Volume 640 Week 50 - Wednesday 25 July 2007 
Volume 640 Week 50 - Wednesday 25 July 2007 
[Volume:640;Page:10675] 
Wednesday 25 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Justice and Electoral Committee to be authorised to meet in Australia and with committees of the Parliament of Victoria from 6-10 August 2007 and to adopt such practices and procedures as are considered suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Public Service—Political Neutrality 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that one of the aims of her Government is “to restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament”; if so does she believe that guarding the political neutrality of the public service is an important part of achieving of that aim? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and yes. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister believe in the neutrality of the public service; if so what is she actually doing to protect that neutrality? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am upholding the status and position of the State Services Commissioner his deputy and the Ministry for the Environment chief executive unlike Gerry Brownlee who when asked a direct question this morning refused to guarantee their jobs in the unlikely event he will ever have any influence over that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why she made her initial statement about restoring public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There were quite a few reasons why I would have made that statement. For example the Department of Work and Income when under the leadership of Christine Rankin—now a prominent member of the National Party—wanted all of the public servants in that department to be declaring what their political affiliations were. Then there was also the example of Bill English saying that he openly meddled in the affairs of Crown health enterprises. I had Mr Nick Smith on the public record as trying to sack his chief executive which was not his prerogative as a former Minister and finally I think it worth mentioning in this context Murray McCully’s constant meddling in the affairs of the Tourism Board. 
John Key 
: Why did a State Services Commission memo released yesterday propose that a formal register of political conflicts for public servants be set up for the Ministry for the Environment and what purpose does the Prime Minister think that register would serve? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is entirely a matter for the State Services Commission to discuss with the Ministry for the Environment. But surely the National Party is not saying there was no potential for a conflict of interest in this issue. It had to be managed. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the public and the business sector would have more confidence in the political integrity of Parliament if she were to convene a round table of parties to agree on a common approach to climate change policy that would endure beyond changes of Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It would be nice if there could be greater agreement on the best way to deal with these issues. I am afraid to say that although the Green Party has been very prepared to come and discuss such issues in an open frank way and look for constructive solutions our experience with the National Party has been for it to say out of one side of its mouth that it would like to do that and then to constantly attack the Government out of the other side. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Has she seen any other reports of chief executives’ positions being under threat for political reasons? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed I have. During the National Party’s caucus in Gisborne earlier this year and following a media stand-up conference the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key indicated that Barry Matthews chief executive of corrections faced the sack under a National Government. He is the great advocate of the neutrality of the Public Service. 
John Key 
: Why on earth would the ministry be required to collect the information that will now be required under this potential register of conflicts for public servants if it is not intended to be used as a way of purging those who do not share the ideological values of the Labour Party? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is of course complete nonsense and the State Services Commission would not propose any such thing. 
John Key 
: What evidence does the Prime Minister have to support the view that such a witch-hunt as would no doubt result from that register is required not only of potential employees to the Public Service but also of those who are existing workers in the State Service? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is the duty of the State Services Commission and of chief executives to manage conflicts of interest. Those are employment matters and I am not getting involved in them unlike National in the past. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not ask the Prime Minister that question. I asked her what evidence she had to support the view that a register was required and she did not give an answer on that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: She did address the question however in her reply. I did listen carefully to it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If she is trying to restore public confidence in the integrity of Parliament why has her Government failed to put any limits on anonymous donations to political parties so that the public could find out who is funding them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is of course a requirement for disclosure in the Electoral Finance Bill of amounts over the level of $10000 but it is quite clear that the absolute banning of anonymous donations would have to be accompanied by more public funding because otherwise there are political parties I would suggest across the spectrum that would simply be unable to raise money. Until there can be a more mature debate on that issue out of the inquiry into it that the Minister has announced that matter cannot be progressed. I think what the member needs to put emphasis on is the proposal in the bill that applies what was previously the 3-month limit for spending across the whole year. That of course would greatly circumscribe the activities of the hollow men who sit opposite me. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the creation of a register of potential conflicts of interest will assist in ensuring that the public sector can draw from people all across the community who may be able to add value to it through their skills not through the association of their siblings or their partners with political interests; and secondly does the Prime Minister really think that if that register was in place many of the fine political pairings that are operational in the public sector would in fact be in place today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member should note that I most specifically have not endorsed the proposal. I have said it is a matter for the State Services Commission to work through with the Ministry for the Environment. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that New Zealanders’ confidence in Parliament would be enhanced if we were to pass legislation stipulating that key strategic monopoly assets such as airports remain in majority New Zealand control; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I cannot quite see the relationship between the two parts of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was a long bow I must admit. But I did let it go— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday in Parliament when we were discussing the airport issue the Rt Hon Winston Peters was given an extremely long bow and was able to ask questions—indeed of the Minister of Finance rather than the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues—on a huge variety of issues. I would have thought this question was relevant. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes but the member will recall I am sure that I did actually point out that matter to the Rt Hon Winston Peters just as I have done to you. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister backing away from the proposal to set up a formal register that would see existing State Service employees purged because she knows first that that would go to the core of the neutrality of the Public Service; second that her union mates in the Public Service Association would not be happy about it; and third that many of the people who are currently working in the State sector would not actually have a job? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: One cannot back away from something that one has not endorsed. I believe that the biggest threat to the public sector right now is John Key’s threats about how many people should be sacked which is a good reason why he will never be elected. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting some of those answers does the Prime Minister agree that perhaps the best way of guarding the political neutrality of the Public Service is to ensure that potentially compromising situations do not occur and that therefore perhaps checking thoroughly into people’s personal backgrounds before they are appointed particularly to senior positions will best achieve that outcome—does she agree with that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My view is that the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
 and all the protocols and conventions that operate around that should be upheld by chief executives and the State Services Commission. 
Pipfruit Industry—Global Competitveness 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to support the global competitiveness of the pipfruit industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government is supporting a groundbreaking new pipfruit project spanning Hawke’s Bay Nelson and Otago—three key marginal seats I might note—aimed at growing export fruit that has no detectable pesticide residues. This is an initiative that supports sustainability and economic transformation. Consumers around the world are demanding that fruit has no chemical residues and New Zealand can take advantage of this by being a world leader in exporting sustainable produce. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What investment is the Government making in this initiative and what returns are expected? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government will contribute $2 million towards this joint initiative with the pipfruit industry. The project is expected to halt the decline in the industry’s exports and lead to a $152 million increase to the value of exports after 5 years. 
Chris Tremain 
: Is this morning’s announcement really just false platitudes when the real issues facing apple growers are high interest rates a high exchange rate and lack of market access to Australia? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure whether the current representative of the Hawke’s Bay is saying that we should not put the support in and move the pipfruit industry into the modern world. But if the member had been properly representing his constituents on top of the issues he would have heard a very good speech from my colleague the Minister of Trade who addressed those very issues there this morning. 
Environment Ministry—Communications Manager 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How many phone calls occurred between his political advisor Steve Hurring and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment regarding the employment of Madeleine Setchell as communications manager for the ministry and on what dates did those calls occur? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Obviously my adviser has regular phone conversations with the chief executive on a variety of matters. I am advised regarding this particular issue that there was one call initiated by my adviser on 28 May seeking verification of a rumour. The chief executive was not able to verify the rumour immediately. I am advised that the chief executive initiated two or three subsequent calls that day to my adviser to report on progress in verifying the rumour. I am also advised that there was one further call on 29 May in which the chief executive confirmed that the process at the ministry had led to this possible conflict of interest not being properly identified. In that respect there was no blame on the part of Ms Setchell. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister had the facts about Ms Setchell’s employment confirmed on 28 May as he said in the House yesterday why does the State Services Commission report which he relies on so heavily state that it was Mr Logan who informed the Minister after he had made his inquiries and does that not call into question just where the truth lies—with what the Minister told the House yesterday and again today or with the State Services Commission report? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No; there is no contradiction between what I told the House yesterday and what is in Mr Rennie’s report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House yesterday that he did not discuss the issue with Mr Hurring even though he had had the rumour confirmed by Mr Hurring a month before Madeleine Setchell’s actual departure and does he now expect this House to believe that he took no interest had no discussions and did not talk about this matter with his close political adviser—or advise Mr Logan—even though he considered this a serious conflict of interest? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Matters of conflict of interest are not for me to decide and there was in fact nothing to discuss because I had been informed that Mr Logan was dealing with this issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did Mr Logan ever ask the Minister for his opinion on the appointment of Madeleine Setchell given the Minister’s knowledge of her connections which she had disclosed during the interview process and were known to one of Mr Logan’s senior managers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Mr Rennie and Mr Logan are quite clear on that matter in the report which I will read: “Mr Logan is clear that he made the decision independently and that the Minister was not involved in that decision.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was not related to my question. My question was whether the Minister’s opinion was asked and whether he was party to discussions. The report is well known—it is out in the public arena. It is a relatively sanitised version of what must have been quite a range of discussions. We are simply asking whether the Minister’s view on this matter was sought by the State Services Commission when it was doing its report or whether it was sought by Mr Logan when he was making his decision. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister addressed the question but if he wishes to add anything more I would invite him to do so. He does not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: On how many occasions between 28 May when the Minister first became aware of Ms Setchell’s appointment and 3 July when Ms Setchell was asked to depart the office did the Minister have discussions with Mr Logan? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not have that information in front of me but it can be easily obtained. Discussions would have been in the course of the normal departmental meetings with the ministry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the Minister at any time during any of those discussions with Mr Logan say to either him or his staff: “I do not want that woman in my office.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share my worrying concern that this crusade National is on on behalf of Madeleine Setchell has the potential if not to destroy then certainly to limit her career in the public service? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am hesitating because I am looking for the ministerial responsibility there. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think this matter has been professionally and properly handled by the State Services Commission and by Mr Logan. It is not the Government that has put this woman’s name into the public domain. 
Tertiary Institutions—Dual-purpose Category 
4.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Is there a need within the tertiary institutional framework for a category of a dual-purpose institution which would simultaneously have the characteristics of a polytechnic and a university and which focuses upon applied research? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The issue is one worthy of serious consideration. I therefore look forward to the member’s bill proceeding to the select committee to enable that to happen. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom Leitch report on increasing national productivity found that the greatest productivity gains were to be made by increased participation in levels 4 to 7 certificate and diploma and trade and vocational programmes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Leitch report did state that when considering how to increase productivity gains that level of certificate and other activity was most important. But the report itself did not refer to any structural change to the tertiary system and the UK does not have a university of technology category. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that under current legislation if a non-university degree-conferring tertiary institution wishes to gain parity of esteem with universities for its graduate and post-graduate qualifications it is forced to reduce the proportion of sub-degree programmes which explains perhaps the unsatisfactory dearth of trade and vocational training courses from the North Shore to Wellsford? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that is a very good point. I think that what we should hope to achieve through the tertiary reform process is greater identification of the expertise and specific characteristics of institutions so that they can achieve excellence within those boundaries rather than our trying to pretend they are all like universities in order for them to be regarded as providing excellence. I think that is one of the things that has gone wrong with the tertiary education system in the last 20 years. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but the chief executive understands that he is responsible for continuing to make improvements with clear lines of accountability across the whole department. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the untested collaborative working arrangements adopted by his department the indicative or target costs of the new regional prisons were not agreed to until after construction began which was 17 months later in the case of the Otago Region Corrections Facility 20 months for the Spring Hill Corrections Facility and not until 3 years after earthworks started at the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not familiar with all the details around the collaborative working arrangements. I know that mistakes were made in the set-up of those arrangements. However investigations into those projects clearly identify that without the collaborative working arrangements they would not have been completed on time and it was concluded they were done in a manner of integrity and full accountability. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm the contents of a letter from Audit New Zealand to Barry Matthews dated 31 August 2006 that revealed that his department handed over $471 million of taxpayers’ money or over 60 percent of the total spend on the new prisons before those target costs were even agreed to? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not familiar with that particular letter. But the whole process of collaborative working arrangements in regard to two projects with the Regional Prisons Development Project had been thoroughly investigated. Although it was acknowledged that the costs were far greater than originally predicted in fact the target number of prison cells built was far greater than that originally laid down. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister understand the statement made in the State Services Commission investigation into cost overruns in prison construction which says that until the indicative costs are agreed the contractors are “effectively reimbursed according to cost.” and that the Government does not have a final assurance that the estimated costs represent an “efficient level of costs.”; if so can he now give the taxpayers of New Zealand an assurance that they were not gouged for $471 million? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That member makes outrageous allegations as he has in this House time and time again. That whole construction project worth over $1.2 billion in total construction across the corrections system has been thoroughly investigated by Audit New Zealand and although the costs are more than we would have liked there are no major concerns with expenditure in that area. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by his previous statements that the use of collaborative working arrangements for building prisons is “the best way forward” and is “appropriate for the nature and scale of the project”; if so why did his department inform the select committee that in the case of any potential redevelopment of Mount Eden Prison a decision has been made not to use collaborative working arrangements? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do stand by my statements and reports into the projects and collaborative working arrangements deemed those to have been appropriate at the time. We have learnt things from that process and we have decided that we will not proceed on the same basis as we move forward with work at Mount Eden Prison. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that: “Without the collaborative working arrangement management system it was unlikely these projects would have been completed on time.”—and he has reiterated today in the House that they have been and will be completed on time and that this is a major achievement—if so how does he reconcile this with the fact that the Otago prison was supposed to be opened in 2006 rather than 2007? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Those projects—and Spring Hill Corrections Facility is yet to open—have been completed on time as projected. The over 2000 prison cells that have been built at a cost of over $1.2 billion will serve this country well. We did not like spending that money but we had to because the previous Government had ignored the needs of the Department of Corrections. 
Simon Power 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Audit New Zealand to Barry Matthews dated 31 August 2006— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—High Court Decision 
6.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: He aha tona whakautu ki tetahi tono o na noa nei mo te Ture Takutai Moana ara i takarepa te hatepe mo te whakaae a Te Kooti Matua kia tono te Maori meina kei a ratau te mana i aukatia i raro i tetahi hanganga ture na te Pirimia i whakahau i te wa e rangirua ana ona whakaaro? 
[ 
What response does he have to the recent claim regarding the Foreshore and Seabed Act “that the process that saw a High Court decision to allow Maori to legally test their claims to ownership blocked by legislation promoted by a rattled Prime Minister was flawed”? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 My response is that the quotation comes from a  
Dominion Post  
editorial that largely attacked Mr Key for not supporting the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I take it that the  
Dominion Post 
 having for once had a long swipe at the National Party in an editorial felt the need to have one short one at the Labour Party as well to even up the balance. 
Tariana Turia 
: Do you recall your speech of 12 October 2005 the Michael King Memorial Lecture which referred to the Court of Appeal’s finding that Maori claims to customary rights were a matter still to be tested case by case in the courts a finding about which you said: “In arriving at this conclusion I am sure the Court of Appeal was correct.”; do you still agree with that statement; if not why not? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen I remind members that when they address members they must not include the Speaker in questions or answers please. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes those were carefully considered comments and indeed the processes for exploring those customary rights are at present under way in a number of instances. 
Pita Paraone 
: Ka whakaae te Minita na te whakaritenga o Te Kooti Pira i whakaharahara te kore marama ko wai te rangatira o te Takutai Moana koina te take i whakaritenga te hanganga ture kia marama mai te take kia riro ki te Karauna mo ake tonu atu mo nga iwi katoa o Aotearoa kia watea taurangi ki te iwi whanui me koi na te taumata o nga tautoko mo aua hanganga ture te kore tautoko o tenei Whare mo te hanganga ture whakakorenga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Would he agree that the Court of Appeal decision highlighted the lack of clarity surrounding the ownership of the foreshore and seabed that legislation was required to clarify the issue and secure Crown ownership in perpetuity for all New Zealanders and guaranteed public access and that the level of public support for that legislation is clearly indicated by the lack of support in the House for the repeal legislation? 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think those are fair comments and it is worth reminding the House that at the time I told the House and the country that the ambition of the Government was to seek to change as little as possible with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Indeed if somebody looks at what is happening now in 2007 and at what was happening something over 3 years ago it would be hard to find what has changed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister had any reports that the National Party’s disgraceful U-turn on the Foreshore and Seabed Act where it now agrees with the confiscation of Maori land using blunt ill-conceived and prejudiced legislation is an identical position to the one taken by the Labour Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I would agree with the odd indefinite article in that question but probably with practically nothing else in it at all. 
Tariana Turia 
: What has changed is people’s rights to justice. Which tribes have actually agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and what reasons did they give for agreeing to it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is engaged in negotiations with three groups at the present time: Ngati Porou Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou ki Hauraki. I expect to be engaged in negotiations with a fourth group before too long. A number of other groups have lodged claims for specific customary rights before the Maori Land Court. As part of those negotiations I am not asking people to give away their assertion of unbroken mana connection with the foreshore and seabed and I hope we will be able to surprise the member at the outcome of those negotiations which will ensure there is fairness and justice for all. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question I asked the Minister was not who was in negotiations with the Government but in fact who had agreed with the Government’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and what reasons they gave for agreeing to it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question and as members know as the Standing Orders are at the moment they cannot require a specific answer to a question. All that Ministers are required to do is to address the question. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement in the 2006  
Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online 
 that it is difficult to imagine how creating a system to exploit the foreshore and seabed for monetary gain including increasing mining of the foreshore and seabed activity which is generally destructive of the environment and of ecosystems might contribute to a concept of protection; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will just say that social scientists are not always the best experts on legal or indeed mining matters. The Crown Minerals Act covers the issue of minerals exploration and in fact freehold title is not the most relevant consideration under that Act. The ability to proceed under the Ngati Apa decision would not have affected the Crown Minerals Act in that particular regard. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is not designed to allow for so-called monetary exploration. I have to say that the only people I am aware of who pushed that forward as the most important criterion were the group that came to see me after the Government announced its preliminary draft decisions on the matter who clearly wanted to operate some kind of ticket collection agency in relation to the foreshore and seabed. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement of last week regarding the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board: “Mr Hausmann’s potential conflict of interest was known at the time of his appointment and was recorded from the outset”; if so what was that potential conflict of interest? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I do. The potential conflict of interest was disclosed by Mr Hausmann on 17 May 2005—before Mr Hausmann’s appointment was considered by the Minister or by Cabinet. It was then released to the National Party just over 20 months ago. I have another copy of the details in case the member has lost the first one I gave him. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Did the Ministry of Health—[ 
Interruption 
] Actually he did not give it to me and he will be down to apologise for that a little later on after question time. Did the Ministry of Health or anyone else express any caution to Annette King on the appropriateness of her appointing to a district health board an individual who intended to bid for multimillion-dollar contracts of that same board; if so who? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will just repeat that all of the information—that is to say Mr Hausmann’s original conflict of interest declaration how he intended to manage it and what the Ministry of Health thought about his management of it—was released to the National Party on or about 22 November 2005. I am happy to give the information to the National Party afresh. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister seen a Ministry of Health report of 23 August 2005 where the ministry identified a “high level of risk” associated with Mr Hausmann’s position on the board during the bidding process and considered the options of Mr Hausmann taking leave of absence during the bidding process and the use of a probity adviser throughout the process—advice given 2 months after Mr Hausmann’s rushed appointment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Management of conflicts of interest is an important part of all district health board deliberations and it works as long as the board members themselves make clear to other members of the board what their potential conflict of interest is so that it can be managed. It so happens that in Cabinets including Cabinets yet to be formed Cabinet Ministers have to leave the room from time to time when an issue is raised. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister satisfied that conflicts of interest are always properly managed in the health system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I am afraid I am not. The system depends on the honesty of board members. There has been one recent somewhat infamous case where a board member was less than transparent in declaring and updating his conflict of interest. As a result a particularly large contract was struck down by the High Court. I am speaking of course of National Party member Dr Bierre. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the ministry advised of several risks to procedural fairness of having a bidder on the board of a district health board and does he think that if Annette King had not taken short cuts over this appointment she might have got that message much earlier on—or did she not want to hear it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member misses the point that most—if not most then many—district health board members around the country have a potential conflict of interest. It is not the conflict of interest that is at issue; it is its management. The management of a conflict of interest is ordinarily the purview of the respective district health board. The boards freely seek the advice of the ministry or of their legal advisers or indeed of board members of other boards. These are normal ways of managing conflicts of interest and that is what I suspect the member has stumbled across. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not answer the question of whether he has read that report of August 2005 and does he think that if Annette King had not fast tracked Mr Hausmann’s appointment the high level of risk of so much concern to his ministry 2 months later might have prevented the cancelling of a multimillion-dollar community services tender process? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In respect of the issue around the appointment of Mr Hausmann to the board I will say to the House—not for the first time—that Mr Hausmann’s appointment was— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Fast tracked. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was not fast tracked; it was managed in an ordinary manner. Similar appointments were managed in the same manner before and since and will be managed in the same manner in times to come. There was nothing extraordinary about Mr Hausmann’s appointment in terms of whether it was fast or slow. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It was rushed. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was not rushed. It crossed every detail that the Ministry of Health usually reserves for cases of this ilk. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the process was not rushed why did his spokeswoman tell the  
Herald on Sunday 
 that the guidelines were not followed and that the short cut was due to a desire to place Hausmann on the board before the pre-election period when a ban on board appointments applies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I refer the member to information that I have already given him. The Ministry of Health had four vacancies at that time. It decided to offer advice to its Minister to proceed with one and it said in respect of the other three that she should not proceed with those because it was starting to get too close to an election. An election was held from memory in September of that year. I contrast that if I may with the situation when the member who asked the question was himself briefly a Minister. On 10 September 1999 a mere few weeks before that election that member appointed to the position of chair of the Casino Control Authority—a well-paid position with no heavy lifting—Judith Collins the person who is currently his bench mate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the member who has shifted her seat to the front bench of the rule that one does not use that position in order to interject. The member has been here long enough to know that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health document of 23 August entitled  
Hawke’s Bay proposed partnering agreement for community health services 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Breastscreen Aotearoa—Programme Outcome 
8.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports on the success of the BreastScreen Aotearoa programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. This Labour-led Government almost doubled the number of women eligible for free breast-screening 3 years ago. In 2003 102000 women were screened. Last year 170000 women were screened. That is what we get when we invest in health rather than offering misleading promises of better health on the basis of a lower investment. 
Maryan Street 
: Why has BreastScreen Aotearoa resumed advertising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It has done so because the capacity of facilities to undertake breast screening is growing even faster than the uptake of the programme which is itself rising by more than 20 percent a year. This Labour-led Government has opened new facilities up and down the country and has a total of 11 mobile units now purchased and operating. We want women to make use of those services because screening saves lives. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What is the coverage rate for women aged 45 to 49 years who participate in BreastScreen Aotearoa and how does that figure compare with the coverage rate for Maori women in the same age group? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have answers to neither question at my fingertips; I apologise to the member. I can however say the free coverage rate for that age group was 3 years ago absolutely zero. We have now fixed that. 
Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill—Reason for Introduction 
9.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Why has he introduced an Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill when in 2002 the Hon Steve Maharey on the passage of the previous reforms said: “These reforms represent the culmination of the government’s promise to overhaul our tertiary education and training systems.” and what has changed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The tertiary reforms are built on those of 2002. The main changes recognise the importance of the funding model to drive greater quality and relevance and the simplification of planning procedures and documents. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does he agree with the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee that the Education Amendment (Tertiary Reforms) Bill as drafted “will result in an unwarranted loss of academic freedom and autonomy.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Universities have for at least 40 years in my personal experience been complaining that academic freedom is under threat and that they are losing autonomy. When they first started doing that 100 percent of their funding came from the Government. They were directly controlled they could not build a single building without permission from central government and without direct funding therefrom and they required a great degree of approval for courses from a university grants committee the academic subcommittee thereof. None of those things apply today and academic freedom will continue to be of concern for universities. A Government headed by an ex-academic seconded by an ex-academic and with another four persons who are ex-academics has an understanding of academic freedom. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on the wisdom of making changes to the legislative framework around training? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a speech calling for the kind of investment in industry training that has been taking place under this Government. I welcome the fact that Mr Key supports the Government in this respect as in so many others and now regrets the repeal of the Apprenticeship Act pursued by the previous National Government and the destruction of trade training that occurred in the 1990s. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What would be the harm in maintaining ministerial-approved charters for public tertiary institutions given that they have already been developed and that these institutions are all requesting that charters be retained as long-term vision statements and as a compact between themselves and the State? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well I have to note the irony that having complained about central government control institutions are now saying they need ministerial approval for a long-term vision statement. If institutions want a long-term vision statement they are certainly welcome to have one but they do not require my little tick and a grade of 8.5 out of 10 in order to do so. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is the Minister not demonstrating enormous arrogance given that the Vice-Chancellors Committee views his bill as a direct attack on academic freedom and university autonomy and that the bill would introduce “sweeping and unfettered bureaucratic control over university activities …”; if so what steps is he taking to allay their concerns? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In return for the Government funding universities receive there will be a requirement for an agreed 3-year plan of their basic objectives and broad priorities over that period of time. That is scarcely a massive interference in the autonomy of institutions. If the member ever seriously thought he would be the Minister for Tertiary Education then he would welcome such mechanisms being put in place given the wastage that has occurred on low-priority courses over the last 15 years. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is the Minister removing the centrepiece of Steve Maharey’s reforms—the charters—and replacing them with plans given that Mr Maharey stated: “Charters will bring tertiary education strategy alive.” or is he trying to kill off the tertiary sector just at the time Steve Maharey is about to enter it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have great difficulty understanding what the member is talking about. All we are talking about is that universities will be required to have a clear strategic direction and a sense of priorities consistent with their placement in the education system in order for them to receive funding from the Government. In other words the Government has some right to expect that what is done bears some broad relevance to New Zealand’s social and economic development. That is not an interference with academic freedom. If the member had ever been involved in a subjective subject such as history he would know that academic freedom is not about the freedom to teach whatever one likes for whatever cost; it is the freedom to express views about the areas that one is responsible for and to do so broadly within the community without facing the danger of being penalised as a consequence of doing that. Unfortunately in my experience too many academics these days do not express such views publicly enough. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What is the Minister’s response to the view of the New Zealand Vice–Chancellors Committee that “none of the world’s leading universities are subject to the degree of control proposed in this Bill.” and that “In no other Western democracy has a state sought this degree of control over a university’s teaching and research.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is an extraordinarily bold assertion given the nature of many of the European tertiary education systems where there is a very large level of central government involvement in the management of those systems. It is also true that no other system I am aware of has a pure “bums on seats” funding model where we do not care about what anybody does or about the quality of what they are doing as long as they enrol in something or other 101 and we pay $6473 in order to support those students. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: So people are all as stupid as that are they? What an arrogant view of your fellow— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is the basis of the current funding model which Dr Lockwood Smith—not the most modest member of Parliament—helped put in place. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two articles. The first is a submission from the University of Auckland where this bill is described as establishing “sweeping and unfettered bureaucratic control …”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: And the second— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table the second document from the New Zealand Vice–Chancellors Committee where it is stated that in no other Western democracy has the State sought this degree of control over universities. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Reserve Bank—Governor’s Performance 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he satisfied with the performance of Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; he has had continued support from the board of the Reserve Bank as well as from myself. He has provided much useful advice on monetary policy and has undertaken a major upgrade of the bank’s prudential supervisory role an often forgotten part of the bank’s functions. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister support 100 percent the independence of the Reserve Bank governor when it is more than likely he will hike interest rates come Thursday and therefore precipitate a recession heading into an election year in order to get the economy and inflation back under control? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I fully support the independence of the Reserve Bank governor. Unlike that member and any number of other members I do not predict what the governor is going to do or comment on what he has done after he has done it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question? Please be seated for a second. I am not sure whether this affects just me today but there is a tremendous amount of traffic around the Chamber. From my point of view that makes it very difficult to know who wishes to speak and at what time members wish to speak. I know there is business to conduct but I ask members to please take it outside the Chamber. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister prepared to look at constructive enhancements to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act such as those being promoted by New Zealand First which are designed to help the governor to do a more effective job? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure the member means to help. The question of course is whether those proposals would actually be any help. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister consider doing the one thing that could assist the New Zealand economy and New Zealanders to get through the next 12 months without a recession which is to cancel the forecast election-year spend-up with $2 billion-plus of unallocated spending which Treasury estimates to be a 1.7 percent fiscal stimulus; and will the Minister consider putting his own fiscal house in order to assist monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Let us first of all take the year just finished. In that year we have probably taken over $4 billion of demand out of the economy through the combination of both the cash surplus of over $2 billion and a contribution to the Superannuation Fund of over $2 billion. That is over $4 billion taken out of the economy soaking out demand. It is true that the forecast reduction of demand by Government action in the next year will not be as high as that but it was not forecast to be as high a year ago either. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why is Treasury forecasting such a big fiscal impulse then? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is still forecast to be positive. If Dr Lockwood Smith is now saying that National policy is to cut that $2 billion fiscal allowance out I invite him to explain how Vote Health will supply the same services with no increase in money despite increasing costs and despite increasing wages and salaries for doctors nurses and others; how schools are not going to charge very much more for fees for their students if they get no increase in their operating grants and teachers get no increase in their salaries; how it will be explained to superannuitants that they will not get any increase in New Zealand superannuation over that period; and how indeed all the elements of Government that depend upon high staffing levels such as the police corrections and many others are not going to cut their staff numbers because they have no money to pay for additional salaries. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister is satisfied as he has just said with the performance of Dr Bollard why has he continually undermined Dr Bollard through his fruitless talk of supplementary instruments and the possibility of unilaterally changing the policy targets agreement by using section 12 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and have his rather pointless musings not in fact made Dr Bollard’s job a bit harder? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is wonderful to have the chance to respond to that member. The supplementary stabilisation instruments were suggested by Dr Bollard. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the House to conclude that this Labour Government puts its election-year spend-up ahead of the medium and long-term success of the New Zealand economy; and that it will see productive New Zealanders driven to the wall because the Government itself will not put its own spending in order and reduce that fiscal stimulus to assist in monetary policy and indeed to help Dr Alan Bollard to do his job rather than have him do it all on the basis of interest rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Let me try to run through this again for the benefit of the member and indeed of many other members. The only reason the fiscal impulse looks large is that fiscal policy has been so contractionary over the last 2 to 3 years soaking out billions of dollars every year in demand from the economy. That is the sum of the money going into the cash surplus plus the money going into the Superannuation Fund which does not feed directly into demand. The only alternative I am aware of is that the members opposite are promising more money for almost every category of spending plus $2.5 billion a year of tax cuts and are saying that that is a tighter fiscal policy than the current policy. That is a triumph of ideology over reality. 
Apples—Australian Market Access 
11 
.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 on behalf of  
TIM GROSER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What progress if any has he made in the decades-long dispute to allow the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Phil Goff. I understand that you have an answer that is longer than normal but not too long. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 It is slightly longer with the leave of the House. New Zealand apples have been locked out of the Australian market now for 85 years. Over the last 9 months we have made some progress in having that ban lifted. In November the Australians published their final import risk analysis relating to apple imports from New Zealand and in March their final policy determination. These concede for the first time the possibility of Australia allowing apples from New Zealand to have access but they also continue restrictions that we regard as being scientifically unjustified. Without accepting those restrictions we have instructed Biosecurity New Zealand to negotiate with its Australian counterpart a work plan and a standard operating procedure to see what these conditions would mean in practice for access of our apples. We are awaiting the Australian response to the standard operating procedure; it now regrettably appears to be further delayed because of pressure from the Australian apple industry and political sensitivities within the Australian system in the lead-up to the election. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much longer does the Government need to reach the conclusion that raising this diplomatic issue with the phytosanitary committee is largely meaningless unless it is backed by a clear determination to proceed to a formal disputes settlement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Taking the matter to the World Health Organization (WTO) disputes procedure has always been a live option and I have to say that given the latest efforts by Australia to frustrate the finalisation of the standard operating procedures it becomes an even more likely outcome. 
Hon David Carter 
: Just do it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member can say “Just do it.” but actually this Government has worked very closely with the pipfruit industry and it was the view of the pipfruit industry—and it was shared by ourselves—that the better process to take was to finalise the procedures within the Australian system to see whether we can get meaningful access commercially. The member can shake his head but that is the view of his apple growers as represented in the pipfruit industry and the action group. We are working closely with that group. We have said at all times that there is the option of taking the Australians to the WTO. The downside to that is of course that it would take several years to get finalisation. We will continue to work in close consultation with the industry and make our decisions accordingly. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What consultation has the Minister had with the pipfruit industry regarding the question of apple access to Australia? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Over the last 9 months I think I—along with Jim Anderton as the Minister of Agriculture and Rick Barker as the Minister of Internal Affairs—have met with the pipfruit industry on three occasions in December in March and in May. Indeed yesterday we had a teleconference with the industry to bring it up to date with the latest moves within Australia. I think it is fair to say that the industry and the Government share the same analysis of the problem and share the same strategy in terms of addressing the problem. I look forward to continuing the very constructive and positive partnership we have with the industry. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What results did the previous administration have in its 9 years of Government—or any other administration in the last 80 years—in overcoming the issue of access of New Zealand apples to the Australian markets? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the answer is obvious: they got absolutely nowhere. But I do not want to make petty party politics like the Opposition is trying to do over this issue. I have indicated to Tim Groser my counterpart that I am happy to work closely with him and will do so. This is a case for a “New Zealand Inc.” approach. That is what the Government is doing with the industry itself and we are happy to do it with the Opposition provided that it puts politics to one side. 
Chris Tremain 
: When the Minister said in his speech this morning to the pipfruit industry: “I am confident that a case taken to the WTO would succeed.” did that mean that he after years of refusal now agrees with the National Party that the only way to resolve this issue is to immediately begin a disputes process against Australia at the WTO? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Again I prefer to agree with the industry which has most at stake here rather than with the member and his efforts to make politics out of the issue. At this stage the industry is in agreement with the Government that we want to finish the standard operating procedures process so that if there is any chance of our getting our apples in they will get in. I am sure that once New Zealand apples are on the market there will be consumer demand for them. I have never ruled out—nor has Jim Anderton—taking the issue to the WTO. We will do that if it is seen by ourselves and the industry as the most effective way of resolving this dispute. If we do it the way will be open for the Australians at any time to come back to try to negotiate an earlier deal than the WTO might provide on the basis that that would provide real access for our apples and on the basis that any restrictions would be scientifically based. By that I mean true science and not the political science that Alexander Downer has famously quoted. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are our chances of winning a WTO case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am very confident at this point our having exhausted as many avenues as we can within the Australian system that both on process and on substance our case would be upheld at the WTO. I believe that our case is scientifically based and I believe that the precedent established in the case involving United States apples gaining access to Japan is a good precedent. I would however point out that probably 5 or 6 years after that case was first taken to the WTO Japan still does not allow United States apples to have access notwithstanding the United States winning a clear victory in the disputes process. So it is a little more complex than some members of the National Opposition might imagine. 
Carbon Emissions—Conservation Estate 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What contribution is the conservation estate making to New Zealand’s efforts to offset carbon emissions? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Climate change is the most significant challenge facing the world today. I recently announced that the Department of Conservation will tender to commercial investors six pilot projects to store carbon on the conservation estate as part of the Labour-led Government’s commitment to sustainability. Successful projects will be a win-win for conservation and the environment with the establishment of new forests to store carbon and intensive pest control of exotic pests that emit carbon in areas not currently managed by the department. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How do these pilot carbon sequestration projects fit with other initiatives from the Labour-led Government to tackle global climate change? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Our 8 million hectare conservation estate makes a major contribution to New Zealand’s carbon profile. Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has pursued an active programme of protecting native forest and adding additional native forests to the areas under permanent protection. Just recently my colleague the Minister of Forestry also announced an initiative to encourage the use of sustainable timber in new Government building projects. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the calculation of New Zealand’s future Kyoto Protocol liabilities is based on what our position was in 1990 and takes no account of extra sinks that may now be in the conservation estate and has his ministry done any work to see whether the extra sinks can be considered as part of our current carbon profile? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation has been profiling a whole range of issues through which we can act as a responsible custodian of the conservation estate and as active agents in dealing with the changing climate on Earth by storing carbon. A short answer to the member’s question is that we are looking at a range of issues to see where we can be helpful. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will try to be more precise for the Minister. Does he accept that the carbon liability that we will face in 2012 takes account of only the sinks in our conservation forests up until 1990 and that since 1990 considerable extra carbon has been stored in the conservation estate; and what work is his department doing to ensure that the calculation is changed so that we get the benefit of that additional carbon store because all the talk in the world about managing it means nothing if we do not get the credit for it? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not sure whether I would agree with the member that there has been considerable addition to carbon sequestration in the conservation estate. We still battle for instance with 60 million possums chewing their way through our forests. Total pest numbers have not fallen. Although the area of the conservation estate has grown by some 350000 hectares under my stewardship— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We seem to be at cross purposes here. I asked about carbon credits. Carbon credits are not furry and noxious like possums. I wonder whether the Minister might start talking about what is under the trees rather than what is in the trees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member should allow the Minister to finish his answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member in his question said that since 1990 the conservation estate had increased the amount of carbon it was storing. I dispute that. In fact if anything with the onset of growing numbers of alien pests we probably have less carbon stored now than we had before. 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. As many people are wont to do the wonderful Bill English recently visited the Manawatu region. He was reported in the newspaper as saying that the major issue was leadership. We all know that Mr English is very very interested in leadership. He wanted to lead the National Party after Mr Brash was so rudely interrupted. He almost made it but a couple of people having been across to the Back Bencher changed their vote at the last minute. They came back and voted for John Key. 
I notice that Mr English in stressing the issue of leadership all the time has been making it very clear who does all the real work. In  
North and South 
 Mr English has characterised Mr Key as jumping from cloud to cloud while he is down there in the gully grinding away. Slowly but carefully week after week Mr English has built the image of himself as being experienced hardworking and knowing everything and Mr Key the front man as being aspirational. John Key is the lightweight; he is the marketer—he is the kind of Amway man of the National Party. Look I want to be fair. It is not for us on this side of the House to say what Mr English is up to. It is not for us to say or to speculate on. However it is hard not to draw the conclusion that Mr English is watching the rest of us as the shine goes off Mr Key—as that shine starts to disappear. [ 
Interruption 
] As National members say they would expect me to say that would they not? 
I went around and had a wee look at what other people are saying. Here is an example from an independent person by the name of Colin James who says: “Key plays politics in stance on therapeutics.” He says at the bottom of an article in that august journal the  
Otago Daily Times 
: “An Opposition leader with foreign policy experience and a keen sense of foreign policy imperatives would not have passed up the opportunity to have said the right thing on the therapeutics bill but”—he says in there and we know that Colin James is a stern man—“he passed up that opportunity and he buckled to Tony Ryall.” He buckled to Tony Ryall the voice of experience in health. Tony Ryall a man who has been around for a long time and who knows a syringe from a stethoscope is the man who controls the portfolio. 
Then we go on to John Armstrong. What does John Armstrong say? The headline states: “Key’s extravagant rhetoric lets Benson-Pope get out from under”. Mr Armstrong goes on to point out that Mr Key simply does not know how to ask a question in Parliament. That is why every time we come down here I have discovered National members look so flat. They sit there looking at John Key—and it was fun for a while; he got up and asked a few questions one after the other—but slowly realising that as he gets up week after week he cannot even ask a question. 
We go to Fran O’Sullivan: “The National Party … is indulging in political point-scoring at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity.” Then we go to the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and the wonderful speech by Mr Key down at the conference on local government where he—irritatingly they say—was non-committal about either his or the National Party’s preference on what to do about Auckland. In fact the article went on to ask: “Does this man have any policy at all?” People are asking whether he has any policy at all. He has been here for a while. 
Colin Espiner has said: “Don’t you learn quickly. You go off to the West Coast. You’ve been used to being on your own; now you’re followed by everybody and you get caught out saying ‘National will win 50 percent of the vote at the next election’.” They call him “Landslide John Key” now and I bet John Key regrets those words right now predicting at this time with that kind of arrogance. 
The only conclusion we can come to is that the horrible truth is dawning on the National Party. It has made a mistake. The horrible truth is dawning on those members that they should have gone for Bill English. Bill English knows that that is what is happening. That is why he is preparing. That is why he is getting ready. That is why Gerry Brownlee’s mood has picked up because he is now waiting for a return to sitting in one or two seats over because he is actually the only National member who can ask questions in Parliament. He is the only National member who can do anything in Parliament. He knows that he was dumped to make way for a duo that is now showing that the veneer is wearing off and unfortunately for the National Party there is no wood underneath. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I hope the graduation ceremony speech next year at Massey University will be better than that effort. I am very confident that the Massey University library researchers will be better than those in the Labour Party. I further want to say to Mr Maharey that when he stalks the halls of power as the vice-chancellor of the university he will be welcome in our office despite his own Government’s attitude to these things. 
That comment relates of course to the incidents that have unravelled in the House this week and indeed in the media relating to the Government’s decision to end or terminate the employment of Madeleine Setchell in the Ministry for the Environment. We have heard a whole lot of excuses from people about why this happened. The Minister himself said he knew nothing about it at all until apparently someone in his office picked up a telephone rang the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment and said: “Look I don’t want to get in the road of your employment policies but is it true that this person has a connection that we find unfavourable?”. Apparently that person then went to Mr Benson-Pope and said: “Look there’s been a rumour around. I’ve just managed to confirm it.” He did not then ask what Mr Benson-Pope thought or what he should do; he apparently did not say anything. The Minister has told the House that there was no discussion. 
Apparently some time later Hugh Logan sitting at his desk thought: “I wonder why Steve Hurring rang me about that? Perhaps I’d better investigate a bit further. Maybe there’s something they need to tell me.” Well we do not know whether he rang them but we do know that there were a series of meetings we heard today between the Minister and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment where all sorts of things were discussed. Can members imagine that in the course of those discussions Mr Logan did not say: “By the way I’m looking into that matter.” or “What do you think about that particular issue?” or “Are you happy if I take this particular course of action?”. Apparently there was no discussion whatsoever. Mr Logan concluded that there was going to be a conflict of interest and therefore he had to manage Ms Setchell out of this particular position. 
Well they are the facts as presented by the Government. But no one in their right mind believes that that was how it worked. The reality is bound to be much more along these lines: Mr Benson-Pope heard the rumour Mr Benson-Pope asked for the rumour to be checked out and Mr Benson-Pope said: “No that woman has to go.” Mr Logan was instructed one way or the other by any manner of communication to achieve just that. 
The interesting thing is that there was at least a month between the time the Minister became aware of Ms Setchell’s appointment and the exit of Ms Setchell from that department. So there had to have been lots of discussion and lots of consideration. The thing that really makes us a little bit suspicious about what went on is that even after her employers had been through this exercise and even after they had gone through the charade of offering Madeleine Setchell a different position—a junior position—they tried to keep it quiet after they had constructively dismissed her because she was politically connected in their view. Let me make it very clear that Madeleine Setchell is entitled to her political views. I do not know what they are. I do not even know what Kevin Taylor’s views are upstairs. They are good servants to us—or he is—and she has been a good servant to the State and they deserve to be treated much better— 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s a Freudian slip from you! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That may well have been a Freudian slip I am not sure but I am fortunate because I do not know what a Freudian slip actually means and clearly yesterday Mr Benson-Pope did not know either. 
One would think after going through this sort of exercise that this department might be a little cautious. But no members should remember that the department was in this process from 28 May. On 30 June the department placed an A4-sized ad in the  
Dominion Post 
. The ad states: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda?”. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 My colleague Steve Maharey mentioned the lift in the mood of Gerry Brownlee and it was particularly obvious during that contribution. Mr Brownlee can see his seat becoming vacant in the very near future. But I have to say that as well as his strengthening his contribution in the House I was very impressed with his moonlighting as a Radio New Zealand National interviewer this morning and the way he eased himself into Sean “Just Answer the Question” Plunket’s seat during the interview with Annette King. He is also looking forward to easing himself into the vacant seat of the current deputy leader of the National Party. 
The word is out not just around this building but around the whole country that John Key has lost the edge that he had. I did not think it would happen so fast but John Key has made a point of parading himself up and down the country and proving beyond doubt that he has no substance. If people wondered whether it was true they do not have to be in doubt any longer because the deputy Bill English confirmed it for them. In the  
North and South 
 magazine he is reported as saying that he is the grinder that he is the one who does all the work and that John Key has no substance—he just hops from cloud to cloud. What a fantastic thing to say about one’s own leader! I do not know whether he thought he was speaking off the record. Did he not know that there was a tape-recorder on the table turned on? 
Simon Power 
: Like John Tamihere! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Exactly we have heard of that situation before. Maybe Bill English fell for the same old trick. Whatever happened it has certainly confirmed any doubt that people had in their minds: there is no substance at all to John Key. 
John Key recently went overseas and they do say that when the cat is away the mice will play. John Key was asked who was going to look after the place while he was away. He said: “The wife the kids and my cat Moonbeam.” It must have been a bit offensive to his deputy who was going to be Acting Leader of the Opposition that he did not even rate ahead of the cat. He did not even make it to the list ahead of Moonbeam the cat. That is extraordinary. So poor old deputy leader Bill— 
Simon Power 
: That joke is 6 weeks old. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That was not a joke; it was what Mr Power’s leader said about his deputy. 
There was plenty of action from the deputy leader while the leader was away. One of the things I found most extraordinary—and Grey Power members from all around the country have been contacting me about this—was that Bill English is once again floating the idea that our age of entitlement for superannuation will have to go up or the level of superannuation will have to go down. After all our efforts to restore the level of superannuation to 65 percent for a married couple linked with the average wage we can see it going down again because of Bill English’s commitments. 
My colleague Steve Maharey quoted the concern of both Colin James and the  
Otago Daily Times 
 about John Key and Bill English. Fran O’Sullivan who has not been a strong supporter of our Government in articles from her that I have read is again raising concerns about the way in which the National Party leadership is prepared to play politics at the expense of our country. We saw it in relation to the trans-Tasman therapeutic products issue. We know that considerable concern was raised by National backbench members who understand our concern about the lack of regulatory protection for imported goods. Fran O’Sullivan said that the National Party led by a former currency trader was indulging in political point-scoring at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity. Sooner or later there has to be some understanding that in this Parliament we have a larger responsibility to the whole country and in the words of Fran O’Sullivan we should not try to score political points at the expense of New Zealand’s prosperity. 
There is always plenty of room for robust debate and for disagreement but when it comes to open and honest dealings people’s commitments should be listened to people’s understanding should be taken at their word and the benefit of the country should not be put aside for cheap political point-scoring. In my view our nation deserves and expects more from major political parties. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Before my colleague Gerry Brownlee was interrupted by the contribution from the Hon Ruth Dyson he was bringing to the attention of the House the advertisement from the Ministry for the Environment about the opportunity to work at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda. 
However what was more interesting in that advertisement in the  
Dominion Post  
of 30 June was this paragraph: “To staff these work programmes the Ministry for the Environment has established and will soon be advertising some great opportunities to work in our organisation where we focus on the big questions dominating the headlines and the Government’s agenda.” It does not state: “Come and work for the Ministry for the Environment in a safe workplace where you will regardless of your political affiliations progress up the ladder.” It is all about selling the Government’s political agenda—as advertised in the  
Dominion Post  
of 30 June. 
Members of this House know when a Government is in its dying days because the Public Service is no longer a safe place to work for people who have any sort of connection with those in the political environment. We know and we have heard that the press secretaries in the Beehive and in ministerial offices are not happy at all about the way in which this matter has been handled. We know that professional State sector public servants in the Beehive who are apolitical are finding the current situation far from satisfactory. The State sector is bordering on being deeply politicised and that has to stop. In the meantime and alongside this new trend the election laws in New Zealand through the Electoral Finance Bill that was tabled yesterday are being rorted to suit the incumbent Government. 
 That member the Hon Ruth Dyson gets on her feet in this House and talks about bipartisan discussions on things like the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and gets a conciliatory nod from her colleagues on the Government benches. Let me say this right now. Partisan electoral reform sets an extremely bad precedent in this House; there has always been a bit of an understanding between the senior members of both parties. One day—a day not too far from now—members on that side of the House will be sitting on the Opposition benches. Legislation that they have passed to screw the scrum in favour of the incumbent when no other political party is able to advertise or speak directly or indirectly with the public 12 months before or in the year of an election alongside the fact that a Government can continue to use taxpayers’ money to advertise Government policy is just a rort. 
The only thing this particular legislation is covering up—or in fact fiscally replacing for want of a more clumsy phrase—is the way the pledge card was funded in the last election. This is the next step in the series of being able to use taxpayer funding to drive the Government’s political agenda. This is a shameful screwing of an electoral reform scrum and members on that side of the House should be ashamed of the partisan way that this electoral reform is being proposed. Let me give an assurance that over the next few months the National Party will not take this sitting down. 
We know things are going badly for the Government because of the three key signs that we in the National Party look for in order to know the Government is on the way out. The first is that Phil Goff’s smile gets wider and wider and wider. The wider Phil Goff’s smile gets the closer to extinction this Government and this Prime Minister are coming. The second sign of course is that David Cunliffe gets more and more sure of himself. It is difficult to imagine I know but he gets more and more sure of himself. He starts lounging back on the third-row bench with his arms outstretched across two seats. We know that he can see opportunity. 
The last dead give-away sign of course that this Government’s days are coming to an end is that Clayton Cosgrove’s wardrobe is constantly updated. He knows he is on the way forward when this Government falters at the end of next year. Those three signs are being carefully watched. [ 
Interruption 
] Mark Burton can interject but that Minister will not want to be reading the front page of today’s  
Independent 
 which says—essentially—that he is gone. He tries hard but he is just not up to it. He is gone. The man who is still recovering from not being made Speaker after the last election is now finding his political future printed in front of him on the front page of Wednesday’s  
Independent 
. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is worth reflecting that while we are debating in this House hard-working successful Kiwi businesses are going under and hard-working Kiwis are losing their jobs. Our economy is actually going to tank next year because on Thursday the Reserve Bank governor will be hiking interest rates to drive down the New Zealand economy. We see nothing in response in this House and from this Government to assist the New Zealand economy. In fact every decision that has been made has been to make matters worse. 
By the way for the benefit of those who are interested in what is happening in the New Zealand economy I believe that the best analysis is provided by economist Rodney Dickens from Strategic Risk Analysis Ltd. We can read his material online at www.sra.co.nz. 
Here is what has happened and here is what is going to happen. With the replacement of Don Brash by Alan Bollard an experiment was undertaken in having a looser approach to monetary policy—a less Presbyterian approach and a more catholic one I would guess. The approach was to wait watch and worry rather than to deal with the issues. That had the go-ahead of the Government. In fact that is why Rod Carr did not get the job of Reserve Bank governor. The approach to monetary policy was loose from 2002 onwards and we have seen underlying inflation within the New Zealand economy in the non-tradable sector tip up to 4.5 percent. Of course the economy booms. We saw Government members patting themselves on the back because the economy was booming. Actually anyone can have that by running a loose monetary policy. 
The trouble is that the chickens come home to roost and now the chickens are coming home to roost. We are actually seeing a Muldoon-like response to that where the Government wants to pile up intervention on intervention rather than deal with the underlying problem. It may undermine the independence of the Reserve Bank governor by intervening and telling him what it can do. The Reserve Bank governor himself was trying to intervene in the market and according to John Key who knows about these things blew $100 million—all to no avail. Of course what will happen is that interest rates will go up. Let us make it clear that the purpose of that is to drive the New Zealand economy into a recession which by the way runs the risk of throwing this Government out of office because we are heading into an election in 2008. That is why Michael Cullen is running around trying to avert the disaster. Well Michael Cullen can try. 
What we need to do is to get Government spending under control. We should not beat up on the productive sector which creates the wealth. We should deal to the Government which is destroying it. It is because of the Government’s spending that businesses are going to the wall not because of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and the Reserve Bank governor. We have—and Treasury has documented this—a 1.7 percent fiscal stimulus heading into an election year and everyone knows what Labour and Michael Cullen are going to do. They are going to spend up next year. How do we know that? It is in the Budget. That is what is driving up interest rates now. The markets are not stupid; they know that this crowd will be spending up. Interest rates are going up now in order to counteract that and businesses are going under. We are running the risk of collapsing the housing market all because we have a Minister of Finance and a Labour Government that are not prepared to get their own finances in order. 
So hard-working New Zealanders who pay for everything through their taxes are the ones who are going down. They are the ones who are going under while the Government just spends their money and spends it and spends it. Then Muldoon-like the Government turns round and blames them. It says to try this or that which drives up the dollar further because the expectation is of a spend-up. I tell Dr Cullen to get his house in order. That will get the economy under control. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I will take these few moments in the House today to ask two basic questions. The first is: “What is the National Party?” and the second is: “Who is John Key?”. We acknowledge that the National Party has had its time in the limelight over the last couple of months. It has seen its poll ratings go up a little bit it has its chest puffed out and it has seen the future in a positive frame of mind. But it has a leader who we are not quite sure of. It is not just the Government who is not sure but each and every New Zealander is not sure. 
Who is John Key? When John Key goes to the marae at Waitangi he is the social worker—the carer of all the poor underprivileged in this country— 
Steve Chadwick 
: The guardian. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: —and the guardian; that is right. When he goes to the West Coast he is the champion of the loggers and the miners. He promises to use every bit of Department of Conservation land for economic purposes. Well like the good people of Waitangi the good people of the West Coast were not for a moment fooled. 
I can offer some sympathy to the Maori Party. Those members saw John Key as the great rangatira who was to come in and bring them the seabed and foreshore—deliver to them on a plate what they have stood for in this House for so long. Well like the people of Waitangi and like the people on the West Coast Maori Party members have been conned. They still ask the question: “Who is John Key and what does he stand for?”. 
Just the other day John Key went to a Federated Farmers meeting where one would think he would be in an area of traditional support for the National Party. He used an analogy that really exposed what he is. He is no farmer; he is a money trader. He said to the Federated Farmers conference with regard to property rights: “You might own a farm but that does not mean you can go and build a 40-foot skyscraper or apartments. They always come with conditions.” What a strange strange analogy. It shows that John Key does not know who a farmer is. 
If John Key continues to go around this country with the smile of a Cheshire cat and the appearance of a chameleon then no one in this country will know who he is or what he stands for. If he does not know what he stands for and he does not know what principles he stands on then ultimately he will end up tripping himself up. And that is exactly what he has done. 
I would ask why Bill English would use such an analogy as “John just bounces from one cloud to another”. It is a strange thing perhaps but I guess John Key went to a meteorological meeting somewhere and said that he was a cloud—because he has been saying to all New Zealanders regardless of where they are and of what they do that he is just like them. Well he is not. He is a very wealth money trader who has come back into this country and who wants to be Prime Minister. 
New Zealanders are not fools. New Zealanders can work that one out fairly quickly and that is indeed why his poll ratings are going down the gurgler as are the poll ratings of the National Party. To use John Key’s own words: “In the end they will all have to judge me on the actions that I take the policies that I promote and the people that I have around me.” National members have no policies. They have absolutely no policies. 
I would ask: “Who are the people around John Key?”. Well Bill English is one of his trusted lieutenants—or un-trusted lieutenants; I would be very careful if I was John Key and Bill English was as close as that behind me. 
I ask whether one of his lieutenants is Simon Power. Simon Power is John Key’s trusted lieutenant. Simon Power promised this country corrections policy in March of this year. It is now July and we have seen absolutely nothing. But he has tried. 
What happened was that Simon Power and a few National Party people held a meeting in Christchurch. Eight people turned up to a meeting that was supposed to announce key National Party corrections policy. What does the policy say? It says National is going to privatise prisons and abolish parole. What a ridiculous position to stand on. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 People on the left always think that politics permeates everything and everyone. This is why they have politicised the public service. It is extraordinary that they would do that. If members want proof there is an advertisement that says: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of the New Zealand political agenda?”. That is an advertisement for the New Zealand public service—a place that has traditionally been politically neutral. What do people on the left want to do? They want to politicise the public service. 
Let me say to Mr Benson-Pope that the country has made up its mind about him and does not believe the Minister. The reason why is that the Minister has a reputation for not telling the truth. Invariably the truth has to be extracted. That is what happened over his former teaching predilections concerning tennis balls and now it is happening all over again. Yesterday in parliamentary questions he denied having discussions with his staff member Mr Hurring about Ms Setchell’s employment. We now know that was not a true statement because it was contradicted by his own answers today and of course his Freudian slips on radio. He said today in the House that Mr Hurring had had several telephone conversations on 28 May and 29 May—five conversations in total. The Minister was asked directly by Mr Brownlee if he had had discussions with Mr Hurring. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did he say? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He did not answer yes or no; all he said was: “I refer you to the report by Mr Iain Rennie.” I have read that report and I presumed the Minister was referring to paragraph 3 or maybe paragraph 7. But there is absolutely nothing in the report at all that says anything about discussions between the Minister and Mr Hurring; it is silent on that particular issue and the Minister knows it and he did not answer. I say to the Minister: “Did he speak to Mr Hurring or not?” or are we expected to believe that there was not a single word over 2 days—that with five telephone conversations between Mr Hurring and the department there was not a single word between Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Hurring? 
In truth the newspapers and indeed Mr Benson-Pope contradict his answers in this House because in the  
Dominion Post  
of 24 July Mr Benson-Pope said he did know the calls were being made. I have to ask the Minister how he knew. Did he just divine this out of thin air? The truth is Mr Hurring must have told him so why did he give that answer in the House when he simply referred to the State Services report? In the discussions with Mr Logan which are referred to in the report are we really expected to believe that all he said—the only thing he said—was: “It’s all your decision.”? What was the context of that particular statement? Was it about for instance something like a conservation reserve? We know it was not that; it was about an employment procedure and there must have been other things that were actually said. I suspect that what was really said was something like this: “I am concerned about that employment. I don’t want it to happen”—and as some kind of saving rider—“but of course it’s your own decision.” 
It is all a bit like the television series  
House of Cards 
 where a similarly sinister Minister Francis Urquhart would always say to a proposition put to him: “Well you might possibly think that but I couldn’t possibly say.” Let me say to Mr Benson-Pope that he is not half as slick as the slippery Mr Francis Urquhart. This country has already made up its mind about Mr Benson-Pope. People say he does not tell the truth; they say he should go. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he cannot indicate that a member is misleading the House. There are many other ways of making the point that a member believes something is incorrect. The member will stand and withdraw. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just ask the member to stand and withdraw. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 That was Wayne Mapp and in a former lifetime he was the PC eradicator—do members remember? I must say I am rather saddened to see the demise of the PC eradicator. Maybe he had finished all of his work! But I would like to ask somebody—anybody—to name one “PC” that the PC eradicator eradicated. I ask for just one “PC”. I cannot hear of one “PC” so presumably the member’s work was not just finished he never even started it and the National Party realised that it was really along the lines of the  
Ministry of Silly Walks 
. Maybe it realised that ultimately there was never going to be a “Minister of PC Eradication” and that it had better drop that silly idea while it had the chance. 
I want to pick up on an issue raised by my colleague Damien O’Connor concerning what the National Party stands for. 
Darren Hughes 
: It will be short. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It will be a very short speech. I say right from the start given the debate this week that it is the role of the Opposition to attack the Government. There is no question about that. I remember that the Labour Party had 9 very long years doing that—indeed 9 very fruitless years. That is why we always want to be in Government and why the National Party is the Opposition. I can say that National is a much better Opposition than we ever were and that is why it will be in Opposition much longer than we ever were. 
My experience is that an Opposition should attack the Government but I warn the Opposition not to attack the State Services Commission. I think that is a very very dangerous and slippery road to go down. My experience of being a Minister for 6 years is that that organisation is very professional very objective and very neutral. At some stage the National Party hopes to have something to do with the State Services Commission. God only hope not in my lifetime! National will rue the day that it attacks the neutrality of the State Services Commission. I advise National to keep its aim focused on the Government not on that organisation. 
One of the things we ask ourselves is what the National Party stands for and what it would do if it ever became the Government. In the old days we knew what the National Party stood for. I talk of Holyoake Marshall and so on. We may not have liked those National Party members but at least they had principle and philosophy and we knew they would do something different from the Labour Party when they got into power. The problem with this National Party is that no one knows what its members stand for. They used to stand for things but no one knows what they are now. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Tax cuts. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes it is kind of like Labour with a few tax cuts and I will talk about that in a minute. At one stage National members were violently opposed to the nuclear-free policy and now they agree with it. They were opposed to the Cullen superannuation fund and now they support it. They were opposed to income-related rents. Indeed I used to be the Labour spokesperson on housing and they were violently opposed to income-related rents. They said it was unfair and that sort of thing. Now they support it. They were opposed to Kyoto and now they support it. They say they always supported it! This is all very odd. 
The problem with National Party members is that they are prepared to say anything to anyone and that is the difficulty. New Zealand is such a small country that eventually if a party says one thing to one crowd and says something completely different to another the matter will eventually get out. So one can never get away with it. My advice to National members is to say something when they have worked out what it is that they believe in. 
But National is promising to spend more and it is promising that to everyone. It says it will give massive tax cuts. But no one believes that can all be done. In fact  
The Hollow Men 
 says not to state exactly what one is going to do but to wait until afterwards and then do it. It says that is a much better strategy. By our calculations National would be giving about $5 billion in tax cuts but where will that money come from? What would it cut in order to do that? I ask members opposite whether they would cut spending in health. Do I hear any answer? No I do not. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 It has not been a stellar moment in New Zealand politics in the last couple of weeks because actions by this Government have called into question two issues—two principles—that lie at the heart of political balance in New Zealand. The first issue is the so-called electoral reform legislation and the second is the very poor treatment accorded to Madeline Setchell which raises the issue about the political neutrality of the Public Service and that is what I wish to concentrate on. 
In the history of the democratic politics of our kind issues of principle are not fought out in a seminar and they are not fought out academically; they are always fought out over a very specific issue. Anyone even remotely familiar with the history of this Parliament and its antecedents knows that to be the case. That is why this case of Madeline Setchell deserves very considerable thought by people who are interested in the future of the political process in this country. 
I sometimes wonder whether people realise how unusual the matter of political balance in New Zealand really is. It rests to a very very large extent on convention or to find another way of putting it on common decency. We do not have a written constitution in the sense of having a consolidated single document to constrain the executive. We do not have an executive separated from the Parliament as in the case of the United States. We do not have a bicameral Parliament to act as a check on the untrammelled power of the executive. 
Most times our system works pretty well but it rests to an unusual extent on convention or common decency. One of the principles at the core of that convention is indeed the political neutrality of our Public Service. Yes one can see the political tentacles reach down into the Civil Service of the United States and many other administrations precisely because they have other elements in their constitution to restrain the power of the executive. But in New Zealand we rest to a very large extent on convention and decency. And this case has compromised one of those elements. 
I have spent 30 years in the Public Service and I am very proud of the New Zealand Public Service. I believe that it is corrupt in the least possible sense of any Public Service that I have ever come across. Is it excellent? In my view it is patchy. It is excellent in parts and mediocre in other parts. But is it politically neutral? In the experience that I have had it is incredibly politically neutral. 
I know a huge number of the senior public servants in this country understandably. Anyone who has worked for 30 years in the Public Service—in Treasury in foreign affairs in the Prime Minister’s department and in the old Department of Trade and Industry—would be in the same position. I know four chief executive officers extremely well on a personal basis. These are people I have worked with for 30 years in some cases. These are people with whom I have had thousands of hours of conversations. 
I tell the House that however difficult it may be to believe for people in the Labour Party who claw their way into the institution by an obsession with partisan politics I have no idea—absolutely no idea—what the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade does when he goes into the ballot box what the head of the Prime Minister’s department thinks when he goes into the ballot box what the heads of the divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry think when they cast their votes or what the Secretary to the Treasury does when he casts his vote. I have not got a clue and the reason I have not got a clue is that in all the hundreds of hours that we have had discussions on every conceivable subject we never ever discuss this. It is absolutely a private matter and that is the reason that I have no idea about the personal and political preferences of senior advisers. I think that is a magnificent thing that we should cherish in this country because it lies at the heart of political balance. 
If the Prime Minister thinks this issue has just gone away by casting a few red herrings on the waters I think she will find to her cost that it is very much a live issue. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tena koe tena tatou katoa i tenei wiki i whakaritea hei whakanuinga ma tatou i to tatou reo Maori; kia riro ko te reo Maori hei reo korerotanga i roto i nga kokorutanga katoa. Greetings fellow parliamentarians and Mr Assistant Speaker at this time Maori Language Week where we promote the language as a vehicle for communication and as a strong contributor to our growing identity as a nation. I offer those words because they are in contrast to the very weak and confused contribution offered by someone who from time to time makes a strong thespian contribution to the House Mr Groser. He went further than Dr Mapp who despite his many years of holding forth and blighting the minds of university students at Auckland University has precious few thespian virtues about him. 
However I stand to support an earlier speaker Mr Swain and I remind everyone that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to give a straight answer on the big issues confronting us as a nation. At all times he has refused to straighten his delivery with the students of the nation. Our Prime Minister when we fought the election showed not a sliver of doubt in leaving the families of students at tertiary institutions in the position of understanding that the burden of tertiary education would be inordinately easy under our side. But that man has refused to come clean and admit that National’s agenda is to reduce the props that the State offers in order to enlarge the prospects of our university students. He is a person who has cultivated an image up and down the country—fortunately it is not stretching very far outside commercial circles—of having been raised in modest circumstances of having risen to the upper levels of commercial citadels and of having been an expert on the currency and on what is likely to become of the currency as people move in and out of trading. 
We have not heard one fresh one single one constructive contribution from Mr Key in that regard and that saddens me. At least we know from Dr Cullen from the Prime Minister and from the entire Government front bench that there is no end of fresh exciting ideas to uplift. As we say in Maori te iti me te rahi [ 
the small and the large 
]—people at all levels in society. But John Key offers nothing. That will count against Mr Key. Yes I have no doubt in my mind that he could fund the entire election campaign from his resources. I have no doubt in my mind that he has been prevailed upon and that the plan has probably been promoted with that strength of his in mind but he will need more than deep pockets. He will need more than a reputation from distant areas in order to carry him forward because at the moment we have a fantastic economy. 
We have an economy where investment in capital infrastructure has grown. We have a situation where great amounts of imported capital equipment is flowing into the country. Yes the dollar is at a troublesome height but we do not get a strong dollar unless we have buoyancy and resilience in the economy. This morning the leader of all the exporters Mr Walters said on television that he did not want to see indiscriminate intervention. That is fine and it shows that he believes that we have a strong future in relation to our economy. 
There is one area where I think Mr Key has been of assistance to us. He has gone out of his way to befuddle my whanaunga over there in the Maori Party. Of course those members are seeking a new partnership no longer with the Crown but with the judiciary. The partnership they seek with the judiciary is to allow our people to go year after year month after month bleak episode after bleak episode back to the courts to rerun tired irrelevant arguments about the seabed and foreshore. They will put their bill forward which I will have a great deal to say about this afternoon—although it is rather strange that we should contribute such fine thoughts to modest and totally useless proposed legislation that will soon find its way to the scrap heap of parliamentary history. Mr Key has sought to mislead those members they have misled our iwi and our iwi will show them where Tuku Morgan Tau Henare Rana Waitai Tuariki Delamere and Tu Wylie—despite the best efforts of his association with Ngai Tahu—have ended up. I say that Maori Party members should not mislead Te Ao Maori. They should not tell Te Ao Maori that they seek to be independent but quietly want to move us further back into a grievance mentality with the active encouragement of Mr Key. Kia ora tatou. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is horrified at the prospect that the directors of Auckland International Airport may get away with selling it off to the highest bidder regardless of that bidder’s nature or origins. That airport is one of Auckland’s and New Zealand’s key strategic assets. It is our main gateway for inbound and outbound tourists. It is a major airport for our imports and exports and the company has one of New Zealand’s largest business activity zones owning large swathes of prime commercial land with strategic harbour frontage. 
Manukau Mayor Sir Barry Curtis is totally opposed to a 51 percent foreign-owned and controlled stake in the airport. We agree with him that such a move is inappropriate and that the control of such a key asset should be left in the hands of New Zealanders. Unless the Minister for Land Information David Parker and Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard make a clear decision not to allow the control of this key infrastructure asset to pass into foreign hands it will be a disaster for both the Auckland regional economy and any long-term vision of national self-reliance. 
The Rt Hon Winston Peters was absolutely right when he stated in a media release yesterday afternoon that the core question here that needs to be asked about this proposal is who will profit? Anyone can see that allowing Dubai Aerospace Enterprise or any other foreign company for that matter to take control of Auckland International Airport would also simply mean that in future the profits will flow out of our economy and literally into the pockets of the highest overseas bidder. We have sold off enough of our economy land and housing already over the last 20 to 25 years. A simmering resentment burns around New Zealand and I think it cuts across all party political lines about the extent to which we have allowed the family silver and even the family gold to be hocked off to rich overseas individuals and companies. We have all seen the disaster that eventuated when our national rail system was sold—something that made us a worldwide laughing stock; I remember it well. We are still somewhat desperately trying to pick up the pieces now. 
To allow our largest international airport which services our one major metropolis to be sold to a controlling foreign interest would be just as disastrous as the sale of the rail system. The Auckland International Airport board chairman Mr John Maasland makes claims that such a sale would boost tourism. Tourism earns us around $18 billion a year and is our largest export sector accounting for 18.7 percent of our export revenue and 9 percent of our GDP. The number of international arrivals has doubled since 1993 to 2.4 million in 2006. Tourism is in fact one of the world’s fastest-growing industries as well as one of our own. 
Foreign investors have been quick to realise the lucrative potential of the tourism industry and have been buying up considerable key assets. Four of the top 10 transport and tourism operators in this country for example are foreign-owned. However although ownership does not guarantee any new investment in our country it does guarantee significant outflows of assets in the form of the profit paid out through dividends as anyone can understand. We have a history in this country of lucrative national assets being corporatised which readies them for privatisation. They are then privatised even if they are sold only to the New Zealand public and are taken over legally with the assent of a board whose primary interests are not aligned with our country’s interests. How does it help the New Zealand economy if the tourists who visit New Zealand end up landing at a foreign-owned airport travelling in foreign-owned campervans visiting foreign-owned iconic tourist sights and spending money that will simply go back to the overseas owners? 
Finally I will just add a very Green caveat to this and any other discussion about the future of airports and air travel in this country. We have to recognise that with the imminent impacts of climate change and peak oil becoming increasingly apparent to most of us at least the future of air travel is uncertain and it needs to be managed carefully. The supply of oil will become increasingly scarce and expensive within the next 5 years even if great discoveries eventuate off Taranaki or in the Southern Ocean. We will need to manage a reduced quantity of air transport for the greatest benefit of our country and it is unlikely that such careful management would be either a motivation or anything like a priority for the prospective buyers from Dubai. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I also acknowledge Maori Language Week and in particular acknowledge my newspaper at home the  
Gisborne Herald 
 which wins prizes every year for its extraordinary contributions to the promotion of the Maori language. 
We have certainly seen an interesting week in politics. One could say that we have seen and experienced a new low in political manipulation and in political cant. When I look at the Electoral Finance Bill which was tabled this week and is due to come into this House tomorrow I cannot believe my eyes. Someone said to me today that it was not quite believable that a Government could be quite so dishonest—so flagrantly change the rules to suit itself—that it could almost be accused of corrupting the electoral system. That is something that was passed on to me just today when the details of the Electoral Finance Bill came out through the media. I know from the look on your face Mr Assistant Speaker that we cannot make those accusations within this House and I am not making them in those words. But I do want to look at what that bill actually proposes. 
First of all it needs to be said that this legislation has been entirely developed by the Government without any consultation with this Parliament as a whole. That is unprecedented. It ignores the normal conventions where major electoral legislation like this bill is normally consulted on and discussed amongst all political parties in the interests of democracy. I think that that word has become a foreign language to this Government. The Government has talked more to the media about its thinking as the bill has developed than it has talked to its major political opposition. Of course the Maori Party which the Prime Minister said at the last election was the last cab off the rank is one of the last cabs off the rank again this time round. It has not been consulted it has had no input into the legislation and it has been given the same opportunity as the general public to debate the bill: when it is already in legislative form. So we have seen a perversion of the normal democratic processes around developing legislation that is very important to our democratic process. 
When we look at this bill we see that the first sentence of the explanatory note talks about providing more transparency and accountability in the democratic process. One would think wahoo here we go. But when we read the detail we see that inserted into this process is a person called a financial agent. One has to ask what the role of that agent is. What is the problem that necessitates providing for such an agent? Before an MP or a candidate was accountable for the spending on his or her election campaign. If that person made a mistake or overspent he or she bore the penalty for that. We have seen in not too recent times an MP lose his position in this House because of overspending or because he spent incorrectly: outside the rules. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Reg Boorman was his name. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Reg Boorman—who was he? Was he a National Party MP? No he was a Labour Party MP who broke the rules and lost his seat as a consequence of that. There was direct accountability. That is what this bill purports to give but it actually inserts another person into the process so that if an MP or a candidate does step over the line that person can always stand back and say that is not his or her fault but the financial agent’s fault. Again we see this Labour Government put another person between itself and any sort of accountability for wrongdoing. That is not about transparency and that is not about accountability. 
The explanatory note of the bill goes on to talk about promoting participation in parliamentary democracy. That has to be the biggest load of hogwash in this legislation. This Labour Government does not believe in public participation in the process of democracy; in fact the whole bill is about how to prevent the public playing any part in our democratic system. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Business of the House 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 3 to be taken ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave? Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the member to move a similar motion but to make it one that puts forward members’ order of the day No. 2 instead of members’ order of the day No. 3. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Are we having a motion put on the floor here or are we seeking leave? I was under the impression that we were to have a motion put on the floor. We are seeking leave are we? 
ANNE TOLLEY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 No I am moving a motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are moving a motion that members’ order of the day No. 1 be put aside and No. 2 take its place? 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: I move  
That members’ order of the day No. 1 be postponed until after consideration of members’ order of the day No. 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 7 
New Zealand First 7. 
Abstentions 51 
New Zealand Labour 49; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion agreed to. 
Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. It is with really mixed feelings that I speak to the second reading of my youth wages bill this afternoon. I have mixed feelings because on the one hand it is a significant step to get any member’s bill through its first reading and the select committee process and I welcome the statement of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the commentary on the bill that the majority of members believe the premise on which my bill is based is right. On the other hand however it is clear to all that the bill that has emerged from the select committee bears very little resemblance to the bill that went into it. 
The fundamental point of my original bill was to remove discrimination based on age from our minimum wage law with particular reference to 16 and 17-year-old workers. However the bill as amended which we are debating here this afternoon does not do that. It continues age discrimination for young workers albeit in lesser terms. Even the short title of the bill has been amended by the committee to reflect the fact that this is no longer a bill to remove discrimination; it is instead a bill that will allow a new form of discrimination. If we read clause 4 of the amended bill carefully we see that it continues to allow for minimum wages to be set on the basis of age and that it actually adds a further category of age discrimination in the form of the new entrants rate. This is certainly no longer an abolition of age discrimination bill. 
What is this new entrants rate likely to be and how long will it apply for? The amended bill states that the new entrants rate—something horribly redolent of people aged 5 starting school—must not be less than 80 percent of any rate that applies to workers who are 18 years of age. But the bill itself is silent as to the length of operation of this new entrants rate. Instead the select committee has chosen to make a recommendation to the Minister of Labour that she or he consider introducing a new entrants minimum rate that applies for the first 200 hours of employment on or after an employee’s birthday and that that rate would not apply to 16 and 17-year-olds employed in supervisory positions. In its current form we are therefore being asked to hand a blank cheque to the current Minister of Labour and—and this is more worrying—to a future Minister of Labour to set the length of the new entrants rate by regulation as she or he sees fit or not to have a new entrants rate at all and simply continue with complete age-based discrimination as currently occurs. 
The main argument that supporters of the new 200 hours new entrants rate are putting up is that young people aged 16 and 17 who are entering the workforce for the first time do not have the basic work skills or experience needed for the job and therefore need more supervision and training than workers aged 18 and over. This argument was backed by a handful of employer submitters including one from just south of Auckland who rather famously offered the committee the opinion that it took her some time to train her young workers to smile correctly for the customers. When I looked around the committee room that day and saw the many broad natural smiles on the faces of the young Pasifika Maori and Pakeha workers from Manukau and the rather dour looks gracing the countenances of a number of somewhat more mature submitters I could not help feeling that the training in how to smile correctly might be of benefit if it happened quite the other way around. 
This argument that young workers need orientation and training when they start a new job does of course have a basis in reality but that reality is the same for anyone of any age who starts a new job. All of us take time to learn the job itself and to learn the kawa of the particular workplace and the annoying little requirements essential to survival there. In fact when we are young our brains are sharper and our ability to learn and adapt is somewhat greater than when we are older. Even if one supports the idea of the new entrants rate surely 1 month would be long enough rather than 3 6 or even 9 months. 
The National Distribution Union one of the main unions representing young workers says: “Our numbers show that 50 percent of 16 and 17 year olds would take 5 months or more to qualify for the full minimum wage. Some of them will have turned 18 long before that. Others will have had many more than 200 hours work experience before turning 16 but that isn’t going to be counted.” Indeed many young people these days have already been in the workforce for a considerable period before they even turn 16. As most members of Parliament will know from their own experience with family members and friends a lot of young people have been working part-time in the local shop petrol station takeaway or elsewhere for some months if not years by the time they reach their 16th birthday. To then suppose that these experienced workers should be plunged back on to a lower wage if they start a new job after their 16th birthday shows contempt for the reality of the time and effort they have already put in to adapting as successful participants in the New Zealand workforce. It is simply a continuation of age-based discrimination by other means and is quite the opposite of what the original bill intended. 
I was very impressed with the level and quality of most of the submissions we heard at the select committee even the ones I did not agree with. A majority of submissions stated that all workers should receive equal pay for equal work regardless of age. I want especially to thank the Human Rights Commission the Human Rights Foundation and the Children’s Commissioner who along with a number of others called for the repeal of section 30 of the Human Rights Act which entitles employers to pay lower wages to those aged under 20 years. Unfortunately the committee did not give adequate consideration I feel to these points nor to our responsibilities under international human rights or International Labour Organization conventions. 
Instead it was swayed more by the anecdotal accounts of how the abolition of youth rates could act as a barrier to young people obtaining work or the negative effect it would have on young people’s education by encouraging them to leave school too early for so-called high-paying adult minimum wage jobs. These issues were mentioned in the National Party minority view and I understand were also behind the Labour and New Zealand First members of the committee sponsoring the amendments that have come through. These two concerns completely miss the point and are simply used as excuses to continue the discrimination against young people. 
Firstly most young workers aged 16 and 17 are actually in school or in other training. An increase in the minimum youth wage to the adult rate will have a positive effect for them not negative. It will mean they will be able to work less and study more for the same income. Will young people really be tempted away from school or other training into full-time work by the prospect of earning the princely sum of $450 a week—the adult minimum wage? I do not think so. If it is good enough for us to have stopped using these so-called positive wage discrimination arguments for Maori and women why should we be using them for young people? 
Then there is the issue of compliance costs. To implement a new entrants form of wage-based discrimination in the way that the amended bill proposes introduces yet more compliance costs for employers. A number of employers have already got rid of or would like to get rid of youth rates altogether. What stops others from doing this is the ability of their competitors down the road to continue to pay youth rates and therefore have a lower cost structure. 
This brings me finally to the elephant that sat in the select committee room right throughout the hearings—that of human rights. I am referring to legal advice to the Attorney-General on the consistency of my bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That advice stated: “it is our view that the principal Act does not authorise the Governor-General to make orders that discriminate in a way that is prohibited by the Bill of Rights Act … Section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act requires that wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights Act that meaning must be preferred to any other meaning. … Based on this analysis the Bill appears superfluous.” What that opinion means is that the regulations allowing for youth rates that have been promulgated for many years under the Minimum Wage Act could be ultra vires when the principal Act is interpreted in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
My gravest concern with the bill as reported back is that it adds new forms of discrimination rather than removing them. We should not be passing law that is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The bill still needs a lot of work and there is still time to do this work before and when it reaches the Committee stage. I urge all parties to vote for the second reading to enable us during the Committee stage to undertake the work to bring this bill back more closely to its original kaupapa. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the second reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill it is interesting to note that when this bill was originally introduced by the honourable member Sue Bradford it was quite simply to get rid of the youth rate. It then morphed into a bill that introduced a new-entrants minimum rate that would apply for the first 200 hours of employment for 16 to 17-year-olds during which time they would be paid 80 percent of the adult minimum wage—that is the youth rate—and after which they would be paid the adult minimum wage. The question is whether the bill is better or worse than before it went to the select committee. Who knows? Media reports over the issue originally suggested that the bill itself may be pulled by the very author of the bill because it has been so altered since its original draft that it is now being opposed. 
I would like to make one comment in relation to what the honourable member Sue Bradford has stated and that is in relation to age-based legislation and whether it is discriminatory. The wonderful irony of that argument is that if it is age-based legislation—and it is age-based legislation—and if it is discriminatory which we do not believe it is and if it does comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then it would be discriminatory and still age-based whether the age was 12 16 18 or 20. So whatever the age limit it would based on that argument still be age-based legislation and all this bill does is increase that age to 18. 
Can I say at the outset that whatever one’s view on this it is important to state that National believes that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. They should receive fair pay for a fair day’s work. We all want a high-wage economy but that is not achieved by propping it up by artificial and arbitrary levels. It is also important when considering passing legislation that some consideration is actually given to the consequences it will have to the problem it is supposed to be addressing to the solution it proposes and to whether that solution will work may work or may in fact do the exact opposite of what it is trying to achieve. 
 We believe that this bill will not work for youths or for employers for a number of reasons. We heard submissions that many employers already pay above the youth minimum wage. In fact some employers pay their staff above the adult minimum wage because they recognise that the value staff provide warrants a higher level of pay. Secondly in some cases youths may not be able to provide the same value to an employer as older employees so the minimum rate of pay provided to them should be set at a lower rate than for those older than they are; they are not doing the same job. 
There may be youths who suffer because in future employers will have to factor in a full wage bill for youths and may choose not to employ them at all because of this. This may be a disincentive to employing youth in the first place. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: A perverse incentive. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is a perverse incentive. Increasing the minimum wage that a 16 or 17-year-old can earn creates an added perverse incentive for youths to leave school. We appreciate that there is a 200-hour threshold and that the initial reduced take-home pay may lessen the incentive for a youth to leave school to undertake work. But assuming someone left school to undertake full-time work or near full-time work the 200-hour threshold would be finished maybe within a month or a month and a half. The incentive to leave is still reasonably high for some. We want a highly skilled high-wage economy and encouraging youths to leave school before they have attained those skills is not the right way to do it. 
Furthermore if youths have to be paid at the adult rate then some employers may simply choose not to employ them. In effect raising the youth minimum wage rate will risk young persons being priced out of the market. In some cases employers who pay 16 or 17-year-olds the youth minimum wage do so because that is all they can afford. That is the price that is set. If youths had to be paid at the adult rate then the employer may simply choose not to employ them. We are concerned that this bill may price young people off the job market. That is a very very serious consideration and a very important reason for National to vote against this bill. National is not against the employment of youth. This is about fair pay for fair work. We do not want this bill to be seen as a barrier to employing young people. 
Support for a youth rate is premised also on the belief that 16 and 17-year-olds are not worth as much to their employers as someone aged 18 years or more. The new-entrant rate compromise is designed to recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds initially are not worth as much as someone who is older but it suggests that after 200 hours of employment those young people have had enough experience in the workplace to mean they have the same value to an employer as someone over the age of 18. We have heard—and we have to agree—that age limits are by their nature inherently arbitrary and do not apply well to individual cases. There is nothing to suggest that the 18th birthday of a particular individual means that on the next day he or she will automatically be of more value to the business than when they were 17. This legislation will not change that. This legislation will still kick in once the youth turns 18. 
There are also some practical problems in the presumptions the legislation makes in relation to the 200-hour threshold and I would like to mention some of those. The first example is of a youth working for 200 hours for an employer thus qualifying for the adult rate. That is fine. The employer has had 200 hours to upskill the youth and the youth has had 200 hours to gain experience within that workplace to ensure that he or she is worth or may be worth the adult rate to the employer. I give another example of a youth who works for employer A for 50 hours changes jobs and works for employer B for 125 hours then again changes jobs and works for employer C for 25 hours. After working 25 hours for employer C the youth under this bill would qualify for the adult rate. Because the 200 hours accumulates over several employers and despite the youth having spent only 25 hours with employer C employer C still has to pay him or her the adult rate. That assumes—perhaps rightly perhaps wrongly—that the experience the youth has gained in previous employment is transferable to his or her latest employment. 
A third example is where a youth works 70 hours for employer A and over the same period works 130 hours for employer B. Having accumulated 200 hours work employer A and employer B both have to pay the youth the adult rate. The youth at that stage has a combined total of 200 hours. Again this assumes that the skills and experience in the two jobs are transferable—that they are equal—so that the youth is valuable enough to the employers to justify them paying him or her the adult rate. 
Finally I would like to add—and on this point we are in complete agreement with the Green Party which may be unusual and I quote from its minority report on the bill—that “this will add to the compliance burden for employers”. We are concerned about that. We are concerned about the collection of hours and about the value of the hours. If a youth is working for two employers at the same time—not exactly the same time obviously—then just because the 200 hours clicks over the youth is entitled to an adult rate notwithstanding the skills and experience involved. 
If this bill is to avoid exploitation and discrimination of young workers—and we do not condone exploitation and discrimination of young workers—then it should have been so framed. This bill risks pricing young people out of the labour market. It creates a perverse incentive for young people to leave school rather than boost their own skills and training. It fails to recognise that many employers already pay above the minimum wage to youths and it adds to the compliance costs of business. For those reasons National is opposed to the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to support this Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill at its second reading. I begin by congratulating Sue Bradford from the Green Party on taking the initiative introducing the bill to the House and stimulating the debate at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I also acknowledge and thank the other members of the select committee for their rigorous consideration of this issue. 
Since Labour was elected to lead the Government at the end of 1999 our Government has reviewed then raised both the minimum youth and adult minimum wage annually and that is a fact that I am very proud of. Under the previous National Government the youth minimum wage was set at 60 percent of the adult minimum wage. Our Government increased this to 80 percent of the adult rate and we also lowered the age of entitlement for the adult rate from 20 years as it was under previous National administrations to the 18 years that it now is. Prior to that one had to work on the youth rate if one was on the minimum rate right up to the age of 20 rather than 18 as it is currently. 
It is my view that those steps have been very positive but it is still obvious that there is a debate to be had about the suitability of paying workers at a different rate for the same job just because of their age. That debate has in part been held at the select committee and it is now continuing. 
Labour recognises that employees who are aged 16 and 17 often do the same work as adults. Therefore for those employees to earn 20 percent less than their adult colleagues is unfair. In employers’ submissions to the committee considering the bill it was noted though that 16 and 17-year-old workers often lack the work socialisation skills that older workers have. Submitters also noted that they did not think it was fair that youth supervisors were paid less than the adults they were supervising. 
 In response to the submissions and within the original intent of the member’s bill the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has proposed that for the first 200 hours of their employment 16 and 17-year-olds should be paid at no less than 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. After that 200-hour period 16 and 17-year-old employees will be paid the adult minimum wage. Those 200 hours of employment can be accumulated across several different employers. 
The previous speaker talked about increased compliance costs as if this strategy would be a new trigger. Actually the strategy changes the trigger from a requirement of 2 full years of work and the date of one’s 18th birthday to a requirement of 200 hours of work which even for a part-time worker is a significant step forward. Concerns that those younger workers who are in positions of responsibility would be disadvantaged by the bill have also been answered by the committee’s recommendation that the minimum rate would not apply to 16 and 17-year-olds who are employed as supervisors. 
The enticement of young people away from the education system—from high school polytechs apprenticeships or university—with the possibility of a job that might pay higher in the short term but is unlikely to lead to better career prospects in the long term is an issue. The 200-hour threshold is intended to protect against the possible risk of a negative impact if we were to immediately abolish youth rates completely. 
This measure will be yet another step in our steady progress in ensuring that all workers including young workers have fair minimum-pay protection. This year the youth minimum wage was increased from $8.20 to $9 an hour. This stands in stark contrast to the youth minimum wage of $4.20 per hour under the previous National Government in 1999. 
From Labour’s perspective the voices of employers and unions and the voices of young New Zealand workers should be heard. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was an appropriate forum in which to host that debate. I know that the members of the select committee gave fair consideration to both the perceptions and the facts around this debate and I personally thank all the members of the committee for their considered deliberations on this matter. The select committee’s proposals offer a balanced way forward on a complex issue and they address employers’ concerns as well as recognising that younger workers doing the same job as adults should be paid fairly. 
This member’s bill is another example of our Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by these proposed changes. I wish the next stages of this bill a very speedy progress. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
A tena koe. Tena tatou te Whare. I tera wiki ka tukuna kia kitea e Aotearoa te tino pikitia ara  
Ka mau te wehi a Kerehi 
. He waimarie kua puta tenei pire i te wiki nei ara te pire kia murua i nga utu whakaparahako i te rangatahi. He tino miharo rawa atu nga mihi mo taua pikitia a neke atu ki te 22 miriona taara te putea kua kohia i Amerika. I Ingarangi tino hawene hoki te BBC me te ki “E orite ana nga mahi o te Paremata ki tera o tetahi pukapuka whakamataku.” A ka tika koia nei te ahua o te Paremata nei. 
Ko te pikitia nei he korero mo William Wilberforce me tona whawhai kia mutu ai te mahi whakataurekareka i te kirimangu e noho ana ki nga whenua i raro i te mana o Ingarangi. Na hara i te mea i whai atu au i ona tapuwae engari he orite nga whakaaro. E kore au e noho koretake nei kia tae mai te tau 2027 hei muru i nga utu whakataurekareka rangatahi. E tika ana kia tae mai i naia tonu nei. Hoi no me hoki taku korero ki nga pikitia. Ko te ahua nei kua whakaoreoretia nga tangata o te ao he aha o ratou whakaaro mo te mahi whakataurekareka tangata. Kua puta muri mai he ropu Te Huringa Whakamiharo ko tona kawenata kia wetekina nga here taurekareka kua pa ki te 27 miriona tangata o te ao. 
Ka huri au ki tenei pire me te whakaaro me ahatia e tatou tenei pire Whakaparahako Utu ki te Rangatahi a tera pea ka uru teneki ki te kari ripoata o te ropu Huringa Whakamiharo. I te taenga tuatahi mai o tenei pire ki te Whare i te Pepuere o tera tau ka mau te wehi o te whaikorero o taku tumuaki a Tariana Turia me tana korero e tino tautoko ana matou o Te Pati Maori i tenei pire a i whakahihi ta matou tu ki te taha o nga rangatahi. Engari konei au i tenei ra e mea ana e kore matou e tautoko i tenei pire i te mea “E whakakahoretia ana e mätou te pire whakataurekareka kaimahi a Wayne Mapp a e kore hoki matou e tautoko i tenei pire whakataurekareka rangatahi a Reipa.” Kore kore kore rawa atu! 
No reira me pehea ra ka tino he te mutunga o te korero nei? Ko te putaketanga o tenei pire kia mutu ai nga utu whakaparahako kaimahi—he kaupapa tino miharo ka tautokohia e matou. E marama hoki matou ki nga hiahia o wa matou rangatahi. Me te mohio ano hoki 30 paiheneti o ngai taua kei nga tau 10 ki nga tau 25 a tae atu ki te tau 2050 50 paiheneti o matou kei raro tonu i nga tau 26. Na tera ka kitea te tini o nga Maori ka pa ki nga ahuaranga whakaparahako i te Ture Iti Te Utu o te tau 1983.  
I tautoko matou i te mohio ko nga Maori me nga Pasifika nga tino rawakore. Me te mohio ano hoki ko nga rangatahi Maori Pasifika hoki me o ratou whanau nga kaimahi rawakore rawa atu o tenei whenua. A mena ka whakapono matou ki te tono a te ropu Tino Rangatiratanga Tai Tamariki me te Ture Rangatahi ara ahakoa kua hipa nga tau e whitu i muri mai i te tutanga o te Ture Whakawhanaunga Mahi ko nga rangatahi tonu ka noho tuwhera ki nga mahi whakahawea kaimahi. Kua takahia tonu te mana o wa tatou rangatahi. Horekau he kirimana a-mahi ka pangaia tonu mo te kore noa iho nga whakarere ketanga o te ahua o te mahi hakoa e kore e panuihia me nga whakahawini mahi tinihanga i o ratou wahi mahi. 
E te Kaihautu na Martin Luther King i tuhi tona reta i a ia e mau i te whare herehere o Birmingham i te tau 1963 te korero: “Mena ka takahia te mana tangata i konei whanui rawa atu te raruraru.” Mena ka tangohia e Te Pati Maori nga kakahu o te pire nei ko te patai he aha ai i tangohia nga kupu “muru whakaparahako” kia whakaurua nga kupu “timatanga hou”. Na hakoa ka whakakakahutia e Reipa tenei pire nga momo kakahu katoa e kore e taea e ratou te peita a-hau nei kia kore e kitea enei mahi whakaparahako. 
Kua whakaae te komiti Paremata ki tetahi mahi whakahawea hou. I a ratou mahi murere ki te whakapai i te kino ara nga haora 200 nei ka tapaina he “timatanga hou” mo te kaimahi hou. Ko te utu he “utu iti nei a ko ta ratou whakamarama he ahua ngohengohe nei he “wa ako” ano hoki. Ko te mea katakata ko te utu “timatanga hou” e orite ana ki te utu iti mo nga rangatahi i tenei wa. No reira he aha rawa te rere ketanga? 
Koia nei i korerohia e te ropu Huringa Whakamiharo ko tenei te ahuatanga taurekareka hou—nga tane wahine tamariki hoki kua akina ki te mahi i raro iho o nga kirimana a-mahi horekau he mana te mahi ranei i nga wahi mahi nanakia. Kahore te utu iti nei kua tohua i raro i te utu “timatanga hou” he whakatika i nga whakaparahako ka tau ki runga i wera 16 17 ranei te pakeke engari ka taea te ki tera pea kua whakapakaritia. I raro i te ture ka taea kia utua nga rangatahi i te 80 paiheneti o te utu mo nga kaimahi pakeke mo o ratou haora 200 tuatahi. Kei raro e putu ana te kaupapa arai i te mana o nga kaimahi o Reipa! Aue aue taukuri e! 
Ko nga mahi o te tika e wanangahia nei kei roto i te wahanga 21 o te Ture Tikanga Tangata o te tau 1993 me te wahanga 19 o te Ture Mana Tangata o Aotearoa o te tau 1990. No reira mena e kore koe e marama i raro i te wahanga 5 o te Ture Mana Tangata kore taea te ki he tika paku nei tenei momo whakahawea. Ko te korero a wetahi kaiwhakatakoto korero ko nga utu rangatahi kei te utua i raro iho i te ture Utu Iti i tenei wa. He tirohanga tuatahi mo te ahua o te whakaparahako i raro iho i te Ture Mana Tangata o Aotearoa. Ko ta te tautoko a te Komihana Tamariki a Takuta Cindy Kiro kaua e rere ke te utu kia kore te whakaparahako i te rangatahi mena e orite ana nga mahi. Mena e u ana tatou ki te kaupapa whakarangatira tangata me whakamana tatou i nga ture hei arai i nga tangata kua whiwhi mahi hakoa kahore ano ratou i eke ki te18 tau. Kua kitea e ia i taua whakaaro i te ripoata ki te käwana mai i te Komiti Whanui o te Ao mo te Mana o te Tamaiti i te tau 2003. 
E kore tenei Kawanatanga e aro ake ki nga tirohanga ki nga whakarite ranei o te Komiti Muru i te Mahi Kaikiri. Ko te tino whakapono a Te Pati Maori kia riro e te kaimahi te utu ka utua hakoa he aha te pakeke. I te panuitanga tuatahi o tenei pire he whakaatu matou i wa matou awangawanga mo nga mahi whakahawea ki nga kaimahi haua. Kei roto i te Ture Kia Iti Te Utu o te tau 1983 e mau ana—he kaupapa kua tau i raro i te pire Tautoko Mahi Mo Nga Tangata Haua (Ture Whakakore me wetahi atu Take). Engari kore matou i whakaarohia horekau he tuara ta te Komiti Waka Tikanga Mahi Tahi; to ratou mataku kia whakakorea nga mahi whakaparahako i a tatou rangatahi ratou ano ka noho tuwhera ki nga kino o te ao. 
Tini ana nga rawa ka taka ki a Reipa mena i whakapakari ai to ratou tu mo te mana rangatahi engari i te wa o nga whiriwhiringa o te komiti Paremata ka rere ke haere te ahua o Reipa. Na kua tae ki tenei wa kore rere ke atu te ahua o Reipa ki to ratou hoa a Nahinara ratou i tautoko i te pire a Wayne Mapp. E whakapono ana matou mena ka totika te utu ki te rangatahi ka pai ake te ahua o wa ratou wahi mahi; a ka whai haere te oranga ki o ratou whanau. 
I panuihia e te Komihana Mana Tangata tetahi rangahau ara i tiro whanui ki te 458 tangata a ka kitea i reira e 81 paiheneti i tautoko kia totika te utu i te rangatahi. No reira he aha tuturu ai ka ahua tame heihei te komiti Paremata kia kore ratou e tautoko i te kaupapa mana tangata. 
Ko tenei te 200 tau mai i te pire a Wilberforce kia murua nga kaupapa whakataurekareka tangata i te Paremata o Ingarangi i te tau 1807. Na tona kaha ki te whawhai natona maia hakoa te tini o nga wa i raru ai ia ka riro i a ia te taitara. “Ngakau Whakawa o te Paremata”. Ko taku e whakaaro i te tau 2007 mena ka taea e nga mema o te Whare te whakawa i o ratou ake ngakau te poti kia whakakahoretia i tenei pire i te mea kua huri tuara a Reipa ki te kaupapa taketake i hangaia i te tuatahi. Kore rawa matou o Te Pati Maori e tautoko i tenei pire i te mohio he pire whakataurekareka i nga kaimahi rangatahi. Te mutunga mai o tera he me whakama tatou katoa.Tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you and to us all in the House. This time last week the new blockbuster Amazing Grace was released on to New Zealand screens—timed conveniently for the reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Bill—a movie that has received rave reviews around the world climbing to the top 10 in the USA’s box office charts where it made over $22 million domestically. In England even the good old BBC got excited reporting that “It makes the workings of Parliament as gripping as a good suspense thriller.” which of course is an accurate description of life here in Parliament. 
The film tells the story of William Wilberforce who over 20 years led a fierce political battle to abolish slavery and its trade throughout the British Empire.  
I am not about to follow in his footsteps but the thought is the same. There is no way that I will be sticking around until 2027 to abolish youth slave rates. It has to come a lot sooner than that. Going back to the movies it seems that this film has  
mobilised 
people all over the world to do what they can to change the ways in which communities view slavery. In its wake a movement has emerged called The Amazing Change which is motivated by the drive to free some 27 million people who are enslaved around the world. 
So I come to this bill today wondering whether what we are doing with this  
bill will become a new development in the Amazing Change report card. When this bill last came before the House in February 2006 our co-leader Tariana Turia delivered a stirring speech pronouncing that the Maori Party would be supporting this bill and was proud to be standing up for 16 and 17-year-olds. Yet here I am today telling the House that we will be voting against this bill because—as my statement issued earlier this month declared—“We opposed Wayne Mapp’s ‘New Slave Bill’ and we won’t be supporting Labour’s ‘Young Slave Bill’ either.”No way Jose! 
So how did it all end up so wrong? 
The bill’s original purpose was to end age-based discrimination in employment—a worthy goal that we wholeheartedly endorse—and we did so particularly in light of the needs of our youth population. We did so knowing full well  
that 30 percent of Maori are aged between 10 and 25 years old and that by 2050 50 percent of Maori will be aged 26 years and under.  
Maori are therefore more widely affected than non-Maori by the discriminatory aspects of the Minimum Wage Act 1983. 
We did so also realising that it is Maori and Pasifika peoples that record the lowest median net worth in terms of distribution of wealth. We know too that it is Maori and Pasifika youth and their families who make up the working poor in this country. And if we are to believe the submission from Tino Rangatiratanga Tai Tamariki Youth Law it is young people who 7 years after the passage of the Employment Relations Act still remain extremely vulnerable to unfair treatment in the employment sector. Our youth are still experiencing the injustice of being deprived of basic minimum employment standards like having written employment contracts; the injustice of arbitrary dismissals; the injustice of unilateral changes to the terms and conditions of their employment; and the injustice of exploitation and unfair treatment in the workplace. 
As Martin Luther King Jnr wrote in his 1963 letter from Birmingham Jail “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” The Maori Party found it extremely revealing that the select committee chose to amend the title of the bill removing the words “abolition of age discrimination” and replacing them with “new entrant”. And we ask why. Well  
Labour 
can dress it up as much as it likes but the issue that cannot be smoothed away with textual airbrushing is that of discrimination. 
The select committee has opted to introduce a new form of discrimination justifying the repackaged 200-hour “new entrants” minimum wage as being all about “soft skills” and representing a “learning phase”. Funny that but this “new entrants” rate is set at the same rate as the current youth minimum! So what has changed? This is what the Amazing Change movement calls the new form of slavery —the men women and children who are physically forced to work often under the guise of meaningless contracts or in sweatshops. The “new entrants” minimum rate to be set by minimum wage order for 16 and 17-year-olds fails to address the issue of discrimination—indeed it could be said that it entrenches it. It will make it legally permissible for young people to earn 80 percent of the adult wage for their first 200 hours. So much for the  
Labour 
legacy of protecting workers rights!Woe is me! 
The rights in question are those  
anti-age discrimination provisions set out in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. And in case it is not clear under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act this discrimination is also unable to be “reasonably justified”. As a number of submitters pointed out the youth rates currently provided for in the Minimum Wage Act constitute prima facie age discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
In supporting the original bill the Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro  
argued that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age where the same work is being done. If we are really committed to equality of human rights we must ensure legislation is in place to protect all persons under the age of 18 who are employed which she noted was a concluding observation to the New Zealand Government in October 2003 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 
This Government ignores the observations and conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  
The Maori Party absolutely believes that all workers should be entitled to a minimum adult 
wage irrespective of age or experience. A 
t the first reading we raised our concerns that the discrimination against  
disabled workers entrenched in the Minimum Wage Act 1983 was maintained in this bill—a matter now settled with passage of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill.  
But we never anticipated that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee would lack the courage to act against the discrimination of our youngest most vulnerable workers. 
Labour members 
had everything to gain in standing up for the rights of young people yet what happened during the select committee metamorphosis now means they are virtually indistinguishable from their National Party counterparts who promoted the Wayne Mapp bill. We believe that providing young workers with equality of wage entitlement would have the corresponding effect of improving their overall conditions in the workplace and would also bring about related well-being to their whanau. 
The Human Rights Commission shared the results of a survey of 458 respondents of which 81 percent considered it important that young people have a fair wage. The commission also reminded the select committee that there is no strong evidence that a youth minimum wage is necessary to increase employment of 16 and 17-year-olds. So what could possibly be the reason that the select committee would chicken out from standing up for the right to non-discrimination? 
This year marks 200 years since Wilberforce’s bill abolishing slavery was passed in the British Parliament of 1807. For his courage and the enduring struggle he persisted with despite a series of defeated bills Wilberforce was awarded the title “Conscience of Parliament”. I wonder whether in this Parliament in 2007 the members of this House are prepared to examine their conscience and vote to oppose this disastrous back-down on the original proposal to abolish age discrimination in benchmarking a minimum wage. The Maori Party will never support discrimination against workers which is just what this bill promotes. This discriminatory bill is wrong and we should be ashamed of it. 
 Thank you all 
.] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well I have to say listening to that contribution that the member clearly cares. Clearly he is concerned but he is not concerned enough to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and listen to submissions and he is not concerned enough to take a genuine interest when the public of New Zealand came before a committee of MPs to outline their case. 
But I have to say to the member that he made another good point which I want to concur with. The film  
Amazing Grace 
 is an absolutely excellent movie. I say for those who have not seen it that it is well worth seeing. It is largely the story of an English MP who has genuine concerns about people; he does not bad-mouth people and he finally gets listened so. So I say to this House that if members can think of an English MP who basically does not bad-mouth people and thinks about genuine concerns he or she is well worth listening to. I recommend that members take the member’s advice. 
 We gave some serious consideration to Sue Bradford’s original bill. We listened to the people who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee very honestly and very openly and they made some very good points. Nevertheless the Government made a move—and I think it is a very good move—to introduce a new entrants rate and New Zealand First will be supporting this amended bill as it has come back to the House. 
Let me outline some of the concerns put to the select committee by a number of employers—small employers in particular. They said that they take on young people to give them their first chance. One lady in particular impressed me with her submission. She told us about the difficulties she has faced with some young people. They do not turn up and they do not take the business to heart; they have all the skills they know what to do and they adapt themselves but they consider going to work as secondary to having a good time. Nevertheless this lady has persevered by employing young people. I thought she had a very good point. She made it clear that the only advantage if that is the appropriate word—I do not think she used the word “advantage” but I will—that the only difference between a younger person and an older person in terms of cost is the youth minimum wage rate. She said that if she is compelled to pay what she called the adult minimum wage then she would employ older people. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Wayne Mapp was on the select committee at the time and he has just acknowledged agreement. So that is a genuine concern. New Zealand is made up very largely of small businesses. 
The second thing that concerns us—particularly my colleague Brian Donnelly who is sitting alongside me now—is the incentive that paying the minimum wage will give young people to sacrifice their education. If I could give a young person three pieces of advice in one word it would be “education education education”. If young people think they can leave school at 16 years work in the workforce and advance themselves without being fully educated then they are fooling themselves. If we abolish the youth minimum wage and put those young people straight on to the minimum wage we will give a number of them the incentive to leave school and go into the workforce then and there. New Zealand First is not prepared to chance that on a one-off basis. 
It might not only be young people who give themselves the push to join the workforce; it could well be their parents. A parent may say: “Well you can now earn as much as your father. Go out there and earn it.”. So the incentive to join the workforce could first come from the individual youngster or second from his or her parents. I do not normally tell people about my own growing up. I have to say that it was quite a long while ago when I was— 
Rodney Hide 
: Which century was it in? 
PETER BROWN 
: I can tell Mr Hide that believe it or not it was last century. My father wanted me to leave school at 15 I think it was in those days. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did you know Charles Dickens? 
PETER BROWN 
: Charles Dickens was a personal friend of mine. I knew him well at school. I read many of the books he wrote. 
My father was very keen for me to join the workforce at 15 but my mother knew my desire to become a merchant navy officer. For some peculiar reason I had wanted to do that from when I was a very very young guy and I had to get certain school qualifications. She knew that if I left school at 15 I would never get there. In our household it was she who compelled my father. She said: “Look if Peter wants to stay at school and do what he wants to do in life we’re going to support him.” It was a little bit more toey than that but the point I am trying to make is that at times parents do encourage their kids to leave school too early and this would be another incentive to do just that. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was 200 years ago though. 
PETER BROWN 
: The other point I want to make—and I know that Mr Hide will not overlook it—is that as a result of New Zealand First being in this House the minimum wage is going up to $12 an hour by the end of this term. That would not have occurred but for the political party that I stand here representing right now. It was part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Government. The Government put a little rider on the end—“subject to economic conditions” or something like that—but we will get to $12 an hour which means that the youth minimum wage will become $9.60. Had we not reached that agreement with the Government one could expect that at the end of this term the minimum wage would be about the $10 mark which would mean a youth minimum wage of $8. So youngsters will get an increase of something in the vicinity of $1.60 that they would not have got but for the political intrusion by New Zealand First. We ensured that the minimum wage will go up and as a result the youth minimum wage will go up. This new entrants rate is a step in the right direction. It may not be the be-all and end-all but it is a good point for youngsters to start their working career from. 
As to the 200 hours we recognise that if a person is working full time it will take a matter of weeks but if he or she is working part time it could take a good deal longer. 
Hone Harawira 
: 5 years. 
PETER BROWN 
: Five years? Two hundred hours would take 5 years? 
Hone Harawira 
: They work in the holidays and when they finish they go back to school. The next time they start all over again. That’s how it works. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would be totally surprised if it takes anybody 5 years to get to the minimum wage. 
Hone Harawira 
: Every time they stop it starts again. 
PETER BROWN 
: I can promise the honourable member that if there is such a case then New Zealand First will be prepared to look at it. 
The point I am making is that it will not take terribly long in anybody’s book to get to the 200 hours. As the 200 hours will be spread across all employers the biggest problem will be keeping records. A guy could work 10 hours a week for company A and then 2 weeks later work 10 hours a week for company B and someone has to keep track of those records. I have a feeling that there will be employers who will say: “I don’t want to be bothered keeping a track of that. We’ll give you the full minimum wage anyway. You’re only 50 hours or 60 hours or 10 hours or whatever short of the 200 hours. We will put you on the minimum wage virtually from whoa to go.” 
I think the Government has got it right. We have had a long discussion in New Zealand First about this bill about the first bill that Sue Bradford appeared with and about the way the Government has doctored it if I might use that language. We think it is fair we think it is a good move and we think that this will work exceedingly well given the opportunity both for employers and for young employees. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I spoke at the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and United Future supported its first reading. We felt there were some very good intentions contained in the bill and we wanted to see what the select committee would do with the raw material that was in the first draft. I would like to congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on what has come out of that process. It certainly has addressed some of the concerns that United Future signalled at that first stage. Our concern was that we could end up disenfranchising the very people whom this bill intends to help; that is we would price young people out of the labour market so that if employers had a choice they would go for the more mature workers in the belief that they would be employing people with a better work ethic. We think that this new entrants provision improves the bill immensely. 
One of the things that has always amazed me particularly since I moved to Wellington for part of the week is the huge difference between the life experiences of young people in the city and young people in the provinces. We raised our children in the provinces. What is quite typical out in the provinces is that when young people leave school either to go into training or to go into work they often have to leave home; that is not uncommon. Smaller towns do not always provide work or training opportunities. So it is quite possible for someone to be 16 and leaving home for a work opportunity that he or she really wants—that person has weighed up the options and feels that for his or her life this is the best way forward—but somehow that person has to survive independently on youth rates which is extremely difficult. This bill provides the opportunity for young people who are working to capacity and doing a good job to have that work recognised. 
I do not agree that this new provision is in any way similar to Mr Wayne Mapp’s bill. This provision does not mean that a person can be let go at the end of the 200 hours if he or she has not met the standards. It is only a training period where the skills that a person needs are put into place. 
As a parent who has raised three children I often look with appreciation on some of those early jobs that my children had as teenagers such as working at McDonald’s working at all sorts of little restaurants and labouring on worksites. They learnt so much from having good bosses in those situations. They had a lot of skills to learn. They had to learn how to fill downtime when there was not an obvious job facing them. They had to find that secondary level of activity on a worksite. These are all skills that they did not necessarily have coming out of the home environment. They had to pick up a lot of skills and they became extremely employable young people. 
I think there is a real need for a training period. Certainly employers will tell us that it costs them a lot to employ somebody who has a low skills set and low employment experience. That is why for instance we have support for disabled people where we help them to come up to speed. We understand that for an employer to take on disabled people he or she will have to spend some considerable additional time training them. It is a very similar situation here. 
United Future is pleased with the work that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Government have done. We think that the additional provisions have improved the bill and it means that we can continue to support it at its second reading. I do want to signal though that I heard a few rumours about amendments that could be floating around at the Committee stage. We will be watching those very carefully to make sure that any further amendments made at the Committee stage do not disqualify us from giving further support to what we believe to be right. We would like to be able to support this bill right through to its third reading and with the bill in its current form we would be able to do that. We are very happy to support the second reading. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I listened to Hone Harawira’s speech and I am quite surprised given the Standing Orders that we are considering this bill because it is clear to me that the bill has been so changed in its purpose that it is a different bill. Technically we should bar it from consideration in this House it would seem to me. Obviously I am not right because I know that the clerks and the Speaker are very good on this. This is a bill that is designed to prohibit discrimination in the terms described in the bill but what has come back from the select committee is a bill that just perpetuates discrimination and that is why the bill had to have its name changed. 
Having said that I take issue with Mr Harawira’s point. He quoted Martin Luther King and his concept of discrimination. I should say that ACT opposed the bill at its first reading and opposes it still—however I understand it is a different bill now. I think the key point is this idea of discrimination and the concern that Martin Luther King had that people should be treated equally by the law and should be free. I believe that everyone in this House should support that. 
But in order to be free we have to be able to live as we choose and not have the Government telling us who we can work for and at what rate of pay. That removes freedom. If I am unable to pick raspberries for a price that I am willing to pick them for for someone who is prepared to pay for them I am not a free person. Someone is making the decision. In fact that is the situation that makes me a slave. The Government is saying that I cannot work. Rather than concentrating on what Martin Luther King said we have twisted it here today and turned it inside out. Let us think. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Dickens here we go. Dickens is back. David Copperfield. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that David Cunliffe likes getting exercise. He is one of those MPs—and it is easy to do—who stands up in this House and says: “I care about poor wages. Let’s make a law about it to show how much I care.” David Cunliffe has never in his life actually employed anyone. He has never in his life been employed in the productive sector. He has always lived off the taxpayer. 
 I ask members to think about it. If this kind of legislation worked to boost wages why are we debating a piddling $12 an hour with New Zealand First? Why not make everyone rich and make it $100? Everyone thinks that is silly do they not? In fact why not make it $100 an hour for a 16-year-old? We are against slavery are we not—let us make it $100 an hour and let everyone get it and we will be rich. 
We know the consequence of doing that. Suddenly the House has gone quiet. We know the consequence of that—there will not be very many people working because for the minimum wage to have an impact it has to force wages above the going rate. That is the trouble with it: if members vote for a minimum wage yes it is good for those who have work but it excludes people from the job market. Where is the justice in that? Where is the fairness in that? How does that help a Maori youth wanting to get a job? Of course we want that Maori youth to have a job. If we want that we have to have the freedom to set a price. 
If we want wages to go up we cannot do it from this House. We cannot do it by passing a bit of feel-good law. We cannot sit around and pat ourselves on the back with self-satisfied smirks thinking we are helping the poor. No it requires hard work to drive up wages hard work from this place—from the Government. We need to be driving up wages and ultimately the only thing that can do that is a more productive economy. Passing a law in this place to set a price for labour does nothing to improve the productivity of this economy. Setting a minimum wage does nothing to improve the productivity of labour. If it is effective it actually excludes people from the market and makes our economy less productive and the very people we are trying to help will be poorer now and poorer in the future. 
We should be asking some basic questions: “What is it that enables people to get a job?”; “What is it that enables wages to go up?”; and “What is it that enables a country to prosper?” The answer is not in regulating prices it is not in regulating wages and it is not in sitting here with a self-satisfied smirk saying: “Hey look at us don’t we care.” 
I know that David Cunliffe is smarter than he appears by taking the mickey out of me for speaking out against minimum wages—he has been to Harvard; he knows the impact. He is just wanting to play a bit of politics by implying that I who am speaking the truth am suggesting that I am in favour of low wages. Of course not—someone who is speaking out against regulating prices is not in favour of a sweatshop. Someone who is speaking out about trying to regulate our way to prosperity is not a person who does not care. Someone who is speaking out against making a minimum price is not someone who says: “Let’s all help business and not care about the workers.” No that is someone who is addressing the issue of what we need to do in the New Zealand economy to help our young people not just today but tomorrow next week and in the years ahead. We should be looking at our economic circumstance— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member cares about stakeholders about robber barons? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Cunliffe sits in a Government that is seeing interest rates driven up workers laid off and businesses shut down. He is in a Government that is unable to respond to that predicament. Solving the predicament is hard work. It requires a Government to take a good hard look at itself and not just sit there and play politics not just sit there and take workers’ hard-earned money and spend it to try to win votes. It requires a Government that says: “Hang on we do not need to spend this money here. It is nice to spend it here but it would be better to lower taxes so that everyone has more money in their pockets.” 
If we lower taxes we get more investment and therefore more capital and it is capital and technology—as Mr Cunliffe well knows—that drive up wages. Capital and technology are what drive up wages because they are what make us all more productive. That is why for example New Zealand workers cutting hair or driving trucks get paid more than workers in say Fiji or workers in South Africa. It is not that they work harder it is that they have more capital and more technology to work with. 
The danger is that we are falling behind; we are falling behind on the capital and technology fronts and it is because we now have a regime operating that is too highly taxed. There is a huge fiscal stimulus going into the economy and driving up interest rates and we have regulated ourselves so that people look at it and think it is all too tough. We in Parliament cannot understand the rules that confront small business. We cannot understand the rules and yet we expect people in small businesses whose job is not to understand the rules—that is our job—but to run their businesses to understand the rules that we cannot understand. 
That is what we are doing. What we should be doing is not piling up regulation upon regulation but doing the hard work to get this economy going. That is caring because to care we have to deliver results. I tell the House that putting in minimum wage laws and driving up the minimum wage do nothing to increase wages. Thank you very much. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting debate this afternoon and I think that Mr Hide has identified the core problem with the New Zealand economy—that is productivity. The latest productivity figures for the economy actually show that things are going backwards. That is the reason why we are not doing as well as Australia. Our productivity is lower than Australia’s. There are a variety of reasons and Mr Hide identified two of them. He identified— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s still growing! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The economy is growing but productivity is not—that is the difference. 
The issues that were identified were technology and capital. There is actually a third reason as well which is skills. That is built around education. It is clear that in Australia more is spent on tertiary education of all kinds than in New Zealand; a greater percentage of its GDP goes on tertiary education than in New Zealand. That is one of the reasons why John Key’s recent speech on trades and skills focused on building skills particularly for those people who might otherwise miss out. If the Government wants to know why New Zealanders are listening to John Key it is precisely because he is solution-focused. He has practical solutions for real problems and education is at the heart of it. 
Why do I stress this point in relation to this bill so much? It is because National is concerned that the bill is effectively a perverse incentive. We want young people to stay at school or alternatively at least to be in trade training—to build their skills and to make them more productive members of the community. That is where in some respects I would have to say that both Mr Hide at one end of the spectrum and indeed Mr Harawira at the other end of the spectrum miss the point. Of course there is a need for minimum rules around employment. National has no difficulty with that. We have always accepted that. We have never supported the position of employment at will. I know that many people will argue for that. That is not our position. That will be perfectly clear and indeed has been clear over the years in the nature of the employment legislation we put to the public for adjustment. [ 
Interruption 
] As the Minister interjecting well knows right through the 1990s there was always minimum wage legislation. That was protected throughout that period and it is an important point to put on record. 
However we do not believe that this bill is the correct way forward. The first reason is the perverse incentive and I want to focus on that point just a little bit more. As I said we want people either in school or in trade training. By lifting the minimum wage for effectively 16 and 17-year-olds—members should remember we are talking about those 2 years only—we actually provide an incentive for some young people to make a choice to leave school and go to work. We say that that is a bad choice. We do not want that perverse kind of incentive in the system. We are not talking after all about the university student or the person doing a 5-year trade training course; we are talking about vulnerable young people for whom it is most critical to build their skills. 
I say to Mr Harawira in particular that the National Party’s approach which was certainly clear from my 90-day probationary employment bill was to provide the opportunity for young people to get ahead—to get out of unemployment and dependency and essentially into work. That will be a core part of our employment legislation going forward. I remind the Maori Party that I listened very carefully to its concerns at the time and I prepared I believe a carefully thought-through Supplementary Order Paper for the Parliament at the time which was supplied to those members in advance so that in a sense the concerns they raised would have been fully covered. I have to say to members opposite and to Judy Turner as well that that was intended to be a moderate measure. I have to remind the House that New Zealand is the only country in the OECD that does not have probation periods. That is a far cry I say to the Maori Party from the era of Lord Wilberforce. So let us not take absurd analogies to ridiculous extensions. 
The second reason that we are not supporting the bill is the deterrent effect it will have on employers. I heard many of the submissions. Naturally enough most of the young people—not all but the vast majority—came along and said they wanted the bill. I guess that is understandable. They were in effect the lobbyists for the measure and people will always want the immediate advantage that they see. In contrast virtually every employer—although I will not go so far as to say every employer because some had a different view—said: “Hang on a minute this bill poses a risk.” The risk is this. Common sense tells us that 16 and 17-year-olds are building experience not just in the workforce but in life in general—in maturity in understanding the adult world’s expectations and so forth. It does not happen overnight. The whole point of having this introductory phase into work when one is 16 and 17 is to get a chance to get that first job for those people who make that choice—as unwise as it is for many of them. 
Many of the employers were very clear in saying that if they had to pay the full wage they would go for an older person. They said that it is not just the technical job skills that are required in that first 6 months; it is all the other things that a person acquires as he or she gets a little older—that is maturity judgment reliability and so forth. All of those things play their part. They may not be job-specific as such but they nevertheless bear on the value of a person in the workforce. Many of the employers said that if this bill is introduced it will actually reduce the opportunities for those young people to be able to get a job. 
One of our own members Mr Bob Clarkson made this point very clearly. He said he wanted to give people a chance. He also said during the debate on my 90-day bill that he wants to give people a chance but he needs incentives to be able to do that. He needs to be able to give people a go. The legislative environment has to be able to favour that in order for employers to give that incentive. He is saying to the Government and to the Green Party that as well intentioned as these measures might be it will be a deterrent for him to do precisely that. Is he going to take a risk on someone who has perhaps a difficult background in terms of minor lawbreaking and the like? Is he going to take that risk? He said he probably would not but my 90-day bill would have given employers a chance to do precisely that; it provided the leverage up into the workforce that those people need. 
It is the same principle here. National is taking a principled approach to this. We believe in moderate reasonable employment legislation—in that sense we differ from our colleagues in the ACT party—but similarly we do not go to the other end of the spectrum as represented by some of the other speeches given today. There is a sensible middle way around these things and National supports those middle ways. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The bill we are debating today is not the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill that the previous speaker sponsored into this House and that was soundly defeated which it should have been. 
This Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill deals with the reasonably straightforward issue of whether we pay young people of 16 and 17 less than an 18-year-old or over as the current law allows or whether we take that discrimination away. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee grappled with the opposing views and—as select committees should do in this Parliament—we listened to both views. In the fine balance that this reported-back bill shows we have taken into account the strong opposition by some employers to doing anything and have listened to their fall-back position as I would describe it of saying that there is a genuine need to deal with the 16-year-old who has never worked before and is coming into the workplace with none of the informal skills that they require and that they think there should be a short period of time where they pay them a lesser amount. That is what this new entrants rate is all about. 
I know there will be people who are disappointed. We had some wonderful young people come before the committee up and down the country and they put forward a very sound case. Many of them told stories about being employed in supervisory positions as 16-year-olds and being responsible for supervising people older than them who happened to be eligible for the adult minimum wage and there was no logic in that. That was unfair and that is why the select committee has said those people should not be paid a lower rate. 
I listened to some of the speeches made earlier—unfortunately not all of them—and I listened to Rodney Hide’s final comments about complexity. Well it is not complex at all. The facts are that everybody has to keep time and wage records. That is the law. Nobody thinks it is wrong. Nobody thinks it is onerous; it is sensible. Maybe the ACT party is alone on that one. If we are running a business it is not hard to count up to 200. If we have kept a record of all the hours of work and they add up to 200 then we know that that person is then eligible for the full minimum adult wage. I do not think that is onerous. I do not think it is onerous to keep records of hours and wages. Those requirements are in the legislation they have been there under various forms of Government and they continue to be there. 
The reason people are paid youth rates out there in some situations notably the fast-food industry is because the employers can do it. The law allows them to. Employers expect this legislation to be passed and have been budgeting and preparing for it for a very long time. Some of them do not pay youth rates at all at the moment because they choose not to. But some of them do it purely because of the competitive pressures of the fast-food chain down the road paying lower wages even though they agree that their workers should get paid the minimum adult wage. In essence this bill allows a level playing field. It does not give anybody an out by having a legal minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds thus giving employers the excuse to pay lower wages. 
The interesting thing about hearing submissions on industrial relations as I have done for some years now is that the employer organisations do what I think is a good job in that they go out and survey their membership up and down the country. They came and told us there was not a lot of interest in this bill from most of their membership because those employers do not pay youth rates. I think about 85 percent of them do not pay youth rates. Who does? It is largely employers in the retail sector the hospitality sector and most notably inside that the fast food sector. Those people are concerned about this bill but 85 percent of employers in New Zealand do not give a toss because they do not pay youth rates. They do not see them as a necessary part of running their business. 
When I think about the words of the previous speaker Dr Wayne Mapp who said that if we require employers to pay young people more it will displace young people I say we should look back at the last time that happened. When we brought the minimum wage threshold down from 20 years which is what the threshold used to be to 18 was there displacement? Were fewer hours worked by young people as a result of our doing that? The evidence before the select committee said no there was not. Nobody could give us any evidence to show that young people lost work lost work opportunities or had reduced hours as a result of the last move made by this Government in this area. I do not expect there will be this time either. 
Really I think that the question that will be debated—and I know that it will be debated very fiercely at the Committee stage—is whether we should have the new entrants rate at all. I think the House should have that debate because the select committee had to grapple with it and it came to the majority view that members have now been presented with in the House to debate. I look forward to hearing the debate from those who like the Maori Party members would like to support the bill but without this new entrants rate. I look forward to hearing that debate because it is an important debate for us to have. 
But I also think that this amended bill has a fairly broad amount of support across the political spectrum. In reality the National Party if it could get over the fact that it has been in Opposition so long that it has to oppose things just for the sake of it would be supporting this bill. If those members were using their common sense they would be supporting this bill. If they had actually listened to the submissions before the select committee they would be supporting this bill on the basis that they would have done a bit of homework and found out that the unemployment rate out there 2 weeks ago when I launched a report in Auckland on the labour market stood at 1227 for 18 and 19-year-olds compared with 17000 when National was last in power. Then David Benson-Pope in the House last week I think reported that that figure had dropped to 990 unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds. If National members actually looked at those sorts of statistics and took notice of them they would know that a bill like this will not have very much effect at all on young people in that age group in terms of whether they are in employment education or whatever because most young people over the age of 17 are either in employment or in education right now. 
The other question that National raised in its minority report is an interesting one. It is about whether this bill would encourage people out of education and into work because they would get the minimum adult wage. Again I return to the evidence we heard about who is paying youth rates and I do not think that a lot of young people will rush out of school tomorrow in order to get a job at McDonald’s because suddenly the adult rate is being paid. Young New Zealanders are brighter than that. They would go to McDonald’s and work part-time to get them through study and to help their families out whilst they were still at school but I do not think they would rush out and leave their education behind because of a minimum adult wage being available to them 200 hours after they begin work. That could be in as little as 5 weeks. 
To the critics of that new entrants rate I say that the current situation is that a 16-year-old has to work for 2 years before getting the adult minimum wage. Under the bill after about 5 weeks of full-time employment young people can get on to the adult minimum wage. That is really where the argument lies as to whether the select committee was correct in putting forward that amendment. That matter will be determined by way of a vote in Parliament as the bill goes through the Committee stage. 
As I said if National members were not just playing politics on every single piece of legislation that came into this House if they started to engage the brain read the evidence and listen to the submitters—including the many employers that came before us—they would be agreeing with this bill and not mucking around and being stupid about sensible legislation like this. As we know living on $12 or $11.25 an hour or whatever it might be is a very tough struggle. Those workers who have finally got their boss that lousy outfit called Spotless Healthcare Services to pay them the wages that they deserve were living on $11 and $12 an hour. We as a Government think that is shocking and that is why we put so much money into the public health system to fix that problem. 
We do not think that people should be earning the minimum wage full stop in this country but we must always have a floor that employers cannot go below. A huge number of workers never ever earned the minimum wage in this country before the previous National Government brought in the Employment Contracts Act. We are fixing up the problem; bills like this one help. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill today. I thank members of our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work we have gone through in looking at this bill and I thank the proponents of the bill for their work. We were certainly very pleased to see this issue come before the select committee. 
All committee members took a great deal of enjoyment in hearing from the submitters. Some really successful people in business made submissions but also some young people made submissions and I will draw attention to the submission made by representatives of Young Labour. Actually it was probably the best submission that was made. Those guys really did a lot of work on their submission and it was a real credit to them. Even though it was slightly misguided in where they wanted to go it was a very good submission and they presented it very well. 
Today we have just listened to some arguments and one argument made about discrimination I think we need to address at a very early stage in this House. This bill is not about discrimination. Drawing comparisons with Lord Wilberforce are unfair to Lord Wilberforce as this is not a case where we have an upper limit on what someone can be paid. If we had a limit specifying that we can pay 16 and 17-year-olds only $5 an hour then that would be discrimination. We have a lower limit; we do not have an upper limit. So there is no discrimination in the sense that the Maori Party has promoted today. I think that is something we need to look at as it is fundamental to the employment situation out there. It is a matter of choice. Employers can choose to pay more than the minimum wage and in a lot of cases they do. We had submissions saying that 58 percent of some employers pay above the minimum wage. I think it is fundamental to look at the opportunity for an employer to recognise a good employee. If someone is good the employer will reward that person. The employer will pay that person. 
We come into this House and we talk about equality and we think of one big level playing field—well members should have a look around at themselves. This is not a place of equality; this is a place that is all about hierarchy. We have members in the front row representing their time in this place. They get the jobs in the front row. Cabinet Ministers get paid more than backbenchers in Labour. It is all about hierarchy. How are we going to change that hierarchy? Are we to say that we cannot have that at the start of someone’s working career—it is all right to have a hierarchy in the later stages of one’s career but it is not all right to have a hierarchy in the early stages? That just does not make sense. The reality is that whatever people do in life they start in one position and work up. 
Will this mean that young people getting their drivers’ licences will go straight on to full drivers’ licences? No it does not. We make sure that people have to go through a whole system and if anything there is talk about extending the system so that people have more time under restricted or learner drivers’ licences. How can we say that in employment we now have to charge or be paid a certain amount that is at the highest level when this would not happen in other areas of life? Will this mean giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote? No; there are proposals to do it but they will not get very far because we have some limits in our society. 
We recognise some degree of growth. We recognise especially in employment degrees of success and how people progress through their careers—and their salaries are generally commensurate with that. That is the key thing; that is the basis of our society. We do that through our community and through our leadership in this place and we do that through the wages we pay our people. We do that in all aspects of our society. To come in here and talk about discrimination is not true. This is not about an element of discrimination. This is a case where people are living the reality of how our lives are based—people have to go through structures to get to the success that they want to get to. 
The second thing I think we need to look at before we look at some of the arguments for and against the position is the treatment of the Green Party. Those members came to the select committee with high ambitions. They were philosophically in the right place. They said that they wanted to have all of the stuff gone but then Labour came back at the last minute and said no we are going to have this 200-hour element. Labour stymied the Green Party as it does time and time again. 
If there is one lesson the Green Party needs to learn from this it is that it cannot trust those Labour members. The Green Party had a good idea. Labour should have been backing the Greens all the way—it is full of unionists—and it did not. Then Labour came back and changed the bill. Labour brought in a 200-hour change. Labour changed its mind. It was backing the Green Party all the way saying that this is a good idea this is great; and then what does it do? It puts in this 200-hour element. One could see the Green Party members’ faces drop. It was the last thing they expected. Their dreams had gone out of the window. They do not want to support this bill now; that is how bad it is. They want to turn round and say no. 
The Maori Party is in exactly the same position. Its members want to say no because they do not like the 200-hours change. Labour cannot have it both ways. If Labour wanted it it should have done it the whole way but it did not do that. Labour could not be there for the Green Party in terms of the pure philosophy. So that is something that has been missed out. 
I will look at some of the other things in the bill. Employers generally pay what they want for staff. Employers make that conscious choice. However the young people who came in front of the committee said that that was not the case. They have situations where as a 16 or 17-year-old they can be training somebody who is new who may be a 20-year-old and not getting paid the same amount. This is what the young people said. If they were 17 and had been working say at McDonald’s for a year potentially a 20-year-old could come in and that 17-year-old would be paid less but would be training the 20-year-old. That is a very good argument. They were saying that they were not getting paid for the work they had done; that was the argument put forward. The reality is that employers make the choice to retain such people and if they want to retain them they will pay them what they are worth. 
We have a tight labour market out there. Employers need good staff. The hardest thing to find is good staff. As members of Parliament we go around businesses and communities and every time we go into an employment situation the first thing we are told is that the employer wants good staff. Employers will pay to keep the people they want. That is the fundamental basis of what is happening in our employment situation at the moment. If employers will pay that rate they will recognise if someone is 17 and training a 20-year-old. They will take that into account in making the wage decision for that 16 or 17-year-old. So the market is achieving that already. 
The other argument out there and the one that Bob Clarkson put forward in a very good manner was that people need a start; they need a chance they need a break they need to get in. How many people actually go and walk into their first job? I would say very few. Most people who get their first job have to do something special. They have to get their foot in the door. How many people in this Chamber have gone and worked for free to get some experience? I bet that people have. How many people here have gone out and given of themselves before they got a job? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Only to the Labour Party. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Exactly; they have given to the Labour Party. They give before they get. And when they give they get what they want; they get a job. They had to give for years working for the Labour Party with no payment and now they are in here; they got a job. So how can they say anything other than that? One has to give to get. What is the difference between paying a lower rate while people are giving and learning skills—[ 
Interruption 
] Now people like David Cunliffe get to sit over there and talk about these things because only the rich can think like he does. That is the reality of this world. 
There will be a lot of other effects from this legislation. The minimum wage will go to $12 before we know it. That will hurt young people. The number of young people going into unemployment is so high. In fact 12 percent of young people are unemployed compared with the 3 to 4 percent national average. That is a big difference. If wage rates are increased to $12 that difference will be accentuated and young people will be put at a disadvantage. Time and time again submitters came in and made that point. 
There is the argument that this will be a disincentive for people to go into education when that is what we should be promoting as a country. All in all we say there are some problems with this legislation. We do not believe it is a matter of discrimination and we have some pity for the Green Party which went out there but did not achieve its full goals. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I remind members not to bring the Speaker into the argument. If we had an honesty box with a dollar for every time the Speaker was brought into the argument it would get a lot more than the minimum wage per hour. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the second reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill and I congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this debate to the House. I also congratulate New Zealand First and United Future on supporting the bill as it stands. Also as people will have noticed the majority of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee are recommending this bill. I think the select committee report does reflect the genuine consideration we gave to all submitters. 
I want to acknowledge particularly all the young workers who came to the select committee to tell their stories. It was very entertaining at times. In fact I think it was the first time I have been at a select committee meeting where we had submissioners telling their stories by mime. That was from the Radical Youth and I think they told the story very well. I think there is no doubt that our future is in very good hands when we consider the leadership and passion of the many young people whom the select committee had the privilege of hearing from. 
I think the majority of the select committee have agreed that the basis of the original bill is right and that it does not make sense—nor is it just—to continue to pay workers less just because of their age. I think we all believe that age discrimination is wrong just as discrimination on the basis of gender and race is wrong and that it is not fair to pay 16 and 17-year-olds a lower minimum wage. 
However I do not agree that the bill as reported back entrenches discrimination. Our recommendation for the 200 hours means that workers get more pay once that initial experience of 200 hours has been gained—and it is worth noting for the Maori Party that it is not included in the bill; this is a recommendation to the Minister when she considers after consultation with the social partners at the end of the year recommendations on setting the minimum wage in the future. 
The proposal for 200 hours makes sense to me because in my experience as an advocate for workers paying workers for experience is quite common and many collective agreements often reflect just that. A worker gets paid more for the experience once he or she has worked for a particular time. It is called service pay. It might be a bit old-fashioned in the minds of some employers but it is something that workers feel very strongly about. I have had many debates with workers about that particular issue. They often say: “Why is it fair that someone coming into a job who is brand new should get paid the same as me when I’ve been here 2 or 3 years?”. That is how they feel about it. So the select committee’s proposal is talking about 200 hours of experience and being paid on the same basis once they have gained that experience. What is more that experience can be accumulated across many different employers. 
The other question that I think will come up as we go through this debate will be about whether those workers work 200 hours for 5 weeks as full-time employees or 200 hours for however many months for part-time workers. I have to say again that my experience tells me that workers will say it is unfair if some workers have to work 5 weeks as a part-time employee working a couple of hours a week and others have to do 200 hours as a full-time employee working for 5 weeks at 40 hours per week. I have tried to think through how that could be adjusted but for me it comes back to a matter of fairness. We are talking about fairness and experience and it is a hard issue but it is something that I think many many workers will be saying about this. 
So what we are saying is that 16 and 17-year-olds who supervise other workers should not be paid a youth minimum wage. I think that also reflects that the bill as written actually locks in 80 percent for people who are new entrants. Some people may not be aware that the Minimum Wage Act does not say that young workers who are 16 and 17 years old should be paid 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. It is left to Governments and Ministers and so on and we all know what our experience has been of that. So it locks it in at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage and that is a good thing. 
One of the interesting things employers were telling us—and in fact unions were as well—was that progress is being made on collective agreements on youth minimum wages. They are abolishing youth rates and I say congratulations to the unions on running a campaign and getting employers to listen to it. What employers were really saying to the unions and to us was that they will not pay youth minimum wages provided their competitors are not paying youth minimum wages. I think we will see that change over time. If we look at the industries where youth minimum wages are paid we see that they are in the supermarkets in the retail industry in the hospitality industry and in jobs where young workers often do the jobs that adults will not do. 
But it is also worth noting here that we are talking about minimum wages. We are not talking about paid rates as we would call them as advocates in our past lives. We are talking about minimums—the minimum below which no workers can be paid. We were told that most employers pay above the youth minimum wage. So what we are trying to do here is to deal with the most vulnerable; the workers who are most likely to be employed by employers who rely on minimum wages and who pay young workers less than they are worth. 
One of things the select committee heard which I think needs further consideration—it is not in the report back but I think we do need to reflect on it—is the issue of workers under 16. Many of the submitters who came to the select committee talked about their lives as workers as 14 and 15-year-olds. Of course the Government is currently considering ILO Convention 138 the minimum age convention. It is a tricky issue really as to what is the balance between enabling young people to work and raise a little bit of pocket money or money to support their study versus the minimum age at which people should be able to work. But it is an issue that needs attention and I think it will continue to come up but it was outside the scope of the bill. 
The other thing that has not been mentioned in the debate so far is that although the author of the bill is disappointed in the result from the select committee the response we have come up with is a world-leading one. I was very interested in hearing from various groups including the Department of Labour about which countries do not have reduced rates for young workers. It is very hard to find too many countries actually. There is Cyprus Estonia Greece Latvia Slovenia and Spain—so we are talking about being among I suppose OECD countries that are leading the world in this in being able to say we are making progress on removing lower rates for 16 and 17-year-olds on the basis of their age. 
I want to make a response to Hone Harawira. He said in his speech that he would be voting against the bill. One of things that perhaps members do not understand is that this bill is an enabling bill. He will not find when he goes through the bill anything about 200 hours. As I have mentioned the select committee proposal provides a recommendation to the Minister but the Minister is then required to review the rates to discuss that with its social partners and to come up with a solution at the end of it. So I simply do not believe that the hundreds of young workers who submitted on this bill would prefer to continue to wait for 2 years to get their adult minimum wage rather than for 5 weeks or 200 hours as in the proposal that has come forward. 
Finally I would just like to say that the National Distribution Union which has been very active on this particular bill says in its press release today that it is urging Parliament to take the next step and vote for the second reading of this bill so we can continue the debate. I think it will be a real shame if members like those in the Maori Party vote against it because all that will do is ensure that the injustices we have at the moment will continue in their current form. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is somewhat disappointing after my colleague Sue Bradford put this bill in and after it got though the first reading and went on to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the bill has been rather gutted at that committee. It is very much a fifty-fifty sort of bill a half-hearted bill in the way it has come back from the select committee. It is very unfortunate that the Labour Party choked at the critical moment of putting it though in its original form. We had a real chance to abolish completely in minimum wage terms the injustice that has been done historically to 16 and 17-year-olds. 
There was every reason for the select committee to come out with a clear position in favour of the bill. We had legal advice given to the Attorney-General stating quite clearly that to continue this age discrimination would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that in essence the bill was illegal. Secondly the entire trade union movement—including the Council of Trade Unions—which historically the Labour Party has some association with was fully for the bill in its original form and the Labour Party has alienated the entire trade union movement by having this compromise— 
Darien Fenton 
: They want something rather than nothing. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I think there is a certain embarrassment there because those members know that that is true. The Green Party has stood alongside the trade union movement on this; the Labour Party has not. The unions are not just formally in a position; they have conducted rallies and campaigns high school students have mobilised and there have been student strikes. There have been all kinds of things supporting this bill to get rid of youth rates completely. As a result of this campaign certain industries like BP McDonald’s and Postie Plus have conceded full rates. They have got away from youth rates as a result of the campaign by unions that has run alongside the bill. 
And these unions are not giving up. Darien Fenton who spoke before me referred to the press release put out today by the National Distribution Union—a union of which I am a proud member. The National Distribution Union along with Unite! and the Council of Trade Union’s youth movement has set up a website called www.endyouthratesnow.com to help people to mobilise to get this bill through in its original form and to make sure that in its Committee stage it is improved. That youth movement those unions and others will be having a march and a rally on Saturday 11 August leaving from Britomart in Auckland at 12 noon. It would be good if some MPs went there participated in that rally and steeled themselves for the Committee stage in order to move amendments to get the bill back to its original form. 
I refer to some of the myths that surround this bill. The first is that somehow young people are low-quality labour. Nobody is saying that experience does not count for something but we all know that in a lot of areas of the economy particularly where there is some level of computerisation and information technology involved young people of 16 and 17 years of age are much more on to it—they are much quicker to learn—than are people who are say over 30. That is why young people are often chosen as casual workers in the fast food industry and in supermarkets. Employers know that they will be on to it more quickly than most of the older people. Young people are not poor quality labour. The idea that somehow profits will suffer if young people are employed on full rates is quite wrong. 
As Mark Gosche rightly pointed out 85 percent of employers do not go for youth rates. It is mainly in the fast food and retail industries where those rates apply. The reason—and Darien Fenton reinforced this as well—is the competitive pressures in those industries; it is not some basic cost structure in the industry itself. If one lot of employers goes for youth rates other employers think they have to follow suit for reasons to do with competition. 
I think it is quite wrong to say—and I am glad that Mark Gosche also said this—that young people are suddenly going to leave school early and go out and get full-time jobs at age 16 if youth rates do not apply. It is disappointing that the Government put out a press release today talking about the “possible negative impact” of an incentive for 16 and 17-year-olds to leave school early with fewer qualifications. I think Mark Gosche put the lie to that correctly in his speech. In fact we could look at it in another way. If there are no youth rates then people who are going on to say universities and institutes of technology etc. will have more from their part-time earnings to support them in their studies. They are more likely to be able to afford to continue in education not less likely. There are not too many people as I think Mark Gosche mentioned who will go out and forgo any possibility of a career and the education towards it for $450 a week on the minimum wage. 
There is the whole question of “new entrants”. This bill is called a new entrants bill; whereas as has been pointed out a lot of people at 16 are not necessarily new entrants into the workforce; they may have done odd jobs previously. There are all kinds of problems relating to the 200-hours qualification period. I thought from the debate that the 200-hours qualification period was mentioned in the bill and I am sure that a lot of people who have been listening to the radio will think that this bill contains a provision about a 200-hours qualification period before young people go on to full rates. It is nowhere in the bill; it is only in the commentary where there is a recommendation to the Minister of Labour saying: “Dear Minister of Labour you might consider this 200 hours.” 
Unfortunately Labour members seem to be arguing both ways on this. On the one hand when they are criticising Hone Harawira they tell him not to worry because the 200 hours is not mentioned in the bill; on the other hand when they are arguing to get United Future’s support or whatever they say that the 200 hours is mentioned as a strong recommendation. So it is sort of an argument both ways but I do take Darien Fenton’s point that we still have the Committee stage to come and we can still work our way through this to a better result. 
The 200 hours matter is going to be a mess. It covers any employers young people might be working for in that first 200 hours after they turn 16. If they go through a number of employers then keeping all the paperwork and being able to check it will be difficult and if there is some question mark or matters of legal cases then it is all going to be a total mess—a bureaucracy for anyone in the Department of Labour who has to check it all. It will be a nightmare for employers and everyone else—and for what purpose? As the National Distribution Union has indicated the average person will be 5 months in part-time work to achieve the hours going through different employers. It will be a mess. It is not a fair system. 
What this will lead to really—and Hone Harawira used the term “youth slavery”—is that young people will be treated as second-class citizens all for the cost of a few dollars extra from employers. Employers can afford it but young people cannot afford being without those dollars particularly at their stage of life. It is a new form of discrimination being created unnecessarily. 
There is a positive side to the bill of course which is why the Greens are supporting it. It retains a lot of what was in the original bill but this complication this rotten compromise only mucks it up. Hopefully we can end that in the Committee stage. 
Darien Fenton mentioned other countries such as Spain Greece etc. where youth rates have been abolished. Sure those countries may not be the main OECD countries in terms of gross national product but we should be following best practice. I think the Green’s aspiration is that we should be modelling best practice in our labour relations. I think that all National’s talk about how having youth rates is important for productivity and everything else rings rather hollow in fact. It is not respecting the rights of young people. 
The Greens respect the rights of young people. We should respect the 16 and 17-year-olds who are contributing—we meet them in the supermarkets day by day. We should defend their rights and we should defend the union movement and the activities that these young people have taken to achieve support for the bill. I think that it is a bill we should all support. 
Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.name changed to Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill 
Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is with great disappointment that I inform the House that the Government has decided to reject the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill which seeks to address a very real problem for thousands of New Zealanders and for an industry that is worth over $18 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. This bill attempts to address a subset— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is a member of long standing and we have delayed the second reading of the bill in order to enable him to be here tonight to move his bill but I notice that he is a couple of minutes into his speech and he still has not moved the motion that the bill be read a second time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He is not a couple of minutes into his speech and he was just coming to that part. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So despite my disappointment I do wish to move  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I want to make the point to members opposite that the biggest issue on the minds of New Zealanders today is the huge dilemma presented by our economy. In our economy we have strong house-price inflation which is resulting in the Reserve Bank governor having to wind interest rates up. The consequence of that is a record high exchange rate which is destroying regions like my own that are dependent on exporters. 
One would think that a Government might want to do everything possible to try to constrain house-price inflation. In fact Government members sit back like Pontius Pilate saying that this is nothing to do with them that it is someone else’s problem. Well I have to say to members opposite that their refusal to amend the Resource Management Act with the effect that is having on the supply of homes—this is Economics 101 supply and demand—plus the bureaucratic costs that have been added with the Building Act 2004 are contributing to that problem and to New Zealand’s wider economic woes. There has been a dispute in the Local Government and Environment Committee about how big this problem is. The Registered Master Builders Federation told us that it now takes longer in New Zealand to get a consent to build a house than it actually takes to build it. That is disgraceful. That is absolutely killing off— 
Darren Hughes 
: Whereabouts? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member asks where. If we look in my own community of Nelson we see that the problem is significant. We heard submissions from every part of the country and if the member for Otaki actually bothered to speak to some practical people in his own electorate he would know it is a problem there too. I say to members opposite that even the Government accepts that this is a problem for at least 20 percent of building consents. Twenty percent of building consents means 16000 homes a year. I cannot believe that members opposite would want to ignore a problem of that size. 
I have some sympathy with the plight of councils. The reality is that this Government has imposed huge extra bureaucratic costs on them. The process by which building consent authorities are accredited is over the top. Where the Government has got its response to the leaky home problem out of order and wrong is that it has not bothered to strengthen commercial accountabilities to make sure that those who build shonky buildings are held responsible. The end result is that councils have ended up as the guarantee of last resort of our building industry. Because councils face liabilities of not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars they inevitably have become incredibly risk-averse and they in response to that are contributing to this problem. So I have some sympathy with councils and the reality is that the Government has made the problem so much worse for them. 
I will give a really practical illustration. I actually come from the construction industry as does my colleague Bob Clarkson. I will give the House a practical example of what the Government has done. Here in my hand I have a building consent for a $240000 very standard home in Nelson built by Jennian Homes—a good company. There are 35 pages of documentation here and the building consent fees in 2004 were $2700. I have a second building consent in my other hand. As a consequence of the Government’s Building Act not 30 pages but over 200 pages of documentation are required and the fees for the homeowner in this case were over $7600. I do not think members opposite have any idea of the bureaucratic paper-ridden system that they have introduced into the building industry or of the costs that is imposing on the average homeowner—costs that are contributing to the huge pressure on house prices that is doing so much damage to the New Zealand economy. 
So what would this bill do? This bill focuses quite specifically on the issue of the legislative requirement for building consents to be processed within 20 working days. Every other New Zealander has to obey the law—so too should those administering the law. Members opposite effectively say that when councils breach the law and go over the 20 working days there should be no penalty. The most interesting part of councils’ and the Government’s argument is that they say it is perfectly proper for councils to put a penalty on ratepayers when they do not pay their rates on time. That is what councils do. Why do councils do that? They all admitted that they do it because a penalty incentivises people to pay their rates on time. Well if it is good enough for the goose is it not good enough for the gander? If it is good enough for the council to put penalties on citizens when they are late what about when the council is late? 
That is where members on this side of the House make no bones about the fact that we are on the side of the average Kiwi not on the side of the bureaucrats. We are here to back those builders and homeowners who are trying to get ahead in life and are having a huge heap of paperwork and delays imposed on them. 
Let me go through each of the arguments the Government has put forward as to why it is opposing this bill to show how weak the Government is. The first thing it said is that if the council has to process the consent within 20 working days it will not be done properly. Well is that not interesting? We spoke with the Hamilton City Council. It has 100 percent compliance its fees are lower and it is on time. I note that Hamilton’s good mayor Bob Simcock a good former National member of Parliament has applied some common sense in his district and there is absolutely no evidence to show that his council is now doing anything less in terms of quality. Then how about this for an argument from Labour? It said that if there is a penalty the council will process the little consents and not the big ones. Well I have heard some daft arguments. Members should remember that the size of the fees is proportional to the scale so the size would make no difference to the financial incentives for the council to do the work on time. And then the weakest of the arguments that have been provided by the Government in rejecting this bill is that it is unfair because the councils are having difficulties attracting the skills. Well I have to say that if I do not pay my tax on time to this good Government and I say: “Look I’ve had trouble getting hold of an accountant.” does the Government say: “Oh we’ll let you off your tax.”? Of course not! If I do not meet my regulatory requirements as a building owner and get an engineer on time to provide my annual building certification will the Government let me off the hook because there is a shortage of building certifiers? Not on your life! So I simply tell members opposite that they apply one set of rules for bureaucrats and a different set of rules for average citizens. 
So I plead with this House is it not time we took a stand on behalf of the average citizen? Is it not time that we stopped talking about reducing paperwork and actually made some attempt to do it? Is it not time that we stopped talking about compliance costs and actually did something about them? Is it not time to give the homeowner a win? Is it not time that we made councils accountable? And is it not time we actually ensured that when councils break the law there is a penalty? 
The last point I say to members is this: National’s view is not that we believe there will be a cost to the ratepayer. Hamilton City has shown that with the right incentives building consents are done on time. As a result there is an increasing supply homeowners are getting a better deal and that is the right sort of way forward for us to provide fair laws for this country and for the building industry. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I will unpack the lack of logic around this bill but despite all the hot air the member finished by saying two things. He said we should help out the average Kiwi. I will put that aside and get to that in a moment. But then he quoted the jewel in the crown of local authorities the case winner for him the Hamilton City Council which he says is doing this and he uses this as the only example in New Zealand that should win the argument logically in this Chamber for him. Well it is interesting. 
Let us read the reaction to his bill by a chap called Graeme Fleming the environmental services manager for Hamilton City Council the council that Dr Smith quite rightly cites as the be-all and end-all as one that is doing this—[ 
Interruption 
] Hang on taihoa. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 on 17 February 2007 quoted Graeme Fleming of Hamilton City Council as saying that Dr Smith had got it wrong that “It’s no use being a quick consent if it’s not a quality consent.” 
The second thing that Dr Smith rabbited on about was this: he said and I agree with him on this that we should think and do something for the average Kiwi ratepayer. I agree with that. We know that Dr Smith’s National Party policy is not to visit extensive rate increases on the ratepayer. That is what he said and he nods in agreement and I acknowledge that. I am glad to get him on the record. So what does this bill do? This bill says that if the person wanting the consent—the person wanting to build a house—rocks up to the council and the council does not meet the 20-day deadline then the costs of that consent are absorbed by the council and the person who wants to build the house gets the consent for free. That is what the bill says. But Dr Smith’s understanding of economics and cost accounting is so limited that he fails to acknowledge that the costs associated with that consent process do not vaporise into the ether but are then spread across every other general ratepayer who does not want a building consent. If he is so naive that he thinks that local authorities will not raise rates in order to absorb those costs then he is a lesser man than even I think he is. His understanding of what we should do to assist the average Kiwi ratepayer is sadly lacking. 
This bill is a simple political pamphlet. It is thin; one A3 page is all there is of it. That is the intense thought process that Dr Smith went through. That is the depth of his knowledge and research. The bill does not address the systemic organisational problem that one finds in every organisation. If an organisation has a doubling in its customer base and if it has a doubling in building consents then the organisation needs to address the organisational factors within. Does the organisation have enough building inspectors clerical people and consent people to get the consents out? Are there management systems in place to deal with them efficiently? Are there resources to back the consenting process? Nothing in this bill addresses that. And Dr Smith got the following wrong. The Labour Party has said that councils would be incentivised not to deal with the small consents but to deal with the large commercial and residential consents—the big ones—because that is where the high risks and the big dollars are if a council misses the 20-day mark on them. And mum and dad average Kiwi ratepayers whom Dr Smith purports to want to protect get done over. 
Dr Smith waxed eloquent last night and did the old parish political pump. He had a go at the leaky building stuff saying we need quality we need safety and we need benchmarks. I agree. Yet his bill tonight does not propose to address any of those issues. It does not address the issue of a council that has not met the 20-day mark but has addressed quality and safety issues. It says that if the 20-day mark is not met then that is it. That is what the bill says. It does not address quality. It does not address safety. It does not address the inherent failures we have had in some local authorities when building inspectors for instance have not done their job. That is what the bill does not address. 
The bill is a limp attempt at politics. I say this: members do not have to believe what I say about the bill; let us have a look at the reaction to it. I cite this wonderful piece of information called the  
East Coast Informer  
and what that newsletter called the bill. A woman called Pat Seymour a National Party member and chairwoman of the East Coast branch of the National Party called the bill “daft”. Now I am a young man—I know that people will not believe this—and I had to look up this word “daft” in the  
Collins English Dictionary 
 to see what it meant and this is what it says: “daft—foolish simple stupid” and the clanger for Dr Smith is that it says “insane”. It is an insane piece of legislation from a daft member. This is what a member of his own National Party said about him. I quote from Pat Seymour and I can do no better than that member of the National Party when she said: “From a local authority perspective this is a daft piece of potential legislation. The only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer.” Pat Seymour a member of his party and a member of Anne Tolley’s electorate committee said that. She understands absolutely what will happen to the average Kiwi general ratepayer. 
She goes on to say: “All costs have to be budgeted for within a local authority. If a consent not provided within the described time frames is made a free consent to the applicant—then departments will simply budget a sum within the rate strike to allow for any such eventualities.” She said: “From my experience council officers make every effort to meet statutory time frames and there is usually a very good reason for consents being late.” Now they are the words from one Pat Seymour East Coast National Party electorate chair in January 2007. Do not judge me by what I say judge the member’s own party member who has worked out that this is a daft to quote her piece of legislation from a daft member. 
This is about politics. This bill does nothing to address the systemic failures that have occurred within local government. So the question is: what is the alternative and what should we do about it? Well the member is right. We have embarked upon an audit and accreditation process. What does that mean? That means we go in with International Accreditation New Zealand an internationally renowned accreditation procedure and ask: “Are your systems up to it? Are they efficient? Do you have the skills and knowledge? Do you have the people and are you adequately resourcing”— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do not bring the Speaker into it please. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry. Are the councils adequately resourcing the consenting function? That is basic organisational theory. One does not go into an organisation saying: “Look you haven’t got enough people your systems are not good enough you haven’t got enough resourcing so if you don’t beat the mark we’ll chop ya.” One does not say that—or say: “Give it away free.” That is not how one solves a logical problem. But we know that there is inherently a basic lack of logic with this member. That is what one does. One goes and addresses the systemic failure. And of course councils are doing that. Some councils are finding it tough. Smaller ones are struggling to meet the 30 November deadline but they are working towards it. Palmerston North has met it. The Government has put 3 million bucks into a system to address the core issues. 
The crowning jewel for this member was Hamilton City Council. Well that has been torpedoed. His crowning jewel was his National Party policy. Well Pat Seymour has put the sword into him tonight slashed him open and slashed the policy open. What will the member say? Will he get up and say that Pat Seymour is wrong and his colleague Anne Tolley is wrong? Yes—he nodded his head. Let us have a look at what Len Clapham the Chief Executive of the Building Officials Institute said. He called the bill “idiotic”. Let us look at what the media has said about this great genius from the National Party. The Christchurch  
Press 
 states: “Nats’ own-goal”. The  
Southland Times 
 states: “Consent fee waiver plan nonsense” and “Consent bill very dangerous”. I have a quote from the  
Whangarei Leader 
—and I see that John Carter is here—“Building consent plan short-sighted”. These are quotations from the independent media. 
So on all counts Nick Smith has no credibility. He stood up and said National wants quality in the building industry yet this bill does not address that. He stood up and said National does not want costs visited on the general ratepayer. Well this bill does that. Pat Seymour the National Party member agrees and knows it and has put it on record. On every count this flimsy political pamphlet of a bill with about as much thought in it as he gives most of his work has been done over. I say to New Zealand that the Government is dealing with this. Local authorities are stepping up to the plate and we are going to deliver to consumers in the correct way in the proper way and in a way that works—not with political stupidity. This is a daft bill from a daft daft member. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is with a great deal of pleasure that I get to follow the Minister Clayton Cosgrove. If ever there was a Minister who was right outside of his own ability we have just seen it. He is a guy who has imposed so much cost on to New Zealand on to local government and on to individuals that he is a disgrace. Of course he is part of the Labour Party and just being part of the Labour Party is a disgrace anyway. But let me tell members that this Minister is not just a disgrace but also an absolute failure. In the next few minutes that I have to speak I intend to explain why. The first thing is that when this Government took over in 1999 the Department of Building and Housing—or its equivalent—employed 31½ people. 
Tim Groser 
: 31½? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think Clayton Cosgrove was probably the half but the department had employed 31½ equivalents. Does anyone want to have a little guess at how many people are employed there today? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 50? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No not 50. Give me a bit more. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: 80? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No. Would members believe it is over 300? Over 300 people are now employed in the Department of Building and Housing. It is a disgrace. How many percent has it gone up? Who can calculate that? Is it a zillion percent? In Northland terms it is a zillion percent. It is an absolute disgrace. But do members know what the outcome is of 300-plus people writing rules and regulations? It is that we now have departments in the Department of Building and Housing. One department has to write some rules the next department has to check them then the third one has to get them and see whether they are OK and when they are not it has to send them back because it has to be busy. So it goes on and on. But what is even worse—and this is why my colleague Nick Smith has brought this bill to the House and he deserves to be applauded for it—is that we are over-governed and we have more compliance than we absolutely need. The reason is that local government now has to try to match the Department of Building and Housing. The upshot is that the bureaucracy in local government has grown from 30000 in 1999 to over 40000 in 2007. It has gone up 25-plus percent. The building inspectorate of the Department of Building and Housing—and the Government knows this—has grown like crazy in the number of people it has to employ. The reason for that is the volumes of paper. With the volumes of paper the books and all the things those people have to understand they cannot keep up. 
Let me tell my colleagues what is even worse because it is another thing we need to understand. Do they know where the 300 people who are now employed in the Department of Building and Housing came from? They came from local government of course. So why can local government not get staff to deal with what the Department of Building and Housing has put out? It is because they are all employed in the Department of Building and Housing. So local government is left without staff who are capable of responding to issues and administering the rules that their previous colleagues are writing. 
Clayton Cosgrove is saying that we have got to get on top on this we have to get the compliance down and we have to make it easier. Let me tell members the next thing. When ordinary John Citizen goes into the council and says: “I would like to fill out a building permit please. Could you let me have the pieces of paper.” he comes out with a wheelbarrow full of reams and reams of paper. So John Citizen has a look around and says: “I don’t think I can do this.”; and the council says: “No we would advise you to go and get a lawyer. Go and get someone who is capable of filling out the building permit because you won’t be able to.” That is what Nick Smith is telling us. He is telling us that the compliance costs are just so hideous that he has brought in this bill. 
Clayton Cosgrove is responsible. He is the one who has seen this grow exponentially. He does not care about compliance costs. The Labour Government does not care. Let me tell members what I think is the best thing Clayton Cosgrove could do. The one thing we can say about Clayton Cosgrove as far as I know is that he is not a liar. As far as I know he does not lie. He would be better to take over David Benson-Pope’s place as the Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
But let us move on from there because there are several other things that are a real worry and it is why my colleague Nick Smith has brought in this bill. Nick Smith knows that we have a leaky home problem in this country and what he is worried about—and what we are worried about—is the fact that under Mr Cosgrove’s regime more leaky homes are being built. We have this department that employs 300 people who are meant to be making sure there are no more leaky homes. Members will be interested to know that right now the materials in current homes that are being built are faulty. Mr Cosgrove has a department that is meant to make sure that materials are certified. Over 600 sorts of materials go into houses. So far the Department of Building and Housing has managed to certify four. With a staff of 300 people it has managed to certify four materials that go into our homes. 
If we get copper pipes from Australia they are certified for 50 years. If we get them from England they are certified for 60 years. But people are importing them from Asia with no certification at all. Those pipes are being put into New Zealand homes. They have been tested and they might last 7 years at best. Right now they are being put into our New Zealand homes. They might last 7 years—it is a lottery. What will happen is that in 10 years’ time someone will flush the toilet and mum will get a shower in the kitchen. That will be the upshot and this Minister is responsible for this. That is why my good colleague Nick Smith has brought in this bill—to try to bring some focus on what is happening in the building industry in this country. 
That brings me on to my next point and it is why my good friend and colleague Nick Smith has brought in this bill. The worry in the building industry is that it will become so difficult to comply with the regulations that the Department of Building and Housing Clayton Cosgrove and the Labour Government have brought down that a number of people are thinking of exiting the industry. 
 They are seriously thinking of exiting the industry. It has got to the stage where they cannot make a living out of it. They are seriously worried about the fact that the compliance costs are so difficult they cannot get by. 
Let me finish on one other point and it is a serious one. It is this issue of certification that the Minister talked about at the end of his speech. He talked about the fact that we do not need Nick Smith’s bill because all the councils will soon be able to be certified and all the building inspectors will know what they are doing and therefore it will all be OK. The fact—and it is one of the reasons why my colleague brought in this bill—is that the Minister himself admitted that there are a number of councils that will not comply and be certified to be able to issue permits. 
Hon Members 
: How many? 
JOHN CARTER 
: There are at least a dozen. But there is more. We will have areas in New Zealand where people will apply to the council for a building permit and the council will say: “Sorry we aren’t able to issue a permit because we’re not certified. We haven’t got the qualifications.” The cost that is imposed on councils by Mr Cosgrove and his Department of Building and Housing is all part of this. It is estimated that the cost to ratepayers in this country to try to comply with what Mr Cosgrove is asking councils to do will be in excess of $8 million. In fact some councils are saying that it will be as much as $250000 a council and a number of them will not be able to pay it. 
Mr Cosgrove stands up and tries to denigrate my colleague Nick Smith for bringing in a bill to draw to the attention of Parliament and the country an issue that seriously is a problem. Local government admits it is the building industry admits it is the people of this country know it is—they know there is a problem. It seems the only people who do not know are Mr Cosgrove and the Labour Government. They think it is all OK. They think it is OK to have 300 bureaucrats writing rules and regulations that are causing more problems. Nick Smith does not think it is; neither does the National Party. That is why we support what Nick is trying to do. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Normally the Local Government and Environment Committee works very well on legislation. It is any member’s right to bring legislation to this House in a genuine attempt to fix a problem but this bill simply does not do that. This bill is absolutely barmy. 
Nineteen of the 24 submitters to the select committee were not just opposed to this bill but vehemently opposed to it and I want to talk about the reason. Fundamentally there is no such thing as a free consent and the member opposite knows it. Somebody has to absorb those costs somewhere; somebody has to pay. The National Party wants to hold or reduce rates so it is a delicious irony that this bill’s approach—that if the council is late in processing a building consent it has to waive the fee—has the perverse incentive of loading on to every other ratepayer in the community the costs of those who apply for a building consent. What are councils going to do when they do not get the fees and they do not get the levies? How are councils going to address issues like research standards development and dispute resolution? Who will fund those activities which are needed now in a very complex building environment? 
But there is one other aspect that I find deeply disturbing because it is punitive. Of course the local authorities voted against this bill. Why? Because it is punitive and provides the wrong incentive for them to improve their performance. I think that the local councils have had a very clear message in the National Party’s local government bill. It is perform or penalise; those members say they will penalise and come down hard on the local authorities. That is why the local authorities rose up and were violently opposed to this bill. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Violent? Not violent. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: They were very angry about it actually. The Wellington City Council said it did not want a punitive approach. It would rather work with the industry and work with the Department of Building and Housing to learn about the new building code to learn about the accreditation system and to learn about the regulatory environment that is fixing systemically the dreadfully deregulated approach in the 1990s that resulted in the Hunn inquiry and the leaky buildings inquiry. I was involved with both of those inquiries and they showed a totally fragmented deregulated and untrained environment. There was no trade training or apprenticeships at all during the 1990s. That is why we ended up with the systemic problems of leaky homes. The Wellington City Council did not want a punitive approach. It said it will fix it; it is not right yet—certainly not. 
There is plenty of scope currently a local government sector told us to reduce delays in the consenting process. One quite good aspect of this bill is that we started to look at what we can do to improve the current problems. But the size of the problem is not half as big as the member opposite is telling us. Twenty percent of building consents are not granted within 20 days. So this bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But we certainly do need to improve the process. Every local authority said that. 
The local authorities also told us that 50 percent of the documentation they get before them is totally inadequate. They are blamed for the lack of documentation and rigour in applicant information that comes before them and they then have to waive the fee. It is quite daft. They asked why they have to carry the burden of a shortage of qualified building inspectors and a shortage of licensed building practitioners. Who got rid of trade training and apprenticeships in the 1990s? It was National. It is no wonder we are left with this mess. 
We heard some good submissions. The Property Council talked about the 19-day syndrome. Because of inadequate information from the applicant not the local council the council is going to stop the clock. It also said that a 20-day limit does not fit all situations. It was just a ridiculous time-limited boundary that did not take into account the complexity of the many building processes and the many building specifications that its members have to deal with. The Property Council wants incentives that are not perverse and do not induce silly behavioural responses. The councils will simply stop the clock and we know that. 
Some of the arguments we heard stated that delays in processing occur because of a multiplicity of factors. It is unfair to penalise the councils for that. The bill risks promoting speed in consent processes at the expense of quality so what will the councils do? They will cut quality. I know that Dr Smith does not want that. We were told that the councils will make a deliberate shift in policy to deal with the high-cost highly complex building consents first because they do not want to carry the risk of losing the fee for those. So the ordinary punters whom the Opposition says it likes to support will be way down the order in the consenting process. It simply will not work. 
We were also really concerned that the systemic failures that caused the leaky homes and that we are trying to address are simply not covered in this bill. It is absolutely silent on things that can be done to improve processes. It is simply a time-framing issue. The bill is silent on levies and it is silent on consent application fees. There is no mention at all as to who will fund the research the development of standards and the dispute resolution services. 
This bill is a failed approach to try to address a problem. The local authorities asked for some best-practice guidelines so that they can learn from one another. They all admitted that they needed to do better than this. They asked for some education on the building code. They asked us to go—as we did on the resource consent process—around council hearing committees and give education; to go and have some workshops twice a year with the building industry so that applicants and developers do know what the requirements are. [ 
Interruption 
] What a good idea! It has happened with resource consents and that certainly improved the performance of the consenting process under the Resource Management Act. 
This bill is fundamentally flawed. It was really quite tragic to have it in front of the select committee. Then the media response—not the select committee response—to this bill came out. The Queenstown Lakes District Council said it was nonsense and hoped it would not be passed and the Whangarei District Council said it was just an appallingly short-sighted bill. We cannot do a quick fix in a member’s bill to try to fix these systemic problems. 
I am very confident that the accreditation process which is putting some pressure on local authorities to meet the deadlines and the current review process are actually raising lots of issues for the Department of Building and Housing to go back and work on with local authorities. I know that developers and builders will come to grips with the building code in the new Building Act. As a result of that in 10 years’ time we will be looking back to see that we no longer have the dreadful depth of problems of leaky buildings in this country. It is a problem that we all need to fix. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I agree with the previous speaker Steve Chadwick that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is flawed legislation I must take issue with one set of comments that she made about apprenticeships and the fact that there was no vocational training in the 1990s. In fact the demise of apprenticeships actually occurred in the 1980s. Although it is true that National got rid of the Apprenticeship Act it replaced it with the Industry Training Act which referred to trainees. I tell members that in July 1996 there were 17000 trainees and in July 1998 just before the demise of the New Zealand First - National coalition there were 57000 trainees—the biggest percentage increase ever. Nick Smith will tell members that the delegation for vocational education at that time was held by a New Zealand First Minister. I could also say that when the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act was put in by the Labour Government there were in fact 47 pieces of legislation that referred to apprenticeships so they certainly were not completely got rid of at that time. 
New Zealand First recognises that there is a problem with regard to delays in the issuing of building consents and that there has been frustration on the part of some developers. Although New Zealand First members acknowledge that frustration the situation is not as monumental as has been made out in some of the rhetoric that has been used. As has been mentioned approximately 20 percent of consents are not issued within 20 days but there are certainly not deliberate delays by local councils. We need to look at what is causing those delays. 
There are two major problems. The first is that not all applications are completed adequately so councils have to go back— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true because they can stop the clock. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes they can stop the clock. I am well aware the clock is stopped in those particular cases but those applications are part of the problem. The second serious concern which is a major concern is the shortage of people with the capacity to carry out the duties of the job. The pool of qualified and experienced staff capable of carrying out that work is just not big enough to meet the demand from both the private and the public sectors. I think the mover of the bill would recognise that that is a genuine issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I acknowledge that but the Government has stolen them for the Department of Building and Housing. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: That does not really matter because this legislation says that regardless of whether the Government has done that it is—through the councils—going to penalise ratepayers the citizens of New Zealand. That is where the cost is going to go unfortunately. 
Recruiting and retaining staff is becoming increasingly difficult for local authorities to the extent that the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers earlier this year initiated a staff recruitment and retention project to overcome the shortage. I think this legislation is totally unfair. Whatever the cause of the shortage of skilled staff it is totally unfair then to come along with legislation that penalises councils because the shortage exists. 
Be that as it may the bill would lead to some—we believe—unacceptable perverse effects. As the Local Government and Environment Committee has pointed out expensive big developments would be given priority over small projects. Woe betide a householder who wanted to put in a small retaining wall with only a small consent cost or a deck with only a small consent cost because those applications would be shelved in favour of the big developments where there are big costs. That would cost the councils even more money and that would have to be handed on to the ratepayer. Moreover we believe that it opens a door for developers to put in proposals that are short on information and therefore to create delays themselves. It could lead—and this has been mentioned before—to unholy haste and shonky developments being approved. As has been said it is not good to have a quick consent if it is not a quality consent. We have to concur with that particular proposition. 
I will mention the worst outcome: the legislation would lead to increased rates for ratepayers. There is no doubt that when faced with a shortage of supply councils could do only two things. They could either cough up or not receive the money because there are delays to consents or they could put in huge salaries in order to attract staff. Whichever way is chosen there would be additional costs and additional rates. 
New Zealand First is the only party that has taken any constructive action over the issue of rising rates. National voted for Rodney Hide’s bill to freeze rates and now it is putting up legislation that will increase rates. How is that for a contradiction? New Zealand First will not support legislation that will drive up rates. As I say we put in place the rates inquiry. That was our initiative and we drove it forward. I do not have a clue what will come out of that inquiry because it has been completely independent and/or autonomous. However David Shand the chairman of the review inquiry has already come out and said that within the next 10 years rates will be unaffordable. This bill would impose additional costs upon the ratepayers and therefore we do not believe we can support it. 
Nick Smith has asked whether it is not time to take a stand on behalf of the ordinary citizen. Well by voting against this bill we believe that we are taking a further stand on behalf of the ordinary citizen to ensure no more drivers that will push up rates are put into the system. 
I have to mention Pat Seymour who has been referred to. She obviously has the confidence of the National Party because in the 1990s she was the chair of the Early Childhood Development Board. She was appointed to that very important position by none other than the National Government which obviously had confidence in her judgment about those things. It was Pat Seymour who said this bill is daft. 
I finally refer to the Whangarei District Council and I ask the member for Whangarei whether he can explain to that council why he will be supporting such short-sighted legislation. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill. I have say the speeches have been very entertaining given that the select committee process has been much more congenial than the debate tonight would suggest. 
 The Green Party voted in favour of sending this bill to a select committee because we thought some useful issues could be explored. That was the case and it was great to hear councils and people involved in the industry talk about the real issues. It became very clear that delays with building consents are serious and cost significant amounts of money to non-commercial developers developers of smaller projects and people doing small renovations. We are not talking about commercial developers of multimillion dollar projects. These people find it quite expensive if they do not have the time and resources to wait. 
In our view enough is being done to try to resolve the problem so we think Dr Smith’s bill is not necessary. In fact it is the wrong kind of tool to sort out this kind of problem. 
I understand that about 20 percent of building consents are delayed. There are a few primary reasons. Some applications are incomplete and often that is just a lack of information. Definitely there is a lack of qualified building consent processors and inspectors. I think that was the No. 1 reason given in the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is not the fault of councils. The question is whether councils should bear the cost for something that really is not their fault. There is also the difficulty faced by small councils in retaining qualified staff and in their disproportionate difficulty mismanaging the costs of building consents in their area. 
Changes were made to the Building Act in 2004 but they have not completely bedded in yet. I think we will see advantages coming out of those changes later on that will deal with these problems to some extent. It is certainly true that solutions are needed but ratepayers cannot take on the cost of the problem. 
I agree there is no such thing as a free consent. I completely agree with Steve Chadwick. It is rubbish to say there is. Somebody has to pay. The Green Party certainly does not agree that all ratepayers should have to pay because of late consents particularly where very large commercial developers benefit. They could probably afford it but lots of ratepayers simply cannot. 
Some solutions are in place such as the accreditation and registration of building consent authorities which are required under the 2004 legislation. That accreditation is required to be done by November 2007 so it is worthwhile waiting to see that process bed in. We should see some good progress from there. 
Some councils have systems and good models they could use. Some councils have a fast-track process where people pay more but that is useful only if the councils have enough numbers of staff who are sufficiently trained to do that work. But that system can be useful sometimes. It is always an advantage if better information is provided to applicants and they know how to complete an application so that there are no further delays when the council requires more information. 
On balance we do not see any need for this bill to progress any further. We do not think it is a sensible tool to deal with the problem but it did provide the opportunity for having a useful exploration of the issues. So we thank Dr Smith for bringing it to the House. Kia ora. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. Katahi te pire nei. Ko tona tikanga me whakaae mai. Engari ara ano te “engari”. Ae ra hoki he raruraru kei reira na te takaroa o te wa ki te ata titiro ki nga tono hanga whare nei; “engari” ko te whakairi i te putea te rongoa? He tauira ano tenei o tera ture koura nei—ka hinga i konei waihotia mo nga ra 20 waiho ake ma te wa tera e whakatika. Mena he korero tau e pirangi nei e ai ki ta te Official Information Act tatari ake mo nga ra 20 katahi ka puta he maramatanga ki a koe. 
Koi nei pea te ahua i tera wiki mo Te Tari Hauora i a ratou whiriwhiri ana i nga huarahi hei whakatau i nga take o te hunga i haere ki Vietnam te hunga kani rakau te hunga noho mai ra i Paritutu. Ka mutu ko nga tangata kua rongo nei i te ngau o te paihana – taria te wa tirohia ano a nga ra 20.  
I tenei pire koi nei te porangi o taua tikanga ara o nga ra 20 mena ka whakamanahia tenei wahanga o te rangai kawanatanga a-rohe. E 20 ra i raro o te Building Act 2004 ki te ata wetewete i nga tono kia kitea mai ai mena ka eke te pai o nga whare ki tera e tika ana a kia tu kaha tonu mo nga tau. Ko te mate o nga Ture Koura nei he wa tona kaore he take o aua ture. Penei ki ta George Bernard Shaw i ki nei ko te ture matua e ki ana karekau he ture matua. 
Kei te mohio tonu matou mai i te mahi rangahau o Te Tari Hanga Whare i te Whiringa-a-rangi o te tau 2006 kare te tata o nga 20 o-rau o nga tono i whakaaetia i roto i tera ra 20. Ko te 1 o te 5 tono i mua o te kaunihera kaore i whiwhi whakaaetanga e tika ana mo ratou. 
He aha i penei ai? Ara noa atu nga tangata i tua atu o te kaihanga whare i tona kotahi te apiha kaunihera i tona kotahi. Ara ano hoki ko te hunga no ratou nga whare ko te tangata waihanga ko nga kaimahi i te tuatahi ka mutu i tua atu ko nga tangata whanau ranei ka noho i aua whare a te wa. 
Penei i ta John Scarry korero he tangata pukenga nei o Tamaki-makau-rau ki te komiti whaiti ko te hunga whai hua na te ahuatanga o tenei huarahi whakaaetanga ko te hunga ka whiwhi ka mahi ranei i roto i aua whare e korerohia ake nei otira me Aotearoa whanui. 
No reira me hoki ki taua korero ra. “Ae” engari “But”. Ara noa atu nga patai. Ko te mea nui hei mea wananga ma tenei Whare ko tenei. Ae ranei kaore ranei. Mena ka tangohia mai ko te utu te tikanga ka utua. He mea whakatau tenei i te raru ka whakapoto nei i te roa o te tatari ki nga whakaaetanga? 
Ara ano hoki etahi take. Mo nga ropu a-rohe e ata wetewete nei i nga whakaaetanga a whare ko tona tikanga kei a ratou nga pumanawa me te kaha nei ki te ata whiriwhiri whakatau ranei i nga tono. Ki ta te Ture a-Hanga Whare ko te tikanga he tikanga arotake ano wa ratou kia taea e ratou te whakamatautau i a ratou ano kia kore tatou e whakarite tikanga ka hoki mai ki te ngau i a tatou a te wa. Ko te putake o tenei pepa whakaaetanga a-whare he hiahia kia kore etahi mahi huna e noho pera ara e noho huna. Mena ka puritia te utu mo nga whakaaetanga i nga kaunihera tera pea ko tona mutunga mai ahakoa ehara tera i te hiahia he akiaki tonu i a ratou nga kaunihera kia tere oti nga tono mua mai o nga ra 20. Kei wareware i a tatou me ata haere kia kore ai e whakapau kaha mo te koretake noa iho. 
Ko te mate o te whai i nga here a-ture me te kore aro ake ki take ke ko te aronga ke o nga kaunihera me nga tangata kaipakihi kia oti wawe nei nga tono ma te wa tera e aki na ka wareware ko te huanga ki muri. Ko te mutunga mai o tera ko nga whare pakarukaru nei. Ko te aronga o tenei ture hou ko te taumata tiketike e taea ana. Ko tou titiro ki a koe ano he mea nui hei whakapakari ake i nga whakahaere me nga whakaritenga engari e hia ke nei nga take hei mea wananga whakatau mo nga awangawanga. Koi nei te korero i kaha tautokongia e nga kaitono.  
Na te ropu Hanga Whare o te rohe o Manawatu-Wanganui te korero tino marama ki a matou. Hei ta ratou he pohehe nui te ki na nga mahi ngoikore a-kaunihera anake i takaroa ai nga tono. Hei ta ratou ara noa atu nga uauatanga. Ko te ngako ki tenei take katoa kia tukua nga momo uauatanga here e whakaroa ana i nga tono.  
Na ki ta te Kaunihera a-Wahi ko te ingoa pai mo taua raru ko te “capacity constraints of councils”. Tera pea ko tetahi huarahi hei whainga ko te whakarahi ake i te hunga matatau ki te mahi hanga whare me te hunga tirotiro whare. Ki ta te Kaunihera a-Rohe o Franklin titiro ko te uauatanga nui ko te whakaaetanga ahakoa ko te ngoikore o te mahere he ngoikore no etahi ki te ata titiro ki nga mea pakupaku nei me te kore pepa hei tautoko i nga tono. Kei te kaha tautoko a John Scarry i tenei korero. Hei tana koi nei te take nui mo te takaroa ara he koretake no nga tono. 
Kaore matou o Te Torangapu Maori paku tohe ki tera whakaaro o Nahinara mo te raru otira ki tenei pire—engari ae ki te rongoa ke. Kei te marama tonu matou ki nga raru e haere tonu ana mo te tautukunga te ekenga me te kaha ka puta ki nga kaunihera ia wa ia wa. Kei te mohio ano hoki matou mena karekau he ropu whiriwhiringa whakarongo ki nga take Maori kare aua take e rongohia e arongia. Ka mutu kei te mohio matou mo te itiiti o te Maori e eke ana ki nga kawanatanga a-rohe. He awangawanga nui tera ki a matou. I te tau 2004 ko te nuinga o te hunga i potingia ki nga kaunihera he Pakeha ara e 94 o-rau engari he aha ta te Maori? E 4.3 o-rau noa iho. Na ara ano hoki ko te roanga ake o te whainga i tona kotahi ko nga momo uauatanga e hia ke nei pai mai kino mai. Ki te pohehe tatou ka taea e tatou te whakatika nga take katoa ma te moni i tona kotahi ma te patu i nga kaunihera ngoikore nei me te pupuri i nga moni ki ta tetahi he tirohanga whaiti he pohehe nui tera.  
E kore Te Pati Maori e tautoko i tenei pire engari kei te kaha tautoko matou i te hiahia ki te ata titiro ki te maia ki te matau me te tautukunga o nga ropu a-rohe ki te whakatutuki i nga mea e hiahiatia ana. 
Mena he painga o tenei huarahi koia tera ko te putanga o nga take penei i te noho tuturu mai me te matau o nga kaimahi he take tera e whakaaro nuitia ana e matou na te ahuatanga o te maia o te ao Maori. A me whai tikanga ano tatou kia aro pumau ki nga kawanatanga a-rohe ki nga huanga ki te noho a-tangata ki te tika me te pono. Ahakoa enei matapono katoa ko ta matau e tohe ana kia kaua he “ae/engari” i te taha. Kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings Mr Deputy Speaker and to all of us here this evening. What a bill! We could easily say “Yes” but this is a “But” situation. Yes there is a problem in the delays incurred in the processing of building consent applications but will financial incentives fix the problem? It is also another brilliant example of the golden rule—when all else fails apply 20 days and hope that the problem will sort itself out. If we are desperate for information the Official Information Act says just to wait for 20 working days and we will find out all we need to know. 
Last week the Ministry of Health resorted to the rule when puzzling over what to do with all those Viet Nam veterans sawmillers residents of Paritutu and in fact any person exposed to the risk of dioxin—call a review for 20 days. 
In this bill we see the folly of the 20-days rule applied to the local government sector—20 days under the Building Act 2004 to deal with consent applications to ensure that buildings will be built to a standard that will guarantee they are still standing in years to come. The problem with golden rules is that there is always some situation that makes them redundant. Or as George Bernard Shaw said the golden rule is that there are no golden rules. 
What we know now from the Department of Building and Housing survey undertaken in November 2006 is that approximately 20 percent of consents are not issued within these golden 20 days. One in five applications before the council is not receiving the approved consent it is entitled to. 
And why is this such a problem? There are a lot more people at stake here than an individual builder and a council officer. There are household owners architects contractors and developers in the first instance; and of course in the longer term the people who will inhabit the buildings for years to come. 
As John Scarry an Auckland structural engineer told the select committee the greatest beneficiaries of the building consent process are the people who will own and/or live and work in the building concerned and the public of New Zealand. 
So again we come back to the crunch “Yes/But” question. The issue for this House to determine is whether removing the requirement to pay fees will actually address the problem and reduce building delays. 
There are other factors. For the authorities that undertake building consent review the theory is that they have the capability and capacity to make the appropriate assessment. The Building Act requirements rely on these authorities being able to undergo the accreditation and audit processes with such efficiency that we do not set ourselves up to fail in the future. The purpose of the building consent process is to ensure that building faults are avoided. Withholding the fees that councils rely on from processing consents may of course have the u 
nintended effect of forcing councils to rush decisions through to meet the golden time frame of 20 days. One should remember: less haste less waste. 
The whole problem with meeting fixed timing rules at the expense of all else is that  
councils and developers would concentrate on getting consents issued on time as their sole driver—quality taking a back seat. And what this leads to is substandard buildings. The focus of the new Building Act is quality. Accreditation should help to improve systems and processes. And there are many other factors that may bring about the changes that I think all submitters agreed were needed. 
The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Building Group summed up the argument for us. Its submission alleged that it was naive to assume that delays in processing building consents were due to the inefficiency of councils alone concluding that in reality the situation is much more complex. The key to this whole issue must therefore be in unpacking the complexity of the factors causing delay. 
The Property Council named the problem as the capacity constraints of councils. Part of the solution therefore may lie in addressing the gaps in numbers of qualified building consent processors and building inspectors. The Franklin District Council saw the problem as being the difficulty of verifying compliance because of poorly presented plans poor attention to design detail and a lack of supporting documentation. John Scarry also endorsed this alleging that the biggest single cause for delay is caused by the design documentation submitted for consent being seriously deficient. 
The Maori Party has no argument with National’s identification of the problem—well not with this bill anyway—but we most certainly have difficulty with the solution. We know there are ongoing issues with competency with compliance and with capability of councils. We know that in the local government sector unless there are specific consultative forums where Maori can raise our particular issues those issues generally do not get heard or addressed.  
And what we also know is that the low representation of Maori in local government is also extremely concerning. In 2004 the overwhelming majority of elected local government members were Pakeha—94 percent— while the proportion of Maori was a dismal 4.3 percent. And then there is the whole process of building consent itself with an  
increasing complexity of building consent applications some good some not so good. To think that all of these wide-ranging issues can be solved by one financial lever—punishing tardy councils by withholding fees—is as one submitter put it simplistic to an extreme. 
The Maori Party will not support this bill but we do support the urgent need for a review of the capability and capacity of local body organisations to do the tasks we expect of them. 
If this process has done anything it has brought issues to the surface around retention and expertise of the workforce—issues that we are acutely concerned about in the context of Maori capability. We need to ensure that local government is as committed to quality committed to representation and committed to justice. However for all these principles we insist that there be no “Yes but” about it. 
] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on this second reading and I congratulate the sponsor of the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill because he has tried to address a very serious issue. I know that a number of constituents who have come into my own office outside Parliament have reported some really concerning stories particularly around mistakes that had cost dearly in terms of time and wasted materials. So I appreciate what the member has intended to do with this bill. 
This bill has also highlighted something that probably concerns United Future even more than what is being attempted here. I have had some very interesting discussions with members of the master builders association and they have assured me that they believe compliance costs on homes could be reduced substantially as part of the efforts we need to be making to make housing more affordable. This issue needs to be considered seriously beyond this bill because if the kinds of figures that were quoted to me by the gentlemen from the master builders association are true then those figures are shockingly high. A sum of something like $30000 may be able to be recuperated while still maintaining robust regulations around housing practice and I think that is something that needs further exploration. 
United Future is unable to support this bill going any further. We commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it has done. Obviously some very interesting content came out of the submissions which confirmed a little bit for us some of the reservations we had about this particular approach to solving the problem. I think the biggest concern for us is that people who put a real effort into making a very sound application would end up paying the price for that work and that those who had put in poor applications with insufficient information and without meeting all that was required and who then had delays as a result of the fact that they were required to put in more information could end up getting a free consent process. 
I am also concerned about the fact that this bill is a little bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Some other issues need to be considered around things like the combination of factors regarding the workforce and the serious need for workforce development. The sector could improve to the stage that a bill like this one could become a very viable option but in the current environment with the lack of experts who are able to complete that work in a timely way it would be a foolish step to take right now. 
 I do congratulate the member; I think his intention was extremely worthwhile. I think the discussion has been worth having and I for one am very very keen to go back and talk to people like the master builders in order to find out the specific detail on what we could be changing around building compliance so that we can start to see the costs of New Zealand homes tracking downwards as part of a multifaceted approach to making houses more affordable in New Zealand. I am sorry that we cannot support the next stage of the bill but we think there is more work that could be done. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to support the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill and to congratulate Dr Nick Smith and the National Party on taking a serious issue and dealing with it. I will go through some of the arguments we have heard being made against this bill in order to show that they clearly cannot stand up. 
I have an interesting thing to share with members. Web cameras are a fantastic thing and I just got an email from someone on the other side of the world who is following this debate. It is quite something when one thinks about it because most people in this complex cannot be bothered but there we go. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Most New Zealanders can’t. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Most New Zealanders cannot be bothered to but if people in Europe want to then they can log in. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Why would they? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I tell the member why they are logging in. They are figuring out whether this good bill will succeed because it will be part of the measure of whether they will bother to come back to New Zealand and build houses. 
I will go through what this bill does. It puts a financial penalty on a council if it fails to meet a deadline for handling a building consent. Do members seriously believe that when we pass a law requiring every person to get a building consent councils can just take as long as they want? Members surely cannot believe that surely not. There has to be a time limit. If we ask ourselves what we will do to enforce that time limit it is actually quite simple: we put a financial penalty on the council. 
Members opposite are bleating on about the costs to the ratepayers. Councils get whacked for costs regularly when they screw up. That is how it works. But this situation gets worse because with this Government in power we have seen the costs put on local government rise dramatically and I did not hear the poor ratepayers being consulted then. 
If we are serious about this I would not mind moving an amendment even at this late stage I say to Dr Smith. If we want to save ratepayers dosh then let us put the penalty on the councillors and the staff because they are the ones who are screwing up. Let us get the incentives right. I tell members that if 20 percent of deadlines are being missed now once we put the financial penalty on the councillors and their staff not one would be missed. So let us get that canard we heard against this bill out of the way. Of course there should be a penalty. My goodness what sort of penalties do taxpayers and ratepayers have to put up with when they get it wrong? And they are the ones who are paying for these councils! 
The second thing is that we cannot have a situation where a council can just take forever. We heard the complaint that if councils rush it through then they might screw it up. Actually my experience of life is that when people do things properly they do them briskly and well. It is when they have forever to do things that they actually go wrong. We see with the leaky homes issue that this Government was ticking boxes left right and centre. It was taking forever and not doing any proper checking. But we all know ourselves in our own lives that when we have a time line we work towards it and that is what we should have with our councils. If they cannot do it properly in 20 days then there is something seriously wrong with the councils. I am astonished to hear that 20 percent are not meeting their deadlines. It is disgusting. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Master builders say it is 50 percent. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Dr Nick Smith has said that it is up to 50 percent. Members can just imagine the cost and the heartache that is going on with householders and in the building industry as a consequence. 
I would ask Mr Donnelly along with the Green Party the Maori Party and the Labour Party whether we do not care seriously about that and whether we are interested in having a Government that works. Are we interested in putting some stakes in the ground and saying that this should be done in 20 days and just to show we are serious saying we have a penalty if it is not done? Or do we operate in a country that says that any old thing will do when it comes to Government and to local government—but woe betide the homeowners who do not tick all the boxes fill out all the forms and jump through all the hoops that councils and the Government put on them? 
I say that if it is good enough for ratepayers to be penalised when they are late and for ratepayers to have to have time lines then the same discipline should apply to local government in every instance. I commend Dr Nick Smith for this bill. I have to say that I am very disappointed in the parties that have backed up lazy and incompetent bureaucracy at a cost to all of us in defeating this bill. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I rise to stand and support my colleague’s Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill here in the House. I have to say that I have been in Parliament now for about 18-odd months and the select committee process has been one I have enjoyed. I feel it is in that process that one actually gets to see some real people and some real issues that are confronting New Zealand. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee is a good select committee. We have had some good bills come before us and I think we have made a positive impact on those bills. We have worked hard and I think with the right attitude. That is why Steve Chadwick must not let Clayton Cosgrove anywhere near our select committee. His performance today and the way he spoke to members of this House and the way he turned what I thought was a positive discussion into a personal attack on my colleague who sponsored this bill was sad. If he has that influence on our select committee which works well together then I think that will be a bad day I say to Steve for the business we do. 
Dr Nick Smith has done a huge favour; he has brought an issue out of the closet and put it on the front page in a way that it was not. He has done New Zealanders a favour and he has done builders a favour. We have to fully understand that late consents are an issue. I never understood that. I am not a builder. I look at a hammer and go looking for the instruction manual on how to use it. So it is not an area of interest to me at all. But it came through in the submission process and in the select committee process that it is an issue to one heck of a lot of people—not just builders but many hundreds of thousands of householders and homeowners. 
So I say to Nick Smith that I believe that a real difference has already been made by the fact that his bill has gone through the parliamentary process. He has woken up local government big time. He has woken up many councils that were just drifting along with this issue. I tell members now that the councils got scared. They got very nervous that this bill was real and that it would really create a wake-up call within their local authorities. 
The submission process did actually bring some pretty good feedback through and I know the committee chair Steve Chadwick brought some of the comments to the table. I thought I would also take the opportunity to bring some of the other submissions to the table because I feel that they add value to the debate as well. I have just chosen a couple. One of them is from a gentleman by the name of Colin Hill the former president of the august organisation Architectural Designers New Zealand. In his submission he slammed local authorities for the huge backlog of lodged consent applications that are just not being processed within the statutory period. His organisation represents architectural designers throughout New Zealand. As he says we can speak to any architectural designer builder or group housing company and they will tell us of numerous cases of building projects that have been postponed or put off indefinitely because of the unacceptably high level of costly delays by local bodies in the processing of consents. We are looking to be productive country a country that is encouraging growth and this sort of commentary would have to be of serious concern. Colin Hill is obviously very supportive of the bill that Nick Smith brings to the House. 
The other interesting submission came from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development in a media release. It surveyed 418 interested parties and 63 percent of those supported the bill. I have to say that if we look just at those who are business proprietors or self-employed or business managers we see that that number goes up to 77 percent. The survey revealed that 23 percent of those who applied for a consent in the past year rated their council’s performance as good but 28 percent rated it as poor. Of the 400-odd surveyed 28 percent said that this member’s bill would improve council efficiency 21 percent said it would give them more certainty and allow them to plan and 20 percent said it would force councils to comply and take accountability. I have to say that if we add those numbers up we get something like 70 percent saying that this member’s bill would make a significant difference to their ability to do the business. 
It became very clear even from those who were not in favour of this bill that a high level of sympathy was being generated for the reason for bringing it forward. There was real sympathy from pretty much all the people who came in. They acknowledged—and this was a comment in the report—that more delays are occurring in the processing of building consents than is acceptable. 
Local authorities quite understandably are concerned about this bill. I can feel for them. They understand and feel the downside on this. If they miss a deadline they have to carry the can for it—it is all on them. They will get no fees and that is a concern for them for sure. So they understandably have a concern. 
But this is where Brian Donnelly has it wrong. He was talking about the fact that a lot of extra people would have to be employed if this legislation were to pass. He said that all the extra building inspectors that would have to be employed would add a cost to the council wage bill and that the wage bill would follow through in the rates. Well every consent that a council processes has a fee attached to it so it is a matter of self-recovery. There is no added cost to a council when building inspectors are employed. All the cost of all staff being added to the council wage bill will actually be recovered by cost recovery. 
One of the reasons I do not have the issues that the Government has with this bill and why I am very very supportive of it is that there is a very simple fix for the problem and that fix came though loud and clear in the submission process. It comes down quite simply to the fact that councils understand that the problem is caused by a lack of qualified staff—that is the issue full stop. Let us be honest about it. I have not yet met a kid leaving school who is saying: “I want to be a building inspector when I leave school.” It is not what one would call the sexiest profession. I do not think I have ever heard—or that other members have either—any one leaving school saying: “I’m going to be a building inspector when I grow up.” 
Jacqui Dean 
: They don’t say: “I want to be a politician.” either. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Yeah—I did not say that when I left school. I did not say I would be a politician. So the building inspector career is not one that people are racing into. We can compound that with the problem that my colleague John Carter alluded to and that is the fact that the Department of Building and Housing is absolutely taking the top people from local government. That is a fact for true. Also business is going great for private consultants because of the inability of local government to do the business so private consultancies are also taking the good people. 
But good things are happening because local government is actually making a difference. We heard very clearly that the answer is on its way in that the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers has commissioned research into shortages and is developing a staff recruitment and retention programme. That is happening and the society is confident it will fix the problem. This means that the 20-day issue will not be a problem which means that a disincentive like a no-fee for a late consent is actually more effective because it will move the slack councils forward. It will move those who do not have the excuses to be late. It will move them onwards because they will not want to incur the wrath of ratepayers by having to write off fees. 
So the fact that a training and career programme is in development gives us the confidence that there will not be a shortage of building inspectors which means there will be enough inspectors to do the business which means that will not be an excuse for a late consent which means there should not be as many late consents which means those late consents are due only to very poor management or council governance and administration practices which means authorities jolly well should be fined by a late fee if they cannot do the business. So I say to Nick Smith that his bill is a cracker it has made a difference and congratulations. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I want to briefly compliment the previous speaker. I did not agree with everything he said but I agreed with the tone with which he addressed the House. He emphasised the very good Local Government and Environment Committee we have which is ably chaired by Steve Chadwick. In the select committee we take a very cooperative approach to a number of things even in the case of this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill where there was genuine division. 
I also want to commend particularly the contribution of the Hon Brian Donnelly. I have to say I was a little sad that one member on the National Party benches took it upon himself to interject and interject rather than listen to some of the words of wisdom from the Hon Brian Donnelly and I say for the benefit of that member that as he grows older he will realise that Mr Donnelly is a very wise man indeed. 
I acknowledge that in the House we have a difference of opinion on the bill. I certainly acknowledge the work and effort that Dr Nick Smith has put into presenting it. I think the actual debate in the House is a good thing and I think the work we did in the select committee is a very good thing in terms of highlighting this issue. I respectfully differ as to the solution but certainly the debate is a very important one to have. 
I note that Labour opposes this bill for the simple reason that in our view it shifts the cost of building consents that take more than the 20 days provided for under the Building Act from the user to the ratepayer. We also believe that the bill risks adding to ratepayer or business costs and risks leading to a reduction in the quality of building consent processing and inspection. In our view it would also put at risk capacity development initiatives for building practitioners who are already under way. I will quote in a moment from the majority conclusion in the select committee report. It is Labour’s view that certainly as a result of our very buoyant economy under this Government New Zealand’s current building boom is partly responsible for processing delays. We note that existing provisions in the Building Act are already largely remedying these problems. 
I also want to acknowledge the good work of many councils around the country—and I will talk in a moment about a collaborative relationship which I do not think this bill will achieve—that are taking some very sensible steps to manage their workloads and to process those building applications. 
 In respect of the issue of staff recruitment which I think is something that previous speakers on this side of the House including Brian Donnelly and others from other parties have highlighted I just say that it was the considered view of the majority of members on the select committee that this bill would unfairly penalise territorial authorities that have had real problems in recruiting enough staff. 
I think the bill would set negative precedents in the consent process such as benefiting poorly prepared applications which take longer to process than well-prepared applications. Notwithstanding the arguments I have heard tonight it is still our considered view that low-fee applications would be disadvantaged as clearly local authorities would have a real incentive to give top priority to the high-fee applications. In our view high-fee applications in effect would be the priority. 
I acknowledge there is a range of views on either side for and against this bill. On balance however I would agree—and I am not being gratuitous—with the East Coast electorate chairperson for the National Party quoted in the  
East Coast Informer 
 newsletter which I think is a parliamentary publication from the local member where he disagreed with this bill. I would not use— 
Darren Hughes 
: What did she say? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: “She”—I apologise to Ms Seymour. I personally would not use Pat Seymour’s language. I would not use the terms she used that from a local authority perspective this is “a daft piece of potential legislation” that will mean “the only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer”. I am not going to use the words “daft piece of legislation”; I am actually going to acknowledge that having sat on the select committee and having listened to the evidence first hand I will not agree with the words of the electorate chairperson Pat Seymour. I will not agree with her. 
Sandra Goudie 
: This Government has probably already jumped on the council enough. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I do not think it is appropriate that the member for Coromandel should be criticising the East Coast electorate chairperson. All I am saying is that I respectfully disagree with Pat Seymour the National Party’s East Coast electorate chairperson. I am not going to use the words “daft piece of legislation” because I accept absolutely that there is a legitimate concern with reference to this issue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. We have a point of order. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I can tell you that Pat Seymour opposes the Labour Government. I wonder whether the member agrees with that. 
Hon Members 
: Yeah! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that I am ruling on a point of order. There are two members who are very lucky to remain. They know very well that a point of order is heard in silence and when I am ruling on it there is to be silence. That is a warning. The member knows very well that was not a point of order. Please continue. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Thank you. My politics and those of Pat Seymour differ but I acknowledge her community service. All I am saying is that the fact I have quoted a hard-working chairperson of an electorate committee of the National Party whom I acknowledge means that the views on this are not straightforward. There are even people who are strong supporters of the party opposite who do not agree with this bill. I was merely using that as a respectful example of the diversity of viewpoint. I said that I would not have used the word “daft” because I respect that there were many submitters who came before the select committee who disagreed with the conclusion I eventually reached. I will not call them daft because of that. 
In terms of the select committee considering a member’s bill this was a useful useful exercise. I listened very intently—as did the chair of the committee Stevie Chadwick who does a fantastic job and other members—to the local authority submissions in particular. I think that local authorities are well aware that in some parts of the country there is genuine concern around delays in processing applications. But the majority of the committee respectfully do not believe that this bill is the way to change things. We believe that this bill is something of a mallet to whack a problem that is not necessarily as great as perhaps other members would say it is. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a huge problem! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Is it not sad that when someone with a slightly different point of view makes a respectful contribution to this House we have members opposite—not all of them because there are some good members opposite—who probably have not done too much work themselves on this bill ready to heckle and interject. I think it is sad that one or two members opposite did not listen to the very considered wisdom of Brian Donnelly. 
In the time I have left I will quickly summarise the conclusion of the select committee. I compliment Dr Nick Smith in the sense that I think that this bill was a very useful bill. It really enabled us to consider the very serious questions around this issue. It certainly enabled us to consider what I thought were some very thoughtful and conscientious submissions particularly from representatives of local government in New Zealand. 
I quote from the select committee’s report: “We acknowledge that delays in the building consent process have caused frustration and increased costs for the building industry in recent years. However the majority of us do not believe that making late consent a free consent is an effective solution. Many of the factors that cause delays in the consent process are not entirely under the control of local authorities. The most significant of these is the ability to recruit and retain qualified experienced staff at a time of expansion in the sector and low unemployment. The majority of us are satisfied that initiatives planned or operating will reduce the problem of consent delays but they must be given time to work. These initiatives include accreditation of building consent authorities and the recruitment drives being undertaken by some authorities.” The committee goes on to note: “The majority of us are concerned about the equity issues raised by the negative financial incentive set out in this bill. Poor applications which take longer to process would be more likely to be free than well-prepared applications thus rewarding poor practice.” That is the view of the majority of the committee—its considered view in the light of the submissions we received. As I mentioned before: “Small (low-fee) applications would be disadvantaged as authorities would give priority to high-fee applications. The consent process might be hurried in some cases”—and this is my real worry—“with poor-quality buildings being constructed as a result.” We certainly do not want to see that. 
We oppose this bill but I do want to commend the work of the select committee and all members of the select committee in raising what I believe to be a very serious issue. The select committee members however disagree on the solutions that have been suggested in this bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 The Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is a very very good bill. This bill brought by my colleague Nick Smith is an excellent bill and I will tell members why. It is an excellent bill because it seeks to make councils accountable. It seeks to make councils accountable for providing building consents in a timely manner. 
You know I often reflect and have often reflected in the past that there is a difference between those who work for a local authority or indeed any bureaucracy and those who work out in the business community. On the one hand the person who works in the bureaucracy gets paid every fortnight. They get their annual leave their other entitlements and whatever else accrues to them. It does not really matter how they perform; they still get paid. On the other hand the builder the architect or whoever is working in that sphere gets paid only if he or she does the work—and there is a bit of a difference there. That is why this bill the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is so excellent. 
Today and this evening we have been debating in this House the conflict and the friction between those bureaucrats who get paid regularly every fortnight whether or not they provide the consents and those who do not get paid if they do not do the work. Under the Building Act 2004 all building consent applications must be dealt with within 20 working days—and we know that. If a consent authority requires further information from the applicant—and that is fair enough—it can suspend the 20-day period until it gets the information. In other words it can stop the clock and that is fair enough. There is a contract here between the local authority and the person seeking consent. The person seeking consent should provide robust information and the local authority should deal with that information in a good and timely manner. 
It is interesting is it not that the Department of Building and Housing estimated—and I am reading from the notes here—that in November 2006 approximately 20 percent of consents were not issued within the right time frames. Twenty percent is actually quite a bit when one is talking about those builders who get paid or not depending on whether they get their building consent and can proceed with their building project. Maybe that 20 percent does not really mean much for those people who have dined on the public purse for the amount of time that a lot of the Labour members opposite have. But I can tell members that that 20 percent actually represents a lot of building consents that have been lodged with local authorities. The Government may not think it is a problem but I do. 
In fact the Registered Master Builders Federation reckoned that the situation was even worse than that: “While [building consent authorities] might contend that on average they are processing consents within 20 days (as required by the Building Act) the truth for the building industry practitioners”—and these are the guys that stand or fall on whether they get their building consents which means whether they can get on with their building project—“is that the consents are taking much much longer.” Who cares about that? Does the bureaucrat who gets paid every 2 weeks care about that? Or does the builder who lives or falls on whether he gets his building consent and can proceed with his client’s building project care about that? 
As the building consent authorities have noted publicly with some building consent applications it takes longer to sort out consent issues than it actually takes to build the house. Those are words that one can gloss over and say: “Oh well never mind it is just a problem. It’s only 20 percent.” But I can tell members that for a builder in a small town like I live in any delay in a building project costs money. Any delay in a building project means that the subbies do not know when they will be coming to work. Any delay in the building consent issued means that the solicitor will not get paid that the architect will not get paid and that the family who is hoping to move into the house will have to pay rent a little bit longer in its rented accommodation. 
This excellent bill that my colleague Nick Smith has brought to this House is raising some absolutely critical issues for the building industry in New Zealand. I have noted that as the Registered Master Builders Federation told the committee it now takes longer to get a building consent in many parts of New Zealand than it actually takes to build a house. Where is the onus on the local authority to provide a timely building consent? Where are the penalties for the local authority if it fails to provide a building consent in a timely manner? Interestingly when we were hearing submissions—I was part of that Local Government and Environment Committee that heard those submissions and I was there on the day—we heard that there are no practical consequences of non-compliance for local authorities. I think it was Nick Smith who asked the chief executive how often he invoked the powers of section 203 of the Building Act in any of those cases and the answer was—“What was it?” I ask Dr Smith—not once. 
So there are no consequences for the local authority that fails to issue a building consent in a timely manner. What does that tell our local builders our local architects and our local architectural draftsmen? It says that actually it does not really matter. They will not be paying their bills they will not get paid at the end of the month but oh well never mind that is OK. The local authorities are only doing their job and shucks we heard through the submission process that actually it is not the local authorities’ fault because they cannot find enough planners. I have some sympathy for that position but I note also that we heard submissions on this excellent bill in May and I have not seen a Government bill come into the House to address the issue of the lack of planners in New Zealand. Where is the sense of urgency on behalf of this Labour Government to fix this problem so loudly identified by the local authorities? Well the silence has been absolutely deafening. 
There are a few basic truths in the discussion of this bill: councils should be accountable—they should be accountable to the elected members and they should be accountable to the people who come to them to get consents. Interestingly I was at a local government planning conference in Hamilton back in 2003 where the Hamilton City Council planners outlined their plan to become 100 percent compliant in dealing with Building Act requirements. That was back in 2002 or 2003 in Hamilton with the Hamilton City Council. The local authorities want to be able to provide good service but they cannot because they are absolutely tied up with the red tape associated with the new Building Act. In the small councils which I am particularly familiar with the engineers and the building officers—who all work in the same room because the authorities are small—are tied up in red tape as handed down by this Labour Government. I will quickly go through those requirements. There is the long-term council community plan process and the annual plan. The engineers are also trying to comply with the new drinking water standards and trying to comply with new sewerage scheme standards—in fact they are busy. 
I want to refute the argument that a local authority providing a free consent will provide a cost to the ratepayer. That is not true because that will not be covered under the general rate. Building Act activities are rated on a cost recovery basis so it would be quite proper to recover the building cost. [ 
Interruption 
] If the members would care to listen—which they are not very good at doing for the building community—I will tell them that the building industry agreed at the submission process that it would be happy to pay a premium to get good timely service from building consent applications. What we are looking for here is accountability. We can provide a timely consent and it can be cost effective. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 During the course of Jacqui Dean’s speech the junior Government whip suggested—and I thought it was a very good suggestion—that we have a general election immediately. I seek the leave of the House that we have a general election as suggested by the junior Government whip. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Party votes are meant to be conducted in silence and the National Party is being very noisy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to members that it is very difficult to conduct a vote if people are making a noise and everybody knows that there should be silence during voting. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have just given a ruling that party votes are to be heard in silence. Mr Bennett who finds it hard to control himself at the best of times failed to listen to your advice and called out while one of the parties was casting a vote. It is a very simple rule. We conduct a vigorous debate then we conduct party votes in silence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right and I guess I probably should ask the member to leave the House. But I will give the member a chance seeing as it is nearly the end of members’ day. But I ask the member to apologise for his behaviour. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I apologise. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee. 
In New Zealand we have a university of technology which is not a university of technology because there is no such thing as a university of technology. At the same time if we read between the lines of what the chair of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee told the Education and Science Committee as true neither is it a university—yet. This is not to malign that institution which is a fine one and which serves its students and New Zealand well; it is to point out the untidy state of affairs of the structure of our tertiary framework. This bill intends to tidy up the framework of our tertiary education system in order to future-proof it. 
The tensions in the framework arose from the decision in the early 1990s to allow institutions other than universities to teach and confer degrees; a decision I might say that Clarence Beeby had gently suggested as far back as 1956. Two factors combined to create a rapid rise in degree programmes at non-university institutions. The first factor was the “bums on seats” approach that dominated the 1990s tertiary education policy and that created incentives for institutions to rapidly develop degree programmes in a variety of areas. The second factor was the exponential growth in the sophistication and complexity of knowledge required for vocational and trade areas. 
Polytechnics and institutes of technology have come from a very different history and set of traditions than universities. Indeed the first mention of trades education is to be found in the laws of Hammurabi of Babylonia formulated around 1800BC about 1500 years before Plato developed his Academy and Aristotle his Lyceum—the forerunners of universities. Those two were very aristocratic institutions. 
In New Zealand our first university the University of Otago was established in 1869. The first lecture was given by G S Sale the professor of classics in which he claimed that education in Greek and Latin was of little value to a person whose life was to be spent in the ordinary trades or callings of a colony but they were the means to a liberal education that would enlarge one’s powers cultivate taste and refine the manner of him who obtained it. Within 5 years Parliament had passed an Act that absorbed the University of Otago as a college of the University of New Zealand. 
New Zealand polytechnics and institutes of technology can also trace their ancestry back more than a century. Although they are part of a national system of education today their roots lie not in some grand national plan but in a series of local initiatives from the 1880s to provide technical instruction for those who were among the nine out of 10 New Zealanders who went straight from primary school to work. The first such initiative was by the Wellington Education Board. When drawing became a compulsory subject in schools teachers needed to be taught to draw so the Wellington School of Design was established in 1886. 
 The point is this: society was able to function at the time with nine out of 10 young people entering work directly from primary school. It would be an absurdity to suggest that the same could happen today. That is a function of the increased complexity of our society and the greater levels of knowledge required in all fields of learning—in particular vocational learning. 
In certain fields the level of knowledge and skills required can no longer be publicly recognised with just certificate or diploma status. Degree titles are necessary. Ian Dougherty’s work  
Bricklayers and Mortarboards 
 chronicles how institutions such as Unitec have responded to that demand for developing levels of knowledge. Construction management quantity surveying and business studies in 1992 then later design nursing environmental studies engineering and landscape architecture are just a few of the areas where the level of knowledge justified degree status of the qualification in that domain. 
Nowhere is the case more clearly demonstrated than in medical imaging. Up until 1990 the school of radiology at Auckland Hospital taught students how to take X-rays. Diploma status for the qualification was justified. However medical imaging is one of the most rapidly developing areas of health treatment. Not only do graduates need to know about X-rays; they also need to know about computer tomography ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging nuclear medicine mammography and interventional radiology procedures. Clearly degree status in this field to master’s level is not only appropriate but required. 
As institutes of technology built larger and larger graduate portfolios it was inevitable they would want parity of esteem with universities for their qualifications. Therefore in 1996 both Unitec and the then Auckland Institute of Technology made application for a change of status. This led to a flurry of activity and the use of international panels to decide just what a university looked like beyond the vague definition in the Act. 
One of the criteria that was arrived at was telling. It was that a university could have only a small proportion of sub-degree programmes. That is in tune with the definition of a university in the Act which established that universities are primarily concerned with more advanced learning. The problem with this is that if an institution wants university status in order to achieve parity of esteem for its degrees it must first proportionately reduce its sub-degree programmes. This state of affairs creates all the wrong incentives. Not only are sub-degree programmes the strength of our institutes of technology but according to the recent Leitch report from Britain it is through increased participation in level 4 to 7 programmes that we create the greatest productivity gains for our national economy. Those level 4 to 7 programmes are the certificate and diploma trade and vocational programmes that are the very essence of these institutions. 
The horse has bolted on graduate programmes in institutions other than universities given that 16 percent of bachelor degrees are now taught by non-university institutions. The same could be said of postgraduate programmes but the horse is not so far out the gate. 
The submission by the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee on the distinctive contributions of universities states that the Government must act to prevent further proliferation of degrees in non-research institutions. This may resolve the “bums on seats” problems but the tertiary reforms will do that. What it will not do is accommodate the pressure for recognition of increasingly complex and sophisticated knowledge in trade and vocational fields through graduate and postgraduate qualifications. What it will not do is resolve some of the gatekeeping behaviour of the universities through the 1990s. What it will not do is resolve the issue of duplication of teaching infrastructure which would result in degrees in these developing areas having to be taught by law within universities. What it will not replace is the within-institution scaffolding that is able to take place in for example the case of radiography and imaging. 
A new class of institution is needed that has the characteristics of both a university and a technical institution with significant sub-degree programmes. Degree programmes would be taught within a research-based environment but that research could be more applied scholarship and currency based than that of our current universities. A university of technology would have a different balance from that of a university as defined in the Act. 
 The argument is advanced that every polytechnic in the country will rush off and want to become a university of technology. The tertiary reforms provide the tools to prevent such a gold rush. The Tertiary Education Commission should not be allowing degree programmes that do not fill a specific need. Institutions would have to advance a clear case for any graduate or postgraduate qualification in an area of endeavour normally covered by certificate or diploma recognition. Genuine evolution of knowledge and skills could be accommodated while non-genuine claims could be rejected. Therefore this bill leading to NorthTec or Telford Rural Polytechnic becoming a university of technology could happen only if the Tertiary Education Commission was not doing its job. 
I therefore reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. This bill is about future-proofing our system for conferring tertiary degrees. I hope that parties in this House will see fit to support the bill through its first reading so that the issues raised can be fully explored through public submission. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. National will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. We must say that we are looking forward to enjoying the debate within the select committee. 
This sector is particularly confusing right now with its eight universities its 26 polytechs its 42 industry training organisations and its 800 private training establishments and here the member is adding yet another category of university. I note that no one other than Unitec and the member has lobbied me to support this bill. Nevertheless the discussion in the Education and Science Committee hopefully will be an elevated and enlightened one and one where we can make progress on taking away the confusion that Labour has created in the tertiary education system and bring sense and rationality to it. 
I acknowledge Brian Donnelly for picking up this bill. But I also acknowledge John Webster the Chief Executive Officer of Unitec. He is a man who has shown extraordinary perseverance and dedication in trying to achieve university status for the institution he has worked so hard for for so long. I was shown around the campus by him a month or so ago and also taken over to the western side of Auckland where a new campus is expanding. I must say that he has developed a very very impressive diversity of courses despite the Labour Government. 
There certainly is an irony in Unitec wanting to become a university of technology. It insists that this is a different category from a university but when we look back to the history of the early 1990s when the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec both applied to the Government to become universities we see that of course only the Auckland Institute of Technology was chosen to be one—the Auckland University of Technology. Here we would have an even further confusing situation where Unitec would be a university of technology and we already have the Auckland University of Technology but they are supposed to be different. 
Here are some questions that the member has to let us know the answers to. How is this actually going to help students. Is it going to help students? Will it make them better off? Will it indeed ensure that the staircasing that he has been talking about will happen? 
I note that he says in the general policy statement: “By comparison with research-led universities their lower proportion of research post-graduate students and intensity of internationally published research will be offset by a particularly strong commitment to high level professional and vocational education establishment of close links with business and industry engagement in applied research and advanced practice delivery of appropriate sub-degree programmes and provision for pathways by which students can progress to higher levels of education and training as and when required to pursue their career goals.” 
I understand that Mr Donnelly and Unitec feel there is a great need to have parity of esteem. Yet one really wonders whether just conferring the title of “university of technology” will do this. If we look around the world we can immediately think of highly esteemed universities such as Oxford Cambridge and Johns Hopkins and on the other hand there is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—not a university but surely of hugely high esteem. It is an institution of only about 10000 students yet it does an enormous amount of research. That is another of the ironies relating to this particular bill. 
I remember several years ago also debating in this Chamber the question of how many universities we should have in this country and this bill may lead to many. The view that we in National had was that it really depended entirely on quality; the number did not matter so much. Of course all the Labour Government wanted to do was to control the number; it was not worried about quality. 
It is of interest to me that in the background of this bill the Education Act 1989 currently categorises institutions as universities polytechs colleges of education specialist colleges or wananga and there is a degree of flexibility but not enough. However since 1992 as we have learnt from Brian Donnelly polytechs have been allowed to confer degrees up to PhD. I note that Unitec does have that full spectrum of certificates and diplomas all the way to PhDs. 
I absolutely agree that technology and technology courses have changed dramatically since the 1990s. The example given of radiologists is absolutely pertinent; that technology has changed enormously during the time that I have been a practising obstetrician and gynaecologist. As the member said the whole range from simple X-rays to ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging has happened in the last 15 to 20 years. It is important that nurses and radiographers etc. are able to staircase from diplomas to degrees then perhaps to go on to PhDs and do research. However the big question is whether a university of technology is needed to do this. 
I also note that there has been considerable discussion about what constitutes a university. I am sure Dr Cullen will have some erudite and woolly definition of it but  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 defines a university as “a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done.” It does not necessarily mean that it is research-led which is the situation or the understood preference of the eight universities in New Zealand. The Education Act 1989 which I think Brian Donnelly mentioned is a little vague on the definition of universities here but research rather than teaching is the vital focus. 
That brings up some curious scenarios of what might happen in the future if indeed this bill is allowed to go through. We have a situation in New Zealand where it looks as though three or four or five universities are getting the lion’s share of the Performance-based Research Fund. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.