Volume 638 Week 42 - Thursday 3 May 2007 
Volume 638 Week 42 - Thursday 3 May 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8899] 
Thursday 3 May 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Social Security Amendment Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill the Wills Bill the Succession (Homicide) Bill the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill and the remainder of the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. Priority will also be given to the first readings of the Education (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Bill and the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 If the House is to take the information given to it today by the Deputy Leader of the House as being correct then we would expect by the end of next week to be down to an Order Paper of perhaps eight items if we include the five Government notices of motion on the Order Paper. I am wondering whether the Deputy Leader of the House may in fact tell us whether the Government intends at any point shutting up shop and having a bit of an extended break after the last extended break in order that Parliament might accumulate some work to do and the Government may be able to create some semblance of actually governing. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I appreciate the shadow Leader of the House’s compliment to the Government on the effectiveness of its conducting of the House’s business. I can only say to the member that there will be plenty for the Opposition to chew on following a very full Budget in due course. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue Answers 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before the last adjournment I raised an issue in the House about overdue written questions. The Leader of the House undertook to take up the matter. Since that time I can report that—and I asked you about this—I have had 49 questions answered this week by the Minister for Social Development and Employment Mr Benson-Pope. Nine of those questions were 6 weeks overdue three were 5 weeks overdue and the list goes on. But what I am asking is whether it is satisfactory after that length of time to have an answer that states: “I will provide the member with an answer to her question shortly.” That was the answer to 49 questions. In addition I have 22 questions remaining that are overdue—10 of those are 6 weeks overdue and three are 5 weeks overdue. As for the questions that have been answered in that non-answer way I now have to re-lodge them so we will have yet further information going through the Clerk’s Office. It absolutely brings the House into disrepute when a Minister is not taking this job seriously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have spoken to the Minister about the number of questions that are out of time. I understand that his office is in fact attending to that urgently. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2007—Reserve Bank Discussions 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he discussed his forthcoming Budget with the Reserve Bank; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Associate Minister of Finance) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] When they have finished over there— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes order please. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No it is not the Minister’s normal practice to brief the Reserve Bank on the contents of the Budget. However as always Treasury has discussed the Budget’s fiscal parameters with the bank and it was able to assure the bank that the fiscal stimulus in the current year is substantially less than was forecast in the half-yearly update and that for the next 2 years it is roughly the same as was forecast. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister therefore seen the Reserve Bank’s published advice that his spending plans over the next few years are causing problems for monetary policy; if he will not take that advice why would he take advice on monetary policy from the Finance and Expenditure Committee whose expertise is considerably less than that of the Reserve Bank? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In fact the Governor of the Reserve Bank has pointed to a number of factors that he believes are responsible for the level of inflation. When that member asked the Governor of the Reserve Bank in the select committee to name the most important factor he said it was housing. Housing was the very issue that the Governor of the Reserve Bank wanted to discuss with Mr Key and Mr English along with Mr Mallard and Dr Cullen but of course those talks were sabotaged by Mr English. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister inform the House whether a common currency with Australia will be announced in this year’s Budget; if not can he inform the House of any reports to this effect? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course I cannot predict what will be in this year’s Budget but I would not be letting any secrets out by saying that this Government has rejected the concept of a common currency with Australia as proposed by John Key. If one really wanted to put our exporters under pressure one would align New Zealand’s currency by adopting the Australian currency which is mineral driven. That would put our exporters into a much worse position than they are in—but then what would Mr Key know? 
Charles Chauvel 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen calling for a looser fiscal position which would put more pressure on monetary policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I know that the Opposition spokesperson on finance Mr English keeps calling for a tighter fiscal position but every day in this House and every day outside this House we hear National Party spokespeople calling for more expenditure. Yesterday Mr Ryall asked us to train another 80 to 100 doctors a year. Today Mr Key is out there saying that the Government should be putting more money into broadband. It seems that Bill English does not talk to his colleagues because they are saying mutually inconsistent things. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister trying to give the impression that monetary policy can be run differently when he has had 8 years of advice from Treasury and the Reserve Bank and two major reviews of monetary policy by world experts and he himself has not proposed any particular change to the framework but persists in giving the impression that it could all be done differently from how it is done if only I had agreed to that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In fact this Government has run a very tight fiscal position. If the member who asked the question recalls the select committee hearing he will know that Dr Bollard said he had not seen a need to intervene through most of the period. What amazes me is that although this Government has run big surpluses last year we had John Key saying we should put $11 billion of the tax surplus back into the economy which is absolutely the opposite of what Mr English the co-leader—or is it the competing leader—is saying. The National Party just cannot get its position together. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that when they answer questions they should address the question and not introduce any superfluous comments of a personal nature. 
Hon Bill English 
: What sort of claim can the Minister make to being a manager of the economy when his response to the severe pressure on some exporters is to do nothing himself blame the Opposition and send the problem to a committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I totally disagree with the allegation made by that member. If he reads the Minister of Finance’s speech to the manufacturers in Canterbury today he will see just that. This Minister of Finance has run a very sensible policy including policy in areas that will assist in the growth of the economy—like the superannuation scheme which was opposed by the National Party until last year and like KiwiSaver which was opposed by the Opposition when it was introduced in legislation last year. But I suspect that those members will come around on both of those issues because they know that that is the exact direction in which economic policy should be going. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is made up of senior intelligent and capable members whose intelligence knows no bounds and that if there is one committee of this House that could look seriously and intelligently into this matter that committee would be it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I partially agree with the first statement. On the second statement I think that it is sensible if we are looking at adopting a position that all members in all parties in this House can contribute to to hold such an inquiry so that some of the issues that some members in the House are too scared to address—or run a mile from after agreeing to discuss them—can be discussed rationally. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked members including those who made the interjections that I heard—although I did not interrupt the answer—not to make comments of a personal nature or of abuse across the Chamber. Obviously members are entitled to interject and intervene but could they please cut out the personal comments that have become unfortunately a little too common. 
Hon Bill English 
: Instead of further reviews committees and crocodile tears can the Minister tell the House and the public one serious proposition he has made for changing the monetary policy framework? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Minister has sought to discuss— 
Hon Bill English 
: No tell us one proposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister is addressing the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am answering the member’s question if he shows a little patience. What the Minister has done of course is to sit down with other members of the House—including that member—to discuss some of the options that have been put up by the Reserve Bank. It was interesting that John Key responded very positively to that. It was regrettable that that member did not do so. I would refer the member to seven successive Budgets that have seen this country have a higher level of growth than almost any other country in the OECD to a policy that has seen the creation of 330000 jobs and to a policy that has seen 70000 kids taken out of poverty. All of those things are excellent examples of what the Minister of Finance has done to promote an economy that supports a fair and decent social system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that answer mean that the Minister of Finance after 8 years of advice and two major reviews of monetary policy carried out by world experts does not have one single proposition to change monetary policy that can be taken seriously; if he does not have one single change why should the Finance and Expenditure Committee waste months on coming up with something that he will ignore anyway? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In terms of international reports I know that that member has embraced the OECD report and its propositions that GST should be increased and that the age of eligibility for superannuation should be increased. But I can assure the member that this Government does not intend to do either of those two things—unlike what that member is promoting. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Minister’s pathetic political responses to serious issues can he tell the House what sort of mess the Government is in when the Prime Minister told the  
Trans Tasman 
 newsletter last week: “This will be a big macroeconomic Budget with major initiatives on business including tax credits for export development and R and D.” and today right at the end of the Budget process Dr Cullen has announced that he has ditched one of those major initiatives—namely the tax credits for business? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What the Minister has said is that there will be in this Budget approximately $1 billion in business tax cuts through one form or another. That is something I warmly applaud in terms of encouraging investment and further growth. I am particularly disappointed that that member has said he opposes such cuts but let me say this. The member alleges a crisis in policy. This is the sort of crisis we have. We have company tax returns that grew on average by about 20 percent a year through much of this term. More Kiwis than ever before are in jobs—2.1 million; there are 330000 extra jobs. We have job growth and rising incomes and we have better public finances than in practically any other OECD country. Those are the facts. The allegations made by the member are quite wrong. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister followed Helen Clark’s example and discussed the forthcoming Budget with John Key as after all these days it is hard to see the difference between National and Labour on policy and who knows he might get National’s vote? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The short answer is no and the longer answer is that it is amazing how the right-wing members fall out amongst themselves. 
Television—Digital Service 
2.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What progress has been made with making digital television available in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the House that free-to-air digital television broadcasting commenced yesterday. The FreeView group of broadcasters launched its satellite service which means that all New Zealanders now have access to free-to-air digital television which provides superior quality reception and better pictures and sound. I hope that over time we will see more channels more content and more services like interactivity made available throughout the country. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Madam Speaker I have been having some difficulty hearing—[ 
Interruption 
]—because of the noise in the Chamber not my own disability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The level of conversation amongst members on all sides of the House is starting to rise again. If members have urgent business they want to transact with each other would they please take it out of the Chamber. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What advice has the Minister received on the transition of free-to-air broadcasting to digital? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Following a proposal from the group of free-to-air broadcasters I took advice from a range of independent analysts officials of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit the Ministry of Economic Development Treasury and free-to-air broadcasters themselves. That advice told me that it was essential that broadcasters move to digital because analogue broadcasting equipment was becoming redundant and because New Zealanders needed to share the advantages of digital television like countries all around the world. The only bad piece of advice I have had concerns my being disappointed by the constant complaints by the National Party spokesperson on broadcasting who has led the industry to believe that he opposes digital television which is a very real shame. This ought to be something that is shared across the House. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Will the Minister then be taking the advice he was given that he needs to set a date for switching off the analogue signal; and does the Minister realise that unless he takes that advice takes the responsibility and names a date FreeView does not have the chance of attracting an audience and will therefore represent a waste of $104 million of taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member knows the advice was the exact opposite. Countries around the world have found that setting a switch-off date is one of the most difficult things to do. Therefore the advice suggested that we set a time frame which we have done of between 6 and 10 years which is exactly what all the broadcasters agree with what the FreeView platform agrees with and what we will do. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Number of Recipients 
3.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by the statement made on his behalf by the Associate Minister of Education yesterday in relation to 20 free hours that “Ninety-two thousand 3 and 4-year-olds will benefit from this”; if so when will these 92000 children actually receive 20 free hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As I have said on a number of occasions up to 92000 children aged 3 and 4 will be eligible for this policy which will be rolled out from 1 July. They can take up that eligibility at any centre that offers free early childhood education and is teacher-led. From the ongoing contact I have had with officials and with the sector—I met just this morning with the symposium on early childhood education—I remain very optimistic. I also would refer members to the fact that it now appears that over 200000 attestation forms have been distributed through the centres themselves for parents to use. That seems to me to indicate a high level of interest. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it any wonder that the Associate Minister got it wrong yesterday when he grandly proclaimed that 92000 3 and 4-year-olds will benefit from the Government’s policy of 20 free hours when this policy keeps slithering from all 3 and 4-year-olds to “up to” “hopefully” or “around” 92000 kids having access but not getting the actual hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member by now must be losing count of the number of questions she has asked on this issue. I do not think that on the way through I have changed at all the phrase that up to 92000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres will have access to this fantastic policy. I can say to the member something else that I have repeated and it is that I am sure that by the next election we will see a bipartisan position on this policy. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Minister or any of his staff contacted the Associate Minister and told him that the promise in the last election that 92000 3 and 4-year-olds would benefit from this policy has actually changed and that now only a fraction of those kids will receive those hours? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Associate Minister understands the policy fully. He also understands something else that is very very important which is that if there were a National Government not one single child would get access to this policy because National is dedicated to scrapping it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Minister realised that only he and the Labour Party are now disturbingly upbeat about this policy which sector groups refer to as dangerous morally wrong and the biggest threat to the quality of early childhood education in our generation and which even 37 percent of the members of his beloved Childcare Association do not support? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The figure at the end of that question is quite wrong. If the member would like to contact Nancy Bell she would hear that 67 percent of the Childcare Association’s members have already opted in and only 6 percent have indicated that they may not with the middle group saying they are still talking to the parents. I remain optimistic about the policy and given that Mr John Key is so keen on it—and therefore we already have the basis of a bipartisan agreement—I am very anxious to deliver it for the leader of the National Party if not for the member herself. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister confirm that a briefing paper from his own ministry dated 21 July 2006 formally advised him that there was a need to contain “unrealistic expectations that could form around the word ‘free’ ” and will he tell the House precisely what those unrealistic expectations are? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know—because I am sure she has worked on the policy itself—this policy started 5 years ago. The symposium today marks the halfway point. It runs through until 2012. We have yet to train a large number of teachers. We have yet to open a large number of centres. We must ensure that during this period of time we maintain realistic expectations in relation to that overall 10-year policy. We are doing exactly that. 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister confirm that the “unrealistic expectations” that his ministry was referring to in its advice to him on 21 July 2006 were unrealistic expectations that the Government might actually have meant what it said to parents when it used the word “free”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know that the member is attempting to use sarcasm but let me just go back to the central point—[ 
Interruption 
] It was an attempt; it was not very good but it was an attempt. As I said to the member previously this policy is a 10-year strategy that is halfway through. For example we have 5000 teachers in training right now to go into early childhood centres. Over the next 5 years the centres will expand the number of teachers will expand and Mrs Bennett—who has become a vociferous supporter of this policy alongside Mr Key but unlike Mrs Rich I notice—will therefore get her way as she sees this policy roll out. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the report in Nelson’s newspaper that Paula’s Preschool which has signed up to the Government’s 20 free hours policy also has a policy of a compulsory voluntary donation to go with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the briefing document from the Ministry of Education to the Minister which clearly states that unrealistic expectations could form around the word “free”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ambulance Service—Crewing 
4.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree that all ambulances responding to emergencies should operate with a minimum of two qualified crew as required by the New Zealand Standard for ambulance services; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The current contracts with ambulance providers refer to “best endeavours” to achieve double-crewing in accordance with the current New Zealand standard. At least 82 percent of ambulance call-outs are double-crewed although as better data becomes available it may prove to be a little higher than that. As resources and trained staff become available we will move closer to the goal of complete double-crewing. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of New Zealand ambulances are routinely responding to emergencies single-crewed in cases including road accidents cardiac chest pain back injury near drowning and overdose amongst others and is he concerned that during the months of March and April alone there were over 100 cases of single-crewed ambulances going to emergencies just in Horowhenua according to a report from the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have not seen the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association report that the member has just referred to but now that I know it exists I will seek it out. There are approximately 300000 call-outs in New Zealand—just under 1000 a day—and the vast majority of those are competently completed successfully by two competent ambulance crew. It may help the House to know that despite its name the New Zealand Ambulance Services Association is not the industry body—that is Ambulance New Zealand. The New Zealand Ambulance Services Association is in fact a Wanganui-based union with approximately 12 members. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: Has the Government supplied resources to help attain the New Zealand standard for ambulance services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we have—year after year. For example the agreement with St John’s which provides most ambulance services in New Zealand has in the past 3 years included funding increases that require it to employ an extra 67 staff. These extra staff are in addition to the normal adjustments for population and the price is additional to the normal price movements. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that on 2 March this year a single-crewed ambulance was sent to a patient in cardiac arrest in Horowhenua—the patient later died—and does he agree that it takes at least two people to resuscitate a patient in cardiac arrest and then transport that patient to hospital; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am concerned as I was concerned a month or two ago when I think in Huntly a member of the public drove the ambulance because the single ambulance officer was in the back attending to the patient. These instances still occur. The point is that they are occurring less and less commonly because we are increasing ambulance services and funding to ambulance providers each year. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that by the admission of his own figures that he produced today about 50000 ambulance call-outs are single-crewed; does he agree that this widespread practice is putting lives at risk; and will he as the Minister of Health take action to give statutory force to the standard for the double-crewing of ambulances; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I should reiterate that the figure of 82 percent is probably conservative; it is the minimum percentage of ambulance call-outs that are double-crewed. Eighteen percent or fewer have one. For example 3 percent of all calls are recorded as having no ambulance drivers at all. That is clearly wrong. I do think that we should move towards double-crewing and over the years we have put further funding into ambulance services so that we can. That is why we are getting closer to double-crewing now in this country than we have ever been. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was whether the Minister would give statutory force to the double-crewing standard. I wonder whether he could answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member is aware in supplementary questions only one question is normally permitted. There were several in that question. The Minister did address some of them. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the statistics for March and April showing that in more than a hundred cases in the Horowhenua ambulances were sent to emergencies single-crewed. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State Houses—Quotable Value New Zealand Valuations 
5.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is Quotable Value New Zealand’s latest “independent replacement valuation” or market valuation of each of the three Glen Innes State house properties—land and buildings—that have a rateable valuation of $2 million $1.43 million and $1.40 million respectively as per his response to question for written answer 11513 (2006)? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The member appears to be asking two separate questions. On the one hand he wants to know the replacement value of three small old modest State houses located in Glen Innes. I guess the value would be “not much”. On the other hand he also asks for the market valuation of the land and buildings. These are the figures I have already supplied in my written answer. Actually the value of one of these properties has fallen because it did not have the expected redevelopment potential expected at the valuation. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I had to prove to the Clerk’s Office that Quotable Value New Zealand had supplied Housing New Zealand Corporation with the market valuations or replacement valuations for land and buildings for these three State houses. I proved that to the Clerk’s Office. I asked a specific question about the valuations of these three properties—not the rateable valuation but the replacement or market valuation. The Minister had all morning and half the afternoon to prepare the answers. I want the market valuations of these three properties. Could I please have the answer? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member asked a question and the Minister addressed the question. That is what he is required to do. What the member wants is not necessarily what the Minister has to provide. The Minister addressed the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Madam Speaker when you look at this question you will see that the member asked me for two valuations: the replacement valuation or the market valuation. I provided those two answers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker you need to think very very carefully about this particular question I think because much of this information is available publicly. Some of it is not and it is the little bit that is not that we want the Minister to talk about today. Mr Burton might say that the Minister addressed the question. We all know that one can address a question by standing up and saying “rhubarb” and sitting down. Or a Minister can simply refuse to address a question. But I think there is significant public interest in this particular issue. It is a requirement under the Standing Orders that an answer is given consistent with the public good. Letting Ministers just misuse people’s good intentions like this is unacceptable. The Minister was asked for the independent replacement value. He must know that and he must surely be able to give it to the House today. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot be responsible for the quality of questions lodged by the member Phil Heatley. The question asks what the replacement values are. I have said that the replacement value on three old small State houses located on very valuable land in Glen Innes is not much. But if we take into account the member’s second question of what the market valuation is of each of the three properties’ land and buildings that amount is quite considerable and I have given him that answer in my reply to his written question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister then share the information that is in the written answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The information is in the initial question. These valuations are $2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million. I did correct the fact that one of the values had dropped because the site was not as expected suitable for redevelopment. One of the valuations had actually gone down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is exactly the problem. These are rateable valuations. Rating valuations are struck on mesh blocks. They are struck as an average across a block of properties. They are not struck particularly on any value. Anybody who buys real estate knows that they use the quotable value as a guide but it very very seldom reflects the actual market price. I think we are simply looking for the independent value on the replacement cost of these properties which includes land and buildings. The Minister must know this. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We seem to be at cross-purposes here. The question actually asks two questions: “What is the replacement of these small old houses?”—not much. But what is the market valuation of those properties when one takes into consideration the valuable part of those properties which is the land? It is considerable—and I have given the value. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question has been down on notice and I do not know anything about it. But I am sitting here trying to understand it because this is question time and it seems to me we have a problem. The Minister clearly does not want to give the straight answer and has come down here ill-prepared. We know that there is a valuation for these properties and it will not be “considerable” and it will not be “not much”. Maybe the Minister could say if he does not know and has not got the answer: “Look I’m ill-prepared for this question and I’ll get my office to have a crack after question No 12.” because it is clear that it is not going to go anywhere. If the Minister of Housing with a question on notice “What is the value of this house?” says “not much” or “a lot” it is hardly answering the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I now understand what the issue is I think quite clearly. The Minister has addressed the question. He has not obviously addressed it to the satisfaction of members in terms of giving specific amounts that is true. But he has addressed the question generally so I will ask us to move on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling in a way that causes great problems but I think we must have a bit of a look at this. For the Minister to on the one hand say: “The valuations are as provided in my written answer the rating valuations.” in answer to a question that specifically asks about independent market valuations; and then on the other hand to say: “Well the land is worth a lot and the buildings aren’t worth much.”—surely if that is addressing the question then we may as well just shut Parliament and spend our days reading fiction. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand. But it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer that has in fact been given. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason I have taken this point of order is that a week or so ago you took a point of order from my colleague Gordon Copeland ahead of me because he was faster to his feet than me. My colleague Ron Mark was clearly ahead of Gerry Brownlee. Standing Order 102 actually states that seniority prevails and now I am asking you—and I accepted your ruling the other day—to please clarify whether we operate points of order by the Standing Orders or by your edict the other day when you twice sat me down in favour of Gordon Copeland? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is who the Speaker recognises. In this instance I recognised that Gerry Brownlee was on his feet. But I have recognised the member ahead of Gordon Copeland you will notice this time. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members wish to remain with us for the rest of question time then they will not intervene on points of order. I call Ron Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I am raising this point of order in anticipation of a problem in the hope that you will consider what has just happened. I am worried now and I would like your view and your ruling as to whether answers such as “not much” by a Minister of the Crown will be accepted because I foresee a situation where if I ask my supplementary question which is written down here where a specific figure is known and a specific expectation of the Minister exists to be on top of his portfolio and to know the detail I might too now receive the answer “Not many.” I ask you to consider where this will lead the House if successive Ministers—of immigration finance or defence—answer the questions from other members of Parliament such as “How many soldiers deployed to Bamian” with “Not many.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have got the essence of the member’s speech. I just remind members that points or order are meant to be made succinctly. As members know—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet OK? As members know they cannot require specific answers to questions. In this instance as I ruled the Minister addressed it. It is demonstrably clear that it was not considered to be an adequate answer to the question. However that was the Minister’s judgment and it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of that answer. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just wanted to speak to the points of order raised by both Gerry Brownlee and now by Ron Mark which are similar. I point out because I think it is helpful to you and to the House Madam Speaker that the Minister is quite right. This question refers to three different valuations: an independent replacement valuation a market valuation—that is two—and three a rateable valuation. I think the Minister’s point was—and he is quite right—that a replacement valuation and a market valuation are two different things yet Mr Heatley has asked for them. So how can the Minister possibly answer the question when the question itself is ambiguous? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I was trying to demonstrate was that the replacement value of the small old houses was quite modest. To build a house of that size would cost about $280000. I could have come down with that figure but that was not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that the member in asking his question is asking two different questions. One is the replacement value of the house and the other is the actual total value. We have given him the precise answer to the total value. I apologise if the House found that my answer was too flippant. It is about $280000 to replace those houses. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speakers’ ruling 153/3—it is quite a well-known Speakers’ ruling—that Ministers should provide an answer if that answer can be provided consistent with the public interest. Indeed there is in some of the surrounding Speakers’ rulings a clear process for Ministers who believe that it is not in the public interest to provide the information that is sought at question time. I suggest to you that in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves today it seems likely that the Minister does in fact have particular figures that the member who asked the question asked for. It may assist the House if you were to seek confirmation from the Minister that he does in fact have the information and were to ask him to provide it. I think that should be the way in which we interpret that Speakers’ ruling. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. But I think to some extent it was just the way in which the question was phrased that may have led to some confusion. But the Minister has now I think specifically addressed the question with a specific figure. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider the comments that the Hon Chris Carter has made in several points of order. He has said that he was asked the replacement value. He was not asked the replacement value of the properties; he was asked the independent replacement valuation which—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the important point is this I say to the Minister as he will know every year Quotable Value New Zealand prepares an “independent replacement valuation”. A document with those words was provided to the Clerk’s Office to verify this question. An independent replacement valuation is prepared on high-value properties of Housing New Zealand Corporation every year. Those independent replacement valuations are the replacement valuation of the whole property. So for the Minister to stand up in the House and say that he is unaware of that difference when yesterday he gave answers based on those independent replacement valuations is quite wrong and he needs to be reprimanded. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I think we have the point. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Phil Heatley will speak and then anyone else who wishes to contribute please let me know. 
Phil Heatley 
: I would like to stand and confirm what the Hon Tony Ryall just said. I went to the Clerk’s Office because I had to confirm with its staff the paperwork that showed that the valuation of the property—which was the land and the buildings—was called an “independent replacement valuation”. So that is what I asked for—the independent replacement valuation of the land and the buildings. I put in there to help the Minister the words “or market valuation” because that is what New Zealanders generally know it as—and to help the public in understanding my question. My question specifically asks for the valuation of the land and the buildings—the replacement valuations. The Minister has simply given back— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can we get to the point—succinctly? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No no. Madam Speaker I need to clarify something. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. But would the member please be succinct. He is starting to repeat himself. 
Phil Heatley 
: I will be succinct. The Minister has simply reflected back to me the rateable valuations which I have already provided to him in the question. I would like to confirm that Tony Ryall is quite right. The Clerk’s Office has confirmed this and I would like the independent rateable valuations on all those properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. We understand your point. Is there anyone else from that side of the House or anywhere else? Judy Turner would like to contribute. Is the member contributing to the point of order? 
Judy Turner 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—good. Then we will have the Hon Chris Carter in reply. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Hopefully this is my last contribution on the point of order. The Hon Tony Ryall is not correct; Housing New Zealand Corporation has properties valued for insurance and rating purposes only if the buildings themselves are worth over a million dollars. These three little old houses in Glen Innes are manifestly not worth over a million dollars. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contribution to this. I think we did get the question addressed; I would now like to move on with the supplementary questions and I have Judy Turner in my sights. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is usual for the member who asks the primary question to have the first supplementary question and I have not had it yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh I am sorry. I felt perhaps that we had had a full discussion. But of course the member can have his question first and I apologise for being distracted. 
Phil Heatley 
: When in the exchange of points of order the Minister said that Housing New Zealand Corporation values properties only where the buildings are worth over $1 million is he telling this House that there are 145 State house properties where the buildings are worth over $1 million; and could he please tell us what the land is worth on those 145 properties? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member is once again being evasive with the truth. Independent valuations by Housing New Zealand Corporation are only of properties worth over $1 million. Many of the properties that Mr Heatley quoted in the House yesterday are huge blocks of flats or very large community houses; they are not actually homes. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Minister what reports have you received about the 145— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No no! 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Well I did actually preface it with the word “Minister” but I will do it correctly for Mr Brownlee’s sake. Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has received about the 145 properties worth more than $1 million that the honourable member Phil Heatley referred to in the House yesterday? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It would appear that Mr Heatley got his facts wrong again. These valuations are mostly not for stand-alone properties; they are in fact for 145 sites on which there are 2674 individual units. A housing complex like the Dixon Street flats here in Wellington that has 119 individual units is recorded as being only one property. He got it wrong. 
Phil Heatley 
: What is the market value of the three properties in Glen Innes which have a single house on them each that have a rateable valuation of $2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million; what is their market value? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Those figures have already been given to the member—$2 million $1.43 million and $1.4 million. But the $1.43 million property has fallen in value because when its value was assessed we thought it could be used in more intensification of the site but it proved unsuitable. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is part of the Government’s housing strategy to own million-dollar - plus State houses when he said yesterday in this debating chamber: “… just because a house is worth over $1 million that does not mean to say it does not have a valid place to be a State house.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: When these properties become vacant the corporation makes a decision about whether to retain the property redevelop the site to make better use of the land or even to sell the property. We are not having a programme of selling off 13000 State houses like the National Party. 
Judy Turner 
: If the Minister is unwilling to sell the high-value properties with current tenants in residence is he prepared to look into rent-to-buy schemes for tenants paying market rents in State houses as a way of improving home ownership rates and to free up capital for reinvestment in State housing so that waiting lists can be better addressed? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not prepared to have rent to buy but what I am prepared to do and what we are doing in Hobsonville is to create new greenfield sites where it is possible for first home buyers to buy their property. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is not this Government’s policy to ensure that all State houses are congregated together in the lowest-income area and that that failed policy of the National Party in the past is still causing problems throughout New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that that is Labour’s policy. What I can also say is that it is very disappointing that the local member for the Hobsonville area John Key is totally opposed to the project to create affordable housing in his electorate. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can he please confirm parliamentary question No. 4110 that the $2 million Glen Innes property has a tenant paying $80 a week in rent and has been there since 1998? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm the rental but what I can confirm is that the three properties that Mr Heatley asked about in his primary question have been tenanted for between 7 and 39 years. Perhaps Mr Heatley could tell this House why he wants to kick an old lady out of her house where she has lived for 39 years. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has Housing New Zealand ever proactively approached this tenant in the $2 million State house explained the waiting list numbers and offered the tenant another house in the wider area or one of the five $400000 properties that the sale of this house could buy; if so what did the tenant say? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I can confirm is that Housing New Zealand Corporation actively keeps tenants informed of home ownership opportunities as well as encouraging people living in houses that are either too large or too small to apply for transfers. I wonder whether the member is prepared to go and visit that tenant and explain why his party sold 13000 State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that states that the $2 million Glen Innes property has been tenanted for 10 years to someone paying $80 a week. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the parliamentary answer that gives the rateable value of these $1 million - plus properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table Quotable Value’s annual review in which it gives the market value of these $1 million properties. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the House’s indulgence. Before I put this request to the House I explain to you that it is about a question we have asked on numerous occasions but have not been able to get an answer to. I seek the leave of the House to ask that supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Kyoto Protocol—New Zealand's Liability 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with the estimate of Murray Ward former head of the Government’s own Climate Change Office that New Zealand’s Kyoto liability is likely to be $1.8 billion rather than Treasury’s current estimate of $567 million? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No I do not. The figures used by Dr Smith are based on a volume of emissions that is unrealistically high and I am confident that the Government’s climate change policy will reduce our emissions not increase them—as Dr Smith projects. In terms of the cost of each tonne the price reflects the cost of reducing emissions and that price depends on how far and how fast the world moves to reduce emissions. What is clear already is that the price in New Zealand will be substantially lower than the European price upon which Dr Smith bases his calculations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible in the Government’s accounts to include provision for deforestation of 26000 hectares when the December report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry puts the figure at 47000 hectares; and is not the key reason that these Kyoto figures look so bad that the Government’s awful forestry policies are causing ever-increasing levels of deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Government’s proposed $21 million tonne cap on deforestation liabilities has been in the public arena for a long time. It remains true that the future cost of carbon depends on how far and how fast the world moves to reduce emissions. I make the point that that is up in the air and if the world’s purpose on climate change is as lacking as that of the National Party then the price of carbon would drop to zero and global warming would of course get worse. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What recent announcements has the Government made about economic incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy in order to meet our Kyoto Protocol targets? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have consulted thoroughly over recent months and a clear message has been received—that is that the vast majority of submitters believe that all sectors can and should do their fair share bearing in mind that it will be easier for some sectors than for others. With this endorsement we have announced that detailed design work is proceeding on a possible “cap and trade” scheme covering all sectors of the economy and all greenhouse gas emissions. The design of effective greenhouse gas pricing is in the opinion of the Government important for both environmental and economic reasons. We look forward to continuing to engage with other interested parties as we complete that design. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House regardless of whether we are talking about $1.8 billion or $567 million what proportion of that is directly attributable to agriculture; and does he agree that until all sectors including agriculture have to pay for their carbon emissions that money represents a direct taxpayer subsidy to animal farmers? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Approximately 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector and it is important that all sectors do their bit. That is not to say that the agricultural sector should have to reduce emissions at the same rate of reduction that would be achievable for example in the transport or electricity generation sectors. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for the Government to reduce its Kyoto Protocol liabilities for deforestation by approximately $500 million by saying it will do it with a 10 percent deforestation cap and by passing that liability on to forest owners when it has not introduced or passed any legislation to do this when the public statements of other political parties show that it does not have the numbers to pass such laws and when this liability stands to take effect in just 7 months—on 1 January 2008? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think it is about time for the National Party to stop scaremongering. Nick Smith should stop— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite a deliberate question about the 10 percent deforestation cap that will require legislation and whether indeed the Minister has the numbers for the Government’s books to be able to credibly reduce the amount by $500 million. The Minister chose to begin his answer by just making some derogatory comments about National. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. If the Minister would just address the question and leave aside all other superfluous comments. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am confident that the Government’s climate change policy will not only see that deforestation cap met but also bettered. National’s statements to the contrary are scaremongering again. Nick Smith should stop trying to frighten the New Zealand public about climate change action and actually start trying to become part of the solution. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative approaches to managing our Kyoto Protocol liability through a “cap and trade” scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I have— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: National supports it. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Nick Smith says those members support it. Well I have received reports of a “cap and trade” system that proposes no cap on deforestation no cap on agricultural emissions no cap on transport emissions no cap on industrial emissions and a cap at current levels on electricity emissions. This is Dr Smith’s “cap and trade” scheme—“cap and trade” without a cap. It would not work and it would be next to useless. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I ask the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] I would be happy to table what our actual policy is for the benefit of members opposite. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They would steal it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes they probably will steal it.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is it credible for the Government’s estimates of the Kyoto Protocol liability to be based on a carbon price of just $10 a tonne when the only Kyoto Protocol - compliant carbon market has a trading price of $30 per tonne; and why when it comes to the exchange rate is the Minister happy to use the high market value of 74c in the dollar to minimise the liability but will not use the market value for carbon? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: For a start the Government accounts do not have it at US$10 a tonne; they have it at US$12.50 or thereabouts. This figure is set by Treasury. I have confidence in the Treasury figure. One of the reasons I have confidence is that Treasury is right to use a figure that is substantially lower than the European figure—as this report from one of its economic advisers from London points out. It states that the European price is not appropriate for New Zealand—particularly because the European price is considerably more than what other Kyoto-compliant units can be bought for—and simply using the European price as a proxy for the assumed price in the Crown’s carbon accounts would therefore significantly overestimate the cost of Kyoto compliance. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the promise made by the leader of the Labor Party in Australia that should Labor win the election it will introduce $10000 interest-free loans to homeowners to install solar heating; if he is aware of that does he believe that this could reduce any Kyoto Protocol liability and is worthy of consideration for introduction here? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is no doubt that increases in the use of solar heating of water reduce electricity consumption and therefore electricity greenhouse gas emissions. That is why the New Zealand Labour-led Government as part of our agreement with the Greens has given a push to solar hot water heating. That is being approached in three ways. We are trying to build volume so as to drive down the cost using market forces we have increased the subsidy and we are also driving costs out of the system—as Minister Cosgrove announced yesterday—by simplifying and making standard the consent processes which looks like it will save as much as $500 a unit. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister gave a very full answer but I actually asked whether he thought the interest-free home loans idea was worthy of consideration. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall Government Ministers telling New Zealand that we stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol then in 2005 the Government saying: “Oops we got it wrong. We’re going to have to write out a cheque for $500 million.”; and given that the former head of the Government’s own Climate Change Office Murray Ward and also the Green Party are saying the figure is more like $1.5 billion to $2 billion will the Minister apologise to the public for the mess he has made over his numbers around the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It will not have escaped many members that the person the member quotes Murray Ward was the manager of the Ministry for the Environment’s climate change team when the surplus of 55 million tonnes was projected. I do have confidence in Treasury’s projections. I do have confidence that it is correct as to the amount it assigns to the value of carbon. I also accept the proposition that the cost of carbon per tonne is likely to increase over time as the world becomes more ambitious in its carbon reductions. But that does not mean the cost of carbon will increase in the short term to the European price which is higher than our own. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note the Minister accused me of scaremongering in respect of deforestation so I seek the leave of the House to table the 2006 deforestation report by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stating that in fact our levels of deforestation are double those that the Government can provide for. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled  
Price of Kyoto Compliant Emission Units 
 by a London economist which reports that the European price is not appropriate for New Zealand and would significantly overestimate the cost of Kyoto compliance. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Television—Health Gains 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What agreement with major television broadcasters will the Government announce today and what long-term health gains are anticipated? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This morning with the Minister of Broadcasting I announced agreement with the two major free-to-air TV channels on a five-point plan aimed at improving food advertising to children by limiting the sort of advertising shown during children’s programming zones. This will help improve nutrition and promote a more healthy lifestyle amongst our children which will promote long-term health gains. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the essence of this agreement and how does the Minister intend to satisfy himself that it will work? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The essence of the agreement is that only advertisements that meet the new standard can be shown. In addition the television companies will pay for some social marketing campaigns along the lines of Push Play which will help to promote lifestyle changes in general. The Ministry of Health will monitor these changes so that I can learn to what extent they are successful. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One shows that the category of children’s programming that the new announcement will cover is 21 hours on TV2 and 15 hours on TV3. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: The second document is a survey by the Broadcasting Standards Authority showing that most children watch television outside those hours. 
Document not tabled. 
Music Awards—Prime Minister 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Has she been advised of the statement by Neil Finn that “It sort of makes me sick to see Helen Clark getting up at the music awards and taking the bows”; if so what is her response? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Yes the Minister and I have seen that statement and as Helen Clark noted we are not going to get into a debate with Mr Finn on it. What I will say is that this Government can be justifiably proud of its record in supporting New Zealand music. In 2000 the Labour-led Government set up the Music Industry Commission to grow New Zealand music both at home and overseas. It funded the development of music for broadcast through New Zealand On Air and it funded the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and other music through Creative New Zealand. I am very proud of what we have done. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Would the Minister agree that Neil Finn raises a very important question namely that there is a distinction to be made between Government intervention in the arts and Government interference in the arts and that this Government is interfering with the arts for its own grubby political ends; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government has never interfered in the art of music. What we have offered was some support in the business of music. Neil Finn has indeed made a significant contribution. Indeed the meetings that the Government-in-waiting had in 1998 and 1999 in terms of our proposals for music took place in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are getting to the point where it is really difficult to hear an answer. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why did the Minister insist on presenting an award at last year’s music awards after she was initially not invited because of the self-serving speech she had given the previous year only to use that platform to give another long self-serving speech before hastily departing; and would it not be appropriate for the Minister to admit in the words of the Split Enz song: “That was my mistake.”? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think what people do at music awards is often to try to look hip and I have to say that the Prime Minister looks rather more hip than Don Brash ever did. She was very warmly welcomed by the range of New Zealand musicians who see that this Government is seriously interested in both New Zealand music and support for New Zealand musicians. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why does the Government support New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: This Government supports New Zealand music in very strong contrast with what the people opposite have done when they have had opportunities to do so. The Government supports New Zealand music because it is about New Zealanders telling their own stories and singing their own songs. It is also about jobs and exports. All of those things matter to this Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is the last warning to members. Unless the level of noise goes down we will be having questions and answers in silence. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Could it be as Tim Finn would say that the Prime Minister is causing “a fraction too much friction” for his brother because she is always taking credit for the success of others or as Neil Finn says: “It’s like New Zealand music is taking over the world and it’s all because of Helen.”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am pleased the member knows a few 1970s and 1980s song titles. I suggest he comes up to speed as this Government has done. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that comparing the celebration of New Zealand Music Month with the solemn remembrance of Anzac Day and with the thousands of New Zealanders who sacrificed themselves is the same sort of political misjudgement that was so well demonstrated by the Associate Minister at the Anzac Day service in Auckland when she tried to dictate who should be laying wreaths? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Associate Minister did not try to dictate who was laying wreaths but merely tried to prevent those who were trying to take political advantage of Anzac Day from doing so. I am absolutely clear that it is absolutely unconscionable for parties to parade themselves when New Zealanders served and died for this country. 
Horticulture—Labour Shortages 
9.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to assist horticulturalists with seasonal labour shortages? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The Government launched the well-received Recognised Seasonal Employer initiative on 30 April which was developed in partnership with Pacific States and communities industry and unions. It will assist seasonal industries to self-manage the labour shortage encourage the employment of Kiwis first and provide a sustainable labour solution for the future. 
Darren Hughes 
: How will the Government ensure that overseas workers do not displace New Zealand workers in the seasonal industry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Given the exceptional unemployment rate currently being experienced in New Zealand—3.7 percent—migrant workers need to be an important secondary source of labour. Employers must access all available New Zealand labour first the Ministry of Social Development must verify that labour shortages exist in particular areas and employers must be accredited after having demonstrated good employment practices. Unions employers and Pacific Island States are all committed to making this work. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that this initiative builds on a policy announced by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in October last year that allows Pacific workers to fill seasonal labour shortages and can he assure the House that the system is not being abused and rorted as has been reported recently; if the report is true what is the Minister doing to address that problem? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This initiative was announced by the Prime Minister Helen Clark at last year’s Pacific leaders’ forum and follows on from work that had been done with forum leaders—in part by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—over the preceding year. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a report that states that this system is being abused. That was a very important part of my question to the Minister. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise; I missed that. Would he like to repeat the second half of the question? 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister assure the House that the system is not being abused; if the abuse that is alleged in this  
New Zealand Herald  
report—which I will table—is occurring what is he doing to address it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think he did address the question but I call the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The system cannot be being abused yet because it has not actually started. But I can tell the member that Pacific States are working extremely closely with our Government and with employers to ensure that workers will go home at the end of their time. Quite simply if they do not go home the employer will be deregistered and the workers will not come back the next year. 
Craig Foss 
: Why should growers who have followed all of the rules stand to lose thousands of dollars of repatriation bond because the Minister’s department has not followed its own rules—for example amending a seasonal labour worker’s visa thus allowing the worker to abscond? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite simply employers who follow all the rules will lose nothing. One of the rules is that the workers need to go back home at the end of the season. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a letter from myself to the Minister dated 7 March where I outline the situation of an employer suffering exactly what I have just described. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can the member confirm whether that matter relates to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme which was the subject of the primary question or to another scheme such as the old Seasonal Work Permit scheme which employers in his district would no doubt like to see continue? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether that is relevant. We are tabling some documents here. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table another document concerning a Government initiative for seasonal labour which is the Minister’s response to me referring me to the Palmerston North office— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Craig Foss 
: Finally I seek leave to table a document dated 23 April which is the letter I wrote to the Palmerston North office to which I am still awaiting a reply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a report from the  
New Zealand Herald  
that refers to syndicates smuggling in illegal workers to work— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Te PuniKokiri—Confidence 
10.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in Te PuniKokiri; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in Te PuniKokiri because its employees are hard-working and conscientious. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why does Te PuniKokiri spend its staff development budget on expensive overseas training courses for staff members on the basis that these courses will allow Te PuniKokiri staff to develop their own skills and strengthen their ability to acquire positions elsewhere in the public and private sector? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not know all the details about that and I will get further information but one thing that is important to note is that it is hard for the Maori ministry to hold staff because as Maori organisations and iwi are developing and their assets are becoming a whole lot larger staff are poached. In order to compete in this market in relation to human resources it is important that the ministry gets the best skills wherever it can. 
Dave Hereora 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in Te PuniKokiri? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The ministry is a key part of incredibly positive results that are now emerging for Maori. More Maori are working more Maori are moving into semi-higher-skilled occupations and more Maori are earning more. Maori are also involved in the negative areas; we are trying to address issues like poverty and violence which do run rampant amongst some of our people. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Given that Te PuniKokiri’s 2006-07 statement of intent states that Te PuniKokiri has the lead policy role in supporting the revitalisation of te reo Maori and given that the data provided from Te PuniKokiri in 2006 confirmed that only one person out of a staff of 270 was receiving recognition for attestation of level 5 fluency in te reo does the Minister consider that that is sufficient for it to perform this lead role; if not what will he do about it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am quite certain that in the sense of that high level as that doctor knows the bar is so high that people struggle to get there. But what we are serious about—and today I launched the Maori medium literacy strategy for schools—is that it is important that everybody gets the opportunity. As that member knows we funded Maori Television and we continue to fund the Ma Te Reo aspects in this country. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Would not a ministry like Te PuniKokiri with a history of problems with staff turnover be better off spending its staff development budget on staff retention than on strengthening their ability to get a better job somewhere else? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is the mix of where Maori people are going in this contemporary time. I tell the member that when Labour came to office at the end of 1999 after the National Party had been in Government the turnover rate was running at 23 to 25 percent. The ministry now has the turnover rate down to just under 12 percent. On average staff members have worked there for between 5 and 6 years. That member was in charge then when the turnover was dramatic. I finish by saying that the level is below the public service average for turnover. 
Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tenatatou. Can the Minister tell me what is meant by the importance of social dialogue to the quality of life as outlined in Te PuniKokiri’s diversity research programme and how will it be measured? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Te PuniKokiri has reprioritised its efforts to reflect the Maori Potential Approach and that is part of it. The priorities are building knowledge and skills—[ 
Interruption 
] Is Pansy all right? 
Pansy Wong 
: I’m fine thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: OK. The priorities also include strengthening leadership and decision making and the development and use of resources. It is about using Maori organisations and making sure that practices like mauri ora are imbued that we follow and recognise that there is a Maori way to do things and that we fund it. The framework for measuring and monitoring it is something we will work on with all Maori colleagues in this House. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Affairs Committee of which Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui and Dave Hereora are members when it questioned whether sending ministry staff on expensive overseas training courses constituted realising Maori potential? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Maori do go global. The members of the select committee have vigorous debates and discussions. They question everybody on every issue that is relevant to the topic of the day. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. In the light of Te PuniKokiri’s role to facilitate Treaty settlements what action will the Minister be instructing it to take to respond to the people of Te Roroa who have indicated massive dissatisfaction with the process of addressing longstanding grievances? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As the member knows there are tensions and challenging opinions in relation to settlements. In relation to Te Roroa I am more than happy to make officials available to talk to Dr Sharples. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave of the House to table the 2005-06 financial review of Te PuniKokiri which shows the spending of extraordinary amounts of money on— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Kimberley Residents—Assault on Former Resident 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Has she received any reports regarding an incident involving an assault on an intellectually disabled former Kimberley resident and will she restate her assurance to families of former Kimberley residents that they will receive the same if not better care in the community than they did at Kimberley? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Disability Issues 
: Yes I have. This has been described as an appalling cowardly act and is currently under police investigation after NZCare contacted the police that same day. Yes I am confident that care in the community in general is as good as or better than care in Kimberley. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has the Minister read the reported comments of a mother of a former Kimberley resident that adequate systems were not in place when her daughter was moved into a community house last year and that “There have been a lot of incidents that would not have happened if the patients had remained at Kimberley.”; if so what is the Minister’s response to those comments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have read the reported comments on the front page of Tuesday’s  
Dominion Post 
 and wish to advise the House that in respect of that case the report is in part simply factually wrong—that is to say the adequate systems which were allegedly not in place refer to the availability of registered nurses. A registered nurse was in place from the outset of the establishment of that particular home. 
Darren Hughes 
: Despite the alleged disgraceful incident under discussion have successive Governments pursued deinstitutionalisation and in general does the Minister think the policy has worked? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is exactly right; deinstitutionalisation has been the policy of many successive Governments. It was—for indeed we do not have it any more—about ensuring that people with disabilities are living in the community and doing the day-to-day things such as most of us take for granted. This is a key aim of the disability strategy. As to whether it has worked I would say that I have yet to meet any New Zealander who used to live in an institution who wants to go back. They simply do not want to go back. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What action is planned if research by the Donald Beasley Institute establishes that the outcomes for former Kimberley patients are worse in the community than they were at Kimberley? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Very considerable action because it would be the first time that that had happened. I repeat: I have yet to meet a person who has been in an institution who wants to go back. Sometimes I have met family members who on behalf of a client or a patient want them to go back but I have never met a patient who wants to return. The closure of the Kimberley institution is the last project of its kind in our history. It was the most complex it was the most expensive and it remains the most closely monitored which is why we have the Donald Beasley Institute an independent outfit based in Dunedin keeping an eye on us. We are determined to get this right. 
Kimberley Residents—Community Care 
12.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Disability Issues 
: Does she stand by her assurance to the families of Kimberley residents that residents would receive the same if not better care in the community? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the 
 Minister for Disability Issues 
: My answer is as I am sure the member will understand the same as I have just given to the primary question No. 11. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the Minister explain to the New Zealand public or to the family of the intellectually disabled man who was dragged out of bed and kicked on the floor by drunk staff at a Levin community home that he received better care in the community? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Self-evidently I cannot. That was a disgraceful act. Let us now rehearse the facts. As soon as it happened a doctor was called. Then soon after the police were advised. Then soon after that the four people involved were given the boot. Three of them happened to be people who used to work as it happens in the Kimberley Centre. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question of how he can explain that that particular person received better care in the community than at the centre. The Minister failed to address it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did not; he actually quite specifically addressed the question. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the majority of former Kimberley Centre residents require general anaesthetic in order for dental treatment to be performed and can she assure us that all former residents are in fact receiving adequate oral health care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret to advise that I am not up to speed on the dental therapy for residents who are out of the Kimberley Centre. I would be very happy to answer the question if the member would like to put down an oral or a written question around that to the Minister for Disability Issues or to the Minister of Health. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Minister failed to act on the concerns of the Kimberley Residents Support Group (Hawke’s Bay) who are worried not only by the lack of quality support but also by the unusually high number of deaths of disabled people who have left the Kimberley Centre including at least one where there remains a coroner’s inquiry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of fact that a number of former Kimberley Centre residents are elderly. It is also a matter of fact that a change in circumstances can be disturbing to people which is why this process has been managed extremely carefully over a very long time. It may interest the member to know that just over a hundred families were surveyed on how they thought the transition process had gone. Those survey results were made available to me the Minister of Health in January of this year. Seventy-two percent of the families who responded said they thought the management of the transition was “excellent”. A further 26 percent said it was good. When we add 72 and 26 together we have 98 percent of the people who are involved saying we are doing not badly. 
Nathan Guy 
: What has the Minister learnt from four incidents involving carers and residents in Kapiti homes in 2006 and now this horrific drunken attack on a vulnerable disabled resident in Levin; and what assurances can the Minister give to the residents and their families that they will be safely cared for? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This was a cowardly act. It is indefensible. It is something that should not have happened. I hope the cops find the carers I hope they decide to prosecute them and I hope the prosecution is successful at least on the basis of what I know about what happened. It is not defensible. I do not seek to defend it but it has happened. I will just say again in case it has not sunk in that three of the four people who were sacked used to work in the Kimberley Centre which some people in this House seem to want to revisit. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can he be so confident that care in the community is better than care at the Kimberley Centre as he just told this House given the drunken staff incident where a resident was beaten up in a community home in Levin incidents at Kapiti unusually high death rates in the Hawke’s Bay and the United Nations investigation into a shocking case of a resident placed far away from his family? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the member refers to— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the member be so confident? That is what the member told the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure what the member refers to regarding a United Nations inquiry so let me not attempt to answer that part of his question. I am sure about care in the community for these two reasons. Let me repeat them. I have never found anyone who has been in a New Zealand institution—any patient or client with an intellectual disability a physical disability a mental disability or more than one disability—who wants to go back not one. So those people have voted to say that institutions are no good. But what is more I have had the results of a survey of just over 100 families reported to me in January of this year. I am sorry that I find myself repeating myself but 72 percent of those families said the transition was excellent 26 percent said the transition was good and 2 percent offered neither of those accolades. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table three papers. The first from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 1 May “Disabled patient kicked at party”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from the  
Dominion Post 
 of 2 April “ ‘Shocking’ disabled case referred to UN”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The third is a Kimberley residents’ support group paper “How many Kimberley residents died during the process of closing this centre?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. It is my privilege as Minister of Women’s Affairs to move an amendment that will remove the last statutory discrimination against New Zealand women thereby enabling the Government to lift the reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women or CEDAW which we have in place due to that provision. I want to read the reservation to the House. It states: “The Government of New Zealand the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention in so far as they are inconsistent with policies relating to recruitment into or service in (a) the Armed Forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve on armed forces aircraft or vessels and in situations involving armed combat or (b) the law enforcement forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve in situations involving violence or threat of violence.” 
When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1993 the New Zealand armed forces still had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles and therefore the Government needed to include an exemption for the armed forces covering sexual discrimination in employment matters. Since then attitudes and practices have moved on. In 2002 the Chief of Defence Force lifted all restrictions on the deployment of women in combat roles and indeed asked service chiefs to establish procedures for the employment of women in trades from which they were previously excluded with a goal of full integration by 2005. The Navy had already opened the diving branch to women in February 2000 thus removing the last restricted trade within that service. For the Army the issue was more complex and it followed a phased implementation. During the debate on this bill people have asked why it has taken so long to bring this matter before the House. There is the answer to that question. A phased change in practice in our armed forces has required us to take to this time. The purpose for which the exemption under section 33 of the Human Rights Act was granted by this House no longer exists which is why we are now able to remove it. 
This is a relatively small change but an important one symbolically because it completes the objective of equality before the law for New Zealand women. With this change New Zealand will be able to meet its international obligations in relation to the rights of women and we will be able to move quickly to remove the one remaining reservation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—and in fact the national interest analysis has already been referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration. We will be able at last to confirm that New Zealand gives unqualified support to the convention. 
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is often described as an international bill of rights for women. The convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. It defines discrimination against women as “any distinction exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition enjoyment or exercise by women irrespective of their marital status on a basis of equality of men and women of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political economic social cultural civil or any other field.” By accepting the convention States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms including incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system abolishing all discriminatory laws and adopting appropriate laws that prohibit discrimination against women. States also commit themselves to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination and the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons organisations or enterprises. 
Countries that have ratified or acceded to the convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed to submitting national reports at least every 4 years on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations. New Zealand has already submitted its written report—its sixth report—and will be appearing in front of the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in August this year. 
New Zealand’s reservation to the convention also extends to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau as members will note from the comments I made before. Tokelau and Niue are covered by the law change and they have agreed to be associated with New Zealand’s action to withdraw the reservation. The Cook Islands has now acceded to the convention in its own right and it may withdraw its reservation independently if it wishes to do so. 
I should point out that although we can be proud of achieving this change in our law and of our ability now to fully comply with the convention it is also important to recognise that full equality before the law and full equality in practice are often two different things. It is relatively easy to change the law especially when as in this case we follow rather than lead practice. It often takes much longer to change the culture attitudes and behaviour that lead to discrimination occurring in practice. We can see that lag in areas like equal pay for work of equal value where discrimination on the basis of sex has actually been unlawful in terms of our legislative framework for over 30 years but still a stubborn pay gap remains—a gap that cannot be fully explained by women taking time out of the workforce and gender segregation in employment. 
The armed forces have themselves recognised that simply saying to women they are no longer prohibited from taking up a particular role is not enough. They have been making the other necessary changes which range from changes to equipment to removing strength barriers to such employment to measures to prevent bullying and harassment including sexual harassment. Even with those changes the pace at which women enter these non-traditional roles will be slow—just as they have been slow to enter traditionally male trades and professions in other parts of the economy. Nevertheless society will continue to change and over time I am sure we will see many more women in our armed forces including more of them in leadership roles. 
In recommending this legislation to the House I would like to again acknowledge those who have helped to bring us to this point. The leadership of the New Zealand Defence Force deserve credit for taking action to change the force’s own rules and procedures in order to remove discrimination against women. I want to thank three women officers who came to Parliament today to reflect that this was an important day. I acknowledge Warrant Officer A J Pereira from the Army Corporal Anj Ball from the Air Force and Lieutenant Paula McKenzie from the Navy. I thank them for coming today to acknowledge that this is an important day for women in New Zealand—and not just for those in the armed forces. Between them those three officers have served in the Sinai in East Timor and in Afghanistan and I appreciate their willingness to represent women in each arm of the New Zealand Defence Force on this important occasion. I also acknowledge the service they undertake on behalf of their country alongside their male colleagues. 
I also want to acknowledge the member for Waitakere Lynne Pillay who deserves particular credit for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill. I thank her for allowing the Government to take over the bill. This is the speech she should have been giving and I am very grateful I have the opportunity to deliver it in her place. The reason the Government wanted to bring the bill before the House was that it was trapped behind the debate on section 59 of the Crimes Act on members’ day and there was no guarantee that we could have had it passed through all of its stages in time for the reporting to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in August this year. So I thank Lynne Pillay on behalf of the women of New Zealand as well. 
I particularly thank my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence who too were pleased to see this bill adopted as a Government bill. Finally I commend the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its constructive consideration of the bill and all members of the House for their support of the proposition that no New Zealand woman should be discriminated against. 
It will be with considerable pride as New Zealand’s Minister of Women’s Affairs that I will report that we have expedited the steps necessary for the withdrawal of our remaining reservation to the convention as asked of us in the committee’s last report to New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister Lianne Dalziel who has just taken her seat for the detailed explanations of the time frame of this bill and why it has taken the bill so long to finally come to the House. I commend Lynne Pillay for bringing the bill which was originally in her name to the House as well. But as I say Lianne Dalziel demonstrated why it had taken this long to come before the House. I certainly have raised that issue in my previous contributions to the debate. 
As has been said the purpose of the bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 to allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. In so doing the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters applying to the military is removed. National supports that—of course we support it. Given New Zealand’s record in any event in the human rights area I suppose it is surprising that it has taken until 2007 for this legislation to come about. But we have a good record and this bill will help it. 
Basically it will enable women—in the military at least—to know that in a legislative sense they are fully recognised for their contribution to our armed forces. As the numbers of female participants increase—and maybe this will be a spur for those numbers to rise now that they will be fully recognised—then we all benefit. New Zealand will benefit. I salute the women who are currently in the military in all three services: the army the navy and the air force. I admire them. Like all participants in the military they enter because they have a desire to serve New Zealand often overseas and in areas—as currently—where although they go under this Labour Government’s banner of a peace-keeping role that peace-keeping requires nonetheless that they are fully trained and fully alert as if in a combat role anyway. As I say I salute all of the women in New Zealand’s military. 
I want to make reference just as a matter of interest to what Tariana Turia the Maori Party member went into in some detail I think in the first reading. It is interesting that in Maori tradition there was never any discrimination at all in the valuable roles that women played. So Maori history and tradition are replete with women serving in times of warfare along with their male counterparts. Women were leaders in some of the famous battles. So I suppose from a Maori perspective we might stand here and say that it has certainly taken a long time for this discrimination to be removed. In the Land Wars in the 1860s in New Zealand’s early history Maori women were to the fore in battles against the British Army. So in standing here a Maori person as I am I might say that this legislation is long overdue. Be that as it may if we take our history beyond just the officially recognised wars—the First World War the Second World War and so on—we can say that women have been to the fore in warfare and in the military in New Zealand since the 1860s. That is certainly how I see it. Our Maori history is full of very competent capable women leaders—women in the military who played a very important role. 
The only other point I suppose that I wish to make reference to—and I have raised it in previous contributions as well—is the fact that the New Zealand demographic shows there are actually more women in New Zealand than men and in looking forward we know too that the workforce of the future is also Maori. So I hope that the military has strategies in place that seek in earnest to lift the numbers of females in the military because they have proven that they are as capable and competent as anyone else. And although the numbers are rising they are going up very slowly. The percentage for women in the military in 2005 was 16.2 and in 2006 it was 16.5. That percentage does not match the percentage of women in the overall population. Given that there is now no discrimination of any kind against women serving in the military as I say I will be interested to know whether there are strategies in place that seek to lift those numbers. They are too low at the moment. They are rising but in my view they are not rising quickly enough. Now that we have removed this last vestige of discrimination it may be that that is a spur for New Zealand women generally to realise that we are serious in recognising their valued contribution to the military. 
The Minister referred also to the ability that New Zealand will now have to be fully compliant with our obligations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As a former Minister of Women’s Affairs I am very pleased that that compliance is about to happen. Despite what some may think about National and its attitude to that committee it has had a history of some very fine people being involved in developing our participation in the committee—namely the former Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright who has moved on to even greater responsible things. She was a guiding light a mover and a shaker in the development of New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 
So it is good in all respects that not only do we recognise the desire of New Zealand women to be fully recognised for the role they play in our employment environment—not least in the military—but we recognise that we are taking a modern move today. It fits in with where women are and with where women want to be—recognised on merit and their abilities. New Zealand is a leader in that regard. At the same time as I say we satisfy some international obligations so National supports this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker and commend her for her praise and support for the advancement of women and for non-discrimination against women. I also put on record in this House that it is a pity that not all of her caucus share that view. 
I commend the Minister of Women’s Affairs who spoke earlier today. She was very happy to take up this bill which it has been acknowledged was previously a member’s bill. She saw that not only would it make progression of the bill through the House faster and more efficient—the longstanding debate on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill was holding up its progress on the Order Paper—but also it would elevate the bill to the level I believe that it should have been at. I am really pleased for the support given by the Minister of Women’s Affairs in bringing this bill forward which was firstly my member’s bill but I really think the appropriate recognition for what the bill stands for is as a Government bill. So I am very happy to see it in its final stage and to speak to it today. 
The bill is all about supporting and celebrating women. I would also like to commend this Government for supporting and celebrating a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. This institution has been questioned by members in this House—certainly not by members of this party but by members of the National Opposition—as to whether there is the need for such an organisation in New Zealand. I think there is no question about the work done in advocacy for women by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and long may it continue. 
I want to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for a very clear and affirming report on this bill and for some common-sense recommendations that have enabled the bill to come back with all the principles that were the reasons for the bill unchanged. I also want to thank this House for the unanimous support this bill has received. Indeed when a bill is about recognising rights that concern discrimination sadly we often do not engage the full support of this House but very happily this is not one of those occasions. I am most appreciative of the support of all parties for this bill. 
When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1993 the New Zealand armed forces still had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. The Act provided an exemption for the armed forces that covered sexual discrimination in employment matters. I am very happy to say and as Lianne Dalziel before me acknowledged that the armed forces very progressively abandoned that policy in the year 2000 but the exemption in section 33 of the Human Rights Act remained. Although the provision about the right to discriminate has not been applied it has still remained like a blot on our statute book. I am very pleased that we are now able to remove that blot and quite rightfully put our status right up there where it should be for us as New Zealanders in leading the charge for women on the world stage. 
We are very proud of the fact that as we know New Zealand was the first country where women won the right to vote. Since that decision in September 1893 we have passed a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect human rights not just for women but for all New Zealanders. I refer to Acts such as the Human Rights Act the Care of Children Act the Civil Union Act the Relationships (Statutory References) Act and the New Zealand Sign Language Act and most recently we have had the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Act. These can be seen as ongoing legislation that this Government and indeed former Governments have introduced to ensure that human rights in this country are in the place they should be—that is at the forefront. Unjustified discrimination is not acceptable in any society least of all in New Zealand which is leading the way. 
New Zealand women have provided so much good service. I think it is quite fitting that this bill is in its final stages not long after Anzac Day. I think that whilst acknowledging that women did not take part in combative roles in the army in previous wars—and that is not a sad thing—it is also very appropriate to recognise the extraordinarily good role that women played both in the forces and indeed in supporting their menfolk who were at the front line. So I think it is really significant that this bill is before the House at this time and as I said before I am very very proud to stand in support of it. 
History shows that the armed forces have not been as progressive as the army is now. Like Lianne Dalziel I want to acknowledge the three young women representing each branch of the armed forces who came to Parliament today. They were very heartened about the new legislation although I have to say happily they were not aware of the discrimination. I think our women are already making up quite large numbers in the roles they are playing—indeed in our peacekeeping forces overseas—and that is very good to see. 
I cannot end without saying how proud I was when I went to a conference on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women held in Geneva and was able to talk about this bill before our Parliament to remove our final reservation. The meeting was an opportunity to talk about the role that members’ bills can play in promoting change in legislation for women that may be discriminatory. Indeed there were women representing many countries where there was much discrimination so it was a very heartening and inspiring example for them. As I said before it is even better to see this bill elevated to the level that it is at now. 
I believe that this bill is based on a belief in our society that unjustified discrimination on the basis of gender is indeed a thing of the past as are racial discrimination and age discrimination. As I said before this is not a controversial bill. It has engaged support from everyone in this House and that is very much a commendable thing. 
I also want to say very briefly that I attended an open day at Whenuapai very recently and I acknowledge what a wonderful day it was. There was camaraderie and a very egalitarian relationship between the men and women officers who were obviously enjoying the day. It was very clear to see that there was very much an equal relationship that extended from the ability to be promoted to just that ordinary way of relating as comrades in the armed forces. That really highlights how times have changed today. 
In many of our institutions being a woman was not as easy; it was difficult. There were many barriers and many not too subtle ways of undermining the role that women played. I am really proud to say that certainly from what I have observed in the armed forces from the bottom up—in the ranks and between the comrades there—that is not the case now. I think we have armed forces to feel very very proud of and I know that for these women and men who represent New Zealand so well both here and overseas this bill will enhance the role that women play. It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. Thank you. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National is pleased to support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and I acknowledge the previous speaker Lynne Pillay for moving this legislative amendment. 
I will focus on three issues; firstly the contribution that women play in the armed forces today. This issue is hugely important in the contemporary nature of peace enforcement or of international deployments where New Zealand has a particularly important role to play in building trust and confidence in the places where its peacekeepers are deployed. I know full well that our deep expertise in these areas is noted by other countries. I am absolutely sure—in fact I know for a fact—that that is in no small part due to the cultural changes both gender-based and indeed ethnicity-based that New Zealand brings to contemporary deployments. That has been a very important part of New Zealand’s contemporary role. This law recognises a reality. 
Another issue I wish to talk to however is the issue of national interest as opposed to complying with a UN convention—as important as those issues might be in some areas. We should be passing law because it is in our own interests to do so not because we are required to do so by some UN agency. That is an important point that this Government often neglects. It plays a completely slavish role: anything that the United Nations proposes the Government just meekly and subserviently supports. 
I bring to the House the point that recently the United Nations human rights organisation had to be completely reorganised. This should be one of the centrepieces of the United Nations. One of its roles surely is to defend human rights. But in fact the previous commission was so discredited so bankrupt of observance to principle that the UN itself or rather more accurately those countries that have a deep commitment to human rights in practice—as opposed to merely espousing the language of it—felt they could no longer participate in that organisation and that it had lost its fundamental purpose. 
So a new organisation was created to try to rectify that problem. Do members know what that new organisation has just done? It decided to single out Israel of all the countries in the world as a particularly grievous breach of extending full human rights to women. I guess the women of Saudi Arabia were particularly impressed with that decision. After all everyone in this House knows that every woman in Saudi Arabia can vote can drive a car and has all the other rights that every other woman expects to have! That is of course something that I guess those women are looking forward to in anticipation because in fact they do not have any of those rights. They are extensively discriminated against both in practical terms and through the law. 
Did that UN body decide to make a point about that? No. So I guess this is one of the reasons why National takes perhaps not a sceptical approach but not a slavish approach either that we should be passing a law like we are passing today because it is in our interests. The fact that it happens to also comply with at least the best intentions of the United Nations is a good thing. But I would like the Government to recognise at least occasionally that the UN has some deep and grievous faults and that slavish adherence to every single request by the United Nations does not necessarily serve this country’s interests. 
 We have only to think of the recent visit by Mr Stavenhagen who had exactly the same myopic approach. New Zealand is clearly one of the worst offenders—in his view—in treating people equally. It is that kind of statement that causes many people in New Zealand and not just in the National Party to ask: “For heaven’s sake where is the balance?”. So I say to the Government that when it deals with laws like this—and I suppose the Minister specifically mentioned it; interestingly enough the previous speaker did not do it quite so much—it needs to take a more critical approach. 
We on the Opposition side of the House have always worked to improve the rights of women and indeed of all people in New Zealand. I need to remind Ms Pillay that in fact it was the previous National Government that passed the Human Rights Act 1993 and that was a very important advance for the rights of all people including women. Yes there were things that had to be fixed up and I for one am pleased that this final discrimination has been removed. 
My final point is this however: we should not pretend that these kinds of changes do not have their own kinds of risks. We have only to look at what happened with the capture of the British sailors in Iran. A great deal of pressure was put upon the woman sailor in that situation. I acknowledge that ultimately Iran did the right thing and released the sailors and it perhaps did not particularly mistreat them but there are many countries that would—and indeed have. Non-State actors are particularly notorious for doing this. We should be aware that when we say we are extending our human rights legislation so that it is complete we are also putting people under a degree of risk whereby our people will perhaps be treated differently by those people who do not have such a developed view as we have and that some quite bad things can happen. I am fully aware that when all New Zealanders—men and women—join the armed forces they do know those risks and they take them on with open eyes. I guess that is part and parcel of our having a full volunteer force. But of course circumstances can change as they have in the past. So we need at least to have our eyes open to this risk. 
Yes it is a good day for women today. Yes it is important that our armed forces provide full opportunities to women. Women have felt that that aspect is important in the armed forces and they look to this Parliament to support them in their endeavours. In closing I am pleased to say that National is pleased to be able to support this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. But I do put those particular caveats on record because we do look at these issues a little more carefully I suggest than the Government and we do not just accept every UN pronouncement in quite the uncritical way that the Government does. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and to signify that we will again be supporting this bill through its third reading. 
I will just mention a couple of facts that are interesting. I want to put on the parliamentary record some statistics I have that show that the contribution made to the defence of New Zealand by the women of New Zealand is quite substantial. Some people have reflected that it is not high enough but servicewomen comprise some 16.7 percent of the regular forces as a whole. It is interesting to note that almost 23 percent of the Navy’s strength is women that women make up almost 14 percent of the Army and that almost 17 percent of the Air Force’s strength is servicewomen. I know from the recent visit to Afghanistan by the Minister of Defence on which I accompanied him that something like 22 women are deployed in the Bamian province in a number of roles there ranging from medical to combat appointments. It is interesting to note that as far back as I think early 2007 something like 82 servicewomen were deployed on land-based operations around the world and 84 servicewomen were deployed on Her Majesty’s New Zealand ships. I guess that says that since about the year 2000 in particular when the Defence Force moved away from adhering to the policy prescribed in law and actually started deploying women in combat roles the numbers of women have steadily grown. 
I shall refer to my own experience in the military. I became an officer cadet in 1978 having joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1971. In my intake of officer cadets at Waiouru there were five women. I think only two graduated and one was discharged for medical reasons. The intake before mine—what was know then as an officer cadet training unit—had five women as well. One of them has only recently retired and that was Lieutenant Colonel Clare Bennett. I subsequently met her many years later when I was visiting the Solomon Islands as a member of Parliament. She was over there leading a recruiting team trying to get more people to join our Defence Force. I understand that she had a very good long and enjoyable military career. 
It is interesting to note that back in 1971 we had the Women’s Royal Army Corps. All women who joined the Army went into the Women’s Royal Army Corps. It was a separate corps women from which were trained in various trades skills and professions. They were commanded separately but were assigned and attached to units. 
That corps was disbanded sometime in I think the 1980s. That move was made to integrate women fully and completely into all corps and trades removing any barriers of sexual discrimination. The move was challenged debated and argued and many people disagreed with it. They did not think men were good commanders of women; they thought the best commanders of women were women. It was argued that women could not pull the wool over women’s eyes but they could definitely pull the wool over men’s eyes and did so on frequent occasions. I guess regardless of the argument the decision was made and it subsequently over time has proven to be a good decision and now we are where we are today removing the final barrier for women which is the barrier to their active engagement active employment in combat roles. 
It is interesting that traditionally when we have talked about combat roles we have talked about the teeth arms corps. If I might refer to the army again the teeth arms corps were the armoured corps infantry artillery and the corps of engineers. That is an interesting one because people hardly reflect upon the corps of engineers as being a combat corps. My partner was a territorial force officer in the corps of engineers which is quite curious because I was in the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers which made me a non-combatant. If I look at it that way she was a combatant and I was not. Was that discriminatory? I do not know. No it was just choice. There was nothing to stop me moving as I did into other areas and serving time in combat corps. 
It is interesting listening to the debate and hearing some women stand up and lament that there are not enough women in the armed forces. I say to those women who have said that that Heather Roy has joined the armed forces and I am looking right now at Jackie Blue who served in the armed forces. I say to Lynne Pillay: “Join up right now.” The recruiting doors are open and the armed forces would be keen to have her in the service like Heather Roy. They would be keen to put Lynne Pillay through recruit training and they would be keen to see her serve her country in a combat role. If there is one way for that MP in this House to do something about what she considers to be the flagging numbers the insufficient numbers of women in the defence forces and in the combat corps it is simply to take a leaf out of Heather Roy’s book and join—it is very simple actually—and lead by example. She does not need to sit here and lament the number of women who are not joining or do not have the opportunity. A member of this House has taken the opportunity available to her and has demonstrated leadership by example; she has done it and there is nothing to stop any women in the Labour caucus from doing the same thing. They should stop talking about it and just do it. 
I also would like to take a little bit of the fluff off the top of this. I notice that the Minister Lianne Dalziel made the comment that it is one thing to bring equality in law and another to bring it in practice—that the two are different things. That is true but in the defence forces might I suggest those barriers have been substantially dealt with. I have to compliment Major General Jerry Mateparae for the very positive and affirmative steps he is taking and the former Chief of Defence Force Bruce Ferguson for the very positive and affirmative steps he took during their tenure in that office. Such moves are not symbolic. They are not simply moves in law. They are indeed reflected in practice. 
It is I guess a matter of choice that we have only one female infantry platoon commander. I say that we should not denigrate the service of women who choose not to take a combat role who choose to be in the medical corps or the transport corps or to work as cooks and chefs. Those support roles are vital to the ability of the combat corps to do their job. It was Montgomery who said that the electrical and mechanical engineers put the punch in the army’s fist—that without them the army did not roll. He knew full well from the battle of the Eighth Army and the desert campaign exactly how important electrical and mechanical engineers were to him. Likewise other generals have said that an army marches on its stomach. We should not denigrate the cooks and the chefs who feed the troops because without them the troops would not be there to fight. 
It is good that we are removing this last vestige of sexual discrimination. It is good that the nation all of us have moved beyond what were chivalrous views and attitudes that are these days described as sexist views and attitudes. It is good that we now open up the full range of career opportunities to all New Zealanders men or women. But we should always remind ourselves of the fact that it is a choice as to whether a man serves in the infantry or in the logistics corps just as it is a choice as to whether a woman serves in the artillery or in the medical corps. That is the way it should always be. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Like all other parties in the House the Green Party will be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Members can call me old-fashioned but I am not someone who celebrates or regards as a great victory the fact that this legislation will allow and perhaps encourage women into active combat roles in the armed forces. I do not see this as some huge victory or human right. I think it is sad that we send women or indeed men into active combat roles in the Army but sadly that is the reality of our world today. 
The Green Party acknowledges that if we want women in the armed forces and we welcome the fact that they are there it does not seem right that they be excluded from combat roles providing as the previous speaker Ron Mark has said that they are not obligated to go into those combat roles but rather that it is a choice. 
 We also acknowledge that women are playing a significant role in our armed forces. We hope the role they play will be even more significant in time. As the previous speaker has already pointed out at the moment only 16.7 percent of regular forces are made up of servicewomen. But we have some significant examples of servicewomen in this House. Heather Roy and I did not realise Dr Jackie Blue have played their part and contributed in the armed forces. In particular women have been making a fantastic contribution in peacekeeping roles particularly in the Pacific. We really celebrate the fact that women are undertaking work in peacekeeping all around the world. We think that is fantastic. If women therefore want to go on and put themselves into combat forces we will support that choice even though we are sad that they are required to make such a choice. 
If we are going to send women into active combat roles in the front line of our armed forces and in the Navy and so forth we will have to provide greater protection for women in those situations. There is some accountability from our Government if we are going to send them there. I am thinking in particular of the terrible tragedy that has befallen many of our armed forces who were exposed to Agent Orange in the Viet Nam War and who have been exposed to other problems such as carcinogens in other combat roles. We know that women are particularly vulnerable to things like Agent Orange and to chemicals and pesticides and that these can be passed down to future generations through the foetus. So I think that if we are going to send women into the front line we will have to make sure we do not expose them and future generations to unknown risks and hazards. We will have to take that very much into account when we send them. 
Our troops have already been exposed to depleted uranium in the Middle East and I think possibly in Afghanistan as well— 
Ron Mark 
: Kosovo. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
:—and in Kosovo as Ron Mark is pointing out to me. We know that if just one tiny tiny fragment of depleted uranium goes into someone’s body that can result in horrendous birth deformities and horrendous health problems for the rest of that person’s life. I do not want to expose any woman in New Zealand—or for that matter any man—to substances such as depleted uranium. I want us to learn the lessons from the exposure of our armed services to Agent Orange and to make sure we do not send our women—or for that matter our men—into combat zones where their future and the future generations of New Zealanders will be irrevocably affected by exposure to things like depleted uranium and Agent Orange. With those concerns I express the Green Party’s support for this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou te Whare. The Maori Party also supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. But I too have grave reservations. Members may call me old-fashioned—as the previous speaker said—but I do not know whether human rights considerations and the fight for human rights have properly taken into account the role of women as nurturers of their families. I know particularly that the issue of Maori women on the front line and the historical role that Maori women have played within Maori society have not been properly addressed in this bill. 
I also know that if I were ever to have to be in a war I would be more than happy to have my older sister and younger sister alongside me because when it comes right down to it they are a lot tougher than my whanaunga Mahara Okeroa on the other side of the House there. I would back my sisters to back me in any situation. But that is only in a situation where we are pushed into that arena. On the question of whether I would be comfortable about accepting women going into that situation on a normal basis and being thrust into that situation I do not know that that is necessarily something I would personally go along with. 
This is a speech that the honourable Tariana Turia was supposed to make. She has had to leave the building so I am delivering it. In May 1999 Makere Harawira—no relation of mine—stood at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference and said: “It has been said that when women regain their rightful place within the world wars will cease. It has also been said that women will refuse to give up their sons and daughters to war wars will cease.” As she points out women have always occupied a central place in any discussion of war—and indeed peace. So it is not unusual to be considering the status of women in the context of the armed forces when we consider our histories throughout Aotearoa. 
Women have served in the armed forces since 1914. It was not until 2000 that the restrictions that prevented women from serving in combat roles were formally rescinded by a defence order. Indeed during World War II some 10000 women served in the armed forces. As of 1 July last year some 2555 women were serving in our defence forces. The greatest number of course—42 percent—were employed as civilians but 24 percent were in the Army 17 percent in the Navy and 16 percent in the Air Force. So the reality is that this debate is not really about the question of whether women should be allowed to serve; instead the bill is a technicality legislating to provide for what is now in operational practice. 
The bill amends section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 to remove an exemption that allows discrimination against women by preventing them from serving in combat positions. It is then in many ways a mere formality as New Zealand no longer prevents women from serving at the front line. But it is a formality that is important insomuch as the removal of the exemption will enable us to fully ratify our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The bill allows the legislation to be updated to fit with changes in practice and it also allows compliance with international law. 
Why is that so important? Quite simply it is because New Zealand’s reputation has been significantly tarnished as a good international citizen. Our exemplary human rights record was rubbished on 22 March 2005 when the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released its finding on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The committee consisted of 18 independent experts in the area of human rights. It was petitioned by Te Runanga o NgaiTahu the Treaty Tribes Coalition and Te Runanga o Te Arawa to invoke its early-warning measures and urgent-procedure jurisdiction to require New Zealand to withdraw the foreshore and seabed legislation. Just to put that into context the early-warning measures and urgent procedures are not often invoked. Over recent years they have been invoked for situations in Darfur Israel Guyana Laos the Ivory Coast and Surinam. Now to our eternal shame they have been invoked right here in Aotearoa. 
The finding of the committee is now on the international record. This House must recall that the committee concluded that the foreshore and seabed legislation: “appears to contain discriminatory aspects against the Maori in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Maori customary titles over the foreshore and seabed and its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress notwithstanding the State party’s obligations under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.” That was not all. It was then only a matter of time before the UN called upon its rapporteur to pay a visit down under and report on the situation here in Aotearoa. That report concluded that the passage of the foreshore and seabed legislation was an important human rights issue for Maori and all New Zealanders and indeed that it was a backwards step for Maori in extinguishing all Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed. So the status of Aotearoa in the field of human rights has been dramatically and adversely affected by retrograde legislation in the last few years. 
The Maori Party is therefore pleased to continue to support this human rights bill— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That’s better. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: —getting back to the bill—before the House tonight in an attempt to somehow begin to remedy our tragic human rights record which includes censure from the United Nations Committee Against Torture for our poor treatment of remand prisoners particularly youth remand prisoners. We note also that five of the six submissions received by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee supported this bill because of the significance of the commitment in making New Zealand a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women without reservation. In practical terms that means that this bill removes the only reservation blocking Aotearoa from full participation in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and that has to be a good thing in terms of restoring our reputation. 
The National Council of Women supported the bill because it will not only achieve international compliance but also be in line with current practice in the defence forces. We acknowledge here the good work the defence forces have done in addressing employment opportunities for women in their ranks. The defence forces have made substantial progress in gender integration over recent years earning praise in a report dated October 2005 for achieving a significant culture change—a change that was desperately needed. The Burton report of 1998 followed a high-profile Navy sexual harassment case taken to the Human Rights Commission which urged the need for change. 
It appears that change has occurred on a wide-scale basis. Harassment has decreased dramatically from 129 complaints in 1997 to just 34 in 2005 and there are increasing numbers of women in all three branches of the defence forces. Women in the Navy ranks have risen from 12.3 percent to 20 percent since 1990 and Air Force numbers have increased to 17 percent over the same period. 
Ron Mark 
: 22.9 percent. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: To 22.9 percent. So we also take this opportunity tonight to praise the New Zealand Defence Force and we extend our appreciation to Lieutenant General Jeremiah Mateparae son of Kahungunu and Tuwharetoa who holds the country’s top military post as the Chief of Defence Force. Tangata whenua are proud of Jerry. He is the highest-ranked Maori officer in the New Zealand Defence Force and also the youngest military chief to head the New Zealand Army. 
We believe the progress the Defence Force has made in recent years to ensure that women can enjoy the same employment opportunities as men is impressive and we look forward to the same advancement of equal employment opportunities being extended towards Maori. The issue is about ensuring the incentives and measures are in place to achieve cultural systemic and attitudinal change continuous improvement and the journey towards institutional cultural competency. Numbers show that Maori are strongly represented in the Army and Navy but not in the Air Force. Comparatively Maori are overrepresented in the non-officer ranks including that of senior NCO but are strongly under-represented at the officer level. So we look forward to a companion bill coming forward in the House to sustain progress in Aotearoa—that is the Human Rights (Maori Officers in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. 
In the meantime we in the Maori Party are happy to support this bill in order to ensure that Aotearoa can improve its questionable international reputation in human rights and can also keep up with current practice. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak on the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to say that ACT will be supporting this bill at two levels. Firstly because it is the right thing to do from our political party’s point of view and secondly at a very personal level I am delighted as a serving territorial soldier to see that at last this area is being addressed. 
This bill is in fact a very simple bill. It will correct an anomaly that has existed in our law for many years. It will also see compliance with international law which is very important and something that I think the New Zealand Defence Force is very keen to see as well. 
Women have for many years participated not only in the armed forces—we have heard the numbers involved from many members and I will not repeat them—but also in overseas deployments and have been serving in the world’s hot spots. I would like to reassure Sue Kedgley who raised some very valid points about women and men serving overseas that this is already the way things are. Women are significantly contributing to defence and to the serving of their country and this law will just see that gap that anomaly that exists in the law rectified. 
I think very few would doubt that women have added significantly to the Defence Force since their involvement. In those very early days I think—and probably my colleague Ron Mark will back this up—it was pretty hard for women in the Army. They were very much a minority and considered as such. But as time has gone on that has changed significantly—in fact out of sight. I have to say that since my involvement with the Army which has been just over a year long now I have not suffered at all. I have not even really seen or experienced any adverse comment or effect as a woman in the armed forces. I think everybody would agree that this is very much as things should be. 
Women have been adding significantly to the Defence Force for many years and have been deployed. Even the two speakers before me who have apologetically confessed to being old-fashioned and not really approving of women’s involvement in the armed forces would not doubt that women have added significantly to this area. 
Women are just as men are these days judged on competence in the Defence Force. I have spent time with the Army but I have also visited the Navy and spent a little time with the Air Force. In each of these areas competence is absolutely the final benchmark by which everybody is measured no matter what gender he or she is. To join any of the services to go on courses to train and to deploy there are levels of competence that must be met. Nobody goes on an overseas deployment nobody is sent by our country to a troubled hot spot around the world—or indeed on peacekeeping missions—unless he or she meets that desired level of competence. 
So it is not just a matter of sending our womenfolk away with our menfolk to war to peacekeeping missions and on overseas deployments. It is a matter of each and every one of those servicemen and servicewomen meeting a particular level of fitness having the necessary skills and meeting the competence levels that are required for each and every one of our people who go overseas. 
There is also a very practical reason for supporting this bill and for addressing the human rights side of this particular legislation. It is an issue that I raised in the second reading. In days gone by there has been an issue of female combatants having served overseas and having been injured then being ineligible for war disablement pensions because of their gender. Because our law has defined combatants in the past as male—and until this legislation is passed that is still the case—it has meant sadly in a couple of cases that some women have been ineligible to receive war disablement pensions from our Government. This of course is something that is absolutely unpardonable. From this very practical position it is important that the human rights aspect of women serving is addressed and addressed urgently. I think nobody would find that a satisfactory state of affairs at all. 
As I said we do have a number of women serving overseas and we have many overseas at the moment. Ron Mark mentioned some women serving in Bamian. The territorials are also making up most of the complement of those serving in the Solomon Islands at the moment as part of Operation RAMSI. I know that one of the soldiers who has just returned from serving a 4-month deployment there is a woman. Our territorials are actually doing slightly better than our Regular Force colleagues when it comes to female presence. 
For the future particularly when the Territorial Force is called in to supplement our overseas deployments and overseas missions and to stand side by side with the Regular Force soldiers in the Army it will become more and more likely that there will be women involved in those deployments and in those missions. That alone is reason enough to put this legislation forward. 
I congratulate Lynne Pillay who was the initial instigator of the bill and Lianne Dalziel on picking it up as Government Minister responsible for the bill. As I say ACT will be supporting this bill. We are pleased that every party in this House is doing so. It is the right and proper thing to do and from a very personal perspective I am delighted to see it come before the House and pass unanimously as it will do very shortly. On behalf of the women serving in the armed forces in New Zealand I also thank those members who have stood and made very kind comments about the contribution that women have made to the Defence Force. In this day and age that is right and proper. Thank you. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 As a Labour MP who started her inaugural parliamentary speech by stating that she stood here as a proud southern woman a feminist and the previous women’s vice-president of the Labour Party I am delighted to join with the Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Lianne Dalziel and my colleague Lynne Pillay in speaking on the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. 
Lynne Pillay the member for Waitakere is to be particularly commended for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill and all my Government colleagues are to be thanked for supporting its adoption as a Government bill especially the Hon Mark Burton the Minister of Justice and the Hon Phil Goff the Minister of Defence. 
Some may say that this bill brings a small change and in one way that is true. The bill amends the Human Rights Act 1993 in order to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. At the time the Human Rights Act was enacted the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. That policy was formally rescinded by Defence Force Order 05/2000. So for years now the Defence Force has very sensibly turned a blind eye to the ability to ban women from combat roles. The leadership of the Defence Force deserves credit for that. 
There is no reason in strategic tactical or common-sense terms to leave section 33 of the Human Rights Act in place. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee carefully considered the bill and made a unanimous recommendation for amendment and the bill has wide cross-party support. It is a small change already done in practice but a very large one indeed in terms of symbolic significance and in terms of the important underlying presumption that no New Zealander should be discriminated against on the basis of any of the characteristics defined in the Human Rights Act. Attitudes and practices have moved on. New Zealand has been a leader in that many times and here we are leading again. 
I want to dwell for just a moment on New Zealand’s long and proud record in the recognition and promotion of the rights of women at home and internationally. We were the first country where women won the right to vote in 1893. Since that time we have passed a long list of laws of which we can be exceptionally proud laws designed to protect human rights for women and for all New Zealanders; Acts such as the Human Rights Act the Care of Children Act the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act the Civil Union Act the Relationships (Statutory References) Act the New Zealand Sign Language Act and I want to mention sadly the Employment Equity Act in particular which was passed with such hope by a Labour Government and almost instantly repealed by a National Government. Perhaps that last example really brings home how long it takes to change the attitudes culture and behaviours that lead to discrimination. 
We still have areas of equality for women to achieve in New Zealand. One of the greatest lags still is in the area of equal pay for work of equal value. A stubborn gender gap remains but this Government has started the steps towards addressing that. In the meantime all women’s organisations I am sure will join with me in celebrating that at last New Zealand will be able to fully meet its international obligations in relation to the rights of women. With the passing of this legislation our last remaining reservation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women commonly known as CEDAW can be removed and this Government will move quickly to do that. 
The convention is the international bill of rights for women adopted by the UN in 1979. States that commit to the convention undertake to end discrimination against women in all forms to incorporate the principle of gender equality in their legal system to abolish all discriminatory laws and to ensure the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons organisations or enterprises. New Zealand reports on the convention have until now had to include a reservation because of section 33. Now we are in a position to give the convention its rightful unqualified support; unqualified support that says women like men can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. 
In the 30 years since the integration of women into the Defence Force there has been a slow growth in the percentage of servicewomen in it. It may actually get to about 20 percent overall by 2016. Many outstanding servicewomen have built brilliant careers in the services mostly in the traditional areas such as nursing. Our servicewomen have played an integral and vital role in the operations of our armed forces. This legislation will not mean a sudden flood of extra women in non-traditional roles but it will serve to say even more loudly and clearly that women have a fully equal role to play in our armed forces and in important peacekeeping activities around the world. 
We are now removing the last barrier to front-line combat roles. The armed forces have themselves recognised that changes need to be made to make this a reality. Women in the armed forces have risen to every challenge and done great credit to themselves. I say to Sue Kedgley and to others that yes this is about choice a free open and real choice that does not mean just a choice to kill; it means peacekeeping and rebuilding as well. In that arena New Zealanders both our women and our men have shown again and again that they can shine and that New Zealand can punch far above its weight in any armed force task it is asked to perform. 
This law says that the door is open wide and will never close. It serves to reinforce all the work done already within our armed forces to attract and retain career women who can aim right to the top. My niece in the armed forces who has been deployed overseas and others of her generation know that they can do the job and even more important that they are welcomed and supported to do it in any theatre where New Zealand needs to operate. 
The member for Waitakere the select committee and the Minister have done well by this bill. Its purpose was a good one. Its results are something to be proud of. It is another long step on the way forward. Any discrimination on the basis of gender must be a thing of the past and we can consign another bit of discrimination where it belongs today. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 which will allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. The Human Rights Act of 1993 is outdated. This bill means that modern practices occurring today can now be addressed and it clears up an anomaly. For the last 7 years it has not been the policy of the armed forces to discriminate against women yet it has taken 7 years to get this legislation to come to the House. Again like other members I congratulate Lynne Pillay on the introduction of her member’s bill which has been taken over by the Government. 
The passage of this bill will remove the last exemption for gender discrimination in employment in the armed forces. Any decision to send armed forces personnel to an active combat situation should be based on competency and ability—not on gender race or religion. It seems very fitting that this bill was introduced in 2006 the Year of the Veteran. It also seems very fitting with Anzac Day celebrated only a week ago that this bill will pass its last hurdle today. I like many other members of the House laid a wreath at my local RSA. It was a fitting tribute. I laid the wreath on behalf of the Mt Roskill electorate National Party. I was the only MP there but wreaths were laid by almost 20 organisations including the local school. Anzac Day is a day for all New Zealanders to pay tribute to our armed forces. At the Onehunga RSA the address was given by Commander Margaret Weller commanding officer of the Naval Reserves. Her address was very moving. She spoke about the time she spent at Gallipoli and she reflected on what life would have been like for those soldiers compared with soldiers in our armed forces today. There were a few tears in the audience. 
This bill has not been contentious; it has quite rightly been supported by the House at all stages. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee received six submissions on the bill only one of which it heard orally. Submissions were received from the New Zealand Defence Force and the Ministry of Justice. The Defence Force in particular supported this bill. There were no major changes. There was one minor wording change to the member’s bill where “at the front line” was substituted with “in an active combat role”. 
The title of the bill is very apt. It is all about human rights. Women have reached out in all walks of life and although the numbers of women who enter the armed forces are low across the board at the present time—only 16.7 percent of the Defence Force are female and amazingly that is an all-time high—women should have the choice of whether they serve in active combat. I doubt that with the passage of this bill the ratios will improve. There will have to be hard work and a drastic rethink on how to improve the ratio by attracting more women into the armed services. Women should not be discriminated against in respect of gender religious beliefs ethical beliefs colour race ethnic or national origins or disability. This bill will remove the last barrier and hurdle for women in our armed forces. Women should be free to choose their employment. 
It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts for New Zealander Nancy Wake who was commonly known as the White Mouse to be recognised by this Parliament for her bravery in World War II. Nancy Wake is 94 years of age she lives in the United Kingdom and she was our most notable Allied servicewoman in World War II. She has been honoured by France the UK the USA—everywhere except New Zealand. That is a disgrace. She was born in New Zealand. She left when she was 12 but she is a New Zealander. It seems amazing that we are abandoning her by not recognising her. The RSA has given Nancy Wake its highest honour. It is the first time that it has given that medal to a woman. This woman has been recommended for a Queen’s honour on countless occasions and still there has been no recognition from New Zealand. That is the bitter irony and hypocrisy of this bill. Here we have a bill that removes discrimination and leaves the way clear for women to fight in active combat. And here we have Nancy Wake who fought on the frontline over 50 years ago and still there is no recognition. It is not too late. We have the June Honours List coming up. I hope—I hope—that she is on that list. 
As has been noted before I was in the Army territorial university medical unit as a medical student. There was no difference in the training; we matched the men in every task. Although the women may not have been the fastest around the 5 kilometre course with a 30 kilogram backpack we still finished it. Women have proudly proved themselves in every walk of life; they can hold their own and do so proudly. Although my time in the university medical unit was limited I quickly appreciated the absolute necessity of having trained competent and skilled troops who work unquestionably as a cohesive unit. I certainly applaud those women who choose to go into active combat roles and go down this very brave and courageous path. Females have been deployed and have made valuable contributions in many overseas operations such as Afghanistan Timor-Leste and the Solomon Islands. 
I also note that the removal of this exemption which discriminates against women from serving in combat positions will enable New Zealand to ratify its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 
I would like to take the time to acknowledge Colonel Louisa Parkinson the highest-ranking women in the territorial army. I know Louisa personally and she is a great role model. With women like her—positive and inspiring—I am sure the numbers of women in the armed forces can increase. 
National supports this bill. We are a party that believes in personal choice. 
Bill read a third time. 
Social Security Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is an important part of the Working New Zealand initiatives. The object of these initiatives is to provide the right services and support for people to retain find or move towards employment. The work focus within the social support system is a positive objective. It does not undermine the purpose of the Social Security Act in relation to providing social and financial support to people for whom work is not appropriate or who for some reason are not able to work for a period of time. 
 This Government recognises that work is the cornerstone of people’s independence and social and economic well-being. Over the coming months the services offered by Work and Income will be enhanced so that intensive work-focused support will be provided to every New Zealander who is receiving a benefit and able to work. 
So how does this bill support working New Zealanders? It does so by introducing a number of amendments that support the development of the enhanced services that I have just mentioned. I would like to outline the most important of those amendments. The bill extends planning requirements to all non-work-tested benefits but I would like to emphasise that that does not include all people. Individual circumstances will still be an important consideration. People who are clearly unable to plan will not be required to do so. This Government is aware that many people on sickness and invalids benefits have indicated that they wish to work or to develop skills that will enable them to work at a later date. The development of services designed to enable this is an integral part of the reforms. 
The changes to the requirements for people receiving sickness or invalids benefits that this bill introduces will support the greater focus on working more actively with people with ill health and disabilities. They will be provided with the right services and support to participate in the labour market to the extent that their circumstances allow. People for whom the unemployment benefit is the most suitable benefit will be required to undertake an activity or activities in the period between their first contacting Work and Income for assistance and the benefit commencing. People will also be required to look for and accept any offer of suitable work during that time. 
Hone Harawira 
: Labour’s Work for the Dole. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. This proposal will strengthen Work and Income’s work-focused service for people on the unemployment benefit as it will now mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately and not have to wait until after the benefit has commenced. The ability to work with a person and direct him or her to a specific activity right from the time of the first contact results in the person finding work quickly and can remove the need for that person to go on to the benefit. 
The Labour-led Government believes that it is quite reasonable to expect people who are available and able to work and who have no caring responsibilities or health or disability issues to look for suitable employment in the time between requesting financial assistance from Work and Income and commencing being on the benefit. Additional activity requirements for people receiving the unemployment benefit will also be introduced. The changes proposed are designed to provide Work and Income with the flexibility to tailor the service to best meet the needs of the individual. In the current environment many jobs are no longer based on a Monday to Friday working week. To reflect changes in workforce participation some aspects of the work test may where appropriate be applied over a 7-day week. 
The bill also introduces a new activity requirement which replaces the current work test for young people on the independent youth benefit. This is a positive move because we know that it is preferable for young people to be engaged in education and training. Separation from the opportunities that education and training offer has a negative impact on young people’s future ability to obtain or hold sustainable employment. 
Hone Harawira 
: Youth Work for the Dole. 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA 
: I tell Hone Harawira that working more actively with young people and requiring them to engage in activities will further their current or future opportunities to work. 
The Social Services Committee in its consideration of the bill recommended a number of changes. These changes have improved the clarity and intent of the policy underpinning the legislation. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment I thank the committee for the work that it did. There are two areas where the committee has recommended changes which I would like to address. They are the new application process for benefits and the fact that non-participation in an “activity in the community” does not attract a sanction. The application process that the bill proposed was a cause for concern in some of the submissions and the committee has recommended a number of changes to clarify the policy intent. The application process for a benefit has not previously been set out in legislation and that has resulted in a lack of clarity and transparency in an area that is quite complex. 
We have relied on case law to assist with the interpretation of the policy. It was thought desirable therefore to have the process spelt out quite specifically. The requirements that an application should be in writing and that both it and the evidence to support it should be completed in 20 working days in my view are quite reasonable requirements. They make it very clear that an application consists of a robust transfer of information that meets certain requirements and can be verified. However the way that the provision was initially drafted did not make it clear that important case law principles were being upheld by the change. The recommendations that have been made by the select committee make it very clear that the policy that has underpinned the application process for many years has not substantially changed. If a person applies for financial assistance then that application is taken as an application for any form of assistance under the Act. The benefit will be paid from the date the person first contacts Work and Income with either an oral or written request for assistance. 
 The committee has also recommended the insertion of a provision to allow the chief executive to extend the time frame for providing the supporting evidence if the application is good and there is sufficient reason for doing so to within 20 days. This is a very positive move and allows for those unforeseen circumstances when for reasons beyond a person’s control he or she cannot complete an application in time. 
It has not always been possible when a person applies for assistance for that person to be able to produce the necessary verification to be able to establish entitlement particularly when the benefit in question is an invalids benefit. When this is the case a person may be granted a sickness benefit until such time as the establishment of the invalids benefit is verified. At the moment there is no legislative support for this operational practice. I am delighted that the committee has addressed the situation by recommending that the bill be amended to provide for the retrospective substitution of a more appropriate benefit where further time has been required to establish entitlement as part of the investigation of a person’s application. 
The Social Services Committee has made a range of very significant changes on which the chairman of that committee will further elaborate. I commend this bill to the House and also reiterate my thanks to the select committee for the work it has done. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party voted for this bill at its first reading to get it to the Social Services Committee. We did it on the basis that although we thought it was a very imperfect bill as presented to us it was at least a very small step in the way of encouraging people to understand that the able-bodied cannot continue to stay on benefits when they can get work. We also thought it was a very small step in asking sickness and invalids beneficiaries—and particularly sickness beneficiaries—who can work to do something about getting some work. But what we found was very very weak. We said it at the time and we have said it in the select committee. 
Effectively sickness beneficiaries—and I say this bearing in mind that almost 25 percent of sickness beneficiaries by their own admission through the Minister can work and want to work—are now going to be simply required to make a plan to work. There is no requirement at all for anything in particular to happen with that plan. The plan may not necessarily be given to anybody to take away or anything like that. 
We heard from the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre that it has just completed a study for the Families Commission. It found that not only did these plans—which are put in place for people on the domestic purposes benefit rather than having a work test—not necessarily work but also apparently they are not necessarily even given to the beneficiaries. When the Rotorua Peoples Advocacy Centre asked the Ministry of Social Development why it was that those people were not given plans to take away because after all if they had a plan it was quite good to have it in front of them—because they do not get another plan for another year—it was told that nobody does anything with them. 
I think that means we are being asked to pass a bill under which people are going to be asked to plan but not necessarily do anything with it or even necessarily take it away. National thinks that that is a silly thing to do. Either people are to have a proper plan they are to have some measures on it they are going to have some progress track and they are going to be helped to get into employment or they are not. But we are not going to be supportive of a plan that is nothing more than just a joke. 
So we are also saying here that we are very very disappointed at the last-minute change in the select committee that the Government forced in which removed “activity in the community” from the sanction provisions. This is in fact one of the few reasons why I thought we could have voted for the bill before—because we thought that provision was going to be in it. After all that is what was stated in the bill at its first reading. What we have now seen and what is presented to us is a bill where frankly everything that we believe in is just being pushed aside and our support has been taken for granted. At not one moment has the Government approached us to seek our support for these changes. [ 
Interruption 
] As the member over there keeps calling out let me tell him that the National Party will not support this bill in its current form. The Government had better start thinking about what it is going to do. 
One of the other interesting things that I found out in the last couple of days is that the Government has not necessarily advised New Zealand First that it will be removing the “activity in the community” programme from the sanctions provisions. I think that is something New Zealand First needs to know about. The Government has not even bothered to tell New Zealand First on whose vote it depends. United Future knew about it because its members were on the select committee—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh no the member just did not know when I spoke to her yesterday. Never mind someone in New Zealand First was told. 
So we have the situation where the Government is going to have some difficulties with this bill. I know that an amendment has been put up by another party and we will have amendments to put in the Committee stage. The reason for that is that either we are going to have a bill that means something or we are not. We are not interested in being seen to support this pathetic little excuse for a bill which is all about saying we are going to have a plan to have a plan when at the same time Steve Maharey from this Government said just a couple of years ago: “We’re going to give $128 million to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits.” What has happened in that time in the 3 years since then is that those numbers have gone up by yet another 7000 people. What that has meant is that this Government has wasted $127 million. 
I found it very interesting when looking at those figures to see that not only did they go up after Steve Maharey announced the Government was going to give $128 million of taxpayer dollars to get people off the sickness and invalids benefits but they actually went up more than they had the year before. So not only did they go up but the rate of increase actually got significantly worse. 
When I looked at this Government bill having sat on the Social Services Committee as the deputy chair having heard all of the submissions and having read it again and thought about it again I decided that the National Party will not support it. It is simply a sop. It is being used as a sop on the one hand to try to say: “Oh look it’s all right; it’s nothing much more than a plan.” to those who think that beneficiaries should not have to work even if they can; and on the other hand people like us—who feel that if one can work then one should work; that if one needs to look after oneself one needs to be able to do what one can—are supposed to be put off by this plan. But we found out from this official paper for the Families Commission that it was actually just a sop and that people are not necessarily even given their plans. 
So I suggest to the Labour Government that next time it wants to try to pull a swiftie it should think a bit longer on it. We are not prepared to support this bill. Some of the ideas of the bill are quite good but the Government has not followed through. It lost its bottle it gave in on the “activity in the community” and sanctions provisions and it put up this plan to have a plan. It is simply not good enough. If we supported this bill it would in fact be a travesty and we are not going to do so. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Before attacking some of that submission from the previous speaker Judith Collins which was incredibly unrelated to the Social Security Amendment Bill—and it would have helped if she had had notes because she would have at least remembered the name of the bill—I want to pick up on a point made by the Associate Minister Mahara Okeroa who was the speaker before last. 
He spoke about the impossibility of determining which is the appropriate benefit at the time of application and how this new bill codifies and enables benefits to be readjusted retrospectively. That is one of the significant areas of change. I want to deal with the second significant area of change. It was recommended by the Social Services Committee; it was supported at that committee by the previous speaker because the committee voted unanimously for this amendment. The second— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When we voted on that matter it was on the basis of the bill being sent back to the House as that member knows. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. Thank you. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: As I was saying that change was supported by the previous speaker in the select committee; she voted in favour of the matter as the record shows there was a unanimous vote. I am not sure but perhaps the member was doing her hair at the time; certainly there was a unanimous vote by all the members paying attention in the committee. That second significant area of change that was recommended by the select committee relates to “activity in the community”. The previous speaker of course revealed her total ignorance of the change in the bill because she could not even pronounce the phrase “activity in the community”. It is a pity she could not do so because it is defined for her in clause 4. 
What is the change in respect of “activity in the community”? Let me make it very clear that “activity in the community” is a unique programme. It is a discrete programme. It is a label rather than a generic description. The programme is provided under contract to the Ministry of Social Development. “Activity in the community” is not as some people think and as demonstrated by the last speaker—if only she would think we would be far better off but assuming she does think she demonstrates the misunderstanding—participation in any community-based activity or voluntary work. It is not participation in any activity or voluntary work. Although the “activity in the community” option will no longer be available for people on the unemployment benefit it will become available for people on other benefits. Work experience and training programmes will still be available to people on the unemployment benefit. 
The changes voted for by Ms Collins and the National Party and brought forward by this Government make clear that people cannot be required to participate in “activity in the community”. If it is included in a person’s plan that person cannot be sanctioned for not participating in that particular activity. Of course the logic to that is quite clear because “activity in the community” is not related to work; it is for those beneficiaries who are unable to work. 
The question has been asked—and I have just tried to answer it—as to why the “activity in the community” option would not be available for people on the independent youth benefit. Well as I have just explained there is a very good reason for this as well. It is not appropriate to tie young people for up to 26 weeks into such a programme when they could be better off engaged in education and training opportunities or actively seeking work. I ask members to tell me what is wrong with that. What is wrong with having our young people actively seeking work? What is more there is work for them for the first time in many many years. 
The bill is not just about planning and activities although that is a major part of the bill. As well as planning and activities this bill introduces a number of other changes that are designed to make access to assistance easier and to modernise some of the provisions so that they reflect the reality of today’s society—of New Zealand in 2007 of New Zealand with a near full employment rate. I will give some examples of what the bill proposes to do. I have time to give only some examples; I could spend the rest of the evening outlining the broad ones but I will concentrate on just a few. 
The bill reduces the maximum stand-down time from 10 weeks down to 2 weeks. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It rationalises the period of residency to 2 years for all benefits. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It removes the qualifying child criterion for the domestic purposes benefit and widows benefit. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It extends the definition of hospital care to include residential care of other kinds. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins did. It introduces a correction power so that a benefit can commence earlier than the date of application if the application was not made because of an error on the part of the ministry. Who could complain about that? Judith Collins can. It inserts new purpose and principle provisions in the Act and these purpose and principle provisions are fundamental in a day when we have near full employment and such a stable economy that people are investing in manufacturing and productive industries and people are being encouraged to boost the manufacturing sector. 
I have just outlined some of the benefits this bill introduces. The Working New Zealand programme reiterates as a key principle the long-held Labour view that people who for whatever reason are unable to work will be supported whilst assistance will be provided to those people who are able to work. This is the central thesis of the bill which was unanimously supported in the select committee according to the vote. I must say that the Green Party having supported it then expressed a reservation—and it is the only party on record as doing so. 
I repeat this fundamental thesis which is the key to Work and Income and social security benefits in the year 2007: those who are able to work will get assistance to work; those who are able to work will be helped into employment by planning and other forms of assistance; the ability to work will be determined not by the benefit received but by the situation of the individual; and those who are unable to work because of either illness or disability will not be required to go on to the work focus programmes. They will look at other options that are voluntary such as “activity in the community” which will add to their wellness and to their sense of person and sense of belonging in the community. But because that is without sanction it is there merely to aid their contribution as worthwhile human beings. So the key thesis of this bill—and the reason why it was supported I suspect by the National Party in the select committee—is that the bill for the first time in New Zealand determines that people will receive support to get into the workplace according to not the benefit they receive but their individual personal circumstances. 
This is a major bill. It is a bill that has been very well drafted. Many many submissions were heard. The committee was aided by very good advisers who deleted from the draft bill some of the clauses that needed further consideration. But those clauses that are clear have come forward in the bill that is now before the House for this reading. 
The philosophy of New Zealanders is that those who can work should work. There is absolutely no reason why anybody in this country in 2007 who is capable of working should be excluded from the workforce or be left out and this bill makes sure that nobody is left out. If people need assistance to become work capable even though they are able to work they will get that assistance but again the dividing line is not benefit-related. Those few individuals whose personal circumstances are such through tragedy disability and illness that they cannot reasonably undertake work will be under no pressure to do so. But community-based activities such as “activity in the community” will be available to them so that they have a sense of belonging because there is an old saying that before we receive we must first give. Every New Zealander appreciates the importance of that saying. So those who cannot because of their circumstances work—whether it be through ill health a disability or the like—can still contribute in a meaningful way through this bill but it is without sanction. It is without sanction. If the effort to contribute does not work out as those people had hoped then that disappointment does not attract official sanction. 
That is the exciting aspect of this bill. It is not a bill that isolates one based on the benefit one receives; it is a bill that defines help by one’s ability to contribute. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security Amendment Bill. The claim that this bill is the biggest reform to the welfare system in 50 years is ridiculous. I would assume that going to work and receiving the benefits that one receives from working such as high self-esteem confidence and a feeling of belonging outweighs the benefits of sitting at home. A “work first” focus is imperative if we want to allow all the people in New Zealand to have a high standard of living and a high quality of life. The main aim of this bill is to move towards a work-focused system instead of the benefit-first system that exists currently. Unfortunately the aims of the bill—which I will outline—are just not inspirational enough to free people from the welfare trap. 
The first aim is the new pre-benefit activity requirement on applicants for the unemployment benefit and the change in the requirements put on people who are work tested. At present the work-test requirements do not apply to a person applying for the unemployment benefit until after the benefit commences. The introduction of a pre-benefit requirement to undertake a work-related activity if directed to do so by the chief executive will apparently strengthen the job search service. It will mean that Work and Income will be able to direct a person to a work-related activity immediately. 
The ability to work with people and to direct them to a specific activity right from the first contact with them could result in them finding work quickly—maybe—and would remove the need for them to go on to a benefit. However because this pre-benefit requirement will happen only when requested it means that applicants will not actually have to seek work first. They will still go to Work and Income first to find employment and will still have the mentality that they are not personally responsible for finding appropriate work for themselves. 
The second aim is that there will be the introduction of planning and activity requirements for sickness benefits and invalids benefits. People who are work tested will continue to make themselves available for will actively seek and will take up offers of suitable employment and they may be required to develop a job seeker agreement and to undertake activities in the plan by agreement. In addition to this they may in the future be required to undertake planning for employment; undertake if required a specific activity or programme included in the job seeker agreement; and undertake if required activities including rehabilitation—but not medical treatment—to improve their work readiness and prospects of obtaining employment. 
The new activity requirements address limitations in the current provisions. Work and Income may be able to require people to undertake a specific job seeker development activity in their job seeker agreement that could address a barrier to employment—for example poor literacy skills or poor numeracy skills. This is great but the question must be asked: how did these people fail in the education system originally to the extent that their literacy and numeracy skills were so bad that they could not meet even the basic work requirements to begin with? Is it really the role of Work and Income to re-educate the people who are failing in our education system so badly? 
The new requirement will also allow people to be assisted to find work in cases where a person does not have an agreement in place introducing a planning and activity requirement for sickness and invalids beneficiaries. Those beneficiaries who are not work tested will still go through the process of planning and activity requirements even though there is no expectation for them to enter the workforce. 
The Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope has admitted that 1 in 5 potential sickness or invalids beneficiaries who have been signed up by a doctor are actually fit for work. Is it not a contradiction that beneficiaries who are fit for work fall into the sickness and invalids category? As Barbara Stewart mentioned during the first reading debate on this bill one must wonder whether the number of sickness beneficiaries increased and the number of unemployed dropped in part as a result of decreased personal expectations the stress that is caused from not being employed and the lack of social interaction. Therefore being unemployed is actually making them sick. 
The third aim of this legislation is the introduction of an activity requirement education training or employment for young people receiving an independent youth benefit instead of the work test. Recipients will be required to participate in agreed and approved activities for 30 to 40 hours per week be available for and be seeking full-time employment or be unable to do the two mentioned as a result of sickness injury disability or pregnancy. Recipients may be required to participate in at least one developmental training or educational activity for a minimum of 3 hours per week. 
Young people who fail to met their requirements will have the work test sanctions applied unless the activity in the work programme is a community group – based activity in which case these sanctions cannot be imposed. A community group activity cannot be enforced in their programme. This is a major flaw in the aim as community activities have not been made mandatory. 
Let me give members an example. In a small rural town a beneficiary may wish to pursue social work as a career path and the only provider in that town is a church. The applicant in his or her job-seeking agreement writes this down as the aspiration and the career he or she chooses. This is the only activity on the agreement as this is the only provider. That person does not actually have to perform this activity as it is provided by a community group. Therefore there are no implications at all for not fulfilling the activities on the plans. So why would people go and do that work if they actually do not have to and it cannot be enforced? 
The level of benefits and provisions is complicated and complex. Once again the single core benefit has been delayed. It is now almost 20 years since the idea was first mooted. Why cannot the Government come clean and just admit that it is not going to happen instead of wasting time and more taxpayers’ money on searching for and developing a redundant model that still just does not work? 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the second reading of the Social Security Amendment Bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the employment of New Zealanders is a priority. The failure to ensure that the potential workforce is employable not only limits the labour market capacity but also imposes a huge cost on all New Zealanders while indirectly contributing to the level of crime and substance abuse and adding generally to the demands on our health system which we know is already stretched. It is also important that people get and retain a sense of worth and self-esteem through making a role for themselves in society—and they can do this. We believe that people should move from dependence on the State to a state of independence if they can possibly work but we are very aware that some people in the community just cannot do so. 
The welfare system that we operate here in New Zealand is actually a safety net that gives people a helping hand when they need it most. But it should never ever be a lifestyle choice for those people who can work. Some people work in the community or in a pre-employment programme which is always better than sitting at home and being isolated from the rest of society. 
We would like to signal that we had some areas of concern about removing from the sanctions provisions the requirement for beneficiaries to undertake activity in the community. So we followed that up and we were told by the Minister that this applied to sickness and invalids beneficiaries and that unemployment beneficiaries would be involved in training for work or some other pre-employment activities. We were in the main satisfied by that—it is really hard to argue against. We do not want to see people turn down a job because they feel obliged to turn up to a training programme of up to 26 weeks. Also we do not want to see the training programmes jeopardised for the people who remain due to a total lack of participants. 
New Zealand First is firmly committed to the concept of mutual obligations. When a person is unable to get paid employment the State will pay that person on the understanding that he or she make some contribution back to the community. This can be interpreted as a training or pre-employment programme. We believe that this requirement assists many people many of whom have completed quite a number of courses to find employment. Work experience is a very valuable training ground for employment. I understand from the Minister that the change in the requirements for “work” in the community is aimed principally at sickness and invalids beneficiaries. 
 A number of activities are already aimed at the unemployed—mainly training programmes and work experience. The mere discipline of having to attend a programme or to work on a daily basis and to reorganise one’s life to accommodate that and the need to focus on one task for 6 to 8 hours to work as part of a team to follow rules and to have a supervisor who is not in one’s home are all part of work preparation and are valuable skills for everyone to learn or for some people to relearn. When one looks at the number of employers who are already teaching young people these skills—and I can list a few: the local councils supermarkets fast-food outlets gas stations and factories—one can see that the list just goes on and on. One must applaud the effort that all of those employers put into these young people. It cannot be easy; we all know that. It raises the question of why a person if he or she is on a sickness or an invalids benefit is totally exempt from having to learn these skills to plan for employment at some time in the future. 
We have all said in this House and we have heard many times from both sides of the House—particularly from National—that the largest number of people on benefits are those on the invalids benefit or the sickness benefit. The bottom line is that one actually needs skills to be employed in the workforce. To clarify this area I say that I was pleased to see what the United Future member had proposed in her minority report attached to the bill: placing clear and concise guidelines around activities in the community for unemployed and sickness beneficiaries so that sanctions cannot be imposed for unreasonable expectations. 
We do not want to see beneficiaries having unfair advantage taken of them. But we do want to see that the right services and support are in place for people so that their opportunities for work are increased. People need to be assisted so that they can develop work skills and some will need to be supported and assisted towards finding and keeping a job. We all know that working adults are the basis of any successful society and we do not want the numbers of people on either the sickness or the invalids benefits to increase any further. All of the research shows us that families thrive when they are not dependent on a benefit. We need people to be in work and we need people to want to work. 
The difference in people when they are working is absolutely amazing. Last Christmas my son was fortunate enough to be employed as a trolley assistant at a local supermarket. Initially it was for just the school holidays. He had to learn some work skills: making sure he was there on time getting into the uniform and actually working and focusing on a task for 8 hours. Of course as with any student he found it totally challenging. He is 16 and it has been really great to see the change in that particular lad. He is now keen to go to work on a Sunday. He could not actually give up the job at the end of the school holidays because he enjoys being part of a team and being respected and acknowledged as part of that team. Of course he had to make lifestyle changes so that he could give his best. There are lots of young people like that who want only to have a chance and to make the best of it. 
The bottom line is that work matters. That is what should be happening. The emphasis in this bill is on getting the right services and support in place for people so that their opportunities for work are increased. We would blame any Government if that were not one of its policies. 
We like many aspects of the bill which were listed by Russell Fairbrother earlier. We were very pleased too to see the changes in the services offered to the 16 and 17-year-olds on the independent youth benefit. Those changes need to be carried through. It is far more preferable for young people to be engaged in education and training so that they can hold down sustainable employment than for them to be receiving a benefit at this particular point in their life. 
 We know that young people today face a far more challenging environment than any of us did in the past. So any initiatives to ensure that young people can be engaged in activities that will further their opportunities to hold down a job are absolutely welcomed. We know that young people cannot be inactive for long periods of time. We are all aware of the negative outcomes that eventuate from this: mental ill health substance abuse and criminal activity—all of those things that we do not want our young people to be involved in. Success in employment education and training is by far the most important way out of poverty for young people. We are particularly pleased to see the services that have been offered to those on the sickness and invalids benefits. We believe that those services are important for everyone in the community. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe that the changes it makes are positive for young people. We want all people to work so New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As I stated in the first reading debate on the Social Security Amendment Bill the Green Party will not be supporting the passing of this legislation despite some of its useful elements. Unfortunately the potentially negative impacts of this bill outweigh the good things the Government is seeking to do. However to be fair to the Government I will briefly outline the changes the Green Party does see as beneficial and welcome. They include the reduction of the maximum stand-down period to 2 weeks the development of consistent residential qualifications across the benefit system allowing people who care for children who are not their own to qualify for the domestic purposes benefit aligning the ending of benefits for sole parents who cease caring for dependent children and extending the exemption from a stand-down to all benefit types for people who enter refuges after a relationship breakdown. 
I also acknowledge several major changes the Government made to the bill during the select committee process as a result of the many submissions that criticised or downright opposed the bill. The first of those was around the application process for benefits. Many submitters as well as the Green Party interpreted the bill as originally drafted as overturning the Scoble and Taylor decisions and requiring all benefit applications to be in writing and to be for a specific benefit. There appeared to be no provision to backdate entitlements except with the specific approval of the Minister and then only when the ministry acknowledged it had made a mistake. We were concerned that under the bill as originally drafted the onus would be on benefit applicants to work out which benefit they should be on and what they may be entitled to rather than on the department doing that. During the Social Services Committee’s consideration of the bill the committee agreed to amend the bill in order to make it clear that the Scoble principle will still apply and that an application for a particular benefit will be taken as an application for any benefit once the department has worked out the appropriate entitlement. The bill has also been amended to provide for retrospective substitution of the correct benefit. 
The second major change that came about through the select committee process was in the area of “activity in the community”. Under the bill as originally drafted a number of submitters felt that beneficiaries including invalids and sickness beneficiaries would potentially be required to undertake so-called activity in the community as a requirement of their job seeker agreements or personal development and employment plans. If they did not do the unpaid work required they would then be potentially subject to sanctions—in effect a form of forced work for the dole. The bill has now been changed to clarify that the definition of approved activity in job seeker agreements does not include “activity in the community” and that this element is excluded from pre-benefit activities. A new subsection has also been added to make it clear that a non- work-tested beneficiary cannot be required against his or her will to include “activity in the community” in his or her personal development and employment plan and that if it is included the person cannot be sanctioned if he or she fails to carry it out. I am relieved that the Government has seen fit to make it plain that it does not after all support the back-door introduction of a form of work for the dole and I welcome this change of heart on its part. 
However as the Green Party has pointed out in its minority report contained in the select committee commentary on the bill we continue to oppose this bill above all because of the major shift it represents towards a “work first” approach underpinning our whole social security system. As many submitters pointed out there is a total absence within the purposes and principles statement in the bill of any role for the welfare system that is not focused on paid work. Work is seen as the ultimate goal no matter what the conditions or pay and no recognition is given to the value of the unpaid work that many beneficiaries undertake—caring for children the elderly or people with impairments—or to the valuable voluntary contribution many beneficiaries make in their communities. The purposes and principles clauses reinforce the unfortunate attitude that people in the benefit system are somehow less worthy of dignity and respect than anyone else that they are not fully realised and recognised members of our community and that they will become so only if they join the paid workforce. The fact that many beneficiaries also happen to be people with long-term illness injury or impairment only intensifies the opprobrium with which some able-bodied and employed members of the community view people who are not only in the benefit system but also living with illness or major impairments. 
During the Committee stage of this bill I will be moving an amendment that contains new purpose and principle clauses. My Supplementary Order Paper will propose to get rid of the existing drafting and to substitute wording based on a mix of the Treaty of Waitangi the long title of the Social Security Act 1938 the recommendations of the 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand and the 1988 Royal Commission on Social Policy and the principles set out in section 6 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 that the welfare and interests of children and young people should be paramount. I also propose that the provision of full and correct entitlements to people applying for benefits should be included in the principles section and that although looking for sustainable and suitable work should be a priority activity for unemployed people the focus for other people like those on sickness and invalids benefits and the domestic purposes benefit should be worked out in consultation with them taking into account their individual circumstances. 
The second amendment I would like to see made to the bill is in the area of pre-benefit activities. At the moment the bill provides that the Ministry of Social Development can either orally or in writing require a beneficiary to undertake a pre-benefit activity and that if that beneficiary fails to do so he or she will fail to receive any benefit. The problem with that is the potential for misunderstandings regarding the precise nature of the activity that is required and consequently for people to lose out on the money they need in order to survive at even the most basic level. I am therefore proposing that requirements must be given in writing and that any decisions must be subject to review and appeal rights. I have also been concerned that the pre-benefit activity clauses in the bill will in some cases result in unnecessary administrative delays before someone actually receives the benefit he or she is entitled to. My amendment is designed to ensure that claims for the unemployment benefit are investigated as quickly as possible and not held up as part of the bureaucracy of the pre-benefit activity process. 
The third amendment I am putting forward deals with an anomaly in how blind people and deaf people are treated in terms of their ability to travel overseas for the purpose of receiving vocational training or guide dog training. The Ministry of Social Development has the discretion to pay an invalids benefit to a blind person for up to 2 years for those purposes but similar training for those who are deaf is limited to a period of 28 days. I am suggesting that Parliament rectify that anomaly by extending the provisions of the Act so that people who are profoundly deaf are allowed to be away for up to 2 years as well. I can ascertain no reason why that historical incongruity should continue and I hope members from across the House may find themselves able to support the amendment. 
The fourth amendment I will be putting forward is in the area of the definition of income. It is aimed at ensuring that if the definitions of income and deprivation of income are at any stage amended such changes should be undertaken through Parliament by an amending bill rather than by an Order in Council. We will of course have time to debate those amendments and other details of the bill in more depth during its Committee stage next week. 
I would like to finish by saying once again what I have said many times before: that it is a great pity we are once again tinkering with the administrative detail of the benefits system rather than producing a whole new Social Security Act designed for the 21st century and geared towards making our insanely complex system much simpler both to understand and to administer. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.