Volume 619 Week 65 - Tuesday 24 August 2004 
Volume 619 Week 65 - Tuesday 24 August 2004 
[Volume:619;Page:14929] 
Tuesday 24 August 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Ranfurly Shield Win—Bay of Plenty 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a non-controversial motion to do with the rugby events in the Bay of Plenty last weekend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Following discussions with the Minister of Health and the Leader of the House which I am grateful for I seek leave for question No. 7 today to be deferred until tomorrow and treated as an extra question then so that it can be answered by the Minister of Health to whom it was originally directed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It will be so done and it will be put at No. 13. [ 
Interruption 
] That interjection involves me. I actually supported Bay of Plenty winning it—and I am an Aucklander! 
Treaty of Waitangi—Historic Settlements 
1. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What methods are being considered in order to “streamline Treaty of Waitangi historic settlements” as stated in her press release of 21 July 2004 and why has the Government now decided that streamlining the process is necessary? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough. Anything more like that and people will be having an early shower. That is the only warning today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Firstly the Government is considering ways to simplify settlement legislation so that once settlements are agreed they can be implemented faster and more easily; secondly it is exploring the possibility of enabling legislation to make it easier for Maori groups to establish robust post-settlement governance entities; and thirdly it is looking at ongoing work surrounding their lodging of claims with the tribunal. This is all part of ongoing work to try to make the settlement process more efficient. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement that placing a time limit on filing historic treaty claims is “out of touch and ignores the complexity of the treaty settlement process”; if so why has the Government completely changed its position to consider just such a time limit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It has not which is probably why the Government is ahead in the polls. In November 2002 the Minister responding in the House made that statement. She was referring to the attempt to place an artificial deadline on the settlement of claims. She still holds the view that that is a stupid idea which is not surprising given where it comes from. 
Jill Pettis 
: In line with the Government’s policy of constant review what other examples have there been—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already warned members once and said it was a final warning. Now on this occasion I am going to be very generous and far too soft on issues like this. This is the one and only time I am not going to send the member out. No comments are to be made during the asking of questions. That is a democratic right. Please start again. 
Jill Pettis 
: In line with the Government’s policy of constant review what other examples have there been of changes to the treaty settlement process in order to make it more efficient? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have committed more resources to the treaty settlement process—in particular a complete additional negotiating team. That is why we are now in active negotiations with 12 claimant groups and in active discussions with another 15 groups which is far higher than levels during the 1990s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that given the current speed of settlements of Waitangi settlements it will take another 584 years which is astonishing given that in 1990 Jim Bolger promised to finish everything up by the end of the decade? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but even if it were true I doubt that the National Government would be any part of that during 584 years. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister describe to the House the round-table partnership negotiations she has had with all future claimants about the streamlining process and the 10 to 15-year time frame or is it simply that this policy results from Labour’s increasing reliance on National for policy direction on issues concerning Maori and the treaty? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer in so far as this relates to his portfolio. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member has managed simultaneously to insult both the Labour Party and the National Party with that comment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think they both deserve to be insulted but let us have an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the point of order is out of order but the point made is correct. Please answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister and the Prime Minister both indicated a possible indicative timetable for the settlement process. The issue that is actually under discussion actively at the present time is whether there should be a timetabling limit in terms of the lodging of claims. 
Tariana Turia 
: The tino rangatiratanga side of the partnership under the treaty would welcome early resolution of the ill-effects of the dishonouring of the Treaty of Waitangi— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
Tariana Turia 
: What steps are proposed in the expedition of the resolution of these effects to ensure that the quality of the partnership between kawanatanga and the rangatiratanga is enhanced and maintained? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Each treaty settlement is in and of itself a separate case and has to be treated on that basis and it may point to ongoing discussions of partnership between that particular iwi or hapu and the Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How much credibility should the House give to statements from the Minister such as the one in the question that the treaty process is being streamlined or the press statement issued by the Minister on Tuesday 27 July where she claimed: “Recent progress in treaty settlements confirms my prediction that the vast majority of claims will be settled within 10 to 15 years.” against the statement made by the Waitangi Tribunal on 27 September that this Government has actually been in breach of its undertakings with regard to the Te Arawa settlement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter matter there are ongoing discussions and announcements to be made but in general terms I would say I prefer the comments made by the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to those of the Waitangi Tribunal on a number of instances. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s view that “strictly speaking the Treaty proper exists only in its Maori version”; if so how does that affect the treaty claims process given the Deputy Prime Minister’s further view that according to the Maori version of the treaty Maori did not cede sovereignty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think if the member cares to re-analyse the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements in the latter respect he will find they are a little bit more subtle than he indicated in that brief summary. I am assured that the Deputy Prime Minister was expressing his view as a historian—as I believe that member occasionally still claims to be an economist although not in Australia—that in fact the notion of sovereignty as expressed in British understanding in 1840 can scarcely have been understood by those people signing the treaty in 1840. The fact of the matter is that Maori signed a version of the treaty that was in Maori in 1840. International law is quite clear that where there is a conflict between the native language version and the version that was signed priority is given to the interpretation based on the native language version. The member may not like that but it is a reasonable fact. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that the deadline on treaty claims is a bumper sticker solution which will only pitch New Zealand into a new cycle of grievances and claims; if not what comments has the Minister received from the Prime Minister regarding her own proposed treaty time limits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The difference is the difference between a time limit on the lodging of treaty claims—which does not seem entirely unreasonable given the fact that by the time it would be over more than 20 years would have passed since the amending legislation—and the settlement of all claims which is not entirely in the hands of the Crown. 
Dail Jones 
: Referring to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer about the interpretation of treaties is he familiar with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which does not support his contention of the way in which treaties should be interpreted and more recently Brownlie’s most authoritative book on the subject which makes it clear that the so-called contra proferentem rule on which he relies is no longer a factor to be taken into account in the interpretation of treaties? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am familiar with that but not to entrench upon other matters on which I have commented recently I have a strong suspicion New Zealand courts might hold the view that the Maori version would have a very high level of priority. 
Oil—Prices 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has Treasury revised its assumption that crude oil prices will ease back to an “equilibrium” price of US$19 per barrel; if so what are the Government’s current assumptions for oil price trends between now and 2020? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury is yet to begin its revised forecasting round for the December Economic and Fiscal Update. When that happens it will specifically identify the need to revisit the assumption for oil price trends. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What planning if any is the Government doing to reduce the dependence of the New Zealand economy on oil in light of the fact that the price of light crude today is nearly US$48 a barrel? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My colleague the Minister of Energy is working hard on sustainable energy options. It would be helpful if some of those options such as hydropower and wind power were more enthusiastically supported by the Green Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given the concern over high petrol prices has the Minister sought the advice and guidance of Mr Jim Anderton the self-styled “Minister for Lower Prices”—as he told this House on 30 March 2000—or is Mr Anderton missing in action on this one as well? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Anderton has certainly expressed concerns to me about the impacts of rising oil prices. Perhaps we could all hope that the various elements in this House will use their best endeavours to ensure for example that the Middle Eastern situation settles down. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What does the Minister understand by the term “peak oil” and when does he expect it to occur? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have to confess that for once the member has floored me; I do not understand what is meant by the term “peak oil”. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree then that the price of any commodity is likely to rise over time when demand is increasing exponentially while supplies are being restricted by physical limits; and does he agree that oil is a commodity that has just such characteristics? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In theoretical terms yes; in practical terms no. We have yet to reach the point where it is at all clear that new discoveries in oil—and I now think I understand what the member was getting at before—fall below the level of the projected demand for oil. At the present time the production of oil is actually outrunning demand and stockpiling is occurring. Prices are high because of primarily the uncertainty in the Middle East plus the growing demand from China plus the somewhat confused situation—to put it kindly—surrounding oil and gas companies in Russia. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister been advised that the current oil demand is 81 million barrels a day and the total capacity of the world’s oilfields to produce oil is 82.5 million barrels a day; and does he think that that provides sufficient headroom for demand to continue to increase—for example with China’s 40 percent increase in demand in the last year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly therefore the member has confirmed what I have just said: supply is actually exceeding demand at the present time. And as prices rise that will encourage both new exploration and also new exploitation of known reserves that were previously uneconomic to exploit—for example the extremely large Canadian oil shale reserves. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister been advised that for some time now oil discoveries have been running at the rate of one barrel for every four that are burned and how long does he think that that can continue; further has he been advised that Canadian shale and tar sands oil will be extremely expensive compared with current supplies as well as a lot dirtier? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly on the last point given the nature of the area there are severe environmental issues and exploitation would certainly be more expensive. But it does seem to me rather odd that a Green Party member would bemoan a rise in price for a limited product. 
Post Primary Teachers Association—Employment Agreement 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why will the Ministry of Education pay all members of the Post Primary Teachers Association $500 to sign a new employment contract while non-union teachers will receive no such payment? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Minister is delighted to see that the ministry and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) have made such positive progress in the current negotiation round. A settled industrial environment can only be good news for students. Bargaining is of course ongoing and he does not want to prejudice those negotiations. However he can say that the proposal for a $500 one-off payment recognises that many of the union’s claims are not being dealt with through bargaining. Instead they will be addressed through a longer-term process of engagement in working-parties which will require considerable time and effort on the part of union members and a settled industrial environment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister regard the union membership of a teacher as a more important quality to be rewarded than the competence of a teacher? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: He does not. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the Minister aware of any previous proposals to make one-off payments to teachers in order to settle collective agreement negotiations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. members will recall that in 2002 the industrial negotiations did not follow such a smooth course. At that time a proposal was put forward to make a one-off payment of $2000 to teachers. That proposal was put forward by the then National Party leader Bill English who also argued that many of the matters in the PPTA claim should be dealt with outside the bargaining process—which is exactly what is happening now. 
Jim Peters 
: Will the Ministry of Education also pay all members of the New Zealand Educational Institute and all members of other teacher-related unions $500 to sign new employment contracts thus clearing the way before the next election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is not the Minister’s role to get involved in the bargaining process. That would be between the two parties. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Could the Minister explain how paying PPTA members a bonus and sending teacher unions on courses that “develop knowledge skills and attitudes to become more active in and for the union” assists with students’ education in any way? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding is that this is not a bonus. It is a proposal for a $500 one-off payment recognising that the union’s claims are not being dealt with through bargaining which is just what the past leader of the National Party Bill English has suggested. That is what is happening this time. 
Paul Adams 
: How does the Minister reconcile the additional payments to PPTA members with section 9(1) of the Employment Relations Act which states that an agreement: “… must not confer on a person because the person is or is not a member of a union or a particular union— … (b) any preference in relation to terms or conditions of employment …” and if he can reconcile it why is the Government so keen to remove this provision through the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member needs to be reminded that what we are dealing with here is a process of bargaining between the ministry and the PPTA which includes a $500 one-off payment because a range of issues are not being dealt with through that bargaining process. This will allow that longer-term process to go on so that other issues can be settled. That is what the payment is for. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why 3500 teachers who will be covered by this collective contract will not receive the $500 payment that he currently says he will pay only to union members? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Minister does not pay them anything. This is the ministry and the PPTA negotiating exactly as that member suggested they should. 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: He can answer the question himself; it is in his press release. He has made the suggestion on previous occasions. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have now asked the Minister twice why one group of teachers gets the payment and another group does not. On two occasions he has given the same answer which did not answer the question. I am now put in the position where I will have to ask the question again which will mean that as an Opposition member I have had to use up three supplementary questions to get the answer to the primary question laid down as No. 3 which explicitly asks why the payment will be paid to some teachers but not to non-union teachers. So I think the Minister should be required to answer the question that has now been asked three times and I will have to ask it a fourth time if that is necessary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the member should have to ask a third supplementary question. I will ask the Minister to comment on the second supplementary question and develop his answer. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On behalf of the Minister of Education—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have anybody interjecting like that at me. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under the Standing Orders in this Parliament Ministers are not invited to comment on questions. They are required to answer them in the public interest. This is Parliament where Ministers are required to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I adjudged that the Minister had addressed the question. I was however helping the member who asked the question because I did not want him to have to use up another supplementary question. I now invite the Minister— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just point out that you have I think twice or three times criticised members of the Opposition for interfering on questions or raising points of order. Three times in three questions that have been asked members of the Government have called out before the member of the Opposition has asked the question and you have not said a thing. I note that you have looked hard at them— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I looked hard to see who it was because if I had seen who it was he or she would have been out the door. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you for that but during Mr English’s point of order comments were heard coming from the Government benches. That makes four times that members of the Government have clearly broken your rule Mr Speaker that you would be brooking none of that behaviour yet it is the Opposition members who have been getting pulled up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I made the mistake of being far too generous the first time when I should have ejected a member on my left. I apologise for that because I did the wrong thing. I tell members that if they interject in that way in the future they will go straight away. I have had enough. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can do no better than to repeat that the bargaining process is ongoing and that the Minister does not want to prejudice those negotiations. However the outcome of those negotiations will potentially include a $500 one-off payment that recognises the union’s claims that it will be dealing with other issues outside that process. That is why some people will get the payment and others will not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister inform school boards as to why some of their teachers will be paid $500 and some will not and has he been informed by the boards of schools that they already have teachers approaching them and telling them that the boards will have to come up with the $500 for the non-union members and that that is not what parents make donations for? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The bargaining is not yet finished. We do not know what the outcome will be. I have no doubt that it will be a point of discussion between boards and the ministry from then on in relation to how those wages will be paid. I ask the member to note that the bargaining has not yet finished and that the process must be allowed to continue. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain for the House’s benefit what the payment of $500 to union members has to do with teaching children effectively and why he thinks that paying $500 to PPTA members and not to any other teachers regardless of their qualifications or effectiveness will enhance the learning of New Zealand students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the settlement between the ministry and the PPTA will lead to a settled school environment that will be good for students. That is the second part of the question answered: it will be good for students to have it settled. Regarding the earlier part of the question if such a payment is settled as part of the negotiations it is for ongoing engagement between the PPTA’s working-parties and the ministry to settle a range of ongoing issues. The member may not like the answer but those are the facts. 
Economy—Australia and New Zealand 
4.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the comparative performance of the Australian and New Zealand economies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports showing that the growth in New Zealand’s gross domestic product has outstripped Australia’s for each of the last 4 years. Also in each of those years we have had lower annual inflation and significantly lower unemployment. We now have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What other comparative reports and analyses has the Minister received on this issue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen the claim that New Zealand’s performance is so poor that we risk becoming unviable and “just another Pacific Island State”. According to the World Bank which does know something about poverty the gross national income per capita of the Solomons was around $1200 in 2002 and of Samoa was approximately $3000; in New Zealand it was just short of $30000 per year. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true on the basis of the assumptions made by the Treasuries of Australia and New Zealand about productivity growth in our two countries that New Zealand’s per capita income will never ever catch the level of per capita income of Australia and that as a consequence the gap between our living standards and those of Australia—already equivalent to some $200 per person per week—will continue to widen? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member should not place too much emphasis upon long-term assumptions. As somebody once quite rightly said: “In reality there are a great many … fundamental differences between the two countries so a different growth rate should be no surprise at all. … This is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’. It just means that New Zealand is different in some respects.” That was Dr Brash to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle in February 2000. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not in any sense answer my question. I asked him whether it was true on the basis of the productivity assumptions of the Australian and New Zealand Treasuries that Australian living standards would always exceed New Zealand living standards and that the gap would in fact get larger. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member should remember what I said at the start which was that he should not place too much emphasis upon long-term productivity assumptions. The fact is the same assumptions were made in 2000. The fact is we have outperformed Australia every year since then under this Government—which we did not do in the 1990s. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister still has not answered the question. I asked him whether it was true on the basis of the assumptions made by the respective Treasuries that the New Zealand standard of living would never ever catch that of Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister was asked to address the question. He certainly did on both occasions. He talked about assumptions not being justified and that type of thing. He did definitely address the question. 
Taxation—Tax Base Protection 
5.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have any concerns regarding the protection of the New Zealand tax base; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I am always concerned that the tax base is protected because there are always attempts being made to undermine it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the schemes outlined in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
was in fact the result of the neglect of the last National Government which had in place a tax committee attending to those issues and that the neglect was in the sense that it closed that committee down without the work being done properly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can answer the question in so far as it affects his portfolio. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The McKay committee. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I think the member is correct but I would hesitate to say much more than that because the matters are still in front of the court. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister able to update the House in relation to the underpayment of tax by the Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated in the Budget speech last year the Government was looking at the issue of the underpayment of tax by the New Zealand retail banks—particularly of course therefore the Australian banks. Discussions have proceeded on a surprisingly cordial basis between the banks and the Inland Revenue Department which is to say that there has been a recognition that it is a fair cop and changes will be introduced in legislation soon that will see a significant increase in the tax paid by Australian-owned banks in New Zealand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Government doing any work on the principle that all such foreign transactions be regarded as income until the applicants prove otherwise? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not think we are proceeding on that basis at the present time. In relation to banks I think I can say that the approach will be based essentially around a variation of the thin capitalisation rules. 
Primary Health Organisations—Services 
6.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she confident that all primary health organisations are delivering cheaper health-care to all New Zealanders; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am confident that the increased funding that is going to the primary health organisations has resulted in a very large number of New Zealanders especially the most vulnerable being able to receive more affordable health-care. For the first time in New Zealand the doctors in those primary health organisations have declared the fees that they will charge with the increased funding and the primary health organisations have undertaken to ensure that those fees are low or reduced when compared with the fees charged for people who are not eligible for the increased subsidies. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister concerned that a recent survey illustrated that in many cases interim primary health organisations charge higher fees than non – primary health organisations and what does she say to the people who have to bear the brunt of increasing compliance costs such as those arising from the Holidays Act and the increased bureaucracy of the primary health organisations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is true that the people in primary health organisations who are not being subsidised may well have had an increase in their fee. After all the Government has not put any additional money in for them and it is not unreasonable for doctors to increase their charges if they have increased costs. However between now and 2007 when we will finally subsidise all New Zealanders we will see some variation in the subsidies that people have. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Are people who are enrolled in primary health organisations entitled to know what their general practitioner is charging them following the increased Government subsidies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes and a very good example of that is in Nelson where the local newspaper published all the fees for the local doctors. I have it here and it is a very good publication. For example the medical centre has free care for under-sixes and the charge is $22 for 6 to 17-year-olds and $22 for the over-65s. In fact all the over-65s pay $22 in every practice in Nelson. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Do all New Zealanders aged 65 and over benefit from the $3 maximum prescription charge as a result of belonging to a primary health organisation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: All New Zealanders aged 65 and over in primary health organisations benefit from the $3 prescription charge. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has this Government launched a multimillion-dollar Television New Zealand advertising campaign that tells Kiwis that joining a primary health organisation means they will get cheaper doctors’ visits when Ministry of Health reports show that non – primary health organisation doctors charge less than interim primary health organisations and is that not because the administrative requirements of the primary health organisations are a nightmare? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With regard to the last comment the member made no. The advertising is designed to inform the public of the services offered by primary health organisations. It became apparent that we needed to inform the public especially when the New Zealand doctors said in May last year that general practitioners were crying out for the public to be told about the primary health organisations. In fact they said: “Primary health organisations publicity drive urgently needed.” I could also add that I think it is important that we inform the public—particularly the Leader of the Opposition because when he was asked about a primary health organisation he said that he did not know what one was. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister see any relationship between doctors putting up their prices and the increasing compliance costs such as those arising from the Holidays Act; if not what other reasons has the Government given doctors to put up their fees? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Doctors are private business people. They have the right to pass on costs like any other business. But I will tell the member that we had a compliance test panel carried out in 2001—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked a question; she should at least listen to the answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will start again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister can carry on. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Let me continue— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Answer the question! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am answering the question. If Mr Ryall stopped screaming he might be able to hear the answer. He should take his pill. We had a test panel carried out on compliance costs for general practitioners. It was published in 2001 and it showed that during the 1990s the compliance costs were very high. They came from the community services card—the high-user card in particular. I am pleased to say that under the primary health organisations we are getting rid of the community services card and the high-user card—some of the high compliance costs that our doctors have had to face. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a report from Feilding received this morning of an increase of 20 percent in the primary health organisation’s charges showing that for a 73-year-old who previously paid $25 a visit it now costs $30. 
Document not tabled. 
Minister of Health—Accountability 
8.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she have any major concerns relating to her portfolio; if so what is she doing to address these concerns? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There are always concerns in the health portfolio ranging from workforce issues to operations and everything in-between. This Government has made health a priority increasing funding to almost $10 billion a year—up from $6.3 billion in 1999. We have also been proactive in trying to get ahead of problems before they get worse. People from the health sector frequently tell me that they appreciate the consistent and foresighted approach that this Government has taken towards funding and providing health care. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What concerns does she have regarding increasing demands on the health budget arising from the Government’s immigration policies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New migrants do bring costs with them in terms of health care but they also bring benefits. So one cannot look only at the cost of their health care one must look at the benefits they bring with them in terms of economic development and resources. 
Mike Ward 
: Will the Minister support measures to reduce obesity in children such as removing soft-drink vending machines from schools and bringing in a “fat tax” in light of the evidence that New Zealand children are amongst the fattest in the world? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I will not support a “fat tax”. I have seen no evidence that imposing a tax on sugar and fat will make children thinner. I would support and do support health-promoting schools that teach children and parents about the sorts of things children ought to eat. But I do not think legislation and taxation as the first measures in terms of attacking obesity are the right way to go. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the No. 1 concern relating to her portfolio is a lack of qualified staff when in the last 5 days a critical shortage of nurses has been reported in hospitals ranging from Wellington to Timaru and when a shortage of general practitioners is hitting towns as small as Turangi and cities as big as Christchurch; if it is not the No. 1 concern where does it rank? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do agree with the member that workforce issues are very important issues particularly in the areas of primary health care rural health delivery and so on. I am pleased to tell the member however that I have just received the most recent survey of nurses returning to the workforce and up to the end of 2003—last year—2807 registered nurses and midwives had returned to the workforce during that period. Why had they returned? Because of the availability now of childcare because of return-to-nursing programmes and because of changes in their circumstances. I think that is very encouraging. But we will always struggle as they do internationally with our health workforce. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she agree with Canterbury District Health Board member and Christchurch general surgeon Mr Phil Bagshaw that the Minister’s flagship district health boards are dysfunctional and undemocratic; if not does she no longer have regard for Mr Bagshaw’s sentiments now that she is the Minister? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Bagshaw is a very good surgeon and I have a lot of respect for him. I do not happen to agree with his comments about district health boards but then I suspect that the member would not have agreed with his comments in 2000 that the 1993 health reforms were a complete failure. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is she satisfied that the concentration on setting up public health organisations nationwide with and I quote “a greater emphasis on population health health promotion and preventive care” has not diverted resources away from for example cancer patients who require more specialised care; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am confident that we have not diverted funding away from areas such as cancer because all the money going into primary health care and the implementation of the primary health care strategy is new money. It is not existing money; it is new money that was voted by this Parliament. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the front page of today’s  
Press 
 with the heading “Plea to scrap health boards”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that front-page article in the  
Press 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table a  
Press 
 article of 25 August where Mr Bagshaw stated that the 1990 health reforms were a complete failure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article in the  
Press 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Unemployment Benefit—Statistics 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he received on the number of New Zealanders needing the support of an unemployment benefit? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This month the number of people receiving an unemployment benefit is over 31000 fewer than last year. That is a 31 percent drop which is equivalent to the population of Gisborne moving off the unemployment benefit in the last 12 months. With 211000 jobs created since 1999 and an unemployment rate of 4 percent which is the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD we are enjoying the best unemployment rate in 20 years. That is backed by an overall reduction of almost 100000 since 1999 in the number of working - age New Zealanders who need any type of benefit. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What reports has the Minister seen that compare New Zealand’s unemployment and working - age welfare numbers to those of Australia? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received reports that state that the latest unemployment results record New Zealand’s unemployment rate at 4 percent which is the second-lowest in the OECD compared to Australia’s 5 percent or 11th in the OECD. The  
Dominion Post 
 reported that 8.8 percent of all Australians receive a benefit compared to only 5.8 percent of New Zealanders on an equivalent benefit. Once again New Zealand’s situation has been misrepresented by Dr Brash who has scant regard for facts so desperate is he to go to Australia to bag his own country. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned by the fact that although the number of people on the unemployment benefit has halved since 1999 the number of those on the dole for more than 3 years has actually gone from 10789 to 15672 an increase of 45 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the member will notice from the last household labour force survey that there is now a continued trend downwards in longer-term unemployed. We are certainly turning our attention to that environment to making sure those people get a job. 
Transport Congestion Auckland—Resource Management Act 
10.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he view the Resource Management Act 1991 as an obstacle to overcoming Auckland’s transport problems; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Hardly. Transport expenditure in Auckland is now running at an all-time record—almost twice the level that existed when this Government first came to office. However this Government leaves no stone unturned which is why the Resource Management Act is currently under further review. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Which statement is true—the Minister’s answer that he has just given or Transit New Zealand’s report to the select committee last year that stated that it takes longer to get a resource consent to build a new road than it does to actually build the new road? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think that if one is going to quote Transit the best example of a Transit statement recently is one that was put into every edition of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which stated: “Transit investing half a billion in Auckland highways. More to come.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister can now address the particular question he was asked. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If that is what Transit said last year then this year it has managed to find itself an answer under this very good Government. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister give any breakdown of where the expenditure increases in Auckland have occurred? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They have occurred everywhere. Since the change of Government State highway construction is up by about 90 percent per annum passenger transport expenditure is up by about 400 percent per annum and alternatives to roading are up by over 15000 percent per annum. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does he think that the Government’s policy of introducing legal aid for objectors to new roads has helped Auckland’s traffic congestion problem noting that even Environment Court judges have been critical of objectors who have been paid for by the taxpayer under his Government’s policies? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: And accordingly the Environment Court is entitled to and from time to time seeks expenses from those bodies but the point of the matter is that nobody can deny that this Government is getting Auckland moving again. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers is the Minister aware that the Automobile Association has recently produced a brochure called  
Jump Starting Auckland 
 which clearly outlines the obstacles the issues and a procedure for addressing Auckland’s transport woes and if he is aware of that brochure and that philosophy does he not think a good starting point would be to discuss the situation in meaningful detail with the Automobile Association which represents one million motorists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Automobile Association has a comprehensive report coming out tomorrow. I have seen it but it is embargoed and I do not think it is proper for me to break that embargo. I enjoy a good relationship with the Automobile Association and intend to continue it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How can the Resource Management Act be an obstacle to overcoming Auckland’s transport problems when the Britomart transport centre the Albany to Puhoi realignment the Mount Roskill extension the upper harbour project and the North Shore busway have all recently received consents despite a couple of them having quite severe environmental effects and public opposition and should not the rights of communities and the environment in fact be strengthened under the Resource Management Act? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is absolutely correct except that her list was not comprehensive. There is more besides. The point of the matter is that the National Party and the ACT party think that planning law is bad. Planning law is how we get proper integrated sustainable transport infrastructure in this country and we need it. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Given that Transit has waited 8 years for permission to build a new road how much longer will Aucklanders have to wait for new roads now that under the Land Transport Management Act Transit has to consult Auckland iwi about things like Auckland taniwha? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is nothing new in that. The point is that Auckland roading expenditure is now running at almost twice what it was when we took office. This Government has got the Queen City moving further and faster than the Tories did in the dear old days of the 1990s when nothing happened. 
Employment Law—Australia and New Zealand 
11.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has he received which compare employment conditions under the respective employment laws of Australia and New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have seen a report quoting the World Bank that states that New Zealand’s labour laws are more flexible than Australia’s with a rating of 32 out of 100 compared with Australia’s rating of 36 out of 100 where a lower score denotes more flexibility. I have also seen a report that Australia has had a statutory minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave for the last 30 years. For some strange reason the National Party leader Don Brash forgot to mention those facts in a media release in Australia recently. 
Helen Duncan 
: What other reports has he seen on comparisons between Australia and New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as they relate to the Minister’s portfolio. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report of the National Party leader bad-mouthing New Zealand in Australian media and indicating that New Zealand could become an unviable Pacific State. Most New Zealanders will be outraged— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The way that the Minister started off was out of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What action will the Minister take in respect of the OECD 2002-03 report which states that “New Zealand is unusual in not having a minimum probation period for new employees.” and that this inevitably restricts the employability of the “young less-skilled and especially single parents who have one of the lowest employment rates in the OECD.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well probation options are available under the Employment Relations Act as that member will know and that issue is under consideration. But I do think it is rather odd given that Australia has had 4 weeks’ annual leave for 30 years and given that that is the reason why some people are going to Australia that the National Party would decide to repeal that provision and go back to 3 weeks’ annual leave. It is very very odd. I think that when National Party people are overseas they should be a little bit more positive about this country. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister referring to the report that was published in Australia recently that bemoans the fact that New Zealanders are paid far less than Australians yet goes on to complain about New Zealanders now being paid for working on statutory holidays and now getting 4 weeks’ holiday a year; if he is can he give us an idea how those two positions can be reconciled? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is quite difficult because the reports I have seen from the leader of the National Party are quite contradictory and often make no sense at all. I think the important point about this is that that leader now decides that no one in New Zealand should have 4 weeks’ annual leave— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
 —although he had 4 weeks’ leave when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have warned the Minister. He knew I was on my feet. He will now stand and withdraw and apologise for being rude to me. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table page 15 of the OECD 2002-03 report which states that single parents in New Zealand have one of the lowest employment rates in the OECD. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that you checked the Minister for speaking when you were on your feet but the other sin he committed was that he launched a personal attack upon the leader of the National Party in quite an irrelevant way pointing out that he himself had enjoyed 4 weeks’ annual holiday as Governor of the Reserve Bank. That was not part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That of course is not a point of order. I sometimes think that were I not to allow people to raise points of order we might have a very much better question time. I do not think most people know what a point of order is. There are about four or five members who have that ability. I know that the leader of New Zealand First knew precisely what he was doing. 
Human Rights Review Tribunal—Compensation to Prisoner 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What action does the Government intend to take as a result of the awarding of $1200 to an inmate whose feelings were hurt? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections is seeking advice from Crown Law on appealing the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal on this case to the High Court. Like most New Zealanders it seems to me that the injury to the feelings of the inmate pales into insignificance when compared with the trauma and suffering of the family of the victim whom he murdered in 1988. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the general manager of the prison service said on radio yesterday that the legal opinion from the Crown Law Office suggested it was not worth spending any more taxpayers’ money to appeal this decision will the Government appeal the decision in order to avoid setting a precedent for paying inmates such amounts of money for compensation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There is more than simply the sum of money involved—it is $1200—there is the principle involved. The Department of Corrections will be getting advice from Crown Law on the prospect of its success and then a decision will be made on the basis of the facts available to the department about an appeal. 
Tim Barnett 
: Should there be any right on the part of inmates to take a case against the State if actions taken against them as inmates are inconsistent with the law? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes there will be circumstances where the ability to take such a case may be justified. However I think that most New Zealanders would feel that the victims of the offender should have first claim over any compensation granted to inmates. I have asked the Ministry of Justice to examine whether offenders who are awarded compensation should in fact be required to pay damages out of that award to any victims they have harmed and never compensated. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why have the privacy concerns of a convicted murderer superseded those of a concerned member of the public when the reason the Department of Corrections withheld some of the information in the letter was to try to protect the person who wrote it from an extremely violent criminal who now roams free in our community? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have had a look at the case and I have also had a look at the letter that was written by the Privacy Commissioner. In fact the Privacy Commissioner decided not to take this case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal because she did not believe that was warranted. 
Stephen Franks 
: Has the Minister made sure that the members of the Human Rights Review Tribunal have the required knowledge and experience of—and I quote from the Act’s criteria—“cultural issues and the needs and aspirations (including life experiences) of different communities of interest and population groups in New Zealand society.”; if the Minister did satisfy himself of that question exactly which population group does he think should compensate a vile rapist and murderer for his hurt feelings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member as is often the case has quoted selectively from the provision of the Act which requires certain qualifications on the part of a person appointed to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There is a range of different issues—one of them of course being knowledge of the law. I notice that the member was critical of those particular individuals. It is somewhat ironic that one of the individuals on the tribunal was appointed by the very member who raised this question in the House: Mr Ryall when he was formerly the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Since the Government now agrees with the Opposition about the inappropriateness of this payment what confidence can the public have that the Government will progress this issue in light of the reports in the decision of the tribunal that the Government’s officials neither contested the issue nor argued the reason that they had withheld the information? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have the report of the tribunal in my hand which contradicts what the member has said—as usual. This issue was contested by the Crown. It was defended by the Crown and the Crown lost. It may be that the Crown could have presented its case better than it did and that will be one of the aspects that will be looked at in relation to any appeal. I would of course welcome it if the National Party in Opposition supported this Government in doing something about the law—something that the previous National Government failed to do in the 9 years that it had in office. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister confirm that the family members of the victim of murderer and rapist Andrew Ronald McMillan received not 1c in reparation when the victim was brutally raped and sadistically murdered yet he is awarded $1200 to heal his wounded feelings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is precisely why I answered the primary question in the way that I did. I think it is quite unjust that a person who has caused so much suffering and trauma to others and who has never been required to pay a penny in compensation should now get compensation for some other matter that is very clearly much more minor than his offence. I note the fact that no reparation payment was ordered when the man was originally convicted. That is often the case when a person is given a life sentence because he or she has no ability to make any such payment. 
Questions to Members 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Foreshore and Seabed Bill 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: How many written submissions has the committee received on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and how many of these has he requested be heard? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 Three thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven; and none. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the restriction on the number of submissions being heard a result of the time constraint imposed by the report-back date and is he prepared to apply for an extension of time from the Business Committee? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: A subcommittee was formed to suggest who should be heard. The full committee subsequently endorsed this and the timetable was set for hearings. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will the member guarantee that all submissions representing substantial interests will receive equal time rather than iwi groups having more time than other groups representing substantial interests? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I have no greater role than any other member of the committee. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Electricity—State of Industry 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Peter Brown seeking an urgent debate on the “state of our electricity industry”. This is clearly not a particular case of recent occurrence and cannot give grounds for a debate. In his letter the member refers to a recent report by an electricity industry consultant but has provided no authenticating material in respect of it. In these circumstances the application for a debate is rejected. 
Power Station—Huntly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate under Standing Order 373 the Government’s commitment to underwriting part of the power station to be built at Huntly. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However I do not consider that the announcement requires to be considered by way of an urgent debate. There will be many parliamentary opportunities to consider a long-term commitment of that nature—not least the 3-hour imprest supply debate today. This application is also declined. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a second time 
. These two questions involve the final stage of the Budget debate—the third reading—and the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill which is normally moved in concurrence with it at this stage to provide for expenditure through to the end of the financial year including expenditure in advance of appropriation and to incur expenses and liabilities in advance of appropriation. 
There is a spectre haunting the Leader of the Opposition and that spectre is the fact that the New Zealand economy is going very well and is in good heart. When one has committed one’s professional life to being “Dr Misery Guts” it is difficult indeed to respond to almost untrammelled consistent economic success. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. The member should refer to other members by their correct names. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ah! Oh right. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he must call members by their correct names and not by a name that is derogatory. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Dr Brash—the appropriately named Dr Brash in this case—has spent his life being miserable about the economy and now is faced with an economy that is out-performing not merely his expectations but—I have to be fair—even the Government’s expectations. 
The problems we face are those created by growth and success not the problems of misery failure and social division such as those of the 1990s. Firstly we have had strong growth making us one of the key successful economies in the OECD over the last 4 years. When could we have said that for 4 years in a row in some decades in New Zealand’s economic history? Not since the early 1970s. Secondly we have low unemployment. Our unemployment rate is now the second lowest in the OECD though to be fair the National Party caucus is not counted in the figures. Thirdly there is moderate inflation which is securely within the 2 to 3 percent band. Fourthly we have growing household incomes particularly because of the growing levels of employment. For the first time in our history more than 2 million New Zealanders are employed and they are looking forward to the implementation of the Working for Families package which will deliver massive gains to 60 percent of all New Zealand families with children. But of course those at the top end will miss out and that will cause terrible problems for those members opposite. Indeed 60 percent of that money will go on families who are in employment—not that Dr Lockwood Smith would know anything about families; whether they are in employment or out of employment. 
The social report released only a couple of days ago shows that New Zealand is in the top half of the OECD for the majority of the key social indicators that count. What is important to people is the life they are enjoying not some abstract measure of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). We are catching up in terms of per capita GDP. We are catching up on the rest of the world particularly on the rest of the countries in the OECD. For the first time in a very very long time our economy on a per capita basis is growing faster than most other developed economies. We are on a roll. 
But then we had Dr Brash appear and for about the third time he has unburdened himself of his strange views in an Australian financial magazine. He seems to scurry across to Australia to write his little bits and pieces hoping they do not get noticed back home in New Zealand. Previously—and I will say this quite carefully—he appeared to be the Rip Van Winkle of New Zealand politics. Having spent four decades asleep he woke up to find that the natives were getting restless and he had some trouble understanding the changes that had occurred in New Zealand society in the interim. But now he has become the Cassandra-like figure going around as one of the cartoonists said with billboards plastered with “The End is Nigh” on back and front. The end must be nigh according to him because life is getting better under a centre-left Government and that simply cannot be true according to Dr Brash—it may be what is happening but it cannot be allowed to happen. We have seen all the newspaper headlines and comments: “Bumbling Brash loses plot” said the  
Otago Daily Times 
 as it tracked his movements around the country. Fran O’Sullivan—no great friend of the left let it be said—saw “no road map for the future” in Dr Brash’s comments. According to John Armstrong Don Brash’s comments “not only bordered on the ridiculous it was silly politics to boot”. And of course we had the  
Dominion Post  
stating that what Dr Brash said was “simply wrong”. 
So what do we see? First of all according to Dr Brash we are becoming a Pacific State country in terms of our economy despite the fact that our GDP per capita is 10 to 30 times that of the Pacific States. But Dr Brash is just about ready to put on his lava lava and throw in the future as far as the New Zealand economy is concerned. Secondly he says that Australia is doing better than New Zealand. Well let us have some facts. Fact: between 2000 and 2004 Australia’s economy grew 3.1 percent per annum on average; ours grew 3.5 percent on average. Fact: Australia’s inflation rate averaged 3.6 percent; ours averaged 2.5 percent. Fact: Australia’s unemployment rate averaged 6.3 percent; ours averaged 5.1 percent. We are going to hell in a handcart according to Dr Brash but it is certainly a Rolls-Royce handcart as far as most New Zealanders are concerned. With regard to GDP per capita Dr Brash says we are going backwards. Well here are some good figures. He used to like figures in the old days when he took some notice of them. In 1990 when the National Government took office Australia’s GDP per capita was 39 percent higher than ours. By 2000 Australia’s GDP per capita was 47 percent higher than ours. We went backwards from 1990 to 2000 in terms of per capita GDP. By 2003 Australia was 30 percent ahead of New Zealand. 
Hon Member 
: Oh come on! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: “Oh come on”—yes! Of course he said “30 percent” and he was right but what he did not say was that it was 47 percent when we became the Government. He left all of that out because it does not matter. Although Australia is seen as being the most successful developed economy in recent years we beat it on every major economic figure in that period of time. Yet again we are carrying on doing that and yet again we are beating them in the individual pursuit event. 
Of course in 2000 Dr Brash was not worried about Australia and New Zealand growing differentially. Then when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank and supposed to do something about economic growth he said that whether the growth rate was differential was neither good nor bad; it just meant New Zealand was different in some respects. Why does he see Australia as the model? Is it because of its higher tax rates? Is it because of its higher public liability insurance? Is it because of more regulated labour markets? Is it because Australians have longer holidays and shorter working years? Is it because Australians have higher welfare dependency? Is it because Australia has more active business-support funding? Is it because it has a higher level of economic regulation and economic nationalism than New Zealand has? 
What is it that Don Brash wants to do? He wants to take a holiday—yours! He has suggested dropping all benefits to the able-bodied. He has promoted raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. On many occasions he has lamented the absence of a capital gains tax and has supported removing local control of resource planning issues. None of that will address New Zealand’s comparative performance. He says: “Woe is us! We’re behind Australia so what we have to do is adopt policies that are even more different from Australia’s than they are now.” Now that is pretty illogical. 
I invite Dr Brash having returned from his unsuccessful provincial tour of the last year or so to stand up to address Parliament to stop attacking his country when he is overseas and to tell us what a National Government would do apart from the failed policies of the early 1990s that were designed to impoverish New Zealanders and drive social wedges between us. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Members will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with almost everything the Minister said and I rise to oppose the resolution. It is very clear that there are now two quite different visions for New Zealand and one is of smugness and complacency which sees everything in the garden as rosy. The reality is that when this Government came to office in late 1999 the economy was growing at almost 5 percent per annum. Why? Basically it was because the 1980s Labour Government—and let me give credit to that Government which was very different from the present Labour Government—and the National Government of the 1990s carried out reforms that put this economy in a great place to grow. And in addition we saw a steady decline in the New Zealand exchange rate starting in 1997 which gave a huge boost to New Zealand export industries and to agriculture in particular. 
Growth has also been quite good since then; let us be frank about that and I acknowledge that. But why? Let us look at it again. It is because of the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s and the declining exchange rate through 4 years and then an uncertain world environment which produced a flow of immigrants from poorer countries into New Zealand over the last couple of years. There was a big flow in the years 2002 and 2003. It is very clear that over the last 10 years growth has been caused by factors that have nothing to do with the present Government’s policies at all—nothing at all. 
Let me quote from the last OECD report on New Zealand. It states: “Underpinning this improved performance over the last decade has been the programme of reforms that began almost 20 years ago. These reforms have boosted the economy’s sustainable growth rate and its resilience to recent adverse shocks. The slide in relative living standards vis-à-vis the OECD average seems to have been arrested but”—and this is a very important qualification—“a further acceleration necessary if New Zealand is to move back into the top half of the OECD as the Government is intent on doing is still not in sight.” 
That is the reality. The good growth we have seen has nothing to do with the present Government’s policies. The Minister seemed to imply that more regulation more holidays and more taxation would somehow increase the growth rate. That is what he seemed to be saying. I do not know of any objective observer who would say that more regulation more taxation and more holidays would improve our growth rate—not any. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I want to warn members that this constant barrage is not allowed. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I make the point that the OECD report went on to say that many of the Government’s policies—its policy on company tax rates its policy on infrastructure its policy on the Resource Management Act its policy of picking winners its policy on the labour market and its policy on welfare—were damaging our growth prospects. That was in the OECD report. The reality is that the current gap between our income and that of Australia—about $200 per week—shows no sign of reducing and if the Government projections on both sides of the Tasman are correct the gap will continue to get wider. Yesterday I was in mid-Canterbury and a pharmacist complained to me that she could not—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There has been a fair amount of interjection on both sides. That is just too much. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As is your right you stood from the chair previously to intervene about the constant stream of interjections. Since then both of the Government whips have interjected almost continuously—in fact I think they got worse after your intervention. You have now risen again and intervened after waiting for a good period to see if the interjections would drop off—and they did not. I think the House would like reassurance that if your intervention is ignored again particularly by the Government whips who are responsible for order amongst the Government benches you will take decisive action. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the member makes a fair point but I point out that during the 10 minutes that I spoke I was subject to constant interjections from Mr Ryall Dr Nick Smith Dr Lockwood Smith Mr Simon Power and a number of others who could not control themselves for the entire 10-minute period—to the point where I was tempted to find the pharmaceutical cabinet to try to help them during the process. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There has been a barrage of interjections from both sides as I indicated and I will certainly take action. I have warned members on both sides. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The reality is that if the projections of the two treasuries are even approximately accurate the gap between our living standards and those of Australia will continue to get wider. Over the last 5 years we have seen approximately 25000 Kiwis net leave this country each year most of them going to Australia. If the gap keeps getting wider we will have a situation whereby nurses doctors teachers plumbers builders you name it will continue to leave. In that sense New Zealand is like other Pacific Islands where the reality is that their most skilled people continue to leave. That is the situation we face. 
The other vision for New Zealand is that of the National Party. Our vision is of a country that is growing so that we can reduce the gap between our living standards and those of Australia. It is a vision whereby every child leaves school able to read write and do basic arithmetic. It is a vision whereby people get off welfare and do not stay on it year after year decade after decade. It is a vision whereby everybody is treated equally under the law whether they be Maori Pacific Islander Asian or of European descent. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That has been ruled out previously. I say to the Government whip that it will not be tolerated. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The Government has basically given up on what it repeatedly claimed was its highest objective—namely getting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. On present projections that will not happen in the next two decades and we certainly will not overtake Australia any time soon. 
The Budget projected that growth over the next decade will be on average about 1 percent slower than over the last decade. The Budget simply fails to deal with the real issues facing this country. The Government claimed in the Budget that it wanted to encourage people off welfare and into work. What does the Budget do? It raises the effective marginal tax rates for people trying to get off welfare and into a job to between 80 and 90 percent. Let us take the case of a one-income family earning $38000 per year. It has two young children and is living in an average suburb in one of New Zealand’s major cities. The impact of the Budget is that by 2007 that family will take home about $43000. In other words it will take home more money than it earns. Contrast that with its neighbours earning $60000. What will they take home? They will take home about $45000 which is a difference of just over $2000—about 50 bucks per week—for earning an extra $22000 per year. That is supposed to create an incentive for people to get off a benefit and into employment. It is supposed to create an incentive for people to get more skilled. Who would get more skilled with a 90 percent effective marginal tax rate? 
This Budget might be excused for failing to fix the growth problem if it actually did something useful to get people off welfare and into work. The sad reality is that an 80 to 90 percent effective marginal tax rate simply will not achieve that. The Government’s vision is limited and mediocre. The Government rests on the laurels of the 1980s and 1990s and frankly if this is the best we can achieve we simply will not deliver the kind of New Zealand we want for our children and grandchildren. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the course of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition my colleague Mr English asked for an indication from you that you would be firm in dealing with matters from the whips’ desk opposite if there was continued interjection. Towards the end of Dr Brash’s speech there was continued interjection and I invite you to make good your threat. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is quite wrong—I did not make a threat. What I said was that the level of interjection which was a constant barrage from both sides would be controlled. That is exactly what it was. The member will be quite clear that there was a continual barrage from his side too. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In any viable democracy there should always be an alternative Government-in-waiting; in any viable democracy there should always be an alternative Prime Minister - in-waiting. The public today which do not support this Government will be extremely disappointed by what they have just heard or rather about what they did not hear. It was a very confused speech lauding Australia’s economic performance whilst berating his own country and never admitting why that is so—why Australia has done so much better. 
If members look at  
Hansard 
 for the May Budget debate they will see a prediction from New Zealand First that Don Brash would go out and make this comparison between Australia and this country but that he would not admit why Australia had done so much better since 1984 than the New Zealand. It is not an alternative Government or Prime Minister that goes around the country stirring up apathy. It is not an alternative to go around the country striving to put Mogadon out of business. It is not an alternative to go around the country totally underwhelming people. I can remember the great campaigns that National once ran with great leaders who had the ability to come into this House and stay here and win in this House. They had the ability to take the Opposition’s argument and place it before the nation. All we have had here is a beat-up month after month and the polls tell us what will happen now. 
It is true for Dr Brash to say that the economy grew by almost 5 percent in 1999. That is true—the economy did grow by almost 5 percent in 1999 despite the Asian crisis of 1997-1998 but whose Budget took it there? It was not National’s Budget. Whose Budget took it there? The Budget that acknowledged that US69c was far too high for an export nation and drove the dollar down. That and no other reason was why we had the success we have had. 
National has no economic policy—that is as clear as daylight today—though I am delighted that Dr Brash has finally found a vision. Members will remember that when he got the job he was asked what he understood being a New Zealander was. He said that he did not know. National has no policy and it is not right that “New Zealand Second” rushes around the country stealing the New Zealand First Party’s policies. That is what they have done—they have tried to steal our policies. I have even heard him today talking about low-quality immigration. I beg his pardon. This is someone who believes that we should have 10 million people here. He cannot explain why. He cannot say why— 
Hon Annette King 
: From Singapore. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes well I suppose “My wife was born in Singapore.” I mean what on earth does the National Party think it is doing as far as the right wing of politics in this country is concerned in providing that as an answer as an alternative Prime Minister and an alternative Government? That is the worst performance I have ever heard or seen in this country or in any other country. That embarrasses me because all around New Zealand I know of hundreds of thousands of people who do not like this Government who do not like its social policy who do not like how weird the Government is who do not like how kinky it is and who do not like all the sleaze and the sordidness of its policies. They do not like it and they are praying and hoping that somewhere else there is an alternative but they are not getting an answer and no amount of hype on behalf of the print media ownership in this country will change that. 
 New Zealand First is opposed to what is going on in this country in respect of our asset wealth and our asset sales. We are told that there is a boom in New Zealand at the moment except that 80 percent of New Zealanders cannot feel taste or smell it. Sure we have a boom all right it is a boom of consumption but look at the export figures and at productivity—it is simply not there. All the fundamentals by which great economies are measured are not to be found in the New Zealand economy. 
Craig McNair 
: What’s it like compared with Ireland? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well it reminds me of the great boom of the Kirk Labour Government from 1972 to 1975. Things were going through the roof; the sky was the limit except that it was all about to bust because it was all based on consumption. What is the biggest investment today in New Zealand in terms of investment and capitalisation? It is housing. The last people I understood to live on housing were Hansel and Gretel. What we have here today is a Labour Party bringing in people in their tens of thousands on 110 points which is down from 195 points which means they do not need to have a job or any prospect of a job. Why would we bring in these tens of thousands of people who will not be placed in our economy if we were not hell-bent on providing consumption to back up our economic performance? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: And we’re still short of workers. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes we are still short of workers because the trouble is that we have 300000 people who cannot speak English at all. One in two of those people is not employed in the economy in a positive sense at all. Not so long ago—less than 5 years ago in fact—I recall the same Don Brash as Governor of the Reserve Bank telling New Zealanders to “tighten their belts”. Do members remember that? He told them to tighten their belts and not to request pay increases because he said that we had “looming stagflation”. That was said by the good doctor put up by the National Party as some sort of economic genius to run New Zealand’s economy. That is what he said 5 years ago. He also told people not to buy houses that it was a waste of investment. He said people should rent instead. Well let him try that today in Auckland Tauranga Nelson or Christchurch. However that is what he advocated and every time the economy showed any signs of getting some life he would choke it because he was obsessed with inflation. 
Today the same man says that Australian workers earn 30 percent more than New Zealand workers. Is that so? When will I see some economic analysis from some of these journalists over here as to the ridiculous nature of his comments about Australians? When will we see some honesty about what Australia did differently from us in 1984? In 1984 we had an economic revolution. Who supported it? Don Brash did. How do I know that? I know that because in 1987 when being mooted for the Kaimai by-election Don Brash said: “Oh no I can’t stand for National. I support Rogernomics. I support Roger Douglas.” Here we are today with an alternative—a National Opposition that still believes that Douglas was right; that still believes that Ruth Richardson of all people was right; and that still believes that somehow if only they were given power they would discover the magic bullet. 
However this party behind me is riven with dissension. Mr Key says that he is not for selling State assets. Don Brash is. Mr Key is not certain whether we should keep our savings fund but Don Brash is certain that we should get rid of it. What goes on here? How important is economics in any country? In any democracy that I know economics is the fundamental main part of everyday politics except that the National Party put its man in at No. 10. He is hardly lining up behind a bunch of political geniuses on the front bench. The current line-up would be the most bereft of talent I have ever seen in my time in politics and boy knowing the Labour Party that is saying something! But even so National’s finance spokesman cannot get past No. 10. Why on earth would that be? 
 Maybe it is because— 
Ron Mark 
: He may be there soon. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I wish “Don Key” all the best. The reality is that this is no job to learn on the job. People in this country hire people because they have experience. They know what happened yesterday. They understand the pitfalls. However today we have in this Parliament a so-called Opposition party led by someone who cannot find the parliamentary toilets and who does not understand for example what a primary health organisation might be. These are fundamental things. 
We have a National Party that should be able to beat Labour hands down except it has no economic policy its social policy is a steal from New Zealand First policy it steals New Zealand First speeches and regurgitates them out there without understanding them and worst of all it just wants power for power’s sake. That is no reason to be in Government. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The 2004 Budget on which we are voting today is a house of cards. It has some very nice features that we would like to support but a strong wind is blowing and the cards are flapping. Without an unprecedented effort to strengthen the foundations we will be without shelter in the future. 
I said those words in mid-June when we first debated the Budget and since then the wind has only become stronger. In the last week the price of crude oil has passed US$46 a barrel. That is more than twice the Ministry of Economic Development prediction 10 months ago of US$20 a barrel in 2004. It is more than twice the assumptions about price on which the whole Budget forecast and planning was based and it is a substantial increase even since the first reading of this bill. Some analysts give the price a fifty-fifty chance of reaching US$50 within weeks. 
By and large the media do not understand what is going on so most New Zealanders do not either. The Christchurch 
 Press  
stated that the price of oil is driven by the situation in the Middle-East. Actually it is not. The war in Iraq is driven by the shortage of oil and not the other way round. Serious supply disruptions that knocked out a major supplier would be likely to take the price to US$100 or more according to Deutsche Bank. 
No recent price rises are about demand. There has been an increase in demand in virtually every country—including a 40 percent year-on-year increase in China the second largest oil importer—and that rising demand is against a background of gradual depletion. US oil fields have passed their peak and have declined since 1970. New Zealand oil fields passed their peak around 1986 and have declined steeply since then. World oil supply is expected to peak in the next decade if it has not already done so and only hindsight will tell us exactly when. Our concern was greatly heightened just this afternoon when Dr Cullen told us that he has never heard of the concept of peak oil and that he does not accept we are dealing with the depletion of a finite resource. 
But more important even than the date of peak oil is the date on which demand will rise above the rate at which remaining fields can supply. That date is very close. Oil prices will fluctuate a bit with markets and weather but there can be no downward trend from there. 
Rather than use this debate to admire the fine features of the house of cards and to criticise the ones that disappoint us I want to examine the strength of that wind and the steps we need to take right away to reinforce the cards so we have some shelter left after the storm. The best estimate of the strength of the wind is that current oil production is 81 million barrels a day but total productive capacity is only 82.5 million barrels a day. As fields pass their peak the rate at which oil will flow will also reduce. 
Let me make it really clear to Dr Cullen: we cannot pump oil out any faster than 82.5 million barrels a day and 1.5 million barrels a day is a very small margin to cope with supply disruptions let alone more growth in demand—but both are likely. The single most important thing we must do to secure our economic future is to reduce our dependence on oil. If any members in this House do not believe that then I invite them to show where the stuff will come from at anything like the prices we have had in the past to meet the record rates of demand that show no signs of easing. Canadian shale will not do it. It takes so much energy to get the oil out that the more oil prices rise the more the cost of shale oil will rise ahead of them. 
The National Bank stated that the extra $300 million to $400 million that oil prices are costing us will knock 0.4 percent off our GDP this year. The Reserve Bank is worried about inflationary effects as the price of oil affects the price of everything else. However that is minor compared with what is coming. 
The point is that when we pass a Budget we commit money to building for the future and we need to think about what we are building. New motorways are planned based on predictions of traffic growth. How much of that growth will occur if fuel prices double? The Freightways Group has imposed a fuel surcharge and is looking at whether it will increase it. Petrol demand is very inelastic when prices first rise because people have few other options but over time behaviour does adjust. Our transport future will depend much more on low-energy options like rail and public transport systems and if we do not build them now while oil is still cheap it will be much harder to build them later. 
Yesterday I was at the Britomart transport centre for the launching of the new Connex commuter rail services. The upgrade in Auckland commuter rail since I lived there and used it 12 years ago is stunning but it still has a long way to go to meet Auckland’s needs. It needs a link to the airport which means building new track and it needs a tunnel extending the line west of Britomart and linking the southern and western lines. These will be energy intensive to build and low energy to run. We have a brief window to build now while oil is cheap and we will reap the benefits when it is expensive. 
Airlines have imposed fuel surcharges too and are considering raising them. Airlines are perhaps the most vulnerable of all forms of transport as price cutting has raised demand for air travel and boosted growth. Is the Minister of Tourism planning to spend the $60 million we are voting him to promote New Zealand as a destination in the knowledge that air travel will be less affordable in the future? Are we investing to encourage longer-stay tourism that is less energy intensive? Is the Minister of Tourism thinking at all about the long-term price of oil? 
It is of course a fundamental of the Government to expand trade of all kinds. How much is the fuel price factored into that? As the rest of the world reels from yet higher oil prices will countries continue to buy dairy products in the way they do now? Worse if we allow basic industries to collapse by removing tariffs and allowing competition from sweatshops and child labour will we ever get those industries back when the economics change and fuel-intensive imports of things we can quite well make ourselves do not seem like such a good idea. 
Nothing is as important to social wellbeing as housing. Has the Minister of Housing thought about how to heat the houses the State is building? When will we have state-of-the-art solar design for at least all new State houses? When will the building code be upgraded to require more energy efficiency to keep energy bills down? 
We have a fisheries bill before the House at present which provides for highly migratory species caught outside New Zealand’s economic zone. Deep-sea distant fishing is the most energy intensive food production system in the world even worse than grain-fed beef production. There is unlikely to be a market for fish caught hundreds and thousands of miles from shore at the prices that oil depletion will dictate in a few years time. 
I go on to the forestry industry. Of all our productive sectors this one has the best chance to prosper because it is capable of producing all its own processing fuel. Waste wood and eventually purpose-grown wood are particularly promising energy sources for New Zealand in a post-oil world but they must be planned for. Where is the planning in the wood-processing strategy to use the wood waste coming on stream now and to ensure we grow enough wood for the future? I do not see it; what I see is an assumption that the forestry industry can continue to demand more and more electricity gas and diesel rather than become self-sufficient. 
Farming must change too. Fertilisers and pesticides are largely oil-based. Our competitive advantage will be in turning to organic production methods that do not require them. We have the science to do it but the Minister is lukewarm at best and there has been little budget applied to developing the science further or to helping people change. 
We do have options. New Zealand can survive high oil prices better than most countries but successive Governments have chosen to ignore all the signs of oil depletion and the opportunities to build a more secure future. I was encouraged a few weeks ago by Michael Cullen’s acknowledgment that oil will never be cheap again and that Treasury projections should be reviewed. Today he tells us that the review of Treasury projections has not yet begun. This afternoon we learnt that the situation is much worse than we thought: this Government does not believe we have a problem at all. 
What we are looking for is a radical review of the fundamentals of economic management now that the short-term underpinning of our rapid economic growth has been pulled away. We do not have to continue blindly until we crash and burn. The Greens are dedicated to developing the sustainable options that will see us through. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I wish Jeanette Fitzsimons all the best for her recovery from what seems to be a flu that has certainly gone around the House. For those at home who are listening to this debate on the radio I remind them that they are listening to the end of the debate on the Government’s Budget. It was an excellent Budget and that has been borne out by the fact that there has been so little criticism of it over the last little while. The Government members delivered that Budget and we have waited on this side of the House to get engaged in the cut and thrust of ideas as they came up particularly from the National Party—the pretenders to the throne. We waited to hear what National members would put on the table how they would spend the money and what they saw as the priorities. 
We have waited in vain. We have not had one single policy idea from “Moga Don” or any other National Party members throughout this debate. The best they could do over the last little while was to say that they would reshuffle their members so that National looks like a Government-in-waiting. What did they do? They have promoted the organisation of the National Party to slot No. 3 in the National line-up. New Zealanders need to know that National believes that its own organisation—keeping its members in line—is the third most important issue for the National Party. So Simon Power my colleague from the middle of the North Island is now “senior whip No. 3”. When he goes home and people ask him what he is doing to advance the country he will say: “I am organising the National Party; I am whipping them.” That is what he will say. 
National members are saying that that reorganisation means they are ready for Government. Their first term MP Mr Key on the second bench is their finance spokesperson. The previous leader Bill English who is on the front bench now cannot be in the same room with Mr Maurice Williamson. If Mr Williamson walks in Mr English walks out. If Mr English walks back into the room Mr Williamson does not walk out—he has too much cheek—so Mr English has to go back out again. Ms Rich is now agonising over whether to stay with this National Party. She is a woman of integrity. She is a woman who believes in fairness and decency and she knows that work-for-the-dole time-limited benefits forced immunisation fines for not taking one’s kids to work if one is a beneficiary—and that is all—is the National Party plan of the 1990s. It did not work then. It made people mean. It made them the worst kinds of New Zealanders. New Zealanders did not like that behaviour. Ms Rich knows that and she is thinking of leaving. Mr Sowry has already gone. Dr Lynda Scott is a first-term MP; one would think she would have her sap rising would one not? She has been here for only one term—for only a little while. If National thought it was winning and would take over the running of the country would not a first-term MP keen on health issues want to stay want to be here and want to be part of all that? 
Mr Brash leads all this. He leads it by not being in the House. As Mike Moore used to say: “Isn’t it strange we’ve struggled so hard to get into Parliament and we never turn up here.” Mr Brash is on his provincial tour around the country and when he has time he goes to Australia and bags this country. He says that we are just another Pacific Island State. We are not. We are a First World country. We have First World infrastructure. We have First World incomes. We have First World industry. We have First World attitudes education and a health system one after the other. We are not a Pacific Island State—“just a Pacific Island State” as he likes to say. But then Mr Brash likes to go on all the time with this kind of insinuation that things are wrong. He gets a few facts wrong all the time. He comes into the Chamber and says all the time that the world is about to end. He is always telling us the problem. At Orewa he did that and he got it wrong. He told us about crime and how National would build $500 million worth of new prisons. When people asked “What for?” he said that maybe we would just double the number of beds in the cells. He got it wrong. 
He tells us about welfare and says that we are so much worse off here than Australia. Australia has more people on welfare than we do. Its unemployment level is higher than the unemployment level here. He gets it wrong. On something like the economy time and time again he gets it wrong. He tells us about these policies that were 20 years’ bad luck and led to no real gain. And then by some sort of magic when the Labour Party arrives suddenly things start to pick up. We do OK. We get more growth we get better wages—we get all these kinds of things. Is that supposed to be luck? Even Dr Brash knows that 5 years’ later it is not luck. 
This is a good Government leading a country that is doing very well. People are sick and tired of the hollow insinuation no facts doom-laden politics when there is no answer. I say to Dr Brash: If the country is in such a mess where are the problems? If the country is in such a mess where are the answers to these so-called problems? If the country is in such a mess why do 80 percent of New Zealanders report themselves as feeling pretty happy with the way things are? Why do they feel like that? Well I tell Dr Brash that the fact is that New Zealanders think this country of theirs is on a roll. After years of being told that they were going to get no gain without pain New Zealanders are finally seeing their lives steadily year after year month after month week after week getting better. That is what they have found over the last little while. Their economy is growing. Their regions are growing. Their wages are growing. They are better educated more healthy and better housed. They live in a country that the rest of the world—but not Dr Brash—thinks is a hot country to come to. Tourists are pouring into this country. They want to be part of a country that has a lifestyle like this that has food like we have that has wine like we have. They are saying: “Let me go and be part of that country.” Young people 20 to 29-years-old do not go out of the country as they used to. They see a life for themselves here. They see jobs here. They see opportunities here. They want to stay. They love going to New Zealand films. They love Peter Jackson. They love people like Sarah Ulmer winning gold medals. They love New Zealand music. They love switching on the radio and saying that 20 percent of what they listen to has been produced by a New Zealand band or artist. 
This is a fantastic country to live in. Those people have a real pride a real sense of identity and they love being part of a special unique group of people capable of doing anything. They like living in a country where they get a fair go. They like living in a country where they have opportunities to reach their potential. They love the lifestyle here. They love sharing in the dividend from all the hard work that has gone on. Working for Families is a fantastic policy. Sixty percent of New Zealanders will do better if they have a family under this Working for Families package. They will get about $100 extra in their pocket from this Government. Even the National Party has had to say: “We won’t take it off them we will let them keep it.” This is a fantastic policy. No wonder the polls have begun to change. They have begun to change because people are sick of the negativity of the National Party. They are sick of insinuation sick of no facts and sick of no policy. They are starting to turn on to a party that has had solid achievement over 5 years. We have a leader who has fought through for 5 years and who has led this nation in a way that makes us proud to be Kiwis and proud to be led by someone who has a brain in her head ideas to say and a vision for the future. This party on this side has the people and the policies but most of all it has the passion to lead this country. 
We want New Zealand to succeed. We want New Zealanders to have a better life. We want their families to get better their communities to get better and their nation to be one of the leading nations in the world. Unlike Dr Brash we do not call ourselves just anything. We call ourselves very special; we call ourselves unique. We call ourselves a mix of people who can stand up and be proud of ourselves because we have a special bond with each other and we have a special bond with the land that we live on. We understand that we live in the luckiest country in the world. Labour is saying to Dr Brash that he can reshuffle his team but it is time to stand for something and not against everything. Labour is clear on where it stands. We are on the side of Kiwis who want the best for their families their communities and their nation. That is why over the next year as we lead into the election period we will put the vision forward for this country against the negativity of the useless National Party. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Let us strip away the rhetoric of this Government and say that yes we do live in a great country and that we as New Zealanders are a great people. That is why we have to get rid of this Labour Government and the Prime Minister Helen Clark. That is why we need Don Brash to become the Prime Minister and the ACT party to be in Government. Parekura Horomia pipes up. My message to him from his electorate is that he has gone. I will talk about what New Zealanders are actually concerned about. We know that because we had the Norm Withers referendum. I tell Mr Horomia that New Zealanders want to feel safe at home safe in the streets and safe at their place of work. We had a referendum that had overwhelming support from New Zealanders for the Government to get tough on crime and to protect New Zealanders. What do we hear from this Government? We learn that under this Government Andrew Ronald MacMillan a terrible brutal rapist and murderer will get a $1200 payout because of his hurt feelings. Parekura Horomia and Jill Pettis would not agree with that. No New Zealander would agree with that. 
Keith Locke 
: I agree with it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Keith Locke does but then I question whether he is a New Zealander. No New Zealander would agree with that. We heard from this Government that it may get the Department of Corrections to see whether it can appeal that decision. What a weak response that was from the Government to the people of New Zealand who are fed up to their back teeth with crime and lawlessness and disorder in this country. It is all right for Ministers to have diplomatic protections and for Parekura Horomia to sweep around in his flash car but what about his constituents? What about the people in south Auckland who cannot say that their children are safe on their way to school? What has this Government done about that? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about your constituents? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Parekura Horomia spikes up a bit now. He should do some door-knocking in his electorate because he is gone. 
While I am talking about Parekura Horomia do members remember Helen Clark’s promise to close the gaps? Everyone was going to come together. Maori and Pakeha were going to sit around the table and live happily ever after. 
Moana Mackey 
: What happened to Maori unemployment? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a good question. What did happen to that policy of closing the gaps? I would like to hear that from the Labour Government. Labour will not let Parekura Horomia rise to his feet to speak. It has sat him down because he is too tired to stand. It will not let him stand up to give a speech so he lies back in his chair and yells out. Has Parekura Horomia got eyes and ears? Can he not hear and see what is happening in Maoridom? What did the Labour Party do? For once it has united Maori. It has united Maori against Labour—against the Government of New Zealand—and for the first time in our history we have a race-based party in our Parliament thanks to Helen Clark. She has not brought the races together but has split them wide apart. 
In relation to America and Australia we are distant friends. Our Prime Minister runs around toadying up to the “axis of evil” Iran and helping it to organise itself to get its A-bomb up and running. 
Hon Annette King 
: Don’t talk rubbish! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I saw it in the paper. All around the world we saw pictures of Phil Goff holding hands with Keith Locke’s friend Yasser Arafat. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who does Mr Hide hold hands with? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can tell the Minister of Health that if I got as close as that to Yasser Arafat I would not be holding his hand. That is what has been happening. If I got as close as that to Yasser Arafat he would be in serious trouble. 
Hon Annette King 
: But you would hold the hand of his wife? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can tell the Minister that I would not hold his hand or that of his wife. Our Government is taking New Zealand on a path away from our traditional allies is cuddling up to the likes of Iran and Yasser Arafat and is to send a letter of apology together with a cheque for $1200 to a murderer and rapist. 
I ask Annette King where we are on transport. We are committed to building roads in Auckland but under the Land Transport Management Act we have to consult iwi on just about each and every road. Parekura Horomia and his tribal mates can turn up to any hearing and hold it to ransom. Why is that? One reason is that there could be a taniwha in Kohimarama. [ 
Interruption 
] I can see that there is a taniwha in Parekura Horomia’s seat. He should get up to make a speech like a man and not just sit there and heckle away. 
Then we come to the economy. I remember a time when the Labour Party used to want people to lift their sights and to achieve to create and to produce. This is what happens under Michael Cullen’s Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] If Annette King pipes down for 2 seconds she may learn what is in the Budget that she is about to vote for. In fact if she listens to and understands this she may shift her vote. Let us take the example of a family with two children in Auckland that earns $35000 a year. That family is doing it hard in Auckland. 
Hon Annette King 
: And what would ACT do for it? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I will tell her what Labour has done for it. That family has a housing cost of $300 a week and gets $788 in its hand to live on. Annette King should imagine this situation. The family has to work harder so the wife has to go to work. It then earns an extra $20000 a year but that is hard. Does Annette King know how much that family gets to keep under this Budget? She does not know so I will ask Parekura Horomia. If that family on $35000 a year earns an extra $20000 how much does it get to keep? Parekura Horomia cannot do the sums. Well I can tell him it is $2548 a year. The family earns an extra $400 a week by working harder and gets to keep only $50 of that. That is what Annette King Parekura Horomia and Michael Cullen are voting for. 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s ACT going to do? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Help is on the way—that is what I say to Parekura Horomia and Annette King. Help is on the way because we are going to come along to the people who support those members—the Labour members—and we will give them a tax break so they can have more money in their pockets and will not have to go cap in hand to the miserable mean nasty Labour Government and ask whether they can have some of their own money back. 
When Helen Clark came to office in 1999 she started out as a traditional Labour Prime Minister—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Labour robbed 200000 people who were earning over $60000. It took money off them and said: “To hell with you. To hell with success. To hell with achievement. We can spend this money where we can get some votes.” Do members know what Labour has done in this Budget? I know this will be news to Parekura Horomia. It is actually robbing Peter to pay Peter. Now people who earn $100000 and have six kids can get a handout because they are poor and needy. Under this Government a person on $100000 with six kids is poor and needy. 
What is the solution? The solution is not to have to go and get money from Michael Cullen because he says it is OK to do so. It is not to go off to Mr Copeland who is propping up the godless Labour Party. Oh no that is not— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s a bit rich. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Maybe but it is a good line. I can say this: if people vote for the ACT party they will be able to keep more of their money and to spend it on their own God as they choose. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not interrupt during the member’s speech but when he was making references to the Palestinian leader Deborah Coddington called out: “I’d shoot him.” I do not think that is appropriate language to use in this House and I ask that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The matter should have been raised at the time. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I wait with interest to find out how the ACT party would help the family on $100000 with six kids. When Rodney Hide decides what he will do to help that family I ask him to let me and the rest of the House know. But I will not hold my breath because I do not think there is actually anything coming the other way. In the 2002 Budget which was delivered immediately ahead of the nation going into election mode the word “family” was not mentioned once. In the 2003 Budget on the other hand it featured strongly and in the 2004 Budget the words “family” and “family policy” have taken centre stage. Why has the change occurred? Simply stated it is because at the 2002 election the people of New Zealand spoke clearly of the need to refocus policy on the family by electing United Future with its strong focus on family values and family building to Parliament. United Future therefore welcomes the more than $1.1 billion worth of new initiatives that this appropriation bill will contribute to the support of New Zealand families and especially to the support of working families in the low and middle income brackets. It is a great first step. It is the right thing to do and it will benefit hundreds of thousands of families. 
Let us not forget however that family concerns need to remain at the top of the Government’s agenda as it moves forward. Our social statistics are there for all to see and have recently been described by the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen as intractable—an analysis incidentally that I disagree with although I believe it will take us at least a generation to restore family and community life in New Zealand to the position they occupied 30 years ago. Many of our statistics remain bleak. Some 320000 of our children continue to receive child support from the Inland Revenue Department which collects liable-parent contributions from 212000 people mainly men. Behind those statistics lie the growing phenomena of fatherless and sole parent families—mainly women. New Zealand now has the second-highest level of sole parent families amongst the OECD nations. Some 50 percent of all Maori and a lower but still high percentage of other children are now growing up without a father in the home. The marriage rate has fallen the number of divorces has increased and we have the second-highest rate of both abortion and teenage pregnancy in the OECD. Behind those bare statistics there is a great deal of individual pain disappointment stress and even psychological breakdown. The financial cost is massive. It is now estimated to be about $5 billion each year or roughly equal to the total tax paid by companies large and small annually. 
In those circumstances we must do more than just bring ambulances to the bottom of the cliff. We need to make a yet stronger commitment to having a fence at the top of the cliff and I believe there is a great deal more that the Government could do in that regard. The Families Commission opened for business in July with a wonderful line-up of commissioners and a commitment to make a difference for New Zealand families. The commission has begun its work and guided by its research I hope that Governments of whatever hue they may be will look to do a lot more in the area of parent education marriage preparation and relationship-building skills. The many charities and other community groups in this country have developed a variety of extremely good programmes that can assist literally anyone who is a parent—be that person married in a de facto relationship a solo parent or whatever the person’s situation may be—to improve his or her parenting skills in the interests of both the children and the common good of our society. Simply stated we need every New Zealand parent to be the best parent he or she can be. United Future will therefore continue to advocate for the provision of vouchers to subsidise those courses thus encouraging all New Zealanders to upskill in the area of adult relationships and parenting. 
In connection with that I was interested when I was in Australia a few weeks ago to see that the Australian Government has taken a positive lead in that area. It has established 65 mainly church-based centres throughout the country that are now offering Australian families real practical hands-on skill upgrading in the areas of relationship building and relationship enrichment. I was very interested to note the response to that of the Labor Party in Australia. Mark Latham said straight away that it was great but it was not enough. I want to contrast that with the situation here because at the moment we are debating comparisons between Australian and New Zealand a great deal. I would say that in this area Australia has taken a step forward and that its step is one that we should emulate and follow. Similar things to those introduced in Australia have also been done in the United States of America with very very good and tangible results. They demonstrate quite clearly that if people have for example marriage preparation courses before they get married the rate of divorce drops significantly. That is a great thing because ideally every child should have a mum and a dad at home for his or her upbringing development character formation and so on. 
We also—unlike Rodney Hide I suspect—actually have a solution to the problem of the gap that still remains in the area of the support for the family notwithstanding the initiatives the Government has taken in its Working for Families package. When that package was announced John Key very quickly went out and did some sums. He came back and reported to the press and to this House that he had calculated that a one-income two-parent family living in the south or west of Auckland or in Wellington City and earning $38000 a year would end up in somewhat the same situation as a family earning $60000 a year after the family support measures were taken into account. The family on $60000 a year—that is a family earning $22000 a year more than a family on $38000—would at the end of the day be better off only to the tune of $2376. The response of Steve Maharey and Michael Cullen was that high marginal tax rates are always a product of such systems. 
But there is an answer to that problem and that answer is income splitting for two-parent families. All the examples given by John Key—and I have sent these figures to him and to Dr Cullen—focused on one-parent families. From my figures it is quite obvious that if we allowed families to split their income for tax purposes we would solve that problem. If we consider the family on $60000 a year which John Key put out in his figures and enable both partners to split their income on an equal basis we would find they would be $5346 a year better off than the family on $38000. In other words the gap between the two would double simply by allowing income splitting. 
Income splitting is an idea whose time has come. The Working for Families package assisted families on low incomes through to those on middle incomes. The middle-income area is exactly where income splitting starts to make a difference and that goes right on through to a family that earns $120000 a year. Although Rodney Hide defined the problem with regard to the family on $100000 a year that has six kids he has not come up with an answer to that problem. But I am giving this House the answer today—that is income splitting for families. That would make a difference and a tremendous difference to people right through from the middle-income families and on upwards. Therefore it is an idea whose time has come. We would like to see that happen in the future. 
It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the other ways that United Future differs from the Government in relation to the levels of taxation imposed on New Zealanders. We continue to believe that income tax brackets should be regularly adjusted for inflation. We did that in the Budget for the family support package; every time inflation goes up by 5 percent we are to adjust the package. But the Government still refuses to do that for the income tax rate itself and therefore continues to overtax New Zealanders—and to overtax them progressively more as each year goes by. The Government refuses to index the tax brackets for inflation. We also believe that the company tax rate should be lowered from 33 percent to 30 percent. That has nothing to do with anything other than the simple reality that it would lower the cost of capital and attract more capital into New Zealand companies which are the engine room of the economy. That would enable us to grow and to grow quickly. As is well known United Future also believes that local body rates should be zero-rated for GST purposes. 
Those are all affordable and just measures and could be readily financed by for example a better mix of private and public provisions in the areas of health education and prisons. They could also be funded if the Government gave away its unduly profligate style of scattering taxpayers’ money in all directions—often we are advised by the Auditor-General without even a requirement for audited accounts to be provided. One cannot get a grant from the Lottery Grants Board without audited accounts but one can get money handed out by this Government without audited accounts. That situation really needs to stop and to stop soon. 
I sum up by saying we cannot have a strong and prosperous nation without having strong and prosperous families. After all a nation is no more than the sum total of its individual parts. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 National was sliding in the polls even before Don Brash committed the most basic of all political errors: going to Australia last week to speak to a business audience and bagging his own country by saying to that business audience that New Zealand was no better than any little Pacific Island State and was moving in the same direction as those States. If the Leader of the Opposition had an ounce of credibility he could have done real damage to his own country and to others’ willingness to invest in it. If there is one thing that New Zealanders as a nation cannot stand it is a politician who bad-mouths his country overseas. This is not the first time that Don Brash has done that. In March of this year Don Brash was in Australia telling the defence establishment that our country was not pulling its weight. This week I have come back from Afghanistan where I saw more than 100 New Zealand soldiers working in the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian. I heard from other countries and from the local people in that area the record of what those soldiers were doing. I was proud to be a New Zealander—proud of what they were doing there; proud of what our combat forces were doing in Afghanistan—and I met those soldiers as well. But what do we have? We have Don Brash bagging his country and saying we are not pulling our weight. We have always pulled our weight as a country and we are proud of it. 
Don Brash has now been telling Australia and the world that we are an economic cot-case. An economic cot-case! In fact this country has performed better than any other country in the OECD in recent years. The unemployment figure last week was 4 percent—the lowest it has been in 20 years. Australia has performed well but its unemployment is at 5.6 percent. So the Australians knew that Don Brash was not giving an accurate picture of New Zealand and they discounted him accordingly. They discounted him because he could not be relied upon. They discounted him because even the Australians do not like to see a politician bag his own country. 
Does Don Brash not learn anything? Jenny Shipley and then Bill English did the same thing that he has done and both of them were removed as party leader. I see John Key is smiling; he is already starting to count the numbers. All those Nats whom Nick Smith described as “treacherous”—his own colleagues—because they promised him as the bagman for Bill English that they would vote for Bill English and then they voted for Don Brash are now wondering what they have done to themselves and their party. I make this prediction: Don Brash is plummeting in the polls—not just his party but Don Brash—on the basis of the characteristics of the man and of his leadership. We will see a new leader of the National Party. It may be before the election or it may be after it and I say to John Key that the new leader may be him because it is hard to see anybody else sitting across in National’s ranks who could do the job. 
Darren Hughes 
: What about Lindsay Tisch? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well Lindsay Tisch is a fine guy but I am not sure whether he is after that position. 
Patently what Don Brash said about New Zealand was not correct. When he described New Zealand as a small failing Pacific State he cast doubt upon good governance in this country. But I refer the House to Transparency International the international body that judges countries according to their governance and their lack of corruption. Every year in recent years this country has been in the top three countries in the world in terms of its open transparent honest system. Yet still Don Brash bags our country internationally by saying we are a failing Pacific State. It is no wonder the Australians watched in wonder as that man set out to run down his own country. It reminds us of the “gone by lunchtime” comment does it not? Don Brash said one thing to New Zealanders—no National was making a very close study of the issue and had made no decisions about nuclear power—whilst all along he was telling an American congressional team in private that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. 
One cannot trust the man. One cannot trust the man in terms of his analysis of New Zealand and Australia in that speech. Don Brash said that this country had not done as well as Australia and he blamed it on the Holidays Act. We will get 4 weeks’ holiday in about a year’s time if Labour is re-elected—but not if National is elected because Don Brash has already promised working people that he will steal that from them. He said we were doing worse than Australia economically because in a year’s time we are to get 4 weeks’ holidays. For God’s sake! Australia has had 4 weeks’ holiday for 30 years! Why are working conditions more attractive in Australia than in New Zealand? It is because New Zealand had dismal years of a former Reserve Bank Governor who was tight-fisted and years of an ideologically driven National Government that would not give New Zealanders the conditions we were capable of earning for ourselves. Under this Government we have had economic growth social progress and a record number of people in apprenticeships and education. This country is going forward and it knows it is going forward. That is why National is down in the polls. New Zealand First is sitting above the threshold ACT has disappeared and the other parties will do as they will do. 
I say it is not good enough for Don Brash to blame ordinary working New Zealanders just because New Zealand did not perform well in the 1990s. This Budget that we are celebrating in the third reading of the appropriation bill today provides for working families in a way that National never provided for them. Don Brash when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank said he believed in tax cuts for the wealthy and nothing for low and middle income earners. That is what he said when he did not have a political axe to grind. Now he has tax cuts on the secret agenda that he will not reveal to the public because he knows the public will not elect an ideological right-wing National Party into Government. But we know the agenda is there; we know the privatisation agenda is there. That is what Don Brash believes in and will deliver to this country if he ever has the chance to do so. 
One thing the electorate has learned about the National Party is that it is quick to point out problems but has no solutions. Six months ago Don Brash had novelty value: he looked new he pointed out a problem and he looked as though he might have some answers. Six months down the track the electorate has seen National revealed as an empty vessel. It has no answers. National will not take the country anywhere; it has no vision. We saw the release of National’s law and order policy—what a wonderful policy that was! It had promises that were typical of the previous National Government which did nothing for 9 years. That Government saw 90 percent of the country vote against National’s record in a referendum in 1999 and suddenly now that National is safe in Opposition it is brave and tough. 
We have been tough. We have tougher bail laws than previously. We do not put people out on the street who time and time again have been shown to be unreliable and untrustworthy to be out on the street when they are facing charges. We have been tougher than we were previously in the sentencing and parole laws. The price we have paid for that is that prison numbers are tracking well above what was forecast. Four new prisons are being built and that will not be enough. All that National can do is to say that Labour has been tough but it will be even tougher. National says it will build seven more prisons on top of the four we are building and will put another 4000 people in them. It says it will have bail laws that will put thousands more people in prison and then it wonders why it has got no lift from that policy. National has got no lift from that policy because the electorate in New Zealand recognised that National has no answers and no credibility. 
This is a very good Budget. It will deliver strongly to working families will take this country forward and will create a better country economically and socially. For the first time New Zealanders are proud of where their country stands in the world and of the independent stance that we have taken. They will vote for continuity calibre and leadership. They will vote for the Labour Party to remain in Government next year. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 That was another vein-popping performance from the Minister of Justice the Hon. Phil Goff who is persona non grata with everybody in New Zealand. That is why he has been in Afghanistan—because no one wants him. His own ministry does not want to talk to him. The ministry knows he let it down by sneaking out documents that he does not even believe in himself. When he was challenged to present them they were mysteriously destroyed. He is persona non grata with his own ministry. He is persona non grata with the good people of New Zealand who are horrified because he supports sex with 12-year-old girls. Helen Clark said “It’s got so bad Mr Goff go off to Afghanistan for a couple of weeks stay out of the limelight stay out of the way and hopefully our poll ratings will recover because we cannot take it any more. We cannot take the pain. Come back and give a vein-popping performance. It will help you get up in the ranks.” Then one day he can have another barbecue and think about whom he will use to roll Helen Clark. 
We saw a very very interesting speech by the Hon. Michael Cullen Minister of Finance. He came down to the House and gave a speech saying that things are just great in the rosy garden of the New Zealand economy. Things are just humming in the rosy garden of the New Zealand economy. He said that we are on a roll we are smoking it and we are doing even better than expected. That is very interesting. We are on such a roll that four out of five families get absolutely nothing out of this Budget. We are on such a roll that Treasury projects that the number of people on welfare will rise over the next 3 years. We are on such a roll that despite the fact that the average family pays $3000 more in tax since Labour came into office families cannot have a tax cut. Those are the facts of life. We are on such a roll that we cannot even afford to help out those poor hard-working families—most of which got absolutely zilch in the Budget. That is how much of a roll we are on. 
I encourage the Minister of Finance if he is feeling in such a generous mood about the state of the New Zealand economy and the likely income that it will produce to come back down to the House and tell the good people of New Zealand that he has a magic bullet up his sleeve called a tax cut for some people other than just the few thousand he singled out. He does not want to do that. I challenge him to come down and present a company tax rate that is the same as Australia’s which is still above the OECD average of 29.3 percent. If we are on such a roll we can afford to do those things for the business community and the people of New Zealand. 
But the reality is that we are not actually on so much of a roll. Treasury has analysed this Budget and is telling us quite clearly that the projected economic growth rate for New Zealand will slow. It will slow more than Australia’s and the OECD average in the years ahead. That is because Treasury has taken some time to have a look at what the Labour Government has been doing. It has put to one side the spin doctors of which there are so many on the ninth floor that it is a rather crowded environment and looked at a sheet of paper to see what this Government has really produced for this economy. 
What has the Government done to drive economic growth for which it so loudly claims victory in the House this afternoon? It has raised the rate of personal taxation in New Zealand so that one in five New Zealanders now pays a top rate of taxation of 39c not 33c; one in four secondary school teachers pays the top rate of taxation. That is what the Government has done in the area of tax. It has raised taxes so that an extra $1.5 billion will be paid this year just as a result of people moving into higher income tax brackets through fiscal drag. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: And this is a caring Government. 
JOHN KEY 
: This is a caring Government that is on such a roll it has to deliver the good news to the people of New Zealand! Treasury has said: “It has failed on tax; What else has the Government done to promote growth?”. It is obviously very pro-growth because it is rolling in the clover so to speak. Treasury has turned to the labour market. What has happened in the labour market under this Labour Government? What we have seen is the ultimate cynical bribe—people can have 4 weeks’ holiday—we are on such a roll that we do not know what to do with ourselves—but by the way we cannot have it until 2006. Is there not an election coming up in 12 months’ time? That is right; and the Government will not tell people about the fact that when they have that extra week’s holiday they will not get pay rises for the years ahead because employers will not be able to afford it. So they will be paying for it themselves anyway but the Government still says people should thank it for giving them something for nothing. Hello! That is a new form of “Winston Peters economics” and even Winston Peters does not believe that one. 
Then Treasury has moved away from labour markets because it has seen a “D”. Even if this Government were doing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement for the Budget in Cambridge High School it would have to fail—and that would take a lot from Cambridge High School! 
So the Government has failed in tax and in the labour markets and Treasury has moved to the area of compliance costs. We have seen more compliance costs heaped on small businesses and businesses around New Zealand that are failing and struggling to keep up. Treasury has said that that is not good either and has then looked to see what is happening in the energy sector for this Government that is on a roll with this Budget. Treasury has said very interestingly that the Government has to put up taxpayers’ funds to support the debt obligations of a State-owned enterprise because it cannot be sure that in 10 years’ time it will get enough gas. How will that help the Government and the taxpayer? It will not help them in the slightest because when the gas runs out and the power goes out there will not be anything there. But we need not worry because the taxpayer will be paying for that. Why do we have to do that? Because we have a Government— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: When National was in Government it privatised railways. 
JOHN KEY 
: Obviously we have hit a nerve here. This is the Labour Government with energy policies that would not even stack up on  
Play School 
. 
 Why are we having to put taxpayers’ dollars up front? I will tell members why in case they are wondering. The reasons are very simple. We have signed the Kyoto Protocol so we cannot actually price carbon emission charges and despite the fact we have a thousand years’ supply of coal in the ground we cannot be sure that we will ever be able to use it. But we should not worry. We will export it to Indonesia China and other parts of Asia and they can burn it because somehow it does not seem to affect the environment when it is being burnt in Asia or Eastern Europe but it does affect things when it is burnt down here. That is a very interesting strategy a very interesting strategy indeed. Then we could have had the largest example of hydro generation for some time coming in— 
Darren Hughes 
: How come this member gets 20 minutes? 
JOHN KEY 
: There is the translucent member from Otaki. I whipped through Otaki the other day and frankly I would think of standing for that electorate if I did not have the seat of Helensville. It looked entirely winnable to me—very winnable indeed. I asked whether anyone had ever heard of Darren Hughes and they answered: “Who? Who? I think he is still at school Darren Hughes. He is that quite nice young bloke but I don’t know what he knows about politics. I know he has done bits and bobs and—oh that’s right; he took Helen Clark to  
The Lord of the Rings 
—best night out she’s had in ages.” Anyway I transgressed from the Budget just for a moment and now to move back to the issue of— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That would be good. 
JOHN KEY 
:—hydroelectric dams and why we are having to put taxpayers’ dollars at risk—it is because we do not have an energy policy consistent with the Resource Management Act. That is why we are in 60th place out of 60 in the world competitiveness index. 
Treasury looks at the list and says to itself: “Tax is a failure labour market’s a failure compliance costs are a failure energy sector’s a failure RMA’s a failure so our future projections for economic growth in this country are grim. But don’t worry because Michael Cullen is telling us that we are on a roll and it’s all really good.” Then they ask Hon Dr Michael Cullen in the serene quietness of his seventh-floor office: “Sir what have you done to help the economy of New Zealand?” He says: “Er—oh that’s right I inherited all those things from the 1980s and 1990s. I had a huge tail wind of a very low exchange rate and high commodity prices and I just came along and did a few things to make a mess of it all.” I do not have much time to talk about the Budget which is a great shame. But I can just say that every Labour member has got up and said what a great Budget it is. Well if it is such a great Budget why are we having to spend $21 million worth of taxpayer dollars to promote it? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes it is a very good question. What do I see? I see deer in the headlights and stunned mullets. There is not a whisper not a murmur out of members on the Labour benches. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh hello—we have woken them up. But no there is $21 million to promote a propaganda machine. Why would anyone want to promote it? That is a bit of a vexed question. Why would anyone want to promote something when four out of five people will get nothing out of it? There will be high effective marginal tax rates. The doozy came last week because the Government got very upset when the  
Dominion Post  
on its front page pointed out that of those working families who were getting the accommodation supplement—lo and behold 50 percent of them were not families. I wish I could have an extension of time because it has been so much fun to point out the failures of this Budget and of this Government. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to matters in the current Budget notably in regard to education. The first issues I want to raise concerning the current year are those of student allowances student loans and the married student scheme. We are aware that there was a recent change in Government policy that allowed married students over the age of 25 to receive the student allowance. But the Budget as from next year links those students back to their parents’ incomes and only those who are really eligible in that regard will be able to claim the student allowance. One of the issues we face in our community at the present time is that the assistance coming through is dramatically unfair. Those parents who are already subsidising education through their taxes—the education of the lucky students who can claim student allowances—will now even if their own children are only barely over the threshold have to provide for others as well. 
In 1999 the present Government came to power with a promise that the student loan scheme would be changed—but the changes have been minimal. We have a situation today in 2004 when there is little but minor change in the Budget with regard to the student loan scheme. We all know that student tuition fees and student indebtedness have an impact on the courses that people are able to undertake and affect the quality of students’ learning environment their academic performance and the choices for life they are able to make. Most of all the increased burden of the student loan scheme means an inability for students in time to secure a home-loan mortgage. Bank managers admit that students are disadvantaged. Those who marry find that marriage is not an option out of the scheme and those who bear children have to take time off in order to proceed. Academic standards and performance are under threat while there is this consistent issue of the student allowance. 
In recent days we have had editorials in the  
Dominion Post  
and in other newspapers that bring back to the Government the fact that there is not adequate provision at present for student allowances and for student participation in education. 
But the real issue I want to raise today is that of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and the forecasted spending for that qualification for this year. Before us in recent days we have had the example of Cambridge High School but I will forbear to speak strongly on matters that are not yet in the public domain with regard to NCEA. This national certificate has long been an issue. It was nurtured by Dr the Hon. Lockwood Smith carried through by the Hon. Dr Nick Smith and embraced wholeheartedly—and I believe without adequate care and time—by the present Minister of Education. 
We have before us not just a Cambridge High School issue but an issue throughout the whole secondary school system. In respect of the education ministry’s forecast for spending this year particularly with regard to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority there are serious issues. One of the issues that has developed from Cambridge High School is misunderstanding as to how the National Certificate of Educational Achievement could be formulated. The school tried to amalgamate into one system—and for very desirable reasons although I believe that those reasons will not be seen as worthy in the long term—unit standards which were industry-developed under and accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and achievement standards which were a reformulation of what we formerly knew as School Certificate Sixth Form Certificate and bursary. 
That amalgamation developed by the present ministry in recent years with increasing quantities of statements has not been sound but at Cambridge High School the issue was: just what did happen there? Can I say in passing that Cambridge High School was a school that developed from having indifferent standards in 1992 into being an outstanding school under an outstanding principal and an outstanding board. But without an understanding of NCEA as that qualification has developed and without an understanding of the role of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority something has been lacking according to recent comment and the more recent reports issued by various bodies. 
I turn to the fact that at Avondale College Brent Lewis—who used to teach in this district—talked about what this system is about. He said that schools have set up withdrawal systems for students to go away and do units and have organised little subgroups in classes to do special credits. These activities are not unique to Cambridge High School; they are a logical consequence of the system. It is a system whereby one can earn six credits for bone carving in 2 days’ work as against six credits for one quarter of a year 11 student’s total work in English for 2004. That result is an indication that this system which has been thought to be at fault in Cambridge High School is not just at fault there. It is a system that I on behalf of New Zealand First believe needs to be re-examined. 
 We believe in the NCEA as a system that would seem in time with pastoral help from the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority with regard to the workload and to teachers to be a worthy successor to what we knew as School Certificate Sixth Form Certificate and the bursary exam. In fact at this time in 2004 the Cambridge High School issue seems to indicate very seriously to the Minister and his officials that issues need to be re-examined. Namely the issue is whether NCEA an amalgamation of achievement standards and unit standards is a system that has real validity for the future. At present I believe that the jury is long out on whether it has. 
I understand the reasons this was done and I want to quickly traverse the fact that the industry training organisations set up under the New Zealand Qualifications Authority did a very worthy job all through the 1990s of developing work-worthy credits for their industries. One of the issues that has developed under NCEA is that the huge body of work done by the industry training organisations all through the 1990s is now at risk. 
The last thing I want to say about this is in regard to Cambridge High School or any other college—and I believe that others will be found somehow wanting under the recent developments and I will come back to that in a second with regard to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—is that unit standards were a worthy achievement in regard to the various trades industries that had developed them. I know of schools where in regard to agriculture carpentry industrial design and hospitality they were and are still today the best method for students to be able to achieve something worthwhile and creditable. 
By the way although questions were asked about this matter all through the 1990s the answers were not forthcoming. The forced amalgamation into an achievement standard design has not been one that is worthy. New Zealand First believes that the Minister must address this issue now. The Minister must not take into account the recent comments being made by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which is attempting to go from not doing its job in regard to monitoring and analysing what is happening in regard to accreditation but somehow in recent statements including one made last Monday it is stepping over the boundary into trying to tell schools how to teach the curriculum in the classroom. 
The authority’s task was to analyse and be quite certain on behalf of the taxpayer and not least on behalf of parents and children that the system they supported was creditable. The Cambridge High School issue has shown not that Cambridge High School was at fault but that the system was at fault and the Minister needs to address the matter in the education budget urgently. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Is this not a debate of contrasts? On the one hand we have the gloom and doom merchants who all day have been predicting that the end is nigh. I saw an extremely good cartoon in the Saturday  
New Zealand Herald 
; it had Don Brash walking around with a sign saying “The end is nigh.” There has been a repeat of that in the House today: one would think there is nothing good going on in New Zealand there are no good people there are no good policies there is no hope and there is nothing happening if one were to listen to the National Party and the ACT party. On the other hand there is a Government that has policies and purpose. We are here today defending our policies and telling people what we are doing for New Zealand and where we are heading. 
I want to contrast that with the approach of Don Brash of the Opposition. He said New Zealand is racing towards oblivion. He went to Australia to an Australian audience to say that. I think there is a word for that; it means something like a lack of internal fortitude. But the only person who is racing to oblivion is Don Brash himself. Let us look at the latest polls which say it all. I will take just one—the  
National Business Review  
poll. It had Labour on 42.3 percent up five points and National on 37.1 percent down three points. That is an eight-point change. I think Mark Sainsbury from TVNZ got it right when he said: “National is heading in the wrong direction this month. In some ways he has run out of steam. Don’t forget Orewa gave him a fantastic platform and we have seen the numbers gradually creeping down since then.” Don Brash does not have the same platform. Unless a politician has an issue to keep him or her in the news that politician will just drift away from the public’s mind. I agree with Mark Sainsbury because Don Brash is drifting away all right. Some of his caucus are saying he not only has drifted away but has lost the plot—completely lost the plot. 
One has to ask oneself why he went to Australia to bag New Zealand and New Zealanders. Why did he go to Australia to slag off New Zealand’s efforts and New Zealand families? Why did he go to Australia to suck up to Australian business people? Why did he make a speech talking New Zealand down and by comparison talking Australia up? Was it disloyalty was it desperation or was it just plain dopey? No I think it was probably a combination of the whole three. Don Brash asked in his speech in this House today how more holidays more regulation and more taxation can lead to economic growth. Well the irony of that question is that he went to Australia and praised what was being done in Australia. He said: “We want to be more like Australia. They have more holidays more regulation and more taxation.” I do not know where he gets his facts and figures from. There seems to be a little gap somewhere in his memory or in the way that it works. I believe that he has lost the plot. 
I tell New Zealanders that he also has double standards because he wants their holiday. He wants the extra holiday that this Government has promised to New Zealanders—1 week’s extra holiday. Four weeks’ holiday is something that Australia has had for 30 years and that we will have after the next election with the return of a Labour-led Government. Don Brash wants to take away that extra week. He does not want New Zealanders to have 4 weeks’ holiday. He wants to take it from New Zealanders and New Zealanders would not get 4 weeks’ holiday under a Brash Government. But the irony and double standard of that is Don Brash himself had 4 weeks’ holiday when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Is there not a word for that? Is it not a word that starts with a big “h”? I mean he can earn half a million dollars as Governor of the Reserve Bank and get 4 weeks’ holiday but he does not want to let good hard-working New Zealanders have 4 weeks’ holiday. No he says: “When we become the Government they will not get that holiday. Mind you I will have it if I can.” Certainly I am sure he will make sure that he can have 4 weeks’ holiday but not our good hard-working New Zealanders. 
Darren Hughes 
: He only works 2 days a week in this job. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If we add those 2 days a week his holidays and his pay we find what he would deny New Zealanders. Well I think John Armstrong got it right when he said: “Don Brash’s assertion that New Zealand risks becoming ‘just another Pacific Island state’ not only borders on the ridiculous but was silly politics to boot.” He put out a statement that I thought was really really good. I love the headline: “Bumbling Brash loses the plot”—and he is absolutely right. What we really wanted today from “Bumbling Brash” who has lost the plot was one policy—just a little policy just a wee policy just a wee glimpse of a policy— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Just a sentence or two. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —or just a sentence or two of a policy. What did we get? We did not get a policy; we got the “Brash bumbling” versus the “Key confusion”. We have no idea what the National Party stands for or what it would do if it got into Government other than take away New Zealanders’ holiday or sell off the family silver or sharpen the pencil to make cuts to the assistance that people receive. Those are the policies that the National Party has. Apart from them it has no policy and those members could not give us a policy. 
I wondered what Dr Brash knew about health. This is a very important part of social policy. Well I now realise that he knows very little about health at all. He pretended he knew a lot. He pretended that he was very knowledgable about health. He talked about primary health organisations in his now infamous Orewa speech. He said that primary health organisations were an example of race-based policy. He said that very knowledgably as if he knew all about health and primary health organisations. But when he was approached by a reporter from  
New Zealand Doctor 
 he said he did not know what a primary health organisation was. He did not have a clue what a primary health organisation was. The editor of the  
New Zealand Doctor 
 wrote that she was astounded and astonished at his ignorance. Frankly I am not at all astonished at the ignorance of Don Brash. As per the quote from  
The Castle 
 Don Brash is not an ideas man. He is not one of our ideas men. He can certainly sharpen pencils and he can certainly cut slash and burn but he is not an ideas man. 
I want to tell the House what New Zealanders think about this Budget in terms of health and I could not do better than to quote a doctor from Auckland who sent me this letter. He wrote: “Dear Mrs King congratulations on your efforts to fund primary health care. Since you introduced the increased funding for 65-year-olds and over”—as members know that came out in this Budget—“it has been a great relief to me to be able to provide more affordable health care to my elderly patients. Clearly you are making general practice more financially viable. You have done something very positive to reverse the dissatisfaction and low morale in primary health care.” 
Darren Hughes 
: Signed by Dr Don Brash? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it was signed by a doctor who makes people well not one who makes people sick. I could not do better than to quote from a person who is at the front line of the health system and who can see what the Government has done in this Budget to improve New Zealanders’ health. We have now committed almost $10 billion per year to the New Zealand health system to make it the best we can within the constraints of our economy and our resources. We have a very fine health system. Members should just ask Mr Donnelly who is sitting there with his leg in plaster after playing a courageous game of rugby on behalf of the parliamentary team. He received from the New Zealand health system the best treatment that he could possibly get—starting with the Minister of Health telling him he had a broken bone. He got the diagnosis right from the top and he got the treatment and it was provided for in this extremely good Budget. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I tell the House that the Green Party and the Progressive Party will share this 10-minute slot. For the benefit of members I will ring the bell at 4 minutes with 1 minute remaining. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank my colleague from the Progressives; it is good to work together. 
It has often been said that a week is a long time in politics. If that is the case then the 13 weeks since Dr Cullen delivered his Budget are a political lifetime. They also mark the end of an era—the end of cheap oil. In my lifetime there have been three oil shocks: 1974 1979 and right now. The first two were supply-side driven. As my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has said today’s shock is a combination of supply-side problems in the Middle East Venezuela and Russia and demand-side problems—with China’s demand in particular having grown 40 percent in the first 7 months of this year compared with the same period last year. 
However the big difference between now and then is that the current shock is unlikely to be short-lived and the need for major structural change rather than short-term management adjustments will be inevitable. Highly respected economists such as Lester Brown the author of  
Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilisation in Trouble 
 have been predicting for years that world oil production will soon peak then steadily decline as accessible reserves of that finite fuel are depleted and that that depletion will inevitably lead to rising prices as competition increases for a shrinking resource. 
It therefore came as a shock to me that the two Treasury economists who briefed Jeanette Fitzsimons and me about how Treasury calculates its oil price forecasts had never heard of peak oil and did not seem to understand that unlike canola or cotton oil is a finite non-renewable resource. Instead the economists said that they based their price assumptions on historical events and on what the futures market predicts the price will be. They admitted that to futures traders “long term” is a mere 2 to 5 years. That will explain why in the one page Dr Cullen devoted to oil prices in his Budget on 27 May he predicted that spot prices would remain at US$32 per barrel over the middle of this year before easing back to “our assumed ‘equilibrium’ level” of US$19 per barrel. The briefing note did admit that since the central forecast was finalised the spot price had increased to US$37 per barrel—some 16 percent above Treasury’s assumption—and that that was due to supply concerns in the Middle East and low inventory levels in the USA. There was no mention of demand growth in China let alone an acknowledgment that world demand is close to exceeding world supply as Jeanette Fitzsimons outlined in her speech. 
Today the world price stands at $US46 per barrel. What will Treasury’s new equilibrium be? Will it be $30 per barrel? Dr Cullen’s answers to questions in question time today displayed a woeful lack of understanding of the oil predicament we face. Clearly he had not read Vernon Small’s article in the  
Dominion Post  
last week. I acknowledge that he did admit in response to my questions in the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 17 June that petrol will never be cheap again but today he did not seem to understand the ramifications of the end of cheap oil for our economy our society and our environment. There seems to be an ostrich-like mentality that somehow some way we will discover new reserves or new technology that will enable us to continue along the present unsustainable path. One would think that the impending demise of Maui Gas would be enough of a wake-up call but no the Government’s response is a “drill and hope” strategy. Yes the Government is doing good things by issuing carbon credits to foster new wind energy projects and yes it has bought back the rail network in recognition that it is vital strategic infrastructure but it is also underwriting its own State-owned enterprise Genesis Power to squander our precious gas reserves—if we find any—on electricity generation. 
New Zealand has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to face up to the reality of peak oil to radically rethink how we run our economy and to use the window of opportunity we have to achieve sustainability and self-reliance. The Green Party urges the Government to take this issue seriously and to work with us to ensure that our kids have a future that is worth living. It is ironic that Dr Cullen has put in place a superannuation fund based on 50-year projections of an ageing population when at the same time his officials have yet to wake up to the even larger threat that oil depletion poses to our immediate future. Now is the time to do a whole range of things: to install solar water heaters in every State house and Government building; to offer solar and insulation mortgages to private homeowners and landlords; to ensure that every motorway investment is reassessed in the light of permanently rising oil prices and to allocate the money to public transport; to adopt an import substitution approach to trade rather than increase dependence on fossil-fuelled export growth; and in relation to tourism to encourage more Kiwis to see New Zealand first and to invite the increasing number of visitors to stay longer and fully appreciate not just our clean green image but the self-reliant and sustainable country we have the capacity to become. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The progressive Government stands for growth jobs and families and that is what this Budget and the estimates we are discussing symbolise. This bill gives form to our progressive Government’s Budget for the financial year just started. Progressive Governments invest in projects to promote economic growth and the further development of our industry sectors and our regions. Progressive Governments are the ones that deliver practical policies that provide financial incentives to working families to working parents to stay inside the workforce and outside the welfare system. We have introduced a four-letter word back into our society and that is the word “plan”. With economic development educational progress and changes in the health system we are moving towards a more rational society. A progressive Government is a Government that acts to protect the most vulnerable and alienated members of our community because it is those sectors that always suffer the highest toll from cannabis abuse alcohol abuse tobacco abuse and other substance abuse. Our progressive Government has overseen the most impressive 5-year spurt in growth and in jobs ever recorded in this nation’s history. 
 Our ambition is to keep on getting on with the job in the election in 13 months’ time. Only one left-wing Government in the history of New Zealand has ever won three general elections and that was the 1935-49 Savage and then Fraser Government. New Zealand’s recent adoption of the more representative and democratic MMP system has changed the way Governments are elected. In the countdown to September 2005 non - Labour Party voters will have an awesome responsibility. That responsibility is either to see that this progress continues or to turn it over to the reactionary atavistic parties that exist on the opposite side of this House. Non - Labour voters will need to look carefully at all other parties and choose the best bet to ensure the next Government remains forward-looking remains pro-jobs and pro-growth and will not let down the most vulnerable in our society by moving away from our strong multi-pronged approach in the battle against substance abuse. 
We all know that over a period of 30 years starting in the mid-1970s New Zealanders’ average standard of living fell dramatically compared with living standards in Australia. Under the slash-and-burn policies of the past our living standards dropped to be around 30 percent below Australians’ living standards. According to the OECD this progressive Government with legislation like that before this House has turned all of that round. The economy has experienced stronger growth in the 5 years of this Government than Australia has. That is the exact opposite of what happened when National ruled New Zealand and Don Brash was the central bank governor when Australia motored ahead of us. According to the OECD progressive regional industry and skills-investing programmes and more intelligent management of monetary and fiscal policy ensured that New Zealand’s per capita growth domestic product increased between 1999 and 2003 by more than in the previous 5 calendar years of 1994 to 1998. 
New Zealand needs a third-term Labour-Progressive Government next year. The Labour-Progressive Government is investing 27.7 percent of our total Budget in social welfare. That is a 30-year low because so many people are now in jobs training or education. Welfare spending under the last National Government was significantly higher each and every year of its rule reaching as high as 38.6 percent of Government spending. This Sunday the Progressive Party continues with its candidate selections for the September 2004 elections with the selection of the first four electorate candidates in Auckland. We will be campaigning for the party vote as the only party that has a 6-year proven track record inside Government of promoting growth jobs and skills and of delivering policies that help communities fight off the ill-effects of substance abuse. We will be campaigning for another 3 years of the type of forward-looking policies and programmes that are liberally represented in the 2004-05 Budget before this House. 
Those are the economic and social achievements. I have one word though for other colleagues in this House including my Labour colleagues: we have to look at our moral responsibilities as well. I would ask in this period that we look again at the case of Ahmed Zaoui overturn his unjust imprisonment and remove that stain from the Labour-Progressive Government. Similarly I ask that we look at withdrawing the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill which is an insult to our migrant communities and places a dangerous power in the hands of the Security Intelligence Service to recommend that the passports and travel documents of New Zealanders be withdrawn because of its opinion that we are security risks. I ask that we look carefully at our moral responsibility as well as our economic and social progress under a very good Government. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I want to start by observing that we no longer have a National Party agriculture spokesperson on the front bench. This must be the biggest betrayal of its rural and provincial heritage that this party has ever been responsible for. In fact when I came into the House this afternoon the only Opposition spokespeople on the front bench were Craig McNair of New Zealand First and Rod Donald of the Greens. They were the only people who were looking after the interests of the Opposition supporters out there in the countryside—the traditional agricultural right-wing voting people out there in the heartland. Who did they have looking after them this afternoon? They had Craig McNair from New Zealand First and Rod Donald from the Greens. But then Brian Donnelly came into the House and things looked a bit better. He is hobbling along on his crutches. He has been playing football—golden oldies—although I would have said not-so-golden but brave. My colleague generously described his game as brave and I suppose it was. 
 He ought to examine himself in the mirror in the morning because when he went off to have his football injuries medically treated he was probably depriving a New Zealand pensioner of his or her opportunity to get a new hip. That pensioner has probably been waiting since 1992 for that hip and now we find that Mr Donnelly is getting new studs put in his feet so he can resume his football. However as my colleague did I do give him credit for his bravery. A man of his age should not be playing football. He should not be asking so much— 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s what Mrs Donnelly said. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Well we should not be asking so much of him. Seriously it is a disappointment that the National Party no longer rates agriculture as a front-bench portfolio. It just shows the contempt that National has for heartland New Zealand. What do National members believe in? We can see what the National Party’s election strategy is by whom it puts on its front bench. It has a spokesperson for law and order. It figured that New Zealanders do not like criminals so the front-bench members will make their speeches against criminals. National’s spokesperson on race relations has been promoted to being deputy leader. Usually that is a good indication of what it will fight the election on. National has given its big speech on race relations. It has tapped the full extent of racial resentment in New Zealand. It went up in the polls it is already over the hump and it is coming back down again. It is now behind in all the main polls. All four of the main polls show National is down and falling. 
Its spokesperson on beneficiaries is on the front bench. It is campaigning against beneficiaries and tapping the deep spring of resentment about beneficiaries amongst taxpayers. National is doing its best to whip up a deep spring of resentment against beneficiaries— 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s not working. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is not working very well. But one thing we can say for beneficiaries is that they do vote and they will not forget the National Party’s betrayal. 
The other group that does not yet vote is immigrants. The National Party is exploiting the deep resentment of some New Zealanders against immigrants. But National members have not done their sums. They have not calculated that with unemployment down to record-low levels of 4 percent and probably still falling the number of people who blame immigrants for taking their jobs is down to almost none. In fact there is some doubt about whether unemployed people these days would vote against immigration. They might recognise that there is a skills shortage that we can fill in the short term by bringing in more immigrants and there are plenty of immigrants who want to come to New Zealand because despite the gloom doom and the badmouthing of New Zealand by the leader of the National Party New Zealand is still recognised as perhaps the best place in the world to live and to bring up kids. 
Lots of people will come back from their travels to the Olympic Games and elsewhere after enjoying their new-found prosperity by seeing the sights of the world and say: “Well it is pretty good over there going to the Olympic Games and staying in flash hotels but it is good to be home because New Zealand is the best place in the world to be living.” This has been reinforced by the recent situation and outlook published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry for New Zealand agriculture and forestry. It points out that for those of us who still retain a deep interest and abiding love for the primary industries of New Zealand things are looking even better and brighter after the exciting results of the World Trade Organization meeting in Geneva earlier this month. 
 For the first time ever 147 countries agreed that they will negotiate an end-date for all export subsidies—those pernicious interventions that drive down prices and keep unsubsidised farmers’ incomes down all around the world developing-country farmers and developing-country economies; all are kept down by those pernicious export subsidies that destroy those developing-country markets and third-country markets. 
This is a great day. We can now look forward to when those export subsidies are eliminated. New Zealand can expect to see a substantial increase in the value of our agricultural exports over the next 3 years along with a slowly depreciating dollar. That is not me saying that; it is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in its situation and outlook for New Zealand agriculture and forestry and it is not biased. It points out that the value of pastoral agriculture horticulture and forestry exports is expected to increase by 20 percent to over $20 billion a year over the next 3 years. 
The largest contributor to this will be dairy—the star performer—up 25 percent to $7.6 billion due to higher volumes and prices. Forestry is also up 41 percent to $3.89 billion—largely due to increased lumber volumes and prices. Wool export value is projected to increase by 4 percent due to higher prices while horticultural export value is projected to rise by around 30 percent in 3 years mainly driven by a 300 percent increase in wine volume being exported. 
This Government understands very well the importance of primary industry to the New Zealand economy. We understand extremely well the value and importance of rural communities to our society. What was delivered in the Budget for education health and families could not have happened without economic success and much of that economic success started on our farms and in our forests out there in rural New Zealand. They still provide 60 percent of this country’s export income and it is absolutely essential that we keep them growing and thriving. This Government is doing what it takes to do that. 
Biosecurity funding is up another $46 million over the next 4 years making a funding increase in biosecurity baseline of 57 percent since the Labour-led Government was elected in November 1999. It is still not enough but it is also a measure of the complete inadequacy of the previous National Government when it came to protecting New Zealand from exotic bugs and diseases. 
This is a good-news Budget. This is a Government on a roll. We look forward to the next general election—we say: “Bring them on!” 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 That Minister should talk to a few farmers if he wants to find out whether they respect his Government’s view of farmers. He will get a strong clear message. His involvement with the agriculture portfolio consists of waving out of the aeroplane window as he flies over on the way to somewhere else. He showed his regard for rural communities by overseeing the closure of just about every rural school in South Canterbury except for one that happened to have as a chairman someone who used to be the Green Party candidate. Jim Sutton broke his back for the Green Party to keep its rural school open and closes the rest. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister ought to take it seriously. He closed Watlington Intermediate down. It had 500 pupils and was a very successful school. The classrooms were full. That is why 1500 people turned up to a public meeting in his electorate and that is why he will not win that seat in the next election. But he has got some padded-out position high on the Labour list—a man who is now almost completely divorced from New Zealand politics and who will never reconnect. 
If members want a little indication of how this Government works often these things appear in the small stories as much as the large ones. Mr Mallard boasted in the Budget about everything he had done for at-risk children. He appended to his press release a list of 42 programmes. I asked him: “Give me the names of those 42 programmes and what money is being spent on them and what money the Budget plans to spend on them since it was on a Budget document.” I got the answer to that question today. The list of 42 programmes comes from policy work done in 2001. It is nothing to do with the current Budget at all. Not only that but the Government gave an honest answer to a parliamentary question and that is very unusual. The Government said: “Here are numbers the amount of money spent on it but they don’t mean anything.” 
It is just a small incident—a list of 42 programmes put out for at-risk children in education. If members read the Minister’s press release they would have thought that that was what was being funded by this Budget and that the Minister was doing a whole lot of stuff for at-risk children but he was not. It was a policy stocktake that was 3 years old with numbers that meant nothing. So many people who have had goodwill towards this Government in education are gradually finding out that they have been sucked in by that goodwill. 
We used to talk about standards in schools and National certainly still does. However I want to raise the issue of standards in a bureaucracy—standards of integrity standards of professionalism and standards of good public policy. Yesterday the report of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority into Cambridge High School was released. The chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority went to great trouble to say that it was only one room at one school where the credit cramming was going on—that is kids getting credits when they really did not do any work for them. 
The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been in that school for the last couple of years and apparently it never saw any of this. The credit-recovery room at Cambridge High School has been going for over 2 years. I asked Trevor Mallard at the select committee whether the New Zealand Qualifications Authority was monitoring the New Zealand National Certificate of Educational Achievement and he said that it was. I asked him whether the subjects were moderated and he said: “Every subject every year in every school.”—apparently except every subject last year and this year in one school! Who believes that? Nobody believes that. The official educational agencies are on a mission of untruth about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the Minister is leading it. He does not have a clue whether practices like that are happening in other schools. Does it matter? To him it does not and to this Parliament it probably does not but for thousands of students earning life-changing qualifications at the young age of 15 and 16 when they depend on us to ensure that qualification means something then this scandal does mean a lot. 
I can assure the Minister that similar practices are going on in other schools. Cambridge High School made the mistake of putting it in one room because it is a school that had a small enough number of kids that they fitted in one room and it called it the credit-recovery room which sounds like an arm of a debt-collection agency and it got the book thrown at it and so it should. But the public agencies have let those students down as they are letting down thousands of other students. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority was in that school time after time for 2 years. The Cambridge High School issue came to the notice of the public only because of the dreaded media—television and magazine reporters who investigated and put those matters into the public arena. 
 That in itself is a scandal. The public agencies are so ideologically committed to this qualification that they will not admit any fault. As the chief executive said: “One room in one school.” I tell the Minister that if it turns out it is not just one room in one school but many rooms in many schools then that chief executive should lose her job. 
It is no better in the tertiary sector. In fact I would say it is worse. We have seen through questions in the House here and extensive publicity a tale of low-level corruption and unprofessionalism a lack of ethical behaviour and weak leadership in our tertiary sector. Has this cost us anything? Well again as members will know it does not matter too much today and it might not matter too much in this House. But at a time when our economy is crying out for skilled people when thousands of at-risk young people have been dumped in the Correspondence School out of our mainstream school system and when we have desperate levels of low achievement among our young children this Government has been hosing away money through its mates in the polytechs and other agencies and is unwilling to do anything about it. 
We have much higher priorities. I do not have anything against people getting some adult education going to night schools learning how to paint learning another language or learning one’s own language—as many of them have been. Those are all good things on their own. But they become very bad things when paid professionals of the State ruthlessly exploit the weak leadership of this Government in tertiary education. 
Steve Maharey 4 or 5 years ago laid out his vision for tertiary education and many people agreed with it including some of my own party—quite unwisely I might say and I told them that at the time. He said he wanted to steer the system to make high-value strategic choices in the national interest. Well when a Labour politician says “the national interest” one knows he or she is getting mixed up. What has happened is exactly the opposite of what he said. Instead of the money being channelled into what he said mattered—research and high skills for the knowledge economy—it has all ended up to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars on low-value non-strategic courses that no Government chose. That is really the core of it. By his own definition Steve Maharey has utterly failed. He laid out what the policy would do. He made the choices apparently and the money—$1 billion extra actually on tertiary education during the term of this Government—has gone on the lowest-value courses that one could imagine. That has also been a product of the Minister’s failure and failure in the educational bureaucracy the Tertiary Education Commission. This Budget commits $45 million to that organisation and it is totally wasted; in fact; it is destructive. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: For the benefit of members I inform them that the Independent member and the member for the Maori Party have decided to share their 10-minute slot. I will ring the bell with 1 minute remaining. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) 
: 
 If any evidence was needed that this Minister of Education has no idea what he is doing then it has to be the gobsmacking events that have unfolded at Cambridge High School. The report has come out and for a whitewash it is brilliant. The report stated that there was no formal policy rationale or goals that there was no programme of learning and that no trained teacher was available. It stated that there was no formal process for identifying students for achievement recovery and that quality assurance of the assessment was negligible. 
How many times have we been in this House and heard that Minister of Education defend the New Zealand Qualifications Authority defend himself defend all the abominations that have happened with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and deny that any of these things were coming to pass? Anyone could have predicted that the events that have unfolded at Cambridge High School would have unfolded given that we have had no assurances in reality that it had that moderation system set up. Anyone would think that if any school had a 100 percent pass rate given the normal bell curve of intelligence and of achievement that one will find in any school someone would be alerted that something was going wrong in a particular school. But no. 
Who was the very first person to roll up to Cambridge High School on hearing that it had a 100 percent pass rate? It was none other than the Minister of Education himself. What was he thinking and what was the New Zealand Qualifications Authority doing for the 2 years that it was crawling all over Cambridge High School not noticing that there were as it says no formal policy rationale or goals and that there was no programme of learning? What was the authority thinking? What was it looking for if it could not identify the kinds of unusual and extreme credit-cramming processes that were in place at Cambridge High School? Who has defended the whole NCEA system ever since the Minister forced New Zealand students to be guinea pigs in an unprecedented untested exam system that has been rejected by everyone overseas—a system that we have had to put up with year in and year out for the past 3 to 4 years? 
When it was pointed out in 2000 that moderation as the Minister had designed it would not work who was it who denied it categorically? It was the Minister of Education himself. Who when it was pointed out to him that the NCEA would dumb down education denied it categorically? When it was pointed out to him on not one but several occasions by several speakers in this House that both teachers and students would be tempted to cheat under the moderation system as it had been designed who was it who denied it categorically? It was the Minister of Education himself. So I find it quite amazing when I hear the Hon Bill English comment about NCEA—because I was listening for the magic words from that former leader of the National Party. The magic words to me were this: NCEA will be scrapped by the National Party. Those are the magic words that I and thousands of other parents want to hear. We want to hear that the NCEA will be thrown into the dustbin where all stupid policies that cut down our tall poppies should be thrown. They should be dumped in that dustbin as soon as possible. Where are those magic words? What is the National Party going to do about it? The people of New Zealand must be thinking that Labour will do nothing about it obviously but what is National going to do about it? Those magic words were somehow missing from the Hon Bill English’s speech. Given the words that Bill English has spoken today I ask where the National Party was when my National Certificate of Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill came out in 2002. Where was it? 
Katherine Rich 
: It was those people. 
DONNA AWATERE HUATA 
: No no. Never mind those people I say to Katherine Rich. It was the National Party and New Zealand First that voted against the only opportunity that this Parliament had to stop level 3 from being implemented. It was the only opportunity of stopping our gold-plated bursary exam from being scrapped. Where were National and New Zealand First? They were nowhere to be found. Those members have a blinking cheek to stand up in this House as members of both parties have today and accuse Labour of not doing a good job. All I want to say to Ms Rich is that National members had an opportunity to do something about it in 2002 and they did nothing. The NCEA should be scrapped as soon as possible. 
TARIANA TURIA (Leader—Maori Party) 
:  
I want to address the estimates of appropriations for Vote Treaty Negotiations and my comments will relate to two specific areas of concern: the way in which the concept of settlements is grouped under two major outcomes based on deficit analysis and the vexed question of quantity—are we being short-changed again? 
As all in this House are aware the Treaty of Waitangi is the foundation document for our nation. At its very heart the treaty represents the basis of a relationship between peoples—a relationship of goodwill—that anticipated promise for our future. I ask how much goodwill can be retained in a relationship in which the key purposes of it are to reduce crime and to ensure that peoples’ interactions are underpinned by the rule of law. The major outcomes that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has agreed to for Vote Treaty Negotiations the vote that represents the constitutional basis of this nation are safer communities in which there is reduced crime youth offending offending by Maori violence organised crime theft of and from cars burglary family violence and serious traffic offending. In other words if we enact the Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement process we will reduce all those negative outcomes of crime offending and violence. What does that say about the Crown’s view of the parties involved in that relationship? The other major outcome agreed by the Minister is a fairer more credible and more effective justice system where there is improved delivery of court services; improved public confidence in the police judiciary and other institutions; improved laws; and finally improved relationships between the Crown and Maori. 
What a maze of bureaucratic waffle! How can treaty negotiations reduce theft of and from cars prevent burglaries and improve confidence in the police? I am sure that the concept of theft as applied to land would be one that groups would understand far better than any of those other outcomes. The recent claimant group that signed Taranaki ki Whanganui a Tara no doubt also considered that the land dealings meted out by the New Zealand Company were akin to home invasion. So treaty settlements will reduce every possible form of crime other than the real crime wherein our lands language and culture were taken away and another was imposed upon us—the crime of being dispossessed of our sovereignty of being stripped of our identity and our resource base. Our tupuna never ceded their sovereignty. It was taken from them at the point of a gun and by the doctrines of law. It is inconceivable that our tupuna would have given an unknown foreign power the right to rule over them and make laws against them and to steal their land. It is an impossibility and beyond the powers of any rangatira to do that both then and now. So when our people learn that the desired outcomes of treaty negotiations will serve to uphold the rule of law no wonder there is so much cynicism about this Government. 
The other key area in the 2004-05 financial year that I want to pick up on is the massive increase of $1.29 million for increased negotiation activity! That is a crime. We want more settlements but also more money—not to be short-changed again. If tangata whenua enjoyed proper protection of their property rights settlements would be worth considerably more than the meagre pickings calculated in these appropriations. Our people should actually be entitled to legal aid as are others particularly those involved in criminal offending. Perhaps the outcome that we could have accepted in Vote Treaty Negotiations was an outcome in which tangata whenua are recognised for the contribution they have made and continue to make to this nation; an outcome in which the quality of the relationship between the Crown and our people is actually a meaningful one based on mutual priorities not just propping up Crown infrastructure; an outcome that would actually demonstrate that treaty settlements are about acknowledging the vital contribution our people have made to all aspects of the social cultural economic and political life of this great country of ours. That is the sort of outcome we can all sign up to. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Boy am I proud to be a member of this Government! Boy am I pleased to be part of a Government that decided in the last Budget to increase funding for research science and technology by the greatest amount ever! More money than ever was appropriated in the last Budget for science—an increase of more than 40 percent over the past 5 years. 
Rodney Hide 
: All wasted. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Rodney Hide is about as innovative as a brick. There has been a 40 percent increase in funding for research science and technology over the last 5 years. Funding has gone into economic development environmental research social research and scholarships. Money has gone through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology the Marsden Fund the Health Research Council and Technology New Zealand increasing the commercialisation of good New Zealand ideas in a global marketplace increasing patents increasing all the bibliometric analysis that one wants done and increasing collaboration between Crown research institutes universities and research associations. There is increasing collaboration off shore with Australia America Japan and China. There are increases everywhere increases resulting from funding going into the centres for research excellence funding for the Pre-seed Accelerator Fund and funding for the Equity Investment Fund. 
The private sector has done even better. Between 2000 and 2002 in those 2 years the private sector increased its investment in research and development by 32 percent. The private sector increased its investment in universities and Crown research institutes but it did its own research and development and filed its own patents. We have growing innovation in this economy. We have an innovative Government. We have a partnership between the two and it will not be broken any time soon. The economy and the Government as far as innovation is concerned go hand in hand. Not that the money is enough; it is never enough. There is never enough money for say health research or institutional funding for Crown research institutes. There is never enough venture capital funding or intellectual property capacity in this country. There is no such thing as enough but boy is this Government making a difference. 
It is the same with transport. We have got the New Zealand Transport Strategy we have got ourselves the Land Transport Management Act and then “Dr No” became “Dr Yes”. Last June or July when Transfund announced the national transport plan for the next 10 years we saw that it showed for next year in every region of the country a significant increase in transport infrastructure funding. We now have integrated transport. We now have transport in which multimodal planning is the norm. We have increases in every region in the country including the Chatham Islands. 
In energy we have got funding this year for the Electricity Commission. It is about time we had ourselves a managed market. We know that a fully regulated market does not work. We know that a free market does not work. Therefore we have got ourselves somewhat more of a managed market. We have got funding going into gas exploration. We have changed the fiscal incentives. We will address the gas shortage that this nation is facing. 
In the last Budget not only did we have New Zealand dollars which is what one would expect in a New Zealand Budget but we had a new currency and it is tonnes of carbon dioxide credits. Those tonnes are being tendered in the next month or two. If a country can produce a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions then we will give it up to that amount in credits. That country then has to go on the global market to sell them. I signed an agreement with the Netherlands Government yesterday afternoon as it wants to buy 34 million tonnes of credits. We have 6 million tonnes available if the price is right. We are seeing climate change making money for New Zealand industry. What is more we will see this Government run that process at a profit—that is to say we will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than the carbon dioxide credits that are put into the marketplace. [ 
Interruption 
] They are owned by the New Zealand Government which is a signatory and ratifier of the Kyoto Protocol. That is a matter of international law and the member should get her facts right. 
Unemployment in this country is now 4 percent. That is not quite the lowest rate in the Western World; it is the second-lowest rate. We have got regional growth everywhere in every region. We have got per capita income increases. We have got a reduction in national debt. We have got increased provision for superannuation. We are one of the few countries that has decided to partially pre-fund national superannuation. Because of the “Cullen fund” we will not have the problems that France Japan or other nations have. We have the Working for Families package which is the hallmark the flagship of the last Budget. It addresses a major problem in this country which is the rich-poor gap. We are hearing from the rich; they cannot stop interjecting on me. The rich-poor gap is being closed by this Government. 
Last week I came back from a remarkable trip through China Korea Japan wherein one finds one-third of the world’s research and development effort. I went there with a delegation of New Zealand science leaders and we are thickening our linkages to those three nations. After 5 days in those three countries I returned to my home in Dunedin. The headline in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 was “Mr Bumbling Brash loses plot”. The article states: “Dr Brash’s assertion that New Zealand risks becoming just another Pacific island State not only bordered on the ridiculous but was silly politics to boot.” That was my welcome home and it came from John Armstrong a respected political commentator. He said: “At the end of the day National’s leader is perfectly within his rights to make a fool of himself.” and he goes on for another thousand words to show why the leader of the National Party made a fool of himself. It was remarkable. 
I picked up the latest  
Listener 
—I had been missing it having been out of the country—and I found there that Jane Clifton another political commentator says it is hilarious that National has come up with the idea of reducing Cabinet from 20 to 15 because the new leader has had time to realise that he would be pushing the proverbial uphill “to find 10 trustworthy warm bodies to call Ministers”. I think this is called snatching virtue from the jaws of necessity. 
So we are back to the stupidity of New Zealand politics where we have a Government that is working with the country to produce economic growth and jobs and prosperity like we have not seen in 20 years and we have another party that is saying we are becoming another Pacific Island State. It is almost unbelievable just how detached the National Party is from reality. It is extraordinary. In fact if we have a capacity constraint in this country—and sure as hell if one is trying to build roads in Auckland that question may arise—I think the biggest one is on the front bench of the National Party. It is a remarkable capacity constraint. National members have another election coming. They will get themselves a new intake. They might get some bright new things they might get some fresh faces but right now we have a poor National Party under apparently poor leadership. 
Well that ain’t good for democracy. How is this Government being tested? How is this Government being shown up? Where is the quality opposition in this Parliament at the moment? It is to be found in other parties. It is to be found in the Green Party in the New Zealand First Party and in the United Future party. It is not to be found in National and it certainly ain’t to be found in ACT. All that ACT can do is change its leader and go to Auckland and say it is taking the pulse of Auckland for the next 2 months. Do members know what the pulse of Auckland is? It is 60—that is how many people turned up at ACT’s meeting in Auckland last week. That is the pulse; it is a very thin and thready pulse that ACT has in Auckland. But the point of the story is that the ACT party is not a decent Opposition either. ACT members are very good at shouting out and cracking jokes amongst themselves but they have no depth. There is no particular analysis. 
Darren Hughes 
: 2 percent. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is why they are at 2 percent. The National Party is a problem. It is a problem for New Zealand democracy because it does not have depth. It is a problem for New Zealand democracy because when its members reshuffle they cannot even fill the front bench. They have to fill it with the senior whip. It is not as though they have a nine-person front bench. New Zealand First has flogged half the front bench off them and they still cannot fill the rest. So we are in a situation were the other so-called major party does not have much talent and its leader provides absolute proof of what lack of talent means. He went to Australia and made a fool of himself then came home again. He asked a question in this House today for the first time in a month. Where has the Leader of the Opposition been? 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The concern that member has for the National Party is touching to say the least but we do not need the concern of that member. For those who have just tuned in that was not the latest pastor of the Destiny Church. That was not the Labour Party’s answer to Tigger. That was Pete Hodgson member for Dunedin North. What an opportunity he had to talk about this Government’s Budget but if anybody doubted the relevance of the National Party they need only see how much of that member’s time was spent talking about the National Party and how much of a concern it was to him. 
I heard Steve Maharey the Minister for Social Development and Employment speak earlier today. It was very interesting to hear him take credit for everything from a greater life expectancy in this country to reduced unemployment—even Sarah Ulmer’s gold medal. This Government cannot continue to take credit for the good things that have happened in this country yet totally absolve itself of the responsibility for some of the bad things that have happened in this country as well. 
The social report that was released a couple of days ago was an absolute joke. It picked up on a few key statistics but failed to tell the real story about what is going on in this country. It did not make any mention of the fact that close to 35 percent of young women in Auckland who go on the domestic purposes benefit do not name the father of their child. It did not make any mention of the fact that many of the people who have come off the unemployment benefit have casually moved over to the invalids benefit or the sickness benefit. It certainly made no mention of the fact that the numbers on both those benefits have increased dramatically under Labour’s tenure. 
So rather than the Government having a lot of things to crow about there are a lot of things that it should have addressed in this Budget but were not touched on at all. Let us talk about a few things that have gone wrong for this Government. Let us talk about the disaster that is the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Why in the last 6 months has it failed to answer 11000 calls from concerned New Zealanders who have phoned because they have been worried about a New Zealand child? People do not ring that department for fun. They ring because they have genuine concerns about children and to get nothing more than a dial tone and to have to hang up because they cannot get an answer is not fair to those people who ring nor is it fair to New Zealand children. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Absolute rubbish! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: There she goes! The “Minister of Champagne Flutes and Smoked Salmon Canapés” wakes up to make a comment. I ask that Minister what she says to New Zealanders who ring Child Youth and Family Services to raise a concern about a child and do not even get an answer. They do not even get someone on the other end of the phone to answer their call. It is a shambles and a disaster and it is no wonder that we see child after child on the 6 o’clock news as the latest headline. Ron Burrows rang. His call lasted more than 24 minutes and how was that call summarised under this Government? Two words. It did not even become a notification. It is an absolute shambles. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s your policy? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: National does have some policies in the area of Child Youth and Family Services I say in answer to the translucent member for Otaki. We believe that a call centre is not the way to manage the thousands of calls to Child Youth and Family Services and that we need to go back to having local child protection teams so that local knowledge can play a part in making a judgment. 
Four years ago Judge Mick Brown put out a report that was a great piece of work. He told this Government that it needed to reduce the unallocated case list to zero within 6 months and the Government signed up to that. And what is the unallocated case list at the moment? It is over 4000. Somebody has phoned up to share a concern about those children. They have become a notification and their notes sit there in a file in an in tray unallocated to a social worker. It is an absolute disgrace. While this Government continues to put out blueprints and baseline reviews and workshop after study children wait for a social worker to pick up their file. We have also seen the absolute disgrace— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has been interjecting right though this debate and then she made the comment “That was disgusting.” That was unparliamentary and I ask—[ 
Interruption 
] She has been interjecting and I draw your attention to the Standing Orders and ask that she apologise for those comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I was going to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 56/1 which states that interjections must be rare reasonable and relevant. I ask the member to desist. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It is interesting that that member is making a few comments because it is clear to me that she is more at ease sipping champagne at the latest arts function than talking about the hard issues about maltreatment of children in this country. It just goes to show what the priorities of this Government are. This Government’s priority is sipping champagne and eating smoked salmon rather than dealing with the maltreatment of children. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Prior to the dinner break we were discussing the Government’s latest Budget this legislation and the Working for Families package. Well this Budget did not work for families. If anything it will drive more families into welfare dependency and increase the queues. Since when has making families who earn up to $100000 a year dependent on the State been something to crow about? Since when has raising the effective marginal tax rate for families so that when they earn another $20000 they get to keep only $3000 of it been something to crow about? We will see a lot of people being put into the situation whereby they are motivated not to go out and do a bit of overtime and not to go out and get that second job because it is simply not worth it. The Government is going to keep the majority of the tax as it claws back some of the benefits that those families presently enjoy. 
What we have also seen recently is the Government crowing about its Jobs Jolts programme. We heard the Minister say he was going to get tough on people who moved to remote areas. Well that is all very interesting but in response to a parliamentary question the Minister told me that Work and Income is not currently collecting any data on how many people move to remote areas. So it cannot tell me whether anybody has been sanctioned as a result of moving into a remote area. Mr Maharey said the Government was going to get tough on people who failed drug tests and job opportunities and sabotaged job interviews. Well he tells me he is unsure whether anybody has faced a sanction as a result of failing a job drug test because Work and Income is not collecting any of that data. 
The Opposition has long believed that the Jobs Jolt programme is nothing more than a “Jobs Joke”. It is all smoke and mirrors and it is all designed to look as if the Government is doing something but very little information is being collected. So much for evidence-based research. Really the Government is looking at putting a political spin on things as opposed to doing something. 
One of the things the Government has glossed over of course is the number of women—they are mainly women—on the domestic purposes benefit. I think it is an absolute disgrace that in Auckland one-third of all young women going on to the domestic purposes benefit will not name the father of their child so that the taxpayer can collect child support. I understand there are sometimes some good reasons not to name the father but I do not believe that one in three young women who go on to that benefit does not know who fathered her child. Work and Income actually admits that 21 percent of those people who face a deduction on the domestic purposes benefit not only know the name of the father but that it is also on file at Work and Income. So Work and Income has the name of the father either on a birth certificate or on file somewhere but because the mother will not sign the appropriate form Work and Income cannot then pass it on to the Inland Revenue Department so that child support cannot be collected. 
Jill Pettis 
: National hates success. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That member talks about success. I do not think that raising child support debt to nearly $1 billion is something to crow about. There is nearly $1 billion of unpaid child support debt and in the meantime while the member sits there and shouts children are not having their soccer boots paid for they are not getting their music lessons and they are not having their school camp fees paid for. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The challenging of the Chair earlier on by displaying signage that had been ruled out during question time is a deliberate challenge to this House and to your authority. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member but I have already dealt with that matter. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I would like to finish the point I am making. I know you have dealt with it. However the same members who were involved this time were the members who were involved during question time and that is a challenge to you and to the authority of this House. We take strong exception that this has occurred a second time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The Chair does not need inquests on actions he has already taken. I have already dealt with the issue. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to commend this Government and the Minister of Finance for this excellent Budget for Maori. It is a Budget that signals the clear commitment of this Government to accelerating the advancement of Maori and not being shy about that. This Government is building a strong and confident nation. This Government recognises that for New Zealand to prosper and progress all individuals and groups have to reach their fullest potential. Providing opportunities for Maori to reach their potential will ensure benefits for all New Zealanders. This Budget will take New Zealand ahead and most important Maori will be leading part of that charge. 
I repeat what I have said earlier this year in the House that I am very proud to be Minister of Maori Affairs in a Government that is leading the transformation of our people. This transformation is integral to the strengthening of our nation and our economy. We have heard two nonsensical and shockingly divisive speeches in the last half a dozen months. The first was at Orewa when someone starting scratching the paternal pathetic race nuances of people. The second was just the other day and it was as bad as the performance of the All Blacks when the Leader of the Opposition went over to Australia trying to play Judas and stabbed his country in the back. That is shocking. This Government is not about divisiveness. It is about moving forward. 
Some members in this House believe that Maori are not a key part of this nation. Some seek to divide the country to exploit their own agenda. But I tell this House that Maori are the tangata whenua. There is no better recent example of Maori culture being at the forefront of New Zealandness than at the Olympic Games where the success of our athletes has been celebrated with the haka. Sometimes I think the haka is wasted on things that do not return good results for our people both for Maori and for New Zealand as a nation. 
This Budget is certainly designed to elevate the profile of Maori from dependency division and grievance to economic and social opportunity. It is about changing attitudes. This Government is shifting the profile of Maori and we need to celebrate the number that are around in relation to what we have done. I have hikoi-ed up and down this country talking about shifting the profile of Maori. Demographic forecasts for the next 50 years show that although New Zealand’s population generally is ageing the Maori and Pacific populations will remain relatively youthful. In fact by 2021 one in five people aged 15 to 39 will be Maori. So we will have a whole lot of Scottish - New Zealand Maori people. The demographic trends of Maori compared with New Zealand’s population highlight the importance of improving the circumstances of Maori families. I know that right now in this country a lot more Maori are going home tonight to put decent food on the table and to talk about the day they spent at work. That has been achieved from the creation of this Government’s policies and this Budget will add to that. 
Let us go over some of the things we have done. Maori unemployment is now at 8.8 percent and tracking down. That is a phenomenal slide from 21.5 percent when we came into Government. That is about closing the gaps that is about making sure that our people get into the labour market. Over 43000 more Maori are now in work than were in 1999. They are working from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or even longer hours. The number of Maori registered as job seekers with Work and Income dropped from 74000 to 40000 and it is continuing to fall. As a significant part of the New Zealand economy the Maori economy contributes $700 million and there are a whole lot of clusters of enterprise whether in Rotoiti Rotorua Tokoroa or Tolaga Bay that are getting together. They are asset-rich and they are not in debt and we intend to ensure that those clusters move forward. 
Since September 2000 the Maori Business Facilitation Service has assisted over 4000 clients. The Maori authority tax review is certainly benefiting those Maori who are trying to accelerate their enterprise and inter-enterprise. Maori enrolments in tertiary education as at May 2004 revealed that the number of Maori enrolled in tertiary training had almost doubled between 1999 and 2003. In 2002 Maori gained almost 20 percent of all qualifications and I certainly enjoyed sitting at Otago University watching a lot of those Maori get certification and degrees of a whole lot of different sizes—not namby-pamby nonsense such as some of those legal experts have over there. They got different sizes that are relevant today. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries)  
on behalf of the Minister of Finance 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2004/05) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) amends both the 1996 and 1983 fisheries Acts as well as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2). Part 3 which provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system on 1 October 2004 and corrects the general problem with the current quota allocation mechanisms identified during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system has been reported back separately and received royal assent some 12 days ago. 
Part 1 of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) provides for revisions to the Fisheries Act 1996 to reinforce the quota management system as the preferred framework for managing fisheries resources remove the parts of fisheries law that empower the use of individual catch entitlements—known as “ICE”—provide more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries revise the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and remove the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of fisheries resources. That legislation also extends the coverage of the quota management system to provide for management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries’ waters and provides for technical minor amendments to clarify wording or to provide for technical amendments to better achieve the intent of the legislation. 
Part 1 makes important changes to the way quota will be allocated in the future. Current quota allocation provisions are impeding the effect of fisheries management as they are based on catching patterns of over 12 years ago that detract from the smooth transition of species into the quota management system. The bill changes quota allocation in two ways. Firstly the bill immediately removes the individual catch entitlements allocation and 1990-92 catch history allocation for most low-value and low-volume stocks and species. Secondly for stocks and species that have current utilisation value the bill retains 1990-92 catch history as a way of allocating quota. 
I have listened to submissions on the bill and will be proposing amendments to improve the way this transition works. I will refer to those amendments shortly when I outline the contents of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. 
Part 2 of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) provides for the transition from green-lipped mussel spat catch permits issued under the Fisheries Act 1983 to management under the quota management system. Schedule 1 of the bill includes new schedules 4B and 4C to be inserted into the Fisheries Act 1996. Schedule 4B lists highly migratory species to which certain provisions of the 1996 Act will apply. Schedule 4C lists species and stocks to which the moratorium on the issuing of new permits will apply. It also lists the stocks and species that will be allocated using fishers’ 1990-92 catch history. 
The Primary Production Committee has reported back to the House and recommended by majority that the bill not proceed. It is essential however that this bill does proceed. The bill contains a number of important provisions that will provide for improvements in the management of New Zealand’s fisheries resources. The proposals contained in the Supplementary Order Paper meet the concerns reported by the committee. 
I would like to draw the House’s attention now to the amendments to the bill proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Earlier I referred to the bill’s changes to the way quota will be allocated. Several submissions from the commercial fishing industry recommended that catch history cease in 2009 as a way of allocating quota. I consider this proposal to be eminently sensible and in line with the Government’s policy intent for the bill. 
Submissions to the select committee called for the 1990-92 catch history quota allocation to be kept for additional stocks and species. I consider that there is scope for the catch history to be retained for those additional stocks and species. The Supplementary Order Paper keeps catch history allocation for an additional eight species by means of a new schedule to the bill—schedule 4D. Once amended the overall effect of the bill will be to retain until 2009 around 80 to 90 percent of catch histories for stocks and species still outside the quota management system on 1 October 2004. 
The Supplementary Order Paper also inserts an allocation schedule to enable the introduction to the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area 9 on 1 October 2004. The allocation schedule has been agreed amongst stakeholders. The Supplementary Order Paper also amends quota allocation for pipi in area 1A by revoking current allocations of provisional catch history and allocating quota direct to fishers. This amendment is to address quota allocation concerns in this fishery. 
 The Supplementary Order Paper amends the bill so that quota management system management of a highly migratory species outside New Zealand fisheries waters will be limited to certain circumstances. Quota management system management of such stocks outside New Zealand fisheries waters will be able to occur only where a regional fisheries organisation has made national allocations or other management measures. 
The Supplementary Order Paper introduces a requirement for the Minister of Fisheries to consult with the Minister of Conservation when considering future management of species listed in schedule 4C inserted by schedule 1 which are also listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 
The Supplementary Order Paper introduces new provisions to enable balances from the cost-recovery settlement between the Crown and industry to be correctly apportioned to the new fish stocks and then allocated to levy-payers as was intended by the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) in 2004. 
This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the Fisheries Act 1996 so that it can better achieve its purpose which is of course to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources in this country and in our waters at the same time as ensuring sustainability. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This is the kind of situation that comes only once in a career I would have thought. The Government put a bill before the Primary Production Committee with all the numbers in the world and most parties supported the bill because they believed it deserved some scrutiny. Then when the Government bill was scrutinised by the select committee one by one the committee members have fallen away. The support for the bill has dropped off. National New Zealand First and ACT have dropped off supporting the Government bill. The Greens who love those guys on the Government side of the House have dropped off and no longer support the bill. A vote in the select committee on this bill was lost by a majority and that was reported back to the House. What did the Government members on that committee say in meek quiet voices? They said they would not write a minority report. That is what they said to us; they said they would not write a minority report. They have not written one for 5 years—not since they were last in Opposition. They have forgotten how to write a minority report because they did not think that situation would come up so they said they would not write one. The sad thing is that members will not hear a speech—certainly not a passionate one—about this bill from the Labour Party members who were on that select committee. 
The Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is absolutely absurd and the National Party opposes it. We oppose it for lots of reasons but we have three main ones. The first reason is that we do not believe that the majority of highly migratory species should come into the quota management system. The second reason is that we do not think the Government has thought long and hard enough about tendering off the rest of the rats-and-mice species that swim around in our seas. Thirdly we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat which drifts around the ocean minding its own business into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island. That is why we do not support this bill. 
I have heard a little rumour. I want to tell David Carter about it because I do not think he has heard it yet. He will laugh because he was the chairman of the select committee. We had a lot of assistance in drafting our majority report against this bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: From the Labour members? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We had assistance from the Labour members and more assistance from the Green member. The Green member opposed this bill vehemently. 
Hon David Carter 
: He lost his head. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: He did. He wrote pages—screeds—for the majority report recommending that the bill not pass but I have heard a little rumour that he will support the Government and vote for this bill. At the last minute he did a little deal and he will vote for the bill in its last readings even though he wrote the majority report that stated that the bill should not proceed. That is a sad sad thing indeed. 
National supports the quota management system as the best system to sustainably utilise most of the fisheries stocks in the New Zealand economic zone. That is sensible. But tuna and other highly migratory species are in New Zealand waters for a very short time. They are targeted by lots of countries on the high seas and in other countries’ fisheries waters. They are being hammered by many of those nations and we pick up 2 or 3 percent of the catch of those species in our fisheries waters. To argue that New Zealand can effectively manage a fish stock that spends only a short portion of its life in our fisheries waters is absolutely absurd. It is important to note also that neither albacore nor skipjack tuna is under fishing pressure from any nation let alone from New Zealand which means that capping New Zealand’s catch for sustainability reasons is entirely unnecessary. 
We are particularly concerned that the legislation will allow highly migratory species to be brought into the quota management system prematurely. If they are brought into the quota management system it means that skipjack and albacore tuna and every other highly migratory species will have a cap on its catch by New Zealand fishers only. That means that when we make an international agreement about how many tonnes of a fish species can be caught all the other countries will point to New Zealand and say that we only caught 500 tonnes. All our fishers will say that that is because the Government stopped them from catching any more than that but the other countries will say that is too bad. They will say that that is our quota figure because that is all we have ever caught and that is all we will ever catch under the agreement. I say and National says that that is wrong. Why should we cap New Zealand’s catch when other nations are fishing highly migratory species all over the world and particularly in the Pacific region with no limit at all? If those species are brought into the quota management system before an agreement is signed New Zealand’s fishing industry will lose an opportunity to build up a more realistic catch history. That is absolutely absurd and unfair. 
That is not the only issue. We are also concerned about the by-catch quota—moonfish shark and broadbill swordfish. The catch history years for by-catch species do not line up with the catch history years for the target species. That means that someone who catches by-catch species will not proportionally catch target species at the same volumes. I do not think the Government or the Ministry of Fisheries has looked at that matter particularly well at all. 
The requirement that 20 percent of the tuna caught in New Zealand waters be given over to Maori is absolutely inconsistent with the intent of the deed of settlement. We completely agree with the statement in the deed of settlement that 20 percent of all fish species as yet unknown should be passed to Maori when they are entered into the quota management system. National absolutely supports that; Maori should get 20 percent when such a fish species goes into the quota management system. However the infinite intent of including species still unknown did not encompass the infinite spatial jurisdiction. In other words it was never intended that the quota management system go outside New Zealand’s economic zone and that therefore Maori would get 20 percent of such fish when they are caught in the territorial waters of Fiji Australia or China. That was never considered and it is absurd that the Government is considering doing that. 
The Minister should resign. I am quite disappointed that given the job straight up the Minister put the bill before our select committee. The bill had all the support in the world. The support then shrank away. It was lost at the select committee. Not even the Labour Party members had the heart to convince us or even the Greens to vote for the bill at that stage and it came back into the House with a recommendation that it should fail. 
I can only say as a final concluding remark that I am disappointed at the Green member who drafted that report back. The Green member has been bought off in some way. I do not know what it is but he was bought off in some way and he is looking to support the passage of this bill through the House even though he opposed it at the select committee. I do not know what kind of dirty deal has been done but I never thought I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles. 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s going to be the ambassador for London. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not know whether he is to be an ambassador for London but I did not think I would see the day when Ian Ewen-Street would go back on his principles. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 Difficult as it is I will try to rise to the challenge and give an impassioned speech on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). One of the first pieces of advice I ever got from the  
Gisborne Herald  
was: “Don’t ever write your column on fishing legislation.” so I will give it my best shot. 
This is one bill that did cause a flurry in the normally very tranquil Primary Production Committee. It is normally a committee of peace and reconciliation but on this occasion there were very strong differences of opinion and that is what the select committee process is about. The bill came back to the House with the recommendation that it not proceed in its current form but it also came back with a commentary that suggested ways in which this legislation could meet some of the concerns of the select committee. 
I have a little bit of advice for the National members opposite. Before they take any more calls they should read Supplementary Order Paper 246 because it does not reconcile with Mr Phil Heatley’s speech at all. It is a shame that Mr Heatley may have read the briefing notes that were handed to him by officials in the select committee but has not actually read the Supplementary Order Paper and he has given a speech on the bill as it was reported back rather than taking into account the amendments that have been made. 
One of the main changes that has been made is that the committee accepted absolutely that the bill as it was presented to the committee provided a huge disincentive for New Zealand fishers to increase our catch of the migratory species on the high seas prior to the agreement on the high seas being agreed to and ratified. There is now a trigger clause in the legislation that enables New Zealand fishers to get out there and compete for those species on the same terms as other countries. For me that removes a significant concern that the committee had when it looked at this bill. 
The second issue Mr Heatley raised was the fact that Maori will get 20 percent of the fish caught off Fiji and that is a very shallow and somewhat misleading way of representing what actually happens. Maori will get the fish that they catch. They will not get other people’s fish; they will get the fish that they get out there and fish for. What they will get is 20 percent of the quota because there is an agreement in this country between tangata whenua and other New Zealanders that says Maori get 20 percent of any fishery that goes into the quota management system. So I would suggest that that be presented in an honest light. Let us not pretend to New Zealanders that some hard-working fisherman will go out there in 20 years’ time catch 20 fish and will then have to give a couple of them to Maori because that is not the way it is. 
Hon Member 
: Four of them. 
JANET MACKEY 
: Four of them—sorry! That is why I am not the Minister of Finance. But I would like to think that this House was mature enough to present that situation accurately responsibly and in a proper light. I also recommend to Mr Heatley that he check to see whether skipjack and albacore are still there because I think he needs to just check it. I still think he has an opportunity to go away and read that Supplementary Order Paper and if he wants a little bit of help he can come over to this side of the House and we will give him some assistance. 
The bill has come back to the House with a number of recommendations and a number of changes and as a Government member I am very comfortable with supporting this legislation. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 There is no question that this bill was a very flawed piece of legislation when it came to the Primary Production Committee and we were very concerned at a lot of the things that were in it and a lot of the things that were not in it. We applied to the Business Committee for an extension of time so that we could make amendments to the bill to make it a reasonable piece of legislation but leave to do that was declined by the Minister. We had no option at that point but to report back officially as a majority—and I say “officially” in inverted commas—so that we could make amendments in the House. 
I still believe that this is very poor legislation. We have the opportunity in this House to put some of the wrongs in the bill right during the Committee stage. If the bill does not get to the Committee stage then we cannot put it right. So what members have to do is support this bill to the Committee stage but I want to stress very clearly to the Minister that I am not supporting the bill per se as it stands but on the basis firstly that the Supplementary Order Paper will address some of the wrongs and secondly on the basis of undertakings that the Minister has made to me personally. Members have to recognise that this bill is deeply flawed and that we do have to change it. 
The move to open tendering is something that I applaud. It should have happened a long time ago. Obviously the catch history years have been a deeply flawed method of allocation. I just wish the Government had had the courage to introduce open tendering for scampi as well in this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The word “courage” is out of order. The member must not challenge the Government’s courage. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The word’s “boldness”. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I thank Mr Prebble. I wish the Government had had the boldness to do it for scampi but it did not for this one. 
It is very interesting to look at the catch history for other species that are introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper and I noted with some mirth the presence of prawn killers. I am sure my select committee colleagues will remember the case of prawn killers. It was discovered in the scampi inquiry that Simunovich Fisheries had landed some hundred-odd tonnes of prawn killers allegedly as by-catch for scampi. Scampi of course are trawled from the bottom of the ocean at depths of around 300 to 500 metres and prawn killers are not only tropical shallow water dwellers but they also live solitary existences and have never been caught in commercial quantities anywhere in the world—except for Simunovich’s catch. 
I have to agree with Mr Heatley on the green-lipped mussels. Why do we have to bring them into the quota management system at this stage? It is simply does not make sense. I do not think I can add much to the arguments that particularly Mr Heatley has put forward about the highly migratory species though I do take exception to his idea that Maori should not be entitled to quota caught outside the economic zone of New Zealand. The deed of settlement in 1992 quite clearly says that Maori are entitled to 20 percent of all new species that are brought into the quota management system—full stop. I do not think there is any kind of argument that we can have there. 
The issues that I would like to focus on are the geoducks and whelks to start off with and cockles and pipi. Geoducks and whelks do not really come into this bill per se but they suffer a consequence of the bill being passed. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is this an issue you caved in on? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: This is an issue that the Minister has given me an assurance will be addressed by him—and this is exactly what I was getting to—[ 
Interruption 
] I wish the Minister were here. It is not in the Supplementary Order Paper and what we are doing here is discussing the second reading. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Where is the Minister? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I wish the Minister were present. I daresay he will be listening. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Member 
: He is busy running the country somewhere. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Yes he is busy running the country somewhere. 
 Westhaven Shellfish is a company from Golden Bay at the top of the South Island that has been farming geoducks and whelks for some years. Because of the incompetence—some would say the deliberate obstruction—of the ministry it was not given the catch history it was entitled to in the catch history years of 1990 to 1992. Westhaven Shellfish went to court and won its case. It proved beyond any doubt that the ministry was wrong and it was right. The consequence of this bill for Westhaven Shellfish is that without the intervention of the Primary Production Committee it would basically have gone back to square one. The ministry said that it would allow Westhaven Shellfish to apply for a permit—that is fine but everybody else can also apply for a permit. Westhaven Shellfish has been through the ropes done the hard yards and proved its case so it is incumbent on the ministry to do the right thing. 
I would like to quote a paragraph from the select committee report because I think it is really relevant to the whole way that the ministry has dealt with small fishers. “As previously stated we accept that departments can make mistakes. Once recognised however the focus should be on rectifying the mistake rather than on defending a questionable past decision. Rather than simply moving from one management regime to another the ministry could more constructively use its resources and energy in focusing on rectifying errors and injustices especially where these have been found by the courts to be unlawful and unfair.” That is particularly true in the case of Westhaven Shellfish. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why are you voting for it? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I tell Mr Heatley that the Minister has undertaken with me that Westhaven Shellfish will be given its allocation for both— 
Phil Heatley 
: Where is the Minister? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: —I am not answerable for the Minister—geoducks and whelks. 
I want to move on to the subject of cockles because that is a classic case of unbelievable incompetence by the ministry. [ 
Interruption 
] Everybody agrees that it was a cock-up that was exacerbated by the 1996 fisheries amendment bill. I think the Minister agrees that it was a cock-up. Basically what happened was that eight people were farming cockles. One of those eight decided he wanted to buy out some of the others and five of the others decided that they were prepared to sell. But because they were fishing under an exploratory permit they could not sell their personal shares but they could convert their personal allocation into a legal entity that was a company. Then the shares in that company could be sold. So that one operator bought five other shares so he had six shares and two other operators had one each. Subsequently they found that the 1996 Act said that both the original share in the private holding and the subsequent share in the company holding were entitled to a quota allocation so instead of eight there were 13. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why are you voting for it then? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: Mr Heatley is clearly a very slow learner. We cannot rectify this situation unless the bill reaches the Committee stage where we can move amendments. [ 
Interruption 
] It could go back to the select committee. That is a possibility too. 
The cockle allocation can be resolved in exactly the same way as the pipi allocation foreshadowed in the Supplementary Order Paper. One can simply say that rather than take away something from the people who got a double-dipping allocation the three parties that missed out on the double-dipping can be given an increased allocation. Everybody knows that that is fair even the people who got the double dipping. What did the ministry say? It said: “We can’t be unfair to those guys because they have been double-dipping for 2 years now and they’ve got a business case going and therefore we can’t take it away from them.” Well I am sorry but the ministry’s job is to be fair and to administer the fishery and I do not think it is doing it in a reasonable way in this particular case. 
I was shocked during the select committee hearing to realise that the bill included three species that are on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora list—they are endangered species. The ministry was proposing to put three endangered species into the quota management system. What sort of signal does that send to other countries? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I came down to the House this evening to debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That is the one I have in my hand. In fact what we are discussing this evening is not the bill but the Minister of Fisheries’ Supplementary Order Paper 246 which was brought down to the House and given to members at the eleventh hour. He is expecting this House— 
Phil Heatley 
: 17 pages. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It has 17 pages. We are not debating the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) in any real sense; we are debating a Supplementary Order Paper with amendments that the Minister says are minor and technical adjustments. Well that is just not correct. 
I heard Janet Mackey try in some rather—I would not call it pathetic—small way to justify the treatment this bill received from our Primary Production Committee. She was quite right; our select committee generally speaking because there are no Government subsidies involved in agriculture or fishing passes the legislation that comes before it. There is a lot of unanimity amongst the members and we generally find a sensible solution. But as soon as we turned the pages of this bill we found that it was fit for the round filing cabinet and it was into the bin with it. It was an appalling piece as befits I guess this new Minister of Fisheries. He has been in the job long enough to know that he should not put an outrageous bill before the committee. 
But the real reason the Minister wants the bill withdrawn has not been discussed at any length this evening. The real reason he is withdrawing it is because it allocates to Maori 20 percent of quota of migratory species caught—not in our territorial waters and not within our exclusive zone of up to 200 kilometres—in the South China Sea. How many people in this country would tolerate for one second quota caught in the South China Sea or off Kiribati going to Maori? The Minister has recognised that there would be huge political embarrassment over this bill and his colleague Trevor Mallard who is responsible for trying to keep the Government’s credibility on racial matters half-reasonable— 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s losing that battle. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: —he is losing that battle as Mr Ardern says—has told him that the bill must be changed. 
Hon Member 
: He’s changed it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Yes he has changed it but not totally. The Government has tried to buy time. It has said that when it gets some agreement to a regional plan for the South China Sea and right down to the South Pacific down to New Zealand—maybe in 5 or 10 years’ time—it will bring it into the quota management system. Nobody I am sure—well perhaps the Greens might be a bit diffident about it—would disagree that the quota management system is far and away the best fisheries management tool. There is no dissension on that issue at all. But we strongly disagree that migratory species like tuna caught in those faraway places should be brought into the quota management system. 
 I got the Parliamentary Library to check thoroughly for me whether in fact the deed of settlement—the Waitangi Fisheries claim—had any relevance or reference to fish caught in international waters. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever in the deed of settlement to fish caught outside the exclusive economic zone in international waters—none. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In the South China Sea. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well quite rightly there was no reference to that but what is referred to is— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Well Winston says Maoris come from China. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well some say they come from the coast of Taiwan and I just have this visual picture of Parekura Horomia paddling his canoe out in the South China Sea dropping a hook overboard and hauling in a lovely 200 kilogram tuna. It is stretching the issue is it not? 
Under this legislation fish caught in the South China Sea can be brought into the quota management system and automatically there is a 20 percent allocation to Maori. That was never intended under the deed of settlement yet under this bill it would happen. But because there is huge political sensitivity around this matter at this time the Government has decided it will delay it. It will still come in ultimately but the Government will delay it. 
This bill is also about buying votes. It is about taking 20 percent of the mussel spat catch which is owned essentially or controlled by a handful of people who once this spat goes into the quota management system will have to hand over 20 percent of their allocation of their expertise and of their knowledge. It will have to be handed over immediately to Maori as soon as this bill gets the royal assent. I say and the ACT party says that this is wrong. That is why we oppose mussel spat going into the quota management system. It is not because we are opposed to sensible management at all; in fact we are highly in favour of such matters but it is totally and utterly inappropriate to take 20 percent of what is essentially a property right away from the present catchers of mussel spat and place it into the quota management system. That really is what this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper are about. 
I would like the Minister to take another call on this if he can and explain to us why this Supplementary Order Paper came down at the 11th hour because what should happen with it—and many have said it is a complex—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is twice that a very senior member of the Opposition the Hon Murray McCully has referred to the absence of a member. Everyone in this House knows that is not allowed under the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is actually Speaker’s ruling 23/7. If the member did that then he knows that he should not have done so. I ask him to desist. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The Minister has studiously avoided the embarrassing questions around this bill. He just refuses to address the questions that people listening in to this debate really want to hear answered. The bill was examined at length it was discussed at length it was dissected and it was recommended that it not proceed. That was almost unheard of. Certainly in my time in this House I have never been a member of a select committee where the so-called Opposition actually won the debate. That embarrassed the members of this Government enormously so the Minister and his ministry have scuttled down at the 11th hour with this complex Supplementary Order Paper and they expect the members of this House to absorb it in 5 minutes then pass it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It should go back to the select committee. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Mr Prebble is absolutely right—it should go to the Primary Production Committee where we could examine it properly. Issues have been raised by Ian Ewen-Street. I very rarely agree with the man but on this occasion he has raised one or two issues that should be addressed properly by the select committee. I believe that that should happen and I am hoping that that will be the case. 
 Government members are hugely embarrassed by their Minister. This measure is about buying votes and buying time so that the Government can retain some vestige of credibility in the eyes of the fishing industry. But those who understand this issue will recognise that this measure is nothing more than a barefaced attempt at buying votes into the future. The ACT party will be listening with bated breath in the Committee stage to see how it finally pans out but the bill should not proceed at this time. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) where we debate the report of the Primary Production Committee which has recommended to the House that this bill be discharged. The honourable member Janet Mackey commented earlier that it is a good select committee and that its members have often enjoyed very good working relationships but clearly something has gone wrong on this occasion. The committee became convinced that enough was enough and that it would simply recommend that this bill be discharged. I do not have any criticism of the select committee. As I look at the task and at the long journey it has had working with the scampi issue and then the issues in this bill I can certainly understand its frustration. What seems to have occurred is a breakdown of trust in the Ministry of Fisheries officials who have been giving it advice amongst other things. So in what I have to say here there is no criticism of the select committee having arrived at this point. 
United Future does not have a member on the committee so we have not had to go through that arduous process but we were asked by the Government for help when the committee made the decision to recommend that the bill be discharged. As United Future members are not lapdogs but guide dogs we were prepared to lend our assistance and give some guidance on this occasion. I had to ask myself whether the industry wanted this bill to proceed. I had discussions with the Seafood Industry Council and other players in the industry and the answer that I received was that yes there were things in this legislation that needed to be passed. I also asked whether everything would be OK if this bill were discharged and the answer was that no there would be things left unresolved and that some things in the bill that were being complained about would actually continue. For example mussel spat entering the quota management system would continue regardless except it would be in a form that was not acceptable to those involved in the industry. 
So we began discussions to resolve the committee’s concerns because we take seriously the deliberations of the committee and the things it has mentioned in its report. I began to work through those issues and I am grateful to the Minister’s adviser Steve Hurring who has worked very hard throughout this process in giving us assistance and answering the questions we had and also to the Ministry of Fisheries although I have to say that every time we met with the ministry we met a different person. That may well be part of the problem here—the lines of accountability and who is covering what. It is difficult to have to face someone new every time one has a new question to ask. 
We believe that the issues in the committee’s report have been addressed by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 which he has alluded to tonight and by other undertakings that he has given. I can confirm that some of the undertakings that Ian Ewen-Street has referred to are part of our giving our support for the second reading at least at this point. As I said earlier they relate to the things that the select committee has raised in its report such as the changing of the quota allocation system and the shifting to a tendering process which we believe is a worthwhile transition. In fact in hindsight I think some of us might look back at the way that quota was allocated in 1991 and 1992 and think it should have been tendered right from the very beginning because people have been given a right in perpetuity that perhaps they no longer deserve. If they have completely ended fishing and simply are living on the proceeds of leasing out their quota I hardly think that is a fair system. However that is the one we have to deal with. 
The issues that the Seafood Industry Council and Te Ohu Kai Moana raised about some of the property rights being allocated for by-catch or catch history are now being addressed in a new schedule 4D and we will debate those in the Committee stage as the bill proceeds. 
 With regard to the issue with green-lipped mussel spat as I said earlier it is going to enter the quota management system anyway. I have had discussions with different players in the industry and had different responses from them. Some welcome it coming in and some believe all of that species should come in because the quota management system works more effectively when everything is in it. Others are concerned about the level of total allowable commercial catch that will be set when the green-lipped mussel spat comes in and I believe there is room for the Government to make a very generous allocation there. It may involve the Crown holding some of that quota for future tendering which would offset any move from those who have the quota to operate a monopoly in any way or to push up the prices. I think there is room for those concerns to be addressed. 
The issue with the highly migratory species is being dealt with by the exclusion of those not yet under international agreements from the quota management system on the high seas until those international agreements are passed. In particular skipjack which is the species of greatest concern because we want to build up a good catch history of it will not come into even the inshore quota management system. In respect of albacore I have had representations from a number of people in the industry who want to see it now come in within our 200-mile zone. I think that will address their concerns. 
I understand that the issue of by-catch which many people feel left out of because the years do not line up for the allocation of bluefin will be addressed by a preferential tendering process. We will be watching very carefully to see how that eventuates but we have had an undertaking that that will be the case so that the by-catch can be made available to those who need it in order to carry on with the bluefin quota that they will be allocated. With regard to Westhaven Shellfish Ltd which Ian Ewen-Street referred to we take the Minister at his word that he will act honourably on it and respect the wish of the court which has already made some deliberations on that issue. With regard to the cockle fishery and issues that relate to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora I think we will find some amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper that address those concerns. 
I want to conclude my remarks by addressing an issue that relates to kahawai which we will put into this bill. We have an opportunity here to address something that I believe is very serious. Another injustice may be perpetrated in the fishing industry if we do not address it. Some may say that kahawai is not part of this bill as it has already been gazetted to enter the quota management system and the Minister has already allocated the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch for it. But with the Clerk’s confirmation to us today that my Supplementary Order Paper 247 is within the scope of this bill I say to those who would say that kahawai is not in the bill that it is now. I will table a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House to revoke effectively the  
Gazette 
 notice bringing kahawai in with the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch levels that the Minister has publicly communicated because it ignores the concerns of the recreational fishing groups in this country that have lobbied long and hard to convince the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister that kahawai is no longer available for them as a recreational fish to catch. 
I acknowledge that the Green Party has also campaigned long and hard for the removal of purse seine fishing with regard to kahawai and we look forward to Green Party support for this Supplementary Order Paper and I believe the support of other members in this House. I know that Winston Peters is a great fisherman and many of the members in New Zealand First will have a concern about this issue. I am sure people in the National Party and ACT will know many people who are very concerned about it. We had an email campaign of nearly 2000 emails from people around this country. I have received more emails on kahawai than I did on the Civil Union Bill. People were saying they can no longer find kahawai to catch. It has been stolen from them by a mistake made by the Ministry of Fisheries when it allowed purse seine fishing to target kahawai. It has always been accepted that it could be a by-catch but its being targeted by spotter planes and purse seine vessels is an injustice to the recreational fishermen of New Zealand and we want to see that issue addressed in this legislation. 
We really do hope for the support of all the parties in this House for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have made it very clear to the Minister that our support for this legislation is only for its second reading. If we do not see that Supplementary Order Paper pass through the Committee stage we will not support this bill’s third reading. This issue is another injustice that needs to be prevented and this bill deals with many issues like that. I believe that the members on the select committee will be very sympathetic and supportive because of the number of times the Ministry of Fisheries has made mistakes and been unable or unwilling to correct them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not expect that my call will be very long. I have listened with interest to the contributions made by members and I have to say that I think the substance of the bill has been well canvassed. I am taking a call because I am concerned about the issue of democracy in this place. We have the Greens once wanting to discharge the bill and if Mr Heatley is correct they actually wrote a large part of the majority report. We heard from United Future which did not have a member on the Primary Production Committee commenting on the bill. United Future is supporting a Supplementary Order Paper about 50 percent the size of the bill. If Mr Baldock believes in democracy he should be standing up and telling the Government to send the bill back to the select committee with the Supplementary Order Paper so that the issue can be thrashed out properly and New Zealanders can have a say on this substantial Supplementary Order Paper which is half the size of the bill. He should not have stood up and told the House that he had had a little patsy talk with the Minister and wanted to agree on the legislation and that he knows better than the whole of Parliament. 
Larry Baldock 
: I read that member’s report. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Baldock needs to read it again and he will see that New Zealand First stands for ethics and integrity. We believe that far too often when bills come to this House a large Supplementary Order Paper is tabled and then the bill as amended is passed in the dead of night but the public has had no opportunity to comment on it. 
Mr Ewen-Street implied he had a personal assurance from the Minister—and it is not in this Supplementary Order Paper—of some magnitude by the sound of it. The Minister has not taken a call to comment one way or the other. But for that reason Mr Ewen-Street is supporting the bill. He should be ashamed of himself. New Zealand First will be consistent. We have major concerns about this bill. We will oppose it. We have made those views clear. I hope the National Party takes on board the comments we have made about ethics with regard to the way this legislation has been handled. New Zealand First will oppose this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Whenever I am looking at fisheries legislation I am glad that I live in a landlocked electorate because I think these issues are quite difficult to get one’s head around. I compliment the Minister David Benson-Pope on the work he has done. He took over the portfolio in the middle of the process and has had a good deal to sort out and work through. I thank him for the work he has done in this regard. 
I am a member of the Regulations Review Committee and I feel somewhat overwhelmed when we get fisheries regulations and have to understand how the quota management system works. I thank members of the Primary Production Committee—although there is a lot of banter going on here tonight—for the work they have done. I am sure other members of the House are very grateful because those of us who are not involved in fisheries find that some of the terminology and discussions about the quota management system tend to make our eyes glaze over. The select committee has done a good job on this extremely difficult issue for an industry that is very important for New Zealand. I say a big thank you to those involved. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
:  
I tell the member who has just resumed her seat Dianne Yates that I am familiar with fisheries legislation and I say to her that the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) is thoroughly bad legislation advanced by an absolutely incompetent Minister of Fisheries who was totally captured by his officials. The House should accept what the Primary Production Committee said and that is that the bill does not proceed. 
I have listened to the debate so far and I am bitterly disappointed with the contribution from the Green member Ian Ewen-Street. He was a valuable member of the select committee who worked with the rest of the members of that committee and contributed to a report presented to the Parliament following the select committee process in which he representing the Green Party voted for this legislation not to proceed further. I am bitterly disappointed to find in the House today as we debate this legislation that he has now had a change of heart and is saying to the House that he thinks the Minister will look after his concerns by means of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
We then had the contribution from Larry Baldock of the United Future party who true to form as a member of that party simply supports the Government and has made no attempt at all to find out what the issues are. Mr Baldock said that he understood the Minister was to be taken at his word with regard to the content of the Supplementary Order Paper because the Minister is an honourable member. 
Well I have to say after reading Supplementary Order Paper 246 which was dropped into the House earlier today that I cannot be convinced that Ian Ewen-Street and Larry Baldock are correct and that this Supplementary Order Paper addresses the concerns raised by either of those members or more important raised by the select committee. I have had the opportunity of talking to some of the other members in the House tonight and to be honest none of the select committee members whom I have spoken to completely understand the content of this very sizable Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore on that basis I will be putting a notice of motion for the Order Paper tomorrow suggesting that Supplementary Order Paper 246 goes back to the select committee so that the select committee can analyse this legislation in depth and find out what the Supplementary Order Paper does. 
It is important when we go through the select committee process and have the opportunity to hear the numerous submissions that are put before it that we then have the opportunity as a select committee to analyse consider and deliberate on those submissions. It is very very significant when a select committee by majority concludes that legislation is so bad that it should not proceed. Yet we have the feeble signing on to the Government policy by both the Green member and the United Future member both of whom have the gall to come into the House tonight and acknowledge that they do not understand the content of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Now I am not critical of the fact that they do not understand its content. As the person who chaired the select committee and as a person who studied this legislation in detail I also do not understand the content of that Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore it is absolutely critical that the Government allow the opportunity for that Supplementary Order Paper to go back to the select committee so the members can have a look at the content and find out what it does. Then I will accept Ian Ewen-Street’s position if after that education process he is inclined to change his mind. I will fully accept that process. But I find it galling in the extreme for Mr Ian Ewen-Street to be changing his mind now on the basis of the Supplementary Order Paper which he himself acknowledges he does not understand. 
The third point I want to make with regard to the Supplementary Order Paper is that there is a time constraint. If this legislation is to proceed it must be enacted before the new fishing season 1 October 2004. I therefore propose that any examination of the Supplementary Order Paper be done speedily and reported back to the House by 6 September. That gives every opportunity for this legislation to then be passed if that be the intention of the House. 
It is of major significance for legislation advanced by the Government to be lost at a select committee. I sympathise with the position the Government members found themselves in. They heard the submissions. They were uneasy with the submissions. They were not comfortable with the bill proceeding. But as loyal members of the Government they found themselves in an invidious position and I respect the position they were in. 
I want to talk now about what the legislation proposes to do. The first thing it proposes to do is change the quota allocation system and move to a tendering system. I have no problem with the principle of that but what I strongly object to is that that process was done by a fake consultation process with the industry. We were told by the Ministry of Fisheries officials that they would consult and that they had consulted with the industry. The industry told us that consultation had been a total sham and under cross-examination the ministry officials acknowledged that the process had effectively been a sham because they had set too tight a time limit for the industry to respond. 
The second thing the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) does is move the management of green-lipped mussel spat into the quota management system. We saw no submissions that gave us the heart to agree that that was a sensible move. The quota management system is designed to ensure sustainability. Species are introduced into the quota management system because there is a sustainability problem. The select committee learnt through the process that there is not a sustainability problem with the spat that is harvested off the Ninety Mile Beach area in Northland and we saw no good reason as a select committee why that particular aspect of the bill needed to be advanced. 
I move to the most important part of the bill which is the Government’s attempt to extend the quota management system well beyond the New Zealand economic zone. The significance of that is that all parties acknowledge that when a species comes into the quota management system because of the 1992 deed of settlement legislation Maori are entitled to 20 percent. When that legislation was passed it was always envisaged that that would be for species caught within New Zealand territorial waters. What we now have is an extraordinary attempt by the Government to give allocation to Maori on species caught as far afield as Fiji—and anywhere else in the world. That was never the intention of the deed of settlement in 1992 nor should it be now. 
We had a contribution from my deputy chair Janet Mackey who assured us that the species skipjack tuna and albacore tuna about which there are no sustainability issues are now excluded by the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Minister today. I have gone through that Supplementary Order Paper and I cannot see where that is the case. That is the basis on which the Greens have accepted that they will now vote for the legislation at this stage. 
There should be no attempt by any Parliament of New Zealand to extend the deed of settlement beyond the economic zone of New Zealand. It was inherently designed for the quota management system within our 200-mile zone and should not under any circumstances be extended. 
The final issue I want to raise briefly is the three particular submissions presented to us by Sea-Right Investments Ltd Westhaven Shellfish Ltd and a third one to do with the cockle industry. Those people raised legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. I am far from convinced that the Supplementary Order Paper does that but we should wait until it is recommitted to the select committee so that we can further examine it. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 As has been said earlier in the debate this bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 Act and the Fisheries Act 1983 and it has some very positive aspects to it. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system and it corrects some problems that have occurred previously with the current quota allocation mechanisms that were identified—in particular during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system. 
This bill is important. It provides for revisions to the Fisheries Act 1996. Some of those very positive aspects are the reinforcement of the quota management system as the most preferred framework for managing our very valuable fisheries resources. It provides more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries it revises the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and it removes the permit moratorium that is quite unnecessarily impeding the use of fisheries resources. 
But overall one of the aspects of this bill that is important to the ongoing management of this incredibly valuable resource is the sustainability aspect of it. We all know of fishery resources throughout the world that have been absolutely depleted when poor management has come to a crisis point. Hundreds of jobs are lost and the economy of regions is decimated. Our system here in New Zealand is highly regarded internationally for its forward management aspects. That is why this bill is a good bill. It provides for the utilisation of fisheries while still ensuring that important element of sustainability. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Like the rest of my National colleagues I rise in opposition to the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). [ 
Interruption 
] I know that that will come as a surprise to my colleagues over there. There are a number of reasons and if they just hold their horses for a moment I shall explain those reasons to them. 
It was interesting to note earlier on that the member from United Future Larry Baldock said that he was the “guide dog”. As far as I can tell instead of leading the Government members out of the dark he has led them right into the dark—and I base that on the contribution of the member for Wanganui. Clearly she is not absolutely au fait with this bill. There are a number of reasons why the fishing industry in New Zealand is a very important industry. Primarily it is because it is a major export industry. It employs about 25000 people and last year its exports were worth between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. It is a substantial industry. We have to wonder then why we are here tonight in such a mess over legislation that went to a very good select committee which recommended that the bill not proceed. Yet we are here tonight debating the bill—or at least we are debating a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that has just been introduced by a Minister in the eleventh hour of this process. 
So there are a number of reasons why I stand here tonight in opposition to this bill. One reason is that the legislation is an absolute abuse of parliamentary process. We have a major industry—[ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting that the member over there interjects. Clayton Cosgrove is a senior member of the Primary Production Committee. He has been on that select committee for a long long time—he was there when I was first on it—and he has not taken a call on this bill tonight. With such an important industry as the fishing industry being debated we have not had a single peep out of that senior Government member other than interjections. I invite him to take a call. That would be the way to clear up some of the misunderstanding the member says that I may have about this legislation. 
Let us come back to the bill for a moment—or more important all 17 pages of the Supplementary Order Paper. It is not often that we come to the House and pick up a Supplementary Order Paper that is 17 pages long. That does not happen very often. Further it is not often that a Supplementary Order Paper is introduced into the House a few hours before we are due to debate the bill. That is an abuse of the parliamentary process. 
This legislation is supposed to put a cap on the highly migratory fish species. On the surface that would sound fair enough to someone who has not been close to the process. However if one talked to select committee members and read the submissions one would find out that that means that we are now going to introduce fish that are caught off the coast of Fiji or Bangladesh or somewhere else like that; North America South America or anywhere one can imagine in the world into the— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Switzerland. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is a very good point! Earlier a member took a call and said that she had come from a landlocked electorate like Switzerland. I would suggest that my electorate is bigger than Switzerland. It has a longer area of coast than Israel or Switzerland. The member would be surprised to hear that. In fact it is bigger than Israel and sometimes just as hostile but that has nothing to do with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). That was a nice diversion. 
This bill is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary system. It is also interesting to note that the Green Party has done a complete U-turn. It has been bought out and I do not think that it was for some loaves and fishes either. I think it was for something more substantial than that. We have not found out what it was for but we know that the Green members have been bought off because they have done a U-turn. That is not unusual. There are many many occasions in this House when they talk tough on a range of issues and then come to the House with a completely different approach from the one that they had taken during the select committee process. 
The select committee process is the correct place for the detail of this debate to take place. That is why my very good colleague the chairman of the Primary Production Committee the Hon David Carter has suggested that the Supplementary Order Paper be resubmitted to that select committee—all 17 pages of it that virtually rewrite what was intended in the bill that was voted down by majority in the select committee. I think that would be a very good way forward for the Supplementary Order Paper. Members could then look at the detail talk to the officials again and sort out some of the loose issues that exist. 
A further issue that needs to be debated here is the issue of mussel spat. I was fortunate enough to spend a few hours at the select committee one day filling in for somebody and I became very informed on the mussel spat issue. Apparently mussel spat is in plentiful supply some years and in other years it is very hard to find. It seems to me that it will be very difficult firstly to establish a quota for that and secondly even if a quota is established how will it be managed? That seems a perfectly reasonable question. I wish that the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Who knows? Maybe he will during the Committee stage. Maybe the senior member Clayton Cosgrove from the Government side will take a call and explain to this House how that will happen. Those who discussed this at the select committee said that it would not be physically possible particularly if one was chasing that mussel spat right over to Fiji. Further the fisheries season starts on 1 October. Therefore it is important that these regulations are in place for the beginning of the new season. Given the mess that that Minister has left this legislation in and the 17-page Supplementary Order Paper he has introduced there is no way that this can be carried out in a timely sensible normal parliamentary process. 
 I ask the members opposite—the Ministers whoever; somebody over there—to please take a call and explain to us why it is that they have allowed this process to get to this point as it has in such a mess. The only conclusion we can come to on this side of the House is that the Minister himselfhas made an absolute mess of it and has not managed the process. He is a new Minister—we will give him credit for that—and probably a very short-lived Minister by the sound of it. His time surely must have expired given the mess he has made over this legislation. 
The other issue that has been discussed tonight is that of the green-lipped mussel. I do not think there is any reference here to the Green Party—but there could be. I think it is a fish species. There has been some reference to that tonight. Further how do we introduce—and this was a fair enough question from someone who genuinely does not know—the aquafarming part of that business into the quota management system? One does not have to. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I want to know how it can happen. Who here knows? Does the chairman know? 
Hon David Carter 
: Farmed seafoods will effectively be excluded. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That answers that question. The member says that farmed seafoods or aquaculture is excluded. But then the chair of the select committee himself said that he does not know or does not understand what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. So can he be sure of that? Can he be sure that the Minister and his incompetent management have not included aquaculture into this 17-page Supplementary Order Paper so that now the green-lipped mussels are actually caught up in this process? 
Phil Heatley 
: What about chocolate fish? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Chocolate fish were certainly debated in the earlier part of it and certainly they are a migratory species in our house. They move around fairly quickly and the quota management system does not work well either. 
I wonder how fair this process has been when I look at the fact that we are here tonight with a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper that nobody understands or has had time to read. I am sure the Minister has not simply because he has not made any reference to it at all during this debate or tried to clear up some of the questions. I know that the select committee members who sat through the submission process on this bill have no idea what is in this Supplementary Order Paper and do not understand it. Therefore this whole Supplementary Order Paper should go back to the select committee so that the committee can have a look at it. 
There is another interesting breed here which I think needs to be touched on again tonight and that is whole concept of being able to introduce the like of geoduck into the quota management system. Our spokesperson on fisheries tells me that there is such a thing as a geoduck and I know that the member Ian Ewen-Street is very passionate about geoduck because I have heard him talk about them ad nauseam tonight. I am curious to know how we are going to manage geoduck that are caught off the coast of Brazil in the quota management system. I want someone in the Government to explain to me how that will be so. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am really interested to follow on from that member. I was told that he was supposed to be the person to chair the Primary Production Committee but he was overtaken by Mr David Carter. I am not surprised now because when a member boasts that his electorate of Taranaki has a longer coastline than Switzerland one has to wonder about the intellectual rigour of his argument. 
The second thing the member made reference to was migratory species and he talked about fish off Bangladesh fish in Fiji and so on as though fish recognise national boundaries. They simply do not and that is the point I make to the member. If we are going to preserve our fish stocks in the ocean then we have to look at the fish as part of that great entity the ocean. It will not be possible to have a quota management system that looks after some and simply says that some people can take some here somebody can take some there and other countries can take some somewhere else etc. New Zealand has to play a part in that. Simply to ignore the issue— 
Hon Member 
: So are you voting against the bill as well? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is why this issue is going to be in the bill and in the Supplementary Order Paper. Members over there apparently cannot get their heads around 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper. The member preceding me Mr Ardern claimed that no one understands it and I think I can take from that that he means he cannot understand it. I think he should get his researchers to give him some better speaking notes. This is a good piece of legislation that has been well managed through the House by an excellent Minister and I look forward to supporting it all the way. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 246 be referred back to the Primary Production Committee for further consideration. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 12 August. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 National members have opposed this bill and when I last spoke I gave a number of technical reasons that were to do with its retrospectivity and unfairness. But one of the reasons why I strongly oppose the bill is that it expresses some basic philosophy of the current Government. I will tell members why. Labour works on a very simple recipe for Government: “Reward those people whom you regard as your loyal friends and punish everyone else—and do it with cash.” That is what is happening here.  
This bill is all about punishing the people whom Government members do not like—that is the private providers of education for international students. It does not matter whether the provider is a public provider; they will just mess up the market by sending a Minister to China—and that has cut into their income which they are really regretting. When the students get to New Zealand the public providers are left alone but the private providers are not. There has never been an explanation for this because the explanation is publicly untenable. It is simply that Trevor Mallard and the Labour Party do not like people who invest private capital into education. They regard that as an abomination of education. The fact that private providers attract thousands of students is by the by. So this bill to levy those providers—and it does so in an unfair manner—is expressive of the Government’s habitual instinct to punish the people whom it believes do not vote for it.  
We are passing this bill on a day when it has been revealed that the Government has decided to spend $8 million of education money on rewarding its friends—the teachers who have chosen to join the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA). They are to get a $500 cash payment which has nothing to do with their merits as teachers nothing to do with the needs of the children they are teaching but purely to do with the fact they have joined the teachers union. The other 3500 teachers who do exactly the same job will not get a cent. 
Simon Power 
: Not a dime! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Not a dime! Through the school boards parents will be asked to make up the difference of $500 per teacher for those who have not joined the union. At least when we have talked about the education export levy the Minister has given some explanation for why he has done it. I do not agree with the explanation. But when we talked to him about the levy on parents to pay the $500 for the teachers who are not members of the union there was no explanation whatsoever. So the bill as it winds to the end of its sad and lonely path through this Parliament is expressive of those basic philosophical prejudices held by the Government. It is expressive of the way in which it rewards its friends by giving them cash and punishes its enemies by taxing or levying them. 
The House needs to be reminded that this bill started out in much worse shape than it is now. When Mr Mallard is sitting in his office with his officials away from the glare of the common-sense views of the public and the Opposition his prejudices are expressed in a much more virulent form. Fortunately through the process of public scrutiny the excesses of this legislation have been dealt with—but not all of them. Although the Government has ironed out one or two of the worst aspects of the bill it has decided that it must persist with it—even though no one thinks this levy is a good idea. 
The international education export industry is vital to New Zealand. Our schools collect $125 million worth of school fees from it. The deficit in our schools amounts to $28 million. Imagine how bad it would be without the international students. They contributed $125 million in 2002 and probably they will provide more in 2003. It is unfortunate that the Minister keeps travelling to foreign countries because that is what is putting students off from coming to New Zealand and it is unfortunate that when they do come they will have to pay higher fees in order to meet this ridiculous levy—a levy based purely on the prejudice of the Labour Party. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. I do so because this bill provides protection for the international export education institutions. As Mr Bill English has mentioned we have a $2 billion industry which is a very important sector of our export business. It is important that we have a protection in place for the international students who come to study in New Zealand because we have developed a great reputation internationally for our education system. We now have over 80000 students who need protection from any of the problems that some of these institutions have faced in the past. 
I think the only issue that arose at the Education and Science Committee was clause 5 and the Minister has agreed that it be removed. I believe this bill will now provide a very suitable protection for our education export institutions. I am pleased to support it and I commend it to the House. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill. On behalf of the only non-aligned political party in this House I want to outline first of all the negative implications not just for the segment of the education industry that we are directly talking about tonight but for New Zealand education in general. I note that the commentary on the bill states: “The main purpose of the bill is to provide statutory protection of New Zealand’s international reputation as a desirable location”— 
Pansy Wong 
: Ha ha! 
JIM PETERS 
: —the laughter is quite well merited—“where international students can study without educational or financial risk.” That was the stated intention of the bill. But when I turn to the bill I see that almost as much of the bill has been struck out as remains. One would wish the Minister and his advisers in good sense would take the whole bill back and rethink the whole issue—that is the background to this bill. 
The Minister and his advisers seem not to have had any regard for the issue of education providers and their concerns. There is no seeming recognition about plant ongoing capital expenditure quality staffing and the high cost of the on-flowing information and publicity—that is all those trade issues that go with the words “desirable” and “educational organisation” including host visits. All of that is put aside in this mean bill before us tonight. 
This bill treats all institutions in exactly the same way. Those who are confident and sound and have established at great personal cost and over time a reputation with regard to their vision of quality private education according to the registration and qualifications as set by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority are treated in exactly the same way as those institutions of dubious value of which at this point there are at least four that have failed. In other words the ministry has come to this time with a new principle and that principle is this: the prudent protect the imprudent. It almost goes alongside the Associate Minister responsible for tertiary education who confronted by the fact of irregular behaviour and funding by some tertiary institutions goes ahead and treats the whole lot in the same cavalier fashion without any regard for those who had worked according to the funding requirements and met the targeted outcomes. 
One of those institutions was Telford which has been in the news recently. It is a small training institution that is going to be severely embarrassed by the $400000 loss it will now have to look at over the next 3 years because of this new principle that the prudent protect the imprudent. All those who have not worked according to the ministry’s dictates with regard to tertiary education come under the same broad sweep of the Minister’s draconian hand. New Zealand First did not support the bill and has not supported this bill since the export education levy was first introduced. That is largely because it was very poorly done. As I said earlier this levy was too much of an impost on legitimate providers who had no option but to pay. They were given no ownership of the concept and took no real part in the process that decided the conditions and clauses in the bill. In other words this has been a decree from on high. Export education providers can say quite honestly and did say they had no say in who can provide this form of education but when the can is out there ready to collapse they carry the can. 
As I said earlier the prudent protect the imprudent. Those who do right are penalised exactly the same as those who have shown the failure we have seen over the last 2 years. The other issue that has emerged in this bill is with regard to registered private training establishments. This bill in its passage through the various stages has highlighted the complete inability of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to do its task which is mainly to monitor and analyse the actual business of accreditation auditing and monitoring of the export education sector. In fact in the brief time I was on the Education and Science Committee when the Hon Brian Donnelly was away I thought the authority’s attitude was nothing less than cavalier to say the least. When I see just recently that same attitude with regard to the excellent school that Cambridge High School is I fear for the future of that authority. 
 If there is to be accountability in the export education sector it should either be market-driven or there should be effective monitoring agencies able to detect the warning signs and act on them early. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority did not do so. We know of course that although the private providers will pay the levy ultimately the students will bear the cost through increased course costs. In turn that will make what has been a growth industry—as has already been highlighted—with significant impacts upon international education and more to come less competitive in what is now an international student market. We know that in Australia Canada the United States and Britain to name some countries there is active competition for this same market that we have. That comes against a background in some countries of Government support and subsidies. Therefore this bill with the impost it will put upon the private training provider puts us behind the eight ball in that respect. 
Another aspect of the bill is that at the end any money left over is not to be spent on the purposes outlined in the bill; it can be used for any purpose at all. That is very untidy and sits very poorly with New Zealand First. So there is a lesson for the Minister and his advisers and it is this: to correctly analyse the problems of an industry such as this one they need to talk to the providers appropriately and with a due recognition of in this case the emerging challenge of having to regain respect and restate credibility for the provision of education in this country and not resort to improper retrospective legislation. As we all know the Minister found that when there was a collapse of one institution Carich Training Centre his ministry’s power to act was invalid so he resorted to what we have before us—a blatant attempt to retrospectively try to get it right. The answer is that he has it wrong. He has it wrong in a very large way. 
The impact of the Minister’s inability to correctly analyse the situation and his inability to talk in the appropriate manner—a manner that should have brought the private providers to a recognition of the mutual problem and worked out with them answers that were mutually acceptable—means we have a result that New Zealand First could not support notwithstanding the fact that we are strong supporters of the high-quality education that can be enjoyed in this country and has been provided by private providers. This bill is not the answer and therefore we believe that it should not proceed further. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Greens to make a very short comment on the third reading of this bill. The Greens have always been very concerned about the nature of export education and the potential for exploitation of those students who are brought over here to participate in and purchase educational services. None the less our concerns about the export education levy were directed initially to ensuring that it would be used to support those international students rather than fund the general education budget or vote. 
This bill is very narrow in its scope. It ensures that international students who are unfortunately victims of institutions not capable of managing their financial circumstances do not suffer for that. We think it is important that they are properly supported and we therefore support this bill and its purposes. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we are opposed to this bill. When I look back over all the readings and speeches as well as the select committee proceedings on this bill I see one thing that stands out and it is one of the reasons United Future certainly opposes the bill—the Government has got offside with a major and important slice of the export education industry. 
This is a bill that puts the Government on one side and everybody else on the other side so that private language schools and private training establishments have been antagonised. In fact when I looked at the bill again this evening I wondered whether it could have been renamed the “How to Upset and Infuriate Export Education Providers in the Private Sector Bill”. That would have been a nice name for it. 
It is one of those bills that set out to divide and conquer. It is an aggressive bill. We were told as others have illustrated already that this bill was put into place to address the issue of accountability. Yet we understand the word “accountability” to mean for instance that if I make a mistake then I am responsible. But if someone else makes a mistake how can I be responsible for that person’s mistake if there is no connection between the two of us? 
That is one of the outstanding problems this bill fails to address. It actually states that if a private provider fails then those good providers who have nothing to do with that failure are penalised. For whatever reasons the provider fails everyone is penalised. 
All the way through the passage of this bill we had submissions. Every submitter who came to the Education and Science Committee said they were opposed to it. Accountability means that a method needs to be chosen to help everybody through the dilemma this industry faces or has faced but the method the Government has chosen is really that of putting a tax on everybody. We all know that when a tax or levy is imposed people become suspicious. In fact trust is broken in any sort of relationship when taxes are levied on people groups or companies that were never consulted before those taxes were imposed upon them. 
When submitters came and met the select committee they offered a number of cooperative suggestions and ideas which if they had been taken up would have provided a simple answer to the issues rather than put an antagonistic levy or tax on the entire private sector. One of those ideas as I recall was a call for a better bonding system for the control of those who enter the industry in the way any profession holds the people within its group accountable—for instance the Institute of Chartered Accountants the Law Society or whatever else. Another suggestion—and a very cooperative one I felt—which could easily have got the buy-in of everybody in the industry was an insurance programme. 
Others suggested that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority should have more teeth and more ability to exercise its powers or should be given powers to close down private training establishments if they were trading while insolvent. In fact that suggestion was just ignored as were a number of other suggestions given to the select committee. 
We find it embarrassing that this particular bill is an impost upon the entire industry. It is a huge and exciting industry but every time the Government has interfered in it we have noticed that a hiccup has occurred. For instance when the Minister went on a visit to China there was a further hiccup or blip in the industry. 
This tax bill will penalise only the good institutions and has therefore already affected the industry negatively. I do not know why the Government did not take a more professional approach with this whole exercise. I am not sure whether the opportunity has been lost for a recovery. 
United Future would like to suggest that the bill should be tossed out even tonight and should not go through and that the Minister should apologise withdraw the whole thing and start again and get a more cooperative programme going. That is the support approach which by the way the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee suggested was a good way in which to handle the whole thing. Although that body is not even a private training enterprise it saw that the bill was an incredibly unbusinesslike and unfriendly approach to the whole exercise. 
The Government ought to have encouraged all providers to strive for excellence. So as a result of that not happening United Future does not feel any obligation to support this bill. It is bad legislation. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is also opposed to this legislation. I agree with Mr Ogilvy from United Future that we should have thrown it out right at the beginning. This legislation illustrates the Minister’s and the Government’s attitude to education in this country. I use the legal profession as an analogy. The legal profession self-regulates. The Law Society is the gatekeeper as to who can be registered as a lawyer and practise law in this country. Sure the Law Society is backed up by statutory legislation. Nevertheless the law societies are the gatekeepers and they punish their own very swiftly when they are complained about or when they do not keep up the high standards required of them. There is no better way to keep standards high than having peer groups as the gatekeepers the people who come down in judgment on those who misbehave. 
This legislation deals with only the private education providers. They are the only ones that are being taxed. The responsible ones are being punished in order to deal with those that might in the future let students down or might not obey the legislation regarding trust accounts etc. Why did the Minister not introduce legislation for instance to tax all the polytechnics when taxpayers forked out $50 million for Wanganui Polytechnic? Why was he not consistent then? Why did he not bring in legislation then to tax all the polytechnics? Why is he punishing just the private providers? All those people out there who work very hard in the education provision industry—international or export education as we like to call it—do keep high standards and do not use money for things other than what it is paid in for but they will now be punished. Where is the incentive for institutions to adhere to the rules if they know that a slush fund exists which will grow bigger each year to bail them out if they go under? 
Instead we have the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as the gatekeeper. Let us look at the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Members should remember that the legislation was brought in largely because of the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich which both went belly-up. We have here the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s report of the quality audit conducted in February 2003 on the Modern Age Institute. The summary states: “The first NZQA audit of Modern Age was held in September 2001 and found 14 requirements of QA standard 1 not met. The current audit also found 14 non-compliances and made four recommendations.” 
That is the institution that will be charged under this legislation with being the gatekeeper for those that wish to supply export education. That is the organisation that cannot even monitor or keep quality control of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) as we saw with Cambridge High School. What we have seen with that school is a policy that is so ideologically driven that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority would bend over backwards to spin all its audits and quality checks to show that what it believes is successful is a success. 
The NCEA is a failure just as this will be a failure under this legislation. It will be a failure because the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is not capable of monitoring anything at all. In fact it should not even have the word “Qualifications” in its name. It is not about qualifying anything. It is just about quantity. What the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is pushing all the time is bums on seats and never mind whether there is any learning going on—just so-called qualifications. 
Questions have been asked that have never been answered before this legislation was brought in and pushed through the House. For instance I asked the Minister in September 2003—and the question has never been answered—why the New Zealand Qualifications Authority bothers to carry out audits of private institutions if it is not prepared to take action before the financial situation reaches a crisis point as happened with the Modern Age Institute of Learning. Why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority not advise the 500 or so students of the Modern Age Institute when it carried out its audits that they should not hand over any more fees to the institution? Why? There is no answer—silence. They do not know and they do not care. They are just fattening cattle for beef. That is what this Government thinks of export education. 
What does the Minister do? He rushes off to China to try to patch up the reputation of the safety of New Zealand schools. China puts pressure on the Minister and he rushes off there. What about New Zealand students? When does the Minister rush off to anywhere in New Zealand when parents of students in New Zealand are concerned about the quality and safety of their children’s education? Never. He does not. He does not go to places like Taihape New Plymouth or Taranaki Invercargill or the West Coast. He does not care and could not care. He just rushes it through. 
Last there are two more things. The other reason why this legislation has been introduced was because of Carich another institution that went under. Carich was a training company that had the famous Carich’s Computer Gym class which led to a national certificate in computing and business administration. Why did the numbers soar at that institution? Why did that organisation get into so much trouble? Well it was because it had a fully funded New Zealand Qualifications Authority – approved Computer Gym course fully subsidised by the Ministry of Education that gave every enrollee a free desktop computer. Sixteen-hundred computers were given out—so many that the computer company said it was the biggest single order ever given to a locally owned assembler. It is no wonder that these outfits get into trouble when this Government endorses policy that has incentives such as free give-aways to enrol people so that organisations can get more taxpayer funding. 
I conclude by saying that heaven help us if we get to the stage that the UK has got to with international fee-paying students. The UK’s  
Sunday Times  
in July stated: “For sale: university places go to cash-rich foreigners”. In the UK now if people have the money and are from overseas but do not have the qualifications they can get in ahead of domestic students who have higher qualifications but do not have the money. That is the route we are going down in this country with export education with this sort of legislation and that is why the ACT party is opposed to it. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I rise to support this excellent piece of legislation. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 It is obvious that the Hon Chris Carter has not even bothered to take the time to read through the bill and that is why he had only one sentence to deliver. Labour must have known this legislation was bad and that is why the first second and third readings of this bill have all taken place as the very last item of business in the House. Labour wants to get away from scrutiny by the media but I am sure there are still members of the public who are interested in export education who are hanging on to every word of the debate that is taking place right now. 
The public was assured by the Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard at the end of last year when this bill was first introduced that the bill would improve the international community’s confidence in New Zealand’s export education. Well the number of international students in language schools in New Zealand has plummeted by a third we were told by Statistics New Zealand. Of course some of the reasons for the fall are due to external factors such as the rising dollar and increased competition internationally for students. However the high-profile collapses of some educational providers in New Zealand the constant changes to the Labour Government’s immigration policy and the protracted procedure involved in obtaining student visas all contribute to the loss of New Zealand’s competitive edge compared with other countries particularly in attracting students from China and Korea. 
Let us reflect for a moment on the recent very high-profile saga relating to National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) credits at Cambridge High School. We learnt once again that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has audited Cambridge High School and did not detect any problems. We were told by National’s education spokesman the Hon Bill English that in effect the Minister of Education assured the Education and Science Committee that the authority has monitored the way NCEA credits are administered by the various schools. Well so far the authority has not provided answers about its role in not detecting the problem at Cambridge High School. So where is the authority’s accountability? 
Let us come back to the export education sector. In similar instances the authority has not provided answers so far for its failure to detect problems in the high-profile collapses of private educational providers despite the fact that staff in those schools and other people had brought those concerns to the authority’s attention. Curiously the authority seems to be reluctant to take action and to date it has not fronted up to take responsibility for their failings. After all the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is responsible for accrediting and monitoring export education providers but it does not seem to want to take responsibility for its own failings. Instead this bill was introduced to make private providers pay for the failure of their competitors. 
This bill should never have been introduced into the House. The passage of the bill will create a totally undesirable precedent. Think about this: private educational providers are to pay and be punished for the failure of their competitors when they have no say over who can join the export education sector. The authority that can decide who can join the sector in the first place is the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the authority’s job is to monitor the quality of the provider and whether those providers adhere to guidelines. So the price of the failure of the gatekeeper—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—is to be paid by the private educational provider. 
 Apart from the lack of confidence due to the lack of robust accreditation and monitoring systems in the export education sector to ensure the delivery of a quality standard of academic and pastoral care for international students another reason that has contributed to the drop in the number of international students is the lack of understanding by the Minister of Education of the needs of those students. Many students and their parents write to me complaining that graduates cannot get a job after finishing their study because employers are reluctant to give them a job offer. Employers are put off by the uncertainty and the length of time involved in the New Zealand Immigration Service issuing work permits. As a result international students cannot secure opportunities to gain work experience in New Zealand. 
When students approach the New Zealand Immigration Service for a work visa so they can look for a job they are told they need to have a job offer to secure a work visa. The students are like footballs being passed from one post to another. International students and their parents get the impression that New Zealand is interested only in making money out of the students rather than in being fair and giving the students at least the chance to gain work experience before they return to their homeland. When we think about it those graduates would make ideal potential migrants to New Zealand after they complete their studies here. Why not think outside the square and introduce a job search visa to enable international students to gain work experience? In the long term we may even gain some good migrants. 
It is time that the Minister of Education did some homework and came to grips with the $2.2 billion export education industry. Instead the Minister of Education has gone into overdrive and announced scholarships to attract international students from overseas. That is interesting is it not? He has chosen to overlook the fee-paying international students who are prepared to come and pay for their tuition here. Instead of doing his homework this Minister of Education would rather spend taxpayers’ money to offer scholarships to international students and to put spin doctors—under the name of “counsellors”—in overseas posts. If the Minister of Education does his homework he will understand that we need to ensure that the export education sector delivers quality education at a competitive price. We need a well-thought-out visa policy effective processing of student visas and to provide work opportunities for international students. Funding spin doctors overseas will not solve the problem. 
The New Zealand Qualifications Authority should work with the export education sector and learn to trust it. After all the success of the export education sector was the result of a lot of good work by various institutions. Most language schools and other institutions have been in operation for a while and have the good of the students and New Zealand at heart. They do not deserve to be treated this way by the Labour Government. If the Labour Government is serious about wanting to restore the confidence of the international community towards the export education sector it should allow and encourage the Education and Science Committee to conduct an inquiry into the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s capacity to do its job properly. 
This bill was brought to Parliament as a knee-jerk reaction to the collapse of both the Modern Age Institute of Learning and Carich New Zealand. Both those institutions were accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which is the only body that can enrol international students yet today it has not been held accountable for its failure to do its job. National is totally against the passage of this bill. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill is excellent legislation. I commend it to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 This is a bill that although small in stature has a significant impact on the education sector and in particular on those that choose to provide educational opportunities by way of being private providers. We have watched as Deborah Coddington and others—including Mr Bernie Ogilvy from United Future and Pansy Wong from National—have outlined what peculiar legislation this is. Instead of concentrating the Government’s mind on issues regarding the quality of the courses offered by the various educational providers this legislation simply isolates one group of providers regardless of the quality of the educational courses that they offer to students. This legislation divides the tertiary education sector between the courses offered by public State-owned providers and those offered by private providers. Unfortunately the bill does not examine the quality of the product that is offered to students by institutions nor does it test the quality of courses in a way that would have avoided the fate of the two institutions that collapsed. Because of those collapses this legislation is now being wheeled in at the last minute as a rescue measure. 
 The major difficulty with this legislation is that it is simply against private providers and is not in favour of ensuring there is quality education for fee-paying students. What this bill should have done as my colleague Deborah Coddington pointed out—and this was raised during the second reading and the Committee stage—is to take the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Tertiary Education Commission and put those two bodies on the rack. Those bodies should have been asked how it came about that two institutions collapsed and lost students’ money during the course of those collapses. More particularly the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority should have been asked about exactly what they were doing at the time of the collapse of the two institutions. But instead of the Minister turning his mind and his focus to the Government authorities that have a statutory responsibility for the quality of courses provided at educational institutions he simply decided that he would go after the private providers alone. 
Members on the Opposition side of the House have consistently said throughout the course of the debate on this bill which has been lengthy that that is the wrong way to look at educational questions because who provides the service or the course is not the issue. The issue is not whether the provider is State-owned or privately owned; the issue is whether the student who is paying for the courses provided by an institution is receiving quality education in return for the money that is being pumped into the institution. 
 The Tertiary Education Commission which was to have been a light-handed streamlined strategic steering instrument now employs 324 people and in the last 12 months it has spent $7.8 million on consultants and contractors to do the most basic of tasks—that is to implement the charter and profiles system. That is what the Tertiary Education Commission was supposed to do in the first place but no it has paid $1 million to Burleigh Evatt for the implementation of the charters and profiles system. What was the Tertiary Education Commission doing when the institutions collapsed? Where were Andrew West and his team when that occurred? Where was the New Zealand Qualifications Authority when it occurred? This legislation should focus on the audit and quality control functions of those two institutions not on punishing private providers per se. 
During the same week that we see a bill that will punish private providers about to presumably pass through this House we also learn that the Government has stitched up a deal with the Post Primary Teachers Association and is to offer only to members of that association a $500 sign-up bonus. Over 3000 quality competent teachers who are not members of the association will be left out of that deal. What does that deal do for the quality of the education that our children receive? What does that deal do for the quality of the courses that our children will be taught? It does nothing! All that it does is reward members of the association for their collective bargaining. I know that my colleague Roger Sowry would say that under the Employment Relations Act which passed through this House under extraordinary urgency in the year 2000 it is contrary to the Act to allow bargaining arrangements to favour members who belong to a union over people who do not belong to a union. 
The Government’s intentions in respect of education are crystal-clear this week. We find legislation that slams private providers and we find dirty deals being done with the Post Primary Teachers Association but not with teachers who are not members of unions. As my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry asked where is the good faith in that bargaining arrangement and where is the good faith in the arrangements that private providers sought out when they set up institutions to provide courses and opportunities for students that the State did not provide? The public providers did not make opportunities available to the students who were seeking those opportunities from private providers. The Minister of Education needs to stand in this House to tell members who are debating this bill that it will not punish just private providers and to tell members that his deal with the Post Primary Teachers Association is not in breach of the Employment Relations Act. I believe that it is in breach of that Act. 
This bill is a farce and the two authorities and organisations that should have been under the gun following the collapse of the two providers are not other private providers but the Tertiary Education Commission which is slack at best and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which could not even find a chief executive for 18 months because it has been in such a shambles during the last 12 to 15 months. This bill has taken a long time to go through this Parliament and the reason it has taken such a long time to do so is that it is bad law. It is a bad ideological step to punish providers because of their public or private status and not to seek out the institutions that will not provide quality education to the students who attend them. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I support the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.