mercenary. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Nonsense! 
JIM PETERS 
: It is quite true—he would have been a mercenary. This bill is merely a belated attempt to try to catch up with and become part of the international politically correct community. It does not accept that mercenaries have been and still are a legitimate part of armed conflict worldwide. It is not our intention to support an ill-considered attempt to merit international favour at the cost of a long tradition that many of our ex-soldiers have been a party to. 
If I had to go to the select committee I could quote people who in other years have been part of other armed forces who have worked in the best interests of a country and have maintained stability for Governments abroad. In this country those people would be considered liable under this bill and fined or convicted for up to 14 years. That really is a nonsense. This bill is a quick attempt to become part of the international politically correct community. 
My colleague who has just arrived in the Chamber will speak further on the matter. New Zealand First does not support this bill for the reasons I have given and which will be outlined further. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 It is good to hear Mr Peters speaking up. The ACT party too will not be supporting this bill. It is a bit rich that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Mr Phil Goff is sponsoring this bill and talking about all the damage that mercenaries do around the world when he is a man who was quite happy to go to the bunker with Yasser Arafat cuddle up to him hold his hand and present a smiling face to the world then have the—well one cannot say it can one? 
Simon Power 
: The temerity. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He has the temerity to come back to New Zealand climb on his little soapbox and say: “Here is what New Zealand is going to do to sign up to an international convention.” Are the leading First World nations signing up to this I ask Mr Power? I do not think so. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What about Italy and Belgium for instance? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What about the United States and the UK? They always run off to their mates. So we say “No” and we say “Shame on Mr Phil Goff.” who is quite happy to be photographed with international terrorists then come down here and climb on his high horse. The ACT party is against this bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It is about time that this Government took action in this way because there has been a very serious problem with mercenaries around the world for many years particularly in Africa where the operations of mercenaries have caused political crises and undermined the ability of the peoples of those countries to determine their own future in a proper manner. We can go back to the early 1960s when the mercenaries were very involved in the Congo leading to the overthrow of the Lumumba Government and for many years to great chaos and death particularly in eastern Congo which has not really recovered since. There is ongoing violence in the eastern Congo today and I think that the actions of the mercenaries 40 years ago contributed to that situation. 
There are a number of mercenary organisations around the world one of the two best known perhaps being Executive Outcomes based on South African military officers who served the apartheid regime in South Africa for many years and then engaged in mercenary activities as the apartheid regime went down. Another firm Sandline International is notorious for its activities firstly in Africa. It is led by a chap called Tim Spicer. I have just been reading an article on him and he does not like the term “mercenary”; he prefers the term “contract soldier”. I think that would also fit the definition of “mercenary” in this bill—somebody whose primary purpose is private gain. I think that would fit contract soldiers. 
Not only did Sandline International develop its operations in Africa and cause havoc and distress there in its pursuit of money using its military capability; it then moved into our region in the 1990s into Papua New Guinea. Its activities there caused a military coup when the army got upset about the Government of the day hiring Sandline to move into Bougainville to take charge there and smash militarily its independence movement. 
 We all know that the proper solution to that problem in Bougainville was a peaceful one. New Zealand to its great credit initiated the peace process there and we did that by bringing all the parties for a start to Burnham military camp getting them sitting down and talking to each other and out of that evolved a very successful peace process. The very people whom Sandline International was brought in to smash like Joseph Kabui are now the leaders in Bougainville in a very peaceful situation. It is great credit to New Zealand that it went down that track as opposed to the mercenary track that others were promoting. 
We have had problems in New Zealand with mercenaries that perhaps this bill would cover. I remember back to 1989 when there were advertisements in the New Zealand newspapers—the Christchurch  
Press  
is an example I think it was in July 1989—by the Papua New Guinea Government for New Zealand helicopter pilots to fly helicopters on service in Bougainville for the Papua New Guinea army. I complained at the time but there was no avenue for rectifying that complaint. In fact New Zealand pilots were hired much to the discredit of New Zealand because there were rumours about very bad things done in those helicopters including throwing people out of those helicopters while they were on operational missions—that is people who had been captured in Bougainville. New Zealand was associated with that; there is no definite proof that a New Zealand pilot was flying the helicopter at the time that someone was thrown out of the window but there were helicopters flown by New Zealanders in Bougainville for Papua New Guinea for money at that time. They would be defined as mercenaries under this bill and rightly so. 
Also we have a case of a chap called Alen Robbie who was working for a group in Auckland called Group 4 Security Ltd back in the late 1990s and he was recruiting for Sandline International. That was a very bad thing. Again at the time I complained to the Minister who has presented this bill but there was no redress at the time that a New Zealander in Auckland was involved in recruiting for Sandline International. This bill will help deal with that particular problem too. 
The definition in the bill is very appropriate: that is that one has to have the primary purpose of private gain but some companies around the world do fit into a bit of a grey area in this respect. Some of them are American companies which may have something to do with why some Governments that other speakers referred to have not gone along with this international approach of putting a ban on mercenaries. 
We have companies like Military Professional Resources Inc. that have been involved in what we might call training but it is a bit more than training in places like Croatia. This group was very much involved in training Croatian soldiers prior to enduring the Kryena campaign back in the 1990s where the Croatian Government in those areas that had a lot of Serb civilians in them launched a big operation and hundreds of civilians were killed and some 170000 people were driven from their homes. There has been a lot of concern about that operation ever since. 
As an article in the  
Nation 
 magazine indicates there is a sort of grey area here between what is training and what is participating in a war. As Phil Goff pointed out the definition is that one has to actually participate in a war. This article says that in a sense whether Military Professional Resources Inc. directed the campaign is secondary: “Once you provide training there is no way to control the way the skills you have taught are used.” said Loren Thompson a military specialist at the conservative Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. Given Croatia’s record he thought that training that Military Professional Resources Inc. did in that case could have helped prosecute that slaughter of many innocent people and the evacuation of 170000 people from their homes. Technically while training is not covered under this bill and there is an exemption as Phil Goff pointed out for agencies that are involved just in security operations there is a bit of a grey area there so that in practice we might find it difficult to work out where the start and finish point is in terms of whether a person or group is mercenary in practice. That is something we will work together on within the international community. It is good that New Zealand in this bill is being a good international citizen working with others around the world to get rid of the scourge of mercenaries of people who for money go around killing other people. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended Answer to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation just to clarify a change of name that I included in response to a question today. In response to a question from the Hon Peter Dunne I just referred to the name of Chris Clarke as chief executive officer of private hospitals; it is in fact Andrew Blair. Mr Chris Clarke whom I referred to later on in the answer is the chief executive officer of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I do not have the detailed knowledge of international conspiracies that the member who preceded me has nor do I have the same interest in the subject but the issue that the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill deals with is an important one and for that reason because it is giving effect to an international convention signed in 1989 United Future will support it going to the select committee. But I want to give notice of two or three issues that we will be keen to pursue at that committee because I think they do need clarification in terms of the future of this bill. First the bill and I think also to a slightly less confused extent the original convention refer to individuals to persons who act as recruiters to persons who train to persons who do various sorts of things. Yet as Mr Locke pointed out there are a number of organisations that these persons operate on behalf of. It strikes me on the face of it a little odd that we create an offence for persons who recruit train or do whatever with mercenaries but in effect we do not have any sanction on the organisations that employ them. I would have been interested to explore—had the Minister been here—by way of a question that issue with him as to what the rationale is for the emphasis on individuals rather than the organisations that employ them. That is something we can pursue further at the select committee. 
Next I notice that in the bill itself there is reference in Part 3 to a number of actions that the Attorney-General has to take in terms of determining whether New Zealand has jurisdiction whether consent to prosecutions ought to be given whether the outcome of those prosecutions ought to be communicated to any persons. While I do not have any particular problem with those sections it does strike me as a little strange given the nature of the bill and what it deals with that there is no reference within it to whether it is in conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act particularly in terms of the rights of freedom of association and other things that are enshrined in that legislation. 
I find it strange for this reason: over the last year the Attorney-General has made a particular point of obtaining the advice of the Crown Law Office on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and making that advice publicly available. We have done it on things like the Kyoto Protocol and the counter-terrorism legislation. Now we have a bill that potentially affects the rights of perhaps a small number of people who might be involved in the mercenary industry if I can call it that. It deals with the question of both jurisdiction within New Zealand and clause 13 also covers extraterritoriality yet at the same time it makes no comment at all about the rights that those people who are its target have under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am curious as to why that omission is there. 
Certainly the original convention makes no reference in that regard. One would not expect it to. However I would have thought that a Government legislating to give effect to a convention of this type would want to ensure that the rights of its own citizens were protected to the greatest extent possible notwithstanding the evil that they were seeking to outlaw. For that reason I am genuinely surprised that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seems to have escaped mention altogether. There may be good reasons for it. I had hoped as I said earlier that the Minister would have been here and by way of interjection I would have sought an answer from him on that point. 
It seems to me to be odd that we set up some very clear definitions of what we would regard in this legislation as now illegal in terms of recruiting someone to be a mercenary in terms of using mercenaries financing mercenaries training prospective mercenaries or training any mercenaries in terms of the way in which those people might participate in hostilities or any concerted act of violence etc etc without putting any presumption on their part of what their rights might be and how they might be protected. I think that is an important issue particularly when we are to make it possible for people to be extradited to New Zealand to face charges under this legislation—if they ever eventuate—and where we are putting some pretty severe penalties in place for an activity that by this legislation we regard as highly undesirable. 
With those few thoughts I am happy to see the bill go to the select committee. I assume it will go to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee although to my knowledge the Minister did not indicate that in his speech. I am sure the committee will want to give consideration to the issue in some detail. I do not think one should view this as a necessary extension of the counter-terrorism legislation that the House has been dealing with recently although it is tempting to see the juxtaposition of the two events as more than coincidental. However I think the two are quite separate events but one might have a wry smile about the timing. 
As I said this gives effect to an international convention that has been around since 1989. One is a wee bit surprised that New Zealand has taken 14 years to get to the point of bringing legislation to the House but having done so we ought to consider it and consider it properly. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution by reading from the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 the definition of the word mercenary—and this is the definition not the Government’s or some United Nations definition. It states: “Working merely for money or other reward. Hired soldier in foreign service.” The problem with that definition is that it does not fit Mr Locke’s or Mr Goff’s view of a mercenary. They see mercenaries as being characters with no heart cold-blooded killers with red bandannas around their heads—giving that communist flavour that Mr Locke tends to prefer to democracy—wearing belts of ammunition and out there bayoneting babies. That seems to be their view of a mercenary. By the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 definition a mercenary is not one of those characters. Indeed I was a contract officer—as are and were many New Zealanders. To give this Government a bit of a steer I refer it to the Christchurch  
Press 
 of Monday 3 November. It has quite a substantive article on soldiers for hire. 
Whilst Mr Locke may care to have his view I point out to him that many people around the world have for years generations and decades given foreign service on behalf of another country—as the honourable member across from me Ashraf Choudhary will know. Pakistanis Baluchistanis Indians and Sri Lankans have all soldiered for money. The Queen’s Ghurkas who were based in Hong Kong for generations are the most famous mercenaries we could ever think of. Suddenly this left-wing socialist Government has now decreed them to be dishonourable people. I remind the Government that they are people to whom it continually looks to for the preservation of its freedom. 
The Sultanate of Oman where I worked and soldiered for 5 years as a contract officer was protected and defended by Indians Baluchistanis and Iranians. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about the Pope? 
RON MARK 
: The Pope has his own private mercenary army. But suddenly today because someone wants to sign up to a further tinpot chicken-something agreement dreamt up by a bunch of left-wing loonies in the United Nations we are to move legislation to outlaw those honourable people. Members should stop and think for a moment. Currently there are people in New Zealand recruiting from our police. Right now our police could be off to Iraq earning $1000 a day. Are they the people the Government is trying to target? Is that considered mercenarial? 
Under the definitions described in this piece of paper it is all about money. What I read in this bill is that if Mr Locke—God please let it happen—and Mr Donald were suddenly to get on their ideological high horses put on green uniforms and fight for genetic engineering and do it for nothing they would be OK. They can go out and bomb and kill put “necklaces” around people’s necks—like the African National Congress did—and set fire to innocent women and children but because they are doing it for no monetary gain that is OK. 
Under this legislation the moment people get paid they are mercenaries and that is illegal. The legislation states that if people are getting paid more than the locals for doing the same job then that makes them mercenaries. We have a lot of New Zealanders serving out there in Iraq clearing mines. Are we saying that they will do it for the same amount of money that an Iraqi gets paid? How stupid! They have families back here and New Zealand cost-of-living standards to meet. They are doing a brilliant job clearing mines and making life safe for other people and this Government thinks they should hire out their services for the same rate of pay as an Iraqi. That is daft dumb and stupid. It does not even make sense. 
What about people like Alan Johnson who was working for the World Food Programme and was in the building that was bombed in Iraq? Is he a mercenary? Maybe not but many of the companies that hire people like Alan Johnson—a friend of mine—are also hiring people for private jobs. Be it protecting an oil rig or protecting a vessel sailing through Indonesian waters from pirates or providing people to kill poachers in Kenya the same companies are hiring “contract” military people. I am not satisfied that these definitions do not capture all of those people. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate for Mr Locke to fight and kill people for ideological reasons because he does everything for love and does not want to be paid yet if I want to do the same thing for the same side and demand to get paid for it I am a mercenary. 
We really need to think our way through this. Why is it that the British Government—the Tony Blair Labour-led Government—has seen the value in such practices to the point where it has produced green papers. It knows that it has companies like the Armour Group DSL and other companies out there like Saladdin. What about John Tamihere’s former business associates? John Tamihere who is the chief executive officer of the Waipareira Trust was a shareholder in a company that hired soldiers to snatch a businessman out of Indonesia. 
Rodney Hide 
: With guns! 
RON MARK 
: Yes with guns. Was that not a mercenarial action? What about this Government sitting here passing pious pieces of legislation like this whilst it condones Sandline’s entry back in Papua New Guinea? Sandline is currently operating alongside New Zealand and Australian operatives doing work that it has always done. Suddenly such activities are not acceptable yet we know it is happening. The questions are: what is legitimate work advanced in the interests of a free democratic world? What is legitimate work that is for our benefit? What is work that we do not necessarily want to talk about because we have allowed other people to do something that we know is an extension of our foreign policy? 
The Brits God bless their cotton socks are far better at understanding this than anybody else. They have been doing it for decades. But oh no not us—we will sign up to a politically correct treaty from somewhere in the bowels of the United Nations. We will pass this touchy-feely feel-good legislation. We will go out of here and pat ourselves on the back but it does not mean anything. What it does do is turn a whole lot of New Zealanders who have done damn good work into criminals. What about the New Zealand military nurses who were contracted to go into the Middle East? Who was opposing them? It was East Germany. You know the sort of people that Mr Locke and the Green Party support—people who wanted to advance the ideological cause of communism all over the world and do it for a pittance but kill and maim none the less. 
New Zealand nurses Army officers and pilots served throughout the Middle East against people like that and with one stroke of the pen this Government—whose Cabinet contains a member who has hired mercenaries—says it should no longer happen. That is ludicrous; it does not even make sense. Mr Locke and the Green Party riled against the Counter-Terrorism Bill saying that the Government was using terrorism as an excuse to ramrod through changes that breached people’s rights and civil liberties. I would have thought they would have said: “Here is another piece of legislation that Mr Goff has just said is justifiable that also breaches civil liberties.” 
Actually it has nothing to do with it. Most of the people who are employed in this industry by British and American companies are out there working hand in hand side by side with American and British servicemen and women with the full knowledge and support of the British Government the American Government and even those they do not want to acknowledge them. Take the Mujahadeen. Who was over there fighting the Mujahadeen in the interests of the British? The SAS were. Who did they have working alongside them? They had hired ex-soldiers; people we now call mercenaries. In fact they were contract officers plying their trade legitimately—a trade learned and appropriately applied. 
I know full well who the Government wants to target in legislation like this but let us get it right because the definition here is so broad. The bill contains so much ignorance that it is not worth reading because it captures the wrong people. If the Government wants to get New Zealand First support there will have to be a heck of a lot of amendments to this bill. Quite frankly I think we have more important things to spend our time on in this House than a piece of legislation like this. It should simply be dumped off the agenda. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Commissioner for Children Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commissioner for Children Bill be now read a second time 
. Before I get into my notes can I just mark the fact that the time that it has taken for this bill to move through the House means that we have seen the departure of one Commissioner for Children. I want to thank him for his outstanding service in the time that he was in this job and to welcome into the role Cindy Kiro who is now the Commissioner for Children and who I think has already probably in the eyes of everybody in the House begun to stamp a very independent position for herself as well. 
The Commissioner for Children Bill re-enacts the commissioner’s functions as set out in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act with enhancements that are consistent with the commissioner’s primary role as an advocate for children. The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the provisions relating to the commissioner in a new separate statute with explicit statutory powers. The bill also changes the commissioner’s current investigative function so that the commissioner can investigate any decision or recommendation made or act done or omitted in respect of a child. This means that the investigative function is not limited to decisions made under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. 
The bill provides the commissioner with additional statutory functions and explicit powers to give better effect to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is one of the United Nations’ core human rights instruments. It has 54 articles that set out a wide range of agreed rights to protect the entitlements and freedoms of children. New Zealand is required to report on progress in implementing its principles every 5 years. The convention is included as a schedule of the bill for information and reference purposes in order to increase the general knowledge and understanding of the convention within New Zealand and to reinforce this Government’s commitment to that convention. Through this bill the commissioner is given a major role in raising awareness of the convention and in encouraging others to apply it in their work. In this way the bill is contributing to endeavours by New Zealand to strengthen the observance and implementation of the convention’s principles with regard to the protection of children’s interests rights and welfare. 
There has been widespread support for this bill in the House. A member’s bill sponsored by John Wright MP of the Alliance was introduced during 1999. On 25 May 2000 the Social Services Committee presented its interim report on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Children Bill with the intention that the interim report would serve to inform the drafting process for this Government-sponsored bill. This bill goes much further and provides the commissioner with new functions that include promoting the establishment of accessible and effective complaints mechanisms for children and monitoring the nature and level of complaints; acting as an advocate for children’s interests rights and welfare generally; promoting children’s participation and following an approach that gives due weight to their views; consulting children; presenting reports to any court or tribunal; and reporting to the Prime Minister on matters affecting children’s rights. In short this bill is evidence of this Government giving practical effect to its stated commitment to children and to making life better for them in this country. 
The Social Services Committee received 23 submissions on the bill. As a result of the submissions received and the Social Services Committee’s own deliberations it has recommended a number of changes to the bill all of which are supported. These changes strengthen and clarify the intent of the bill. There are three changes that I would like to mention. 
A change that the Social Services Committee recommended which I support is a change to the title “Commissioner for Children”. It has been changed to “Children’s Commissioner” and the title of the bill changed to “Children’s Commissioner Bill”. I would like to emphasise that the change to the title of the commissioner is quite significant and is no mere semantic. It gives the effect of placing greater emphasis on children as opposed to the commissioner. In addition it better conveys the notion that the commissioner is representative of all children and moves away from the notion of children being objects of concern who are dependent on the commissioner’s protection. The amendment brings the name into line with those of other statutory office holders such as the Human Rights Commissioner the Retirement Commissioner and the Health and Disabilities Commissioner. 
Another change that the Social Services Committee recommended is the insertion of a new provision in the bill that requires that the responsible Minister advertise the vacancy or prospective vacancy of the Children’s Commissioner in a manner that would enable suitably qualified individuals to apply for the appointment. A further amendment calls for the responsible Minister to have regard for the desirability of consulting organisations or persons who have a special interest in the functions of the commissioner including organisations representing children and children themselves. Overall the comments in the submissions called for a more transparent process for the appointment of the commissioner. I fully support this change and consider that it will further strengthen the perceived independence of the Children’s Commissioner and the functions and powers of the office. 
Finally the Social Services Committee recommended the insertion of a new clause in the bill that requires the commissioner to develop means of consulting children. The Social Services Committee considered that in a bill focusing on welfare rights and the interests of children there should be provision for avenues through which children can contribute their own perspectives and concerns on an ongoing basis. This is in keeping with articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which require children to be heard in decisions affecting them and to be accorded the right to freedom of expression. 
I once again want just to note Cindy Kiro’s appointment in August as the fourth Commissioner for Children. She brings to this role her extensive public management and child advocacy experience excellent academic qualifications and a strong working knowledge of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act children’s rights and New Zealand’s UN obligations. She is the ideal commissioner to undertake the responsibilities inherent in this bill. 
 I thank those organisations and members of the public who made submissions on the bill. I also thank the Social Services Committee for its work and the considered changes that have been recommended. The changes made by that committee further enhance the intent and value that underpin this Government’s commitment to the well-being of children. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 First it is not before time that this bill has come back in the House. The first reading was on 10 October 2001 so there seems to have been a long period of time between the first reading and getting the bill back to the House today. 
I have to say the Minister has probably chosen the wrong time to bring this bill back to the House. It is somewhat ironic that we are talking about the welfare of children advocacy for children and the Commissioner for Children in a week where the main debate has been about the whole Department of Child Youth and Family Services—a department that is very much in crisis. We have seen the department this week try to rebut many of the criticisms that were brought up in the  
First Principles Baseline Review 
. We have heard of a department that is having difficulty in both keeping staff and attracting new staff; a department that is finding it extremely difficult to protect those children who are the most vulnerable in this country; and of course a department that has been unable to keep its chief executive who resigned this week. 
It is important that the Commissioner for Children is able to maintain the important advocacy role he or she has in this country. But I do think that when many people first supported the establishment of a Commissioner for Children they did not believe that the No. 1 group for which the Commissioner for Children would advocate would end up being children under the care of the State. It is an alarming fact that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services does not know how many kids are in its care today. It is an alarming fact that the department is not aware of whether children in its care are in school or enrolled at a school. We have seen a rapid increase in notifications and in the length of stay of kids in care. Those are the sorts of issues that I am sure the Commissioner for Children will turn her mind to over the next few months of her tenure. 
It is important to recognise the work done by the Hon Roger McClay in his position as the Commissioner for Children. He was a very tireless worker for children and a very enthusiastic advocate for a wide range of children’s issues. I think Dr Cindy Kiro should be very much welcomed into the role. After her appointment I sourced and read most of the papers she had published. Although I did not agree with some of the content particularly her blaming the 1990s for everything that has gone wrong with children I do very much respect the vast amount of work she did before coming to this particular role. 
It seems that this bill is very much a diluted version of that presented by John Wright of the Alliance party. He wanted to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament and that was debated to and fro in the select committee. Interestingly if one looks at the 1999 Labour Party election policy one sees that it states very clearly that one of its key goals is to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament in order to ensure complete independence. Labour has not done that with this bill. It has failed to keep an election promise which was to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament. What it has presented today is very much a diluted version of what the original intention was. It is important though that the Commissioner for Children does maintain his or her independence. Some of the provisions in the bill will strengthen that role although they will not give the commissioner absolute independence which was the original intention of both the Alliance and the Labour Party before they got into office. 
If members look at what the bill aims to bring they will see that yes there are some provisions for increased consultation with children. That is quite an important step forward. But I do hope there is a realistic approach to that consultation because sometimes children are unable to judge what is best for them. I shall give one example. If I asked my son what he would like for dinner every night his first answer would be lollies. Quite clearly although the views of younger New Zealand citizens are important we need to take into account the fact that some of them are not able to judge all the time exactly what is best for them. There is also the pressure of decision making. Sometimes I think that with regard to the Family Court if we continually ask very young children which parent they want to go with or to make high-pressured decisions about their lives that can be to their detriment. 
The bill also establishes a deputy commissioner and that is quite an important addition to the Office of the Commissioner for Children. Quite often the commissioner travels overseas. There were occasions when the previous commissioner was not present and there was nobody able to represent him when he was away. I think having a deputy commissioner is a step forward and provides another option for the office when that situation arises. 
One enhancement in the bill that I very much support is the idea that the commissioner can now present evidence and reports in a tribunal or a court. There have been situations where the commissioner has been hamstrung in his or her advocacy role because he or she has been unable to do that. We can make use of the fact that the commissioner is able to investigate a wide range of very complex children’s issues. Sometimes the information that is gathered that expertise is useful in other arenas and the commissioner should be able to do that. 
Quite clearly the role of the Commissioner for Children is to be a very strong advocate for children. One of the ways that the commissioner has been very successful in previous years is that he has been able to pick up individual cases and create a high profile for the various causes that he has tried to publicise. Members should look at the James Whakaruru report. That report was very important and drew the whole country’s attention to the issue of child abuse. It is a shame there has been a delay in receiving further reports from the commissioner’s office. We have been waiting for the Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson report since February when the Commissioner for Children first said he would release it. Once again the report will be released at a time when the Commissioner for Children has changed the chief executive has changed and the Minister in charge of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has changed as well. This gives the opportunity for the Government to deflect attention away from what I am sure will be a very damning report about the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Of course the people left to pick up the pieces and present the views will be able to put up their hands and say they had nothing to do with it. That is a shame. The country has been waiting for some answers in that particular case. 
The Commissioner for Children is an advocate who should be very much supported by the community. As a result of the good work done by previous commissioners it is now a role that is very well known throughout New Zealand by the New Zealand public. It is a shame that Labour has diluted its original intention and is now unable to keep its 1999 election promise to make the Commissioner for Children an Officer of Parliament to ensure his or her complete independence. But in terms of what has been presented today the National Party will be supporting this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I am amazed at the line from the Opposition spokeswoman especially as this is way beyond 1999. It is 2003 and Labour is in coalition with United Future which is delighted with this Commissioner for Children Bill and has also supported its stand-alone position. The bill also strengthens the role of the Commissioner for Children. 
There is another very salutary aspect of this bill and that is the position in terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This bill will explicitly strengthen the powers of the Commissioner for Children to deal with the findings of the United Nations report. It is amazing that the Opposition does not seem to understand that. This bill is a demonstration of this Government’s commitment to the rights of children. It is very poor form to have a slash at the Department of Child Youth and Family Services when we are celebrating the second reading of this bill and when we also have it in conjunction with the recommendations of the baseline review. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government that is pushing through this bill to heighten the explicit powers of the Commissioner for Children. I am proud to support the bill. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. As has already been pointed out this bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for quite some time—since April 2002. It is pleasing that at last we have the opportunity to progress it. We realise that there are very many issues for the commissioner to deal with. New Zealand First has always said that the quality of our future is determined by the quality of the children we leave to our future. That quality is determined primarily by the way we treat our children and also by the legislative framework around which we deal with them. Judge Becroft reinforced this message at a Littlies Lobby breakfast meeting which many of us attended. 
It is important to pay tribute to the role of the Commissioner for Children. It is the role of the commissioner to be an advocate for our youngest citizens and to ensure that we are all aware of the issues that affect this group so that changes can be made. The advocacy role is important. The bottom line is that our success as a society depends largely on our capacity to enable each child within New Zealand to meet his or her potential. The recent horrific examples of atrocities committed against children—and unfortunately there are now an increasing number—show that for some children life in New Zealand can be very dangerous and it can also be a living hell for them. It is for these children in particular that the commissioner can speak. 
We must pay tribute to the immediate past Commissioner for Children Roger McClay. He worked tirelessly among us all to ensure that the interests of children and their welfare were promoted amongst us as parliamentarians and amongst the many agencies that also work within the field. Thank you Roger McClay. We have appreciated all the work he did in this field and his endless enthusiasm for ensuring that the rights of New Zealand children and their welfare were always in front of all political parties at all times—something that we do appreciate. 
We notice that this bill gives the Commissioner for Children additional statutory functions to better effect and promote in New Zealand the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which we definitely support. New Zealand First believes that this legislation will ensure independence and allow the Office of the Commissioner for Children more easily to promote the protection of New Zealand children. We hope that this office is adequately resourced to ensure that it can meet all its obligations and its goals. 
It is really pleasing to see the provision for a Deputy Commissioner for Children. New Zealand First was disappointed that the role of the Commissioner for Children has become a political appointment rather than an appointment requiring cross-party consultation. The fact that the appointment has a 5-year term and therefore straddles election cycles means that cross-party consultation on this matter is vital. It is really important that the Commissioner for Children remains independent. New Zealanders all need to know that the Commissioner for Children has been appointed because he or she is the best person for the job not because of political connections. Cross-party support for the recent appointment of a new commissioner would have allayed those concerns. We all want to see the best person in the job and we are looking forward to working with the new commissioner in her role. 
It is interesting to note that there are many issues concerning children about which there is no political disagreement and we often see that in this House. Children’s issues often wait far too long for action when there is no disagreement about what is needed. We all agree about what is required and how to go about it. The philosophy behind this bill is very clear: we value our children. The legislation gives the commissioner the mandate to ensure that the rights of New Zealand children are enhanced in the future. New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 When the Minister took the floor to talk about the Commissioner for Children Bill he said that it is evidence of the Labour Government’s commitment to make life better for children. I remind the Minister that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper ready to be debated in Parliament and passed by the House for the last 18 months. That is 18 long months that the Labour Government has failed to deliver on its so-called commitment to children. It goes further than that. The bill was introduced to the House in its first form as a member’s bill 5 years ago. Labour has been in power for 4 years. It could have fast-tracked this bill through the House 3 years ago. All I can say is that the Minister’s words in saying that the Government has a commitment to children are hollow words and that if he does not believe that all he has to do is re-read the baseline review on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in order to see what an appalling mess the Labour Government has made of child welfare in this country since it has been in power. 
There is a deepening crisis in child welfare in New Zealand and I will put on record in this House that the Minister Steve Maharey is responsible for it. For most of that time he was the Minister in charge of that department. He was essentially in charge of child welfare in this country and he has failed miserably not only the Department of Child Youth and Family Services but also every family and child that has been through the mill of that department. 
I will look at the history of that. We have a Minister who says one thing and does something different. When he was in Opposition Steve Maharey said that he would improve the lot of children in New Zealand. He was going to rebuild the department that deals with at-risk children in this country and he was going to develop a new culture. Well 3½ years on what do we see? There are more notifications—many of which are being referred to the Commissioner for Children—and a never-ending list of tragedies which were all referred to the commissioner. We have social workers leaving and the lowest morale in the department that we have ever had. That Minister sat there making all those promises and saying he would make things better but it all went to pieces and turned to custard around him. 
What happened? Did he stand there like a man should and take the rap? Did he sit in the House while we called for his resignation? No. He was saved by the Prime Minister because when the Government found out in May of this year how bad that baseline review would be all of a sudden he was stood down and a new Minister was put in his place. The new Minister will not be able to take the rap because she is brand-new. 
I put on record what the new Minister said about Steve Maharey. When she took over she said: “He wasn’t able to devote the time needed which is why he decided to move on.” How irresponsible is it for any Minister in a Government to not devote the time needed to the very agency that looks after the most vulnerable children in this society? How can he sit there knowing that he did not put in the time to give that department what it needed to be able to do the job and to be able to look after those children who most needed help? 
During the years we have seen the Commissioner for Children come out and try to do something about those children. He has put out reports—I think we all remember the report on James Whakaruru which showed a little boy who had been so many times in places where help could have been given to him and it all failed and he died. The Minister who knew and saw all of that in Opposition and promised to do something failed. Now we have a deepening crisis in child welfare and I would never have thought I would see that when a Labour Government was in power. I find it really worrying that the Minister can stand in this House and pay lip service to thoughts about needing to do better for children in this country when he holds the responsibility for the failure of that department on his shoulders. 
Sadly tomorrow when the department comes in front of the Social Services Committee for the financial review not only will we not be able to question a Minister who was responsible because Steve Maharey was the Minister for 10 months of the financial year and Ruth Dyson was there for only the last 2 months so we cannot hold her responsible—we have to hold Mr Maharey responsible—but now we have had the sudden resignation of the chief executive. The day before yesterday she suddenly went off on holiday so we cannot question her. 
So Parliament has a huge problem. Any select committee of Parliament is charged with the responsibility of examining the work of a department of the Government and tomorrow we have a situation where there is nobody who will say “Yes I can answer your questions.” That is because this Government is so cunning. It is so cunning that it wanted to avoid all responsibility. It knew what a crisis the department was in but it wanted to avoid all responsibility swap portfolios and ministerial responsibility get rid of the chief executive—hang her out to dry so she was on her own and so she leaves—and nobody is held accountable. 
I say that Labour is responsible. This Government is responsible for the problem we have in this country. What really worries me is that if Roger McClay were still the Commissioner for Children he would have something to say about this. One thing about the previous commissioner is that he was not afraid to put his neck on the block and say what he believed. Will the new Commissioner for Children have something deep and meaningful to say about what the Labour Government has done in this area? I think the answer is “not likely”. 
That is the problem when we have a Government that appoints to key positions in a Parliament and does not put in people who the whole of Parliament agrees have the courage to make the sorts of statements that New Zealanders want to hear but puts its cronies into its jobs because then it will know it will get reports and statements it can live with. That is wrong and that is one of the reasons our party does not support this bill. If we had a totally independent Commissioner for Children we might have relitigated it and looked to agree that the commisioner’s office would have the courage to say the right thing not what its political masters want it to say. 
The other point I would like to make here is that the bill gives more power to the Commissioner for Children to introduce the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although I think everybody would agree with many of those rights of the child I believe that this is part of Labour’s back-door conspiracy if one likes to introduce anti-smacking legislation. They will get the Office of the Commissioner for Children to look into it because that is one of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and lo and behold all of a sudden there will be recommendations coming out of that office to stop New Zealand parents from being allowed to smack their children. We are talking about smacking children not about child abuse. There is a complete distinction between those two things. Soon we will see the Labour Government intruding into the homes of every single New Zealander just as it has already intruded into so many walks of life since it has been in power. There are new laws regulations costs and inspectors and all of a sudden we will find that inspectors will come to our homes to see what is happening inside the family door. I finish by saying how disappointed I am in Labour for its record in child welfare. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the bill and proud of the Government’s record of support for New Zealand families and children. This commission for the family will be a further step in providing support for the families of our country. We have just heard a contribution from the ACT speaker who in a curious contradiction said that the Minister and the Government were not doing enough and the next minute finished off her speech by saying that they are doing too much and are interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. Once again it was a confused and muddled message from the ACT party. This legislation is about improving the quality of life for New Zealand families. How could one not support it? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from Chris Carter about the Families Commission. Unfortunately for the Minister this is the Commissioner for Children Bill but let us not devalue his contribution. 
This bill is finally back in the House. I say to Mr Maharey that I think he has been an absolute and total failure in that he brought in a piece of legislation on 10 October 2001—over 2 years ago. The select committee heard 13 submissions sat for 2 hours and reported back to the House and it has taken Mr Maharey 2 years to get this bill back before Parliament. It came back only when he was relieved of responsibility for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. 
Mr Maharey has failed children in this country and he knows it. It is a tragedy that Jackie Pivac is wearing all the responsibility for the dysfunctional department that let Coral Burrows slip through the net. The Minister sits there puffed up in his own importance having taken 2 years to do this and he is not responsible for anything. He is laughing. He is not responsible. His chief executive resigned and Mr Maharey is not taking any responsibility at all. 
I do not know how Mr Maharey as a Minister can sleep at night knowing what has gone on in that department for the last 2 years. He may find it funny but he failed the young children of this country. He failed some individual children in this country. Mr Maharey may think it is funny but those families do not. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Maharey’s interjection was that more children died before he was the Minister. I say to the Minister to get real. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.