Volume 619 Week 66 - Thursday 2 September 2004 
Volume 619 Week 66 - Thursday 2 September 2004 
[Volume:619;Page:15309] 
Thursday 2 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that members of the Committee on the Labour Market from the Swedish Parliament led by the Chairperson Anders Karlsson are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the first reading of the Holidays Bill and the remaining stages of the Maori Fisheries Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Questions to Ministers 
Working for Families Package—Work Rewards 
1. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by the Budget statement that a key aim of the Working for Families package is: “to make work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work and are rewarded for their work effort”; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 That was a statement made by the Minister of Finance and he was absolutely right so yes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Was the decision to put solo parents working between 10 and 20 hours a week in a situation whereby their effective tax rate on an extra hour’s work is 92.2 percent a simple mistake on the Government’s part or was it in fact a deliberate decision? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That package delivers benefits to 300000 families in the form of extra income. Those people whom the member is speaking about will have an increased income. Everyone will benefit from this package. Those people are part of the package and they will benefit. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen that advocate the use of “making work pay” initiatives such as those contained in the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of the following statement: “What you have to do I think is get people jobs and if they can’t live on those wages then find some way of supplementing their income so that they can live comfortably.” Ironically those comments backing the Working for Families package were made by Don Brash on Television One’s  
Good Morning 
 show last Thursday. They came just 2 days after his colleagues voted against the package. Don Brash supports every aspect of the Working for Families package. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why did the Minister include in the Working for Families package the abolition of the special benefit and how will that make it easier for those beneficiaries who will be affected by that in the future to move into paid employment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows one of the complexities of the benefit system is that a lot of it gets paid toward what is called the “third tier”—for example the special benefit. This package brings forward money that beneficiaries often had to go through the system to seek. They get paid it on the first and second tier. That will benefit them. They will have less connection with Work and Income people. They also have in the package things that will make work pay like childcare and transport support. The package simply makes work pay by them going out to work. They will be better off. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How can the Minister claim that Labour is making work pay when a one-income family with three children renting in Auckland find themselves in the ludicrous situation that under his Government’s policy the stay-at-home partner would have to earn more than $108318 a year to match his partner’s present $38000 a year take-home pay? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have no idea where the member gets those figures from. This package will ensure through a mixture of accommodation supplement family income support and assistance across a wide range of things to help people to go back to work that all people who are affected by this package will benefit. 
Dr Don Brash 
: In what circumstances other than sheer desperation does the Minister imagine welfare mothers might work extra hours to improve the lot of their families when their extra earnings are taxed at 92.2 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This package will ensure that people whom the member describes as “welfare mothers”—those on the domestic purposes benefit—will have access to a wide range of supports to go back to work. When they make the crossover they will benefit. They will have childcare costs paid for; they will have accommodation costs paid for; and they will have the “make work pay package” which makes that transference possible. They will get more money by going to work. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister please answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that a member is interjecting. The member knows that he cannot do that and he is nearly out of the House. Please start the question again. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister please answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition which appeared to me to be that under the package introduced by the Government to help people get into work a solo mother who works for 20 hours a week will pay 92.2 percent tax or in other words on $100 that solo mother will keep $7.80; could the Minister please explain why any solo mother would think that was fair? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Some people will move towards marginal tax rates which means they will retain less but the vast majority of people under this package will benefit from an accommodation supplement childcare costs and family income assistance. They will retain more money when they go to work and they will have a “making work pay” package. We are talking about a very small number of people—who still benefit—but the vast majority will benefit a great deal. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister take pride in putting an iron ceiling above welfare beneficiaries; if not what is he going to do about it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is no iron ceiling above beneficiaries. This Government has made work pay. The National Government put an iron ceiling above people by never introducing the very policies that that member now says are exactly what needs to happen. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the calculations that show that somebody would have to earn $108370 a year to be better off. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those calculations. Is there any objection? There is. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Hauraki Plains College 
2.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Further to oral question No. 7 on 1 September has he received any further evidence of alleged National Certificate of Educational Achievement credit fraud at Hauraki Plains College; if not what action is he taking to resolve the matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. New Zealand Qualifications Authority relationship managers have visited the school and found that while there was a problem with the work of one short-term reliever those problems had been identified and resolved long before the stolen box of so-called evidence was presented in this House. The school has acted entirely appropriately and I have no hesitation in commending it for its efforts. From a telephone call made by Bill English last Friday the school is under the impression that it his intention to issue a public apology. I call on him to do that forthwith. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister received any evidence to substantiate claims of widespread National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)# credit fraud; if so what steps has he taken to resolve that matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen allegations from the Hon Bill English and Don Brash in that area. I prefer the opinions of Mrs M Bendall the principal of Epsom Girls Grammar School Mr B Haque the principal of Pakuranga College Mr G Laurenson the principal of Otahuhu College Mrs Ann Mildenhall the principal of Diocesan School for Girls in Auckland Mr W Peat the headmaster of St Kentigern College and Mrs Linda Reid the principal of St Cuthbert’s College who have called on people to stop making cheap shots and to support a vastly superior system. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Minister just confirm that there was evidence of bad assessment practices that his Associate Minister the Hon Steve Maharey admitted to this House on 26 August that there had been “potentially inadequate assessment activities” at the school that it had “identified problems with its policy” and that a qualified New Zealand Qualifications Authority moderator and assessor described marked assessments as not meeting the national standard; will he just admit those three facts? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the important point is that the material in the box was not used for final assessments. I agree with the assessor. If they had been used they would not have been good enough but they were not used. That school had a leader who sorted out a problem. It is a pity the Tories do not have one. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is it true that the report that the Minister talked about in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning by principals from schools as socially and economically diverse as Otahuhu College on the one hand and St Kentigern College and Epsom Girls Grammar School on the other sang the praises of the NCEA and can he understand why Bill English continues to bag an assessment system devised by the former National Government? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order but not the second part. The Minister can comment on the first part. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: During the time that I have been Minister there has been widespread and growing support for the NCEA—a system that I inherited. I deferred its introduction for a year because it had not been properly prepared by my predecessor. The person whom I would like to thank for doing a lot of the work some time ago that went towards the system—and it is a very good system—is Dr Lockwood Smith. I thank him for that work and for his ongoing support for this very good system. 
Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors—Waterways 
3.  
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 to the  
Minister for Rural Affairs 
: In considering policy on walking access in the New Zealand outdoors will he rule out a law change that might force landowners to provide public access through private property to access waterways; if not has he any estimate of the number of properties that would be affected by such a law change? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 This policy is yet to be determined by Cabinet. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Which of his colleagues is correct on this issue of public access to private land: the Minister for Land Information John Tamihere who was quoted on 16 August as ruling out any moves to force landowners to allow public access; or the Prime Minister who was quoted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the very next day suggesting that the jury is still out on this issue? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: My colleague the Minister for Land Information has told me that he was misquoted on this matter. I have no trouble in attesting that the Prime Minister was quite correct in her remarks. 
Janet Mackey 
: When will Ministers determine what response to make to last year’s Acland report on walking access to land? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Ministers have considered the report and provisionally narrowed down the range of options. It will be some months yet before officials complete the work on options and Ministers determine what response to make. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why was Gottlieb Braun-Elwart Helen Clark’s personal mountain guide appointed as a member of the land access task force and why was his name deliberately omitted from the Minister’s press release dated 23 January 2003 in which he announced all other members of that group? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Mr Braun-Elwart was chosen by Cabinet for the same reason that every other member of the group was chosen—because he had experience and talents that would make a contribution to the work of the panel. His omission from a draft of a press statement was simply a typo in effect—it was simply a mistake. 
Keith Locke 
: Could the Minister give us some idea of the options that he has just referred to in terms of letting members of the public have access to lakes rivers and wilderness areas that are in the public domain when the owners of adjoining private properties refuse to allow that access? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The options are basically spelt out in the report which has been made public and which the member can read if he has not already done so. It might be helpful to the member if I were to say that the principal option that has been ruled out provisionally by Cabinet is the option of “wander at will” which would allow the public to wander wherever they liked over private property. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the comments opposite that this group was a group of patsies can the Minister tell us who chaired it and who some of the members were? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The chair of the working-party was John Acland a former chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers Board and the owner at the time of Mount Peel Station. One of the members who was I guess appointed for his broad experience of rural affairs and access for recreational fishing was Mr Eric Roy a former member of Parliament. I will not list out all the other members. I refer members to the published report and the many commentaries of that report. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Should the Government finally decide to bring about a law change to provide public access through private property to access waterways can he assure the House today and the affected landowners that they will receive full just and fair compensation? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I can only reiterate that Cabinet has yet to determine its position on that issue. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: If the Government does move to allow public access through private land to water bodies can he assure the House that the same rules will apply to public access to waterways through Maori land; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The question is purely hypothetical. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table Mr Sutton’s press release that lists all members of the task force with one exception. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely the last answer from the Minister cannot stand. He was asked what was contemplated in respect of the way that the potential law change would affect Maori land. The Minister said that was purely hypothetical then sat down. That is not an answer at all. I think it is fair for a member of Parliament to ask whether the law change would affect all land in whatever manner of ownership it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to comment further. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The question started with the proposal: “Should the Government decide to do such-and-such will it do such-and-such?”. In a previous answer I had already said that the Government had not decided the such-and-such that the member mentioned. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What is the Minister’s response to the concerns expressed by the President of Federated Farmers Tom Lambie who said: “Personal safety and security for family and staff is at risk with rising rural crime and violence. Families should not be forced to be exposed to strangers and inappropriate behaviour especially with law enforcement sorely lacking in many isolated areas.”? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: All that I can say in response is that while I share the concern of rural New Zealanders that they may be exposed to criminal behaviour by some of their fellow citizens I regret to say I cannot see that putting up notices saying “Access Prohibited” will stop dope growers murderers stock thieves or the like. What is more likely to stop them is the knowledge that they may come across law-abiding citizens exercising their right to walk along the Queen’s Chain. 
Police—Violent Offenders 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What is police policy for dealing with the prosecution of violent offenders? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that each case is looked at closely on its merits. All relevant factors need to be considered including the availability of evidence witnesses and the attitude of the victim to a prosecution. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister not referring to the case in respect of Edwards and Shaw as being a violent attack which are the very words of John Haigh QC for Mr Shaw in September 2002; and will the Minister tell the House now whether it was a burglary or a violent attack and which happened first? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I take no part in court or police decisions on matters. The police reported that they had received a call about a burglary. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is entirely inappropriate that this Minister who has now had weeks to prepare to answer parliamentary questions on this issue should commence his answer by saying he takes no responsibility for it. Frankly if he is allowed to get away with that then question time in this House will be unique in any Western democracy. I know of no Minister who is allowed to get away with that in any other Parliament in the Western World. He is responsible; he holds the warrant. He has got a portfolio; let him fulfil it properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may make that statement; I do not agree with him. I know that this Parliament has one of the most vigorous question times of any democracy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Not now we haven’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One more comment while I am on my feet and the member goes out—and I mean that. I listened to the Minister’s reply. He was entitled to give the first sentence. The last sentence he gave actually did address the question and answered it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister why he is not calling the case what the Queen’s Counsel called it—a violent attack. Secondly what happened first: the burglary or the violent attack? I have had no information on either of those things at this point in time and my view and I believe the view of everybody else in this House has to be that he did not answer the question. That is my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is not valid. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that when Phillip Edwards violently attacked Mr Shaw at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 he was already under investigation for other threatening and violent behaviour—one against a female in front of her three children—and why did the police not prosecute that dangerous man then and there when it is their duty to do so? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I take no part in any decision to prosecute or not. I am not allowed to. This is not Zimbabwe although that member might like it to be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him whether he was responsible for making any decision at all. I am asking him as he has been forewarned of this for weeks to apprise himself of the facts and come here and answer legitimate questions. Will you make him do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should respond to the first part of the question—about investigations­—asked by the member. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It would be a sad day in New Zealand if Ministers got police files went through them and made decisions. I do not get police files— 
Ron Mark 
: Get out of the House. You are damned useless. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell Mr Mark to calm down. I have absolutely no input into these cases. Of course that member who is behind Mr Peters should really listen. We do not interfere. That is the way it is in this country and as long as I am Minister of Police I will not interfere. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is at it again. He is being asked for the details of this case. They are fundamentally simple. They will all be on the charge sheet. They will all be in his possession if he requests them. He has had 4 hours today to apprise himself of the answers to these questions and he gets up and says he will not answer. Frankly that is a disgrace and I cannot conceive of any valid question time in the future if that is allowed to be his answer. I am not asking whether he is responsible whether he made the decision himself. I am asking him what the details are—for example which came first: the burglary or the violent attack? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am also a former Minister of Police. I never requested a police file the whole time I was Minister. I never saw a police file because there is a principle of constabulary independence which I think Mr Peters does know about. What it says is that a policeman must form the decision as to whether to charge. He cannot even be instructed by another policeman to charge someone with an offence. He certainly cannot be instructed by a Minister to do so. I think Mr Peters is inviting the Minister to challenge constabulary independence. The Minister is quite within his rights to come to this House and say that he is not going to challenge that principle that he is not going to call up police files whenever the Opposition does not happen to agree with a decision made by a policeman. That seems to me to be a perfectly valid answer even if Mr Peters does not like it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need no further assistance. Mr Prebble is completely correct. The Minister is entitled to take that line and answer any political criticism that he gets for it but that is his decision. He is perfectly entitled to take that line and he has done that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the police officer who led the investigation into the violent attack on Mr Peter Shaw at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue on 12 September 2002 recommend that Edwards be prosecuted; if so who overruled him? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Once again I have not seen the files. I do not read the files. It would be a sad day if I ever did and it would be an even sadder day if Ron Mark ever became Minister of Police. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I hear the point of order I will ask Mr Mark to stand withdraw and apologise for bringing me into debate and using a very unparliamentary expression. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member is very lucky he has not been asked to leave as well. I would leave it at that. The member knows he cannot bring me into the debate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister is telling the House that regardless of the requirements of his job and the requirement of the House that he answer and provide the House with information he refuses even to look at the file or tell us anything at all. That cannot be surely a matter of political accountability any longer because he refuses to take any part whatsoever in the process. I ask you Mr Speaker to make him answer the question. For him to get up and say that he is not going to look at the file that he does not do that and that it would be a sad day if someone did is nonsense in the same way that the argument Mr Prebble outlined is nonsense. He was the man of course who read out a whole drug file sheet in this Parliament in 1980 and every lawyer in this country was appalled by it. That is how good he is on the matter of behaviour in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As the member is being brought into debate I will allow him to comment briefly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I say to Mr Peters that if he were to do what the Standing Orders require and authenticate his questions—and supplementary questions are required to be authenticated—if he were to produce some authentication that something was wrong and that somebody interfered in constabulary independence I would be the first to support him. But in fact if he looks back through his  
Hansard 
 he will see that he has used parliamentary privilege to attack someone who is not even in public life and that is a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance. The Speaker rules on only the acceptability of questions and replies. Both the questions and the replies are in order. The Speaker does not tell Ministers how they must answer as long as what they say is relevant. On this occasion the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have said that the Minister addressed the question. I asked him who recommended prosecution—was it the police officer in charge of the investigation and if so who overruled him? I had no answer at all on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but the member has had an answer. The Minister gave it and he is entitled to use that line. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been quietly watching the exchange going on here. I appreciate the points that Mr Prebble has made to the House but we have a Government over there whose members stood on platforms throughout the country telling people that they would get tough on crime and would wipe out violent crime. Here we have an incident in which a violent crime was committed there was no prosecution and the person who committed that crime went on to murder someone a short time later. Surely the House is entitled to know how well the Minister’s policy is being applied by the police—or are we to believe that politicians cannot do anything about law and order and that it is all up to the police who will just decide for this House what level of prosecution we will have? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made absolutely no point of order whatsoever. It is just political point-scoring. [ 
Interruption 
] My patience has now gone. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the calls for the matters related to this file to be made public in the House will the Minister invite Mr Peters and Mr Mark to table—as Mr Peters did with the wine box—all the material that they have on this? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member should produce the evidence and go outside and make the same accusations if he really wants to drive the point home and stop hiding behind parliamentary privilege. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that a fair answer that in any way conforms to Standing Orders? No it is not and we are not going to put up with this humbug any longer. This Minister is required to be accountable. A serious murder happened and you are allowing the Minister to get away with absolute nonsense. He stands there knowing the facts as his Cabinet colleagues know the facts. I now know that some of his Cabinet colleagues know the facts and the true story behind this issue. A person went on to die and you allow the Minister to get up and make an attack on a member who is asking questions. That cannot be allowed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does not know the Standing Orders and I invite him to recall what Mr Prebble said. I know the Standing Orders. The question was in order and the answer was in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough on this issue. It had better be a new one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can it be in order for a Minister to demand that the questioner provide the information when the Minister is in charge of the portfolio? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member asked the Minister whether he would invite another member to submit something. I thought the Minister said that he would. I cannot see what the problem is with that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did a member of the police namely Lance Burdett threaten the  
20/20 
 investigators in respect of Mr Shaw with this note: “If you print or film anything relating to Mr X”—being Mr Shaw—“in any way I may well be in a position to prosecute TV3 given the warnings I have communicated to you. I will also be seeking out your other source of information and will instigate disciplinary proceedings if appropriate.”; how could this be going on in the Minister’s portfolio and why does he not just resign? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first two questions can be answered. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: All of those accusations are being made on the basis that I have that information. I do not have that information. I do not want that information because I believe in constabulary independence. This morning on  
Morning Report 
 the assistant commissioner said that he wanted to make the point that “There was no political interference … we wouldn’t tolerate that”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mark will leave the Chamber. He has twice interjected. I have a real job it is being Speaker and I do it to the best of my ability. Please leave the Chamber or I will name the member. 
Ron Mark 
: I never said “you”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now return or I will name him. Return to your seat. I heard the member yell out twice “Get a job.” That is a reference to me and he is not at all entitled to make that comment. I say further that I have asked the member to leave and he will leave without any further comment. He will leave now. 
Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reality is that Mr Mark said to George Hawkins “Get a real job.” He did not say it to you. I think your ruling—although I can understand how you might have felt the remark was aimed at yourself—in this case is unfair because he did not mean the Speaker; he meant George Hawkins who is not doing any work at all at the moment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I let it go the first second third fourth and fifth times. I then warned him. He then went on to say it a sixth and a seventh time and I have had enough. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that when a female victim of serious domestic violence subsequently asks police to drop charges it is standard practice for the police to say to that woman “Tell it to the judge.” and to continue with the prosecution; is that not the norm and why did it not happen in this instance? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police take a very dim view of all violence. But when they consider a case for prosecution they take into account all the factors before making the decision to prosecute. They make it without any political interference. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister seeking to cover up this very serious issue; and why does he have the mistaken belief that in a very serious case a charge was not warranted even though that same offender already had 54 criminal convictions many for violence and later went on to murder someone? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because there is constabulary independence we do not interfere with the police making decisions to prosecute. That member may want to but I do not and I will not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House correctly to understand that the man who went on to do the murder actually had 54 previous convictions; if so was there anything particular about the 53rd; and is it correct that if we had a decent zero tolerance crime policy he would probably have been put away after No. 9? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Obviously this Government has been getting tougher on criminals as there are now more people in prison. However I cannot give any advice on this particular case because I do not ask for the files of anyone who commits a crime—and I do not ask police about people getting into taxis in Courtenay Place. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think an important issue emerged this afternoon in your recent ruling. Had the member said in this Parliament “The member should get a job.” that would be perfectly in order. Had the member said: “You should get a job.” that would be totally out of order. The member had short-circuited “The member should get a job.” by saying “Get a job.” and you assumed that he had meant that you should get a job. I am unaware in my long time in this Parliament of a Speaker having made that extension of the quite unparliamentary and unacceptable inclusion of the Speaker by referring to you when there was no reference to you at all in the interjection. I believe that it is an extension of what I have heard Speakers rule in the past and I would appreciate your thinking further about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point. Had the member made that comment once or twice I would not have worried. But he had made that comment and quite often with the word “you” at least six or seven times previously in that question and I had warned him. I must say that anyone who studies English grammar will know that that remark was in the second person. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the heat of the moment has passed I would like you to reflect on your decision to ask Mr Mark to leave Parliament. I was sitting next to him and at no stage through the course of that discussion did I hear him use the word “you”. I know he was directing his remarks to the Minister and I think that on reflection you might consider calling him back to the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will discuss the matter with the whips. 
Genetically Modified Food—Safety 
5.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is she satisfied that all food sold in New Zealand containing genetically engineered ingredients is safe? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Food Safety 
: Yes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why does the Minister think it is acceptable for New Zealand consumers to eat a genetically engineered corn known as MON 863 corn which caused abnormalities in rats such as inflammation of the kidneys and reduced numbers of white blood cells and about which the French commission on genetic engineering has expressed serious concerns? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The corn MON 863 has been approved as safe for human consumption by the European Food Safety Authority and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Since the report referred to by the member was published the European Food Safety Authority has reviewed its determination of MON 863 and confirmed that in its view it is safe. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the process by which Food Standards Australia New Zealand assesses applications? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Before it will recommend approval of a genetically modified food Food Standards Australia New Zealand must be satisfied that the food does not have any new toxins or allergens and is not likely to pose any new health risks when compared with its conventional counterpart. As well as all the information that has to be supplied by the producer of the food Food Standards Australia New Zealand gathers extra information from many sources including peer-reviewed scientific literature general technical information independent scientists regulatory agencies international bodies and the community. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister aware of any food containing genetically engineered ingredients and sold anywhere at all that has been proven not safe? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: No I am not aware of any such food. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware with reference to the study that fed that corn to rats that the spokesman for the French genetic engineering commission—who also happens to be the director of research at the National Institute for Agricultural Research—said: “What struck me in this file is the number of abnormalities. I have never seen that in another file.”; and why does he think that a statement like that from a person like that should be ignored by our regulatory authorities? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I do not believe that such a statement by such a person is ignored either by the New Zealand and Australian regulatory authority or by the European Food Safety Authority. The latter authority in fact reviewed the literature and data following the report that led to the member’s accusation determined that the differences in the studies fell within normal variations and gave a positive opinion on the food safety of Monsanto maize MON 863 in April this year. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that if this had been a trial of a genetically engineered pharmaceutical those sorts of abnormal effects would have triggered an intensive and rigorous assessment to explain the causes of the abnormalities; and can the Minister explain why that did not happen in the case of a GE food that was destined for widespread human consumption? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: In fact in my understanding the safety of this food has been subjected to a rigorous review. The member is unhappy because the review did not find that the food was unsafe. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree now that the study showing abnormalities in rats has come to light and the Food Standards Australia New Zealand report does not refer to it in any way at all that Food Standards Australia New Zealand should publicly release the study for independent scrutiny commission an independent expert group to review the significance of the study and review its approval for the entire application; and will the Minister advocate that with Food Standards Australia New Zealand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The European Food Safety Authority is not only an independent expert group but it is the authoritative group in Europe and would be considered such I am sure by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Should that agency have any further information come to hand suggesting that any of the foods it has approved as safe are not safe it would of course review its findings taking all available data into consideration. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister believe that thalidomide asbestos and DDT are safe because they were approved by a number of countries and can we repeat the previous question: will the Minister call for Food Standards Australia New Zealand to release the controversial study publicly for independent scrutiny; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of those questions can be answered. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Thalidomide was never approved as a safe food by the Australian and New Zealand food safety authorities. I think the member is really scratching the bottom of the barrel. 
Seasonal Industries—Labour Shortages 
6.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to address labour shortages in seasonal industries? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last week the Minister of Labour Paul Swain the Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor and myself met with representatives of the horticulture industry and Government officials to establish a joint strategy for meeting short medium and long-term seasonal labour shortages in the sector. 
David Parker 
: How will the seasonal labour strategy be progressed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The industry and the Government are agreed that any strategy must be based on jobs for New Zealanders first. Overseas labour will be used only when it is clear that there are no suitable Kiwis to fill the vacancies. Illegal immigrants will not be used; that is unacceptable. It was also agreed that the industry has a responsibility for its own labour needs including the training and upskilling of New Zealanders. A joint industry-Government working party is being established to progress that strategy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister claim to the House that the Government’s policy is about putting New Zealanders’ jobs first when in my electorate this very week the owners of two fishing vessels—the  
Puriri 
 and the  
Orere 
—had work permits issued for 20 Filipino workers and three constituents have contacted my electorate office after being told they will be laid off as a consequence of that? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The issuing of work permits to visitors is a matter for the Minister of Immigration. But I say to the member that in his area the seasonal work strategy worked exceedingly well last year. In the area next to his around Motueka there were no registered unemployed people on the benefit—none. It is the same in Hastings West. There are many places where the Government’s seasonal work strategy has worked outstandingly well. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table newspaper reports— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We usually do that at the end of the question. There is too much noise particularly from the Government benches. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there are labour shortages in such areas as truck driving and road construction and maintenance which are areas affected by the seasonal flow of cargo; and will he solve that problem by employing overseas people? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I am well aware that there are shortages in those areas. I am very pleased to advise the member that Work and Income has been running a number of training programmes for truck drivers in both the South Island and the North Island. It has been running work programmes for people driving buses and all sorts of work programmes. The whole thrust of this Government’s strategy is to upskill New Zealanders in order to fill those jobs. We are doing that in conjunction with industry using industry-based strategies. We are well aware of the shortages and we are moving very well toward very successful outcomes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the reports in the  
Nelson Mail 
 of the Associate Minister of Immigration issuing work permits for Filipino workers on the  
Puriri 
 and  
Orere  
fishing trawlers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Reparation—Unclaimed Money 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What is the amount of unclaimed reparation held by his department on behalf of the victims of crime and what happens to that money if it is not claimed? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The amount of reparation held by the ministry in its fines trust account is currently $4.75 million. That is 25 percent less than in October last year. The money not disbursed is held in trust on behalf of those to whom it is owed and remains available at all times. It is never forfeited at any stage. The Ministry of Justice is actively tracing those individuals who are owed money and will continue to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Considering the amount of effort the Government expends in pursuing the people who owe it money why will the Government not advertise to ask the victims of crime to check if they are entitled to some of the unclaimed reparations; and does the Minister not think that any money unclaimed after some years might be better invested in helping other victims of crime—for example through Victim Support? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Last year $385000 was used in general advertising to promote the 0800 number for people to ring. The number is 0800 909 909. In the last year we have paid out an extra 25 percent of the amount owed in reparations. The money should be held for the person to whom it is owed. In terms of Victim Support I am very pleased to be able to tell the member that the Minister in charge of it the Hon Phil Goff has increased its budget every year. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is being done on an ongoing basis to improve collection and disbursement of reparation? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: New contact collection centres were established last year and the top priority of these centres is the collection and disbursement of reparation. In the year 2004 $14.05 million was collected in reparation—an increase of $1.77 million on the amount collected the year before. Of that 89 percent has already been distributed to people who were owed reparation. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that consistent failure to meet reparation orders should be treated like any other breach of sentence and result in jail time particularly when it indicates that any remorse the offender may have demonstrated on trial was hollow yet it may have allowed that offender to avoid a custodial sentence? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is not for me to say what the consequences of failure to pay reparation should be; that is a matter for the judge. This Government is intending to improve the rate at which we collect reparation and has made a huge commitment to it. In the last Budget we put an extra $7 million into the operational area of collection and an extra $2 million into capital. We are changing the law for example in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill so if anybody owes reparation and is going to leave this country that person will be stopped at the border. I could go on with many other reforms. This Government is absolutely determined— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has said enough. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why when Parliament set up a special assistance fund to help the victims of crime with travel costs and counselling is this Government siphoning off almost $600000 from this fund to pay for bureaucracy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is not a question that I am particularly able to answer because that is the responsibility of another portfolio. I say to the member that if his interest is in getting reparation for people who are owed it and making sure they are paid the money then this Government is doing a better job than has ever been done before. Every year the amount of reparation collected has gone up and every year the amount of reparation paid out has gone up. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Was the Minister asleep when Cabinet decided to plunder almost $600000 from funds that Parliament meant for the victims of crime to spend it on bureaucratic restructuring? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I assure the member of two things. Firstly I never go to sleep in Cabinet I am always awake and alert; and secondly the money went to Victim Support. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table Budget documents that show that the Government siphoned off almost $600000. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Services—Access 
8.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she stand by her commitment to providing fair access to strong public health services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that shunting 2000 patients awaiting eye surgery in Auckland back to their general practitioners for “active review” is only an administrative facade that avoids the issue of significant funding shortages for those services and can she see the ridiculous irony that those patients now faced with burgeoning paperwork are totally unable to read it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not agree with the assertion made by the member. I have been advised that the Auckland District Health Board has sent letters out to approximately 2000 people who are graded as routine—category D—notifying them that they will be returned to their general practitioner or optometrist for review and ongoing care. That category reflects non-urgent cases many of whom would not be likely to receive treatment for several years. It is preferable for those people to have ongoing monitoring from their general practitioner or optometrist during that time. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister outline some of the measures the Government has taken to improve access to health services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. One of the initiatives launched by the Government this year to improve access to public health services is the orthopaedics initiative. That initiative is aimed at doubling the number of publicly funded hip and knee replacement operations performed in hospitals over the next four years. It will bring huge relief to thousands of New Zealanders who suffer high levels of immobility and crippling pain. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the public have faith in the Minister’s commitment to providing fair access when I have a letter here from the professor of ophthalmology at the Auckland District Health Board who wrote back to the referring general practitioner over 400 days after the initial referral to say that 2500 patients were waiting for a first specialist appointment so he was sorry but he had to return the referral back to the general practitioner? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The public can have faith very easily. As I noted in the answer to the primary question the district health board advises me that it has tidied up its waiting list of people waiting for ophthalmology at outpatients’ clinics. It had not been examined for some time. It is likely that a number of those people will no longer require care. Some of them may have already received it privately or may have moved out of the area. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Minister deny that Treasury papers obtained under the Official Information Act reveal that “due to large one-off carry-forwards of unspent or delayed funds the increase between 2003-04 and 2004-05 is only $300 million” not the $550 million the Minister misleads the country with; if she does deny that what is the real increase after taking into account unspent and carried forward funding? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I regret I am not able to confirm that but I am certainly able to confirm that the Minister of Health does not mislead this House. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that when 45 percent of Auckland and nearly 60 percent of West Coast eye patients wait more than 6 months for specialist assessment and some Christchurch patients are even waiting more than 15 months there is clearly increased pressure for ophthalmology services nationally; if so what funding will she commit to addressing those debilitating conditions? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can confirm that ophthalmology is one of New Zealand’s largest and busiest patient services. The Auckland District Health Board sees around 46000 patients a year. I support its move to be more open with the community about the available resources. The reality is that the increasing volume of referrals means that the routine cases are unlikely to received attention in the near future. It is better as I stated in answer to a previous supplementary question for those people to have regular monitoring from a general practitioner or ophthalmologist while waiting for a specialist appointment. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister addressed the part of the question that asked whether the Minister would put more resources into it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may just have a comment to make on that part of the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would not like to pre-empt the Budget announcements of the Minister of Finance for next year. 
Judy Turner 
: If there is no plan to allocate funding to increase capacity for cataract operations will the Minister be prepared to approach the Fred Hollows Foundation in order to add New Zealand to the list of countries such as Bangladesh and Nepal that receive charitable support for the treatment of that condition; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member’s supplementary question was based on a misinterpretation of my answer to the previous supplementary question. I did not say there would be no increased funding; I said I would not pre-empt the announcement of the Minister of Finance on that issue. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Auckland District Health Board professor who after 400 days sent back the referral letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection. There is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the Auckland District Health Board performance indicators which show not one service out of 28 replies to referrals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed Bill—Maori Affairs Minister 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he stand by his reported statement of 3 May 2004 that he would “leave Parliament if the foreshore and seabed legislation does not work out the way he wants for Maori”; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Minister now leave Parliament since his own Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti tribal whanau and hapu have pointed out that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will significantly advantage larger iwi at their expense and lead to serious conflict within Maoridom or is that how he wanted it to work out? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are left with a bit of a dilemma with an answer like that. Do we take it that this is not how he wanted it to work out and therefore he will not vote for the bill or do we take it that he is perfectly happy with it and will not leave Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member said “No” and I do not know how the member could have a more direct answer than that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 370 which states: “(1) An answer that seeks to address the question must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. (2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked …”. That is not happening in this House and it did not happen in respect of that answer. The Minister was asked an ancillary question and “No” cannot be the answer to both of them and you are about to let him get away with it. There is the Standing Order and I want to know how it is being complied with in this House. We are not getting it in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think on reflection the member was asked two questions. He is perfectly entitled to answer “No. No.” but I would like him to answer the second part of the question again. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am half Ngai Tahu I am one-third Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti and that is a small group and I also come from Ngati Porou. I will make up my own mind in relation to where my whakapapa sits in those decisions as my people come here from all over the motu. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You asked the Minister to address the question and we got a bit of genealogy given back to us. The question was very very simple and the second part was very simple: that his people had said this was going to lead to significant expense advantaging larger iwi; and the end part of the question was “lead to serious conflict within Maoridom or is that how he wanted it to work out?”. Now he may well have the genealogy that leaves him conflicted but he should give some answer that relates to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question with the two answers he gave. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why did the Minister support the introduction of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I worked exhaustively over a long period of time with my colleagues to get the best outcome for Maori and all New Zealanders like my Pakeha ancestors the Rutherfords down south. We will wait with anticipation for the select committee report. 
Murray Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that Maori submitters have told the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that if the Government entered into a proper dialogue with them they would be quite open to the concept of the foreshore and seabed being made public domain for the benefit of Maori and non-Maori alike as proposed by United Future; and given the huge public unease over this issue will he recommend to the Government that it enters into such a dialogue with Maori with a view to reaching an agreement on the basis United Future has proposed; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I always encourage people to participate in the select committee process. I am not a member of that select committee but I understand it has been run in a very proper and efficient way in order to hear the cases. I await the report back from the committee with interest. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he stand by his assertion that it is “not true that a deal has been reached with Ngati Porou on the foreshore issue.”; if so can he explain why the Foreshore and Seabed Bill favours large iwi over hapu and small iwi by making it much easier for them to gain ancestral connection orders which are the gateway to territorial customary rights and compensation? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: At the time on the right date when that was made that was the statement. There have been negotiations with a whole lot of people as we are about to do shortly on the Aquaculture Reform Bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he then confirm for the House that the Government has done a deal with Ngati Porou over the seabed and foreshore in their rohe? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I can confirm that we met with Te Whanau-a-Apanui which is up in the Opotiki area and we have met with Ngati Porou and other tribes and there are ongoing discussions. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that must be different from the one of the same name that Mr Ryall tabled. This document shows that money from underspent victim assistance schemes did not go to some bureaucracy as alleged but went to Victim Support to help victims. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)—Quota Management System 
10.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What response has he received to the provisions contained in the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to manage species in the Quota Management System? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I received yesterday a response to comments made during the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) about the introduction of mussel spat into the quota management system. In that response a mussel spat farmer directly affected by the bill wrote to National spokesperson Phil Heatley: “I find your arrogance and ignorance related to mussel spat absolutely astounding. Had I known just how narrow your blinkers were set I would not have wasted my time talking to you today. I have been an admirer of Mr Brash’s style but the trash you’ve been”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was drawing a very long bow in answer to the original question. The first part was all right but then it went too far. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Is New Zealand’s world-known quota management system widely accepted? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes it is admired throughout the world. It has wide industry support and until yesterday it had broad cross-party support including the support of the National Party. But yesterday the National Party voted for the effective removal of kahawai from the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is the Minister who is being asked questions relating to his portfolio continually putting bogus policy positions up in the name of the National Party? He is not a competent Minister he is a relatively new Minister and he needs to understand that there is a way in which questions are answered. He has transgressed once today and you pointed that out to him. What he was just about to do is equally out of order and he should be called to account much more quickly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. I thought the Minister answered the question and addressed the second question. He pointed out that a party had supported the issue and then opposed it. He is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is quoting National Party policy and at no time has National ever said that it is opposed to the quota management system. The difficulty is this. When Ministers who have absolutely no responsibility for National Party policy make assertions that are blatantly incorrect what recourse is available to the Opposition? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can I ask you to rule that responsibility for the passage of bills through the House is absolutely a core constitutional responsibility of a Minister and making sure he has the votes is absolutely part of his job and that the Minister was reporting on that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. What the member has just said is correct. What the Minister said in the first part of his answer was perfectly acceptable. I listened very carefully to the second question and the second answer and so far he has not transgressed. But that is it. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the author of that letter is one Christopher Allen Hensley who according to the schedule in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is now the largest beneficiary of mussel spat quota thanks to the Minister with an allocation of 27 million quota shares and can he confirm that that man now considers the Minister as his best friend? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. The Minister has no responsibility for the second part. 
Phil Heatley 
: Don’t you read the schedules? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do read things. The member is walking a very thin line. He knows that is out of order. He should be quiet while the Minister answers. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Unlike the questioner I do not know the gentleman but I was delighted to receive the letter from him yesterday. I can confirm that he is a quota holder quite clearly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That amount of noise is just ridiculous and members are being silly. I would ask the Opposition whip to have a word to his colleagues about that. I do not mind a bit of interjection but not that amount. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When members on this side are subject to direction from you to be silent for a particular time you enforce it strictly. In this case Mr Heatley yelled out several times during that answer after you directly told him to be silent when the answer was being given. Is there one rule for us and one for them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is not. That is an objectionable comment and I would ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked whether the man who wrote the letter was a man called Hensley. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He said yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. He said he could confirm that he was a quota holder but he did not say that the name was Hensley. We are entitled to know who that man is. That is what the Minister was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer that particular question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am able to confirm that Mr Hensley also said to Mr Heatley—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will leave the Chamber. I have had enough. 
Phil Heatley 
: With pleasure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He will be named if he says another word. 
Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the question was whether the person concerned was Mr Hensley. The answer is yes or no? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The answer is yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the commitment he has given the Green Party to review thoroughly kahawai catch limits next year in the light of the much better scientific data he will collect over the year and his commitment to consider exclusion zones for purse-seine vessels offers a better outcome for recreational fishers than the Supplementary Order Paper to the bill that simply cancelled all catch limits? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am hopeful the current decisions which I believe appropriately address and recognise the importance of kahawai to recreational fishers will achieve the desired outcomes. But I am equally committed as a result of consultations with the Green Party to a review in 12 months’ time. As the questioner knows I have asked the ministry to direct an appropriate amount of budgeted funds for continued research into that recreational fishery. As she intimated I am prepared to consider exclusion zones should that prove to be necessary. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that those exact same terms and conditions that have been offered to the Green Party were offered to United Future prior to our requiring his support for the Supplementary Order Paper? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am rather surprised that the questioner does not yet realise that the amendments he moved which fortunately were rejected by the Committee of the whole House would have had the opposite effect to his stated intention. They would have led to chaos in the fishery and there would have been no constraints on the amount that commercial fishers could take. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know what question he thought I asked but it certainly was not the one he gave an answer to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member’s question and I heard the Minister’s answer. He directly addressed it. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Kaitaia Spat that I referred to earlier. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Air Force—Iroquois Replacements 
11.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received any reports or advice on replacements for the Royal New Zealand Air Force Iroquois; if so what was the nature of those reports or advice? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes the general thrust of advice in the reports is that the Iroquois and indeed the Sioux training helicopters need to be replaced. Projects to advance both acquisitions are under way. 
John Carter 
: In light of the unsatisfactory performances of the Iroquois—and I quote: “in bad weather at night and in hot and high conditions”—as mentioned in the annual report what processes are being discussed for the disposal of the Iroquois and has the Minister a timetable for their disposal? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I said projects are under way. The registrations of interest for medium-utility helicopters which are principally the replacements for the Iroquois have been advertised. Responses are being evaluated and due diligence is being done on potential offers on the light utility that will replace the Sioux and the lower-end operational requirements are following. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How are projects such as the Iroquois and Sioux replacements managed? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Government has put in place a cogent planned policy-driven acquisition process. This is based on the defence policy framework which the member might like to read and implemented through the tri-service multi-agency defence long-term development plan. We have this process and it is well under way. 
John Carter 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the process for the sale of other Royal New Zealand Air Force equipment that is Skyhawks and Aermacchis is satisfactory in light of new figures that show that Ernst and Young has been paid $677145 in disbursements alone on top of the initial $400000 payment; and on top of that it is to receive a bonus payment with yet no result of sales? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am satisfied that Ernst and Young is working solidly on this process. The test will be the outcome. I invite the member to await that and form a judgment at that time. 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Police Presence Auckland 
12.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Did the police receive a call to the Alexandra Park Raceway on Wednesday 25 August to attend an incident at the select committee hearing on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if so what was the nature of the call? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I am advised that a call was made to the police by the clerk of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that there were people causing difficulties in the committee room. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that he has now decided to answer questions when they are off the question of the murder why did it take 35 minutes for the police to respond to three calls from worried and concerned select committee members and staff deliberating on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill who reported violent and abusive protesters when the police were made aware well in advance of the security risk? Why did it take 35 minutes? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think 35 minutes was too long and I am asking the police to tell me why. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had a fiasco yesterday and today concerning what this Minister of Police would not do. Now we find that he will do things but not when it comes to a certain line of questions in the House. What will be the rule here? Can he get away with that answer now and get away with a different answer earlier in the day when he was asked a serious question about a dramatically serious matter and he said it was not his responsibility and he would not access any file? What is to be the answer now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a question and he gave an answer. He has to stand by it. He addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said earlier today that he does not interfere in operational matters. He has now told us that he does. What is to be your standard of ruling when it comes to this Minister given Standing Order 370 which requires him in the public interest to answer the question properly and stick to the facts? That is what Standing Order 370(1) and (2) says. He is getting away with murder and you are allowing him to get away with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes you are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not argue with me while I am on my feet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will tell it later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will have it out later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is unnecessary to make that comment. I say to the member that I have to judge as Speaker whether the question is in order. I have to judge whether the answer is in order. I do not rule on the substance of the answer or the question as long as they are in accord with the parliamentary Standing Orders and they were. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The matter that has been raised by Mr Peters is quite a serious one. I ask whether you might give us some consideration in a ruling a little later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will do that. 
John Carter 
: The issue is this. We in this House accept that the Minister while a case is current would not want to interfere in it but we have a right to expect reports once the case is finished. The particular case that Mr Peters has been discussing is finished and the Minister has every right from a policy perspective to be informed. He has not and he has told the House he has not yet he has now just contradicted himself by saying that he is getting a report on a policy issue. We do need to have some consistency in the answers. This Minister has just given an example of our not getting consistency. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it would be valuable for you to provide such a ruling. Perhaps as part of the ruling you could outline the traditions in the House as to Ministers’ responses on policy issues on resourcing issues and on response times which Ministers traditionally have reported on to the House as opposed to individual prosecution decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Minister’s comment earlier today that he does not get involved in operational matters and his comment in respect of question No. 12 today which suggests he does why has he sat in this House for 2 days telling barefaced lies? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member. He is asking about this particular question; he is not referring to previous questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is this. I ask the Minister why he is giving an answer that clearly indicates he does get involved in operational matters. He stated he was going to get a report from the police when earlier today he said the very reverse not once but over and over again. It is a disgrace in political terms because it calls into contempt the very idea of political and executive accountability. There is none where this Minister is concerned and you are allowing him to get away with it. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Prebble to keep quiet. We all know about his performance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am entitled to have my point of order heard without interruption. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but I would like the member to be terse. He has made the point already twice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes I have made the point and I will go on making it because frankly there is no accountability when a Minister can make a statement like that which suggests that it is not true and get away with it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The member has involved me in it. I would have thought that something stage I law students would understand is that there is such a thing as constabulary independence. Only a constable can make a decision on whether to arrest someone. We have heard clearly from the Minister that he is not prepared to question that. How the police are resourced and how long it takes the police to respond to matters are completely different questions. Neither of those questions involve constabulary independence. It is quite proper for Mr Peters to ask questions about those matters and it is quite proper for the Minister to reply. It is really quite bizarre that now Mr Peters is getting answers to quite proper questions he is objecting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Prebble put the matter exactly correctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect we are not asking anyone to arrest someone; the arrest has already taken place. We are asking why he was not charged. Mr Speaker you can clearly see the distinction in the argument we are making here. To say that Mr Prebble got it right is nonsense. We are not asking for someone to be arrested. We are asking for the reason why someone was not charged and that is an operational matter that he does involve himself in. He just confirmed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is wrong. 
I refer the member when we come to questions to members to the fact that the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee is absent. A question to a member must be held over to the next sitting day pursuant to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where is the answer to my second supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He answered the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the member could put— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is so patently obvious what is going on here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member put the supplementary question again? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister say now that he will get involved in operational matters—and he does that by seeking the report—when earlier today over and over again he said he does not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is policy not individual cases. I would have thought that member has been in Parliament long enough to know the difference. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can that be an adequate answer in this House? He was asked a very simple question and up he got attacked the questioner and refused to answer the question he was asked in the first place. Can we get an answer to that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is going very close to the line. I have given him very generous treatment because he is the leader of a major party but he has just about reached the bottom. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If you think that sort of behaviour is OK it’s a disgrace. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now leave the Chamber for the rest of the afternoon. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Questions to Members 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Question postponed. 
Urgent Debates 
Budget Advertising Programme—Report of Auditor-General 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 a report by the Auditor-General on the Government’s post-Budget advertising programme. This is a particular case of recent occurrence and involves the administrative responsibilities of the Government. I consider the report does deserve the immediate attention of the House and I therefore accept the application. I call on the member to move the appropriate motion. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. [ 
Interruption 
] 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Brash but that Minister in particular starts a barrage of interjection every time that Dr Brash gets on his feet. Before Dr Brash commences his speech can that Minister please be instructed from the Chair to close his mouth and not to interject in the way that he does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not want any assistance on this matter. There will be no further interjections from that member while this member is speaking. I do not like that sort of interjection. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I appreciate very much the opportunity of speaking to this very important issue in the form of a report from the Auditor-General to my colleague the Hon Murray McCully dated today. Some 3 months ago the Government brought its Budget down to the House. Included in that Budget was a commitment to spend $21.15 million on an advertising programme to promote the Working for Families programme including $11.59 million to be spent in the current financial year. At the time the National Party expressed extraordinary surprise at that very large expenditure. Let me put it in some perspective. Back in 1993 Helen Clark the then Labour health spokeswoman criticised the then National Government’s $2.5 million campaign to promote the health reforms. She said at that time: “The use of advocacy advertising paid for with $2.52 million of taxpayers’ money in an election year is a matter of major public concern.” Was it a coincidence she asked that the health campaign an “orgy of advertising” hit the public 5 months before a general election? 
The $21.15 million included in this year’s Budget is a very large expenditure programme and more than half that programme is scheduled for spending in this financial year immediately before a general election. That amount of money is more than eight times the spending that Helen Clark described in 1993 as “unreasonably large” and an “orgy of advertising”. 
Perhaps it is not surprising that the Government is embarking on a programme of such magnitude. It has collected an extra $34 billion in tax revenue in the last 5 years. The revenue from company taxes has gone up by some 72 percent over that time. The huge flow of revenue has made the Government very casual indeed about spending—hip-hop tours braying toilets— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a Budget debate still going the member as you are aware has had a letter granted on a case that requires the urgent attention of the House. For the last 3 minutes he has not referred to that but has talked about the tax take hip hop and a number of things that are not relevant to the letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not have been listening. I was. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want this to eat into the time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I do not want to eat into the time either. But we on the Opposition side of the House are getting sick and tired of the tactics being deployed by Trevor Mallard and other Ministers. They may think that it is enormously clever to break up the Leader of the Opposition’s speeches. They know that they are in trouble politically and they do not want the people of the country to hear what he has to say. But we will not sit here in the House and tolerate that sort of behaviour any longer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me tell the member that I thought I was doing my job pretty promptly on that matter. I do not think it required the member to restate that in what was not really a point of order. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: My colleague the Hon Murray McCully was so disturbed about the expenditure that he thought it appropriate to ask the Auditor-General whether he thought the spending of some 8 to 9 times the largest expenditure previously reported was appropriate. Today he received from the Auditor-General a report on that spending and it makes very disturbing reading indeed. 
The Auditor-General did not seek to make any comparison between the cost of this programme and that of other communications strategies because as he pointed out it was difficult to do that. Had he done so the sheer enormity of the proposed campaign would undoubtedly have been clear. But he did look carefully at the process by which $21.15 million found its way into the Budget. I will quote two or three sections from the Auditor-General’s letter. He stated: “We expected that there would be a detailed and robust analysis to support the Budget bid for a $21.15 million Communications Strategy. Such an analysis would include the nature of the Working for Families package changes the numbers and demographics of people affected by the changes the most appropriate means of communicating with these people and other identified target audiences and the comparative costs of appropriate communication options.” What the Auditor-General found fell significantly short of that. The report went on to state: “… in our view it should have been possible for the MSD and the IRD to have provided the advertising agency with information about the numbers of people likely to be affected by the Working for Families package changes and the nature and size of the target audience without necessarily disclosing specific information about the package. This could have enabled the advertising agency to make a more informed assessment of the communication needs and the likely costs and resulted in more precise costings to form the basis for the budget bid …”. 
The Auditor-General went on to state: “… our primary concern is with the robustness of the process of costing a significantly-sized Budget bid. The approval of the bid led directly to the parliamentary appropriation of $11.59 million for the first year’s funding in the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Act. The effect of the Act is to authorise the Executive to incur the expenditure. Overall we would have expected a more robust process to be used and for more detailed information to be available to support a Budget bid for $21.15 million. The level of scrutiny by the Treasury of the Communications Strategy budget was less than we would expect for new expenditure of this magnitude.” Further on the Auditor-General stated: “We expected to find a co-ordinated approach with evidence of the two departments working together to develop a joint Communications Strategy for the Working for Families package and combining the use of resources wherever possible to achieve the most effective and efficient use of taxpayer resources. In February 2004 the MSD and the IRD decided to have a joint Communications Strategy. They worked together on the Strategy from then until the date of the Budget announcement. Nevertheless each department during that period took quite different and separate approaches to planning the communications activities they intended to lead under the Strategy.” 
The Auditor-General noted that the Ministry of Social Development had told him that it intended to use generic advertising through television and other media “to provide high level ‘brand awareness’ of the Working for Families changes …”. One has to wonder how that “brand awareness” differs from straight political propaganda. Finally the Auditor-General concluded that: “… in our view the planning of the communications strategy in the period leading up to the Budget announcement evidences a disappointing lack of consistency. This is particularly clear from the manner in which the departments went about planning for separately produced television advertisements and the separate and differing approaches to the nature and scale of the specific campaigns to promote the changes that each of the departments would be leading. … this letter has set out our concerns about the robustness of the process of costing the Budget bid and the lack of consistency in approach. Those concerns mean that it is not possible in our view to say that the budgeted costs are a realistic reflection of the likely actual cost of the communications campaign to promote the Working for Families campaign.” 
The report from the Auditor-General is profoundly disturbing. Though couched in the careful language of the Auditor-General it suggests that there has been a complete breakdown of proper process—a cavalier disregard of the processes that should guide the spending of more than $20 million of taxpayers’ money. What will the advertising actually achieve? Will we see the programme highlight the fact that a solo mother on welfare who is working between 10 and 20 hours a week will face a 92.2 percent marginal taxation rate if she works another hour? Will the campaign highlight that fact? I suspect that there is not a chance of that. We know because it has been highlighted in this House that a whole raft of families will face 80 percent 90 percent and nearly 100 percent marginal taxation rates from this Budget. We know that the Government claims that this Budget is about encouraging people to get off benefits and into work. We know that it will not do that. 
Ministers need to take responsibility for this serious lapse in process even if they cannot take responsibility—or will not take responsibility—for the contents of the Budget itself. It is particularly serious when there is a growing disregard for past conventions on taxpayer-funded advertising. When Prime Minister Jenny Shipley was in office in the 1990s she instigated quite specific rules that required the careful use of taxpayers’ funding in advertising and particularly she required approval by the Auditor-General for such situations. That has been quite deliberately ignored by the current Government. In just these last few days we have seen produced—not by parliamentary funding but by ministerial funding—a brochure that has in it undeniably political campaigning. It is undoubtedly political campaigning. There is no way that it could be dressed up as anything other than blatant political advertising and as a consequence we have referred that 1-page document to the Auditor-General for his report. This document does not comply with the standing procedure for the use of taxpayers’ money on advertising to the public. 
The report received by my colleague Mr McCully is a serious indictment on the way that this Government spends $21.15 million of taxpayers’ money. I think it is high time that this Government took some responsibility in spending that kind of money. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Recently the speeches of the member who has just sat down Dr Don Brash were described by one leading commentator as having some major problems. Those major problems were listed as follows. Firstly Fran O’Sullivan said that Don Brash’s speeches insinuate things but never prove them. Secondly she said that he has a tendency to rely on inadequate facts. Thirdly she said that he pumps issues up as if there is a doom-laden situation in front of us when there clearly is not. If ever anybody wanted to see a speech that illustrated the ongoing failure—apart from the boredom factor—of Dr Don Brash’s speeches it was the insinuation the failure to give facts and the way he went about saying there was a crisis when there is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a debate on a matter of urgent public business. It is a debate about the disgraceful misappropriation of $21.5 million by the current Government for its own political purposes and that Minister needs to get back on to the topic and face up to his Government’s own frailties in this matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just thank the honourable member for his contribution and refer him to Speaker’s ruling 43/3. A member is entitled to react to the previous speech but he then has to come to order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably did not hear the core part of that complaint from the member. He talked about the Government misappropriating money which is theft. That is an entirely unparliamentary comment and I ask for it to be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I think the member makes a very good point. I think the term is out of order and I would ask the member to desist. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I simply wanted to establish at the beginning of the debate that members are having a debate based upon insinuation a failure to fully document the case—as is usual—and the usual doom-laden speeches that we are now familiar with from Dr Don Brash. 
Let me just walk through the facts of the matter. The Working for Families package which is $2.7 billion over 3 years—$2.75 billion over 3 years to be exact—has attached to it a $21 million plan to communicate what we are trying to do. The package takes place over 4 calendar years. [ 
Interruption 
] I know the facts are difficult I say to Mr Brownlee but he should listen to them as they are quite useful. We will be spending $2.75 billion over 4 calendar years on family income assistance the accommodation supplement and childcare assistance. We will see around 300000 families—61 percent of all families—in this country gain access to more assistance. Low to modest income households will gain assistance so that they gain more money and most crucially when they move into work the work will pay. I know that the member who has just sat down supports that. 
The package needs to be communicated effectively so that people who are eligible for that large amount of money actually apply for it and get hold of it. I direct the member’s attention to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Auditor-General’s letter. “In our view” states the Auditor-General “it is appropriate for there to be a communications strategy to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements under the Working for Families package … particularly … when people will not receive a benefit to which they are entitled unless they make a formal application.” 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no point did I contest the need to advise the public about the nature of that package—at no point did I contest that. I pointed out that the Auditor-General had made the point very clearly that the process by which the $21.15 million was appropriated was improper. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that that is a debatable issue. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Learn the Standing Orders! That is a debating point. The member made his point; I am making my point—that is how the debate actually works I tell him. I know that he is new but that is how it works. 
I know that he does not like it but paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report state that communications are entitled to be taking place and that it is important to have communications because unless people apply they do not get money. The Auditor-General says that the Working for Families package contains changes that “affect up to 300000 families—including current beneficiaries and significant numbers of people who do not currently receive benefits (and will not do so unless they apply).” OK point No. 1 for Dr Brash is that the Auditor-General agrees that the package should be communicated because otherwise people will not get the entitlements they are entitled to. 
The next point is that the development of the estimates of the cost of the communications campaign of necessity was done under Budget confidentiality. So only limited information went to the advertising agency when it was seeking an estimate of costs. What does the Auditor-General say about that? I refer to the Auditor-General’s conclusion: “The estimated costs of the proposed Communications Strategy in the Budget 2004 bid are consistent with the cost information supplied to the MSD and the IRD by the advertising agency based upon the limited information provided to the agency.” The Auditor-General also notes: “… a need to observe confidentiality requirements of Budget 2004 in regard to that information.” and notes that under longstanding Cabinet financial delegations “… further approvals will be required from the responsible Ministers before any advertising expenditure of more than $100000 is actually incurred.” He goes on to say on the question the member is so excited about—$21 million over 4 calendar years driving a package of $2.75 billion as the Auditor-General notes—“… the MSD and the IRD are continuing to revise and tailor the detail of the Communications Strategy as part of their ongoing assessment of the communication needs for the Working for Families package. As the detail—in particular the mass media advertising campaign which is at the early stage of requesting proposals from advertising agencies—has yet to be finalised the actual cost of the Communications Strategy is not yet certain.” He goes on to say there is potential for cost savings. We will know about such cost savings when those details are in and we would expect of course that there will be cost savings. 
For my next point I go to the Auditor-General saying that the Audit Office was consulted prior to the Budget about the intention to have the communications campaign—in particular the information on the Working for Families package that was released on Budget day—and satisfied itself it complied with Cabinet guidelines for Government advertising. I go back and ask myself what the Cabinet guidelines say about that. They say the following things: “Governments may legitimately use public funds for advertising and publicity to explain their policies and to inform the public of government services available to them and of their rights and responsibilities.” The Auditor-General is of the view that the Working for Families communications campaign is consistent with that statement. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go again. 
Let me take it back here. The Audit Office will be consulted about all future elements of the communications campaign and has recently cleared the advertising campaign about the 1 October changes to the accommodation supplement and the 4 October changes to childcare assistance. Let me repeat that: we have already had two elements of this campaign go to the Auditor-General—as all of them will—and they have already been cleared by him. I want to take that across to extend it to say this: the Auditor-General found that “In February 2004 the MSD and the IRD decided to have a joint Communications Strategy. They worked together on that Strategy from then until the date of the Budget announcement.” To which I can add that the two departments—from the chief executives down—continue to work closely together on those matters. 
I want to stress that for many families this package will be the first time they have qualified for assistance of any kind. As the Auditor-General says “Families who become eligible for assistance for the first time need to apply for it as neither Inland Revenue or the Ministry of Social Development hold information which would enable them to identify newly eligible households.” Payments are unable to be backdated; families have to apply for them when the families become eligible. 
There is much more that I could say about the insinuation the failure adequately to choose the facts that fully tell the story and the way that that member has come into the Chamber predicting yet another crisis when there is no crisis. This is a properly documented piece of spending—$2.7 billion of money going to low and modest income New Zealanders—driven by a package of up to $21 million properly accounted for dollars that will go out during this period of time. That is what is going on here; that is the full story. Yes we had to make sure that under Budget secrecy we did not have the full costed details of the package but yes all of it goes to the Auditor-General and yes it rolls out in tranches which allow it to be controlled. How do we prove that to people like Mr Prebble? Two packages have already gone to and been approved by the Auditor-General. Those packages were rolled out in the normal way. This is a policy that the Auditor-General will be consulted on all the way through. We are happy with that and we will ensure that it happens. 
The very final point I would make is that the National Party may not want low and modest income families in this country to know about their entitlements. That is the real story. In the 1990s did the National Party Government tell people that they could have a benefit that they could have an accommodation supplement that they could gain anything from that Government? No! When Labour came to power we had to clean up the student support system and introduce a full entitlement policy because the National Government would not pay people their entitlements. National hates people who need support from the Government. That is what this is about. It hates them and it wants to make sure that people who are entitled to assistance get nothing. That is what it is about. Dr Don Brash who was used to his half-a-million-dollar salary at the Reserve Bank cannot understand why ordinary everyday New Zealanders who are trying to raise their kids in difficult circumstances should be told about $2.75 billion worth of new spending on them and their kids and on making work pay. Well I am looking forward to being on the hustings and arguing about that. National can take it away from them; we will make sure they get it. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 The Controller and Auditor-General in his report on the Working for Families communications strategy considered the need for the communications strategy the process of costing the strategy the development of the joint communications strategy and whether the budgeted costs for the communications strategy are reasonable. New Zealand First is very concerned at the amount of money being spent on the advertising campaign. As we looked at the report and at the amount of money being spent on the communications strategy we saw that it totals up to $21.15 million to be allocated over the 3 financial years from 2004-05 to 2006-07 inclusive. 
The communications strategy budget is divided between two votes and 3 financial years as follows—I am reading this from the Auditor-General’s report for a specific purpose. First in the 2004-05 financial year $7.65 million is allocated in Vote Social Development and $3.94 million in Vote Revenue which totals up to $11.59 million. That is an enormous amount of money to be spent on advertising in just 1 year. But wait there is more as they say in the infomercials. In 2005-06 $2.81 million is allocated in Vote Social Development and $3.38 million in Vote Revenue which totals up to $6.19 million. Last but not least in 2006-07 $2.25 million is allocated in Vote Social Development and $1.12 million in Vote Revenue which totals up to $3.37 million. That comes to an absolutely ridiculous and outrageous total cost for advertising—which basically comes down to Government propaganda—of $21.15 million. That is an absolute disgrace. When I think of what people could do with that $21.15 million I get very sad and frustrated. 
Pita Paraone 
: House more Maori families. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That $21.15 million could house more Maori families and address their health needs. It could help fund alternative education centres within the Auckland area whose funding the Associate Minister of Finance who is also the Minister of Education has cut back. It could also help to fund better roading in the Rodney area where I come from like the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2. There are a lot of extra things that $21.15 million could be spent on. It is a huge—enormous—amount of money to be spent on advertising. It is not being used to help Maori families into housing which my colleague Pita Paraone mentioned. It is not being used to increase alternative education funding which the Government is cutting back on. It is not helping the school in Hobsonville nor is it being used in other communities where it would really help out. It is an incredible amount. It is an enormous amount of money that could go a huge way to help to improve the lifestyle of people in local communities around this nation. But what is the Government spending it on? What is that money going to? It is going into Government propaganda. It is an enormous amount. It is amazing how much of a cesspit of advertising the Government has created when it could be helping out so many young people so many families and so many health initiatives around this country. 
Hon Member 
: Student loans. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Students loans are another very good example. There is an enormous need amongst our young people and tertiary students. 
I make another point which is straight from the Auditor-General’s report. He said: “The $21.15 million for the Communications Strategy includes the costs of research creative development”. Well New Zealand First wonders what kind of creative development is necessary for advertising that lets people know what they are entitled to. What would it include? What kind of creative development is used in this whole area to tell people they are entitled to some extra money? It is actually quite a basic package. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: No creativity. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Even a Minister is saying that no creativity is needed to advertise this package; that is what I think he is saying. Why on earth has the cost of research been included in that amount? How on earth has the cost of research been included in that amount of $21.15 million? It should have been included in another estimate. Research should be included in another estimate. This is just a big charade. No research was done on the $21.15 million that is being spent. There was probably no research on this $21.15 million whatsoever. Why is it there? Because the Government has to create something because it has to say that this $21.15 million was used for the really good purpose of research creative development and all those flowery neat nice and fluffy words to make it sound better. But at the end of the day— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s use of the word “charade” is unparliamentary. It implies misappropriation and that has already been ruled on by your good self. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: “Charade” is a debatable issue. I ask the member to come to the point. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I was speaking to the point. The figure of $21.15 million was straight from the Auditor-General’s report. 
Dail Jones 
: They can’t take the facts. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: My colleague Dail Jones is right in saying that they cannot take the facts. They cannot take the truth. Why? Because the truth will set one free and the truth hurts. That is exactly what is happening to this Government. 
I want to read again from page 9 of the Auditor-General’s report which states: “… in our view the planning of the communications strategy in the period leading up to the Budget announcement evidences a disappointing lack of consistency. This is particularly clear from the manner in which the departments went about planning for separately produced television advertisements and the separate and differing approaches to the nature and scale of the specific campaigns to promote the changes that each of the departments would be leading.” 
Dail Jones 
: He’s very quiet now. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: He is very quiet now and the reason is that those are the Auditor-General’s own words. He has been critical of the way in which money has been spent in this area. New Zealand First is very concerned about the amount of money that was to be spent on this campaign and we express our disgust at it. That $21.15 million—about $11 million just in this financial year—could have been spent on other programmes like alternative education projects or health initiatives around this country. I say and New Zealand First says that it is a diabolical disgrace to spend $21.15 million in this way. It just comes down to plain Government propaganda—that is all it is. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am looking forward to Dr Brash putting his money where his mouth is. I am looking forward to Murray McCully telling us how much money his National Party Government spent on a whole string of propaganda exercises when he was a Minister. I think it is time for all political parties in this House to clean up their act when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money on advertising. The last National Government from my recollection was far worse at exploiting the public purse than the current Government is. Let us just remember back to Mrs Shipley’s so-called code of social responsibility. How much did that propaganda exercise cost the taxpayers of New Zealand? How many people did it upset? How many families and parents did it make feel guilty about doing a good job trying to bring up their kids when the Government of the time was not giving them an adequate income to bring up a family in decency? How much did National’s dob-in-a-beneficiary 0800 number cost at a time when National was basically pitting neighbour against neighbour getting people to rat on the people next door because they may well have had somebody visiting them who was a close family friend? That National Government was trying to undermine our society and tear our social fabric apart. Where is Dr Brash’s admission about what that National Government did? Well he was not around in those days; he is a new boy on the block. Where is Mr McCully’s admission about what the then National Government spent? 
How about Dr Brash himself? He is very keen to jump up and down today and tell us how much the Labour Government has spent on communications—and I will turn to the Labour Government in a minute. Dr Brash admitted in a press release on 29 June that 10.3 percent of the National Party leader’s budget was spent on communications in the last financial year. Imagine if the Government spent 10.3 percent of its budget on propaganda trying to con the New Zealand public about what it is up to! 
Dr Brash even went so far with the $221643 he spent on communications to send the letter I have here to the former owner of the house in which I live in Wellington. It is a shame she died a few years ago; she was a lovely lady. Dr Brash is busily telling her what a terrible Government we have and that it is forcing through politically correct legislation. I must thank him for this next phrase in which he says that thanks to Labour and the Greens the bulldozers are being stopped from being started. I am very proud of the fact that we have stopped bulldozers from forging roads through some of our most beautiful coastline and bush country and instead are promoting public transport. But how much did it cost Dr Brash to send that letter to all of the people in Wellington Central? It is not even an electorate that he represents. I suspect that he sent this letter over the whole country or at least everywhere the National Party does not have a constituency MP and let us face it there are not many electorates where National does have constituency MPs these days. So how much did National spend on this letter? 
If we look at the questions in this letter we see it is just a cheap way of polling. The letter asks which party people support. In fact it is not actually a cheap way of doing polling because it is the taxpayers of this country who have paid for this market research for the National Party. The taxpayers have not just paid the $221000 that National has spent on its communications budget; the Freepost number back to Parliament that is on the letter does not come out of Dr Brash’s budget. It is on top of what Dr Brash gets to spend on advertising out of the taxpayers’ fund. 
I am looking forward to Mr McCully saying that he is keen to change the rules that apply to Parliamentary Service budgets. I have to say that so far his colleagues on the Parliamentary Service Commission have been next to useless. I have been trying for years to get the rules tightened around advertising but who blocks the rule changes? It is Mr McCully’s colleagues on the Parliamentary Service Commission. Mr McCully should come along to the Parliamentary Service Commission and join me in getting these rules tightened up. The first one that has to be tightened is the Freepost rule. Parties should be paying for any Freepost number out of their own budget not out of an uncapped budget. 
 Not only that; there should be greater transparency about what money is spent so that all significant advertising has to declare that it is from a political party which political party it is from and the fact that it is paid for from Vote Parliamentary Service. 
But we have to go beyond that which is why I am pleased that the Auditor-General has written to all parties trying to get our cooperation in rationalising the rules because there are now three sets of rules. There are the rules that apply to Government departments the rules that apply to Ministers and the rules that apply to the rest of us back-bench MPs—particularly those of us in Opposition parties. There are a lot of inconsistencies in those rules and they need to be sorted out. Rather than our wasting 1½ hours of the time of the House on an urgent debate I hope the National Party the Labour Party and every other party in this House put 1½ hours of decent constructive time into looking at how we can improve the rules so that we can lift the image that parliamentarians have in the eyes of the public. At the moment our image is pretty damn poor because of the sorts of things we do. One of the worst examples was poor old Bill English’s attempt to save his leadership of the National Party. He plastered billboards up and down the country at the cost of tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars but it made no difference in the end because he was still rolled. 
Turning to this Labour Party campaign the $21 million may be excessive—I would be interested to see the full breakdown of that spending—but we support communicating to the people of New Zealand what their entitlements are under the family package. The problem with the old rules is that at least half of those who were entitled to some taxpayer support did not receive what they deserved because they did not know what they were entitled to. National should not be so mean-spirited as to stop the Government from communicating to the people who have missed out because of course under National many many people missed out for many years on what were their fair entitlements. So we support some of this money being spent. We are not sure it should be $21 million. 
Where the Labour Government has crossed the line is that the 0800 number that it used for its departmental advertising through the Inland Revenue Department and Ministry of Social Development is the same 0800 number it used for its blatant propaganda: “You’re better off with Labour.” That is crossing a line and the Labour Government should stop doing that. It should pull down all those posters that it has put up around the country. “You’re better off with Labour.” is so close to “Vote for Labour.” that there is hardly a sliver between the two messages. But more to the point Labour should not be cross-marketing like that and using a Government department to receive calls for what is in effect party political advertising. 
I look forward to Labour facing up to that and cleaning up its act. I look forward to all political parties in this Parliament cleaning up their act. I also look forward to our cooperating with the office of the Auditor-General in the research that it is doing into Government parliamentary advertising and publicity. It is beholden on us all to do a much better job on behalf of the taxpayers whom we are here to serve. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 The granting of an urgent debate by the Speaker for a debate of this sort is not common. As one of the Ministers pointed out when there are budgetary matters on it is uncommon. We then have to ask why the Speaker thought that this is an issue that the House should look at. When we look at the Standing Orders we can see that it not only has to be an important matter but it has to be a matter that requires the attention of the House. When we read the report we can see why. I realise that this is written by the Auditor-General who writes in the bureaucratic language of that office. I guess one has to be a member of Parliament to realise that this is a damning report. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: One has a fear that that means the Minister will not take any notice of the Auditor-General’s report. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the member read paragraph 14 of the report? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Let me read him this paragraph: “However this letter has set out our concerns about the robustness of the process for costing the Budget bid”. That means that there was no proper analysis before $21 million of taxpayers’ money was decided on. It also refers to “the lack of consistency in approach”. I guess what it means by that is that this is a huge over-the-top expenditure. The report goes on to state: “Those concerns mean that it is not possible in our view to say that the budgeted costs are a realistic reflection of the likely actual costs of a communications campaign”. What the report is actually stating is that the Government just picked up and guessed a figure. 
I am a bit concerned that the Auditor-General did not go further. The Auditor-General said: “We have not sought to compare the costs of this communications strategy with other government-funded public information campaigns.” The Auditor-General did not have to do that. The Auditor-General could have asked how this compares with the cost of selling McDonald’s KFC or Air New Zealand the biggest purchasers of television advertising. I can tell the Government the answer. This is the biggest advertising campaign. There is no one who is proposing to spend $21 million promoting a single product because that is what this is. This is a single product—the Government’s Budget. It is the biggest advertising programme in the history of New Zealand. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What percentage of the cost is it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: If the Minister would like to go back and check he will find that the Government of New Zealand was able to spend less money informing the public about GST than it is spending now to sell this Budget. In fact the Government spent less money telling us all about decimal currency than we are now being given to sell this Budget. I will tell the Minister the reason why. When one has a Budget that one says is helping people to go back to work then finds that solo mothers who accept the Government’s advertising and go back to work will pay 92.2 percent tax I have to say to Mr Cunliffe that I do not think $21 million will cut it. I do not think he would be able to persuade solo mothers that this is a great package when they actually work out that when they go back to work they will pay the Government $92 for every $100 they earn. 
I can tell Mr Cunliffe how this Budget came about and how the spending came about. It was not done as the Auditor-General was told. No before the Budget when a group of senior Labour Party Ministers realised how complicated and how unsaleable the Budget was they panicked. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yeh right! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I tell Mr Cunliffe that they had a meeting and he was not one of them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yeh right! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: They had a meeting with a number of senior officials from the Beehive—political officials no civil servants—and they panicked. They said they would need the mother of all advertising Budgets. Then they went and spoke to their friends in the advertising industry who said: “You’re going to have to spend more money on this campaign than anybody has ever spent in the history of New Zealand.” I will say that again: “more money on this campaign than anybody has ever spent before”. 
Pita Paraone 
: And why? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I will tell the member why. A solo mother under this package who accepts the propaganda and goes back to work will find that the Government will take $92 out of every $100 she earns. Of course there is another maxim that the advertising agency did not draw to the public’s attention. If one has a bad product and a big advertising budget one just goes bankrupt faster. That is the real problem. 
The advertising agency also forgot another maxim which is that good government sells itself. But this Government knows that it cannot persuade ordinary working New Zealanders that this is a Budget for ordinary working New Zealanders. When one analyses it it is a welfare Budget and 300000 people will benefit the majority of whom are welfare beneficiaries. What is the importance of that? Well that goes to a point that the Auditor-General also makes in Auditor-General - type language so I will have to explain it. The Auditor-General is basically saying that he thinks they ought to review “generic television advertisements to promote the package as a whole.” What does “generic television advertisements” mean? I will give members an example. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Propaganda. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well it is propaganda and I thank the member. But I like to give people an example. There are new things called “PHOs]primary health organisations. The Government is now spending millions of dollars and I have seen the ads on television—and I do not watch television very often but I must have seen it half a dozen times—where a charming young lady appears and says she is acting on behalf of the Government and as a result of these new primary health organisations general practitioner visits will be cheaper. I am sure she did not realise she was lying—she was paid to read out a script—but we all know that that is a lie. We all know that in fact as a result of these primary health organisations and the extra bureaucracy—because the General Practitioners Association has explained it—the cost of general practitioners has gone up. Has the Government withdrawn that advertisement? No it has not. Do we all belong to primary health organisations? No we do not. But the Government thinks that it is necessary to have “generic television advertisements” promoting its changes to the health system. The Government is now going to spend money on television to tell us all that we are benefiting somehow from the Budget when as the Auditor-General points out only 300000 of us are being so targeted. The Auditor-General also knows that the Government actually does know the name of every beneficiary—I know that some of them are fraudulent names but they do know the names and the addresses. 
Do members know that a letter to each beneficiary explaining that he or she will be paying 92.2 percent extra in tax can be sent for $300000? Of course the Auditor-General wants to know why the Government does not do that instead of spending $21 million on the most expensive advertising campaign in New Zealand’s history the biggest ever done by a Government; greater than the amount of money needed to tell us all about GST greater than the amount of money to tell us all about decimal currency and of course it is going to 3.7 million New Zealanders who do not actually benefit at all. But we are going to be told just as we are told in the advertising for primary health organisations that the cost of medical visits is going down when we actually understand that they are going up. That is why one has to spend more money. If one is going to tell a lie one has to tell it often and tell it many times. But I have to tell the Government that $21 million will not cut it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is a most experienced member. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It most certainly is. I can remember that Government doing the Rub Out the Crim campaign. I can remember the Access scheme. Those programmes look mild compared with this. Actually rubbing out crims is not a bad thing. But this Government spends $21 million to try to persuade the majority of New Zealanders that a 92 percent tax rate is a good thing for solo mothers. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon Murray McCully and I guess the National Party research team on first of all spotting the fact that this $21.15 million was going to be spent on communicating the Working for Families package; and secondly I would like to sincerely congratulate him on having the good sense to write to the Auditor-General and ask for the matter to be examined and examined in detail. The other thing I want to do is to congratulate the Speaker on having the good sense today to allow this debate to occur because I think it is a very very important debate and one that in some ways is overdue. 
I say that because the current Government has gained a reputation as being very good at spending other people’s money. There is a maxim of course that Governments do not have any money unless it is first taken off the citizens of the country. So first of all it should clearly be understood that this $21 million has been collected from the people of New Zealand and then spent on an advertising campaign. A minute ago when Richard Prebble was speaking I thought he was going to say that he knew where the money was going to go and I thought he was going to say “into the pockets of the advertising agents”. Because that is actually where the money is going to go. I think we need from time to time as a House to say: “Hang on a minute this is money that belongs to the citizens of the country. Are we being good stewards? Are we doing the right thing in spending the money in this particular way?”. After all in a sense any Government really becomes like the trustee for its citizens and one of the obligations on any trustee is to ensure that money is spent prudently. 
 When I looked at the Auditor-General’s report I asked myself a few basic questions maybe from my business background. The first question I asked myself was why this money was being spent. The report states in one place that 300000 families will receive the Working for Families assistance. But I draw the House’s attention to the fact that attached to that report is schedule No. 1 which under the Ministry of Social Development part of it states that the forecast number of new clients is actually 37000. Under the part relating to the Inland Revenue Department it states that the number of new clients is 48000. If those figures are added together it means that 85000 expected new clients will come into the Working for Families package. The other 215000 are already getting certain entitlements. They already have a relationship with the Ministry of Social Development or the Inland Revenue Department. Because we already have the postal address of those people we can simply send them a letter stating that that is the deal. That can be done in a multiplicity of languages and that will be no great problem. However the strategy of the bright people who have put this campaign together is not to hunt down those 85000 people but to blast the whole 1.9 million families of New Zealand with mainstream repeated generic advertising that will be spread across 3 years. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Because it’s so good. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Great we all want to sit in our lounge every night and hear the same message for the next 3 years! Get real! That package is for 85000 families out of 1.9 million. 
I shall say a bit more about this. My colleague Judy Turner and I have sat here and done a bit of creative thinking. If the goal is to get a message to 85000 families how should it best be done? I have some suggestions to put to the House. First I suggest that the Government prints its material in all the different languages used in this country: Samoan Maori English and some of the other major language groups and send a letter to every family—1.9 million families—in the country. The cost at $2 per letter which would include all the printing the language and preparation of material would be $2.8 million and I think that would be a very generous allocation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Do we know where they live? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Well we would send the letter to every family in the country—1.9 of them—and all it would cost is $2.8 million. The next step would be that we would tell families that if they qualified for those new packages we want them to let us know by filling in the form in the letter and sending it back to us. If it turned out that that family qualified we would send it $100 in the mail by return. The cost for 85000 tickets would be $8.5 million. So for a cost of $11.3 million we would get the job done and get it done well. So Judy Turner and I in the space of about 15 minutes have just saved the taxpayers of this country $10 million. We have just done that while the speeches have been going on. We asked ourselves if we were doing this what would we do and that is our answer. I think that would be far more effective than the crazy $21.15 million generic advertising campaign on all television channels with separate advertisements from the Inland Revenue Department and Ministry of Social Development and not even bothering to coordinate that. The strategy is very poorly thought through and it is poorly targeted. 
I have seen the Inland Revenue Department do much better than this. Before I came to this House I was the financial administrator of the Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington. At that stage the Inland Revenue Department wanted to get in touch also with all of those families who were entitled to the current family support package. The department made up a number of multilanguage brochures sheets and so forth that went out to all the churches in the country. It said to Samoan churches: “You’re in touch with the Samoan community. Could you get one of these to every person who comes to your church on Sunday?”. The Samoan churches said that they would do that. The department did the same with Catholic churches and other churches. It did it with other big charities. We all participated in getting that information to the families that we knew were needy and therefore would qualify. 
A strategy like that could probably be more effective and that whole thing for 85000 people with 200000 bits of information could be done—and I have been very generous here—for say $3 million. If that will do the job in this debate we have saved the taxpayer not $10 million but $18.15 million. I make those points just to illustrate that this $21.15 million strategy is really not a good use of public money. 
I also take this opportunity to mention one other thing. As members are probably aware I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The Auditor-General comes before the committee once a year and we talk to him about various matters. This year I asked the Auditor-General whether the Government dispensed money in this country at the moment to non-Government organisations without a requirement for those organisations to produce audited accounts. He said yes the Government did that. 
If an organisation in this country applies to the Lottery Grants Board it cannot get a grant without producing audited accounts. By the way the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported back to the House that that issue should be addressed. That is extremely poor stewardship. I have written to the Minister for Sport and Recreation on that issue because it includes grants being disbursed through Sport and Recreation New Zealand which see huge amounts of money being dished out to all sorts of organisations that do not have to produce audited accounts in return. I can go to the health budget and tell members that the same sort of thing is happening. 
It is time that this was brought to an end and that we established proper standards of accountability because at the end of the day we are spending the money that we in the first instance have taken away from our citizens. We should be good stewards with that money careful with it and bring to an end—what is the right word—the prodigal methodology that this Government has adopted of scattering money around like confetti. We would not have all those hip hop scandals and those other things or trouble with one of the members of this Parliament if we adopted the simple procedure: “You don’t get money from us unless you produce audited accounts.” 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The letter that the National Party received today from the Auditor-General contained no good news and indeed contained quite a lot of criticism for a number of parties associated with the Government. There was criticism for the Ministry of Social Development and for the Inland Revenue Department there was a smack across the knuckles for Treasury and of course in appropriately guarded and diplomatic language there was a decent-sized serve for Cabinet. Each of those parties failed in the view of the Auditor-General to discharge the obligations they have under the Cabinet rules. Let me start by making it clear that the Auditor-General’s report today was not about the programme we have seen at vast taxpayer expense under the slogan “You’re Better Off with Labour”. That is a completely different additional matter where this Government has used taxpayers’ funds to try to secure its re-election. The Auditor-General is on to that too. He has embarked upon another inquiry and that will be a topic for discussion in this House on another day. This report is about the $21.15 million that is to be spent by the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department on telling us what a good Government we have and how lucky we all are. 
First let me be clear that the National Party has no quibble with the notion that those who are entitled to some form of benefit from the Government and that those who are to have something done to them by the Government are entitled to be told about it. Over time we have made it clear that that is a legitimate use of taxpayers’ expenditure provided it is done within the Cabinet rules and provided it meets the test of the Auditor-General’s office. My leader Dr Brash made it clear that that was a process committed to in earlier times. There are two things that are different about the programme the Auditor-General wrote to us about today. First of all there is its scale. This is $21 million of taxpayer expenditure. That $21 million dwarfs most of the major brand advertising campaigns as Mr Prebble told the House this afternoon. Secondly there was a lack of process about this programme—a process that normally involves informal consultation with the office of the Auditor-General. That is why the Auditor-General has told us today in very clear terms that this programme has not met the test of the Cabinet rules and has not met the test of his office. He has told all the parties to go back and do the job they should have done in the first place and has predicted that the figure that will ultimately be spent will be somewhat less than $21 million in the event. 
As Mr Prebble has told us this is a damning report. It comes many many weeks after the matter was first raised with the Audit Office by the Opposition parties and many many weeks after the Auditor-General’s office said that it would report. I want the House today to know the reason for that. It is because the highly paid lawyers of the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development have been pointing their bazookas in the direction of the Auditor-General’s office and trying to get this report watered down. I would love to have seen the first draft of the report that came down today; it would have been a ripper. For weeks those highly paid lawyers have been trying to negotiate down the scale of the wording that is ultimately in the report made available today. 
As Mr Prebble said after making allowances for the diplomatic language and the careful wording of the Auditor-General let us just have a look at what he has told us. The Auditor-General has stated that at the time of the Budget some people in the Government sat down and decided to have a very substantial advertising campaign. He has told us that they had some consultations with an advertising agency. He does not tell us in his letter whom that advertising agency was but I will tell the House today that it was Clemenger BBDO Ltd. On the basis merely of some conversations with that agency a figure of $21 million was devised as being an appropriate level of expenditure for a public advertising campaign. Mr Prebble has also told the House that a number of Ministers were involved in that process. Noting the sheepish look on the face of Mr Mallard I would say that he clearly was one of them. Clearly Mr Cullen was one as were a number of other senior Ministers and no doubt “Minister Simpson” was involved in that process. Then those Ministers handed the project over to their senior public servants. 
On the basis of that work we were told on Budget night that an advertising programme the largest by many times ever embarked upon by a Government in this country and costing $21.15 million would be embarked upon to tell us how lucky we are to have this Government. We were told that this advertising programme would last for 3 years but miraculously much of the money would be spent at the time most useful to the Government: during the coming election year. On the basis of that announcement this House passed legislation that handed over the cheque for this year’s amount of 11.5 million bucks. That money as the Auditor-General has told us today has been approved by the Parliament handed over to the executive and can be spent by the executive notwithstanding that the whole premise on which that figure was arrived at was wrong. None of the tests that should properly have been applied were applied and none of the justifications that the departments were required to produce could be produced. That money was handed over by Parliament in breach of the rules because the Government used its majority to require Parliament to hand over the cash. 
The Auditor-General tells us that there will now need to be some additional processes engaged in to second-guess that process and to double-check it. On the basis of that double-checking the Auditor-General states that we will not need $21 million. He does not know how much the cost will be but he knows that Mr Mallard should have known that before he came to Parliament with the Budget and that the Government should have known that before it asked Parliament to pass the bill. The Auditor-General states that it is too late now for a costing but we should do the programme anyway and that it will cost less than $21 million. 
We also know that the activities of the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department do not stack up. But let us be clear about whom the major culprit is. It is the Ministry of Social Development—Mr Maharey’s ministry—which clearly acting under his direction has put aside almost $10 million for so-called generic advertising. That is not for communication in terms of sending a letter to people that tells them what their entitlement is and asks whether they want to access it but is highly paid television advertisements that tell us in propaganda terms how lucky we are to have the Government. All that money is to be spent in a way that will benefit this Government at a critical time in an election year. 
The Auditor-General tells us further that Treasury was asleep on the job and failed to run its ruler over the programme and he gives it a whack across the knuckles. Finally he tells all the parties that they must now go back and do the job they should have done before Budget day. He states to those departments and Ministers that they must now claw back the amount of money that does not meet the test of the Cabinet rules or the Audit Office scrutiny. He makes it clear that the Audit Office will watch that process with some care. On that basis maybe we will see the brakes put on the high-spending high-living ways of the Government. The Prime Minister who talked about an “orgy of advertising” when a few hundred thousand dollars of expenditure was being embarked upon in a previous age must now live with the fact that her own orgy of taxpayers’ expenditure is about to come to an end. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Is it not ironic that the second person—and I will give him some credit because he is the first live person to give a speech for the National Party today— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am disappointed that I have to raise this matter with you but clearly the Minister is halfway through making a reflection on the leader of the National Party who spoke earlier in the debate. I want you to ask yourself whether you should ask the Minister to desist from that line. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a matter for debate. I cannot know what the member will say. If that should occur then it is something that the Speaker will look at. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I agree with Mr Speaker. It is a matter for debate as to whether the previous speaker from the National Party was alive. It was a pathetic— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: You can’t call someone dead! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is really important that the member stays and listens to me because let us remember he was the person who caused the Cabinet rules to be written. He was the person who was caught with his hand in the taxpayers’ jar taking big wads of advertising cash out and putting it into his mates’ pockets. Who did that? Then we think about the Tourism Board. Do members remember that scandal? Who was responsible for that? It was Murray McCully who has the cheek to come here to the House—although as I said he did give a better speech than the Leader of the Opposition. At some stage the Opposition will give up having puppets in the job and have the puppeteer there instead. 
I want to get back to the essence of the debate. I do want to refer again to Mr McCully and to an area that he had responsibility for which was housing policy. I want to refer to the accommodation supplement. I ask members whether they can remember the percentage of people in work who were eligible for the supplement that got it after the advertising programme on the scale that the National Party gave it. Do people remember? Was it 80 percent? No it was not. Was it 50 percent? No it was not. Was it 25 percent? It was 19 percent. More than four out of five people who were eligible for an accommodation supplement and who were in work did not get it. They were poor people who did not respond very well to a flier in the letterbox with all due respect to our friend from United Future. 
I want to make it clear that this money is designed to make an enormous difference to the poorer people in New Zealand. Often they have jobs although some of them are beneficiaries. It is designed to lift their incomes and for many of them especially those with children to lift them out of the poverty trap they have been in. I can tell members that the best way to create awareness around that is not by writing to those people. 
Brian Connell 
: What a boring speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not a matter of writing them a letter. I hear the intellect from— 
Brian Connell 
: Is this member alive? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Asperger’s syndrome? Is that the member’s problem? The member from Rakaia is interjecting. People in his electorate are disgusted with their representation. They are disgusted with people who say that poor people should not be allowed to have a bit of extra cash for their kids and that they should not find out about it. Those people from Rakaia who know they have a new member of Parliament—most of them think the member is still Jenny Shipley—are very very disappointed in Brian Connell. At least when Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the front steps of Parliament people from his electorate knew there was a new member of Parliament. It took 5 years but they knew he was here. In the case of Brian Connell no one from Rakaia has worked that out yet. 
 I will make a serious comment and I do this with some care because it is not my practice generally to criticise Officers of Parliament. But I think that parts of the Auditor-General’s letter are frankly shoddy. I think his suggestion that there should have been a breach of Budget secrecy and that the nature and size of the target audience should have been described to persons outside the Government is wrong. In my view to breach Budget secrecy on something of this scale before a Budget is announced would be wrong. I know that was the practice of the previous Government but this Government has higher standards than that. [ 
Interruption 
] There is Nick Smith the member who says he did not come to Parliament to shag spiders. He has obviously had a bit of a problem since he has been here. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The phrase that the member has chosen to use—he does not like interjections about his speech—is not appropriate language to use in Parliament and I would ask you to consider that. I think that the term “shag” is not appropriate language to use in Parliament and I think you should give careful consideration to that sort of contribution from that grubby member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker those words are a direct quote from Nick Smith. I offer to table the  
North and South 
 article in which Nick Smith says words to the effect that he did not come to Parliament to shag spiders. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that at the start of this parliamentary session a similar ruling was called for in respect of a word that was ruled unparliamentary—it was a word in that case as opposed to a phrase in this case. At the time a member of the National Party put the case to the Speaker that because the word was a quote from a document the member could not be held accountable for the coarseness or otherwise of that language. My recollection is that at the time that word was ruled out of order despite the fact that it was a direct quote. I would ask you to apply the same standard with regard to the matter raised by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that quoted material should be as free of unparliamentary language as the member’s own words as is referred to in Standing Order 115. I ask the member to come to the point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am making is that this Government is spending $21 billion— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: On trying to win the election. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We will win the election anyway. The member is giving the leader advice. We will clearly win. Even though as the member says he has a certain relationship with the Leader of the Opposition— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What is he implying there? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not using the exact word for the activity that the member indulged in because I am not allowed to use it. Even though he has a particular relationship with the Leader of the Opposition—I think the member would have been safer had I been allowed to quote him but I was not allowed to do so. 
This Government is spending $21 billion on poorer people. About 1 percent of that will be spent on explaining to them how they can get their money. What can be wrong with that? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 3 Framework for allocation of water in Waitaki catchment  
(continued) 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
:  
I make a strong plea to this House to back good honest Government and to honour the pledges made to the community of the upper Waitaki River at the time that the huge developments took place in the 1960s. It is very clear from the evidence provided to the Local Government and Environment Committee that commitments were made by former Ministers to that community. Members on the Opposition side of the House want to ensure that those commitments are honoured. 
I challenge the member of Parliament who represents that community Mr Jim Sutton to take a call—he is in the Chamber—and to support his constituents. I have met with hundreds of his constituents who would have liked— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Name them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Stan Scorringe plus a whole lot of others if Clayton Cosgrove is bothered. Will that member and more important will Mr Sutton back his constituents and ensure that the commitments to that community are honoured? Quite frankly if this Government was up to the job the support for that community would be in the bill. The Government has chosen not to provide for that and that is why I ask all the parties in this Parliament to support the amendment in my name which will ensure that when the board comes to allocate the waters of the Waitaki River it will be required to take into account the commitments to that community. 
 I would suggest to Mr Jim Sutton that if he is not prepared to back his community on something as basic as that then next year he will be a goner. 
Brian Connell 
: He’s retiring anyway. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well he is retiring anyway said Mr Connell and maybe he is retiring because he knows that the guillotine is fast approaching. This is a serious issue. It is a serious issue because the job of a constituency member is to back his or her people and Mr Sutton is choosing to put the Labour Government ahead of the interests of the Aoraki people. I want him to listen to good effective people like Mayor Stan Scorringe who alongside many others whom I could list has very effectively advocated for that community on the reasons that this amendment is required to this part of the bill. 
I also want to challenge United Future. Those members know in their heart of hearts that what has occurred in the Mackenzie Basin is wrong and requires legislative correction and it would be a shame if they too joined Jim Sutton voted against this amendment and went against what they know to be right for the Mackenzie Basin community. All we are asking is that the commitments made to that community by former Ministers in the 1960s are honoured and that where communities have accepted commitments in good faith those commitments are honoured when it comes to the allocation of the Waitaki River’s water. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would also like to commend the amendment of Dr Nick Smith. Just this very day I spoke with Mr Denis Fastier who is driving this issue which is not so much a demand as a request that Parliament behave in an honourable fashion. 
Opposition Member 
: It was a commitment. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It was a commitment and a promise that were given. What is it about promises that if they are a few years old they are considered to no longer apply? I do not believe that and I am not sure whether this Parliament believes that. The fact that the undertaking was given 30-odd years ago does not negate the promise and commitment that were given. 
I spoke with Mr Fastier earlier today. I asked him whether he had received support from the Green Party and United Future for Nick Smith’s amendment. He said that he absolutely had. The people in the Mackenzie Basin went to the expense of getting a highly competent ecologist by the name of Peter Espie to present especially to the Green Party the significance of water and how it will ensure the ecological sustainability of that region because as we all know farming in the Mackenzie with the north-west winds rabbits and so on has been an absolute disaster. But the area is recovering and with the help of water it will recover—there is no question about that. But the people of that area need the help of United Future and of the Green Party. Mr Fastier told me today that those parties were both very supportive. They both said that they understood the issue and that they were very much in favour of the amendment. 
But I came to this Chamber yesterday and I found that no that was not the case. The Greens and United Future have backed away from the commitment they gave to that group of farmers. Why? Why did they agree and then back down? To make matters even worse those parties were not even answering their phone calls. Mr Fastier rang United Future to have a last-minute conversation and he rang the Greens but neither Ian Ewen-Street the agricultural spokesperson and rural affairs man nor Jeanette Fitzsimons would answer their calls. Why? What sort of deal has been done with the Minister that has got those parties to completely turn and go back on the word they gave on a regular basis to those people? Those people were very confident the minor parties—the Greens and United Future—would back this amendment. 
The ACT party of course has backed this amendment all the way through and we will continue to do so. But the local member has not been outspoken on this issue. Surely if any member should have been the flagship for this debate it would be Mr Jim Sutton the member for Aoraki. He should have spearheaded the drive for those people to get the water that is needed. The potential in that region is absolutely enormous so why do we hear so little from that Minister? Perhaps the fact that the issue affects only a relatively small number of people in a numerical sense is uppermost in Mr Sutton’s mind; I am not sure whether that is the case. But I would have thought it was the job of the constituent MP to be the spearhead in the drive for water for that region. That appears not to be happening and I think the people of the Mackenzie Basin who are listening to this debate today would be very interested to hear from the Minister for Rural Affairs from Ms Jeanette Fitzsimons and from United Future as to why they are backing away from a commitment once given to them and just given to them again very very recently. 
If there was total agreement amongst this Committee that Parliament should honour that commitment then we could all move forward very very quickly. But it does appear that the Green Party and United Future are backsliding on this issue. A deal has been done which may not manifest itself immediately. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am moved to rise to my feet because this matter is of great importance to my constituents. My constituents were made certain promises by the Government of the day in 1969. A certain amount of water was set aside to be available for local irrigation by an Order in Council. Unfortunately those promises were later abrogated by another Government in 1990-91 when the rules were changed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 1993. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Well 1991 to 1993—around then. Several things happened but the total result of those things was that the promise that was made was abrogated and there was no provision that endured in the water allocation process for those people from then on. The rules were changed. The water was allocated in greater quantity and for a greater time to the hydroelectricity generator operating in the catchment. 
I have been trying as best I can to find a way to right that wrong. The problem is that in order for rights to be granted now to would-be irrigators they would have to be taken away from existing consent holders some of whom are small local irrigators but most of whom are the people of New Zealand the owners of the electricity generator. Maybe both sets of parties could be given consents even if as has happened on many of New Zealand’s rivers that results in an over-allocation so that a rationing system has to be devised for the times when there is insufficient water to meet the needs of all consent holders. But the Environment Court has said that no that cannot be done. Many people including myself think that that decision of the Environment Court judge is a bit dodgy. The matter is subject to appeal and the appeal will be heard within the next few weeks. The outcome of that case will be very important because it will determine whether without the retrospective removal of the existing rights of consent holders this matter can be righted. 
There is one more thing I want to say about a matter that is pertinent to that. The National Party is promoting the gathering of a petition that seeks to take away rights from existing consent holders and to reallocate them to would-be irrigators. As much as I would like to see that happen I have to respect that some legal rights exist and that the people who hold those rights are entitled to protection. But the National Party’s petition would give water only to irrigators within the Mackenzie Basin; it would not provide any water for the irrigators on the other side of Burke Pass who want to run some water through the pass. For that reason—that partiality of the National Party for one group of applicants over another—the Mayor of Timaru and many other leading citizens have refused to sign that petition. It is a purely opportunistic move by a desperate political party which talked to one group and agreed to support what it asked for but forgot there was another group just as important and probably rather more numerous that had an equally valid claim. That group is entitled to have its claim considered and does not want this Parliament to turn around and pick out one group at the expense of another in that way. 
I stand for due process and I will continue to work to find a just solution to this dilemma but that is not made any easier by the opportunistic and disreputable activity of some members of the Opposition. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I congratulate the member for Aoraki on at least getting to his feet taking a call and addressing this issue. However that is where the praise is going to end because he has in a very calculating way tried to mislead this Committee with regard to— 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has accused me of misleading the Committee. He simply cannot do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the Minister for raising that and ask the member to please desist from doing so. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chairperson. The member has said that that water if taken would be kept in the Mackenzie Basin alone. That is absolute nonsense and he knows it. Stan Scorringe and others have made it very clear that if this consent is obtained the water would be piped through Burke Pass and made available for a significant number of users across South Canterbury. This member for Aoraki has been exposed for being silent on this issue. He has got to his feet today only because he has been chastised by other speakers in this Chamber; he has been shamed into getting to his feet. He has not been an advocate for those constituents of South Canterbury and he knows it. 
I have a question that the Minister should have addressed when he got to his feet. What is more important: a vote for the Labour Party or a vote for his constituents? He is elected by his constituents and he should have been here fighting hard for them on this particular issue—but he was not. 
Jill Pettis 
: His constituents vote Labour otherwise he wouldn’t be their MP! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He has been found wanting and it does not matter how much his colleagues might call out in support of him to try to distract me from getting to the truth because the Minister has been exposed on this issue. Nick Smith has done this member’s bidding. He is the member who has put the amendment forward. He is the member who proposed it and the member for Aoraki has been found wanting. 
Mr Sutton said that the Environment Court ruled it out therefore he cannot support it. Well that is an absolute nonsense as well. The amendment that has been suggested makes it very clear that all that is being asked for is for the board to take into consideration the Order in Council that was given as an absolute in 1969. I have to ask the member what value that puts on the word of this Parliament. There is no point in denying that that allocation and that bond was given. 
 Mr Peters knows that it was given. Mr Peters like me would have seen the media reports of the time that made it very clear that a Minister of the Crown made a very clear undertaking that the people of the upper Mackenzie Country when the technology allowed would be able to access those 15 cumecs of water. There is no point arguing that because those people do not have the water they are no longer entitled to it. The facts are that the undertaking was very clear: when the technology became available that water could be used. 
It really makes me cross—and the member for Aoraki knows it because he would have seen it as well—that this bill calls for hardly 2 percent of the available water. A strategic water study carried out by Environment Canterbury in 2003 found that there was plenty of water in Canterbury and provided it was used in a sustainable way there was plenty for everybody. The Minister knows that. I know that the member for the Green Party has also been approached by people from the upper Waitaki area. I understand from those people that the Green member gave serious consideration—if not her word—to coming to this House to fight for them on this particular issue. I understand that she has seen for herself the benefit of water used for irrigation and what it will do to protect the environment of the Mackenzie Basin. I call on the Green member to get to her feet now and to fight for them. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Let us take one step backwards. In doing so I applaud the Minister for coming to the House and putting his case. The issue that was before us when we first considered the matters in the Waitaki River valley and that is still with us in this revised bill is the intensity of the competing demands for water from that catchment. There is demand from Meridian Energy with regard to energy generation and from those abstractors who would divert the water to another catchment or into storage. By the way with regard to that we should be very sensible of the fact that those demands for energy are winter-related and those demands for irrigation are likely to be summer-related. There is a seasonal issue here that we have not had much observation or discussion on. 
Then there are those who have placed extreme value upon the tourism industry and upon the values of the river itself. That comes particularly from recreational users. The issue in this amendment has not really been teased out yet. It is the issue of the exclusive use of water and of whether the consents or permits to abstract or use water are protected—that is the key—from the granting of any other permits for the life of such a permit or consent for beyond that period. That is the core issue before members at the present time. 
It is further made difficult by the fact that as New Zealand First said yesterday in February 1991 the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was granted a bundle of water rights for that very area for a term of 35 years. That raises the issue that I have already related of existing water rights and of how those could be impacted on. 
In the course of the previous discussion that took place with regard to the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee those issues were teased out. We heard varying opinions about what should be done. We have come to the situation whereby we have before us a reasonable amendment that states we should take account of the 1969 Order in Council allocations. There should be some concern about that because the last thing that anyone—not least those farmers who may be listening to us at the present time—would want is extensive and lengthy litigation. 
The issue is that any water plan is lengthy. I was involved with a regional water plan that started in 1995 and was made final on Monday. That is the length of time it took to complete one small regional water plan. I have no doubt that despite all the best intentions this regional plan when it is developed from this bill will take a lengthy period of time. The litigation will go on. The litigation need not be on “taking into account’—which is one of the concerns before us now—fr any regional body looking at the water plan for the Waitaki catchment. The hearing of submissions the going-through of due process and the trialling and careful observation of the submissions before that body will likely not be affected by litigation. It could sustain any appeal on the basis that the taking into account of the 1969 allocations was properly and appropriately considered. 
I think that contention—which would be a worry for anybody who genuinely wants to get involved and see an end to the Waitaki River catchment scheme—is not valid if the body that is appointed to hear the submissions does so in a proper way. At the end when the plan comes out in a draft form there will always be some concerns. There will be numerous reference orders and work that goes to and from the Environment Court. But I also say with great certainty that the issue of taking into account gives some hope to those people at long last. The issue has festered and will fester further if it is not looked at in this bill and by the panel that is set up to look at the new order plan for the Waitaki River. It will go on and on. New Zealand First would wish this to be an issue that brings clarity and certainty not only to those Mackenzie Country farmers who want the water but also to the taxpayer-owned Meridian Energy. 
Although that may come in forthcoming legal matters in actual fact I suspect that as is the nature of things if the major energy corporate lost it would appeal. Farmers would be put to a further expense and the prospect of irrigation and value to the economy not only in the Mackenzie Country but also in the wider Canterbury region and in this country would be lost forever because the issue was not properly looked at. That is the real reason why New Zealand First gives strong support to Dr Nick Smith’s amendment and why I believe that other parties in the House ought to take into account a sensible resolution. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I must rise to correct the serious misinformation that Gerrard Eckhoff has put before the Committee about the Green Party and its position; and likewise Mr Brian Connell. My first point is that I met with the farmers of the Mackenzie Country Denis Fastier and others and I did not give them any commitment to vote for any particular amendment because no amendment was on the floor of the House at that time. I did say I would seriously consider what could be done about their position and I have done that. 
The second point is as I said yesterday in the Chamber the Green Party has sympathy with this but I could not vote first of all for an amendment that amended a clause that no longer existed; secondly for an amendment that amended the evaluation clause rather than the allocation clause; or thirdly for an amendment that did not finally come to the Committee but might have which made this the primary consideration that the board had to take into account. 
However I have negotiated a little change with Nick Smith to his amendment and I can now vote for it so members just might like to retract some of their statements. The amendment that I understand that Nick Smith is now putting forward makes it clear that the point at which the board has to take into account the Order in Council is the point where it is considering the allocation of water to activities in clause 14AA(c). That is an important change because I am not prepared to vote for an amendment that states that the Order in Council must be taken into account when determining water that is to be used for firefighting stock watering and drinking. Nor am I prepared to entertain that it should be taken into account when allocating water to sustain the intrinsic values of the river itself. Those things must come first; they are primary. But when it is a case of allocating water between hydro and irrigation and other industrial activities I think this is a matter that could reasonably be considered. 
I think that the member’s proposal to put in a new clause 19A fits better in the structure of the bill than the two other possibilities that we considered yesterday and therefore is worthy of consideration. It does not make this the overriding consideration of the board. It does not say that the board must take an all-or-nothing approach that it must give the whole 15 cumecs to the irrigators or none of it. It does leave the board to make some serious judgments about whether there are some win-win situations whereby at times of the year when the water is most needed by the irrigators it may be less needed by the hydro generators and to reach a decision that is fair taking everything into account. It will no doubt take the various legal decisions into account. It will no doubt inquire into what happened in 1991 and into why the Order in Council was not carried over. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask the board to do and therefore I am happy to support the amendment. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will give the call to Sandra Goudie because she was on the select committee. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 That seems to have been a long time ago Mr Chairperson. We are in a catch-up mode and the farmer waits. I totally applaud Dr Nick Smith for the Supplementary Order Paper he has put to the Committee in support of those farmers who were disenfranchised for something that they thought was theirs had always considered to be theirs and it was taken away. I also commend Jeanette Fitzsimons for supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is commendable and that we all have the best interests of the farmers at heart. 
 I am concerned that the Hon Jim Sutton does not seem to want to support those people and their right to have access to that water. So the farmers wait and they have waited for some time. With this bill up her sleeve the Minister for the Environment put all the applications for water takes on hold until she introduced her bill some months later. So farmers still wait in spite of the fact that the applications were for existing take. They are still waiting. 
The bill is an abuse of process. It favours an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise with the Government reaping the profits. How does such favouritism accord with the statements made by the Minister that the Resource Management Act itself was fine that it did not need changing and indeed that it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced? Here she is with a favourite project and wanting to sidestep that whole process. She made some significant exclusions in sidestepping that process one being no less than not meeting the full requirement of section 32 of the Resource Management Act. However we have seen an amendment to that which is great. 
It is interesting to see the favoured position of Meridian Energy while the Dobson dam is not supported in spite of unanimous local support for that project. It throws up the real difficulties with the Resource Management Act in that we have a bill that was intended to sidestep that whole process. Transpower is also struggling to attempt upgrades. It is postponing those upgrades because of the significant problems being faced under the Resource Management Act. Clearly it does need to be changed to improve the process for all activities rather than just one for which this bill was created. We have now gone from about 55 clauses to about 26. 
Not only has the Minister been very involved in setting up a preferred process for a pet project by a Government State-owned enterprise she has also been advocating sidestepping key aspects of the Resource Management Act. The Minister was happy to exempt her Government agency from doing what everybody else is supposed to do. However the hard work of the National members of the select committee revealed that treacherous process of work and they insisted that section 32 of the Resource Management Act be required in its totality with no exceptions and that was done. 
Ministerial interference is rife in the bill even with its substantial changes. Ministerial interference actually exists in the role of setting up the board. As we all know the board was advertised well before the select committee finished hearing the submissions which really is atrocious. It remains to be seen just what promises were given to those people who applied to the Minister for the Environment to be appointed to the board. 
The Minister can appoint the chair of the board which is quite extraordinary. Why can the board not appoint the chair? She also appoints the deputy chair. Why can the board not appoint the deputy chair/ One would think that at least it could appoint the deputy chair if not the chair; and not only that but the Minister is also appointing in accordance with the requirements of the bill and people have to have some expertise. One of those portions of expertise is with tikanga Maori. One has to ask why that is. 
Brian Connell 
: Tikanga Pakeha! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Is that valid? One could say that that was very valid but as we know the word “tikanga” is not a substantive word. It can mean all manner of things and has no real substance. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 In the last hour my phone has been ringing hot with calls from farmers in the South Canterbury area. They have been ringing to ask me whether Jim Sutton is away on another overseas trip. They know we are debating the superb amendment moved by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Those people are all constituents in the Aoraki electorate and they are keen to know whether Jim Sutton will vote for or against them. They want to know whether Jim Sutton is away on another overseas trip or is prepared to take part in the debate. I said to Mr Sutton’s constituents that I would go to the Chamber. Surprisingly I found Mr Sutton sitting in this Committee with his head hanging in shame because he is about to vote against his constituents and to give the water to Meridian Energy—the superb generating company that pays so much money to the Government coffers so the Government can spend it on very dubious advertising such as propaganda. To add insult to injury the Hon Jim Sutton is apparently the Minister of Agriculture. He more than anybody else on the Government side of the Committee should know the importance of irrigation to the whole of the Canterbury region. Yet Mr Sutton will shortly vote against the potential of irrigation. He will make sure that that Crown-owned enterprise Meridian Energy gets its fingers on all the water. That is an absolute disgrace. 
I went down to South Canterbury recently to attend a meeting organised by the Mayor of the Mackenzie District Stan Scorringe. I understand that man is to advance his name to stand for National in the Aoraki electorate. I have little doubt that if Mr Sutton fronts against the farmers on this issue he may as well stand and take his final valedictory before we close this debate. That man will be gone. When Nick Smith and many other members of the National caucus went down to the South Canterbury area they found that a commitment was given to the Mackenzie farmers in 1969 that should be honoured. We know that the word of many people on the Government side of the Committee is not worth much but on the Opposition side of the Committee members are honourable enough to stand by their word. This legislation will completely obliterate the commitment that was given to Mackenzie farmers in 1969. I say to Mr Sutton that that is wrong. 
When I was in South Canterbury with the potential next member for Aoraki Stan Scorringe I happened to meet with people who represent the Aoraki Water Trust. What huge potential there is for irrigating thousands of hectares provided the trust can get 1.7 percent of the water out of Lake Tekapo. I understand that Meridian Energy has put huge pressure on all Ministers to make sure that it can claim it owns not only the water after it has left Lake Tekapo but the water before it enters the river—in other words the water in the lake. I say that is wrong. If Mr Sutton was prepared to vote with us on the Opposition side of the Committee we might find that we would actually secure some water for the project of the Aoraki Water Trust. We would certainly be able to secure water for the Mackenzie Basin farmers. What huge potential that would add to that province. 
We have to wonder why Mr Sutton even bothers to come to Parliament as the member for Aoraki when he is prepared to turn his nose on those voters in Parliament today. We have to wonder what drives that man. 
Shane Ardern 
: He doesn’t come often. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: We do not see him much in Parliament; he says that he is busy overseas. However on this occasion he is here and he is in the Committee. He has heard the arguments so let us find out shortly which side he votes with. Does he really represent the Aoraki farmers or does he represent Helen Clark? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 19A be agreed to: 
19A 
(1)The Board must allocate the available water identified under this Act among the present and future categories of competing activities. 
(2)The Board in making an allocation under section 14AAC of this Act must take into account the allocations provided for in the 1969 Order in Council for irrigation and commitments made to the community by the Crown at the time of the Upper Waitaki Hydro Development. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Panel of Commissioners 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The sham of this bill is exposed in terms of what has happened to Part 4. But I must note the huge disappointment there will be in South Canterbury at the loss of and the disregard that has been shown by the Labour Party and the United Future party to commitments given to people there by former Ministers of the Crown. The message that the Labour Party and United Future have just given to the people of New Zealand is that Ministers of the Crown can go to communities make commitments and say things will happen and then this Parliament will put no weight on that. That makes for a very sad day for the Mackenzie country a very sad day for South Canterbury and a sad day for this Parliament. The message we have given is that people should not trust Governments and that is something I deeply regret. 
When we look at Part 4 we see that Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs has completely gutted it—it gets rid of clause after clause. My question is why? The Minister supported this bill when it was introduced. The Government members supported those same provisions at the Local Government and Environment Committee and at the second reading. Why suddenly have 16 clauses in Part 4 simply disappeared from the bill? I am not surprised that Marian Hobbs the Minister responsible for this bill has failed to take a single call to justify what she has done. When she introduced this bill she assured the House that it had nothing to do with Project Aqua. Well why is it that when Project Aqua disappeared suddenly the bill was gutted? Either she was less than upfront with this Parliament and the people of New Zealand before or she is being less than upfront with them now. This Committee deserves an explanation. Why is it that a panel of commissioners was going to make the key decisions about individual consents to take water from the Waitaki River then but will not do that now? What has changed? Why is it that Government members stood up in this Chamber not more than 6 months ago and vigorously defended the fact that those consents could not be dealt with by the Canterbury Regional Council yet now they can be? Can any member of the Labour Party tell us what has brought about that U-turn? The silence is deafening. Not one of those members can provide a justification for that enormous U-turn in terms of where the Government now rests in respect of Part 4. 
Of course we are also dealing with schedule 2. In that schedule a whole list of resource consents is provided for. There are over 200 different applications in the schedule. My question is this: why is it that we have to provide a special consent process at all to deal with a small application like that by Totara Farming for a very small amount of water? We on the Opposition side of the Chamber have argued until we were blue in the face that the Resource Management Act needs reform—for instance that applications need to be processed more quickly. For all the talk about trying to reduce delays under the Act this legislation will delay 240 resource consents. The Government has said that it wants to reduce delays under the Act so I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope why this legislation is to add to the delays. 
I shall explain why there are delays. First a regional plan is required to be written for water and there is a process of 12 months for that to be done. It then goes through a consent process which will take at least 12 months. Of course the resource consent applications were lodged at least 18 months ago and some 2 years ago. Is it good enough that the poor old cow-cocky who is waiting for a resource consent sometimes for as much water as would fill a cup or for as much water as that per hour to feed a few stock has to sit around and wait for 4 years to get a consent under this Government? 
This is awful law. It is just typical of the delays and the bureaucracy of this Government and of the Government’s approach to the Act. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very pleased to support Part 4 for the very simple reason that in the first reading debate we believed then and say again now that this task could have been done by the Canterbury Regional Council. I have faith in the Canterbury Regional Council to be able to carry through the task that this legislation imposes upon it. I had faith then and I have faith now and I want to reiterate that. I have further faith because in the passage of time since the commencement of the thought in 2002 that there should be such a bill much has progressed with regard to the Canterbury region. 
I have already spoken about the natural resources plan that is before us and the expectancy that when that regional plan is developed it may not be able to be effective until 2009 at the earliest. Instead this legislation sets up a regional council ability to go ahead to plan exclusively for the Waitaki Catchment area and regrettable as it is for those who seek to have water upstream or downstream if there is to be a time delay it will be nothing more than would have been experienced under the provisions of the bill. However uppermost in the mind of the board would be the local concern about the river. 
The issue that existed when the bill came to the House for its first reading is still there. There does not appear to be sufficient water to meet the demands that are inherent in the applications that are in schedules 1 2 and 3. New Zealand First stands to support again this part of the bill. We believe that the Canterbury Regional Council is able to set a management regime for the Waitaki River. It will provide an adequate level of protection for all the in-stream values and will do it in a proper and appropriate way; the native life of the river fish in particular and recreational values will be uppermost in the minds of those who do the work. 
The allocation of water above the management flow regimes can be achieved. I know that there already has been work and some flow regimes set for the lower Waitaki River and that this time as well for the first time in this region the council will look at the effectiveness of water use which hitherto has not been one of the issues. While there will be some issues around that particularly if it goes beyond technical efficiency into the allocative issue that will bode well for the future life of the river. 
 So New Zealand First does support this part of the bill. It believes that this is an easier way to achieve by council negotiation what could have been achieved by the bill but it is done by the local council with its commissioners doing the job. Other councils throughout the country have done it. I say again that despite some of the reservations that have been expressed in the Chamber I have faith in the Canterbury Regional Council to do the job. I believe that the Ministry for the Environment will be able to provide some extra financial help and funding. It already has expertise with regard to this area and other Government ministries may have as well. The end result will be a sustainable management of the river and its resources for the betterment of the whole catchment. 
There are some thorny issues that the group will have to look at particularly with regard to those users now. One of the issues that still has to be faced is what happens to those who have consents and come to the end of their natural term. That is an issue I hope will be given some thought. If priority is given first and foremost to the health and the enhancement of the river then that will be a huge improvement and lift above what has been achieved in many of our rivers in past years. We support this part because with the substance and material that is before the would-be panel this could be a model for other rivers and for other councils to follow. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I rise to support Part 4. I want to respond to comments from the Hon Nick Smith who said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust Government.” He should have said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust National Governments.” Remember it was a National Government in 1969 that promised to set aside water for irrigators for future irrigation needs. Another National Government between 1990 and 1993 changed the rules and allocated all the water to others—mostly for an unprecedented 35 years. Nick Smith now pretends to be the champion of those whom that later National Government dispossessed. Very soon a court will be having something to say about the bankability of all those water rights. What this bill will do is allow for the first time ever for competing applications for a limited resource to be considered on their respective merits rather than simply dished out to the first people to apply—probably hot off the first four ships. The applications will be judged on their merits. 
I refer to national costs and benefits and regional costs and benefits. National costs and benefits and regional costs and benefits are not necessarily the same thing. It may well be that they will be in conflict in this case because a study commissioned and published on the national costs and benefits determines that in the upper part of the catchment which is the part where the crunch really comes the water is worth more to the national economy and the national welfare by running through all the turbines down the river than it is going on to the pastures. 
However down at the bottom end of the river the opposite is true. When the water has already run through most of the generators it can be taken for irrigation. Irrigation undoubtedly has high value especially for the region. It also has a very substantial value for the national economy. 
All I can say is that this is a very complex issue. It will pose a very difficult job for the board members appointed pursuant to this legislation. It will demand wisdom not the sort of political opportunism we have been hearing this afternoon from members opposite. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the member who represents the local area and who is—apparently—the Minister of Agriculture tell us that water— 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.