Volume 640 Week 47 - Thursday 21 June 2007 
Volume 640 Week 47 - Thursday 21 June 2007 
[Volume:640;Page:10095] 
Thursday 21 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next Tuesday the first item of business will be the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which is along with the Imprest Supply Bill and is a 3-hour debate. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. The priority for Government business for the remainder of the week will be the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill. A message has gone to all parties today seeking their support for leave to take all remaining stages of the Evidence Amendment Bill on Thursday during normal sitting time subject of course to a favourable report from the select committee on the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Leader of the House confirm that the president of the Labour Party indicated to a conference last week on electoral accountability that there would be an electoral spending bill in the House this week? Are we to assume that the progress on completing such a bill is now stalled due to numbers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The president of the Labour Party must have been referring to some deep dark secret that I am not aware of. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Supplementary Questions—Principles 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I promised yesterday to tell the House of the principles followed by the Chair in allowing supplementary questions. The calling of members to ask supplementary questions is a matter that the Standing Orders leave entirely to the discretion of the Speaker—see Standing Order 378(1). Members to receive the call must stand and call to the Speaker—see Speaker’s Ruling 24/5. But rising and calling to the Speaker is not a race. The Speaker calls whomever the Speaker determines that it is appropriate to call regardless of who rises first. In allocating supplementary questions the Speaker after giving the first supplementary question to the member who asked the primary question generally prefers members in order of size of party. When all parties that wish to do so have asked a question parties can come for a second round of questions and so on again generally in order of size of party. This was the practice that I followed yesterday and the one that I will follow in the future. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taxation—Property Investment 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it Government policy to introduce the ring-fencing of losses on investment property? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did he suggest ring-fencing losses on investment property when on 25 July 2005 he told the Wellington Property Investors Association seminar that “our position on the taxation of property is that the status quo is quite adequate … change does not promise significant overall benefits … In other words any new form of property tax is off our agenda.”; or is that just the sort of thing he says before an election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Since that time we have had 2 years of continuous increases in the heat in the property market increasing interest rates a high dollar and more important the publication by the Reserve Bank and the Treasury of their suggestions around supplementary stabilisation instruments including of course suggestions around changes of this sort. I am not afraid to discuss ideas when they enter the public arena. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is the Government interested in options to take the heat out of the housing market? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is concerned about the long-term impact of the high dollar on the productive sector of the economy. I agree with the Canterbury Manufacturers Association that we need to have a debate on these issues. That is why Treasury and the Reserve Bank produced their supplementary stabilisation instruments report and why I assume there is a select committee inquiry. What I cannot accept is Mr English’s approach of turning a blind eye to the problems of exporters. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What was the effect of the tax changes surrounding investment properties made in 1991 by Ruth Richardson? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We moved from a position where net taxable income on rental property was about 80 percent of the gross income on rental property to one where over the last few years the net taxable income has averaged about 10 percent of the gross income on rental property. That suggests an interaction between the taxation regime and the ability to gear on property that is causing significant over-investment. 
Hon Bill English 
: If ring-fencing tax losses and biasing the tax system against housing is not Government policy does the Minister intend to advocate it until it is Government policy or does he agree with the position of a spokesman from the Prime Minister’s office that that is a matter that will be dealt with by the Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry which increasingly seems to be where economic policy is meant to be made under Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I get the impression—perhaps I am misled—that there is a discussion going on in a range of fora at the present time around these possibilities but I am surprised to see an Opposition spokesperson suggesting that it is wrong that a select committee should be able to discuss what policy should be for either the short or the long term. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does the Minister see any of the proposals currently being discussed as a silver bullet? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Unfortunately there are no silver bullets in economic policy but I am open to exploring options to address what is a serious issue facing this economy. All I have heard from Mr English is that he thinks interest rates should have been raised higher earlier and Government spending should be slashed. He is not prepared to engage in any intelligent discussion of other options even those proposed by Treasury and the Reserve Bank. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister’s investigation of supplementary measures look at individual measures such as ring-fencing and isolation or will he explore the effect of a holistic package that could combine ring-fencing with a capital gains tax on all investments except the family home and more Government investment in low-cost rental housing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that if one was looking at a capital gains tax which I am certainly not it would apply to all asset classes. I think the arguments in favour of such a tax which probably 20 years ago were quite strong become much much less strong in the intervening period of time for a whole host of reasons. So I think that that is actually not a very worthwhile avenue to explore not least because it comes in effect at the end of a process rather than trying to address the over-investment at the start of the process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister sees his main political role to be criticising Opposition propositions to reduce taxes will he also be criticising the statements made by the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard who announced in the Melbourne  
Age  
today that Labour will be cutting personal taxes in the next election probably by increasing thresholds? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the second point I have already announced that it is likely we will be making announcements—I did so before the Budget—around changes to personal tax rates. Mr Mallard expressed a preference for one option. There are many many options around how one can address the issue of personal taxation. On the former matter it is a rare event when the Opposition expresses a clear view on policy. It will have to get used to being kicked around that for the remainder of this term of Parliament as it comes up with the remaining three ideas between now and the election. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Minister of Finance not considered four silver bullets over the last 20 years—or now so belatedly—such as: a national savings strategy a wise immigration policy an export-sympathetic series of policies that have been adopted by other First World countries and last of all a respectable investment regime safeguarding investors in this country thereby removing our obsession with housing over these last 20 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly correct that in the last few weeks we have moved significantly on the savings regime with bold moves that I think people are beginning to really understand how significant they are and how much they will benefit a very wide range of the public. We made announcements this week around the regulation of non-banking financial providers. We are looking at further ways to underpin exporting. I think what underlines a number of these moves is that there is no such thing as the Holy Grail of a perfectly level playing field. A perfectly level playing field in taxation often results in quite different outcomes in different parts of the economy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Which Minister of Finance should we listen to: the actual Minister of Finance who has now floated two disastrous proposals to try to cool down the housing market being the interest rate levy and the ring-fencing of losses on investment or the Associate Minister of Finance who is announcing policy that the Labour caucus actually supports and that everyone believes will happen in the next Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I advise the member always to listen to the once and future Minister of Finance in that regard and the member is talking to him at this precise moment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark would keep Dr Cullen in the finance portfolio when Trevor Mallard has now taken over next year’s Budget Winston Peters is running the savings policy a select committee of Parliament is running monetary policy and according to  
Morning Report 
 this morning Russel Norman is doing his media? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would never be reduced to the last state of affairs; I am sure of that particular matter. I am actually running the process for next year’s Budget. What the member might care to explain on such a matter is why his leader went to Sydney and told the trans-Tasman leadership forum he was totally in favour of the Australian relationship and the single economic market and Bill English told the mood of the boardroom in Auckland he did not care much about the Australian relationship and he disagrees with Mr Key on so many issues we are running out of paper to write them down on. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in fact he has already moved into Opposition because he spends most of his time as Minister of Finance criticising the policies of the Opposition at the same time as miscueing and failing to execute all his own proposals? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In an average 14-hour day I probably devote about 5 minutes to the Opposition. I find it difficult sometimes to stretch it out that far. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With regard to stabilising an overheated market who does he think he is accountable to as Minister of Finance: 200000 property investors or 3.9 million New Zealanders who need an affordable roof over their heads? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the first instance I am accountable to the Prime Minister. In the second instance I am accountable to this House. In the third instance I am accountable to New Zealand as a whole. 
Paid Parental Leave—Eligibility 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any reports on changes to eligibility for paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I have. Last year the Labour-led Government opened up eligibility to the paid parental leave scheme to the self-employed. A recent evaluation of the scheme showed that with this change the scheme is now available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid work. Paid parental leave is widely embraced by New Zealanders despite being consistently opposed by the National Party. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she received any other proposals for changes to eligibility? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. I have received a rather confused proposal that eligibility for paid parental leave should apply only to those who are out of the home. That proposal to give paid parental leave to those who are out of the home actually seems to contradict the whole philosophy of paid parental leave but nevertheless it was made by Kate Wilkinson in the House on Tuesday. I look forward to that fantastic proposal being adopted as National policy! 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours in Kindergartens 
3.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he expecting a rise in the number of kindergartens that shift from traditional 3 and 4-hour sessions to all-day licences as a result of “20 hours free” and how will he monitor the provision of “20 hours free”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A number of kindergartens have been moving from sessional to all-day licences because they consider that this allows them to better respond to the needs of working parents. However only a small number of kindergartens have indicated that they are changing their licences as a result of the 20 hours free policy. Indeed most kindergartens are moving into providing the 20 free hours as sessional services. On the second question the ministry will be actively monitoring the roll-out of free early childhood education and will investigate any complaints raised by parents or the member. The Education Review Office will also undertake its usual 3-year cycle of reviews. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm reports from his own officials that the monitoring of the 20 hours free policy will be primarily through complaints received from parents but that even then the Ministry of Education and I quote “does not necessarily have the ability to enforce funding rules in a way that helps achieve good outcomes for parents.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As usual the member tries to cast things in a way that she would like them to be rather than as they are. The Ministry of Education has made it clear that it will carry out the normal monitoring of these processes and that the Education Review Office will do the usual 3-yearly cycle of reviews. That will include handling complaints from the member or any other parent who may wish to raise complaints. Of course the basis of all of this policy is to ensure that the spirit—or the practice in fact—of the 20 hours free policy is carried out. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How much difference will 20 free hours make to families in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It will be a significant change. A family paying a typical fee of $4.50 an hour for 20 hours will save around $90 a week in fees. That is about $4500 a year. Even if a family is already getting the standard childcare subsidy of $1.31 or volunteers to pay a $20 a week optional charge it still will be more than $50 a week better off. So parents around this country are very much looking forward to the introduction of this policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of public debate can the Minister tell us what reports he has received in respect of other views on this policy including those of political parties and are there political parties that have no policy at all in respect of this issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received a number of reports on that matter and I thank the member for his party’s endorsement of the principle of 20 free hours. But one major party in Parliament does have a policy and it is called scrapping the 20 hours free policy completely. So not one single parent would benefit from that policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm Ministry of Education reports that state that in the event of overcharging there are “limitations of the sanctions at their disposal”; that in many situations “the ministry would be unable to prove that a service had broken the rules about fee charging”; and that the risk is “the Ministry of Education may not be able to enforce the funding rule about fee charging.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The rules are clear: the 20 free hours must be delivered free of charge to parents but optional charges can be established. The ministry has made it clear to the member and to many other people around the country—and she smiles because she knows that it is true—that the ministry will carry out its normal monitoring and the Education Review Office will follow up with the 3-yearly cycle of reviews. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister saying that there are rules but they cannot be enforced that the ministry is relying on parent complaints to be the primary method of monitoring this policy and that his own officials admit that even in the event that they get complaints they will not be able to prove them or do anything about them so that there are good outcomes for parents? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As usual the member would love for that to be the policy because then she could kick it to death as she is trying to do now. Unfortunately for her the policy is not that. She is saying those things; no one else is. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister agree that children form attachments with the staff and the other children in a centre and that these stable relationships are critical to the well-being of a child; if so how does this fit with centres turning away children who will not sign up for all-day sessions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do agree that attachment theory is part of any stage I psychology class. I imagine that the member has taken that class and that is why she knows about it. We look forward to young people being even more attached to their centres because of the 20 free hours. 
Paula Bennett 
: How does the Minister respond to the mother in Dannemore who was told that if she did not sign a form stating that her child would now be enrolled full-time there would no longer be a part-time place for her child as the 20 free hours policy had forced the centre to now offer only full days? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: First of all I would feel sorry for the mother that her case was being advocated by Paula Bennett and secondly I would say that if there is a case to answer as we have already said complaints can be directed to the Ministry of Education. 
Schools—Local Schools Access 
4.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by the statement made by the Minister of Education in June 2005 that “Under current legislation every child is entitled to attend his or her local school.”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by my predecessor’s comment. The legislation is designed to ensure that all students can attend what is known as a “reasonably convenient school”. 
Heather Roy 
: Why then is the Minister kicking out a quarter of the bay people from their local school Island Bay School and could he tell the House which suburb those living in Severn Street and Moselle Street actually live in if it is not Island Bay? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised by the ministry that the decisions on that have not yet been made. I am further advised that the ministry’s proposals enable the few addresses of such parents to be part of the enrolment zone as a transition until the younger siblings of current pupils have been through the school. When the legislation was debated in the House the House decided that siblings of current pupils should not have preference over others but this is a caring Government that does not like splitting up families so we will work with local communities and schools to find solutions that ensure we are not splitting up siblings where that can be avoided. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: When were the school zones reintroduced for New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That sticks in my mind well. It was when National was in Government in late 1998 when schools were in danger of being overcrowded and there was space at other “reasonably convenient schools” as the saying goes. The previous National Government realised that open slather in the provision of extra buildings to accommodate roll growth at some schools while there was spare capacity at others was an inefficient and a wasteful use of taxpayers’ money and it could not be afforded. Of course both sides of the House have continued with that practice. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that when geographical school zoning was reintroduced in November 1998 by the National Government of the time with the support of ACT that the only person who registered any concern with regard to that legislation at the time was Labour’s education spokesperson Trevor Mallard? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can recall that it was National supported by ACT that introduced that legislation at that time. I do recall that in an appropriate way Mr Mallard did raise the usual debate about this kind of issue to make sure it was aired as it should be. 
Heather Roy 
: Does he not agree that the Minister of Education should be a paragon of clear English so that “free” means “free” and “local school” means “local school”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The term I used before is quite an important one and is of course set down in case law. The term “reasonably convenient” is one that ensures people can go to their local school. Those words were agreed to by Bill English during his time in this particular role. It is I think a very useful term because it recognises that there is a network of schools and that we should make use of those schools. In the case of Island Bay it is worth knowing that this school has had two classrooms and subsequently three classrooms placed on its land to assist it. I think that the steps being taken now are to try to sensibly work out what to do given that there are reasonably convenient schools nearby and they are all good schools. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister was being very misleading in that last answer. The primary question asked whether he stood by the statement made in 2005 about a local school. He has conveniently changed his wording now to say “reasonably convenient” school. Which one is it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. The Minister did actually address that in his answer. But the Minister may speak to the point of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It sometimes helps if people listen. I will read out the answer again. It is: “Yes … The legislation is designed to ensure that all students can attend what is known as”—I repeat—“a ‘reasonably convenient school.’ ” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the 1998 legislation put up by Wyatt Creech and supported by the ACT party which first used the term “reasonably convenient”; and is there a word for that that starts with “h”? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment is inappropriate. 
Document not tabled. 
Nursing— 
Public Service Code of Conduct 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on a speech given by chief nursing adviser Mark Jones in Nelson recently and does he consider it to be consistent with the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Compliance with the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 by individual public servants is of course an employment matter and therefore the responsibility of the Director-General of Health as the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Health. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it consistent with the Public Service ethos that after a left-wing diatribe about the benefits of collectivism and the immorality of profit the chief nursing adviser Mark Jones should tell a large group of nurses that they were “vote maximisers” who should spend the next 6 to 8 weeks highlighting the benefits of the Government’s policies; and is it his attitude that the Ministry of Health and its officials are now an extension of the Labour Party’s propaganda arm? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised that the article is based on a reporter’s notes of a large group discussion. I am unable to comment on the reliability of any of the assertions made. I am advised however that Tony Ryall spoke at the same conference and said nothing of any substance. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Would the Minister agree with Mr Jones’ remarks in his speech that primary health organisations had been provided with a big chunk of public money but some had an immoral ethic and money flowed through to general practitioners’ back pockets; and is it part of the Government’s health strategy to pit nurses against doctors and use them as vote maximisers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware that a recent Waikato business school survey has indicated that general practitioner incomes have risen—and I am not opposed to people’s incomes rising. I am also advised however that the Labour-Progressive Government has put a significant sum of money—in excess of $2 billion—into the primary health care system and by 1 July this year will have cut in half the price of going to the doctor for all New Zealanders. I think the House would like to know whether the National Party actually supports that achievement or opposes it. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is it surprising that we have a climate of continual industrial unrest in the health sector when we have a senior public servant out there urging health workers to become politicised and promoting the Government’s political strategy of using health care workers as “vote maximisers”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I understand that under the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 public servants should fulfil their lawful obligations to the Government with professionalism and integrity. My understanding is that Mr Jones is a hard-working well-regarded member of the health sector and a dedicated public servant. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does this Minister these days regard Minister Hodgson as a “vote maximiser” or a “vote minimiser”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If I had a choice between Mr Hodgson and the member asking the question in this House at this moment then it would be a no-brainer as to who I would choose. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does the Minister think nurses feel when the Government and its apparatchiks view them as vote— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They can laugh but one of your highly paid public servants is doing your propaganda at nurses at the taxpayers’ expense and is telling nurses that the Government’s attitude is that nurses are “vote maximisers” who will spend the next 6 to 8 months doing the Government’s business; that should be stopped. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not totally au fait with your vote but I do not think you have any highly paid officials called apparatchiks working for you. Therefore that member should follow the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. The member has been in this House long enough to know not to pull the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In the matter of health there are two “vote maximisers” for this Government. The first is its policies and the amount of funding it has put into the health system. The second is Mr Tony Ryall who is the biggest “vote maximiser” for this Government that I could ever imagine. 
Securities Commission—Insider Trading Tranz Rail 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Who were the “powerful interests” who attempted to stop the Securities Commission insider trading case involving David Richwhite and Sir Michael Fay she reportedly referred to in her speech to the House on 19 June 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Commerce 
: What the Minister actually said was: “There were interests out there who did not want the defendants pursued.” The Minister was referring to those who attacked the Securities Commission for taking and continuing to pursue the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware of people involved in this case threatening those on the Securities Commission and those assisting the Securities Commission in respect of their future contracts and employment; if so who would those parties be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have information in relation to that in front of me. I think that would be a very serious matter indeed which would be worthy of further investigation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister of Commerce having seen that her officials in their first proper investigation of these two gentlemen achieved a strike rate of one out of one had any reports prepared for the head of the Serious Fraud Office and the head of the Inland Revenue Department as to what their proper action should have been which they did not take and therefore enable themselves to be accused of being grossly negligent of their duty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have no such information in front of me. I am not aware that any such reports were prepared. The Serious Fraud Office has close to a 90 percent success rate in its prosecutions. 
Office of Treaty Settlements—Confidence 
7.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Does he have confidence in the Office of Treaty Settlements; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. In my experience it has dedicated and diligent officials. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Office of Treaty Settlements official responsible for determining there were no cross-claim issues in Tamaki-makau-rau that the Crown needed to be cognisant of was a graduate who was less than 1 year out of university with no training or experience in Maori land claims and who did not consult any of the claimant groups in the area? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that the process of cross-claim consultation is still very much under way. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why did the Office of Treaty Settlements tell the Waitangi Tribunal that NgatiWhatua was the only Auckland iwi willing to enter into direct negotiations with the Crown when the Office of Treaty Settlements itself had earlier refused to enter into negotiation with any of the six other claimant groups in Auckland? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: To the best of my knowledge as at this date there are no other mandated groups ready to enter into negotiation in that area. The member is incorrect. 
Maryan Street 
: What recent comment has the Minister heard on the Treaty settlement process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have heard extensive comments. Yesterday in this House Mr Finlayson talked about what he claims was the record of the National Government on Treaty settlements. The facts are that of the 21 settlements negotiated to date National can claim only three settlements of substantial size: on fisheries on the Waikato raupatu and with NgaiTahu. The rest are smaller—five with a value of less than $1 million—and most left substantial issues to be settled. He also ignores the settlements that National tried to rush through and failed. The people of Whakatohea rejected outright the deal that National tried to cook up and agreements with Te Atiawa and Rangitane o Manawatu fell apart almost as soon as they were reached. This Government has negotiated two large settlements from start to finish. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Henare that he should listen. It has done most of the substantive work on three more settlements. Some of those have been very complex. This Government has also brought a further five settlements to a successful conclusion and has brought more groups than ever before into negotiations. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs who said that the recent reports of the Waitangi Tribunal into the NgatiWhatua ki Orakei and Te Arawa claims may or may not affect the timeliness of those and other claims being settled; and noting that both those claimants entered into direct negotiation with the Crown does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that direct negotiations should stop; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are several questions there. To take the first part of the question first I think my colleague was noting that there were a number of recommendations that the Government should give careful consideration to and it will. I have also made the same indication. I think the notion of bringing the settlement process to a halt raises other questions of good faith not only with those claimants with whom good-faith negotiations have proceeded but also with many others around the country. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. How does the Minister respond to the tribunal’s findings that: “During the implementation of the Crown’s policies in Te Arawa OTS failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiation process OTS failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Maori and OTS did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly the role of the Office of Treaty Settlements is not to be a broker; it is to act on behalf of the Crown as a negotiator. As I indicated I think in my answer to the substantive question my experience of the officials of the Office of Treaty Settlements is that they are honourable people who act in good faith. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is it the officials or Government policy that is to blame for the negligent manner in which the Office of Treaty Settlements treats claimants as highlighted by the NgatiWhatua o Orakei report and the Te Arawa report and specifically what will happen to officials responsible for the failure to interact with cross-claimants as promised for the failure to provide accurate information about their status in negotiations for the failure to involve cross-claimants in the deliberations of officials for the failure to respond to claimants unless they had persistent lawyers and finally for the provision of misleading information to the Waitangi Tribunal as highlighted by the NgatiWhatua o Orakei hearings? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister addresses the question I remind members that normally a supplementary question is one question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Perhaps the most important question of the many the member asks is the first one. I do not accept the assertion on which that question is based. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that at the Standing Orders Committee we have been discussing the question of simultaneous translation but I think that that answer needs translation into English. Is the Minister saying that absolutely nothing will happen to anyone? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed your question. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister agree that there is a problem with the Crown’s approach in the Tamaki-makau-rau negotiating process when the Waitangi Tribunal has labelled the behaviour of the Office of Treaty Settlements as “cavalier unfair generally uncooperative providing only partial answers to questions and being less than open in its dealings with the tribunal”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have indicated on a number of occasions I will look very carefully at the critique of the tribunal. However I do not accept that the attitude or the conduct of the officials was cavalier. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Given the Minister’s answer to my previous question is he saying that no action will be taken over officials misleading a judicial tribunal as highlighted by Judge Wainwright in her report and should we now refer to his office as the “Office of Perjury”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the judge has been moved to clarify her position since issuing that report by saying that she was not implying that anyone acted intentionally to mislead. I think it is important that the member takes note of that fact. Secondly if officials have made any good-faith mistake that is one matter. I do not accept and I see no evidence to suggest that any official has intentionally misled any tribunal. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is it not ironic that the tribunal reports that the Crown through the actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements has “crossed over and usurped the rangatiratanga of iwi and hapu thereby committing grave breaches of the Treaty” and does that not provide a perfect reason to implement the tribunal’s recommendation that annual audits of the Office of Treaty Settlements be commissioned to ensure that its management and policy operations are aligned to the Crown’s Treaty obligations? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do not agree with the assertion in the first part of the question. As to the recommendation as I said before we will be looking carefully at a number of recommendations. I am not sure that having another agency try to do an annual audit of this agency would add value but certainly the idea of looking to maximise the quality of work undertaken is something we are constantly seeking to realise. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that after the tribunal criticised the Office of Treaty Settlement’s non-disclosure of relevant material several staff from Crown Law had to visit the Office of Treaty Settlements to explain exactly what “relevant” meant and to go through all of that office’s Tamaki-makau-rau files to find relevant material to supply to the tribunal because Office of Treaty Settlements staff lacked the ability to determine what was or was not relevant? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that because as usual the member is misrepresenting the facts. However I can confirm to the member— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You are a lazy Minister; that’s why. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If Mr Henare would like to stop yelling I will answer the question. I can confirm that Crown Law officials were invited to go and assist the office and in effect to do an independent overview of those records. I can also confirm that the tribunal found that the additional documents provided added no new information to that available to it. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that the flagship of the Government’s Treaty negotiations Budget last year—a fourth negotiating team—has not been created that there are currently no plans to create a fourth negotiating team and that this is just another broken promise like “chewing gum tax cuts” and 20 free hours? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Government’s policy was to ensure the capacity of the Office of Treaty Settlements to engage with pre-mandate negotiate with and provide legal advice to groups was increased. It has been. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you inform the House as to whether there has been a rearrangement of the seating order opposite. If there has not been could you ask Mr Henare to abide by the normal convention of interjecting from his own place instead of moving closer to the Minister who is answering the question in order to do so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members do from time to time shift their positions in the Chamber. It appears by the chair he is sitting in that Mr Henare is now an Opposition whip so I presume that is— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh that was funny. Hilarious! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please leave the Chamber. You are sitting in a whip’s chair so that is actually the assumption that is made. Those are the conventions. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.Henare Hon Tau 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the dates of the various stages of the settlement process dated 21 June 2007. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister received any feedback yet from Maori interests expressing concern at the notion that direct negotiations cannot occur until a full Waitangi Tribunal hearing has occurred causing much greater delays and much greater expense to claimants; if so what is the Government expected to do in relation to groups that are ready to negotiate are mandated and wish to proceed to direct negotiations? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm indeed that in the last 24 hours I have had a meeting with one group who have come specifically to express that concern. I have a meeting with another gentleman this afternoon: the senior kaumatua from another iwi who having entered into good-faith discussions with the Crown now wonders whether that is being undermined. So yes that has created considerable disquiet. I want to assure all those whom we have engaged with that we will continue to engage in good faith whilst considering carefully the recommendations of the tribunal. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. When the Attorney-General belatedly leapt to his feet I could not hear whether my request to table a document had been rejected or accepted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear any objection to it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I will now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh you will. [ 
Interruption 
] It is too late now. 
After-school Care—Government Policy 
8.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to invest further in the provision of out-of-school care? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Government in Budget 2007 has committed a further $17.4 million over the next 5 years to improve the quality affordability and availability of out-of-school services. There are currently 667 out-of-school care and recreation or “OSCAR” providers delivering 1100 approved programmes for 5 to 14-year-olds. The average weekly out-of-school care subsidy payment for parents has more than doubled since 1999 increasing from $17 per week per child to just over $36 per week now. A strong out-of-school sector of course gives parents much more choice in terms of how they combine the responsibilities of work and parenting. It also provides opportunities for children and young people to spend their out-of-school time in more challenging activities which can of course further improve their academic and physical well-being. 
Lesley Soper 
: What will the extra funding do in terms of improving out-of-school services? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The extra funding will be used to increase the pool of funding available to providers to assist with the establishment and development of programmes to raise the average grant to each provider for such purposes—currently $11000 but increasing to $13500—to strengthen the approval process for providers to establish a quality review group to safeguard and improve the standards and the quality of care and to establish 12 leading activity-based extended service programmes in low-decile schools. We are working closely with the sector over the implementation of these initiatives to assist them to continue to improve the quality affordability and availability of out-of-school services to New Zealand families. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of healthy comparison I seek to table that provision of the 1998 Budget showing that New Zealand First gave $38 million to out-of-school care for the first year which somewhat puts this figure of 4 years into— 
Document not tabled. 
Police—Management 
9.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied with the performance of police management; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: In general yes because if I can borrow words from the member they are in the main a bunch of “good roosters”. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that after an initial trial of stab-proof vests that lasted several months there was an 18-month delay in their distribution because they were the wrong colour the wrong fabric the wrong design and the wrong size; and why has it only now been discovered that the vests cannot be worn with existing uniform shirts tunics and duty jackets? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Police management acknowledged yesterday at the select committee hearing that there had been a number of problems with this project. It is now on track. The vests will be rolled out by the end of December 2007. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Have the police management asked the Minister for additional resources in view of their extra workload as from today in policing the new criminalisation of a parent who smacks his or her child even for the purpose of loving correction; or does she expect the police to cope by diverting time and resources from their fight against real crime in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No the police have not asked for extra resources to police the guidelines around the disciplining of children because they will not need them. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police have called for tenders for 35000 breathable moisture-wicking shirts with their expected distribution in March 2008 although police management confirmed to the select committee yesterday that they have no idea how much these shirts will cost what they will look like or who will make them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before all of these issues were aired yesterday in the select committee. The police confirmed that there had been problems they confirmed that everything is on track and they confirmed that everything will be delivered by December this year. 
Chester Borrows 
: Why has there been no report from the $10111 concept investigation by Macpac into the design of a new duty jacket 6 months after the investigation is over; when can we expect to see a report and how many more millions of dollars will the new duty jackets cost or does the Minister have no idea of that either? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question is of course one that is a little hypothetical because the police are still working their way through to final delivery of those vests in December this year. I urge the member to put down those precise questions about costs and I am sure the Minister of Police will reply to them at the appropriate time. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister agree that this is hardly a parallel roll-out of a new uniform that the police have been planning for some time as the select committee was told yesterday; and when will we see a compatible uniform and stab-proof vest configuration fully implemented or has the Minister no idea of that either? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: At the risk of repeating myself I would remind the member that I have now said three times that everything is on track for delivery in December 2007. 
Peter Brown 
: On a more positive note has the Minister had any reports on the performance of police management in respect of recruiting the extra 1000 front-line police and 250 support staff agreed under the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just happen to have that information. Yes the New Zealand Police are 53 ahead of the target for the end of the first year of the recruitment of the additional 1250 staff members. The current attrition rate for sworn members of 3.7 percent is the lowest in more than 10 years. That rate compares favourably with State sector turnover of 21.5 percent and I think it reflects the very very good partnership between New Zealand First and the Labour-led Government. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm now that we are getting some idea of the scale and ongoing nature of the stab-proof vest debacle that she has no idea of the final cost; and how can this mess happen when the safety of police officers on the front line should be the primary concern of the police and the Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Let me take a stab at an answer and say that I think one has to go through the tender round before one knows all of those answers. As I said to the member if he puts down his questions I am sure that at the appropriate time the Minister of Police will reply. 
Chester Borrows 
: I seek leave to table a page from the police response to the Law and Order Committee estimates. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Respite Care—Funding and Services 
10.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Is she confident that having funded 28 days’ respite care for clients with high and complex needs there are adequate services available in every region and for every age group and if she has identified gaps what is she doing about them? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 Funding for services for clients with high and complex needs is actually a matter for the Minister of Health. However I am informed that there is no longer a 28-day maximum and that respite care is allocated on the basis of assessed need. On average clients receive around 31 days’ support. Last year our Government increased residential respite care funding by $2 million and I understand that a further increase will occur this year. Even so shortages of service providers do occur from time to time and they are managed as they arise. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware that the current rate of $64 a night for respite care is about the same amount that used to be allocated for MPs’ daily meal allowance and does she agree that such a comparison reflects very badly on the respite daily allowance when caregivers are both feeding and managing clients with high and complex needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member is referring to the carer support payment which is not actually a wage. But this fact combined with the tight labour market will certainly contribute to the difficulty in attracting people to this role. My understanding is that announcements on the level of the carer support payments will be made shortly. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been done recently to improve services to clients with high and complex needs? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I mentioned earlier the increased funding for residential respite care will help to ensure that those families who are entitled to it will receive it. Our Government is also committed to developing and implementing a carer support strategy. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why have some parents of high and complex needs children found that the only option available for their children for respite care is totally unsuitable rest homes as happened last Christmas and can she assure the House that this will not happen next Christmas? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I mentioned in the answer to the primary question shortages of service providers do occur from time to time; this is more likely to occur around peak times of need for families such as Christmas and they are managed in the best way possible at the time. 
Treaty Settlements—Te PuniKokiri Advice 
11.  
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What advice if any has Te PuniKokiri provided to him on how Treaty settlements can help Maori realise their potential? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Te PuniKokiri recognises the importance of reaching durable Treaty settlements which significantly contribute to returning economic and other resources for development and self-determination. This is the Maori Potential Approach for the betterment of iwi hapu and whanau. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What advice did he give the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on whether the Crown should negotiate with just NgatiWhatua and Tamaki-makau-rau to the exclusion of six other claimant groups? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I along with my ministry supported the mandating process and it is interesting to know that NgatiWhatua as a whole accepted that. 
Dave Hereora 
: What is Te PuniKokiri’s role in the Treaty settlement process? 
Simon Power 
: Did you see this one coming? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The sniggering continues. They are an uncultured lot over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was unnecessary. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is the problem. They have got no culture. Te PuniKokiri advises on settlement policy claimant representation and mandate ratification and the protection mechanism. It also advises on and in some cases leads the negotiation of contemporary claims. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What advice did he give the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on the validity of the Crown’s approach of only negotiating with about half of the Te Arawa confederation of tribes when it was obvious—and should have been obvious to him at least—that this would cause tension and conflict? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Twenty-four thousand Te Arawa people made a decision to proceed to settlement negotiations with the Government. There was advice and ongoing connectivity with my colleague. As a former member of the Waitangi Tribunal Mrs te Heuheu should be well aware that unfortunately most settlements have at some point created raruraru—which for those uncultured people is differences—within iwi and hapu. It is something I do not think they want to admit happens in their culture: the issue of how to settle what is naturally a challenging process. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did ask the Minister what advice he gave the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He rambled on about what was happening in Te Arawa but he did not address that question: “What advice did he give?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think he did. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add anything but I thought he had addressed the question—that which I could hear over the comments of other members in the House. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: If Treaty settlements can play such an important role in helping Maori realised their potential why has the Minister not once complied with his non-discretionary legal obligation under section 8I of the Treaty of Waitangi Act to lay before the House an annual report on the progress being made in implementing recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The last report was tabled in 1995—in 1995! A further report for the period of 1996-97 was lodged in the Parliamentary Library but was not tabled in the House. Next month I expect to table an updated report that we have been working on for the last 6 months for the period through to 2007. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister why he has not complied with his non-discretionary legal obligation to report. He has gone back to years when he was not even in Parliament and commented on what happened then. He cannot have addressed the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No he did address the question I am sorry. He addressed it in terms of what now is happening. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Can the Minister confirm that Te PuniKokiri prepared a report for him on the Crown’s progress in implementing Waitangi Tribunal recommendations in the current financial year but that he refused to accept the report from his own ministry so that he would not have to inform the House and the people of New Zealand about the Government’s failure to implement those recommendations? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is totally incorrect. I have told that member that I am waiting for a review and if she did not hear the response before that is rubbish—utter rubbish. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Would the Minister not agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Te Arawa is now in a state of turmoil; hapu are in contest with other hapu the preservation of tribal relations has been adversely affected and they are left fearing for the customary future of Te Arawa waka as a result; it is a very serious state of affairs and how will Te PuniKokiri help Te Arawa Maori realise their potential under such duress? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member was there at the day of the signing with me and there was tension and he was part of that and I respect him for that as a Te Arawa person. But that is something for Te Arawa to sort out not the Government. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Does the Minister concede that the reason he has not once complied with his compulsory statutory obligations and tabled a report is that there is no progress to report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member said yesterday that there were 19 settlements. There are 21—11 at the front end and 10 at the other end. The talk that is coming out of her mouth should be coming out of the other end. What a load of rubbish! 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I seek leave to table an extract from the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 provision 8I titled “Annual Report on Implementation of Recommendations”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I seek leave to table a report by the Parliamentary Library showing that the Minister has never—never—tabled a report on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library extract that shows a list of dates that negotiations started and finished. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Medical Services—Rural Areas 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: Has he received any reports on improving recruitment and retention of medical staff in rural areas? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. The Government has announced that from next February the number of fully funded places for general practice training will rise from 69 a year to 104. Also from February 2008 up to 20 fifth-year medical students from Auckland University will have the opportunity to spend a year working and studying at Whangarei Hospital and smaller hospitals in Northland. Thirdly the University of Otago has been given $300000 to develop a curriculum for a rural medical immersion programme at two rural district health boards. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other reports has he received on initiatives for rural New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Last week I saw a report that fully supports the initiatives this Government is implementing in the rural sector including improvements to rural health. It includes recommendations to expand the number of medical student places as well as increasing training in rural and provincial areas. I refer of course to National’s rural issues policy paper which is nothing more than a cut and paste of current Labour policies. That paper does two things: firstly it endorses current Government initiatives; and secondly it marks a return to the failed policies of the 1990s including the desire to sell Landcorp privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and undercut labour laws so that farm workers become seasonal workers. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Does the Minister realise that the greatest threat to the rural workforce is the way this Government fails to understand them value them and respect them as recorded in the  
IPAC 2006 General Practice Business Study 
 and then has senior public servants refer to nurses as “vote maximisers”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am very aware of the 2006 study by the Independent Practitioners Association Council. In fact it was a study of 36 general practitioners out of a total of 1100. I accept that some of those recommendations have some validity but I do not accept that the study was a wide-ranging study of the rural health sector across the country. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek leave to table this code of conduct—the one for MPs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the code of conduct. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Social Security Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Government introduced this bill to signal our commitment to providing the right services and support for people to retain find or move towards employment. We consider it to be an integral part of the Working New Zealand initiatives and a move towards aligning or removing outdated provisions in the Social Security Act. The work focus of this bill is a very positive objective. It supports the basic purpose of the Social Security Act in relation to providing social and financial support to people for whom work is not appropriate or who are for some reason not able to work for a time. 
The bill introduces a number of significant new provisions. It introduces first of all new planning requirements for people who are receiving sickness or invalids benefits. This does not mean that people will be pressured into taking up or returning to work. I have been very concerned about inaccurate and irresponsible statements in this regard that have been made in the media. Those statements have also clearly concerned other members of this House and members of the community. Taito Phillip Field in particular has discussed his concerns with me and it is at his request that I stress a further time that no undue pressure of any kind will be put on non work-tested beneficiaries as a result of this legislation to take up work or return to work. 
I have also introduced further steps in respect of staff training and implementation will be taken to ensure that this is so. Extra monitoring regimes will also be implemented to ensure that my expectations in that respect are met. Planning though is about enabling people to reach their full potential. Through sitting down and talking to people we can better understand their needs and aspirations. Working more actively with people will mean that we can better provide them with the services and support they need. Planning takes account also of individual circumstances and can address issues such as training housing finance health transport work aspirations and ability. It provides the opportunity for a case manager to build a rapport with the person concerned. 
To take a flexible approach to planning based on a person’s circumstances recognises that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work and is not appropriate especially for disabled people or people with ill health. Rather than having a preconceived idea of a person’s capabilities the focus of the planning work will be on working with individuals to set realistic goals and supporting them of course to achieve agreed goals. People who are clearly unable to plan will not be required to do so. There are now and will be in the future people receiving sickness or invalids benefits for whom planning is not appropriate. For example if a person has a very serious illness or impairment that requires a high level of support for everyday living it would obviously be most unreasonable to expect that person to plan for a future that could potentially involve a return to work. 
Changes to the current requirement for other benefits are also introduced including the introduction of a pre-benefit activity requirement for those on the unemployment benefit. New requirements for 16 and 17-year-olds that will encourage them to be actively involved in educational training are part of this legislation as is a correction power so that a benefit can commence at an earlier date than the date of application where a person has failed to complete an application because of an error on the part of the ministry. Also the bill includes a legislative framework for the application process for benefits to ensure that there is a robust transfer of information and that the process is clear and transparent. 
So for the sake of the absence of all doubt let me again repeat that I have asked the Ministry of Social Development to issue clear operational instructions to reinforce the procedures for the implementation of the bill. This will stress that non-work-tested beneficiaries are not to be subjected to pressure to take up or return to work. 
The bill will be beneficial in a number of further ways. It reduces the maximum income stand-down period from 10 weeks to 2 weeks; it aligns the residence criteria at 2 years for all benefits except the emergency unemployment benefit; and it extends the definition of hospital care to include residential care of an equivalent kind so that more people will be able to access the domestic purposes benefit for the care at home of the sick or infirm. The bill also removes the qualifying child criteria for domestic purposes and widows benefits so that access to those benefits will be based on the residence of the caregiver and the dependent child. 
The bill extends the exemption to the stand-down period to any person entering a refuge not just sole parents; it extends the continuation of benefits for 8 weeks to all sole parents not just those receiving a domestic purposes benefit when they lose the care of a child in circumstances outside their control; and it allows young people leaving the care of Child Youth and Family to access the independent youth benefit. 
I am pleased to compliment the Social Services Committee and I would like to thank it for the result of its deliberations which resulted in a number of amendments to the bill. These amendments have improved the clarity of the bill and put the policy intent beyond doubt especially in relation to the application process and “activity in the community”. The select committee identified an issue that the Government has also followed up on immediately. As a result of submissions to the select committee and the representations of my colleague Lynne Pillay in particular the Government agreed to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. Supplementary Order Paper 114 inserted a further amendment into the bill that extends the provision currently available for the blind to travel overseas for vocational training for up to 2 years without loss of entitlement to benefit to any person on an invalids benefit as a result of disability ill health or injury. This change has been welcomed by the community. It is a very positive change I am sure members will agree that will assist people with disabilities to undertake vocational training where that training is for whatever reason not available in this country. 
I also acknowledge the members of the Social Services Committee who supported and improved this bill. I acknowledge Sue Mackwell and her team from the Ministry of Social Development for their hard work and commitment in making improvements to legislation for which they should be justifiably proud. In closing let me also pass my appreciation to those members of the House who have dealt with this legislation as a matter of principle in particular New Zealand First United Future Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field. I am delighted to have the honour of commending the Social Security Amendment Bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This Social Security Amendment Bill is a very interesting bill which came before the Social Services Committee. As was commented on the other day by Sue Bradford in the House this is yet another amendment to the Social Security Act. One of the points that Mrs Bradford made—and I thought made very well—is that this is just another part of the huge matrix that is social security legislation. We have a bill that although we who are on the select committee know what it is about to do and we know what it is all about most New Zealanders if they are trying to search for some change or amendment or for what this bill does will very soon have real difficulty in finding out what the rules are. That is because the bill refers to sections in other Acts and does not just deal with what is in front of it. I think it is incredibly important—and this is a point that Mrs Bradford made that I think was absolutely right—that we should always try to create legislation that is not only in plain English as much as possible but that is able to be accessed readily by the people who are meant to be able to access it. This bill simply does not meet that requirement. It is just another piece of legislation in this area that could in fact have been put together in one big piece of legislation to have this whole area looked at. 
This is a bill that could really have been called the “Single Core Benefit (Phase One) Bill”. That is because this is phase one of the single core benefit that the Government has been promising in its various forms really since 2000 and even before that in 1989 when Michael Cullen was the Minister of Social Welfare—before “welfare” was turned into “development” under this Government. So this is a bill that is just a little step along the way. It does not really put a lot in the way of sanctions for people who simply do not want to cooperate. It does have sanctions for people who do not want to have personal development plans it does have sanctions for people who do not want to carry out the personal development plans but for those who simply want to put together a plan that they will agree to where they do not plan to do very much it does not do a lot about them. I suggest to this House that the people who will be sanctioned are those who are genuinely trying to improve their lot and to contribute to the community the people who really do put together a plan and then find that it has been a bit ambitious for them and they cannot comply with it. 
I think it is a shame when we have to ask sickness and invalid beneficiaries to plan to work whether or not they really can be expected to. I think that is a shame. If only we had a system that said that those who really cannot work because of sickness or a disability do not have to be classed in with those who can work but wish not to. It is a real shame that we have this current situation. We have it of course because there are now over 125000 working-age New Zealanders who according to this Government are too sick to work. That is a 50 percent increase since Labour came into power despite the now $4 billion extra spent on health every year. So we are trying to deal with a situation here where a lot of people have been shifted off the unemployment benefit and put into a sickness or an invalids benefit category and now we will be asking them whether they would like to work. Well the answer in some cases will pretty much be no. 
The other thing is the question of why we are doing this for people who are genuinely too sick to work and should not have to be asked to work. 
I think that is a real shame. One of the things that the Minister has never really been very good at is being gracious. He needs to understand that some of the sensible amendments in the bill came about because of the good work done by National Party members on the select committee and also I should say by members from the ACT party the Greens and United Future—those people who were actually there. All the Minister wants to do is take credit for those who support him on everything he does which frankly is a bit difficult. I understand he has one or two votes in this one. In a major piece of legislation that is all he can scrape together. To hear him today praising Taito Phillip Field after all the other things he and his party have said about him is pretty interesting to say the least. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Generous! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I would not say it was generous; I would say it was interesting. Of course we are not allowed to use the word that it actually is. So I think that is incredibly interesting. This Government is now relying on the votes of Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field for one of its major pieces of legislation because it does not have enough sense to come along and talk sensibly to people in this Parliament and ask them about their concerns. Instead it needs to actually go to Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland. Well I will not say anything about dogs lying down and getting fleas but some people might use that term. If people lie down with dogs they get up with fleas. 
This is legislation on which we received so many submissions and hardly any of them supported the bill. The people who came to talk to us about it were people from the disability sector like those from IHC New Zealand. They also are concerned that people who are genuinely ill will be expected to plan to work. I have no problem with saying that those who are malingering and do not really need to be on a sickness benefit should be working. We in the National Party think it is incredibly important that those who are genuinely ill and unable to work are assured that they will not be pressured into it by somebody in a Work and Income office with a quota or feel they are being bullied—bullied by this Minister and his cronies—into getting a job or trying to find one. 
The only other interesting things we heard were from a very good submission by the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre. Its submission was an incredibly good one. Its representatives said that at the behest of the Families Commission the centre had looked at just how good these personal development employment plans were. They found a very interesting fact which was that most of the people who fill out these plans do not do anything with them. One of the reasons is that the people do not even get a copy when they leave the office. In other words people go along do their plan then 1 year later go along and do another plan. When the Ministry of Social Development person was asked about why this was the answer was that nobody expects them to do anything with it. This is just another cynical attempt to look as though something is being done. 
The fact is that some people are going to be in work as a result of being asked to plan for this to happen and that is a good thing. Some people are not. At the end of the day a lot of this could be avoided if only we had proper medical criteria around the sickness benefit and invalids benefit. If only this Minister would stop saying that everyone who is on a sickness benefit should be there. If only he would work in with the doctors’ group to get better requirements around the sickness benefit in particular. If only he would make sure that doctors were not subject to intimidation; and if only he would make sure that doctors were not bullied by Work and Income people sending them hundreds of people to sign off on a sickness benefit. 
I noticed the other day that a doctor had signed off 300 people on a sickness benefit in the matter of a month. These are huge numbers. We worked out that this doctor was making about $600 a day out of the sickness benefit and that was three visits a day. Unbelievable amounts of money are going through under this system. Yet every time doctors stand up and say that they are being bullied that they do not have to be bullied on this and that they would like to be able to sign off things properly what happens? What happens is that this Government then accuses them of being part of some fraudulent activity— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What happens? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: If that member would like to take a call he should stand up and take one instead of just yapping from the sidelines with his little puppy-mate next door to him. That is what he should do; he should just take a call. What that member Mr Fairbrother over there should really do is contribute in a more positive way and talk about the good things that can be done in this area rather than constantly yapping from the sidelines with his little mate. That is what he should do instead of yapping from over there. This is one of the problems. This is why Mr Fairbrother is on his way out. But never mind; he is a nice enough bloke and I like the fact that he upsets Michael Cullen. That is a good thing. He is not a bad bloke at all actually and he did chair the committee very well even though I notice he has not been generous in his praise for the other parties that assisted the committee at all stages. 
This bill is not one we feel we can support. We think it is unfortunate that people who are severely disabled will in fact feel under pressure to find paid employment when they really should not have to. We think it is wrong that the “activity in the community” component has been taken out of any sanction activities so that in effect those who really could be getting some work experience will not have any incentive to get it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is a huge pleasure to follow on from the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee after that stunningly stunningly empty speech. When I was listening to her I thought that gosh all I could really say about that speech is that she is taking a long time to dance on the head of a pin. 
First of all she attacked the style of the bill—the wording. Nothing was said about that in the select committee. She went on to say that it would help beneficiaries who want to malinger. But then the real agenda of her party came out of her pursed lips— 
Judith Collins 
: Pursed! 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Yes they stuck out. She was trying to avoid the word “sanctions” but she deviated from the script given to her by her whips because she is like that; deviation is one of the things she specialises in especially when the whips give her an instruction. In the course of her deviation the word “sanctions” slipped out. She said there are no sanctions in the bill. 
Every beneficiary should be worried about those words. Every New Zealander should be worried about those words because very few families in New Zealand are not touched by disability mental health issues or disadvantage. Whilst we are in good form and strong of our own mind and body it is easy to categorise those who depend on the State as requiring sanctions. We heard from the National Party’s representative today that National members want more sanctions in the provision of social welfare. Perhaps that is why it is estimated that under National about 160 families would lose about $50 a week because of National’s sanction-ridden policies. 
But I want to get to this Social Security Amendment Bill in the short time that is available to me today. I will just comment on the point made by the previous speaker when she laboured over new section 1B(d) to be inserted into the Social Security Act by clause 23 of the bill. It provides: “people for whom work is not appropriate should be supported in accordance with this Act.” What National members are avoiding doing is speaking about the purpose and principles sections. They have spread the fear among the community that this is a punitive bill yet they come here and speak about it not having sanctions; they have spread the hype that they have a concern for the disadvantaged yet they speak about the bill not having sanctions; and they refuse to speak about clause 23 which introduces sections 1A and 1B to the primary Act. 
I want to take the House to the new section 1A which is the purpose section: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate—…”. Who can object to that? This is a country that looks after its own. This is a country that encourages excellence achievement and attainment and assists those for whom those are not possible. Then paragraph (b) states: “to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support to people to help alleviate hardship:”. That is exactly what everyone in New Zealand wishes we were like and under this Government that is what we are like. Section 1A(c) states: “to ensure that the financial support referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) is provided to people …” taking into account two basic steps. 
Of course those are directions not to beneficiaries as has been promoted by the opponents of the bill but to the Ministry of Social Development which administers the legislation. It is the ministry that must enable the provision of financial and other support. It is the ministry that is to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support. It is the ministry that must ensure that the financial support is provided. All that is asked in return is some administrative and where appropriate work-related requirements on people seeking or receiving financial support under the Act. 
Even that is qualified in the principles clause. First of all the basic principle in section 1B(a) is one that every Kiwi aspires to: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. I repeat: work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being. What could be more clear than that? What could we contest about that? I wait to hear a speaker from the other side of the House say what is wrong with that as a basic principle in the bill. 
The second principle is: “(b) the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work:”. This is the key to the programme that this bill reflects. It is not just about making work out of nothing; it is about finding work that is sustainable because this Government aims for full employment and worthwhile employment. So we will help people who have been unemployed to find work but it is to be work that is sustainable. This is the key to the bill: sustainability. 
Of course there are some people for whom work much as they want it is inappropriate. Most beneficiaries to my knowledge would like to have work but there are some people who currently cannot work. But they are not sidelined because of that because there is an onus on the ministry to assist such people to plan for work in the future and to develop employment-focused skills. So those who can work will be assisted into sustainable work and those who may be able to work in the future will be prepared for the day when they can enter into the workforce and undertake sustainable work. Then there is the third category which contains the people who probably most want to work and they are the people for whom work is not appropriate. This legislation provides that they should be supported by having financial assistance to relieve their hardship. This third category of people genuinely want to work but because of circumstances beyond their control cannot. They will welcome the passing of this Social Security Amendment Bill into law. 
This bill is a very good change to our social security policy. This change highlights the difference between Labour members and the National members opposite. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 National is opposing the Social Security Amendment Bill at its third reading in the House today and people may ask why. Well we think this bill is another piece of political puffery from a Government that has run out of ideas and from a Minister for Social Development and Employment who has few ideas about how to manage a significant portfolio that has a profound effect on the lives of many of the most vulnerable New Zealanders—those who are reliant on the State for financial support. 
People may ask what this bill will do. It does what most New Zealanders thought the Government was already doing: getting New Zealanders into the workforce giving them a step up for themselves and their families giving them a step up towards self-esteem self-sufficiency and satisfaction. More important it gives them a step towards active participation in their communities. We all thought that was what Work and Income was doing anyway so why do we need this bill? Why do we need this bill and all the puffery that preceded its passage through this House? The Minister announced it was the biggest reform to the welfare system in 50 years. Yes the Minister actually said that when all it does is tidy up a few loose ends and essentially changes very little. 
The bill talks about sickness and invalids benefits whose numbers have risen 50 percent under this Minister and this Government. There are now over 125000 New Zealanders getting either a sickness or invalids benefit. That is a quarter of a million working-age people out of a country of 4 million in total. Come on Minister! That just cannot be right. Who would believe that so many working-age New Zealanders are too sick to work? 
Every time we raise this with the Minister and my colleague Judith Collins does this regularly at question time the Minister babbles on about what is happening in other countries under other Governments and under other Ministers—as if that makes it OK. Well it is not OK and I know from the people in my own electorate who have sat in my office and told me that some Work and Income staff are encouraging and have encouraged people from the unemployment register to move on to a sickness benefit in order to make the figures look better. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: The member should stop telling lies. Give me the names. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to the Minister that it cannot be denied; it happens. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member cannot say that. Please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I know of a chap in Opotiki who was on a temporary benefit for well over a year. Work and Income wanted to put him on to a sickness benefit and he did not want a bar of it. He sat in my office in Whakatane and said to me: “I’m a good worker. I have been sick but now I’m well I’m fit and I want a job. Why won’t they help me find a job?”. 
To the shame of this Minister and this Labour Government in the last 7 years about 30000 people have switched from the unemployment benefit to a sickness benefit. The Government is rorting the figures to make them look better but worse it is denying good people the opportunity to get out in the community and to work to support themselves and their family. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am rather surprised but I think I did hear the member accuse me and the ministry of rorting the figures. I take offence at that and I would ask her to withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. This Government is manipulating the figures so that it makes them look better. Thirty thousand people have moved from the unemployment benefit. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Government does not produce the figures. The figures are produced by the Ministry of Social Development. They cannot in any way be manipulated by the Government. That is a totally inappropriate and outrageous statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has raised a debating point. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: The worst thing about the manipulation of figures is that it is covering up the manipulation of people. People have a right to get the appropriate benefit and the appropriate assistance to help them find a job. The Minister has himself admitted that one out of five potential sickness or invalids beneficiaries who have been signed up by a doctor is fit for work. We might have expected that this amendment bill that we are debating today would address that issue but it does not. We thought maybe there would be a change in the assessment criteria because people who are being signed up on the sickness benefit may not be sick and should not be there. Surely this bill was the place for the Minister to tidy this up. But no we have no changes in the amendment bill to catch that 20 percent who should not be receiving a sickness benefit. So we can only assume that this Labour Government does not care that a fifth of the people claiming the benefit are not actually sick and are not being assisted to find their way back into the workforce. 
The previous speaker talked a lot about sanctions as if they were a dirty word. There are sanctions in this bill for those who will not put a plan together in order to get back into work. But there are not sufficient sanctions for people who refuse to work and who insist upon relying on the State to support them. Yesterday during the Committee stage I questioned the Minister about the existing provisions for sanctions and how often they were applied. I gathered from his answers that they were not applied very often. He has repeated comments about sanctions in the House today but this bill should have addressed some better sanctions on people who consistently refuse to turn up and take part in the workforce. 
I talked last night and I want to talk again about some records that were provided to me by a pack-house in my electorate. They were kept to show the work records of 21 people provided through Work and Income. In one gang of 21 people over the 18 weeks they were working the number dwindled to three people showing up for work in the last week. One of those worked a total of 18½ hours over 18 weeks and the other two worked a total of 8½ hours. Two people did not show up on the first day. Over the next 6 weeks one worked 67 hours in total. That is an average of 11 hours a week. The other worked 100 hours. That is an average of just 16 hours a week. But it got worse because they never turned up again for the following 12 weeks. They never ever showed their faces again. The guys managing the pack-house were tearing their hair out. They had work to be done. They had provided a bus to collect the workers. They had provided training and management tools and safety gear. All they wanted was the workers. 
This is a good industry—the kiwifruit industry. They were offering these workers the important job of pruning. It is essential that the pruning is done immediately after the crop is picked so that there is a crop in the next year. A career path was set out for those workers that they could eventually make their way through perhaps to become part of a workforce that had work for 9 months of the year. All the pack-house wanted was for the workers to come to work. What they got was a phone call every day from Work and Income with an ever-increasing list of who was not coming to work that day. 
So Work and Income knew that those workers were not showing up. By week 7 12 were no-shows two turned up and worked 4 days two worked 3 days three worked 2 days and two worked 1 day in the week. And that was just week 7. By the end—by week 18—18 out of the original 21 people were not turning up for work. After all that work effort and expense only three people took advantage of the job offer put in front of them. 
That is just not good enough. It is not good enough for them or for the community that has to support them. The pack-house itself employed someone to go round and knock on the doors of those people to wake them up and get them turned out for work and that worked spasmodically. But it should not have been the job of the people from the pack-house to do that; that should have been the job of Work and Income. With all the talk about assisting people into work and making sure there are provisions to do so anyone would have expected Work and Income to do that follow-up. We can only hope that this bill turns out to be more than mere puffery from this Minister and this deadbeat Government. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the third reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the employment of New Zealanders is a priority and that we cannot afford to limit the labour-market capacity in any way if the economy is to grow. We all want the economy to grow and we hear about that daily in this House. People who are able to work should be given the right services and support so that they can retain find or move towards employment. 
The focus on work is a very positive feature of this bill and it is one we would expect any Government to have particularly a National Government. When we hear from National members that they are very reluctant to support this initiative yet daily they bring the issue of unemployment to the House—whether it be the household labour force survey figures or the unemployment figures—this is indeed surprising. 
The welfare system can never be a lifestyle choice for people who are able to work. In New Zealand First we recognise too that there is a small group of people for whom work is not an appropriate choice as they have high health needs. We also know that some people need help at times and we believe that the welfare system should provide a helping hand particularly when people need it most. 
In New Zealand First we like the emphasis that this bill has on planning requirements for a working future for those who are able to do so. If people do not know what they want to achieve or to do with their life then they will never ever achieve it. One of the hardest things for people who are looking for work is to work out the direction in which they wish to go. We are very pleased to see that some assistance will be given in this area and that people’s circumstances like transport training education and ability will be taken into account. We know that people often need to be helped to set realistic goals then helped to achieve them. I remember some years ago that quite a number of the people who went to the Work and Income New Zealand office wanted to be acrobats astronauts or clowns. Although for some people those goals might be achievable I would say that for most people they definitely are not. In the main they are unrealistic career choices. 
The encouragement for 16 and 17-year-olds to be actively involved in education and training is extremely positive. We applaud that. New Zealand First believes in the concept of mutual obligations. When a person is unable to get paid employment the State will pay that person on the understanding that he or she is involved in making some contribution back to the community. Of course that contribution can be training or some pre-employment programme. We believe that that type of programme helps people to understand what is required in a job. 
Work experience is a valuable training ground for employment. We believe that work experience should be for only a limited time as young people need to be actively engaged in the workforce and to receive the right payment for what they are doing. We do not want to see unfair advantage taken of any beneficiary. We can only commend the very many employers in the retail sector and the fast-food industry who put so much effort into hiring and training young people. All of the aspects of the world of work that we take for granted have to be taught to most young people such as getting to work on time; focusing on one task for 8 hours or so; working the required length of time in the day; keeping their uniform tidy; working as part of a team; and working safely—the list just goes on. 
Ensuring that young people have these skills is not easy. As a parent I know that it is a challenge. My son had some challenges initially when he went to work as a trolley assistant at a supermarket. It was quite a challenge to have to focus on that job for 8 hours but I am pleased to say that he has achieved it and he is very happy to be there. It is essential that young people learn these skills and learn for themselves that they can achieve greater heights on money they have actually earned than if they are dependent on a benefit and basically having the State dictate the level of their living. Everyone needs to feel that he or she matters and makes a contribution in some way. The focus on work is one of the ways we can do this. 
In New Zealand First we are very pleased that the number of young people on a benefit is steadily reducing. The negative outcomes that result from unemployment—the mental health issues the substance abuse issues and criminal activities—are all aspects of life that we do not want young people involved in or with. Success in employment training and education are definitely the most important ways out of poverty and all the research shows this. Dr Muriel Newman a former ACT MP always emphasised that families and people cannot succeed when they are living on a benefit. 
We are pleased to see too that the work focus has been extended to people on other benefits as well particularly the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. We have been concerned at the growing trend of those on the unemployment benefit being moved on to the sickness benefit but the reality for some people is that being out of work and on the unemployment benefit makes them ill and basically unable to work. The hardest thing in life is often to take the first step and it is a good initiative to provide support and services for people so that this step can be successful and so that they can have a future they are looking forward to. 
We were interested and pleased to see that the stand-down period for benefits has been reduced from 10 weeks to 2 weeks. I always wondered how people affected by unemployment could look after themselves and their families for 10 weeks without any form of assistance. A large percentage of these people would not have been highly paid and like most people would have been waiting for pay day and to survive for a long period of time without money must be extremely challenging. I know that Sue Bradford would agree with me on this particular issue—she is nodding. This change to the stand-down period is a positive change. We want to encourage people to be involved. We do not want to encourage people to be involved with loan sharks or with any questionable activities in order to get the money they need to survive. 
The select committee’s change to extend the provision for the blind to travel overseas for vocational training is positive and must be commended. It is paramount that people with disabilities can undertake training overseas when that training is not available here in New Zealand. 
In New Zealand First we know that working adults are the basis of a successful society and we are very pleased to see the constructive measures that are outlined in this bill. People today face a far more complex and challenging environment than ever before and gaining full-time employment can be extremely difficult partially as a result of economic conditions. So assistance such as that outlined in this bill is a very positive change. We want people to participate in the workforce and we want them to be able to do so. The benefits of working outweigh the benefits of not working. The reality is that all jobs matter. They are all essential; otherwise they would not be created. 
The direction in this bill is sound and it is sound for any Government to take. We would be very critical of this bill if such measures were not being followed. We like the philosophy that is fundamental to this bill. Everyone should be encouraged to work if they possibly can do so. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Once again we have a social security amendment bill going through its third reading debate in the House and marking yet another attempt to patch up the incredibly fragmented jumble that constitutes the Social Security Act 1964 as amended many dozens of times. On 29 May this year in the Supreme Court Justice Blanchard made a statement in the Owens case. He said that Ministry of Social Development staff present in court should register his concern about the serious patchwork mess that the Social Security Act had grown into and he said that something needed to be done. He went on to say that the court had given similar advice to the Government previously around the Immigration Act and now the Social Security Act warranted the same sort of advice—that is that it needed to be totally reorganised. He expressed the hope that day that those Ministry of Social Development officials in court might relay that message onwards. 
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of Justice Blanchard’s recent comments but I urge him to heed these words. I realise he is probably utterly sick of the Green Party calling for a new Social Security Act but I sincerely hope that the justice’s statement made so recently might carry a little more weight. 
The Government should not continue amending in this ad hoc manner the original Act which is after all well over 40 years old. Instead all the manifest expertise available at the Ministry of Social Development should be called upon to put together new legislation that is fit for the 21st century. What we need is clear new law designed to make our welfare system fair accountable simple and responsive to the real needs of those dependent upon it in any way. Behind that of course we need a Work and Income department that is ready willing and able to administer the detail of the system in as equitable and respectful a way as possible. 
The particular bill in front of us this afternoon is a little classic of its type in terms of its piecemeal approach. Some of it contains beneficial changes including things like the reduction of the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks the development of consistent residential qualifications across the benefit system and some constructive changes to details of the administration of the domestic purposes benefit. 
I also welcomed during the Committee deliberation the amendment put forward by the honourable Minister David Benson-Pope that gives the Ministry of Social Development the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a person who is overseas for a period of not more than 2 years for the purpose of receiving vocational or guide-dog training providing he or she cannot receive the same training here. I had put forward my own more limited Supplementary Order Paper to this effect and I was delighted that the Government went further with its own amendment. 
I was also pleased that the Government saw fit to make it very clear during the process of dealing with this bill that the Scoble principle will continue to apply and that when someone applies for one type of benefit or is given one type of benefit when they first apply that will be taken as a valid application for any benefit should the department subsequently work out that another one is more appropriate. It is good too that during the select committee process the bill was amended to make it clear that beneficiaries on a sickness or invalids benefit will not be sanctioned if they do not take up “activity in the community” as part of their job-seeker agreements. Along with many submitters on the bill I had a real worry that this could have been a gentle but nevertheless very real way of reintroducing a form of required work for the dole through the back door. I am relieved that the Government has chosen to make it very clear that this is not the direction in which it wishes to go. 
However despite these changes made during the course of the bill’s passage through the House the Green Party continues to oppose this bill overall on several grounds. First of all there were several matters that we tried to amend in the House including issues around pre-benefit activity for people on the unemployment benefit and the definition of “income”. Although these are quite technical matters they are fundamental in terms of providing a fair and reasonable administration of the benefit system. It was really disappointing that only Maori Party members saw fit to support our amendments and I thank them very much for that support and for the understanding they bring to this Parliament of the realities that beneficiaries face in their daily lives. 
Secondly and more critically our fundamental opposition to this bill which I realise the Government does not quite understand is based around the changes it makes to the purposes and principles of the Social Security Act. The Minister himself in a presentation to the Social Services Committee last week said the changes represented by this bill were the biggest reform to welfare since the original 1938 Act. He is absolutely right; it was just that that was the first time I had seen the Government acknowledge it. Without the kind of consultative process one might expect for such a major change of direction and without the support of most of the submitters to the bill at the select committee the Government has put up a new principles and purposes section that basically alters our country’s whole approach to social security. 
What is being enshrined there is a “work first” approach. Work is seen as the ultimate goal for all working-age citizens and residents. This completely devalues the work of caring for children and/or the elderly the sick and the disabled or the other essential contributions that so many beneficiaries make on a daily basis to their local communities. Although I welcome the fact that all beneficiaries will have access to work and training assistance from the department should they want it this bill goes way too far in reinforcing the attitude that those on a benefit are intrinsically worth less than those in paid work in that the work they do—even that most essential task of caring for others—is not seen as something to be valued and respected in itself. I am also concerned that people who suffer or are recovering from mental illness injury sickness and physical or intellectual disability will come under increased pressure to go out into the workforce in a way that could at times make their personal situation even worse and more stressful than it is already. 
The purposes and principles section of the new bill also promotes a rigid interpretation and administration of our welfare system. It entrenches the moves begun most significantly with the shift from the special benefit to the temporary additional support with the whole system becoming more rigid less discretionary and less able to meet people’s actual needs. I continue to hear stories of beneficiaries being forced to rely on impossibly low amounts of money to survive because the discretion of the special benefit is no longer available. The objective of our social welfare system should be to enable people to participate fully in our society and clothe house and feed their children and themselves with dignity and adequacy not simply to alleviate hardship only to the extent provided by the Act. 
We should go back to the 1938 Act to the recommendations of the two royal commissions on social policy to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act in order to find purposes and principles that would do justice to a truly fair and progressive welfare system. I also have a fundamental fear that the nature of this bill will in fact possibly lay the groundwork for much more regressive reforms to welfare legislation should we end up with a National-led Government at some point. 
I am not surprised but I am sorry that the Government showed no interest in amending the purposes and principles sections of this bill as per my proposed amendments during the Committee stage. This debate on the nature and purpose of the welfare system will however continue and the Green Party will not shy away from continuing to put forward a very different vision than that proposed by either the Labour or the National Parties. 
A final matter I would briefly like to touch on before I finish today concerns the report done by the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre some conclusions of which were put forward as part of its submission on this bill. This research dealing with improved work-life balance for people on the domestic purposes benefit had been commissioned paid for and signed off by the Families Commission before the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre’s submission was made. The report was totally relevant to the bill before us. The implementation of the personal development and employment plan system which constitutes the major focus of the report is going to be widened out through this bill. However 2 days after the Rotorua People’s Advocacy Centre’s submission to the select committee on 28 March its final report was suddenly renamed by the Families Commission retrospectively becoming a “draft final report” and eight pages of new demands were submitted to the authors. Before 28 March everything had been on track to publication but after the submission was made suddenly the Families Commission withdrew its support. I find the political implications of this very disturbing. 
On top of that I have since discovered that the Ministry of Social Development had on 20 March made a report that said the publication of this research would make a risk to the social development portfolio. This risk was firstly because some of the matters contained in the report were relevant to the Child Poverty Action Group case against the in-work payment and secondly because the Ministry of Social Development believed that: “The report created a misleading impression about the provisions contained in the Social Security Amendment Bill affecting sole parents.” 
I find it incredible that publication of a report could be halted because of these so-called risk factors especially in the context of its relevance to a bill currently before the House. I hope we do not see the muzzling of this type of research commissioned by a Government body happening again. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The term “welfare” means many things to many people. Its origins emerged in responding to the needs of those in poverty. But over the years as material living standards have fallen as income inequality has increased and significant ethnic differences have arisen we have witnessed the emergence of a disturbing new way of thinking around welfare. Ironically at a time when compassion is most needed we have seen the development of a new era where blaming the poor is seen in the idea of welfare dependency and perceptions that the sick the disabled the poor are somehow the result of a moral turpitude a laxity of values and personal sloppiness. Instead of welfare being seen as the foundation of our modern State it has become fashionable to speak disparagingly about those on income support. “Welfare” is becoming another pejorative term for describing the difference between the haves and the have-nots. “Beneficiary” has become the latest term of abuse. 
The Social Security Amendment Bill is motivated by this force of public hostility towards those of our citizens who require the support of social security. It is based not on the attainment of inclusive citizenship but on the relentless drive of welfare-to-work. Let me say from the outset that the Maori Party also shares a deep concern about the dependency mindset that is associated with modern-day welfare but our concern is levelled not at the individuals and communities requiring protection from hardship; our concern is about the system that presumes it knows best about how people should live their lives a system that appears to revel in removing hope then victimising those from whom the hope has been removed. 
We think of the reforms of the 1980s which promised much but have subsequently seen in this decade an increase in the incarceration rates and plans to build more jails to incarcerate more people. Is that genuine progress? I think not. We will never shirk from the responsibility of caring for those whom the great poet James K Baxter referred to as “ngamokai”. In his poem “He Waiata motaku Tangi” he describes those who cling to our social periphery: the young the alienated the ostracised the underprivileged the long-term unemployed those who have done a lag inside people with mental illness and Maori. We must not leave ngamokai in our trail. 
In the 16th century the Protestant reformer John Bradford was burnt at the stake as a heretic. There is one particular incident involving Bradford that has passed down through the centuries. Whilst either seeing a beggar in his rags walking down the streets on a stormy night or watching a criminal go to execution for his crimes Bradford gave utterance to a humble observation that I think has bearing on this bill. He said: “There but for the grace of God go I.” Whether the person he saw was a prisoner or a pauper is irrelevant; the philosophy of compassion of support of humility remains. I absolutely identify with such an utterance for as I reflect on my own youth and as I see what has happened and is still happening to my people I like Bradford would also be saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” 
The Maori Party is absolutely convinced of the need to reform the social support system. We also endorse the vision of being able to reduce the number of people on a benefit the numbers of people applying for a benefit and the duration of the benefit received. But we must never forget that no one is immune from sickness or disability from the trauma of divorce or death and from the insecurity of a volatile labour market. We must never forget the effects of colonisation of land language and the cultural deprivation that being in this Parliament reminds me of every day. These effects are played out on a regular basis at the Maori Affairs Committee as we listen to the experiences of our people as they attempt to get justice through the Treaty of Waitangi claims process. 
When I listened to the debate on the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill I experienced at the same moment both anger and grief and I wonder how much of what we are discussing today is really about a discussion of the whakapapa of deprivation. 
My co-leader Tariana was pilloried in some quarters for daring to mention the trauma suffered by our people as a result of colonisation—trauma identified graphically by the Waitangi Tribunal in its Taranaki reports. Yet just this week I read an article by an Australian psychologist who stated that it was time Australia acknowledged the trauma suffered by its indigenous people the results of which are vividly seen today. 
So we come to this day when we must not overlook the everyday reality of overcrowded and poor housing longstanding difficulties in accessing health care and the fact that people are being excluded from the full range of economic and social opportunities because of the grip of poverty. The Maori Party will safeguard the rights of New Zealanders to participate equitably in their own society—to belong no matter what. We believe in the rights of all citizens to be able to benefit from meaningful employment. We support therefore the commitment in the bill that people will be assisted to plan for work in the future and develop work-related skills. But we know also that people are more likely to stay in jobs that are meaningful adequately paid and are not inhibited by the constraints of institutional racism. 
We do not subscribe to the point of view that any work however menial is better than no paid work. We challenge any notion that forcing people into work in which the conditions and rates of pay leave a worker vulnerable is a good thing. We will for example be supporting Sue Bradford’s age-discrimination bill where 16 and 17-year-olds will receive the adult minimum wage. The Dunedin Community Law Centre described this bill as a shuffling of beneficiaries into low-paid insecure work which does not benefit individuals or society but simply allows employers to continue offering low wages and poor working conditions to those who have few alternatives. Well-being must not be compromised by the pressure of work at any cost. 
We also oppose any situation by which the value of the vital unpaid work that underpins our society is denigrated. This is the work that our communities depend upon—voluntary work looking after our children our sick our elderly our needy. The submission from the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted that this bill further entrenches the divide between deserving and undeserving children—a surprising key feature of the Working for Families package. 
We noted also the views of Dr Susan St John and Dr Louise Humpage that this bill “punishes those who can’t find work.” and requires a new pre-benefit activity to be completed before anyone is even eligible for the unemployment benefit. 
These concerns are also raised by the ordinary New Zealanders who have contacted our offices fearing that the distinction between the ill the impaired and the healthy is becoming increasingly blurred in order to categorise more people as fit for work. They have shared their anxieties that people are being forced to seek work who are not well enough to do so. 
The issue of social security and participation is fundamental to the advancement of our nation. We know too well that social cohesion is being seriously undermined by the oppression of poverty. We know too well the marginalisation of ngamokai—New Zealanders who are prevented from being able to participate equitably in their own society. We worry also about the stories we have heard of sole parents being harassed into paid work to the detriment of their tamariki and their whanau well-being. We know that Maori are targeted in such an approach and that sickness and invalids beneficiaries are suffering inordinate stress to comply with new requirements. 
The serious challenge before this House must be to alleviate the poverty of our poorest families. We must urgently address the unacceptably low family incomes. We must also invest in quality care for the children of working parents. The problems facing our nation are not wrapped up in an exclusive package called “benefit dependency”. We in the Maori Party do not want to end in a policy cul-de-sac—a no-end street in which society has run out of options. We must address the low incomes and low wages the pervasive racism of welfare reform demonstrated by specifically targeting Maori beneficiaries the folly of targeting sickness and invalids beneficiaries—pushing them into work when they are not well or ready—and the failure of the certainty that meaningful adequately paid secure employment is available. We cannot support this bill and we will continue to place pressure on the Government that it is essential that the whole sum of issues situated around the tribe of ngamokai must be seen as of the highest order. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I find it very hard to believe that the old Opposition will not be supporting a bill that introduces a strong work focus for beneficiaries who are fit and able to be engaged. If this was a blanket provision that required all beneficiaries to be work focused then objections would be fair but as I have signalled in earlier speeches this bill creates three very separate sets of expectations. 
The first is work support and it is geared towards those on the unemployment benefit; it requires them to be actively engaged in finding work. 
The second set of expectations—separate from the first—is for those who cannot work now but who are likely in the future to be able to work. Therefore this set of expectations accepts the limitations of the moment but it acknowledges that work is a possibility for the future and that consideration could be given to that now. 
The third and separate set of expectations articulated in this bill is of community support for those for whom there are no expectations of their ever being in paid employment but for whom the Government recognises that Work and Income has responsibilities. 
These three sets of expectations are able to be tailored to the clients—to the clients’ needs and to the clients’ potential—without demanding unfair or unrealistic outcomes from clients who have high and complex needs. In regard to those with high health needs or severe limitations the expectations of this bill are actually placed at the feet of the Government. This amendment requires the Government to proactively work to make sure that clients are resourced to participate as fully as possible in community activities. 
Beneficiaries like all New Zealanders should receive their income because they meet expectations. If people are unemployed then we expect them to be doing all that they can to secure employment. If people are unwell then we expect them to pursue recovery. If people are disabled then we expect them to discover their potential and to seek support so that that potential is realised. If people are receiving income as a parent in order to parent we expect that they are focused on the well-being of their children and we expect them to actively consider their future employment options so that at the appropriate time they can transition into paid employment. Work and Income can no longer leave this expectation to chance. Are these expectations unfair? Are these expectations onerous? Are these expectations achievable? And how does the political right justify to their voters their opposition to improving expectations that underpin the work ethic? 
Crucial to the success of this bill is the front-line role of Work and Income case managers. This bill places huge responsibility on them. I have particular concerns for those working in the provincial centres with more limited work training and community options to offer their clients. There are stories floating around of clients with disabilities being asked to consider employment and training options that are completely unrealistic and therefore extremely stressful. 
So the professional training and supervision of front-line staff is what this bill relies on. They are both the strength and the potential weakness of its implementation. United Future supports the third reading but we do want to signal to the Labour-led Government that we will take an active interest in the role of case managers and the ongoing training that they must receive so that expectations expressed to clients are done so in a positive rather than in a punitive tone. We believe that this bill moves in the right direction and we are happy to support its third reading. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Yesterday when we were in the Committee stage I looked at the history of the bill which originates from the Social Security Act 1938. In 1938 they used such phrases as: “benefit designed to safeguard the people of New Zealand from disabilities” and “provide a system where medical and hospital treatment will be made available.” The intention of the 1938 Act was to provide all those New Zealanders who were unable to look after themselves with a safety net to help with disabilities such as ageing sickness widowhood and unemployment. Its intended use was for those New Zealanders who were vulnerable or down on their luck. This is still relevant in 2007. It is important that there is always a safety net available for those people who need it. 
The 2007 Social Security Amendment Bill is legislating for what most New Zealanders presumed Work and Income was already doing; that is helping their fellow New Zealanders into work. 
 The general policy statement at the beginning of the explanatory note of this bill states: “It puts into effect the Working New Zealand: Work-Focused Support package of proposals to reform the social security support system.” It has such objectives as to “increase opportunities for people to participate in the labour market where work is an appropriate outcome;”. The fact that we now use phrases like “increase opportunities” and “where work is an appropriate outcome” I think waters down what social security is actually about. Now we have an acceptance that some of the people on a benefit are there through their own choice. They choose not to work because they know that the Government will continue to pay them to stay at home and to do what they want to do with their time. 
My colleague Anne Tolley talked yesterday about a packing house in her electorate that employed people from Work and Income to do seasonal work. Many of these workers after the novelty of working wore off made the decision that they no longer needed to go to work every day—in fact for many days in a row. Did they just wake up one day and decide they did not want to go to work and wake up the next day and decide they did not want to go to work? The packing house then became short-staffed. It could not meet its deadlines and deliverables. The business was then put at risk because of the limited workforce—if there was a workforce at all—and because people decided they did not want to come to work. 
But what is the consequence for the workers of their decisions and what does this bill do in terms of consequences for those decisions? I would say it does very little. If we look at the 45 grants allowances and benefits that are available to those people we will see I am sure that their families will not be put at risk for making the decision not to work. When we look at what they could be entitled to we see that under the costs of the working category the beneficiary could be entitled to the new employment transition grant the recoverable assistance grant the work start grant temporary additional support the Pathways payment the seasonal work assistance payment a childcare subsidy and an out-of-school care and recreation subsidy. That is eight grants and subsidies—support payments—to get them to go to work. If those people leave their jobs they could be entitled to special-needs grants temporary additional support a recoverable assistance payment or advance payment of benefit. Apparently the status of people in that situation is that of an emergency and they need immediate assistance because they have decided not to go to work. All in all they can be entitled to 12 grants. I wonder what assistance such employers get given that their orders are cancelled and their produce rots. 
Is this bill really about work first as it claims to be? Is this bill about safeguarding New Zealanders from disability or has it gone too far? In many cases now we have intergenerational beneficiaries. People have made the choice not to work and the Government just keeps on supporting them. This bill through its weak objectives and expectations is taking away from some New Zealanders their independence of the State and their ability to stand on their own two feet. The legislation will no longer provide the invaluable safety net that it once did or that it once intended to. It is now a level of interference in people’s lives. It is even an excuse. Instead of just getting on and living people are now justifying to a Government agency what they are doing how they are doing it and where they are doing it. We need to let these people take responsibility for themselves. We oppose this bill because it is legislating for what most New Zealanders presumed Work and Income already did: to help get New Zealanders into work. 
Statistics show that sickness and invalids benefits have risen under Labour. There is a distinct switch from the unemployment benefit on to the sickness benefit and invalids benefit—30000 in the last 7 years. According to the Minister David Benson-Pope 20 percent of people signing up to the sickness and invalids benefits should not be there. What are we doing for that 20 percent who should be in work? They are able-bodied people who should be entering the labour force. The labour force is screaming out for workers. There is no better time than now to go and get work. 
This morning I was talking to somebody in the hospitality industry who is currently lobbying the Government to bring immigrants in to take up jobs that the industry is trying to fill such as bar and waitress jobs cleaning jobs and jobs that are not highly skilled. It is not highly paid work but it is still work. These jobs need to be filled. They could be filled by those New Zealanders who are happy to stay at home and receive a benefit when we know they are able-bodied. The Minister said that 20 percent of those who sign up to sickness and invalids benefits should not be doing so and that they can actually work. 
One of the main flaws of the subsequent changes made to the bill is to remove from the sanctions provision the requirement for a person to undertake “activity in the community”. In fact these changes will lessen the ability of the bill to remove barriers to employment. The requirement for a person in terms of a personal development and employment plan should have to be fulfilled regardless of the source of that activity. I will give a typical example of how this is flawed. A beneficiary states in the personal development plan that he or she wishes to be a social worker. The only provider of social workers in the town is a church. The beneficiary therefore puts this provider in the development plan. Because that provider is a not-for-profit organisation it falls under the definition of “activity in the community”. The beneficiary does not have to turn up or even explain why he or she does not fulfil that part of the personal development plan. There is absolutely no consequence for the beneficiary not taking those actions. 
What has the personal development plan achieved and what does the beneficiary take away from this process? There is no need to fulfil the requirement of a plan and there are no consequences for not fulfilling the plan. It is possible to beat the system because there is a flaw in this bill. People think they do not have to do what they are told to do in order to receive something. So what job satisfaction is there for Work and Income staff who are developing and implementing these personal development plans? There is none. They cannot be enforced so why do they do them? In the eyes of those staff this must be frustrating and it must reduce their job satisfaction which is fundamental to keeping qualified staff. If this legislation is to be effective in any way whatsoever it comes down to implementation of the staff. We need to ensure that the staff have good job satisfaction and have “teethy” things they can work with. 
We oppose this bill because we know that the legislation is still flawed. I will give members another example. The introduction of a pre-benefit requirement to undertake a work-related activity if directed to do so by the chief executive will apparently strengthen the job search service. It should mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately. Unfortunately the flaw lies in the fact that it is not compulsory to do so. The beneficiary has to do this only if he or she is requested to. 
This legislation focuses more on work first. Most New Zealanders would assume that work first was always the mentality of Work and Income but unfortunately that is not the case. We acknowledge that this legislation is making steps in the right direction but let us get those steps right and where there are obvious flaws let us fix them now. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is twofold: firstly to permit a merger of AgriQuality and Asure provided that shareholding Ministers are satisfied that it makes commercial and strategic sense for New Zealand; and secondly to allow shareholding Ministers to direct the board of AgriQuality not to provide examination services as defined in the bill. 
First I would like to get a few facts straight following some interesting and slightly misguided comments made in the Committee last night. They related to when the bill was before the Commerce Committee and the undertaking by Trevor Mallard the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to provide Gordon Copeland with a draft Supplementary Order Paper for his consideration. After the necessary advice was received from officials on Mr Copeland’s suggested wording the draft Supplementary Order Paper was provided to him for consideration. Mr Copeland was promised a copy of the draft Supplementary Order Paper for his consideration and this was indeed done. It is unfortunate that Mr Copeland considered that the provisions in the Supplementary Order Paper did not meet his expectations. However the provisions clearly met the expectations of Mr Copeland’s former party United Future which voted for the bill last night. 
I am pleased to report that good progress has been made in developing the business case for the merger. A working-group established to assess the potential merger of AgriQuality and Asure recently concluded that there is a robust strategic rationale for the merger. Significant quantifiable gains are expected from a merger derived mainly from scale and scope economies and enhanced biosecurity capability. Although the merger is still subject to Cabinet approval and the passage of the bill into law a strong prima facie case has been established for the merger to proceed. 
The second objective permits shareholding Ministers to direct AgriQuality not to provide examination services and a number of concerns were raised in the select committee. The most significant concern raised in submissions was that by reducing the prospect of competition in the provision of export red meat inspection services the bill could result in higher prices and lower service levels than would otherwise be the case. 
The Supplementary Order Paper adopted last night addresses these concerns. The first addition to the bill Subpart 3 of Part 2 requires the Commerce Commission to investigate and report on the prices charged for examination services within 3 years of the commencement of the Act. The second addition Subpart 4 of Part 2 provides for the Crown to continue its negotiation with international trading partners to permit examination services to be undertaken by agencies other than the Crown. Further in future if more than two-thirds by value of New Zealand’s red meat exports are made to international trading partners that accept international guidelines on meat hygiene as set out in the Codex code of hygienic practice for meat then the Government will permit private provision of examination services. 
In conclusion I am confident that these common-sense amendments have gone a long way to addressing any concerns raised about the bill. This bill is critical for maintaining and enhancing shareholder value in AgriQuality and Asure companies owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders. It has the added benefit of improving New Zealand’s biosecurity response capability at a time when New Zealand is becoming increasingly at risk from incursions. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 The State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill is another kick in the guts for New Zealand farmers. I am surprised that for a bill that is so important to New Zealand agriculture a junior Minister Clayton Cosgrove has been sent to the House to do the third reading speech on behalf of the Government. I do not think I can recall a contribution at all on this legislation through the first reading the second reading or the Committee stage by our current Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Anderton. I do not think he has made a contribution at all on this important legislation which again will land heavy costs on our meat producers. 
If one had to describe the bill correctly one would say it was a bill designed by the unions for the unions—a bill designed by the unions for the unions. I said last night in the House during the Committee stage that I found it ironic to say the least that in the very week the legislation had been originally introduced into Parliament coincidentally the Labour Party suddenly found the $850000 that it had taken from taxpayers in the last election. I raised that point and Maryan Street accused me of being very improper even to suggest it. So I went back through the submission process and found a very close linkage between the Public Service Association (PSA) and this legislation. 
Let me start with a submission from the Meat Industry Association. I guess the first point I should note is the comments made by Bill Falconer the chair of the Meat Industry Association and a person who has a reputation in New Zealand and overseas as having championed the interests of New Zealand meat producers. Mr Falconer had this to say to the select committee: “I have to say that in 47 years I’ve been in and around Government I have never seen a major trade organisation be treated so shabbily.” The background to those very strong comments from Mr Falconer is the fact that this legislation or the concept of this legislation was first made known to the Meat Industry Association not by the Minister of Agriculture—not in fact by any Minister of the Crown—but by none other than the PSA when it requested a meeting with the Meat Industry Association. At that meeting which took place in July last year the PSA told the industry that a merger between Asure and AgriQuality would take place. 
The PSA then confirmed that stance in an email sent to all PSA members in Asure dated 22 June 2006 and signed by Keith Gutsell and Ian Baldick who I presume are senior executives of the PSA. In that email they stated: “In recent meetings between the PSA and Government Ministers the Prime Minister and the NZFSA the PSA has been informed that the Government will promulgate Government policy stating meat inspection is to be done only by the Government and delivered by one Government agency Asure.” The email goes on to state: “Make no mistake this is a major turn-round of direction and delivers far better professional and secure meat inspection services for the future.” 
The industry on hearing these comments and receiving a copy of that email then wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and requested a meeting. The Minister of Agriculture refused to meet with the Meat Industry Association because he was not prepared to face its members and discuss the implications of the legislation. So what we find is that coincidental with the sudden payment by the Labour Party of the $850000 in comes this legislation which in effect removes any potential— 
Maryan 
 Street 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on this but I consider that implication to be improper. I look to you to tell me some Standing Order under which I might claim that because that comment should not be repeated in this House. It is improper it is unworthy and it is untrue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has made a clear implication and he will stand withdraw and apologise. It is not acceptable to do that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on it. A member has raised a point of order an implication was made and I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: And apologise. I asked you to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I was saying before I was interrupted by the point of order that there is a clear association and a clear track from the PSA announcing this legislation to the industry and subsequent to that the legislation coming before the House almost 12 months later. That I think has been a very very sad state of affairs; this very important industry has been treated as though it were almost irrelevant. There is no paper trail as to why the PSA demanded this legislation. Suffice it to say it had demanded it for a long period of time. 
In the debate yesterday in the House Maryan Street made the point that there had not been any competition because AgriQuality had not entered into meat inspection services and therefore there were no complaints before the select committee about the current cost charged by Asure which of course is on-charged to the farming industry. I say to Ms Street that there has not been any difficulty around the fees because there has been the potential for that competition. But this legislation completely removes the potential for competition and mark my words cost increases will follow. That is the very reason that the PSA has campaigned very very successfully for reasons unknown to me and has achieved its desired result with the passing of this legislation today. 
I want to pick up on the process at the select committee. Initially Gordon Copeland was supportive of the National Party’s position of opposing outright this legislation. But United Future—of which he was a member at the time—took a degree of comfort from the promise of a Supplementary Order Paper being delivered to the House that would satisfy some of the concerns around the potential for offering alternative meat inspection services into the future. Supplementary Order Paper 120 was finally presented by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Mr Mallard and in it we saw nothing but a sop. There is no way at all that that Supplementary Order Paper will deliver contestable meat inspection services within the next 50 years unless the legislation is changed. 
What the Supplementary Order Paper does contain is an instruction that the Commerce Commission must within 3 years investigate the cost of meat inspection services to ascertain whether they are fair and reasonable. What I find incredible is that the Government having kicked the farming community in the guts delivers yet another huge kick and says that the farmers must pay for the cost of work done by the Commerce Commission. If ever a Labour Government wanted to fall foul of the farming industry then this one is doing a superb job of that today. 
A Supplementary Order Paper put forward in my name gave the Animal Health Board the ability to cancel contracts it had already assigned if a merger occurred. The board has successfully been able to get very competitive pricing under the arrangement whereby two State-owned enterprises provide that service—namely AgriQuality and Asure. What happens now is that the contracts the Animal Health Board has entered into are not allowed to be completed because the Minister specifically removes that requirement today in the legislation. That again will mean the immediate passing of about $2 million of costs on to the farmers. 
Finally there was a very small glimmer of hope of an amendment put forward by Eric Roy to involve Meat and Wool New Zealand in that consultation process being successful. Again I understood that there had been agreement. I accept that there is some confusion about whether there had been; I accept Darren Hughes’ word on that. That amendment offered a little chance to achieve some fairness in this dreadful legislation but again Trevor Mallard used his numbers to make sure that we got no satisfaction with that amendment at all. 
It is a sad day to see the Government forcing through the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. I am surprised that New Zealand First has not taken a more genuine interest in this legislation and acknowledged the effect that it will have on our farming community but mark my words as we campaign towards the 2008 election I will take every opportunity to point this matter out to our farming friends. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. We have taken a very close interest in this bill. In supporting it we believe that rather than supporting an illusory prospect of competition we are supporting a real move to bring down the cost of the delivery of a service by amalgamating two companies thus making them more efficient in what is proposed to be one unit shortly. If true competition does not exist then we must look at the costs of the monopoly provider if we want to call it that and make sure that those costs are as low as possible. That is what is being done here. 
Mr Carter and the National Party say because of some conspiracy theory they have about the Public Service Association that costs will increase and that the usual— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh the Brethren. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No it is not the Exclusive Brethren in this case actually. The Exclusive Brethren come along at election time to help out; they are not interested in this sort of stuff. This is the grunt end of the business. Mr Carter said that costs will rise. Well I think that he and everybody else know—I certainly know—that the cost of building will rise too as will the cost of registering a motorcar and a whole lot of other things. But that is not because of a secret deal that has been done with the Public Service Association. Unions have always been a big part of the meat industry just as they have been a big part of the shipping industry and of other major industries around New Zealand. There is nothing unique in that nothing new in it and nothing untoward in it at all. 
Mr Carter also said that at the election he will go around and talk to farmers about New Zealand First’s part in this legislation and I hope that he does that. I hope that he talks to farmers a lot about New Zealand First. I hope he talks about New Zealand First’s support for a tax reduction in the last Budget—a tax reduction that was voted against by the National Party. In fact I could not believe this myself at the time of the last election but I am told it is true that the last time the National Party actually had a tax reduction rather than just talking about it—and it ran the whole election campaign about this issue last time and was assisted by the Exclusive Brethren in doing so—was back in 1966. A young man like Minister Cosgrove would not even be able to remember 1966; he would have been interested in other things then. He would have had the hormones running hot in those days and the last thing on his mind would have been— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very good speech and I do not want to interrupt the member’s flow but I have to say that I was not born in 1966. The hormones were not flowing at that point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is the member taking exception? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No not at all. I just thought I would help the member out. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The Minister just wanted to point out a few things such as that a rush of blood to the head of a young man is accepted by most of us as being possible I am sure. 
The matters provided for in this bill are serious issues. We take them seriously in New Zealand First and we will not run around casting aspersions on other parties when it comes to these things. In this programme we are talking about farmers. New Zealand First is conscious of the costs that are placed on farming. We are conscious that farming is always a difficult business. It is at the sharp end of exporting. Farmers cannot pass their costs on to anybody else. They have to compete against subsidised products in our overseas markets. They do it and they do it well—we understand that. I can tell the House and anybody who cares to listen that I have farmed and my brothers have farmed all three of them under various regimes and under various Governments. Some of the hardest times in farming in New Zealand have been under a National Government. That is a fact; it is an absolute fact. So I think that the National Party speakers should get off that bandwagon and get on to something that I know they are capable of which is addressing the issue and talking about things in a non-partisan manner. 
What the National members do not tell us in their speeches is that the Governments of the countries that we export to insist on a sign-off for meat inspections by a Government or a Government agency. They do not want to know about a private operator doing the job. In fact Minister Mallard has said that if two-thirds of those countries are prepared to accept a private operator then that can be made to happen. But those countries do not accept it. The Chinese do not want it. There are a billion people right there. The Americans do not want it. How many is that? Is it 250 million or more? The Australians do not want it. [ 
Interruption 
] There are 300 million people in America. The Europeans do not want it. So who wants it? I will tell members who wants it. The National Party wants some sort of illusory competition. Do members know why that is? So that the National members can satisfy themselves—and never mind about the farmers. The National members like to talk big to farmers but they do not want to deliver to them. 
We are happy to support this bill and we are happy to see that at least an attempt is being made by the Government to lower the costs to the industry through this merger. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 The debate we are having today is the third reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. This is a bill that if passed after the conclusion of its third reading will eliminate the competition element from the assurance that we give our meat products in the international market and it will also eliminate the competition out of certain elements of pest and vector control in New Zealand. The National Party has through the course of the process of this bill—its first reading the select committee consideration and the Committee stage in this House last evening—expressed a number of serious concerns. The principal question we have asked in each case is why it is necessary to have this legislation. 
I note that the explanatory note states: “The Government wishes to prevent this competition from occurring as it considers that it would result in a net cost to the Crown …”. There are two elements of that that I wish to explore. When delving into why that was the case I found that the concern was that there could be a contingent liability about redundancy if one of these agencies took over some of the work from the other. We have been informed that in actual fact there is a contingency fund should this occur. I understand there is $12 million in that fund. [ 
Interruption 
] That is correct and I thank Mr Guy. So why does the Government see a liability when it has already acknowledged that there could be some inter-movement between two agencies in this area? I have to say that that has proven to be quite a nebulous issue. 
But does the Government have any concern about where the costs might fall if competition is removed? They fall squarely on the shoulders of the producer. At a time when the sheep industry is under some stress about the prices it is receiving should we load on to that industry another element of cost compliance by removing competition from what is a very important part of the process? 
That is the first point about this legislation. The case was not proven. The case to do this the necessity to wipe out the competition was not proven. I want to extend that a little. This legislation came into the House and has been processed but we have not been told and were not told of the process of the development of this legislation. Normally when the Government wants to do something that will advance a cause it will put out a consultation paper. It will confer with the various players in the industry. My colleague the Hon David Carter related to the House the element of surprise of the major players in terms of: “Hello? We were not consulted. We did not know.” Again it is the element of the fact that the case was not proven—that in fact it was not necessary. 
I am delighted that during the Committee stage last night our concerns about the competition element were listened to to some degree. I am not very happy about the solution the Minister put up in terms of requiring after 3 years a consideration of the competition element and having a trigger that can be effected by either the Minister of Commerce or the Meat Industry Association. That process completely eliminates the producers; they are not represented. I made the case last night that it was a little bit like the Boston Tea Party. The agency that pays for this is the producer because the cost comes off the product at the end of the line. 
There are a number of issues here that we believe are quite fundamental to the way in which we need to do business. It is interesting that a number of State-owned enterprises work in a competition model. This is really a debate about philosophy. We have a Labour-led Government that believes in regulation and we have a National Party representing the farmers which says that it believes in a competitive model. Every single element of the production the selling and the competition with other forms of protein is in itself a very very intense competition. Then we are having a regulatory approach to quite a high cost in the whole chain of processing validation and assurance of that product. 
It is of considerable concern to us in the National Party that this is going to increase costs. As I said earlier those who will be paying do not have a mechanism by which they can force the Commerce Commission to have a look at this. Why would we set up a Commerce Commission to oversee and ensure quality of spending and the best possible economic process by which these things can be done if it is eliminated from giving this some scrutiny unless there is a trigger point? 
We are concerned about the absence of consultation. We are concerned about the fact that the case that this actually needed to be done was not proven. We believe in principle in competition giving us the best possible price. Right now we have a situation in the rural community where there is a significant shift in land use because it is perceived—and at the moment it is real—that there is a much higher return from other forms of pastoral farming: namely dairying. I would have thought that this Government would have some consideration for dealing with the issues that improve the viability of an industry that is under some stress at the moment instead of loading another cost on to it. I relate to the House that although Fonterra has been reasonably coy about the number of conversions in the pipeline I am reliably informed that there will be 32 new conversions in the Southland province in this coming year and another eight considerable extensions to existing property—so some 40 properties have been— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who told you that? 
ERIC ROY 
: I can tell Mr Hughes that it is common knowledge amongst those who know that there is a significant shift. 
I just want to say that that is for this year. I was informed last night that there are 86 inquiries for the following year. If this Government is espousing concern about increased dairying in relation to greenhouse gas management climate change or whatever its notions are then it is important that there is some kind of competing tension in where land use might be because it is too late to turn back the clock at a later stage. 
I now want to address some comments made by Doug Woolerton in regard to who performs the assurance process. He claimed that no one in the world would accept anything other than a Government assurance in meat quality. But then we saw in the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister presented to the Committee last night that new Subpart 4 provides for the Crown to continue to negotiate with its international trading partners in order to allow animal material and animal products examination services to be provided by agencies other than the Crown. I repeat that the Government is negotiating to have that happen. 
So then we have to ask why it would eliminate a competitive model where others can perform while at the same time wiping out the opportunity. It is simply nonsensical. It is absolutely nonsensical that on the one hand the Government says that it will continue to chat to its trading partners about where it thinks this should go but then on the other hand it locks in by statute a nil opportunity for that to take place. 
I conclude by saying that the assurance of the products we sell is important. That has not been a question raised in this process. The question is simply the most effective and cost-efficient way that this process can be achieved. This bill is a serious cost to the producer. Therefore National will be voting against it. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate and hopefully to inject a few facts into some of the discussion. It seems to me that in terms of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill the National Party is bent on defending the idea of competition even though currently there is no competition in the area of meat inspection services. 
Why is there no or little competition in this area? It is because our major trading partners who receive our meat products require the Government guarantee of quality and standards that is provided by the Food Safety Authority’s accreditation of Asure New Zealand. That is how the process works. Our major trading contracts—and I cite the United Kingdom and the United States in particular—absolutely require a Government guarantee of quality. That guarantee has been vested in the Food Safety Authority which is the accreditation body for Asure New Zealand. 
I want to make two points about the fact that the shareholding Ministers wish to prevent competition from occurring between two State-owned enterprises—two State-owned enterprises that may merge at some point in the future if that is considered to be the most efficient thing to do. First of all as the previous speaker said there was concern about a net cost to the Crown. An earlier speaker said that this liability was already provided for and therefore should not be of concern to the shareholding Ministers. This side of the House takes a different view on how taxpayers’ money ought to be spent. Because there may be provision for liability does not mean that that provision should be squandered or expended where such expenditure might be avoided. I would have thought that most taxpayers would get some kind of relief from the fact that the Government was behaving responsibly with their money and was not incurring additional cost if it could be avoided. 
A second issue arises in respect of the admission of competition in this area. In the explanatory note that the previous speaker Eric Roy referred to he will see that one of the reasons given was that it could result in a weakening of New Zealand’s overall biosecurity response capability. What does that mean? Well let me put it really simply for the Opposition. In the last decade or so we have seen outbreaks of such things as mad cow disease. There have been concerns about how nation States might best protect their biosecurity arrangements and make sure their response to biosecurity threats could be as swift and effective as possible. If that capability and that response are to be spread across two organisations rather than one then there is a further risk of complication which will slow down a response— 
Nathan Guy 
: Why? 
MARYAN STREET 
: Because I say to that member opposite if we have two systems operating it stands to reason that it is likely to take twice as long to respond adequately and to ensure that the processes surrounding the inspection of our meat products are as pristine and as comprehensive as they possibly can be. Why would a country have two ways of doing things if it could have one way of doing things? Why would we have two ways of protecting our biosecurity and the quality of our export product if we could have one? That one way of doing things has been proven to be perfectly efficient and more than acceptable. In fact it is in the higher ranks of these kinds of provisions and protections in the world and therefore New Zealand’s reputation in producing meat products of this kind has been second to none. It has been extremely high because the quality of our inspection services is high and is not threatened by the idea that competition will produce a better result. 
Quite frequently we have seen in other areas of endeavour examples of competition producing the cutting of corners; competition in order to drive down the price of something causes corners to be cut. This is one area where New Zealand cannot afford to have that happen. So on two counts the introduction of competition between two State-owned enterprises does not stack up. It does not stack up and it makes no sense. 
Secondly I want to address the issue of consultation with the New Zealand Meat Industry Association. Certainly as the Hon David Carter said earlier the Meat Industry Association spoke in very strong terms to the select committee. I was present. I am not sure that that member was but I certainly was present at the select committee when the Meat Industry Association appeared before us and the issue was certainly spoken of in very strong terms. 
But I draw the attention of the members opposite to Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of Trevor Mallard which was passed by the Committee last night. It specifically allows for consultation between the Minister of Commerce and the Meat Industry Association on the examination of services provided by meat inspection services—currently provided by Asure New Zealand. That is now written into the legislation. So the Meat Industry Association now has a legislative function in agreement with the Minister of Commerce in the provisions that allow the Commerce Commission to investigate and report on examination services. 
The Hon David Carter has been throwing wild assertions around and I think we need to come back to the facts and the words on the pages of this legislation which obviously provides a role for the Meat Industry Association. The National Opposition has been opposing this legislation on the absolute slimmest of pretexts. I would love to be in front of an audience where the Hon David Carter tries to explain why the National Party opposed providing the most efficient and the most secure system for the retention of quality meat inspection services and the maintenance of New Zealand’s reputation among its trading partners in the supply of meat product. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has had somewhat mixed feelings about this bill but we do agree with the previous speaker and with Doug Woolerton that competition in the area of meat inspection is not necessarily beneficial. It can easily drive down the quality of the product and make it difficult to ensure that there is not some damage to or disease in the meat that is sent to market. When the previous speaker spoke on the question of whether competition is always good my friend Doug Woolerton yelled out “Air New Zealand” and I think that is a case in point. The wages and conditions of workers at Air New Zealand were driven down as a response by Air New Zealand to competition and I am scared that there will be a driving down of quality and a driving down of the conditions of workers if competition is allowed in this case even though it would be between two State-owned enterprises. 
If we look at the meat industry we see that that has happened a lot in the past. I used to work in the meat industry for a few years and the workers were pretty regularly under attack as there was competition between the meat companies for product—beef mutton and lamb—coming in from the farmers. The competition was often based on driving down the wages of workers. I think the Public Service Association which covers many of the workers in meat inspection is worried as well that that will happen if there is competition. 
Eric Roy talked about the problems the meat industry is having at the present time. That is true; meat prices have been down. We read articles in the papers about PPCS being in a difficult position in debt and things like that. We can see that that is a situation where if there is a competitive environment in meat inspection the meat companies might put pressure on these competing meat inspection services to come forward with a lower price. How would that be achieved? It would be achieved by putting the meat through more quickly with less quality in inspection and perhaps with lower wages for the staff involved. The lower the wages go the less skilled the workers are and then there are problems. As indicated before it is quite important if we are to provide guarantees and to coordinate with others around the world in terms of preserving safety in food standards and preventing diseases from going around the world and perhaps taking hold in New Zealand to have a real quality inspection system. 
The reason why the Greens have mixed feelings on this legislation is that one of the problems in merging these two State-owned enterprises is that we then have a monopoly State-owned enterprise and we do not necessarily think that that is the best form of organisation for a monopoly. We would favour a Crown-owned entity where at least there is more openness more ability for the Government to step in and where there will not be purely commercial criteria operating. We have seen the problem with some State-owned enterprises recently. For example the Solid Energy State-owned enterprise has gone really over the top in spying on protesters. The Minister Trevor Mallard had to criticise Solid Energy for putting spies in protest groups. 
We have had other cases where State-owned enterprises have got a little bit out of control; New Zealand Post went a little bit funny for a while. The Green Party position is that a Crown-owned entity would be a better model. Quality can be preserved with a publicly owned service; we saw that for years when the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors were running the show. The ministry was in essence a monopoly. We had very good meat inspection through that service. That is the background we are working from. 
I know how easy it is to lower quality; I have worked on the chain and I have worked as a meat grader and I know that meat can be pushed through a bit too fast. The meat might not be graded properly or the meat inspectors might let certain diseases through by not paying sufficient attention. So I think it is important that we have the quality guaranteed by a transparent public body and as was indicated public bodies are recognised around the world too. People want a Government sign-off internationally when we export our meat and do not want to be reliant on a private agency. 
It is good that there was that Supplementary Order Paper to add in a role for the Commerce Commission; that gives some control over the situation. But the Green Party would certainly prefer a Crown-owned entity. Therefore rather than vote for the bill the party has decided to abstain to make the point that it thinks there is not enough openness in the system when it is a State-owned enterprise. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatou e te Whare. Me moe tatouiteneiwa! 
[ 
Greetings Mr Deputy Speaker and greetings to us in the House. We should go to sleep now 
!] 
It is interesting to hear what some of the other parties think about this bill. Some have called it pandering to the Public Service Association (PSA) hush money for supporting political power and a reward to the unions for helping to pay off Labour’s overspending and others say all it will do is to destroy competition. All of that seems to be worlds away from the reality of meat inspection and from the working lives of—there used to be thousands; I do not know whether there still are—people who work in the meat industry and from major iwi interests in many successful sheep and cattle farming enterprises. Today the Maori Party would like to focus on the impact this bill will have on the Maori farming sector on the implications of a possible merger of AgriQuality and Asure New Zealand and on whether opening up the meat inspection services to competition will actually enhance their quality. 
We know that only people employed by the Crown can be meat inspectors and we have to ask what is wrong with that. Does is really matter if there is no competition for meat inspection services? There is a suggestion to open up tendering for the inspection services to the private sector. I have to ask why we would do that when nearly all of our trading partners insist—for obvious reasons—that any of our meat is Government-approved and when the inspection services are set up in that way. 
We are happy that the Commerce Commission is to review the cost of those services and that the commission will report on whether their prices are in line with the Commerce Act. But I would signal a note of caution about that because last week we saw an excellent example of what happens when independent bodies report back to the Government on things that it may not want to hear. I am talking here of course of the Waitangi Tribunal. It tabled two reports that were critical of the Government’s flawed processes incompetent officials and divisive tactics to which the Minister responded with typical ministerial non-enthusiasm. That was hardly the proactive response the tribunal was looking for so we are not holding out very much hope that the reaction will be any different here. That is not to take anything away from the quality of the work being done by the Commerce Commission chaired by the excellent Paula Rebstock the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s 2006 New Zealander of the Year. We have no doubt that the commission will not shirk from the challenge of reviewing the cost of the services. But as with the tribunal the issue is not about how good its reporting is how sound its recommendations are or how substantial its findings are but about whether the Government wants to hear the message. 
 We also note a submission from the chairman of the Meat Industry Association which stated that it was stunned that the Government could take such a profound decision without consultation with it and that the PSA should have been given or assumed the task of briefing the industry. So we are happy to see that the association will have a say as to whether the investigation and review procedures will take place. 
This is an important bill and this is an important industry which markets more than $5 billion of meat exports each year—fully 17 percent of all our exports. Maori are key players in this industry and we believe that it is in their interests and in the best interests of the nation that key quality controls assurance processes and standards are adhered to in the meat inspection services. On those grounds the Maori Party will be supporting this bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. It is a complete nonsense bill—complete nonsense! I was here for the first and second readings and I sat here and listened throughout the Committee stage and I have heard all of the excuses from the other side of the House. Those excuses do not sit easily with us on this side of the House. When one thinks about it one realises that competition is a good thing. We should not be scared of competition; we should embrace it. I cannot see how this bill will actually achieve very much at all. Costs are going to go up at the farm gate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh rubbish! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Yes they are. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s rubbish! 
NATHAN GUY 
: They absolutely are. For the Minister to sit here and gibe at me yesterday that any potential redundancies will cause $10 million— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I wasn’t here yesterday. 
NATHAN GUY 
: The Minister for State Owned Enterprises. The contingency of $12 million is already sitting on Asure’s books so what a feeble excuse that is. I remind the House that the contribution of agriculture to this economy is huge. It is forecast to be over $9 billion next year yet red meat producers will cop the backlash of this bill—the dairy farmers the beef farmers and the sheep farmers who right now are really struggling. They are struggling against the high soaring Kiwi dollar and against costs imposed in this House that often affect their business. 
It is interesting to see that one of the big Budget bids of the Minister of Agriculture is a $1 million talkfest summit. I wonder whether that will solve the problems we have in the rural community. I will wait and see. When sheep farmers are up against it the big-spending Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton is out there proposing a $1 million talkfest summit. 
In thinking about this bill I say it is interesting that the Hon David Carter produced a document yesterday in the Committee stage that showed that the deal on this bill was done with the biggest union the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) back in July 2006. It makes a mockery of the submission process does it not when the deal on this bill was done with that union back in July 2006. 
This bill has also been a real rush job. There were nine submitters and most of them were against the bill. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You just said that the deal was done in 2006. That’s almost a year ago. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Bill Falconer the chair of the Meat Industry Association has been around this place for a long time—about as long as Mr Woolerton from New Zealand First has. He said that never before had the association been treated so shabbily by a Government. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Who? 
NATHAN GUY 
: The Meat Industry Association which will cop the backlash on this bill. It is absolutely hopeless. 
Darren Hughes 
: You gave this speech last night. This is the same speech as last night’s. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No it is not. 
Darren Hughes 
: Yes it is. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Not at all. What I want to highlight to that member who probably does not understand the true meaning of competition and may not have been— 
Darren Hughes 
: I do and I beat you! That’s when I worked out competition—when I kicked your butt! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh yeah yeah. Around the next election Darren Hughes will be giving an “Elections 101” lesson to all the new Labour candidates’ at their candidates’ college on how he lost a safe Labour seat— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a third reading debate as the member may or may not know. This is a rather serious issue and although there can be a bit of humorous banter— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Your point of order please without the speech. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
:—for about the last third of the time he has spent talking I have failed to see any relevance to the third reading. I request Mr Deputy Speaker that you think about calling him back to the bill. 
Eric Roy 
: I just wish to point out to you Mr Deputy Speaker that the member on his feet Nathan Guy responded to an interjector saying some competitive things in respect of Nathan Guy’s own patch. It would be only rational and reasonable for Mr Guy to respond in the way that he did. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I agree. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I was talking about competition. This bill is supposedly all about reducing competition. We heard from Maryan Street the same speech that she gave last night—that competition is all about cutting corners. Well let us think back a little bit because fewer than about 12 months ago the Minister for State Owned Enterprises wrote to all the chief executives of the State-owned enterprises that he wanted them to go out there diversify and make a greater return to the shareholders the Crown. He wanted them to diversify away from their core business. Now with the bill in front of us on the other hand he says he wants to reduce competition. Will the Minister for State Owned Enterprises be out there trying to create a merger between Genesis and Meridian Energy? I do not see any bill before the House about that if we are to talk specifically about reducing competition. 
This bill is all about red meat inspections and actually all about caving into the wishes of the PSA and we can prove that the deal was done back in July 2006. When we think about consultation on this bill we expect that the industry would have been consulted. The Meat Industry Association asked Jim Anderton for a meeting so that it could try to understand where he was coming from in respect of the bill. The Minister of Agriculture did not accept that offer and I thought that was absolutely pathetic. The Minister of Agriculture was not even in touch with the people at the coalface who will bear the brunt of this bill if it goes through this evening. National members will be voting against it. 
 It is also interesting to see that there has been no business case economic analysis. That will be done later. One would presume that the Government would do all the numbers and see how they stack up before putting the bill into the House but oh no this Government gets it into the House makes it a rushed job and rams it through and will do the numbers on it later. How daft is that? 
The most important thing around this bill is that with this merger if it ever goes through the costs of the Animal Health Board which now is able to go out and competitively pitch its products for TB testing to Asure and AgriQuality will go up by about $2 million. Who is going to pay those costs? It will be those people at the farm gate paying for the TB testing. We need to carry on with TB testing under the current strategy until 2013. Mrs Street mentioned mad cow disease. I could not quite understand her but I think she was saying that that if there was an outbreak we would be better off with just one State-owned enterprise. I cannot understand why she would even be suggesting that because we would need all the people on the ground if there was ever an outbreak—and let us hope there is not. 
I want to speak to new clause 14 which is inserted into Part 2 by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 120. What is really interesting in this provision is that in the event of the merger of Asure and AgriQuality the new company will have to pay the Crown the levy prescribed—the Crown will prescribe it. And who will pay that levy? The industry will cop the levy on any sort of merger through the Commerce Commission. 
So to sum up the National Party feels that this bill has been a rushed bill. We feel it has been a rushed bill. We think there has been very poor consultation. Those people on the other side of the House have caved in to the wishes of the biggest union in the country and that is proved by a document showing that the deal was done in July 2006. Up will go the costs and who will pay the costs? You can bet that it will be those at the farm gate. That is why National is opposing this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Abstentions 6 
Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Social Services Committee for the efficiency and focus with which it has dealt with this bill within a very short time frame. I agree with and wholeheartedly support the committee’s amendments. The changes I believe improve the bill. 
I also thank the New Zealand Law Society for its accurate and expert guidance which has been of great value. All members will be aware of the valuable public service the Law Society provides in reviewing and commenting on bills of general public interest. This occasion is no exception. The thrust of the Law Society submission is that the amendment proposed by the bill is needed. The High Court’s decision in  
Hartley v Balemi and Ors 
 is as the Law Society states: “at odds with what practitioners working in this area thought the legislation did and should provide for.” 
I take this opportunity to remind the House briefly of how this bill came about and of what it contains and to summarise the select committee’s recommended amendments. The bill confirms and clarifies Parliament’s intention that general damages for mental anxiety or distress can be awarded under the current Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 and the repealed Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002. The decision in  
Hartley v Balemi 
 held that such damages could not be awarded under the 2002 Act. The judgment also has implications for the 2006 Act. The effect of the judgment if allowed to stand is that claimants might secure general damages for mental anxiety and distress from the courts but not from the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. This consequence could not have been foreseen when Parliament enacted the 2006 Act as two appeal decisions of the District Court made in 2005 in examining the same matters in contention had held that general damages could be awarded. 
An added complication is that the 2006 Act enables the transfer of a claim from the courts to the tribunal and vice versa. Already since the tribunal commenced operations on 1 April 2007 it has received claims transferred from the courts: one from the High Court and seven from the District Court. Clearly the effect of the High Court decision in the Hartley case was contrary to Parliament’s intention of having a specialist one-stop shop for dealing with leaky home claims. Urgent action was needed. The response had to be swift but it had to be well crafted and lasting. It also had to be widely considered to be the right thing to do and not only by owners of leaky homes. Therefore it is pleasing that the New Zealand Law Society drawing on the insights of lawyers operating in this field has agreed that this is a necessary amendment. 
The bill makes it clear that general damages for mental anxiety or distress can be awarded. I emphasise that this bill does not require that such damages must be awarded. Indeed prior to the High Court judgment such damages have been awarded in only a minority of determinations—that is 21 percent. Moreover when there has been an award the amounts have been modest averaging just $9450. This is consistent with the longstanding judicial precedent that when the courts award such general damages the awards are modest. 
There will be those who comment that the possibility of general damages for mental anxiety and distress will not add an extra dollar to the compensation received and is therefore of no relevance. I do not agree. Claimants value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. The committee wanted the bill to be as simple as possible so that lay people could understand it. I strongly endorse this aim and I accept the committee’s amendments. Subclauses (4) and (5) of clause 5 have been deleted; the reference to the Hartley decision was not legally essential. 
In passing I note that this bill if enacted will not apply to the parties to the Hartley decision. New subclauses (4) and (5) have been inserted in clause 5. These clarify how the bill’s amendment applies to appeals. Subclause (4) clarifies that even if a claim that has been determined is under appeal or review it will still be deemed “disposed of through resolution” for the purposes of working out whether the proposed Act applies to that claim. New subclause (5) provides that if the amendment applies in a claim the amendment remedies may be included both when the claim is adjudicated and when there is any appeal rehearing or review. 
The converse is also true. If the amendment did not apply to a claim when adjudicated it also cannot apply when there is an appeal even if the appeal is made after the amendment has come into force. Clauses 6 to 8 have been deleted. They stated that the affected claims could be amended to include the remedies in question. Certain transition provisions in the principal Act would be unaffected by the proposed Act and determinations made before the proposed Act commenced would not be affected by it. The technical amendment in clause 9 repeated in the schedule clarifies that the relevant mental stress relates to the claim not the claimants. 
To conclude the bill as reported back achieves what is needed. It clarifies and confirms Parliament’s original intent. It restores to the adjudicators and the tribunal deciding these claims the ability to award general damages for mental anxiety or distress in the same way as the courts. I thank John Gray and the Leaky Homes Action Group members for their strong support for this amendment. I acknowledge the Law Society for its authoritative and helpful contribution. I again thank the Social Services Committee for its thorough and quick examination and sound recommendations which improve the bill. It is my hope that the House will see it as in no one’s interest to delay this bill. I commend it to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next call will be shared 5 minutes each by Judith Collins and Bob Clarkson. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill although it is never a pleasure to follow Mr Cosgrove. What Mr Cosgrove could have mentioned is that if only he had listened to the National Party last year this bill would not have been necessary. I say to him: “Frankly we told you so.” We told him back then that the legislation needed to be fixed but he did not bother to do anything about it. Instead what we had to do was to deal with the situation as it was pointed out by Justice Lynton Stevens whom as I noted the other day Mr Cosgrove knew so well that he referred to him in the feminine sense whereas Mr Stevens is actually a male judge. Mr Cosgrove might like to get these things right. 
One of the issues with the bill is that it is trying to remedy an error in the law and the National Party was very pleased to assist in doing that. What we were not pleased to do was to just rush the bill through without there being any consultation with anybody at all outside of Parliament and the Minister’s own department. So on the Social Services Committee we made it very plain that we wanted to get the New Zealand Law Society in to submit on this. I was very pleased that the committee agreed with that. 
It is a good thing that we insisted on that because at the end of the day the Law Society which obviously has a lot of people who are very very experienced in this area came along with some sensible suggestions. The Law Society said that despite the very good drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel Office the fact that it was without practical experience in this area meant that it had perhaps missed the point that in trying to make the bill more user-friendly for the public it was unfortunately creating more opportunities for there to be disagreements in court over what the meaning was. So that is one of the issues that the New Zealand Law Society was able to point out. Those on the select committee were particularly grateful for that. Again if we had not insisted on it it would not have happened. 
The Social Services Committee met at various times outside normal hours to assist the Government but did we get a word of thanks? No there was not a word of thanks. But we would not be thanked by the Government because we did not do this for the Government; we did it for the people of New Zealand. We did it because we cared more about them than we cared about making politics out of this issue and that is what the Government did not do. 
When I look at the Minister Clayton Cosgrove who consistently indulges in personal abuse except when he wants us to do something for him—then suddenly— 
Hon Member 
: That is rich. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well of course my abuse was all correct. When the Minister does not want us to do something for him he suddenly does not want to have a bar of it and simply refers to the work of the select committee as though it was a Labour select committee. But what about the members on it? What about all the parties? Let us look at them. The Greens the ACT party the National Party and the Labour Party all agreed to meet outside the normal hours. Also United Future should not be forgotten. It would be nice for the Minister to say to those other parties particularly to United Future and to the Greens that the Government actually appreciated the effort that they put into the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I know I have just made a speech and in that speech I think I said four times that I thanked the Social Services Committee. I seek leave to table my speech so that the member can see that I did thank the select committee members on at least three occasions. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for this chance to speak on the subject of leaky homes. It is quite interesting that it says at the top of the bill “(Remedies)”. That is a bit of a joke. I really want to go through the whole thing about the leaky homes issue but let us go through some of these— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Give it a whirl Bob. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Yeah that will do; good. If I solved some of my business problems the way the Government does I would be broke in a very short time. One cannot wake up in the morning and change the rules just because one has a good feeling in the middle of the night. It is as simple as that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Define that Bob! How many good feelings have you had in the middle of the night? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I cannot remember. 
Darren Hughes 
: But plenty of people went to a resolution service about it. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Would members please keep quiet eh—I am trying. The Government is a bit lucky. It just keeps spending more taxpayers’ dollars and hoping that the problem will go away. I have news for the Minister Clayton Cosgrove: this bill will not make the problem of leaky homes disappear. Labour’s policy is quite simple. If dollars do not fix a problem then Labour changes the Minister in charge of it. There have been seven Ministers so far since this problem started. Six have failed to solve the problem and the seventh is about to fail. 
If changing the Minister fails try changing the law! That is the next move. This law came out of a bad dream and it will not help. Laws should be made after careful studies are done on how to solve a problem. Debates should be had with people who understand the problem—it is as simple as that—and who can give good advice on how to rectify the problem. One should not make laws on the run as seems to be happening at the moment. 
This will be a total failure because it was rushed through with very little thought by people who do not fully understand the full problem. The Government protected itself through the courts by letting the Department of Building and Housing off the hook and this has caused a lot of mental stress for thousands of homeowners. Now we have a Minister bringing a bill into the House to allow people to claim for mental stress. How strange is that? The Government causes a stress by not dealing with the situation and by protecting one of its departments the Department of Building and Housing so that it cannot be sued for damages. That in itself causes more mental stress. 
This bill is a waste of time. The mental stress will be fixed by fixing the problem. In this case the Minister has lost sight of the problem. The problem is that we have leaky homes—leaky homes that are taking too long to fix. We have people who cannot face a hearing in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal because they do not know anything about building a house. That is what got them into the problem in the first place. 
There is a major problem with people getting stressed in that they cannot afford to pay a lawyer to assist them. They have to take a lawyer along to the hearing at the Weathertight Homes Tribunal—even though the Minister says they do not—because the other side has top lawyers defending it. The Minister has the cheek to say that people do not need lawyers to defend themselves at the Weathertight Homes Tribunal hearings. If there is a lawyer on one side it is only fair that there is a lawyer on the other side. I say to the Minister that he should wake up and get to the real world. It could be a situation where there are no lawyers allowed such as in small claims courts. I am not recommending that but I would like to debate it. 
The Minister quoted in a select committee on Wednesday that some person—I think he was a reverend—was sorting out his own house and had handled the complete Weathertight Homes Tribunal hearing himself without a lawyer and won the case. The Minister stuttered a little on the percentage of the claim the man won. Also he did not say whether the person who won actually got the dollars paid to him. It is a funny thing that he quoted only one case. Was there only one case? 
I had better move on fast here. I will just quickly say that the National Party has two top people to deal with the leaky homes situation in the future when we are in Government next time: Nick Smith and myself. I assure members that we will not fluff around the edges with a half-baked policy. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I do admire that man’s optimism. We thought that he came to the House as a retiree but he will have to leave it as a centenarian if he wants to get a chance to be around the housing and building ministries. His continued life in Opposition is certainly destined by that speech. We cannot of course fix leaky buildings by legislation but we can provide remedies by legislation. That is what this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is all about. It is interesting that the Weathertight Homes Tribunal has now been going for 10 weeks and already a layperson has obtained a settlement as a result of taking a matter right through the process to a stage where he describes himself as being 100 percent happy. He has obtained a confidential settlement and has emerged from the process saying he is totally happy. So already we are seeing the fruits of an efficient piece of legislation. 
Another example of efficiency is the Social Services Committee which I have the pleasure of chairing and whose membership comprises the most happy and agreeable collection of individuals that is possible. We progressed this bill through the committee with all speed because we appreciated that it corrected an aberration in a point of law taken in the High Court and accepted by the judge as perhaps having some validity. The judge Justice Stevens was no doubt supported by an opinion of a retired High Court judge the Hon Sir Robert Smellie who postulated in the 
 New Zealand Lawyer 
—not a conservative publication—that perhaps the new law did not allow for general damages. But that was a tentative conclusion and it was in the face of several District Court decisions that the Act did allow for general damages. In fact after the article was written Judge McElrea of the District Court very carefully analysed the Act comparing it with the existing Act and held that the retired High Court judge was wrong. 
All that this bill does is to save litigants further costs. That includes the costs of the applicants and the respondents because it was always the intention—and that is reflected in the National Party’s minority report in the commentary on the original legislation—that the legislation should include the right to general damages. When the High Court decision came out that argued that general damages were not available it did not say there could be no general damages; it said that if a litigant wished to claim general damages then he or she had to follow that issue through the general courts. So we had the farcical situation of a specialist tribunal—the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—being able to decide everything except the quantum of general damages which the litigant would then need to follow up on through the general court. 
How would that save anybody money? How would that save the country money? How would that go towards the speedy resolution of disputes? Well it simply would not. So this bill amends the earlier Act which is a sound Act that has withstood judicial scrutiny on several occasions. But to be cautious we are meeting the challenge laid down by Justice Stevens and making it crystal clear that general damages are the entitlement. 
I want to refer to a letter dated 15 June that I received earlier this week from Wellington City Council lamenting the passage of this bill. Its understanding of the bill seems to be entirely amiss. I will deal with the points it makes about it. The council claims that this legislation will open a Pandora’s box. It seems to have failed to read the National Party’s minority report in the commentary on the original bill in which National pointed out that it felt general damages should be included but was concerned that a decision such as the one made by Justice Stevens might become apparent. However the National Party was too timid to take that matter further by voting against the bill or by putting forward any substantial amendments. It was a “straw in the wind” sort of approach. When this amending bill came back before the select committee the cooperation in getting it dealt with expeditiously was splendid. In fact the deliberation took all of 46 seconds. That was possible only with the splendid cooperation of the venerable National Party which realised that this was a bill of short order that made crystal clear a legal right that does exist whether it be through the Weathertight Homes Tribunal or through the general courts. 
 Wellington City Council is wrong when it says this bill opens a Pandora’s box because general damages is not a goldmine that people are entitled to have access to. General damages is the award of a sum of money intended to put a person back in the position that he or she was in before suffering a harm. That is not a Pandora’s box; that is justice. If that council is not concerned about its citizens achieving justice then it clearly needs to look carefully at what it is there for and at what its elected representatives are seeking to achieve. So this bill does not deliver a Pandora’s box to be opened by litigants; it is merely a bill to sort out what everyone believed was the law. It is as simple as that. It brings the resolution of weathertight homes issues into a specialist tribunal which has already proven that it can deal with them expeditiously and efficiently. 
The previous speaker the member for Tauranga Bob Clarkson who was a member of the committee lamented that somehow legislation should be able to solve the problem of leaky buildings. He opined that if ever National got near the Treasury benches then Dr Nick Smith would become the Minister for Building Issues. That in itself is a strong argument for National members not to be made members of a Government because the same Dr Nick Smith ushered in the Building Act which gave rise to this fiasco. Until the Building Act came in people who bought houses knew that the houses were properly built because there were sets of specifications and requirements that everybody understood. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And he abolished apprenticeships too. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Oh yes of course. Abolishing the apprenticeships left us with untrained builders. All that one needed when Dr Nick Smith had finished was a ute a dog and a radio and one could call oneself a builder. So if we have Dr Nick Smith back on the Treasury benches assisted by the octogenarian Bob Clarkson then we will return to the chaotic days that gave rise to the leaky buildings syndrome. 
It is not a good thing to have a leaky building. It is one of the most traumatic things that could happen to any individual. Resolution of such a problem is not to play games within our courts’ processes. All that the owners of leaky buildings want is justice. Every person who buys a house expects to get a valid deal and if that deal proves to be invalid then he or she does not have to be driven to the wall financially or mentally in trying to litigate a way through the minefield of court processes that are littered with the antics of high-paid lawyers employed by people such as the protesting Wellington City Council. Instead through the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and through the work of my good friend the Minister Clayton Cosgrove who has steered this legislation through and given real leadership to this whole issue we have a New Zealand that can handle the leaky buildings crisis and put it behind us. My thoughts are with the owners of leaky buildings. It is to my regret that the neo-liberal policies of the previous National Government brought in a situation of open slather where people could build anything put a paint job on it and sell it at an overpriced value. 
This Government does not support ripping off householders. Perhaps National’s lament is that that right has gone. This Government supports people’s major investment in homes as being a long-term sound investment. This bill puts right what the previous National Government put wrong. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to acknowledge at this time all those people who are on the motorway listening to this debate particularly in terms of some of the comments that have been made about the intent of this Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. Although there have been those who have expressed some disquiet about this bill we know that they will support it. 
This bill is timely. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister responsible for this bill Clayton Cosgrove for reacting in a timely manner because there are a number of families whose homes are affected by the weathertight homes issue. It is only fair that this Government should introduce a bill to provide a remedy for the problems that those families have. I know that in Manukau City where I live there are a number of families who are concerned about whether they will get some form of compensation be it for the distress and anxiety caused by the problem their home has or for other reasons. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.