Volume 633 Week 24 - Thursday 31 August 2006 
Volume 633 Week 24 - Thursday 31 August 2006 
[Volume:633;Page:5051] 
Thursday 31 August 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Lord Cooke of Thorndon 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House place on record its appreciation of the long and distinguished service in the law of the late Rt Hon the Lord Cooke of Thorndon ONZ KBE PC including as President of the Court of Appeal and as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords and that the House express its condolences to his family and former colleagues. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Standards and Conformance Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate whether he intends to introduce validating or retrospective legislation on any subject matter during the course of this parliamentary session. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I have no idea what the courts may come up with at any time within the next few weeks; if the member is referring to another matter we have yet to see a report from the Auditor-General. 
Questions to Ministers 
Speech from the Throne—Political Integrity of Parliament and Electoral Process 
1.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 on behalf of  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes by keeping our promises unlike National which constantly betrayed the electorate and the party’s promises throughout the 1990s. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how we can see the decision of the police to investigate the Ingram report allegations against Taito Phillip Field as anything other than a massive vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister’s handling of this entire saga given that she has spent the last 6 weeks telling the House that no further action was required? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Given that the Prime Minister has consistently said that people with any allegations and evidence should go to the police that is entirely untrue. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the comments made by Andrew Little national secretary of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union who stated that MPs are in a position of integrity and trust and that Taito Phillip Field should resign; what is her response to that vote of no confidence in her Government’s handling of the Field saga from someone who heads a Labour-affiliated union? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would refer Mr Little to comments made on yesterday morning’s radio programme where it was said: “I think even for Mr Field’s sake it is not fair that he is hounded out of Parliament on the basis of baseless allegations.” That comment was made of course by the Leader of the Opposition. Let us await the outcome of the police inquiry and if charges are laid let us await the outcome of the judicial process. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They are not baseless. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike those made against Dr Nick Smith who was found guilty of contempt and was applauded by his colleagues when he came into the House. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to comments made by Hola Taue the Labour Party Pacific Island vice-president who also thinks Taito Phillip Field should resign as an MP because: “It’s a big conflict of interest what he has done. He is not available for any of us. He is very stubborn.”; what is her response to that vote of no confidence in the way she has handled this matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has consistently said allegations should be taken to the police. The police are now undertaking an inquiry. In a country that believes in the rule of law that is where matters now rest. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has she seen today’s  
Dominion Post 
 editorial which states: “Every day that an uncleared Mr Field remains a Labour MP is a reminder that the Labour Party has fallen grievously short of the new standards Miss Clark promised to set when she took office.”; what is her response to that vote of no confidence in the way she has handled the Field affair? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My response would be that the  
Dominion Post 
 should remind itself about the rule of law. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Did she any of her Ministers or any of her staff meet with Police Commissioner Howard Broad when he was in the Beehive this morning; if so what was the purpose of that meeting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister certainly did not; she was in Napier. I would imagine the police commissioner met with the Minister of Police as he frequently does—as I met with the tertiary education commissioner today. 
Oral Health—Improvements 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made in work to improve the oral health of New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Last week the Government announced that over $100 million will be invested in a major reform of our public oral health system. The policy includes the revitalisation of the school dental service and provision of community oral health facilities. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any reports about the public discussion on the Government’s oral health policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen reports that members of the oral health community have been angered by comments from Tony Ryall about the Government’s plan and National’s record on the issue. I have a copy of a letter sent to Mr Ryall from a registered dental therapist reminding him that it was National that foolishly made hundreds of dental nurses redundant that it was National that nearly destroyed the school dental service that it was National that closed down dental therapist training and that it was Labour that moved early in its first term to start repairing the damage. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How long does the Minister estimate it will take to fully implement the strategic vision for oral health in New Zealand and what dental care is accessible to children and teenagers who are missing out in the meantime? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I hope the member enjoyed her briefing on the topic this morning. It will of course take a number of years to fulfil a strategy as broad as this. However we are off to an early start; the first business cases will be coming in from district health boards in November of this year. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Why does the Government’s press release of 20 August hold National responsible for the worst oral health records for 5-year-olds in Northland since 1990 when today’s 5-year-olds have only ever lived under a Labour minority Government in charge of their dental health; and what will he do about the tragic statistics for Maori 5-year-olds in Northland today—only 14 percent of whom are cavity-free? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: My predecessor the Hon Annette King herself a dental therapist had restarted a dental therapy school in New Zealand had staffed it had the curriculum up had the funding and had students in the classroom within 15 months of a change of Government. That is what rapid repair looks like. She then opened a second school not in Dunedin but in Auckland. Both those schools are now churning out graduates. Finally we have started to lift the number of dental therapists in this country. It had fallen from 1000 to 550 and now that we are repairing the damage wrought by National we are building dental facilities so that these new dental therapists can go to work. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Sisters of Compassion who generously fund a dental clinic for children in the Hutt expect any Government support any time soon from these initiatives—indeed from any of the $100 million tag for oral health—giving some help to those who unselfishly help others? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I do not know but I can say that if they are an integral part of the local district health board’s dental health services they will already be receiving funding. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister standing up in the House today and saying that it will take another couple of years to see any progress in the improving of oral health for young New Zealanders considering in the last 7 years of the Labour Government there have been one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 and 11 strategies visions and reviews which this Government has done absolutely nothing on? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I now get a chance to rehearse the history again and I will enjoy it. The long and short of it is that there used to be more than a thousand dental therapists in this country but they got the sack from the previous Government. People stopped going to dental training schools. The schools closed and we ended up with an implosion in the workforce. That needed fixing and one cannot teach a dental therapist in 3 weeks; it takes 3 years. One cannot open a dental therapy school in 3 weeks; that took 15 months. If the National Government had only kept the dental therapy workforce up—if only it had done that—none of those reports would have needed to be written. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that gestures with hands can be misinterpreted. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
Oral Health Service Review 
 released in 2000. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
Review of Publicly Funded Oral Health Care in New Zealand: Final Report 
 March 2001. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table  
Improving Child Oral Health and Reducing Child Oral Health Inequalities 
 May 2003. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
School Dental Services Facilities Discussion Document 
 September 2003. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table  
Improve Oral Health 2004 
 edition 2. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the Dental Therapy Technical Advisory Group Ministry of Health  
Recruitment and Practice of Dental Therapists 
 June 2004. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
National School Dental Service Review: Final Report 
 December 2004. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
Review of Maori Child Oral Health Services 
 December 2004. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the  
Business Case Guidelines for Investment in Child and Adolescent Oral Health Services 
. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table  
Community Oral Health Service: Facility Guideline 
. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I seek leave to table a letter—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There will be silence during points of order. During the last point of order there were interruptions from both sides of the House. You are on your last warning. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Barbara Moreton registered dental therapist to Tony Ryall which states in part: “Annette King put in place some very good long-term planning which has been carried on by Pete Hodgson. When a service has been badly run down over many years as it was under National it cannot be fixed overnight.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Unfortunately the Hon Tony Ryall has forgotten one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not called the member. I call Jo Goodhew. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Unfortunately the Hon Tony Ryall forgot one. I seek leave to table the 36-page latest strategic vision:  
Good Oral Health for All for Life: the Strategic Vision for Oral Health in New Zealand 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. I remind members when they make points of order that they do not make any other comment but their reference to it. 
Immigration Service—Apia Branch Contact with Immigration Intelligence Unit 
3.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is it correct that the manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service Mr James Dalmer contacted the immigration intelligence unit with information about Thai nationals’ involvement with Taito Phillip Field; if so on how many occasions did that happen? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Immigration 
: Yes I am advised that there were four occasions on which communication occurred. Of those three mentioned Mr Field by name. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If as the Minister has just advised the House the branch manager in Apia communicated at least four times with the immigration intelligence unit if Mr Dalmer actually discussed with the manager of the immigration intelligence unit on or about 10 May specific issues involving Thais working without pay on Mr Field’s house in Samoa and being promised work in New Zealand in return and if all of that is correct how does he explain that information being withheld from the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor if in fact it was withheld? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that this was because the information they were dealing with was unconfirmed—that is there was a possibility it was wrong. I also say to that member again—and I point to the Ingram inquiry—that the Ingram inquiry quite clearly stated that the Associate Minister of Immigration at the time made the decision unaware of the information because it had not been passed on to him. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was Noel Ingram QC able to reach a firm conclusion as to whether the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor knew of the allegations in relation to Mr Siriwan’s involvement with Mr Field in Samoa prior to his decision to issue a special direction for a work visa for Mr Siriwan or was Mr Ingram’s conclusion that “real uncertainty results from the available evidence as to when Mr O’Connor became aware of the allegations in relation to Mr Field.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In response I make two points on behalf of the Minister. As I previously told the House I am advised that the inquiry concludes that the Associate Minister did not have the relevant information at the time he made the decision on the Siriwan case. I refer the member to paragraphs 157 and 158 on pages 49-50 of the Ingram report. Further Mr Ingram goes on to note in paragraph 179 that the original “decision by Mr O’Connor may be regarded as a justifiable exercise of that broad discretionary … power.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the “possible sequence of events surrounding Mr O’Connor being informed of the allegations” constructed by Mr Ingram required Mr O’Connor’s immigration secretary Ms Nicola Scotland to forget a logged 5 minute - long phone call at 2.41 p.m. on 9 June from the group manager for service international of the Department of Labour where he discussed with her whether Mr O’Connor was aware of the information received and all the circumstances involved regarding the Thai nationals in Samoa when he apparently made his decisions following discussions with Taito Phillip Field—decisions Nicola Scotland knew were still pending—a possible sequence of events requiring her to forget that information which she knew to be crucial? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It has been accepted by the Ingram inquiry that what is most likely to have occurred in this instance is that the Minister’s private secretary was informed but did not pass that information on to the Minister because it was unconfirmed. That is what the Ingram inquiry concluded. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it remotely credible that Ms Nicola Scotland Mr O’Connor’s immigration secretary would not have passed on the crucial information she received from Mr Tavita service international group manager on 9 June when earlier on 27 May compliance officer Murray Gardiner had emailed her directly with information about the goings-on involving Taito Phillip Field in Samoa—Mr Ingram’s possible sequence of events requiring her to have forgotten to pass on that information to Mr O’Connor as well if she did in fact forget? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I have just pointed out to the member the inquiry accepted that the most likely events to have occurred in this instance are that the Minister’s private secretary was informed but did not pass that information on to the Minister. Those are the findings of the inquiry and of Noel Ingram QC. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How does the Minister explain the file note of his Apia branch manager Mr James Dalmer that records: “Knowledge of Thai cases—knows that Taito had these people working for him—Damien knew that before he made the decision—tight labour market has been a factor.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I simply reiterate the findings of Noel Ingram QC as I have previously stated. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the reason that Mr James Dalmer Apia branch manager told the Ingram inquiry that “his best recollection is that Ms Scotland stated that Mr O’Connor knew of the information before he made his decision.” because it is the truth? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I reiterate my previous answer. The findings are clear in Noel Ingram QC’s inquiry. 
VIP Transport Service—Govt3 Programme 
4.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Is she confident that purchase decisions made by her officials in relation to the VIP Transport Service fleet are consistent with the Govt3 programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
:  
on behalf of the 
 Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: The Department of Internal Affairs is now taking into account the Govt3 programme in its purchasing planning and I expect to see this reflected in the make-up of the VIP Transport service fleet over time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why are most of the ministerial chauffeur-driven cars Ford Fairlanes and Ford LTDs that are identified on the Government’s own fuelsaver website as among the worst gas guzzlers in the country using 14.5 litres per 100 kilometres driven? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think there is only one LTD left in the fleet now although I am not sure of that; they are nearly all Ford Fairlanes. These of course reflect past purchasing practices. Speaking personally—as myself not as the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services—I find the Fords uncomfortable and noisy compared with the average 2-litre Japanese saloon. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What message will it send to ordinary Kiwis who are buying smaller cars and making a personal commitment to address peak oil and climate change when they learn that Crown cars each produce around 6 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide which is almost three times as much as the most efficient comfortable five-seaters available? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised by the Hon Harry Duynhoven who is an expert in all these sorts of matters that the Ford fleet is doing considerably better in actual performance than it is rated for in the information the member refers to. But I shall take this up with the Prime Minister preferring myself to ride in somewhat smaller cars than a Ford Fairlane. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why were all of these gas guzzlers—the worst ones—purchased since the Government announced the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and since the start of the Govt3programme launched in 2003? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have not got the numbers. Some of the cars certainly have liquefied petroleum gas and some of the cars in Auckland—it is not so in Wellington I think—are Holdens not Fords. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all future vehicle purchases are in the best 10 percent of those available in New Zealand for fuel efficiency and carbon emissions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I think probably that the notion of using Toyota Echos as the ministerial fleet probably is not the wisest of moves. But I certainly believe that the ministerial fleet operators can look at more efficient vehicles than the ones that have been bought in some form or another for I think something like 25 years—since we ceased to use Chryslers at some point in the 1970s. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table two lots of documents. The first is a print-out from the Government’s fuelsaver website giving the fuel efficiency of the Fairlanes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I further seek leave to table a set of specifications for a number of vehicles available in New Zealand at the moment which do not include the Toyota Echo and which have fuel efficiencies around 4 5 and 6 litres per 100 kilometres. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Election Advertising—Chief Electoral Officer’s Advice 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Did the Chief Electoral Officer write to New Zealand Labour Party General Secretary Mike Smith on 2 September 2005 warning him that in his view the costs of the Labour Party pledge card were election expenses under the Electoral Act 1993? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As I said to the member’s colleague in response to question for oral answer No. 5 on Wednesday 23 August I am aware of the letter but I was not a recipient of it and cannot comment on its contents. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that having received that letter from the Chief Electoral Officer with its warning about election expenses the Labour Party then proceeded to spend over $500000 on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign despite the fact that the expenditure took it over the legal limit for election spending? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Perhaps I could clarify for the member. I am aware of the letter but I was not a recipient of it and therefore cannot comment on its contents. 
Hon Bill English 
: What confidence can the New Zealand public have in the laws the Minister is administering to regulate election spending when the Government of the day ignores the advice of the statutory officer designated by Parliament to enforce the law then after the election proposes to pass retrospective legislation to validate its illegal actions? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Considerable confidence—given that under the Electoral Act of 1993 the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for the preparation and conduct of parliamentary elections and the supervision of candidates’ election expenses and donations. It would be inappropriate for me under that Act to comment on what are legal interpretations by the said officer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister sought advice from the Ministry of Justice about who is right over the issue of the pledge card—advice as to whether it is Helen Clark and Dr Cullen who believed that it was not an election expense; or advice on the views of the Chief Electoral Officer the Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General that it was an election expense? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Given that I am not a recipient of the correspondence nor of any correspondence that the Chief Electoral Officer may have had with other political parties such as the National Party about election expenditure I would not expect to be copied into such correspondence. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on a legal interpretation given by the Chief Electoral Officer. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the Minister’s capacity as Minister of Justice can he tell the House what credibility there now is in our electoral law when the Government of the day was able to ignore the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer was then able to slip that past a police investigation and then come to this House promising to pass legislation to retrospectively validate its actions and why should any political party now take any notice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the sections of the Act he administers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly the member is incorrect to assert that I have ministerial responsibility for political party expenditure. I explicitly do not. As to the law as I have informed the House on previous occasions I am indeed undertaking a review of the electoral finance regime focusing on electoral expenses advertising and broadcasting which of course is within the purview of my ministerial responsibility unlike the expenditure of political parties at the last election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether he will be the Minister promoting retrospective legislation if it is brought to the House given that he is the Minister who is responsible for the electoral law that governs election spending? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am hardly about to commit to or otherwise any legislation on an as yet unproduced report. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave to table the following documents all of which were issued in June 2002 within 3 months of the 2002 election: a letter signed by Bill English then leader of the National Party outlining key National Party policies which is on parliamentary letterhead paper; a pamphlet featuring Mr English on parliamentary letterhead on penal policy; a pamphlet from the Leader of the Opposition on parliamentary letterhead which deals with penal policy; a pamphlet from Mr English on parliamentary letterhead which deals with Treaty of Waitangi claims; a newspaper advertisement featuring Mr English and with parliamentary letterhead featuring Treaty of Waitangi claims; and a letter from Mr English—obviously a form letter—on superannuation and related matters clearly calling for people to vote for the National Party in the 2002 election also on parliamentary letterhead. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a document from Nielsen Media Research Ltd showing the Labour Party’s expenditure on press advertising in the last 2 weeks before the election in 2005. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Skills Shortages—Labour Force 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on progress towards addressing skill shortages in the labour force? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Department of Labour’s  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report released today shows that despite a strong labour market the number of firms having difficulty finding skilled staff has decreased by 59 percent over the last year and a half. This achievement is of course in the context of the lowest level of unemployment ever recorded in New Zealand at 3.6 percent. This clearly shows that the Labour-led Government’s initiatives like industry training Modern Apprenticeships and industry partnerships—policies that were anathema to the last National Government—are having an extremely positive effect on this economy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the impact of this easing of the labour market on firms? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The latest  
Skills in the Labour Market 
 report which I have just referred to shows that only 15 percent of businesses say a shortage of labour was their main constraint on expansion down from 26 percent in March 2005 and down by almost half in the last 15 months. The job vacancy monitor has shown the third consecutive fall in the levels of job vacancies led by Auckland where the level of vacancies has fallen by 15 percent over the last year and the number of trainees enrolled in key trade qualifications has doubled over the last 6 years. The Government now thankfully has policies in place to support industry and this compares to the complete lack of support for the skill needs of the economy under National in the 1990s. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that answers are meant to be concise. 
Prisoner Transfer—Service Delivery Agreement 
7.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Can he confirm that the agreement between the Department of Corrections and Chubb New Zealand Ltd for the provision of prisoner escort services includes a service delivery component that “Unless otherwise agreed with the Department of Corrections” prisoners under the age of 20 “must be kept separate from all other Prisoners” and how does he reconcile this with his statement that “the law states that when outside a prison prisoners under 18 years of age must be kept apart from adult prisoners where practicable”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes the agreement with Chubb specifies a higher level of protection for youth. The contract does not include the words “where practicable”. This separation of youth from adult prisoners should occur in all instances except where the Department of Corrections and Chubb agree otherwise. 
Simon Power 
: Did the Department of Corrections decide that Liam Ashley should be locked into a compartment with a violent offender on the way to prison from court in light of the fact that under the agreement with Chubb that could occur only with the agreement of the department? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not prepared to speculate on what might have occurred on that tragic day. That is what the inquiries and investigations will uncover. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What has the Minister done since the death of Mr Ashley to protect youth who are being transported under the care of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: On Monday 28 August I issued a directive to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections for him to issue an instruction to both departmental staff and contractors that prohibits the transportation of youth aged under 18 years in the same vehicle compartment as adult prisoners. I can confirm that the chief executive’s instruction has been issued and is being fully complied with. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is it not true that the department’s decision to use a private security company to transport prisoners rather than trained departmental officers is purely a cost-saving measure and does he now feel that the savings might not be worth the associated risks; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The contract for the Auckland region has been in place since 1998. Roughly 220000 prisoners have been transported. Thankfully we have not had an incident like this before. All these issues will be looked at. It is not a cost-saving exercise that drives this contract. 
Simon Power 
: Who made the decision to lock Liam Ashley into a compartment with a violent offender on the way to prison from court; if the Minister does not know by now a week after this tragic event why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not prepared to jeopardise undermine or prejudge the five inquiries that are taking place into this horrific tragedy. 
Simon Power 
: Why was Liam Ashley locked into a compartment with a violent offender when the judge sought an assurance that he would be kept separate in custody; if he did have to share a compartment why was it not with a non-violent offender such as the Indian overstayer? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There has been much speculation and many prejudgments on this incident. I am not prepared to add to that. I await the outcomes of these inquiries to clearly identify what happened on that day and if the recommendations are that changes should be made then they will be made. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree with the reported view of Peter Williams QC that in cases such as Liam Ashley’s: “The Corrections Department must take the responsibility even if they have allocated it to Chubb.”; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are a number of Government agencies involved—the courts the police the Department of Corrections—and a subcontractor. I am not prepared to prejudge where mistakes were made—if they were made—on that tragic day. 
Simon Power 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that it is “totally unacceptable” and “abhorrent that a 17-year-old should be murdered in the back of a prison van. Something is very badly wrong.”; if so has the Minister followed the convention of individual ministerial responsibility and offered his resignation to the Prime Minister? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a terrible tragedy. We shall await the outcomes of the inquiries to discover what happened on that tragic day and what changes may need to occur. 
Community-based Clinics—At-risk Children 
8. JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
 on behalf of  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What evidence is there that the Government’s proposed community-based clinics will improve access for at-risk children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There is evidence from a number of sources including a University of Otago study that the Government’s plan will significantly improve access. The community model is also showing early but significant promise in those Australian states where it has been deployed. It should also be noted that the community-based clinics will make it easier for preschool children to access services which is especially important as so many of the young people are developing cavities before they turn 5. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What research-based evidence does the Minister have that at-risk 3 to 10-year-olds with rotting teeth will attend large centralised clinics in commercial areas rather than clinics in their neighbourhood school? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member might perhaps slightly misunderstand the Government’s approach. Although some school dental clinics will close—in fact a number of them already have and a number of others are barely open; they are open for only a few hours a week—many other school dental facilities will remain a number of them will be expanded and a number of them will have access for the public through a separate entrance so that they do not have to go through the school-grounds etc. In addition to that new community facilities will be built and the links between those community facilities and the schools and early childhood facilities in the region will need to be built as well. 
Ann Hartley 
: Why did the Government not act sooner to reinvest in oral health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A very good question—we have spent a little time on it today—and I will say again: because there were not enough dental therapists. Even today school clinics are on average open less than half the time—that is for those schools that have them. We could of course have started to build new dental facilities in our first year but there would have been no one to work in them. So my colleague the Hon Annette King decided that building dental therapist schools to train people was the first thing that needed to be done and that is exactly what she did. The fact that New Zealand ceased training dental therapists during the 1990s is in my view a scandal. The size of the workforce halved and it is no wonder that the dental health of our children is declining as a result. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will his ministry be funding public education campaigns in the near future to cover shortfalls in free oral health-care; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes indeed. Public education campaigns are an integral part of the vision for oral health-care. As the member may be aware given her knowledge of the subject an advisory group is meeting in the very near future to examine and advance that initiative. 
Jo Goodhew 
: When the Minister announced that the percentage of children who are caries-free is at an all-time low was he referring to the Labour Government’s 1999 to 2005 record in the area of the district health board of Waikato where the percentage has fallen from 47 percent to 34 percent; the area of the district health board of Wairarapa where it has fallen from 53 percent to 41 percent; the area of the district health board of Wanganui where it has fallen from 49 percent to 39 percent; or horrifyingly the area of the district health board of Northland where it has fallen from 43 percent to 33 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is interesting that the National Party today does not face the fact that it was a National Government that caused this situation. What is more my predecessor the Hon Annette King herself a dental therapist got on to the problem as fast as anyone could have done. There was no way of getting those schools to open earlier because the National Government held the Treasury benches and despite the fact that Annette King in Opposition said time and time again that it had to be fixed that Government when it was in power did nothing. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How does the Minister respond to the verdict of the MidCentral District Health Board Dental Service Clinical Director Phil Marshall who said the people who need dental care the most are the least likely to visit the new centrally based community clinics and: “The lower socio-economic groups will not access those facilities and they are the people who need it the most.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The aforementioned clinical director Phil Marshall will be one of those putting together a business plan for his district. Therefore that gentleman and others like him around the country have the solution in their hands. In the same press statement however the same gentleman said: “The best time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining—in this case when there is money around. We will need to do it quickly and well.” 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister realise how silly it sounds when he angrily blames National for the state of children’s teeth when one considers that most of those kids were not even born when the Government changed in 1999; and does he realise that the public just does not believe him? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for his question; it allows me to rehearse history one more time. The number of dental therapists in this country roughly halved. It was a little over 1000; it fell to 550. The reason for that was that during the 1990s the National Government stopped training dental therapists in this country altogether. I ask members to imagine if we had stopped training brain surgeons or plumbers; well we did this with dental therapists—we stopped. It was beyond belief. Therefore the dental clinics closed the workforce fell further and the kids’ teeth are suffering. To begin repairing this unbelievable problem one had to open new dental therapy training schools. My colleague the Hon Annette King did that. We have got both of them running and running hard and the graduates are starting to come through. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Is it not time the Minister confirmed that despite a high pile of visions strategies and reviews 7 years of promises by the Labour Government and a former dental nurse having been in charge of health the lack of progress on addressing oral health problems is best highlighted by a press release from the Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Minister of Health entitled:  
Labour Revamping Dental Services for Young NZers 
 dated 31 August 2005—so no progress at all Minister? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is almost beyond belief is it not? The long and short of it is that in the Budget that was announced by my colleague in May of this year about $100 million of capital was put on the table and as well as that some operating funding is needed to pay these people whom we have trained. They have just come out of school. Maybe they came out in November last year. Some of them—the first lot—actually came out of the Auckland University of Technology the year before. They have only just arrived in the workforce. We are building dental clinics for them to work in and as the numbers of dental therapists increase—and they will increase each year—we will have buildings ready for them to go into. That is what good planning is about. Bad planning is when we stop training dental therapists in this country completely. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I seek leave to table the 1-year-old press release from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health entitled:  
Labour Revamping Dental Services for Young NZers 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I seek leave to table the verdict of the MidCentral District Health Board Dental Service Clinical Director Phil Marshall in yesterday’s  
Manawatu Standard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Zimbabwean Refugees—HIV Testing 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he believe the decision not to test Zimbabweans for HIV before entering New Zealand despite Zimbabwe’s high HIV rate was in New Zealand’s best interests and if not does he stand by his reported comments that criticism about the decision was “probably fair”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This Government does support HIV testing for long-term migrants and it was this Government that introduced mandatory testing a move—and I hope I am not being presumptuous—that I am sure New Zealand First supports and we are grateful for that support. 
Peter Brown 
: Does he accept that if New Zealand allows an extra 200 HIV-positive people to become residents it would increase the 1700 known residents living with HIV/AIDS in New Zealand by more than 10 percent and how does he expect the public to believe his assertions that the policy will decrease the prevalence of HIV in this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Precisely because if those people are not identified if they are not given a diagnosis if they are not given support and if they are not given close medical attention the spread of HIV in New Zealand will quicken not slow down. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What has been the reaction to the Government’s announcement that Zimbabweans who test positive for HIV will be allowed to stay in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The decision has been welcomed by the New Zealand Medical Association the New Zealand AIDS Foundation the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees amongst others. These endorsements are a sign of New Zealand’s maturity on the issue of HIV and a credit to the work of successive Governments in advocating a pragmatic approach to the management of the virus. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it possible that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among Zimbabweans yet to apply for residency is higher than average given their reluctance to apply thus far so it is possible that the worst-case scenario is actually a mid-range figure? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: What the Government has done so far is process— 
Paula Bennett 
: What about asking senior citizens or the people who are bumped off waiting lists? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member wants a question she should ask for it and seek it from the Speaker. The member may be aware there are 1300 Zimbabwean citizens resident in New Zealand under this special resident policy. Five hundred of those have already been processed if you will and that processing includes testing for HIV. The prevalence rates amongst those already tested is about 8 percent but we have said publicly that the prevalence rate for the remaining 800 people to be tested might be as high as 20 percent precisely because that is the prevalence rate back in the entire Zimbabwean population. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that these people were required to declare they were of both good health and good character when they arrived here and that people who knew they had HIV at that time are at best dishonest so how are these people able to pass the good character requirement when they have been dishonest in their initial declaration? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is true that in the processing the Zimbabwean refugees will have to pass a good character test and a police check and so on. However the member if I might suggest gently might miss the point. The danger to the public health of New Zealanders is not so much from people who know they have HIV but from people who do not know they have HIV. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table this morning’s NewsRoom summary of the sort of disastrous Zimbabwe any people expelled would be returning to where the reports by the Solidarity Peace Trust state that almost nothing has been done to house 700000 people in Zimbabwe who lost their homes and livelihoods in the demolitions last year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Services—Wanganui 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What representations if any has he received from the chair of the Whanganui District Health Board regarding recent public concerns over health services in the Wanganui area and when did he receive these representations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am in regular contact with district health board chairs and I have spoken to Dr O’Connor several times in the past month. He is in my view a hard-working and dedicated chair and he makes sure that the issues facing the Whanganui District Health Board are well understood by the Government. 
Chester Borrows 
: What representations has the chair of the Whanganui District Health Board made in respect of the 365 Wanganui elderly who had home care cruelly cut from them from 4 September who in some cases have been receiving home care for 14 years and who are unable to manage vacuuming washing and household chores or move around as freely as he can; and what if anything does the Minister intend to do about that situation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may be aware that the Government has increased funding for home-based support services very substantially indeed—well over 100 percent since the change of Government. What is happening in Wanganui is that the demand has appeared to rise very quickly indeed. One figure I saw showed the demand rising by 22 percent in 12 months. Something is not right here; the way the funding is being allocated—it seems to me—needs to be reviewed. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister recall his statement made in the House yesterday: “I stand by my comment that today there are comprehensive paediatric services in Wanganui.” and how does he reconcile that with the fact that today Thursday 31 August there is no paediatrician at Wanganui Hospital and between now and 18 September there will be 5 days when Wanganui Hospital is without a paediatrician which will affect the safety of children with chronic and serious conditions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware there is no paediatrician at Wanganui today and that there are several days in the forthcoming month when there will also be—[ 
Interruption 
] I said “comprehensive” coverage. Let me give an indication of what I mean. Since the paediatrician went on leave of all of the children who have accessed a paediatrician in Wanganui somewhere over 90 percent have accessed a paediatrician in Wanganui itself. That is to say I think five or perhaps six children have travelled to Palmerston North in that time and that is really no different from what happens between the paediatric services in Wanganui and Palmerston North ordinarily. 
Chester Borrows 
: What representations has the chair made in respect of the lack of specialist care for Wanganui’s acquired brain injury sufferers—those Wanganui people who have to be accommodated in New Plymouth by the same provider that now operates a facility in Wanganui and that wants to accommodate these Wanganui people locally but cannot because the ministry will not allow it; and what if anything does the Minister intend to do about that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There was a time recently—I apologise to the member; I do not have my timing absolutely right—when the Ministry of Health went into the Wanganui area asking for those who would like to provide services that the member refers to. It turned out that at that time it was suggested by the people who were consulted that there was no need for such a service. If a need has arisen since the ministry will look to address it but the ministry will not open a new facility if only one or two people need to go into it. If there are more we would happily look at it afresh. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister really believe that paediatricians and obstetricians are going to be attracted to Wanganui given that the money he is giving to Wanganui will support only a basic birthing unit or is this as a member of the public announced at the community meeting earlier this week a deliberate agenda of the Government to move secondary maternity services to Palmerston North? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I thank the member for coming to the point and I can say to her without any reservation at all there is no secret agenda with this Government and the health services of Wanganui. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is no secret agenda. We support the provision of secondary health services in Wanganui. We are delighted that Wanganui is about to have a $30-million investment in its hospital services. That is the sort of thing a Government can do for the people of Wanganui when it does not have huge tax cuts on its mind. 
Chester Borrows 
: Will the Minister now accept that with big problems in acute paediatric services home care for the elderly funding for palliative care obstetric services specialist services for acquired brain injury sufferers and a shortage of ambulance services health care in Wanganui is in crisis and that it is his job to ensure the safety of Wanganui people and to stop hiding behind the hard-working health providers in Wanganui? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not hiding behind anyone and neither are the hard-working health professionals in Wanganui. The sort of thing the hard-working health professionals in Wanganui have done since the change of Government is to increase surgical discharges in Wanganui by 35 percent. That is the sort of thing that can happen when a Government pays attention to building a public health service and does not have tax cuts on its mind. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does he still stand by his comments made in the House yesterday that Wanganui is better off than most district health boards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Actually probably I do not. Because when I think about it most district health boards are getting new hospitals. There are now something like 24 or 25 new-hospital or refurbishment projects in the scheme of things. Some are completed and some about to be started. That is a huge amount of investment from this Government into the public health system. When I think about it the main difference between us and National is that it ran the hospitals down in the 1990s and we are building them a lot. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document indicating that some 36 hospitals were shut down by Helen Clark during her term as Health Minister in the late 1980s. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Financial Institutions and Business—Confidence and Innovation 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What steps has she taken to enhance confidence in New Zealand’s financial institutions and promote business innovation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Today I released nine discussion documents as part of the review of financial products and providers. The review is designed to develop effective and consistent frameworks for the non-bank financial sector. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the different parts of the sector that engaged so positively with the Government on developing these options and that have warmly welcomed the release of these documents today. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does this review relate to the Government’s economic transformation agenda? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is an excellent question. This review supports the economic transformation agenda by updating outdated legislation reducing compliance costs for business making regulation more effective and improving consumer protection. This is just another example of the Labour-led Government getting on with business and ensuring the environment for business growth is the best it can be. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned that with nearly all our banks now owned by Australian interests her review will make it easier for Australian interests to now dominate the non-banking financial sector as well? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. That is not the intention of the review. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the review in response to the recent finance company collapses? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. The work on this review commenced in May last year and has engaged with all elements of the sectors involved in the discussion documents. Changes are proposed in these documents that may assist in improving disclosure to uninformed investors of the real risks they face when investing in products on the strength of a familiar face on TV rather than quality advice. 
Community and Voluntary Sector—Relationships with Government 
12.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What recent reports if any has she received regarding relationships between the community and voluntary sector and the Government? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 I regularly receive a range of reports from officials on the relationship between the community and voluntary sector and the Government. 
Paula Bennett 
: In the voluntary sector is lafo offered at times in lieu of wages and does she consider it appropriate for a member of Parliament to accept lafo while working in the community? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: My understanding is that the issue of lafo is currently being looked at by Cabinet Office. 
Tim Barnett 
: What is the Government doing to strengthen relationships with the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: The Labour-led Government initiated the Good Practice in Action Seminar Series which promotes positive relationships between Government agencies and the community and voluntary sector. Another excellent example of collaboration is the Keeping it Legal resource which helps community organisations better manage their legal responsibilities—over 6000 copies have been distributed and it is being reprinted. 
Paula Bennett 
: Has the Minister received any reports of voluntary labour on a significant scale from members of the Thai community being of particular benefit to one of her parliamentary colleagues and are those reports in line with her own view of how the voluntary sector should operate? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: No I have received no such reports. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Would it be in line with her own view of how the voluntary sector should operate for a group of seven Thais five of whom had received immigration assistance from Taito Phillip Field to drive 658 kilometres from Auckland to Wellington in two four-wheel drive vehicles along with their work tools to stay at the house at 57 Kinghorne Street then owned by Taito Phillip Field to do repair work involving both plastering and painting on that house before driving the 658 kilometres back to Auckland; if not why not? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: That would be a good question to put to the Minister of Labour. However I want to say that over 1 million people in New Zealand are volunteers. They provide enormous social capital to this country and we are grateful for the economic and social well-being they provide for us. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 December 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). This time frame is necessary because the legislation needs to be enacted as soon as possible so that the enhancements to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service can commence in early 2007 as has been publicly signalled. 
With this amending legislation the Government is improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. The amendments follow a substantial review of the service. That review sought the views of industry representatives consumer groups and territorial authorities and included analysis of the needs—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member trying to address it. It is a longstanding convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is strictly necessary to do so and then only so as not to disturb proceedings. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
:—of all the involved parties. The bill is central to the Government’s commitment to actively help resolve the so-called leaky homes situation. The Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was set up in 2002 as a call to arms to deal with a major problem. Although people have gained successful settlements so far the service is too slow and is being drawn out by lawyers and other so-called experts. The review identified the need to strengthen and streamline the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of each stage within the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service process by allowing homeowners to claim for a similar range of damages as that they would be able to claim in a court process and by helping owners of units within multi-unit apartment complexes to register claims and resolve disputes. 
The bill sets out to achieve all these outcomes. It will also contribute towards the Government’s strategic goal of supporting families young and old by helping to ensure that homes are healthy and dry. Since buying a home is often the biggest single investment that Kiwis make the bill also contributes to this country’s economic transformation because it is critical that people have the confidence to invest. The reforms in this bill build on the Government’s commitment to homeowners to provide a speedier lower-cost alternative to the court system for resolving leaky building claims. In essence the provisions of the bill will help owners of leaky homes resolve their disputes quicker get compensation from the liable parties and get their homes repaired. This is another way the Government is ensuring New Zealanders have access to quality homes and buildings that meet their needs. 
 The main components of the proposed legislation are as follows. The bill introduces a new streamlined dispute resolution process with compulsory pre-hearing conferencing for standard claims before claims move to time-limited mediation. Claims that do not achieve a mediated solution move to adjudication. The bill also encourages informal dispute resolution and puts in place several mechanisms to speed up and streamline the claims processes such as establishing a new process for low-value claims. Faster resolution of disputes will also be aided by the provision of a comprehensive assistance package and guidance for claimants and respondents. This includes more comprehensive Weathertight Homes Resolution Service assessment reports which can become expert evidence potentially saving the parties thousands of dollars by not having to get their own specialist reports done. Importantly the amendments allow claimants to claim for potential as well as actual non-weathertight damage. 
The bill sets out objectives for a less adversarial more investigative and swifter adjudication process. Collectively these measures move the service towards an investigative approach to dispute resolution so that the process is not only faster and less costly for parties but also less litigious. Adjudicators can currently award costs against a party that they consider to have caused unnecessary costs either by acting in bad faith or through making allegations or objections without substantial merit. These powers will remain in the Act. However the bill also introduces new offence provisions with fines attached for other negative behaviours such as failure to comply with an adjudicator’s order or summons. This will help adjudicators to get on with their jobs. The Government has also decided to make the adjudication function independent of the Department of Building and Housing. 
The Ministry of Justice will be responsible for establishing and administering the new Weathertight Homes Tribunal. This will enhance consumer and respondent confidence in the adjudication service improve acceptance of the authority of the adjudicators and provide more institutional support for adjudicators. It will also strengthen the role of Weathertight Homes Resolution Service advisers by removing any perceived conflict of interest in the provision of both an advisory and an adjudication role by the department. 
The bill removes obstacles to bodies corporate bringing claims for multi-unit apartment complexes by setting voting thresholds that are not unanimous so that “hold-out” situations are less likely to occur. This is especially important given that around 70 percent of claimants with the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service are unit title apartment owners. Collectively the measures in the amendment bill will reduce the average time for claims to be resolved; result in homeowners and respondents incurring lower legal and evidential costs than they do at present when using the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service; increase the proportion of disputes resolved through early negotiation; ensure that homeowners receive an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the damage to their houses including what repair work is needed; result in homeowners being better prepared for the dispute resolution process; improve the independence of the adjudication process; and remove existing barriers to the registration of claims and the resolution of disputes by owners of units within multi-unit apartment complexes. 
The bill will also improve the weathertightness information available to prospective homebuyers by requiring Weathertight Homes Resolution Service notices to be placed on local authority land information memorandum reports. The new requirement means that potential buyers should know whether a house has been fixed as a Weathertight Homes Resolution Service notice will be listed along with any related consent repair work and code compliance certification. An accompanying consumer education campaign will also encourage prospective homebuyers to seek these reports before buying in order to make informed purchase decisions. 
The Government is also developing a financial assistance pilot for the worst-affected owners of leaky homes. We put aside $7.1 million in the last Budget for lending assistance under the 2-year pilot programme. The Housing New Zealand Corporation along with the Department of Building and Housing is currently developing eligibility criteria and lending conditions for the pilot financial assistance scheme. Work is progressing well and announcements will be made when final decisions have been made which is likely to be well within the next couple of months. 
It is also important to note that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was established as a specific solution to deal with a specific issue. Changes in the Building Act 2004 are now addressing the systemic failures across the building and construction sector that led to the leaky home problems. These changes include the licensing of those who design and build whilst at the same time specifically protecting the do-it-yourself or DIY tradition in New Zealand; a review of the building code; an auditing and accreditation scheme for building consent authorities; sector and community education; the investigation of a home warranty insurance scheme; and building product certification. These measures are part of a package of reforms to help ensure that homes are built right the first time and that homeowners have confidence in them. 
This bill therefore puts in a time limit so that homes built or altered after 31 December 2011 will no longer be eligible to use the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. In essence this means that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service will cease around 2021. 
Finally I thank those groups who have provided huge assistance in the community including the Leaky Homes Action Group which has endorsed this package of measures. It has provided invaluable assistance along with territorial local authorities and others. 
This is a serious issue. I will not politicise this issue nor have I engaged in political banter on it. This is about people’s lives. This is about changing a regime that was enacted over a decade ago when the industry was completely deregulated so that there were virtually no rules and all sorts of people could strap on a tool belt and call themselves builders and therefore the cowboys were let into the system. That was aided and abetted by the deliberate destruction of the apprenticeship system by the then Government. In essence if there are no rules and minimum standards and if young people are not trained to become master tradespeople of the future then that is a recipe for disaster. 
I look forward to the passage of this bill. This bill is about helping our communities out of the problem created by many stakeholders. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill is another sad chapter in the Government’s inept handling of the leaky home crisis. It comes as no surprise to me that Clayton Cosgrove’s previous occupation was that of a spin doctor. Today he has tried to paper over huge gaps in his Government’s policies and his Government’s neglect of the whole problem that affects thousands and thousands of New Zealanders. 
Let us go back to when this issue first arose. In 2001 building experts wrote to George Hawkins and said there was a very serious problem with leaky homes. And what did George Hawkins do? Well after receiving that letter from the building industry he wrote back but then denied he had ever received it—and he did absolutely nothing. And then there was Helen Clark. In November 2002 Helen Clark had this to say about the leaky homes issue. She said she was sick of the  
New Zealand Herald  
banging on about issues that had no substance. That was what the Prime Minister said about the plight of thousands of decent New Zealanders who were living in rotting substandard homes—and the Government did nothing. 
But when it became a public relations problem for the Government in a mad rush it created the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. Did the Government send the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Bill to a select committee? No it did not. We had the fastest legislation in the West with a Supplementary Order Paper tabled in this Parliament and passed only a few weeks later. Are any of us now surprised that it has been an absolute flop and a disaster? No we are not. The service was never about helping homeowners; it was all about damage control for the Prime Minister and the Government. 
Let us listen to what the Government said in 2002 when the legislation was passed and the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service was set up. Clayton your ministerial colleague said— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is to use the full name. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to the Minister that the Government then said it would take only 2 years to fix the problem. That was in 2002 4 years ago. But the Minister said in the House today that it will now take until 2021 to fix the problem. What an indictment that is on the Government. 
We can look at the record of Labour’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. This Government has spent $52 million on the bureaucracy of that service but do members know what proportion of claims has been resolved after 4 years and $52 million? It is just 10 percent—just 10 percent of those poor homeowners have had a solution. Labour’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service is a sick horrible joke on those homeowners caught up in that nightmare. Let us have a look at the rate of settlement. Far from taking 2 years to settle claims as the Minister said it would when the service was established do members know how long it will take at the current rate of settlement? It will take 75 years. There will not be a member of this House alive then if the agency continues at its current rate. 
Let us look at the cost. Each leaky home case that is being resolved is costing $92000. But that $92000 is not being spent on a single dwang or a single hour of a builder’s time; that $92000 is being spent per home on bureaucracy—on reports lawyers and arguments. Do members know what the average settlement is? The average settlement is only $70000. It would have been better to send the cheques directly to homeowners than to have wasted $52 million on Labour’s failed Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
Let us find out how some of that money was spent. Last year I drew attention to the fact that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service had got into party mode. What was it celebrating? It had a  
Sound of Music 
 theme party. It had an aeroplanes party. It even had—can we believe it—a “Cowboys and Indians” party. 
Bob Clarkson 
: But they are cowboys. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well my colleague “Bob the Builder” says they are in fact cowboys. It is disgraceful that poor New Zealanders are living in rotting homes and going broke and the people in the Government agency are spending tens of thousands of dollars on parties rather than on helping them. 
Then to really get a feel for how sick the culture of this Government is I tell members that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service went to the flashest hotel in Auckland—the Stamford Plaza—and had a Pacific Islands awareness training day. That is right; it flew all its staff up from Wellington for a day of drinking kava and having dancing girls rather than fix people’s leaky homes. Have we ever heard of anything so ridiculous? Is there any proof that our Weathertight Homes Resolution Service staff need politically correct training on Pacific Island culture for goodness’ sake? Is there any evidence I ask Winnie Laban that more leaky homes are amongst the Pacific Island community than amongst others? Of course there is not. It was just mad Government political correctness. 
Let us look at the portfolio. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is the seventh Minister for Building Issues. The portfolio has been handed around within the Government like a hot potato. We have had Mark Burton George Hawkins Lianne Dalziel Margaret Wilson John Tamihere Chris Carter and now we have Clayton Cosgrove. I ask that member opposite what his track record is since he has held the portfolio. When asked Clayton Cosgrove says we will get some real action. Well let us look at the record. Since Mr Clayton Cosgrove has been Minister for Building Issues 200 claims have been resolved but 584 new claims have been lodged. Mr Cosgrove is going backwards. 
Then we come to the solutions in this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: This will be interesting. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is good. We are going to help the leaky home owners because no longer will we have the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. We will change its name. We will have the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. That will help those thousands of leaky home owners will it not? They will be delighted to know there is a name change! 
This bill is effectively too little too late. We will change the Government department that is responsible for the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. It started off with the Department of Internal Affairs but the department passed it on like a hot potato to the Department of Building and Housing. Now it will be passed on to another Government department the Ministry of Justice. I am left wondering how that will help leaky home owners. Then I look at the disgrace of the Government’s spending $5 million on lawyers fighting leaky home owners rather than helping them. 
This bill is too little too late. The whole episode of leaky homes under this Government has been a disgrace. Those leaky home owners deserve far better. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I listened to the opening statement from Nick Smith’s address and it was a sad chapter. What a rich thing coming from that sad man who is part of that sad party over there. I look at the sad forlorn faces of that group of members who have had to sit and listen to that waffle—to someone grizzling and whining—with not one solution in sight. 
I am really proud that this Government with support from good visionary parties such as New Zealand First United Future and the Green Party is intent on making sure it fixes things. We are sick of hearing this “Bob the Builder” approach to politics and building which is what comes out of the mouths of those people over there. The misconception is that it is a new bureaucracy. This is not a new bureaucracy. By transferring adjudication to the Ministry of Justice it increases its status and ensures that it does what the ministry does best—its core business which is settling business disputes. So that is a step forward. We can look at that step forward and realise what a major step forward we have made. 
We know that a National Government was the one that actually started all the problems by deregulating the building sector in the 1990s and by dismantling and repealing the Apprenticeship Act so that we now see a major deficiency in skills and knowledge in that industry. We know why. It is because National brought in the slash-and-burn approach during the 1990s and wrecked it all. Since then Labour has reintroduced apprenticeships and upped skills training and we are now starting to see some real credibility back in that industry. I am really proud of that. We have included the licensing of those who design and build their homes whilst at the same time protecting the do-it-yourself tradition; the review of the building code; an auditing and accreditation scheme for building consent authorities; sector and consumer education; the investigation of a home warranty insurance scheme; and building product certification. 
This will be part of a package of reforms to help ensure that homes are built right in the first place which is something we did not see under a National Government. So I feel really proud to stand in support of this bill. I heard from the previous speaker the number of Ministers who have had this portfolio. All I can say is that it has been continuous improvement. They have been Ministers who have grabbed this role and really addressed it with passion. It has culminated in the really good progressive legislation we see before this House today. I am proud to speak in support of it. Thank you. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 We have heard from Nick Smith that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service has been a failure and that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill is too little too late. He bases that on the fact that to date only 10 percent of all claims have been resolved. Ministers at a Cabinet meeting sit round the table discussing Taito Phillip Field’s backhanders for 2 hours and all those other issues and when they have a spare few minutes at the end of the meeting they talk about the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. They say—and their own Cabinet papers before them state—that 15000 people many of them young families with their first homes are directly affected by weathertightness problems and that it will take 75 years to resolve these issues through the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. They are hopeful it will happen some time before 2021—some 15 years from now—but we know that their papers tell them there are 15000 outstanding claims. Fifteen thousand young families and older families are affected and at the current rate it will take 75 years to resolve. That is absolutely appalling. 
The Minister is into the blame game. Can I give him just one solution that would be useful for him to put on the table. The Construction Industry Council came before the select committee a few months ago. One would expect the Construction Industry Council which is in touch with all construction engineers builders and so forth throughout this country to have something to offer over this problem. The council told us that as many as half of the building standards in New Zealand are more than a decade old and some are hopelessly out of date and in need of review. 
In fact the council said it knows that today there are 60 building standards that are out of date and it could list them. If the Minister rang the council and asked which of the 60 building standards at the moment are hopelessly out of date and in need of review it could list them just like that. The council could just email the list to the Minister and say: “These building standards are hopelessly out of date and in need of review.” The council has said that of the 600 building standards currently in use in New Zealand at least half are more than a decade old and need to be looked at. Of the 600 building standards half need to be looked at and the council knows of 60 that are desperately in need of review. 
The council was so determined about the need to review these building standards that do members know what it said? That its members—construction companies and builders right throughout the country—are prepared to pay an extra levy. The council said that its members are so enthusiastic about getting these standards reviewed—such as how to put in a window properly what timbers to use in what situations all that type of thing—that they themselves would pay an extra levy to get the work done. “We’ll pay for it.” they said. “It’s that essential to construction in this country and we’re doing the building so we’ll pay for it through an extra levy. Bill us we’ll hand over the cheque in order to get this work done.” Yet still nothing has happened. Whether it is the range of materials used in building the way that technology in building has changed whether there are appropriate fire and earthquake safety provisions—all those things are in need of review. They told us at the select committee: “We’re happy to pay for it. Increase our levy let’s get the work done and it will make a real difference.” 
But what are the departments that cover building and housing doing? What is the Minister doing? Well they are turning a blind eye. The builders and the construction engineers are saying: “Listen we’ll pay for it. Send us the bill.” But they still will not do it. Minister Cullen does not even have to increase taxes across the country to get this work done and they still will not do it. A responsible Minister would want to be reassured that new technology new techniques and new designs in building are being covered adequately by current standards. That is what one would think. But no that is not the case. 
Members might want to know—and I know the Assistant Speaker is keen to know this fact—that Australia reviews its building standards every 7 years. That is right. Every 7 years Australia reviews its building standards. The Assistant Speaker wants to know that “Sam the Eagle” is interested in that fact and the Minister should be as well. In Australia building standards are reviewed every 7 years as a matter of course. In this country we have discovered that of 600 building standards over half of them are over a decade old and have not been reviewed and 60 are hopelessly out of date. 
This is just one opportunity for this Minister to do something that would make an obvious difference. He should investigate the standards that are hopelessly out of date and there are 60 of them—the construction industry will email them to the Minister—bring them up to date and do a review of 300 standards because half of the 600 are hopelessly out of date we understand or have not been reviewed for over a decade. He should have a look through them as well. He should trawl through them see what updated technology has come to pass in the last decade what new materials have become available in the last decade and what builders and construction engineers are saying about those standards. I say to the Minister that to do that one thing will make a difference. 
I want to tell members what happens in my electorate office in Whangarei when a young family comes to me in tears because they have a rotting home. They say to me: “We’ve heard of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. We’re thinking of going along there because we understand it’s cheap to get into that system and that our rotting home our building issues will be resolved.” I shake my head and say “No.” I pull out my bottom drawer—and I can tell members that that bottom drawer has been open more and more recently—and I give them the examples. The first is the waiting time to get something resolved. It takes 2 3 or 4 years. Second is the cost of lawyers mediation consultants’ reports more consultants’ reports to confirm what the previous consultants have said and more consultants’ reports to confirm what the lawyers have said about the consultants’ reports. I tell those people about the headache of paying for lawyers consultants and the mediation service. 
Do members know what I say to them? I say “Don’t do it.” There is no certainty in it it will cost them a fortune and because there is no resolution in the end they will pay for those consultants’ reports and lawyers and they cannot recover costs. My advice to them is to go to court. I tell them to forget the resolution service and to go to court. At least through the court process they will get certainty and they will have a decision within 6 months—and if they go to the court they can claim back damages legal costs and the cost of consultants. With this Minister’s Weathertight Homes Resolution Service people do not get any of the things they would get in a court. They do not get certainty they do not receive costs and they certainly cannot claim back the expenses of lawyers and consultants. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. There have been roughly 40 minutes in this debate including the Minister’s time taken to introduce this bill. Twenty minutes of that time has been spent on an indication and an explanation of this bill. Unfortunately for the other 20 minutes all we have heard is criticism of the bill—no solutions other than that of the member for Whangarei who told us what he does and the advice that he gives to people who come to his office to see him about this issue when they are considering utilising the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. Well I can understand what happens when one stays on the Opposition benches for so long that one’s positive sense of thinking is lost. For the last 10 minutes we have had an example of that. It is sad that in spite of all those members’ criticism no positive alternative has been presented to this House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some guidance. I spent 5 or 6 minutes of my speech talking about Standards New Zealand and how we could improve that. The member said that I gave no solutions. Could you give me some guidance as to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will be seated—I am on my feet. That is a debatable issue. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Obviously that is confirmation of what I said earlier on. 
As has been mentioned this bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act and given the need to address the issues that have been identified since the passing of the original Act I say on behalf of New Zealand First that this amendment bill is timely. It aims to improve the efficiency of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—the same service that a number of speakers have criticised—by speeding up and streamlining the processing of the claims before the service. It will also hold those responsible for building leaky homes to account and enforce their contributions to the cost of remedial work. 
It is estimated that up to 15000 homes may be leaky with repairs likely to cost up to $1 billion. New Zealand First supports this legislation as we believe the building industry needs a shake-up although we fear that this bill may be too little too late for many owners of leaky homes. The package seeks to address many of the problems encountered by claimants which have been daunting enough in many cases for them to withdraw their claims and walk away from the process. We consider that to be unfair when people build or buy houses in good faith and are then faced with the nightmare of leaky building syndrome. 
Under the proposed new system the time taken to process applications will be slashed by almost half to an average of 8 months. There will be less scope for lawyers and experts to draw the processes out and there is the suggestion that it will cut the time frame by even more than half. The definition of damage has been extended to include future damage as well as damage that has already occurred allowing for a more accurate assessment of the final costs required to fix a house. However there is a concern that financial assistance is limited to those who are unable to borrow from private lending institutions which disadvantages those who have to rely on private loans. 
The bill requires territorial authorities to record claim and building consent information on the land information memorandum report. Such transparency is important in order to ensure that future homebuyers are aware of the history of their potential purchase. It is also important that the owners of leaky homes can record completed remedial work. Basically the land information memorandum report will tell a story of the history of that particular home. 
Also included in the bill is a change to the voting thresholds to enable class action claims to be taken more easily by apartment owners. That is crucial given that around 70 percent of claimants fall within that category. 
The public has a right to expect that professionals in the building and construction industry are just that—professional. The building practitioner licensing scheme needs to be robust and to ensure that work is carried out to acceptable standards and is approved by qualified and licensed inspectors. It is imperative that the quality of buildings payment of subcontractors and completion of work be guaranteed and that the regulatory system including the building consents process does what it is supposed to do which is to protect people from such disasters. Architects and building suppliers also need to accept their culpability in recommending designs and products that are obviously unsuitable for homes. This whole episode of leaky homes is a reminder of what can go wrong when there is insufficient protection for unsuspecting homeowners from unscrupulous building industry players. 
This fiasco is also an example of the end result of rampant free-market ideology with its focus on deregulation and laissez-faire theories. Unfortunately there are winners and losers in that situation. On such an uneven playing field it is often the opportunistic cowboys who laugh all the way to the bank while the mums and dads are left with the headaches and of course the repairs bill. 
The deregulation of the industry also saw the decline of the apprenticeship scheme the repercussions of which are still being felt today in the shortage of skilled and qualified trades people. That also closed career options for a whole cohort of young people not the least of them being young Maori men who saw the building industry as a career option. 
However the important thing now is to settle the claims in a timely fashion. If it is good enough for this Government and this House to support the timely settlements of claims made under the Treaty of Waitangi then this situation should be no exception to that. Of course the claims should be addressed in a timely fashion so that people can get on with their lives and hold those responsible to account. This initiative along with the new building practitioner licensing scheme will go some way towards providing a speedier claim resolution for those affected by leaky homes and it will hopefully prevent this disaster from befalling future homebuyers. 
The consumer education campaign will play a central role in providing information to affected homeowners and prospective homebuyers so that they can make sound purchasing decisions. It is therefore vital that the campaign be effective and wide reaching. New Zealand First of course will be monitoring that. 
The bill is certainly a step in the right direction. Should there be any “devil in the detail” or concerns about the effectiveness of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service then we would expect that to be picked up during the select committee process. Early eligibility reports need to be linked to an early upfront loan in order to get the necessary repairs completed. A question may also be asked with regard to limiting the term of availability as to when claims need to be addressed. Many affected homes are already reaching the 10-year limitation and many in that position have not yet been discovered or reported. When a home is sold in the middle of the processing of a claim the claim should automatically transfer to the new owner to facilitate the required repairs. We support the proposal regarding invasive testing which will be essential in order to ascertain the true extent of the problem. 
New Zealand First will be watching closely to make sure that the leaky buildings disaster does not recur in New Zealand. Because of the seriousness and importance of this issue New Zealand First will also support the call from the Minister to have this bill put through the process in a timely manner. Kia ora. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am pleased to report to the House that the Green Party is right behind the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. We know that this issue affects the lives of a large number of New Zealanders. By one count around 15000 households have problems costing close to $1 billion to repair. We know too that the homes built in the laissez-faire years of the 1990s are the worst affected—coinciding with the deregulation of the building industry under the then National Government. The Hunn report in 2002 called what happened then a “major systemic breakdown across the entire building industry”. No one escapes blame—product designers and manufacturers developers builders architects central government the Building Industry Authority local authorities real estate agents and even some private owners. 
The explosive growth in building and development in the 1990s represented a great lost opportunity to upskill the industry and to prepare its workforce to build the future-proof homes we now need in the face of climate change and peak oil—well-insulated healthy energy-efficient homes. As just one example of this right now we need plenty of plumbers who are qualified and capable of installing tens of thousands of solar water heating units in homes and buildings around the country. But instead we have a huge shortage of anyone trained or qualified to carry out a job that will become more and more critical to our energy future and housing future over the next few years. 
Even worse as far as I know even now there is no national industry training plan in place to get the people we need skilled up and capable of carrying out not only solar water heating installation but a whole range of other tasks geared to maximising energy efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil and other unsustainable energy resources. Because of the lack of regulation and planning during the 1990s we are now 10 to 15 years behind the rest of the world. This leaky building problem is icing on the cake. 
The second problem we have beyond the simple fact the leaky building crisis happened is that the resolution services that were set up in 2002 to provide a so-called speedy flexible and cost-effective assessment and claims resolution procedure has not delivered. Right from the start significant problems began to emerge even with the first case in West Auckland where the Waitakere City Council was left to carry the can and pay more than $40000 damages to the owners of a Glendene home because the builders said they had no money. This pattern was repeated over and over again. The council obviously was not particularly happy with the result nor were the homeowners who were left with legal bills of $16000 and not enough money to fix their house. Further legal action dragged the case on even longer. 
Right from this unfortunate start things went from bad to worse. By June 2005 the  
New Zealand Herald  
reported a litany of delays the endless dodging of responsibility by both Government and local government bodies failed mediation some claimants settling for less than the cost of repairs and others ending up falling outside the 10-year time limit on claims. Of course while all that has been happening the people literally living with the problem have had to endure the personal and financial consequences of the original debacle. 
The Green Party is therefore pleased that the Government has seen fit to carry out a review of the resolution services and that it is now acting with reasonable speed in terms of parliamentary process to try to hasten solutions to the problems identified. We are pleased that the bill enlarges the definition of damage to include probable future damage resulting from the original problem rather than just what already exists. We welcome the fact that the bill gives an option for a more comprehensive assessor’s report thereby reducing the need to involve expensive expert witnesses and that it creates a new weathertight homes tribunal within the Ministry of Justice to enhance the independence and authority of the adjudication services. The Greens also appreciate the provision of a fast-track process for low-value claims the class action approach for multi-unit complexes and the promotion of a more investigative approach by the adjudicators which enhances their powers to be proactive during hearings. 
 We do however have just a couple of initial concerns with the legislation. In 2002 my colleague Sue Kedgley was recommending the scrapping of the 10-year liability period for claims. This continues to be our position. Any home identified as a leaky home should be eligible to use the service. Liability should cover houses and apartments built between 1991 and 2004. We also hold some concerns that claimants will be disadvantaged by the operation of confidentiality clauses during mediation. I imagine that the select committee will receive submissions reflecting these and I am sure other concerns. I look forward to being part of the committee process in terms of refining and improving this bill before it comes back to the House later this year. 
Just before I finish I would like to raise one other issue that I think a colleague from the Maori Party might also raise in a moment. I note with interest the speed with which the Government has picked up and taken action on this problem—a problem that mainly affects reasonably well-off people in cities like Auckland and Wellington. I am very conscious of the realities of housing for other people who live in places like Tai Rawhiti and Northland—where people live in papakainga housing in old Maori Affairs housing and in other places—where there is not the same sense of urgency. People are living in houses where the floors have rotted through under the kitchen and bathroom in garages and milking sheds or under dinghies. Some people are just sleeping out or living in overcrowded or hopelessly substandard accommodation of all sorts with no hope of any substantial or real help from the Government to fix their housing crisis. 
Their housing crisis has been there for sometimes over 100 years or longer. Their housing crisis continues for them every day and I think that in this Parliament not enough of us are speaking for those people. I would beg the Government to consider taking more action more rapidly and putting more priority on to the needs of all people in those districts and in other places such as South Auckland as well where people continue to live in accommodation that is beyond the imagination of most people in this House. 
However in conclusion I say that we are happy that this bill is going forward and what I have just said should not detract from the worth of this particular legislation. We have no hesitation in supporting this bill through rapid processes in the House. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe te Kaikorero o te Whare. In the mid-1980s a Te Awamutu lad Neil Finn created a band that produced one of the all-time favourite New Zealand songs. That band appropriately called Crowded House released the hit “Don’t Dream it’s Over”. The No. 1 hit song described a hole in the roof and trying to catch a deluge in a paper cup and ended: 
There’s a battle ahead many battles are lost  
But you’ll never see the end of the road 
While you’re travelling with me. 
It is a theme song that may well sum up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. The expression of hope amidst the battles of a vast alienated world reflects also the faith of tangata whenua that despite the persistent Maori housing crisis they will see the end of the road. It is an expression of faith that we will carry into this latest scheme to provide homeowners with a more effective alternative to the courts for the resolution of leaking buildings claims. 
It is an expression of faith that has endured through the decades. And it has literally been decades in which Maori have endured leaky homes houses that are far from weathertight substandard houses and poor housing conditions. In the 1920s Maori housing was restricted to urban pepper-potted situations. Tangata whenua were forbidden from building on their own land. Instead they had either to sell or swap their land in order to obtain a deposit to live somewhere else. In the 1930s funding was used to replace dilapidated housing with housing that was both smaller and on a much simpler scale than State-sponsored Pakeha housing. Indeed until the late 1940s Maori families were outcasts excluded from mainstream State housing on the grounds that their presence would allegedly “lower the tone” of State housing communities. It is what we call “privilege”. 
Hon Member 
: Which Government? 
TARIANA TURIA 
: National. We remember our people’s homes at Bastion Point being burnt down because the Queen was coming. Finally in 1948 Maori were concentrated into communities characterised by high Maori deprivation; areas such as Porirua and South Auckland—interestingly the same areas that the New Zealand Police is targeting with its Taser gun trial. The scheme administered by State Advances and the Department of Maori Affairs in effect created ghettos of Maori housing. 
Yet through it all Maori communities had faith that their housing aspirations would be realised that their battles would be won that the lack of insulation floor coverings floor space quality paint wall coverings concreting fencing sewerage and community facilities would one day be part of a nightmare that they had survived through. 
So although we support the goal of addressing the leaky building crisis in many ways we have a certain amount of irony in doing so for as the homes of tangata whenua would reveal concerns around the weathertightness of buildings in New Zealand existed long before 2002 when the Building Industry Authority raised concerns regarding leaky houses. To misquote another Finn hit the housing experience of Maori has been far more than “six months in a leaky home”. The homes of tangata whenua for decades have shown signs of damage from water leaking into the house from the outside. They have suffered from the use of untreated timber. They have borne the impact of monolithic cladding systems that retain moisture. The houses of tangata whenua have been built with inadequate or poorly constructed flashings around doors and windows. And tangata whenua have had to put up with musty smells with wet or rotting carpet with paint blistering wallpaper peeling or cracking and visible water damage embellishing their family homes. So although for some sectors these so-called leaky homes are a relatively recent phenomenon for Maori communities it has been with us for ever ake ake tonu ake. 
 Almost 50 years ago in 1959 the Young Maori Leaders Conference unanimously endorsed Maori housing as the most crucial issue of the hui. In rural areas particularly the housing stock owned or occupied by tangata whenua is often of poor quality and often poorly provided with the usual facilities. These problems are made even more complex by difficulties of remoteness and access which serve to increase the costs of construction. If this House were seriously to review the situation of generations of deprivation as reflected in the Maori housing crisis we would all be seriously embarrassed at the priority given to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. 
If members of this House were to travel to the Bay of Plenty up to Northland and up the East Coast they would be appalled. The Cooperative Housing Association of Aotearoa New Zealand has identified at least 5000 substandard houses in Northland alone. About 4 year ago when I was the Associate Minister of Housing we reviewed the housing situation in the Northland East Coast and Bay of Plenty areas. There was a lot of caution about exposing the issues surrounding the quality of the building materials the workmanship the assessment of the work authorised at local body level and public health—sewage disposal. Walls were rotting from the internal panels; they were like polyurethaned Weetbix. Many of the people were fastidiously clean but their floors still rotted. 
I recall the statement of an official about the situation in a small Maori community in the Bay of Plenty: “If this were to happen to white middle-class people there would be hell to pay.” In Rukumoana the situation was so extreme that sewerage was seeping over the lawns and coming up into the sinks of houses through the piping. People could not get the council even to pick up their rubbish as the council did not want to offend—and I quote—“their redneck ratepayers”. Funnily enough none of these Northland East Coast and Bay of Plenty areas benefited from a change in compensation or in legislation. 
While the provisions for assessment reports negotiation processes for resolutions and strengthened adjudication services are all very helpful the Maori Party must draw the attention of this House to the deteriorating conditions which cannot be overstated. The  
Social Report 2006  
has highlighted that the proportion of low-income households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing is over twice as high as it was in 1988. Among these Maori are highly overrepresented. 
It was precisely because of the severity of this crisis that a group of eight agencies—including the North Hokianga Housing Trust the Cooperative Housing Association of Aotearoa New Zealand and the Child Poverty Action Group—got together in 2003 and made a submission for the New Zealand report to the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. That submission reported: “There continue to be real problems of social exclusion and poverty in New Zealand manifested in an affordable housing crisis. We contend the situation is far worse than the Government accepts. Figures show that rising overcrowding impacts on Pacific families in South Auckland in particular. Overcrowding is associated with poor health status and respiratory diseases infectious disease and psychological stress.” The conclusion from this group of social service providers was that “remediation of sub-standard housing has not on the whole delivered sustainable outcomes that take into account the realities of impoverished under-developed regional communities.” 
The Maori Party is not in the practice of comparing one oppression with another of contrasting one case of deprivation with others. But when will the very real difficulties in the housing experiences of Maori of Pasifika of low-income communities in Aotearoa emerge as a worthy serious consideration? Housing is essential to survival to dignity to individual and whanau well-being. Our homes are key to our sense of security; they are our havens to nurture and bring up families. 
We have many proverbs that speak to the central role that stable housing plays in the lives of Maori. One recorded by White in 1887 gives particular insight: “Ko nga tama whakatamatama a Tane motu te nganahau.”—the bold and daring sons of Tane defiant of the storm. It literally reinforces the value of strong houses built of bark and wood of trees from the forest of Tane. It reminds us of consumer protection of the need to address the persistent deprivation. The Maori Party stands today to inform the House that we will indeed stand tall if the Government honours its obligations to respect protect and fulfil economic social and cultural rights by ensuring that the basic entitlement to housing remains intact. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. I will be brief; I have a touch of laryngitis. 
We consider the intentions of this bill worthy of support to be referred to the select committee for consideration. In particular we are pleased to read of the intention to streamline processes so that claims can be dealt with in a more timely manner. We are pleased that the legislation appears to be a genuine desire to tidy up many of the mechanisms that have been in obvious need of parliamentary legal tweaking. 
In particular we welcome the inclusion of information on land information memorandum reports regarding the fact that a property has been subject to a claim. There have been some very real concerns about the fact that the current provisions mean that successful claimants receive compensation not restitution. That places claimants under no obligation to use any money received to fix the damage. The leaky home problem is exacerbated when compensation is pocketed rather than used for repairs. We will indeed as has been highlighted by other people still be debating this issue in 15 to 20 years’ time if our New Zealand housing stock both privately and publicly owned is blighted with unhealthy flaws. 
United Future is happy to support the first reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Bob Clarkson. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Honourable is the correct word! I feel a bit nude today—there are no TV cameras around and that is something I am used to and you guys are not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When the member uses the word “you” he brings the Speaker into the debate. He must refer to “the members”. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I apologise. 
I am pleased to talk on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill. This is too little too late and it is in the wrong direction. Mr Cosgrove set up a bad management system to deal with leaky homes in the first instance. The Government has wasted millions of dollars and achieved very few results. That is a fact. At this moment approximately 400 leaky home problems have been solved. This is a very slow process. The first 400 homes reported as “sorted out” have cost taxpayers approximately $80000 each for the regulatory board yet the average repair bill is only $72000. That is crazy. 
The system set up to deal with the problem of leaky homes is a mess. For example an order by the leaky homes committee can be given to a contractor to pay the homeowner a certain amount of dollars. This money is paid to the owner before the work is done. That is ridiculous. The owner can paint over the wet spots and sell the house with no repairs done. There are at least 45 cases in the last 400 resolutions. That is ridiculous. Those houses are now in for a second claim. Mr Cosgrove has a lot to answer for. What a stupid law that does not say that the money should be paid out when the repairs are completed! That is a normal business practice. I do not know who fouled that one up. 
I have travelled around New Zealand to see many leaky homes. As a builder myself they bring tears to my eyes. Why did this happen? We have a Minister who has made faulty laws and must have received bad advice for this to have been allowed to happen. If he made the decisions himself I ask why we have a public relations person who knows nothing about buildings and construction making up rules with no good advice. Why do we not have Ministers who are experienced in their roles making decisions? I suppose it is a common problem in the Labour Government. It lacks real people. For example we have a history teacher who is the finance Minister. We have a vet who is the health Minister. 
This Government needs to wake up. We have briefcase developers with shelf companies in the construction field building shoddy houses and not paying for any mishaps. I say to Mr Cosgrove that he should wake up and fix the situation. When National is the Government I will show you how to do it. I suggest you talk to real builders in the field and get some facts. Unfortunately as a public relations man you might not be able to understand the facts as they are laid on the table. You do not fix a problem— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already said to the member that every time he uses the expression “you” he is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “the member”—that is in the third person. I refer the member to Standing Order 103. He cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Righto we will try again. I talk from the heart you see; that is the problem. 
Unfortunately as a public relations man Mr Cosgrove might not be able to understand the facts if they were laid on the table. Mr Cosgrove cannot fix the problem by charging $250 for the standards information book dealing with NZS 3640. The book used to cost $20 and every builder or tradesman had one. Mr Cosgrove cannot fix the problem by wrapping everything in bureaucratic tape. Builders should be given guidelines and be allowed to make some decisions within those guidelines. If Mr Cosgrove wraps everything up in red tape and charges $250 for an instruction book the builder loses interest and does not have to think. Let them think let them be accountable and they will decide their own destiny and pay for the mistakes they make. 
We need a bill to show and mean business. Briefcase builders should pay; they should not hide from shoddy work. In my travels around the country I have seen some large complexes that are leaking because of bad workmanship. These complexes are not being fixed by the original briefcase builder. He has made his money and is hiding behind the company’s name. The sad situation is that I stood on the roof of one of these complexes—at the Mount actually—that is leaking badly and one of the owners pointed to a construction building site approximately 300 metres down the road where the same builder was building another building even though he had not repaired the original complex. The law is an ass. 
I say to Mr Cosgrove that he should please fix this bill for the sake of all New Zealanders. Homeowners are frustrated and some have had severe medical problems caused by the pressure of getting their houses their dreams and their finances sorted out. National will support this bill to the select committee and then we will fire some big guns to make sure it is done right. 
I make a few little suggestions to the uninformed. There is a camera available at the moment that can X-ray walls. I do not know whether members know this but if one points the camera at the wall the screen will show studs nails and water inside that wall. It is as simple as that. I have used this camera myself on a trial. It costs approximately $850 to do a full house inspection. They check the whole house for $850. This means we could test 4000 houses under claim at the moment for the small amount of $3.4 million—way under what it is costing at the moment. This final test could be completed on the houses which could save many second claims. There is no need to do invasive testing. That just wrecks the house and does not get to the truth. A camera can test the lot inside the walls. The camera can test all the work done and give a final pass if this work is completed properly. We need a better faster process. I consider that this camera is the answer. 
This bill will not speed things up because every claim will not be a final claim. I estimate we will still be dealing with these claims in more than 25 years’ time. Let us get the bill right. I want all claims to be final and this final report to be put on the land information memorandum. 
Darren Hughes 
: Why aren’t the members listening to him? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Members should listen carefully. I do not want to be dealing with this bill in 2 years’ time— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this may not be the most gripping speech but it is a bit much for the member’s own caucus to be holding a caucus meeting right next to him when he is speaking. I mean give the man a chance. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My colleagues have come down to the House because this is an important debate. Our member Bob Clarkson has some expertise in this area and you can see that they have come in to support him. That is what they are here for. The Minister said that this is a caucus. Our caucus is a very big caucus if I can remind the Minister and when they all get down here he will see how big it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so and then only so as not to disturb the proceedings of the House. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Thank you for your wise counsel Mr Speaker. I will just repeat that I want all claims to be final and the final report to be put on the land information memorandum. I do not want to be dealing with this bill in 2 years’ time when I am a Minister in the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] If members will just keep quiet they will hear the good bit. National supports this bill to select committee. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Members have heard contributions from experts in the field on the Opposition side of the House. We had the Hon Dr Nick Smith who has an interest in the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. He was able to crystallise and articulate arguments about the shortcomings of this bill—a bill that is too late and too short—and articulate where National would be looking to make changes to it in the select committee. 
We heard from Phil Heatley who is our spokesman on housing and has taken an immense interest in the issues surrounding housing within New Zealand. He talked about how we should be looking at standards and how standards which are not in this bill should be incorporated in it. If there were to be any measure of success and any measure of progress that needs to be achieved by this amendment legislation then we should look at incorporating standards. 
My colleague Bob Clarkson probably knows more about the building industry than anybody in this House. He has probably built more buildings than we could ever count and has been associated with major developments. So he has an understanding of the core elements and core values that are necessary to build a building that will stand the test of time will last for a long long time and will not have the problems that homeowners and those in residential properties are having to contend with. 
As I said before this bill is too late and does not go far enough. If we look at some of the statistics we will see that the cost of going to mediation is $80000 per house. Yet what is the average cost of carrying out the repairs? It is $72000. Why does it cost more to get an answer than to do the work? 
Hon Member 
: That is Labour! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well there we are. All the compliance costs that go into this are absolutely outrageous. The issues for the victims—those who have the problems with housing and leaky homes—should be addressed and the money should be put into those resources. Victims should not be handicapped and shackled because of the bureaucracy that it takes to deal with the problem. 
There are 15000 claims outstanding. Do members know that on the basis of the rate of claims lodged at the moment and those that are settled it will take 75 years to clear those claims? Where is the Government’s priority for those people who are affected by leaky homes? This bill is as I said too short and too late. It does not go anywhere. The Minister is building up a bureaucracy that will not solve the issues we have identified. In fact over the last year 200 claims were settled but how many claims were lodged at the same time? I ask members to guess how many claims were lodged. I tell members that 584 claims were lodged more than double the number that were actually resolved. 
Brian Connell 
: That means the problem is getting worse. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The problem is getting worse as I said and as my colleague identifies very correctly. There are 15000 outstanding claims. 
We have looked at what this bill does and as my colleague Bob Clarkson said we will be supporting its referral to the select committee. But I can tell members that very close scrutiny will be given to how it will work and how it will impact on those people who have put their money at risk. This issue concerns their pension this concerns their superannuation and they should expect something better than this. In the last 7 years the Government has done absolutely nothing to help those people. 
Let us see what the Government is going to do under this legislation. Well it is to change the name of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service that is operating now. It is to create another organisation that will be called the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. How will a tribunal fix the problem that these homeowners have? We already have the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service so why do we need—and this is a key change in the bill—“a new Weathertight Homes Tribunal to provide strengthened adjudication services:”? How will that help those people out there with leaky homes? This Government is stuffing around and is not being serious about the issue and those people are bleeding. They do not have money and they are living in homes that are leaking. That leads to adverse health effects—people are getting sick because they are living in those environments—yet the Government is mucking around. 
Let us look at the other key changes in the bill. “A wider scope of claims …” will be included. Well that is great but how does it actually help the 15000 people who now have claims waiting to be assessed? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the bill! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I have the bill—I am quoting from it. Let us look at the provision for “a low-value claims process”. That is all right; I have no problem with that. The change to “a class action approach to claims” is OK. But “improved processes and case management.”—what does that actually mean? 
Although we support this bill going to the select committee stage—with reservations I might add—we give notice that we want very robust and transparent legislation that will help all the people who are affected by this problem. The degree of frustration amongst homeowners is growing; it is becoming quite extreme. We are not prepared to accept that. This bill tinkers at the edges only and in the select committee we will make sure we get the robustness and transparency that we believe is important. 
Buying a home is probably the biggest investment one ever makes. It takes years to get a home. We know how difficult it is to become a homeowner so when somebody finds fault with his or her place because it has not been built right— 
Craig Foss 
: Bad tiling. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It could be bad tiling or it could be the plumbing; it could be a number of issues. 
Hon Member 
: Cheap tiling. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It could be cheap tiling. Those things could lead to those deficiencies. Homeowners do not have expertise regarding building. A homeowner does not necessarily have the expertise required to know whether a house is being built correctly. Homeowners rely on the reliability and professionalism of those tradespeople whose job it is to build it—that is what tradespeople are employed to do. We put our faith in them. It is only someone like Bob Clarkson who has an understanding of the industry and can see where the rorts are who actually knows how to build correctly. He has been a practitioner—he is a practitioner—and he knows exactly how buildings should be built. 
 This is important legislation. We do not believe that just tinkering at the edges of the process will improve the lot of the 15000 claimants who are affected today. We do not believe that this bill goes far enough to be able to expedite their claims. There is money at risk. Those people are concerned about their livelihoods and their investments. A house is probably the biggest investment they will ever make and it is important we get this legislation right. As Mr Clarkson said we do not want to come back here in a couple of years’ time to sort out more problems. At that stage National will be in Government and I can tell members that we will sort it out then. But let us sort it out now. We have an opportunity to do so. We have the expertise and we know what has to be done. Let us make sure during the select committee process that we make this legislation work. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 December 2006 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 1 the title in our discussion of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. When we look at the words “employment relations” and think about them we know that the relationship we have with our employers is among some of the most important relationships we have in our lives. But this bill single-handedly makes it easier for an employer to get out of the Mafia than to move on and change an employment relationship with a staff member. 
I would like to remind members in the Chamber of the reasons we are here debating this bill. It results from the case of a Dunedin firm actually Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd which was taken to court because it wanted to take on a cleaning contract for the Dunedin Kindergarten Association. That association had loyally stood by a number of cleaning staff members for some years but over a period of time the standard of cleaning had become so appalling that the association felt that the health of the children who attended those kindergartens was at risk. It complained that some of those kindergartens were left in an unsanitary situation so in certain circumstances the association was almost at the point of having to close those kindergartens because the cleaning was so bad. 
But on the issue of employment relations the Government is telling New Zealanders that the relationship is of greater importance than the standard of the work. The Government is saying that for a kindergarten to have such substandard cleaning is OK and that the employment relationship is far more important. Crest Commercial Cleaning wanted to take over the contract after that contract had been terminated. The kindergarten association did not break the contract; it waited loyally until the end of that contract. The association thought it was fine and hired a new company. The new company came in took over but—hello—the staff members took it to court backed by the union movement. 
This is telling Kiwis that it is OK for people not to do their work well and to put other New Zealanders’ health at risk yet still they will keep their jobs. If we look at the cleaning business we see that about 90 percent of what is important in that business is the standard of work done by individuals. If the individual cannot work well then the Government is saying that that is OK—that that is not the important point there. Under this new legislation a cleaner could be the worst cleaner in the world the worst staff member in the world but still have what equates to a fixed employee/employer relationship. The Dunedin Kindergarten Association did not want to be in a position where it hired staff members; that is why it got contractors in. And it was a total shock to the association to find itself in the situation where effectively it was the employer of those cleaners. 
The Government wants to paint a picture that this bill is all about vulnerable workers and if we look at the rhetoric around it we can see that it is basically a whole bunch of euphemisms. It talks about vulnerable workers and about restructuring when in fact we are looking at ending fixed-term contracts and moving on to new business. 
If the Government were really serious about employment relationships it would be thinking about the mums and dads who run those cleaning franchises. The Government wants to give the impression that this is all about big nasty corporate cleaning companies. Well it is not. The average value of a cleaning contract in this country is around $8000 and mums and dads take on franchise opportunities earning only $20 an hour if they are working for themselves. They have independent businesses. They go out and get those small contracts and use that work to put bread and butter on their own family’s table. This bill effectively makes them responsible for somebody else’s staff. 
If the aim is to retain the positions of those staff members who do not have work as a result of a contract then they should be allowed to stay with the companies involved. That would make sense. If the Government is serious about employment relationships then why does it not keep the employment relationship between the staff member and the initial employer? Why force that staff member to be taken on by a company the staff member does not know and why should a firm take on staff it does not know if the quality of service is to be maintained? Lianne Dalziel gave us a lecture about business compliance costs; this bill adds the biggest compliance cost for those businesses. 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: Before I take the next speaker I say that I should have given some guidance at the outset. This bill is a clause by clause bill. It is in clauses so therefore the discussions should relate strictly to those clauses. Clause 1 is about the title which has four words in it. I ask that members confine themselves to the title on its own from here on. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you for that clarification. I know that my colleague has a lot of expertise and experience in various businesses and she has been able to articulate that and show how the impact of employment relationships has affected the viability of businesses. When we look at the title and the words “employment relations” one of the questions one needs to ask is whether those relations are favourable relations for the staff who are to be employed. Are they relationships that will cause a business possibly to have to retrench or even to close down? It is all very well talking about vulnerable workers but in terms of this bill—and I know that over the years there have been a number of amendments to employment relations legislation—we really have to look at the impact of what the bill means and whether the title is applicable and says what the bill means. 
We often judge a book by its title. Maybe we should not do that but when I go into a news agency and want to buy a magazine I will be looking at what the title is in order to see whether it sparks an interest for me to say I will buy the magazine—or newspaper or book—and read it. That is so when I go to the library or whatever. So the title in itself is a marketing tool. It is one of those things that grabs the imagination. With that in mind the title of the bill should really reflect in essence what the bill is about because if it does not then it is misleading. 
When I look at the Employment Relations Amendment Bill provisions I see that although it is meant to protect vulnerable workers what will happen is that businesses that may be contracting may be disadvantaged. We used the cleaning example because the National Party minority view on page 4 of the report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I draw the Minister’s attention to is very clear. It gives practical examples of a cleaning contract whereby if a business was to win a contract it would have to take on the staff of the outgoing contractor. Is that fair? I would say that is grossly unfair because the terms and conditions of a new contract arrangement between the business that is being contracted for by the provider of a service will be affected very much by the calibre of those people who are there. 
So when I look at the title of the bill I would say that this bill should be called the “Employment Relations to Undermine Businesses Amendment Bill”. We are a nation of small businesses. In fact 80 percent of all businesses in New Zealand employ fewer than five people. So to my mind when I read through this bill—and I have looked at it very closely I can assure members of that—I see that it does not do the worker any good whatsoever because it puts shackles on the employer. 
I see that the Chairman is keen that I talk more about the bill in this particular area and I am happy to do that. The bill makes it difficult for employers to say they will go for a contract knowing that when they are to take over a new contract—let us say in the cleaning industry—there are existing staff. As we are a nation of small businesses a lot of family-owned businesses will be affected by that. I believe that a lot of workers whom we are trying to protect with this legislation will actually be disadvantaged. So another name for this bill could be the “Employment Relations Heading to Redundancy Bill”. 
Paula Bennett 
: That’s a good name. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I think it is quite a good name: the “Employment Relations Heading to Redundancy Bill”. With that in mind when we look at how businesses work we see that the problem with this Government is that it has never got its feet on the ground. It does not know what makes businesses tick. It has never put an investment in business. It has never taken the risks. Yet it is telling businesses here that this is what they have to do. It is not about employment relations. Employment relations should encompass not only employees but employers. If we want a win-win situation to get the best and to add to productivity—although this Government knows absolutely nothing about productivity in the workplace— 
Paula Bennett 
: How much do they know? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well they do not know very much at all. That is why the Labour Party is on its way out and its members will all be looking for new employment opportunities themselves looking at the polls today. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to the title of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I feel it is appropriate to come up with a suggestion myself for a title to this bill. Looking back to the year 2000 when the Employment Relations Act was introduced I see this is the 14th amendment to it since then. So my suggestion is that we call this bill the “Employment Relations Too Many Amendments Bill”. The reality is that time has been taken up by the Government on those amendments. There has been so much wrongdoing going on that we have to look at employment relations amendments because the Government could get them right the first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth ninth 10th 11th 12th or 13th time. The bill should be called the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill”. The reality is that this Government and this Parliament are having their time taken up by trying to continually fix the mess that was made the first time round. In fact how many times have we been trying to fix it? It is 14 times now. This is the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill”. 
Of course the reason we are here to discuss the title of the “Employment Relations 14th Amendment Bill” is that we have a situation where employment relations are not being fixed at all. How can Labour members call it employment relations when what they are actually doing is to undermine businesses? When will this Government understand that by undermining a business it undermines its employees as well? The issue is about the employees at the end of the day just as it is about the business owners as well. 
The title of this bill makes a mockery of what we should try to accomplish for our people in terms of employment relations. When we look at what is happening in the relationship between employees and employers we see that they wish to talk to each other. Constantly through these amendments we have regulations that set in practice law that stops people from communicating. We have unions stepping up and saying they can do better than the poor employees can. The unions say employees cannot advocate for themselves and had better let the unions do that. 
We are about empowering people to have that obligation. On reading the entire bill—as I was unfortunately doing this morning in order to look at the amendments and at how the title would fit in with the bill—I was absolutely gobsmacked yet again to read the sort of language used about good faith and about the imbalance of power between employers and employees. I wonder what sort of world we are living in when we have unemployment levels at 3.9 percent and employees are in a position now where they can advocate for themselves and stand up and say what they are worth. But instead the Labour Government constantly turns round and says it knows what is best for them—that they do not know that. It says it knows where they should be working and what they are worth—that they do not know that. 
The National Party says yes employees do know that and they are actually worth a lot. National says employees have a lot to offer and a lot to give not just to business but to this country. We turn around and ask employees to let us empower them to make decisions that are right for them instead of turning around and saying they are too thick to advocate for themselves which is the constant message the workers of this country receive from the current Government. 
 So when we turn round and look at a title like “Employment Relations (This is the Fourth) Amendment Bill”— 
Hon Members 
: 14th. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: How many? 
Mark Blumsky 
: 14. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: There have been 14 amendments? I did say “4”. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Because you couldn’t believe it. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I could not believe there have been 14 amendments. I had to sit there and count them up again. I had to get someone else to count them for me because I could not believe that we were on the 14th amendment to the principal Act. When we look at those sorts of amendments we have to ask how much we are going to continue to regulate a workforce that does know what is best for itself. There is room we say for the bigger employers—and we were looking at cleaning companies and so on—to have in place legislation that helps them to achieve what they want to do. We believe in employees’ rights. They do have a right to work in safe environments and to be treated fairly—all those sorts of things. But employees have strength now. They have strength in their numbers and strength in the fact that they are needed. No one knows that better than the business owner. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I would like to draw members’ attention to my Supplementary Order Paper 54 where there is an amendment to the commencement date in relation to some provisions in that Supplementary Order Paper. It reads: “To omit all the words in lines 4 and 5 on page 2 and substitute the following subclauses: (1) The following provisions come into force 3 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent: (a) subpart 1A of Part 6A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 4 of this Act); and (b) sections 5A and 5B of this Act. (2) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” 
The primary legislation which we are debating this evening will come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. That is appropriate given that the sole purpose of the primary legislation is to ensure that the law is clear and reflects the original policy intent as it was designed to do. That was not the case in reference to the appeal that my colleague Katherine Rich referred to earlier. That appeal overturned the original policy intent of the legislation and that is why we are looking at an amendment before the Committee today. 
However in my Supplementary Order Paper I am proposing a new procedure under the vulnerable workers legislation by which we ensure that employers are not tendering blind. Because this is a new provision it has not been before a select committee but it has certainly been raised before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown has made representations to me on this very issue. But the fact that it was not notified as an amendment prior to the Supplementary Order Paper in my view warrants the consideration of the “3 months” date and that is why it is set out on my Supplementary Order Paper. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am very interested in the Minister Ruth Dyson’s passing comments about vulnerable workers because section 69E(5) in clause 4 of this bill talks about airport workers cleaners and food workers being vulnerable workers. But if a Thai tiler is paid less than the average wage to tile someone’s house somehow that person is not a vulnerable worker but a professional person who is able to establish whether he or she enters into a contract. A lot of the comments that we have just heard about vulnerable workers do not ring true when day after day we have seen the Minister defend the indefensible in terms of the treatment of those particular workers. She can dance on the head of a pin all she likes but it does not look good. 
We are talking about the commencement date in this part of the debate. The Minister has just outlined some changes to certain parts of the commencement date for certain provisions and that is just another indication that this bill was not properly drafted in the first place. We have seen time after time this Parliament being asked to turn back to the Employment Relations Act of 2000 to amend it—not just once or twice. I heard before that it has been amended 14 times. These last-minute changes to the commencement date just show the lack of rigour that has been used in the development of the Government’s legislation. 
Most of the small cleaning businesses I have spoken to would say that regardless of when the commencement date is it does not matter to them one iota—they do not want any commencement date. They do not want to be put in a position where they fall heir to somebody else’s shoddy workers. Usually cleaning contracts change hands because the cleaning is substandard—as we saw in the Dunedin kindergartens. Those kindergartens were so badly cleaned that in some cases the management considered closing them because it had received parental complaints and some teachers were concerned about the safety of children in those kindergartens. Well that is not good enough. I do not think that putting this bill which is nothing more than a vendetta against small business before the House is good enough. 
Clause 2 “Commencement” states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” Most small businesses I have spoken to think that is far too soon. Some of the provisions might be coming in some 3 months later but what this legislation does—regardless of the commencement date—is to impose a bigger compliance cost on some of those mum and dad operations than any other regulation the Government has brought in. 
Lianne Dalziel stood in the House today and said that the Government is business-friendly. Well nobody believes that because on the one hand she is trying to make warm fuzzy comments to business and on the other the Government is bringing in laws like this one which make it harder not easier for business people to conduct their business. These people are not wealthy individuals; they are small-business operators—mum and dad operations—which in most cases earn no more than $20 an hour. But they go out and they do the cleaning. They clean our schools our kindergartens our offices and other businesses and they do it to put bread and butter on the table for their kids and their families. This Government is making it harder not easier for those people to do that. 
So although we can sit here and have an academic argument about the commencement date out there in real-life land businesses do not want it at all. The Government should be ashamed of this legislation because this is where ideology does not match common sense. What the Government is doing—making small businesses fall heir to shonky workmanship—does not make sense. Those contracts change hands largely because of the quality of the cleaning or the quality of the food. One of the examples in this bill is that of food workers in retirement homes. Well if the food is horrible day in day out in a retirement home why should that contract continue? Why should that retirement home be forced to keep that contract in place even after it has been terminated? The Government should be ashamed of itself—forcing old people in retirement homes to eat rubbishy food. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Just while we look at the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and at Supplementary Order Paper 54 I would like some clarification with regard to clause 2(1)(b) on the Supplementary Order Paper which states: “(b) sections 5A and 5B of this Act.” Would the Minister or officials be able to advise me because it seems to me that clause 5 of the new Employment Relations Amendment Bill soon to become an Act actually has clauses 5(1) and 5(2) not “sections 5A and 5B”. Is there a drafting error or is it supposed to be like that? 
John Hayes 
: Fifteen changes. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: So if that is the case then I think we are on to our 15th amendment. It is important that we look at those kinds of details when we are drafting legislation like this because they send an important signal to New Zealanders about the care and integrity we apply to our legislation. So if I could have some kind of guidance from the officials at some stage on that point that would be great. 
The main part of clause 2 is now in the amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper. Clause 2 of the bill states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The words “Royal assent” take on a new meaning in New Zealand now because a couple of weeks ago we were very fortunate to witness the swearing-in of a great new Governor-General for New Zealand. He is somebody who will represent this country very well in that position. 
Chris Tremain 
: Anand Satyanand. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes—Mr Satyanand—and I believe that the speech he gave that day was a great speech for all New Zealanders. It showed enough nous and political knowledge but at the same time it was supportive of our people and our opportunities. 
This legislation does not fulfil the comments the Governor-General made about our history and our future which is why it is important when we look at the legislation coming into force on that commencement date that it should actually reflect the intention that the Governor-General has provided for New Zealand. In his speech the Governor-General very much emphasised the ability of New Zealanders to achieve and to attain their full goals. We do not have that intention in this legislation. This legislation takes away the ambition and achievement of ordinary New Zealanders. It is just part of Labour’s idea of hierarchy: keeping people under its thumb and saying that it knows best what is best for these people. 
John Hayes 
: Anti-competitive. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is right; it is anti-competitive. But it is more than that—it is anti the Kiwi spirit—the spirit of going out there and making the most of our opportunities. 
That is why we in National stand against this legislation today because we back New Zealanders. We back not just legislation that has the right numbers or letters in it; we back New Zealanders. We want to see legislation that gives them the opportunities to achieve their goals to be successful and to build on their successes. And that is the big problem with this legislation especially if we look at a commencement date that has been tied in with our great history and future—as the new Governor-General’s speech showed. The driving intention of that speech is the ability of people to take an opportunity. 
This legislation has been proposed by unions—that is what it is; it is a union payback. It is all part of the Labour equation of employment rights. Labour does not do it all in one fell swoop; that is why there are 14 amendments. And we will have another 20 amendments by the end of this term because the Government has taken an incremental approach to employment law in this country. The Government knows that it cannot get a decent employment law passed that would achieve all its goals but it believes that it can do so incrementally. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: By stealth. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It can do so by stealth—with members’ bills and by bringing parties on board to help it achieve certain little goals. 
That is why the commencement date is relatively important. If we look at that date we go back to the heart and intention of what New Zealand workers want. They want a fair go and that is what the Governor-General said. They want to have a chance to be the best they can be. Are we giving them that chance today? No I do not think we are. We are doing the opposite: we are actually telling them what to do; we are setting the rules that they must abide by. That is not good enough and it is not what they want. Workers want the Royal assent to be granted to legislation that gives them the ability to make the most of their opportunities. That is what this Parliament should stand for. We have an MMP Parliament and that is a great thing in some regards. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to correct a statement I made earlier to the Committee. I have just been passed papers that inform me that this bill is actually the 15th amendment to the Employment Relations Act not the 14th. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I assure the Committee that the commencement date of this bill was not on the Prime Minister’s mind this morning when she opened the new Hague building at Napier Girls High School—I would like to congratulate the school on the opening of that fine new building. This commencement date was also certainly not on the mind of Prime Minister Helen Clark in 1995 when she gave a speech to the New Zealand Employers Federation conference. She said: “Labour knows the economy now is more competitive innovative and dynamic than the economy of 10 years ago. In fact we would go so far as to suggest that a large part of that is due to the changes made by the last Labour Government.” 
Let me assure members that the commencement date of this legislation was far from her mind at that point in time. She was talking about the Labour Government of the late 1980s and early 1990s that had the courage to plot a new track for this country with the introduction of GST the privatisation of public assets such as Telecom and Air New Zealand the cutting of agricultural subsidies and trade barriers and the control of inflation. The commencement date of the Employment Relations Bill or the changes to employment relations legislation are a long way away from those hurly-burly days of that Labour Government which was looking to drive this country forward. 
From that point in time the National Government came in and launched the Employment Contracts Act in the early 1990s which is where the present bill came from. The Employment Contracts Act has evolved into the Employment Relations Act of 2000 and into the 15th amendment of that Act going forward. This country has benefited hugely from the innovative policies of those early years and has grown at an average rate of 3 percent since the 1990s—until now when inflation is rampant growth is stagnant domestic debt has skyrocketed and our balance of payments is dismal. 
What is the Government doing about it? Well we are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill right here and now. We are winding back the clock. The Government talks a big book on economic transformation—it talks a huge book. What are we doing about economic transformation? We are debating the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and its commencement date. Yes this Government is winding back the clock. 
Here is a quote from Ms Clark’s Speech from the Throne last year: “My Government’s overall objective for the next three years is to continue New Zealand’s transformation to a dynamic knowledge-based economy and society … . In the last six years my government has sought to lay the foundations for this transformation.” And what are we doing? We are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I ask members to tell me what that has to do with economic transformation. 
Hon Members 
: Nothing. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Not one iota. This Government talks a big book about Government transformation and it introduces new laws. The commencement date we are discussing today is designed to protect certain categories of employees in restructuring situations. As we will see later on when we discuss different parts of the bill when we get past the commencement date we will be discussing particularly Subpart 2—how Labour has actually wound this in to include all employees. I am talking about Subpart 2 “Other employees”. 
This Government is engaged in economic transformation all right. It is economic transformation that is squeezing out innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and kicking risk takers in the guts. And here we are debating the commencement date of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which is seeking to kick entrepreneurs like Shane Jones in the guts. The bill is seeking to kick Mr Jones’ fishing businesses across the floor. Such employers depend on innovative business practices on merging businesses on changing the business to meet the market—entrepreneurial activities that will take this country forward. So here we are debating the Employment Relations Amendment Bill commencement date which will do nothing to transform this country or improve its economic growth. This bill is a total waste of time. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 54 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2A Principal Act amended 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Clause 3 Purpose 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I rise to speak to the purpose clause of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I went into the lobby and referred myself to the principal Act itself and I must say that in looking at it I am gobsmacked. A member who goes to get this Act from the lobby shelves will find it riddled with red pen markings and flimsy tissue paper additions. It is almost totally impossible for a member to get a good overview of exactly what the law in the principal Act is at this time because so many changes have been made to it since it came into force. 
Paula Bennett 
: Fifteen amendments. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The Act has had 15 amendments which is just outrageous. If we look through the Act itself we find flimsy bits of paper added at various points and markings from a red pen all over the place. It just shows the Committee that when this legislation was first brought into the House it was done at great speed. It was done without rigorous work being done on it and without attention being paid to detail. Those are the reasons the House comes back time and time again to deal with the changes that need to be made. It would be interesting for members to know exactly how much it costs us to have to turn our attention to patching the mistakes made in the original drafting. 
The purpose clause in this bill states that its aim is to clarify the application of a particular clause especially in respect of specified categories of employees—or vulnerable workers as this Government likes to call them. As I said when I spoke on this bill previously this Government thinks that people are vulnerable workers if they work in the food service industry if they work at the airport and if they undertake cleaning. But if a Thai immigrant does some tiling—or is charged with tiling half of Samoa by all accounts—then he is vulnerable in no way. 
Members on that side of the Chamber continue to stand there and defend the treatment of that tiler saying that he was not vulnerable at all but that he was a professional person entering into a professional contract. We all know that it takes great skill to be a tiler but I do not know how members on the other side of the Chamber can continue day after day to defend what has been done then when they come into this Committee in their next breath go on and on about their concern for vulnerable workers in New Zealand. As members on that side like to say there is an “h” word for that. Certainly on this side of the Chamber we are getting sick of that kind of rhetoric because it does not ring true in terms of what they are actually doing. 
We are also hearing here a discussion about how the treatment of these employees can change and the purpose clause refers to a change of application to succession contracts. It is designed to give one the impression that that is a contract that has been going for some time and will naturally roll over and be renewed. But what this bill does is exactly the opposite. This bill basically negates fixed-term contracts so that people can enter into a contract for service and although they receive the worst service they have ever experienced in their life they are not able to enjoy the termination of the contract when it finishes. 
That is exactly what the Dunedin Kindergarten Association faced. It loyally waited until the end of its contract before deciding to go out and get a new firm to come and do the cleaning. That makes sense to us on this side of the Chamber. The association waited until the end of the contract. It did not break the contract; it loyally decided to stick with the cleaners until it had the legal right to say: “See you later.” But this Government is saying no that they can look beyond a fixed-term contract and in fact force that employment relationship to keep going even after a contract is terminated. If people cannot enter into a fixed-term contract then that makes it very difficult for small businesses to be able to undertake the kind of work they do. 
In 2004 the Prime Minister stood up at the New Zealand Franchise Awards beside CleanTastic Commercial Cleaning a business franchise that was franchisee of the year. That franchise oversees over 300 mum and dad operations that run very small businesses. They have small contracts and go out and clean our schools and kindergartens. The Prime Minister had her photo taken got all the credit and now is ruining its business. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I am speaking to clause 3 “Purpose” of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to substitute a new Part 6A. The title of new Part 6A is “Continuity of employment if employees’ work affected by restructuring”. If people are going to continue employment they have to work somewhere. If they work somewhere in New Zealand then “somewhere” is mostly in small business. I think it is important that in order to understand the purpose of this legislation we hear what real small business has to say about the Government and its attitude to business in New Zealand. I have had a lot of correspondence from small business because of my role in economic development and I have randomly chosen one of the notes I have from a small business. I quote from the communication: “We have operated our small business for the past 14 years employing over 60 staff. The past 4 years have been a nightmare for our business and we believe the reason is partly due to the overall climate and tone that now exists in this country created by a Government intent on pushing employment policies that are not necessary and are politically correct; and that is way over the top and crazy.” That is a direct quote from a small business that cares. The bit I particularly like—and I will share with members—states: “We believe the only way to get New Zealand back on track is to get rid of the current Government.” 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Say that again! 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I will because it is exceptionally enlightening: “We believe the only way to get New Zealand back on track is to get rid of the current Government.” That person believes employment relations are a nightmare. That person has been in business 14 years and employs over 60 staff and believes doing business in New Zealand under the current climate with the current Government policies is a nightmare. 
So I suppose we have to look at what the real purpose of this bill is. Well it just makes it harder and harder for business in New Zealand and in particular small business. So many small businesses in New Zealand work hard. They want to grow. They do the growing in many cases by winning a contract. They tender and they win a contract. They get excited because it is a successful opportunity for them to grow. But unfortunately this bill just puts those small businesses when they win those contracts into a very real risk position; in fact it will set small business up to fail. When small businesses win contracts they take over all the current liabilities that existed under the previous employer. Those businesses will have no idea about those current liabilities. They will have no idea about what holiday pay is due. They will have no idea about what sick pay has been accumulated. They will have no idea about whether other contract inducements or payments have been put in because they will not know what was done in the last week or two before the business was purchased. I repeat small businesses have no choice at all as to what that is. 
Peter Brown 
: Read the Minister’s amendments. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: Regarding the Supplementary Order Paper that the gentleman is talking about I say that someone can come along and make a change a week before and there is no protection for the purchaser so the purchaser is buying blind. For a small business that becomes incredibly hard. 
When will this Government stop telling business that it does not like business? As the small business operator said in that correspondence to me it has been a nightmare doing business under the current Government. Signal upon signal that business is not important is being sent. The purpose of this bill is just to continue with another signal that business is not important. Why is that? In their entire working careers before being MPs nearly all the members on the Government side of the Chamber have been fighting the employer. The employer was the enemy. “Employer” was a horrible word—a very evil word. The tragedy for New Zealand is that that exact same state of mind has transferred through in their role as MPs. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I understand that the purpose of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is to protect vulnerable workers who are employed when a company is restructured and who are concerned about the security of their jobs. I sympathise with their position but it is a position that is very common in small companies which tend to come and go. In those companies the feeling of insecurity when a contract changes hands is similar for employees the self-employed and small owner-operators. I want to consider for a moment what this bill will do for very small companies and for the self-employed. 
I come from a small-business background and I know just how important that sector is to our economy. But I also know just how tough it is for someone who is running a small business to make a living. As Mr Tisch and Mr Blumsky have told us New Zealand is a country of small business. Over 300000 people are self-employed or owner-operators 80 percent of our businesses have fewer than five employees and 97 percent of our businesses have fewer than 20 employees. Those people work enormously long hours often in substandard conditions and they cannot claim overtime or redundancy or holiday pay. Their jobs and their incomes are totally exposed to local and global economic shifts and their risks and responsibilities continue regardless of ill health or misfortune. 
The group of small-business people includes men and women of all ages and races. Many of them are new immigrants or women with children or people who have been made redundant. Many are naturally entrepreneurial but have low levels of education and all worry from day to day about their future and the future of those who depend on them. They absolutely qualify for the definition of “vulnerable workers” and they are just as frightened of changes in the workplace as are those whom this bill protects. They tend to have a heads down bums up style of operating and most of their businesses stay small and vulnerable. Often they are family companies and their real strength is their ability to work hard to be flexible and to make the most of opportunities. The real weakness of small businesses is their size. It is almost impossible to make a decent living without some economy of scale. One of the main reasons that New Zealanders work longer and harder for their money than people in almost any other developed country in the world is that our economy is so dominated by such small businesses. 
Most small businesses have pretty low aspirations. If small-business people can earn enough to buy a house and a car—and maybe a boat—and get a decent holiday at Christmas that is enough. The main reason that they do not grow their businesses bigger than that is that it is too hard to do so under this Government. They buckle under the compliance costs and the huge number of rules. Now this Government in the name of protecting the vulnerable is making it even harder for them to grow their businesses. 
Small businesses tend to have limited resources and they tend to have small teams of very hard-working and focused employees—often the owner’s own family. They have to be smart to survive and one of the best ways to grow is to take on a new contract. But the only way small businesses can have any security in that arrangement is to be able to deliver the service more efficiently and more effectively than the contractor who went before them. Otherwise the new contractor will be out the door too. It may be that a new contractor can use some or even all of the existing staff and do something differently from the previous contractor to produce a better service but it is much more likely that the original contract was terminated because of a flaw in the existing system. 
So the requirement of this bill that new contractors take over the existing staff is a real problem. We all know that one cannot get a different result if one keeps on doing the same thing. What is more the main reason that many small businesses believe they can deliver on a new contract is that they know their capabilities and their workers. But this bill demands that sole traders or small owner-operators dump their own loyal employees and pick up those from the previous failed contractor. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I can see very clearly that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill has been drafted by people who have not the slightest idea about business or running a business. The first thing that I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is that this legislation will impose further bureaucracy red tape and costs on small businesses. The legislation simply will not work. Any law passed in this House has to be capable of working irrespective of whether one agrees with the policy intent. This bill is not going to work. For example the bill assumes that one employer will give commercially sensitive information to its competitor. That is simply not going to happen. 
A contractor who wins a tender for a contract is forced to take on the employees of the company that lost the tender. The contractor has to make redundant his or her own employees who may have worked for that contractor for many years and to take on the staff of the business that previously held the contract. Contractors cannot keep both sets of employees. Under this amendment bill they are forced to keep the new employees. 
I see this bill as a very high cost on small businesses in the Wairarapa electorate. The Wairarapa electorate has many small businesses and this bill is simply adding red tape and cost on to them. It comes on the back of this Government’s intention that every employee have 4 weeks’ leave. Let us work through that issue. I know of a company for example in Pahiatua that has 30 employees. Having to provide 4 weeks’ leave a year means that it needs to employ another staff member to cover the extra 30 weeks’ leave it has to provide under the framework being imposed by this Government. Where does that money come from? It will come from the bottom line. It is simply a cost being imposed on the business. 
This sort of legislation which is being imposed by the members opposite—who just laugh and would not know a business if they tripped over one—will simply send our small companies to the wall. Let us take the example of a shearing contractor in the Wairarapa. He buys up an existing contractor and he has to take over the staff. What use is that to him? How is that fair to his own employees who may have worked for him for years? He has to chuck them out. It is absolute nonsense. Where is the value added from this legislation? There is none. The legislation is simply red tape and adding costs to business. That is very very unsatisfactory. 
Let us come back to the situation of a company taking over a contract. A businessman who has a cleaning contract in a retirement village may decide that as he is about to lose the contract he will fix the new guy by doubling trebling or even quadrupling the pay rates of his employees. How does the buyer know that that will not happen? Suddenly the buyer might be faced with paying cleaners $100 an hour because of some smart work by the outgoing contractor that would be entirely plausible and possible under this legislation. 
I do not believe that this legislation makes the slightest bit of sense whatever. The National Party is going to oppose every clause in this bill. We are very very concerned that employees will lose their jobs because the companies they have been working for simply are thrown out of business because of impossible conditions being imposed by people who have never been in business. I think companies have the right to decide whom they will contract to provide their services. They have a right to decide what is best for their business. It should not be imposed by central government. This legislation is a total nonsense. It does not support our workers who need the protection of a free and open market. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it would be appropriate that we have a debate covering all clauses 3A 4 5 and 6. The substantive nature of the debate is in clause 4 new Part 6A and I seek leave for that purpose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. There will be a wide-ranging debate on clause 3A clause 4 clause 5 new clause 5A new clause 5B new clause 5C and clause 6 with relevant amendments. 
Clauses 3A to 5 new clauses 5A to 5C and clause 6 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Even though this is a wide-ranging debate I have quite a narrow speech ready to talk to the purpose of the bill. There were demands from Mr Jones on the other side for me to get up and talk some sense. We have actually had a lot of sense spoken about this bill because interestingly again similar to the KiwiSaver Bill which was rushed and bulldozed through the other night no Labour speakers have been speaking to the bill in this Committee stage apart from of course the Minister in the chair who had some words earlier on. 
I wanted to get up earlier to talk about the purpose of the bill so I will just touch on that right now. Quite frankly I think this bill obviously is purposeful. But I actually think its purpose is quite racist. I was listening to some of the speeches last night particularly Mark Gosche’s. He was talking about the cleaners and how they were mostly Maori Pacific Island etc. I actually think the intent of this bill is from what we have seen from Labour about its dependency culture basically a bit of a Labour mantra: “If they’re brown keep them down keep them dependent.” Because actually that is what this bill does. I find that quite disgusting in New Zealand in 2006 in spite of the rhetoric we constantly hear from them and the various placards and nonsense that they are putting out. 
Why is this amendment necessary? Well quite frankly it is payback time—payback time for the unions. I believe this is amendment No. 15 we are up to—the fine speakers earlier pointed that out. It is payback time and I guess those unions are shouting something at the Labour Party that it has heard a lot in the last few weeks. Those three words are “pay it back”. We asked the Labour Party to pay back the taxpayers’ money that it allegedly illegally spent on its pledge card during the election. I guess the unions are now saying “pay it back” for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they donated. Some of the amounts are in dispute according to an  
Investigate 
 magazine. But they are looking for a return—a payback—for the money they poured into the Labour Party to pull it up that last 3 to 4 percent in the last week of the election. The Hon Bill English pointed out earlier today in a very interesting press release how much—I think it was $1.1 million—the Labour Party spent to buy the last election. 
There has been a lot of talk and a few heart-rending stories about vulnerable workers. It kind of misses the point. All workers are vulnerable. All management is vulnerable. All companies are vulnerable. This is the world in which we live unless we want to stick a great big fence around New Zealand want to not import one iota want to not export one iota and want to have an average living age that goes back to something like 35-years-old. Either we participate in the world or we do not. That means we have to compete; we have to compete hard. 
The only way we can grow the economy is through productivity so that the workers can be paid more—particularly the cleaning and service workers who I will be fair and admit are at the bottom of the wage chain. For some of the work they do they deserve an awful lot more. I feel incredibly sorry at the moment for the cleaners in the Beehive—I heard all sorts of nonsense from various speakers last night about this—who I believe are currently having to work double time and double shifts to try to clean up some of the mess and nonsense that has been going through the Beehive in relation to the various scandals right at the moment. 
From reading the purpose of this bill it is clear that Labour assumes we are stuck in Yorkshire textile mills in 1906. Well it should get with the programme; this is 2006. There is not a constant battle between labour and capital. We have moved on from there—it was a long time ago. I guess if one looks in a rear-view mirror—as the Labour visionaries do—one would therefore keep trying to resurrect what the environment and conditions were like back in 1906. That is exactly where the medium to long term impacts of this amendment bill will take us. In the short term the amendment bill will make some nice headlines—good on it—but over the medium to long term this will drag New Zealand back. 
If we need more evidence then we should think about where our unemployment rate was when we had rigid labour laws and contracts in the 1970s. Unemployment was nudging 10 12 13 14 15 percent—it went very very high. Now we are suddenly in a virtually full employment period thanks to high commodity prices etc. yet the rigidity of labour market regulations in this bill will suffocate New Zealand and strap it down as we look longingly across to Sydney to Australia and to all our friends and whanau who have moved over there. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call—far be it for me to say I was goaded to do so by my colleagues on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—to pose the question that underlies the Employment Relations Amendment Bill: what are the qualities that comprise a fair and decent society? And why do we not hear anything about them from our colleagues on the Opposition side of the Chamber? Let us think about what some of them might be. 
One of those qualities is equity. How are we to give expression to or recognise equity? One of the quickest ways to do so and one of the most enduring qualities of equity is the manner in which it is to be found in human relationships. I think it is very disappointing and backward looking for the Opposition to constantly force human relationships and human interaction in the context of the labour force through a very narrow miserly opening. No our approach is to build on what was picked up by that very important judicial institution the Employment Court which found a loophole and identified a failing. The Government in its usual vigilant and thoughtful way will not let that loophole continue because the loophole diminishes the status of vulnerable employees and also undermines their capacity to maintain a fair and reasonable level of earnings. 
We can have lots of debates as to whether this legislation will make us more like Australia than we have been. I think that scratched record has long since lost its appeal in terms of the broader public sentiment. No the public are not interested in that. They all know that every time a member from the Opposition side of the Chamber talks about how good Australia is he or she is actually diminishing the status of those New Zealanders who are prepared to buckle down and make this country a great place—possibly the greatest place in the world—in which to live. 
What else underlies this particular approach? Well we need to have premier legislation. In order to advance premier legislation one needs power. To attract and sustain power so that one enjoys the benefits of the Treasury benches one needs appeal. And in order to ensure that one’s appeal penetrates all areas of the electorate one needs to have vision which is precisely what underlies this thoughtful piece of legislation. We envision a time when both the owners of businesses—the providers of capital—and the providers of labour meet and seek an accommodation. Why should vulnerable displaced and possibly even marginalised workers in large institutions be tossed aside like chaff in the wind of change that is driven by very short-sighted business decisions? No people need to have their respect and esteem needs to be accorded to them. That is what we say about vision. 
How do we actually create a nation where all people can feel that their particular talents contribute to a deep abiding and very embracing concept of identity? Well we have to respect their rights not only as consumers and not only as the fortunate few who have a handsome array of property rights but also as the providers of labour. That is what this brilliant piece of legislation seeks to do. 
Laundry workers up and down the electorate offices of this country know who is looking after them. In addition to that in terms of age-related residential care not only is this bill a contribution to that whole sector—we have already contributed to it by means of our very thoughtful and handsome policies that address the concerns of the aged—but we are now ensuring that there is a platform of security and safety underneath those whom we charge with looking after some of the most vulnerable people in society. What about the caretakers in education? The caretakers in education are obviously schoolteachers and principals but they are also the people who do the work that goes unseen and often unheralded. Why on earth should they live in the context of a set of contract negotiations in a state of fear that their entire lives will be turned upside down and that their families will be in a state of upheaval? Anyone who supports that is actually focused on a very destructive way forward. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I was listening to that member Shane Jones across the other side of the Chamber talking about what Labour believes it knows best. I have to say the member was talking pure ideology that was so detached from the market that we live in that it was hard to swallow. He referred to members on this side of the House narrowing down their thinking; when one stops to think about it from what I have seen of the process while being in this House and listening to the debates around the Employment Relations Amendment Bill one can only ask where on earth this legislation is taking us. What is its purpose? It is hugely concerning. Where is this Government taking us? What is it trying to do? We are doing nothing more than taking a backwards step. 
I would just like to draw the member’s attention to what hard-working New Zealanders aspire to. We are aware that there have been some hard-fought realities inside our economy. Back when the Labour Government of the 1980s was in power some severe steps were taken that were necessary; it was the freeing up and opening up of the primary sector to market forces. We had to learn to stand on our own two feet. When we look at the Employment Relations Amendment Bill I am afraid we see that it is a step backwards from that. In actual fact when we look at the growth achieved in the primary sector we see that it has been upward of 4 percent per year which is absolutely outstanding. Unfortunately when we look at the domestic economy we see that it has been performing poorly at only 1.1 percent. 
What happens in the rural areas with our shearing gangs and various other contractors—whether they are pruning grapes in Marlborough or Martinborough or shearing sheep throughout the country—is that their situation is performance based. I believe that is something we must celebrate. As I come into the House having been a shearer myself I find it very very hard to comprehend that we— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.