Volume 632 Week 18 - Tuesday 20 June 2006 
Volume 632 Week 18 - Tuesday 20 June 2006 
[Volume:632;Page:3673] 
Tuesday 20 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Snow Event—South Canterbury 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I move  
That this House acknowledge the plight suffered by South Cantabrians since last Monday’s extreme snow event and also acknowledge the plight of those people who will remain without power for some days to come. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Petition—Microchipping of Dogs 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to present a petition from Peter Buckley and Federated Farmers of New Zealand Waikato province respectfully requesting that the House repeal the legislative requirement to microchip dogs. 
Petition presented. 
Questions to Ministers 
Police Cells—Private Security 
1. RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Do the police hire private security firms for the purpose of monitoring potentially suicidal inmates being held in police cells; if so under what circumstances are they used for this purpose? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am advised that in some instances yes. The decision as to who will undertake guard duties in police cells—for example whether they are sworn officers temporary sworn officers or security guards—is a decision for district commanders. 
Ron Mark 
: Does she have confidence in the vetting processes performed by the police before they hire staff from private security firms to work within police stations; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is my expectation that the police will always follow good and thorough procedures and I know that that is also what the police expect. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that temporary constables have also been used to guard those taken into custody with mental health problems; if so have those decoy cops received the same specific training that police recruits and probationary constables do in managing people with mental illness? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can confirm that temporary sworn officers are acting as jailers and guards in police cells as they have for many years. However I cannot confirm that they have the same level of training. I am happy to check that for the member. However I will also check to see what sort of training they have had in the past and whether there has been any change in that training. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Minister be talking to her colleague the Minister of Health about the urgent need to increase the capacity of adequately staffed mental health acute units so that the frequency and length of stay of people with acute mental illness in police cells is reduced as soon as possible? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell that member that not only has discussion taken place between the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Health but also action has been taken in terms of increasing the number of forensic beds in mental health institutions to help take the pressure off police cells. As the member may remember a strategy was set out a number of years ago and it has been systematically implemented. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware of a recent incident in which a male employee of a private security firm who was hired to watch over a female inmate regarded as being at a high risk of attempting suicide while in a police cell was revealed by subsequent checks to be a gang member with a long criminal record including serious offences against women; if so does she consider it appropriate to have such an employee firstly working within the inner sanctum of a large police station and secondly watching over a female inmate? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I certainly do not think it is appropriate. I thank the member for drawing that matter to my attention. I will seek more information on it. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware that after that incident the very next security guard to take over the suicide watch shift within the inner sanctum of the large police station in question was also subsequently checked by the police and found to have a history of serious offending against children; does she consider it appropriate to have that employee firstly working within the inner sanctum of a large police station and secondly watching over a female inmate? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Obviously not. I will ask the member to provide that information to me. I am sure the Commissioner of Police will want to know about it and appropriate action ought to be taken. 
Electricity Supply—Capital Works 
2.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Energy’s statement on National Radio that “We’re spending five times as much on capital works in the transmission area as was being spent a few years ago five times as much every year” and does he agree with the statement of the Prime Minister in the House that “under the current Government Transpower has been investing on average around $300 million per annum in its system.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes and yes because I have read the whole quote from the Prime Minister which is prefaced by the words: “The advice I have received today is …”. [ 
Interruption 
] As it turns out the advice the Prime Minister had been given was incorrect because it included the word “average”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was impossible to hear the Minister’s response. As members know interjections are permitted but barracking is not. All members in the House are entitled to hear both the questions and the answers. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was incorrect because it included the word “average” instead of contrasting the low of $52 million with a rapid upward trend in spending. As acting Minister at the time I take responsibility for the incorrect advice and the Prime Minister has made her displeasure clear to me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain to the House since when the words “average” “per annum” and “every year” apply to a single year and how can he say that this was the incorrect advice from Transpower when it is blatantly obvious from its annual reports that the Prime Minister’s figures were incorrect? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because it was not advice from Transpower. 
Shane Jones 
: How much has the average level of capital spending by Transpower increased under the current Government and how much does the Minister expect it to increase in the near future? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that the average capital spend by Transpower in the 6 years before Labour became the Government was an embarrassingly low $78 million per year. Based on current capital planning I expect the average spend by Transpower to increase to at least $500 million per annum over the next 6 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why if the Government has been effectively investing so well in Transpower do the annual reports show that in 6 of the last 7 years depreciation has exceeded new investment so that the infrastructure assets have actually gone down in value by $106 million since Labour became the Government in 1999? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because planning of major projects takes some time. It did not occur in the 1990s. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister not just come clean and say that the Prime Minister’s spin machine got completely out of control last week such that she and her Minister would tell the public anything to be able to avoid responsibility—any responsibility—for the blackout in Auckland last week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have made it clear that I have accepted responsibility— 
Hon Bill English 
: You made it up; you always do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —for the incorrect information that was given to the Prime Minister and it would be a pity if Bill English did not take responsibility for some of his errors. Of course the long-term question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members again interjections are permitted but not barracking otherwise the rest of the members cannot hear the answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The people who have put the long-term future of Auckland at risk have been Judith Collins and Paul Hutchison in the way they have wound farmers up for the last 12 months. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are on to question No. 2 today. I want to know whether there are special rules in this House for National members in this respect. They are making one hell of a din. They have done it since Parliament was called together. They are getting away with it day after day. Frankly as someone who has been here a long time I do not think they have any more rights than I or my colleagues have. The noise coming from the so-called National front bench is simply unacceptable and someone should be thrown out of the House for it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order but I do note what the member has said. I thought the barracking in fact had got better last week but already on the second question—the member is right—it is very very difficult for people to hear the answers. Would members please control themselves. Interjections are of course permitted but not the barracking so other members are denied the right to be able to hear the answer. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should the public have confidence in Transpower when only a week after Auckland’s blackout a Transpower failure yesterday at 12.50 p.m. caused a blackout in Rotorua’s central business district affecting 12000 businesses and homes and our Transpower grid emergency also yesterday at 5.40 p.m. caused a blackout for up to 3 hours affecting 6000 homes in Tauranga; and how many more blackouts will we need before this Government will accept that the transmission grid is overworked due to underinvestment by his Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I accept all of that other than the words “his Government”. The member should look in a mirror. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister’s Government not just accept the obvious facts that electricity use has increased 20 percent overall since 1999 and by more in areas like Auckland Nelson Bay of Plenty and Christchurch that investment in electricity infrastructure has not kept up with that growth and that is why the lights keep going out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do accept that economic growth—during that period—has been stronger than predicted and preparation did not occur in the 1990s for that to happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the list of transmission investments for each of the years from 1995 to 2005 showing that in the 6 years of a Labour Government investment was actually less—even in raw dollar terms—than the average in the previous 6 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table from Transpower’s annual accounts its total infrastructure assets that show that since 1999 the asset base of Transpower has dropped by $106 million. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools—Local Accountability 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How are New Zealand schools accountable to their local communities? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Schools are accountable to their communities through their elected boards of trustees and to the Government for their public funding via the regular finance audit and the reporting requirements of section 87 of the Education Act. Schools are also subject to regular review by the Education Review Office as well as having to provide regular data returns to the Ministry of Education. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the appropriate procedure for a member of Parliament to raise issues about a local school’s performance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the first instance they should raise their concerns with the relevant Minister and seek further information. It is not appropriate for a member of this House to threaten the principal of a school by saying that he has a knife in the principal’s back so the principal should be careful to ask parliamentary questions and focus official information requests on one school while ignoring the other 26 in his electorate to send his staff to report on this one school’s board of trustees meetings and to write to the school demanding it report to him on its performance. Unfortunately this unacceptable behaviour comes from one Allan Peachey who is running a campaign that amounts to victimisation of the school concerned and his senior colleagues should ask him to stop. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister continue to refuse to allow access to the SchoolSmart website which would show every parent in the catchment of that school that its National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results are not up to the average for similar schools and what is wrong with the local member pointing that out when the Ministry of Education publishes exactly that comparison? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am advised that Selwyn College’s NCEA results are very close to the average for schools of similar decile. In fact the information released to Mr Peachey shows that Selwyn College is ahead of the national average for schools of similar deciles in two out of three NCEA levels. If the member wants more information about the school he should do what any other MP does and work directly through the Minister rather than running a campaign of intimidation against the single school he has focused on. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How likely is it that public condemnation by an elected MP based on incorrect or invalid information of the performance of a school will lead to its becoming a first-choice school for the community; if it is highly unlikely does he view Mr Peachey’s behaviour as either a personal vendetta or simple stupidity? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat that the usual thing for a local MP to do is to support his or her local schools not run a campaign of victimisation that amounts to a personal vendetta against a school. I give advice to anyone in the House working with their local schools that their first point of contact for information is here and if there are members on the other side who are senior to Mr Peachey they may like to teach him that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister consider that limiting the sale of junk food and drinks in schools is the responsibility of legislators or the responsibility of the schools and the communities and to send the right signal in that regard what will he do to offset the thousands of dollars in revenue that the schools stand to lose by reducing the sale of junk food and fizzy drinks? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: At the present time of course it is the responsibility of schools to look after what occurs in the schools. I certainly hope that what they do at the present time is voluntarily look at the kinds of food available to students on their campuses. I seek leave to table one letter and one email. The letter is from Mr Allan Peachey to Selwyn College demanding that it reports to him on its performance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I seek leave to table an email from a member of the school and community asking whether there are any National Party leaders who are in Parliament today who might stop the lamentable behaviour of Mr Peachey. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Infant Homicide Rate—Reviews 
4.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What reviews if any has Child Youth and Family Services conducted into the infant homicide rate in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Two reviews have been conducted by or on behalf of Child Youth and Family Services into infant homicide rates. The first was in 1997 and recommendations have been implemented. A further report was commissioned in January 2005. The first draft of that report was received in March 2005. A second draft was received in September 2005 and further work has been undertaken with key stakeholders. That report includes a literature review about the incidence and nature of abuse of young children in New Zealand analysis of data for admissions to hospital for serious inflicted injuries Child Youth and Family Services data and information from police on homicides of children under 5 years. That report is expected to be finalised next month. 
Judith Collins 
: If the Minister decided to go for the current review that she is talking about instead of the multidisciplinary approach review announced in 2004 did she consider at that stage that it might be important to tell the Children’s Commissioner Early Start Christchurch the chief Child Youth and Family Services social worker or even the New Zealand public that she had changed the way that review was going to take place? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The way the review was going to take place has not changed. I advise the member to ask people who know the facts rather than rely totally on the best daily newspaper in New Zealand the 
 Press 
 which on this very rare occasion was totally incorrect in both its headlines and the substance of the article. 
Judith Collins 
: Just to assist the Minister at this stage I seek leave of the House to table a report from 9 October 2004 that sets out the way in which the review was supposed to be taking place including Child Youth and Family Services staff Ministry of Health Starship Children’s Health’s child abuse unit Early Start Christchurch and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: What proportion of child homicides in New Zealand concern children known to Child Youth and Family Services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Four out of every five children who are killed in New Zealand are not known to the department. For every child who dies at the hands of a parent or caregiver there are many other people around them who could have perhaps stepped in and made a difference. Child Youth and Family Services is most often the last link in the protective chain. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is Child Youth and Family Services incapable of completing reviews and reports anywhere near their proposed deadlines and why are issues like infant homicide and youth justice not considered important enough to be given urgent attention? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: First I advise the member that before asking supplementary questions it is worthwhile listening to the answer to the primary question. I did explain to her colleague Judith Collins that the report which was not prepared by Child Youth and Family Services but commissioned by Child Youth and Family Services did in fact meet the terms of the contract and the draft report was delivered to the department on time. 
Anne Tolley 
: What involvement has the Starship Children’s Health child abuse centre had in the review that the Minister referred to as having its first draft presented to her in March 2005? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the draft report that was presented in March 2005 the clinical director of the child abuse unit of Starship Children’s Health was specifically and personally thanked for his contribution to the report. 
Judith Collins 
: Why after a 50 percent increase in funding for Child Youth and Family Services since 2003 has this review not been completed to the point that it can be released more than a year after it was due? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The report as in the terms of the contract was delivered to Child Youth and Family Services on time. The subsequent period has been used for consulting on what are quite contentious issues contained within the report. It was always intended to be an internal report as was outlined in the press statement issued by the acting chief social worker Craig Smith at the time. It was never intended to be a public report. Frankly if the findings of that report can make any contribution to the work that the public of New Zealand need to do in order to help lower the incidence of child abuse and death in New Zealand it would be worthwhile making that report public. 
Judith Collins 
: How many reviews has Child Youth and Family Services announced in the last 7 years and how many of those reviews have resulted in one child’s life being saved? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Tragically the causal link between reports and child deaths is not as simplistic as the member would wish. I wish it was as easy as that. 
New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act—Te Tiriti o Waitangi 
5.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Have instructions been issued to the Ministry of Health to prepare amending legislation to remove references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No there have been no instructions and there are no plans to issue instructions. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the former Minister of Health the Hon Annette King that a Treaty clause in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act provides a clearer exposition of what it interprets its Treaty obligations in the area of health to be and can he tell the House what those obligations are; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I do and they are in the Act. 
Ann Hartley 
: How has Maori health improved under this Labour-led Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Consistently. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Obesity figures are up! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Life expectancy for Maori has improved by 2.6 years for males and 1.9 years for females over the past 5 years plus the gap in life expectancy between Maori and all New Zealanders has at last begun to narrow. Further rates of smoking—a major risk factor—have declined. I acknowledge the interjection from Tau Henare who said that obesity figures are going up; that is a serious issue and the Government has placed a good deal of emphasis on it. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister demonstrate how references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation have improved elective surgery outcomes for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Elective surgery is not done on an ethnic basis; it is done on a needs basis and it always will be. However many aspects of the New Zealand health system are directed towards Maori because the disparities between Maori health and non-Maori health though we now hope they may be reducing are still wide and still unacceptable. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why has the Government chosen to recognise the health needs of one part of the community over all others on the basis of race? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government does not do so. What the Government does do is acknowledge that the disparities that cut across the various gradients of disparity in New Zealand are well known to this House and if they are not they should be. The disparities are substantially economic as well as there being a further overlay of ethnic. In order to reduce disparities in our health system the Government often targets policies towards people who are in most need and that includes Maori sometimes—including through Maori providers. Interestingly that policy was begun by National around 10 years ago. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which Treaty obligations are understood and implemented when it was reported in the recent edition of the world’s leading medical journal  
The Lancet 
 that there is growing evidence that Maori have less access to and lower quality of lifesaving treatments; if he is not what does he intend to do about this situation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The idea of growing trends is due to the fact that we have been looking harder for those trends—that is the  
Decades of Disparity 
 study. That is a three-phase study the third chapter of which I have had the privilege to release in recent weeks. What is really interesting is that those researchers said at the conclusion of the third phase of the  
Decades of Disparity  
study that the next time such a study is done it will be called something different because the National Government has gone and with it the decades of disparity. 
Tariana Turia 
: I seek leave of the House to table an article entitled “What is the contribution of smoking and socioeconomic position to ethnic inequalities in mortality in New Zealand?” which was published 10 days ago in  
The Lancet 
 and the memorandum to Cabinet’s social policy and health committee entitled “Treaty of Waitangi in Health Legislation” which was issued by the Hon Annette King in August 2000. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister recall one Doug Graham Bill English and Tony Ryall inserting such provisions in legislation to do with health when they were in power and what is the word for that? 
Hon Bill English 
: Wasn’t in there. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes the member was; he was there. He might not have been awake but he was there. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can. Indeed I have a report from the then Minister of Health Wyatt Creech in 1999 stating that the Government will recognise the Treaty by ensuring that public health and disability support services are responsive to Maori needs and by continuing to enable greater Maori participation in the purchase and delivery of health and social services. The National Party is in denial about its record on this issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question had two parts to it. I asked in the second part whether there was a word for that and whether it started with “h”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows supplementary questions normally require one question not more than one. The Minister is obliged to address only one question. 
Civil Defence—Preparedness 
6.  
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What did he mean when he reportedly admitted today that New Zealand is not as prepared for an emergency as previously thought? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 A recent survey done for the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management shows that 35 percent of all New Zealanders—that is more than a third of us—say that they are not well prepared and 13 percent say that they are not prepared at all. In the recent events down south civil defence and emergency management power companies and telecommunication companies worked incredibly hard in trying conditions and they should be applauded for their efforts. What I want is for people to have a look in hindsight to see what we can learn in order for utility companies local government civil defence and individuals to be better prepared for the future. That is a positive thing to do. 
John Carter 
: What did he mean when he contradicted the Prime Minister’s statement on  
Breakfast 
 TV when she said that she was satisfied with the response to the emergency disaster in South Canterbury and as a junior Minister he stated that he thought: “We could have done better. I accept that.”; who is right: the Prime Minister or him? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: When it comes to an issue between the Prime Minister and me the Prime Minister is always right of course. I do add the point that the civil defence people in South Canterbury did a great job and there is no question about that. But there are some weaknesses in our infrastructure that I want to see identified so that we are better prepared for the future. That is what we want to do. We want to be the best prepared that we can possibly be. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what he is doing in order to help prepare New Zealanders to get through a disaster? 
Hon Members 
: Resign! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated until the House is settled. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: On June 6 this year I had the pleasure of launching the second phase of a public education programme Get Ready Get Thru which followed on from the schools-based programme called What’s the Plan Stan?. This is a $6 million programme that aims to help New Zealanders and organisations to be better prepared for disasters like the one we had last week. Reports of this programme have been largely positive except for that of one person who called the effort to be better prepared a “farce” and a “disgrace”. That person was National’s John Carter. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that answer to the principal question what advice has the Minister for local residents of Matata who have concerns in regard to the manner in which parts of their town are being rebuilt believing it is possible to construct far more effective safeguards at less cost but being unable to get the local council operators even to listen to them? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member has the answer exactly right; it is a matter for the local council. If the local council supports those decisions then of course the ministry will support that but we have to be convinced that the engineering solution is adequate for the risk. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What instructions if any has the Minister given to officials and the local community of South Canterbury about what Government assistance is now available to them given that the ramifications of this weather event are likely to be felt in the weeks and months to come? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management has a substantial amount of resources available for local councils. We have informed local councils of that and I want to make sure that local councils are well advised of that. There is no question but that the Government will assist as much as possible in any adverse event and we have put in every possible resource that was asked for in a very timely manner too. 
John Carter 
: When the Minister said yesterday that “I think we learnt a few lessons” from the situation in South Canterbury just what are those lessons; are they the same as or different from the lessons he said he had learnt from the tsunami fiasco more than a month ago? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: It is true to say that those who do not learn lessons from history are bound—duty bound—to repeat them. [ 
Interruption 
] The lesson we learnt from South Canterbury was that the infrastructure in certain areas could have been better prepared for a civil defence emergency such as this. For example water pumps that were mains-dependent did not have alternative jacks for an auxiliary supply. Such a jack is a simple thing to supply when pumps are being set up and if that had been done at the point of set-up then the water would have continued to flow when the mains supply was turned off. Those are good things to learn. We need to learn them and make sure we are better prepared in the future. 
John Carter 
: Why did the Minister wait so long doing nothing until the Prime Minister prodded him into action as she stated on  
Breakfast 
 TV on Monday morning; and was that the reason he waited 5 days—or was he too busy waiting for a BBC report on the situation in South Canterbury? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I had already planned to go to Canterbury on Thursday and Saturday and when the Prime Minister’s office asked me to it was a meeting of the minds. But I want to say that that is a bit rich coming from that member who despite having access to taxpayer-paid airfares has never been to the area and despite having a taxpayer-paid phone on his desk has never picked up the phone to go and ring anybody. That member has zero credibility. 
John Carter 
: So it’s my fault [ 
Interruption 
] it’s my fault—yes! Has the Minister had any response from the snow-bound South Canterbury families and farmers involved in the emergency disaster in response to the Prime Minister’s TV comment last Monday on the first morning of the disaster: “I am very pleased to see the snow. I love skiing so it’s good to see they are getting off to a great start with the ski season.”? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think we can have too much of a good thing and certainly in Canterbury there was far too much of a good thing. I have never seen so much snow in the Canterbury area before and one local told me that this has been the heaviest snowfall they have had since 1943. It has done an enormous amount of damage and I want to say to the people who have done a great deal of work in restoring the power and phones that they have done a fantastic job. 
John Carter 
: I seek leave to table a paper reporting that Rick Barker has admitted that New Zealand is not as prepared for an emergency as previously thought. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Carter 
: I seek leave to table a report stating as a consequence of a comment from the Prime Minister that Rick Barker is not in touch. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Carter 
: I seek leave to table a report in which Rick Barker admitted: “We could have done better. I accept that.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
John Carter 
: I seek leave to table an editorial from the Timaru newspaper stating that it thought that at least the nation’s leaders would have shown they cared. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Meningococcal B Vaccine—Maori Uptake 
7.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What has the uptake of the meningococcal B immunisation programme been amongst the Maori population and what impact has that had on cases? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Almost half a million Maori children have now been immunised. There has been a 90 percent reduction in epidemic strain cases in Maori in the northern region since the immunisation campaign began. That is a huge achievement— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How can there be half a million? There are only 400000 Maori. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because they have more than one dose. This is a huge achievement for Maori and the New Zealand health community and I applaud them for their efforts. [ 
Interruption 
] It is also an example of what happens when health funding is targeted by ethnicity and the National Party opposition to that sort of initiative is a disgrace. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is impossible to hear the answers from here. A challenge came from across the Chamber as to how there could be half a million children immunised. I know there is a logical answer to that but I could not hear it. Could we have a repeat of it please? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please repeat his answer—succinctly if he can. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There has been a 90 percent reduction in epidemic strain cases in Maori in the northern region since the immunisation campaign began. That is a huge achievement for Maori and the New Zealand health community and I applaud them. It is also an example of what happens when health funding is targeted by ethnicity and the National Party opposition to that sort of initiative is a disgrace. 
Maryan Street 
: How has the programme’s success impacted on young Maori in South Auckland? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the campaign has prevented two cases of epidemic meningococcal B every week just in South Auckland and that awareness of the need for all immunisations has improved dramatically. That is what can be achieved in our communities when a Government is willing to invest in the health of New Zealanders. 
Elective Surgery—Waiting Lists 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the impact on patients of being removed from waiting lists for elective surgery or specialist appointments? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 More than half a million New Zealanders are removed from waiting lists each year because they have received their specialist appointment or their surgery. That number grows every year. My concern is with the few thousand each year who do not receive the treatment they should. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long will it take for the 17000 or so patients whose care was disrupted by the junior doctors’ strike to get their appointments and surgery and what effect will this have on others who are waiting for specialist appointments and elective surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Those 17000 people will be rebooked or rescheduled any time from today over the next several weeks or indeed in some cases I would imagine in a couple of months or more. That of course will cause a knock-on effect throughout society but help is on the way. This Government increases health funding every year. It increases the amount of service delivery to the health system every year therefore we will be able to catch up. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has he seen reports on the number of people treated in public hospitals including elective surgery last year; if so how does that figure compare with the position 5 years ago? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen reports showing that Labour’s historic investment in public hospitals and clinical staff has led to a 20 percent increase in medical activity a nearly 10 percent increase in case-weighted surgical activity and a 12.6 percent increase in elective case-weighted surgical activity in just the first 5 years of our Government. No matter which way the Opposition tries to spin it our public hospitals are helping more New Zealanders than ever before. 
Heather Roy 
: What reports has he seen about how much longer Wellingtonians and Hutt Valley residents will have to wait for an appointment with a public specialist after 1 November this year when laboratory tests ordered by private specialists will attract a $13 encounter fee as well as the cost of the laboratory tests but referrals from public specialists will not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have received no such reports but I do endorse the decision of those two district health boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that his own ministry has admitted that more people will be culled from hospital waiting lists as a result of the strike because if one is going to take 17000 people and fit them back in the system then there will be a large number of people who drop off at the end because of the Government’s rule that patients will be cut off the waiting list regardless of their illness after 6 months? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member should pay closer attention to the press reports around that issue. We signalled last week that we would need to relax somewhat the period by which district health boards would become compliant with their elective services patient flow indicators—it depends on the board. The reason for doing that is precisely to take account of the recent 5-day strike. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What hope does the current management of the waiting list system give to Tayla the little 8-year-old girl from Kapiti who cannot smile raise her eyebrows or move her eyes who needs plastic surgery to restore those most basic functions and who has now been kicked off the waiting list for surgery under that Minister’s direction? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member raises a valid issue which I first became aware of a couple of weeks ago. The Ministry of Health is working with the Hutt Valley District Health Board to assess the adequacy of scoring tools the adequacy of provision the degree to which general practitioners could be further dealing with minor plastic surgery issues and so on. I hope we are able to make progress on that issue. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What would the Minister tell Aletia Hudson aged 33 who was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at Christmas 2005 had a mastectomy was promised a breast reconstruction in a timely way has since completed the chemotherapy and radiotherapy fund-raised $12000 for taxane treatment and should be starting lifesaving Herceptin treatment this month but has not because she cannot raise the $100000 needed only to find out 2 weeks ago that her breast reconstruction operation was no longer possible? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I too have reservations about that case and several dozen like them. I look forward to seeing that issue resolved in the best interest of patients using the techniques that I relayed in respect of the Hutt Valley District Health Board. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health has written to district health boards telling them that despite several weeks of industrial disruption the Government expects district health boards to make up for services lost during the strike and to make those up in the remaining two and a bit weeks of the financial year or face a financial penalty and is he not just continuing to delude himself that he can fix that problem? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot confirm that. There was a change made to that letter about 2 weeks ago and I made that change public. The member should try to keep on top of his portfolio. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Read the letter! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have read the letter; I had a bit to do with writing it. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table a letter jointly signed by the chief executives of Capital and Coast District Health Board and Hutt Valley District Health Board sent to specialists saying that laboratory tests ordered by private specialists as from 1 November will be charged for. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that I have inadvertently misled the House and I want to rise and apologise in case I have. I had meant to say and may not have said that almost half a million doses have been administered to Maori children but I think I said that almost half a million Maori children had been immunised or similar. If I said the latter I withdraw and apologise. It is half a million doses of course—a spectacular result. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the Minister is quoting from an official document could we ask that that document be tabled. We are particularly keen to find out what percentage of Maori have received full immunisation under this Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: No. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister is not. 
Unemployment Benefit—Numbers 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I can advise that at the end of May the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has decreased to 41000. That is 9000 fewer people receiving the unemployment benefit than at the same time a year ago and it is 120000 fewer people receiving the unemployment benefit than there were when this Labour-led Government first came into office in 1999. That is a 75 percent reduction in unemployment benefit numbers under our Government. 
Steve Chadwick 
: When was the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit last as low as that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In order to find that date we have to bypass the whole period of the last National Government and go way back to 1986 to find the time when unemployment benefit numbers were as low as that. 
State-owned Enterprises—Failure 
10.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding what happens when State-owned enterprises fail that “you’ve gotta remember with the SOEs that going bust doesn’t quite mean what it might mean for some other companies you know for example if Meridian went bust you’d still have a lot of windmills and a lot of dams so it’s a financial rather than putting all the assets at risk”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 The essence yes; the language is probably not very clear. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has he seen today’s release from Victoria University’s survey of State-owned enterprise directors which says: “The process for selection is too arbitrary lacks adequate input from the chair and board and is too heavily weighted towards political acceptability and correctness rather than capability.”; if so what is his response given that last week in the House he confirmed that State-owned enterprise boards have exactly the expertise necessary for his new plan? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I reject the allegation that as Minister for State Owned Enterprises I have made politically correct appointments. If people look at the list of people whom I have appointed I think I have probably appointed more people closer to the opposite side of the House than this side. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What benefits are there to the taxpayer from ongoing Government ownership of State-owned enterprises; and has he seen any reports of alternative policies on State-owned enterprise ownership? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Currently State-owned enterprises are returning dividends of about $250 million to $300 million a year not counting the one-off special dividend from Meridian. On top of that Crown equity in State-owned enterprises has more than doubled since this Government took office. The dividend stream is money that the Government can invest in public services like health and education without having to raise it through taxes. We also want to put State-owned enterprises to work. By contrast I have seen a report about a person arguing that he has long-since abandoned the idea—if he ever held it—that the Government should own major industries. That comment of course was from Dr Brash before he promised not to sell them. But unlike what the National Party wants to do Labour will not sell the family silver. 
Katherine Rich 
: In the light of the research released today what is his response to State-owned enterprise directors’ concerns that cronyism on boards hampers their ability to make good commercial decisions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we will find that the people who have answered that are longer-term State-owned enterprise board members who are getting mixed up with the time when Bill Birch and others were running them. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister now revisit his plan of “deliberately trying to get one spot on each of the boards for someone who’s got quite a lot of … life experience but doesn’t have governance experience …” in light of research released today that says that State-owned enterprise board members have major concerns about Labour’s appointment process and fear that it is not leading to good appointments that will give boards the right skill base around the table? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Every State-owned enterprise board member including quite a sizable number who were appointed under the previous Government has been appointed through this system. I will not revisit my practice of trying to appoint people to what are essentially training positions. I want to make it very clear that some of these are training positions for people who have had a lot of life experience often as CEOs of major firms. Getting governance experience within State-owned enterprises is I think valuable both for the State-owned enterprises and for private sector boards which these people move on to. I might say that it is not a requirement under our system to be a failed MP which appeared to be the case under National. 
Heather Roy 
: When taking into consideration the potential of a State-owned enterprise to fail why has the Minister chosen the advice of Peter Harris a union economist over that of Treasury which is concerned about weak accountability disciplines Ministers with multiple objectives and better alternatives—such as roading—for spending State-owned enterprise dividends? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that Peter Harris is one of the most respected economists in the country and he is certainly not a union economist. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why should Kiwis be confident in the ability of State-owned enterprise boards to handle this new direction when directors of New Zealand’s largest State-owned enterprises themselves question the process and criteria for choosing directors and suggest that the system is too heavily weighted towards political acceptability and correctness rather than capability? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Probably some of the directors are not totally aware of how they got their positions. All the directors I appointed went through an interview process that included the chair. I worked through the recommendations with the chair and in not one case did the chair say on balance in the end that they did not want a person whom I appointed to a State-owned enterprise board. In a number of cases I decided not to appoint a person who was my preference because the chair decided that that person would not make a contribution. I just think that it is disgraceful when people like Bill English criticise Jim Bolger as he did. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is this a survey of people appointed by the Labour-led Government who are expressing concern about their belief that they were incompetent to be appointed or is it a survey of people appointed by the previous National-led Government who are concerned that they have not been reappointed by the Labour-led Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This survey is about the first time I have had reason to question my appointments. 
Peter Brown 
: Given those answers does the Minister think it reasonable that if State-owned enterprises are to get involved in additional operations that might for whatever reason appear somewhat risky it is only prudent that they make more regular financial reports—say 6-monthly—than they do currently? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I get quarterly reports from State-owned enterprises and I think that the compliance cost of shifting to something more regular would make it just not worthwhile. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why does the Minister continue to promote himself as the primary candidate for the imminent replacement of the Minister of Finance—responsible in that role for the assets and liabilities of our nation—when he shows a lack of basic accounting knowledge and of understanding the relationship between the assets of a State-owned enterprise such as Meridian’s dams and windmills and the liabilities of that organisation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that I have a much better understanding than that member does. I also know that next term the term after or even the term after that will be soon enough for me. 
Digital Television—Local Content Funding 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Will the Government commit to a substantial increase in funding for local content and put in place local content quotas to ensure there is a guaranteed amount of local programming on the proposed 18 new digital channels; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 No the Government’s commitment is to support the establishment of a platform for free-to-air digital TV to ensure that all New Zealanders continue to have access to free-to-air broadcasting services. We are not intending to impose quotas. Our commitment is to provide up to $25 million over 5 years towards the establishment of Freeview and to provide access to frequencies estimated to be worth up to $10 million. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that without substantial increased funding for local content or local content quotas digital television may simply deliver us high-quality images of low-quality overseas programmes and endless reruns of other people’s reality TV; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the Government doing to support local content on free-to-air television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government supports local content through funding of New Zealand On Air and through the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter. Combined television funding for these initiatives is now more than $83 million per annum—significantly more than the previous National Government funded. The Government’s policies promote the development of quality programming and a good example is children’s programming. This year New Zealand On Air is funding a great range of children’s programmes including  
Madigan’s Quest 
  
Killians’s Curse 
  
The Lost Children 
  
Karaoke High 
  
What Now 
  
Studio 2 
  
Mai Time 
  
Stage Challenge 
  
Squirt 
 and of course the ground-breaking  
Let’s Get Inventing 
. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How many new channels does the Minister expect TVNZ to set up once digital television is established; does he agree that this presents a great opportunity for TVNZ to differentiate itself from all the other channels by making one channel an advertisement-free genuinely public broadcaster; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Six and yes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he accept that many New Zealanders simply cannot afford the $300 to $400 technology upgrade to switch to digital and what will happen to those who have not been able to make the change before the analogue switch-off in 6 to 10 years; will he guarantee that no one loses access to television because of the cost of the upgrade? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have to point out this change will take place over 6 to 10 years. The most likely cost right now for a person making the shift would be $200 for a set top box and $30 to have someone come round to twiddle with the aerial. Over time those costs may well come down to next to zero. For example I imagine that within 6 to 10 years manufacturers will put the digital component inside the television set when a person buys it and that will leave almost no costs at all to the consumer. 
Venice Biennale—Creative New Zealand Report 
12.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: Is she satisfied with the recent report commissioned by Creative New Zealand into New Zealand’s participation at the Venice Biennale; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Yes. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s comments in this House on 27 July 2004 when she said about New Zealand’s participation at the last biennale that “… the process has gone awry.” and “… that will have a bearing on my thinking about resourcing levels for Creative New Zealand in the future.”; if so what action has she taken or will she take? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes and the action was this report and the increased funding for Creative New Zealand in this year’s Budget. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What recent reports has the Minister seen on Government support for the arts sector? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have received a report that acknowledges: “Labour has been very successful in the arts area and the creative area in persuading the general populace that it’s only the Labour Party that’s interested in these things. And in fairness they’ve done a great deal to increase funding for the arts which the National government in the late 1990s should have done.” That quote was from new National Party MP Chris Finlayson in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on 4 June. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister who said that when half a million dollars of taxpayer money is involved key personnel must include the artist and that those key personnel should undertake ambassadorial and publicity responsibilities? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why when the Prime Minister herself said she had expressed concern about what appears to be a breach of the selection criteria is the Minister not giving a direction to Creative New Zealand that further changes need to be made to those criteria in light of the recent report which recommended only minor changes and more funding? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Creative New Zealand is established by legislation passed by this House. It is not for the Minister to give direction to it about the creative nature of the arts. However I am very happy to say that the present membership of Creative New Zealand—including the new appointees—is very aware of the Government’s views. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Following on from that answer is the Minister not aware that Creative New Zealand is an autonomous Crown entity pursuant to section 7 of the Crown Entities Act and that it must have regard to Government policy when directed by the responsible Minister? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: However under the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994 Creative New Zealand has the right to make artistic decisions on its own. We are not Stalinist Russia yet. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister confirm that if she attended fewer functions and openings she could spend more time holding Creative New Zealand accountable for taxpayer funding when everyone knows she would attend the opening of an envelope? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister replies I just remind members of Standing Order 371. I suggest they read that in the future before they ask questions that obviously have matters in them that could be seen as contrary to that Standing Order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I trust you heard what was an attempted question but I would like to know what the question was given that it was a vague attempt by somebody who has been irrelevant in this House to point out that he is getting paid for his existence. But it made no sense to me at all. As for the suggestion of opening an envelope I mean how ridiculous is that? 
Hon Member 
: What’s the Standing Order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Standing Order? That the member should keep his mouth shut when I am making a point of order—that is the first one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. I understood what the content of the question was; it was just that it was contrary to Standing Order 371. We have a lot of latitude in this House in connection with that particular Standing Order. I am just reminding members of it for the future. I am aware that the question may well have been the first question the member has asked. I am doing that to be helpful to the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You just saw a very good illustration of what these members are doing in the House. They should be silent when a point of order is taken. You distinctly heard that member shout out something— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You know that the Standing Orders require him to keep quiet and therefore he should pick himself up depart from the House and wait outside until the end of question time. That is what the usual Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require so why does that not apply this time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is right. We are in the last question and I am trying to be helpful to the House on this occasion. But I know that Mr Brownlee also wants to be helpful with his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Well I do. I just point out to you that I think Standing Order 372 which deals with answers from Ministers is a mirror image of Standing Order 371. If we are being clipped on Standing Order 371 I say that there have been numerous occasions today particularly when Ministers should have been pulled up for the way in which they answered the questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. Normally the answers are in response; it was just that this last question went a tad too far in terms of the substance of the question. But I will ask the Minister now to address the question. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am very happy to go to any event that New Zealanders who are interested in arts culture and heritage would like to invite me to. I also think that if that member of Parliament does not think opening envelopes is important it may indicate why those members are on that side and we are on this side. 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Supplementary Estimates 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time 
. These two bills give us a chance to dwell yet again upon the achievements of this Government and the obvious failings of the Opposition. Under this Government we have seen the most sustained period of economic growth for the last 30 years— 
Hon Member 
: You inherited that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No for the benefit of whichever Young Turk in the back bench opposite raised that one I can tell him that we inherited an economy that had obviously gone backwards in 1998-99—it was negative 1 percent in 1998-99. Under this Government we have seen one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western World with 313000 more jobs and an unemployment benefit rate—the numbers on unemployment benefit—that is now the lowest for 20 years despite the fact that the workforce is much bigger than it was some 20 years ago. We have seen households with increased wealth averaging $125000 over the last 3 years. Our fiscal position is the envy of the world. We are in a net positive financial asset position for the first time in our history. Only seven countries in the world are in a net positive financial asset position. 
We are seeing some slow-down in that economy as a result of tightening monetary policy and slowing migration. But we still have a net inwards migration of 10000 people a year. We have a net inward migration of skills. We acquire more skills than we lose through outward migration and we still have positive growth—and that is recognised overseas. Standard and Poor’s in its commentary on the Budget says we had the right mix of budgetary principles. New Zealand is one of the best-placed nations in the world to deal with the rising costs of an ageing population. National wants to destroy that because it does not care about providing properly for the cost of an ageing population. The World Bank report of the ease of doing business states we are No. 1 in the world and we are above the OECD average on every sub-group within that World Bank report. We are No. 1 in the world in that respect. 
In this Budget we saw increased expenditure on economic transformation through for example interest-free student loans. It is not $1 billion a year as Opposition stooges try to claim; it is more like $250 million a year. There is a massive increase in land transport spending—most of which is to restore the roading programme some to build additional new roads and some to ensure we keep the public transport programme under way—which has seen a fivefold increase under this Government in spending on public transport and that will go up significantly in the next 2 or 3 years as we do the major work on upgrading the Auckland railway system. 
In terms of families we have seen the Working for Families package being extended out to $1.6 billion of targeted tax relief for New Zealand low to middle income families. We have seen extra money going into health and today the Minister of Health ensured that from 1 July the reduced costs of primary health care will roll out to the 45 to 64-year-old age group—which happens to cover most members of this House of course. We are seeing a new programme rolling out for improving the oral health of under-18-year-olds which is an area of significant difficulty within New Zealand and the rolling out of a new hearing screening programme which will cut off a problem that causes people many social problems in later life. 
Additional money—$128 million—is going to early childhood education. We will see the roll-out of 20 hours of free early childhood education during this term of Parliament and an additional 455 teachers over and above roll growth. Also we will see the beginning of the roll-out of 1000 additional front-line police and the necessary support staff and other equipment requirements. 
What have Opposition members got to say about all this? Don Brash of course predicted very confidently late last year that we would now be in a recession. Where has that recession gone? Where have the great economic expert’s predictions disappeared to? Nobody now believes that the quarterly figure due out on Friday will show negative growth unless of course there is a large upward revision to the last quarter of last year—and if that is true there cannot be a technical recession. Terms of trade are improving and exports are beginning to pick up even though we expect a very poor current account out-turn for the last year. If there is a poor current account out-turn if there are inflationary pressures and a tight labour market how can anyone possibly argue for massive loosening of fiscal policy? 
Chris Tremain 
: What level of growth do we need to get to the top half of the OECD? That’s what is important. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member for Napier should keep quiet because he got very rich under a Labour Government in the last 6 years riding the housing boom Labour created. He is a classic case of a person biting the hand that has fed him so well over the last few years. 
Why should we have any confidence in Dr Brash’s predictions? Only a couple of months ago Dr Brash found his way to the middle of the South Island to a place called Lake Tekapo—he was surprised to find it was there—and he stood there and said that we must have an urgent crash programme of energy savings or the power system would not last through the winter period. [ 
Interruption 
] That was a D-clamp coming undone there which is not the same thing as running out of energy. Members should know by now where their D-clamps go I would have thought by looking at them. But if Dr Brash were still standing where he stood a couple of months ago he would long since have been drowned. He would have become the first dry in the world to disappear in a welter of water and moisture. 
So National’s programme remains. It will try to bribe its way back into power paid for by the Exclusive Brethren—millions of dollars. As it comes out the amount of money that that group poured into the National Party keeps rising with every report we see. Don Brash—the former arch-dry the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank and the man who said not just that we cannot have our cake and eat it too but that we will be damn lucky to get even a crumb at any point in our life—says we can now do everything. 
We need just look at what National members have done over the last few weeks. On 19 June Tony Ryall said we should spend more money to train doctors. On 13 June Jacqui Dean was reported in the  
Southland Times 
 as saying that we just have to give the health boards more money so they can pay the doctors more. She said that if we gave them more money there would no need for any kind of strike. Of course Jacqui Dean is the economic wizard of the Opposition who famously during the election campaign said: “We won’t be borrowing because we’ll be getting the money from overseas.” That was her answer for fiscal policy. 
And so it goes on. Even Mr Key and Dr Brash are now arguing that they can fund tax cuts by borrowing from Belgian dentists and Japanese housewives. In an interview only a few days ago Mr Key said he would want debt to be $8 billion higher than under the Labour Government. That is not surprising because if one borrows and borrows and feeds that back into demand then interest rates will go up. Why should Mr Key worry about interest rates going up? It is because he has a mortgage only in order to qualify for a parliamentary accommodation allowance. Other people in the community have mortgages to buy a house. Mr Key has rearranged his $50 million to make sure he qualifies for a parliamentary accommodation allowance in the same way as he has rearranged his Sydney house so it does not show up on his parliamentary declaration in terms of his assets. 
John Key 
: I don’t own a house in Sydney. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No he does not any longer. This is the man— 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance in his outlandish claims said that I own a house in Sydney. I do not and I never have. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. He certainly rearranged his $50 million to qualify for a Wellington accommodation allowance which is not even pocket money for that particular man. He was asked at a recent dinner what his first thought was in the morning. What do members think he said? Do members think he said it was New Zealand? Do members think he said it was the poor? Do members think he said it was teachers? No he said that his first thought in the morning was about what happened to his Merrill Lynch shares overnight. That was his answer at a dinner party to the question of what he thinks of first in the morning. The member is nodding; he accepts that. The first thought in the morning of a man who wants to be Minister of Finance of this country is about his own wealth. It is no wonder he opposes changes to the offshore investment regime. He would probably be one of the single biggest losers in the country. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 That was the current Minister of Finance. In the National Party we are never quite sure who the current Minister of Finance will be because frankly those members are all lining up on television and claiming their credentials. A few weeks ago Phil Goff in his caravan did so and Trevor Mallard told us in the weekend that he should be the Minister of Finance but he does not know the difference between an asset and a liability. What a remarkable interview there was with Trevor Mallard on Saturday. When he was asked a question by Lisa Owen he said that it was OK if bonds owned by Meridian Energy went down because the Government still owned the assets. I hate to tell Trevor the bad news but the Government actually owns the liabilities and they are the ones that will have to be repaid with that kind of thinking. 
I am glad Michael Cullen raised in his speech the little issue about bribes. Let us go to the major bribe that this Labour Government had in its campaign: the student loan policy. It was a very interesting policy and it was the first thing in the Budget that Michael Cullen got a clap for and that took 14 minutes—it was about 12 pages into the Budget. Why did he get a clap? Because the blowout in cost was going to be slightly less than he originally thought. That came from a man who when I asked him before Parliament adjourned at the end of the last session what the impact was on the New Zealand balance sheet and what it cost the taxpayer of New Zealand looked at me and said: “I don’t know. I’ll have to go and ask somebody.” When he came back with the answer the figure was $1.5 billion. That has been the write-off to the New Zealand balance sheet. That is what mum and dad have had to pay for and 40c of every new dollar of every loan that goes forward. 
That answer came from the man who claims he is an economic genius. It is no wonder that he is about to retire. Actually the interesting question is whether he will retire. We have it on pretty good authority on this side of the House that the only person who supports Michael Cullen is his wife because Helen Clark certainly does not. She does not talk about Budget 2006. Members opposite refer to it as “Michael’s Budget” because nobody wants to be associated with it. It was a shocker and the message that she was sending— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a longstanding convention in Parliament—the member may not be aware of it but I know senior members who will adhere to it—that members should not bring family members or spouses into debate. That protocol is generally adhered to by both sides and I would ask you to line the member up on that point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I just say to the member that it is a convention that family members are not brought into debate. 
JOHN KEY 
: Then the Budget is supported only by Molly the dog. She is the only one that would be prepared to stand next to Michael Cullen and that Budget. 
What do we know about that Budget? Interestingly the first thing we know is that when members look at land transport—the only thing theoretically that came out of the Budget—they will see that of the $1.2 billion $800 million alone went to fix up the hole that was there previously for inflation. There was nothing new about roads and nothing that will fix Auckland’s motorway network in a hurry. That was the centrepiece of this Budget and there was nothing there. 
Something else was very interesting about the Budget. We went into the process telling the Government that it was wasting a lot of money. We did not ask the Government to believe our point of view; we asked it to look at the briefing to the incoming Minister which stated the following about the rationale of spending in New Zealand: “There is little information to indicate that New Zealanders are getting more services and better results from the public sector for the large increase in resources provided. What little information exists is not encouraging.” Why did Treasury write that? Because it had taken a look at the annual bill for the State sector—the core State sector. It found that there had been a 27 percent increase in the State sector and that the wages bill in the last 5 years has doubled—it has gone from $2 billion to $4 billion. Last week Michael Cullen had the audacity to tell working New Zealanders not to ask for a pay rise because he had put so much pressure on the system with his own spending and hiring that they could not have a pay rise. The message to the workers of New Zealand is that the Government does not care about them any more; it just cares about bloating the bureaucracy hiring more people and having them there. 
Chris Tremain 
: And rents in Wellington. 
JOHN KEY 
: Let us have a look at that. This is a Government that now has itself in the position where over 50 percent of all commercial real estate in Wellington is leased by the Crown—one in two buildings in Wellington. I see that Jill Pettis is nodding. Is that meant to be a good thing? 
What was very interesting about the election campaign was the myths that came from the Labour Government. One of the things that came out concerned its borrowing programme. Michael Cullen went on about some nonsense about $8 billion. We have done some calculations about the borrowing programme. This Labour Government as a result of its student loan policy as a result of its Working for Families package and as a result of the things it has done is now in the position where it is borrowing more money than National would have borrowed had it come into office. That is the situation. [ 
Interruption 
] That is absolutely right; it is borrowing $8.7 billion. Parekura does not believe that but he should believe that he has been done over. I will tell him why. The Minister of Finance sat with me on TV during the election campaign and when we talked about saving money in the State sector he said: “Cuts cuts cuts—there’ll be no room.” I say to Parekura that interestingly enough when I picked up the Budget last time what did I find were the two areas that had had money hammered out of them—completely cut—with no explanation or rationale? There was $25 million cut from Te Puni Kokiri and $65 million cut from the Ministry of Economic Development with not one moment of explanation. Those were the cuts that came out. What is not in this supplementary estimates debate is the simple question around tax cuts. Where were the tax cuts? That was the question that was asked and that was the reason why this Budget sank faster than the  
Titanic 
. 
 What is very interesting is the most recent report from Macquarie Economics which came out just a couple of days ago. It shows that of all the OECD countries the only country now running a larger surplus than New Zealand is Norway. There is a reason for that. Norway has a hell of a lot of oil and it is running a surplus of 18 percent of GDP. We are the country with the next largest surplus according to the OECD. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right I say to Jill Pettis. So when Michael Cullen is next asked by Guyon Espiner on Television One about this issue and he says: “Oh $8.5 billion tax cuts—so?” I will tell him that the “so?” question arises because he is running a larger surplus than any OECD country other than Norway and by the way he has been taxing people so much over the last 10 years that they have not had a tax cut for 10 years. 
There is also another interesting little graph produced in this document. This Labour Government goes on and on about how much it has done but quite interestingly this graph shows—and members opposite might be interested to look at this—that during National’s period in Government from 1995 to 1999 revenues did not increase at all. That is right; that was the situation. Taxes did not go up at all because the National Government was cutting taxes. But in the last 5 years there has been a 45 percent increase in revenue. In Australia the number of people on the top personal tax rate has gone from 30 percent to 2 percent. 
Does anyone have any idea of what has happened in New Zealand in that time? Oh that is right the Government said that the top rate would affect only the elite rich those earning $60000 who used to make up 5 percent of taxpayers. That figure has now gone to 11 percent. That is the answer—11 percent of people in New Zealand now pay the top personal tax rate. So that is an interesting question. 
I say to Dr Cullen that the “so?” question arises because New Zealanders are working hard and they deserve to keep what they earn. We have a Government that is overtaxing people and according to the briefing made to the incoming Minister it is wasting every dollar of it. It is no wonder that members opposite do not want to be anywhere near that Budget. It is no wonder that Trevor Mallard is putting up his hand. It is no wonder that David Cunliffe wants to be the Minister of Finance and no wonder that Phil Goff does—and actually Clayton Cosgrove has a sort of sly little smile on his face. They are all eyeing up the chance to become Minister of Finance. They know that when Helen Clark tells a member of the press gallery who works for the  
Listener 
 that although Michael Cullen has been Minister of Finance for years she does not know whether he will read the next Budget those members know it is code for: “Michael you have read two. The last two have been shockers. We are behind National in the polls. We will not take another Budget without a tax cut.” It is no wonder that Michael Cullen is the only one who backs that Budget; I would not go within a hundred feet of it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For the uninitiated out in the real world that was John Key who currently sits beside Bill English. As we know they are both auditioning. That was audition No. 1 for the leader’s job and I bet we also have a speech from Bill English which will be audition No. 2. I am told that the only reason Don Brash is still sitting in the leader’s seat and Gerry Brownlee is sitting in the deputy’s seat today—or maybe Mr Brownlee is sitting in both seats; I do not know—is that no one in the caucus neither John Key nor Bill English can get a majority. Neither of them can get there and the caucus cannot make up its mind. 
After listening to that speech I have to say that the “$50 million man” who talks about what the message for workers is is no further ahead. Dr Cullen said something very profound in that speech and John Key agreed with him. The first thing the pretender to the throne of the National Party leadership and the man who would one day be Minister of Finance thinks about is not the people of New Zealand or the message to the workers whom he talked about in that speech—oh no! It is numero uno. It is he who is No. 1. It is him and his personal wealth. 
What he did in that speech was try to ridicule a number of people who if Dr Cullen were to be hit by a bus—which ain’t going to happen—could take his place stand in for him and do a very credible job. I have two messages for Mr Key. The first message is that Dr Cullen is not going anywhere. The second message I have is could he stand up and say whether if National were ever returned to Government—heaven forbid—he could name two people on his side of the Chamber who could replace members on that front bench if they were to be hit by the proverbial bus. The answer is no because those members are hollowed out they are bereft of talent and also because people like Dr Lockwood Smith who is yesterday’s man did his time in Cabinet and still has not got over being bumped back to the second row. 
I say that the message to the workers of New Zealand today is that this Government is delivering and members opposite cannot get over it. This Government is delivering to 350000 working families today. That is three out of every four families in this nation. They are not the greedies whom John Key represents but 350000 families—three out of every four families—who are receiving on average $88 a week of their money back. The difference is quite clear. Three out of four families—hold this thought—are receiving $88 on average a week. Then we have the Opposition’s prescription for growing the economy. It is simply this: John Key adds to the $50 million he already has by $91 a week. That is called a Brash tax cut. Under National most other Kiwis including those 350000 working families would receive on average about $10 a week. So that is the stark contrast. There are 350000 families out there who can add up who are smart and who understand economics because they go to the grocer’s shop every week and balance their money and who are receiving on average $88 a week. 
But of course I am sure John Key could spend his extra $91 if Don got into power. He is good at spending; I am sure he could spend it. I am sure he could add to the $50 million he already has. He would wake up even happier in the morning knowing as he thought about his personal wealth that Don had given him in an across-the-board tax cut another $91 to go out and buy a few more bottles of pinot gris. That is the difference between the parties that is what an election was fought on and that is what New Zealanders know. 
I say we should look at Labour’s achievements. Dr Cullen outlined them. It is a fact that 313000 new jobs have been created. Apprentices have been brought back—and I know that every time I say that Dr Lockwood Smith grins. He is the man who destroyed apprenticeships and who pulled the rug out from under every young person in New Zealand when he got rid of the Apprenticeship Act. He always says that yes he did it. He is always proud of having done that. Well I am proud of the fact that we have backed young people and we are bringing up the number of apprenticeships—from 9000 on the go now to 14000 by 2008. We campaigned on that at every election. We campaigned on that issue in 1999. It was one of the most popular policies—and Dr Smith’s only legacy was to not train a young person or not provide any assistance to a young person. That is why we still have a training gap today. We have some of the lowest unemployment in the Western World. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: He’s telling lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that that is not a parliamentary term. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that this place is pretty lax about what people can say in it but blatant untruths are actually outside the Standing Orders and history will show— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been here long enough to know that that is a point for debate. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: But Madam Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the issue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The truth is he cannot hack it. The truth is he cannot handle history. History will judge him. It is a fact that National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. That member cannot handle the history. That may be his legacy. That may be what he tells his grand-kids—that his greatest accomplishment in this Parliament was to do away with and destroy apprenticeships. Well he did it and that is a fact. 
John Key had the audacity to stand up and talk about borrowing. Well let us look at the National Party prescription for growth which is that we borrow excessively. In fact John Key who talked about our programme stated on 16 June in a  
Scoop 
 transcript with regard to borrowing: “We did some calculations prior to the election. You may remember we originally had said we thought over the first term or over the period of the first term of the National Government”—and this bit is a cracker—“we were likely to borrow $3 billion more than the current projections had been for a Labour Government.” 
 So he was going to use the old “think big” mentality and give a big tax cut of $9 billion or $10 billion—the rich would get more; the poor would get sold out. And how would that have been funded? It would have been funded in three ways: borrow and hope; slash social spending and anything else he could have got his hands on—because of course it would not affect Mr Key; and then sell assets. He was going to borrow $3 billion and even today some of his colleagues are still going around the country trying to deny that. 
I have to say that the election was good. Do members know why? It reinforced my view that Kiwis are smart and fair-minded. They saw through that mentality. They know that if money is given away and revenue goes down then spending has to be contracted and cut. That is how a household works. Kiwis know that if spending is put on the American Express card as Mr Key wanted to—to the tune of $3 billion—the economy will be crippled. I ask whether National could have delivered to 350000 families after it had cleaned out the cupboard of money. No it could not have; that is a fact. Mr Key will never be able to resile from the fact that he wanted to engage in what bluntly was good old-fashioned Muldoonism—borrow and hope. That is what he said he would do. Then he tried to dress it up by saying National would borrow for infrastructure after it had given a tax cut. 
Well the sad thing for Mr Key is that that simply does not add up. Those people in the National Party have no credibility. The last time they were in Government—and we ought to remember it—they were the ones who produced the “mother of all Budgets” and old “Colgate-man” Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is grinning away. He was one of the ones who produced that Budget. He and his Government cut the pension three times and since then we have had an election campaign where Dr Brash mused about whether he would lift the age of eligibility for the pension to 70. He mused about the fact that if a person were 50 today that person would not get a pension under him. I believed him. I believe him to this day that that is the hidden agenda. How do I judge that? I base my judgment on the history of those people in National cutting the pension three times—again pulling out the rug from another sector in our community. 
That party broke all its promises and made massive welfare cuts in the 1990s. What happened to the economy? It imploded. What did National do in terms of infrastructure? If we look at roading—and National has not denied this—we see that Maurice Williamson went into an election saying basically that National wanted to sell roads. Why would National want to do that? Well any responsibility for infrastructural development that that Government would have as the Crown would therefore be abrogated and those members would be able to raise up their hands and say: “Not our fault if the roads aren’t getting fixed. We sold them; we got rid of them.” That is how they would fund their tax cuts and their social programme. 
I say to National that as Bill English and John Key go down to the wire like a couple of—I was going to say thoroughbreds—donkeys ready to audition for the jobs of Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee we are prepared and we are ready to go. We will remind people not only of the legacy of Bill English in Government but of the legacy of John Key in Opposition—the promises made the broken promises and the bizarre things that were said. We will also remind people that he was going to be a younger version of Rob Muldoon and borrow and hope. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to correct my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. It is true that in the dark of the National Party there is a contest for a leader. Having been there myself many years ago I understand about these things. The point the member is not correct on is that National members are unsure of their numbers for that challenge. They do know. Each one of them actually has the numbers. The thing is that they do not trust their colleagues because in the very recent past each and every one of them has been done over by his or her colleagues. So each of them is doing the numbers but each of them is so unsure the numbers are correct that no one wants to move. Be that as it may— 
Hon David Carter 
: Who is this guy? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: And the person who is interjecting the guy from down south somewhere had in his day aspirations of being the leader too. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes he did. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: He did. I know that it is hard to believe but people close to the man—I cannot say who—told me that. However he no longer harbours such dreams. He is having to face reality and the fact that other people are superseding him in the hierarchy of the National Party. So if Don Brash goes that member is in trouble. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Do you reckon he’s history? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Oh I am sure of it but the member can check it out for himself. The real concerns New Zealand First has about the economy were put out there by us during the election campaign. But because the fight was between those who wanted to deliver services in the case of Labour versus those who wanted to make tax cuts in the case of National that took precedence and New Zealand First had trouble getting its message through. 
As people have heard here this afternoon both parties are throwing accusations at the other. The problem is that nobody is actually looking at the real concerns relating to the New Zealand economy. They include excessive consumption excessive importing and a lack of exporting. I myself believe that that has been recognised by putting Jim Anderton in charge of agriculture forestry and fishing. He has said right upfront that although he knows very little about any of those areas he does know about motivation and his job will be to ask the productive sectors of the economy for one more turn at the pump. I know that my friends in Federated Farmers also believe that Jim Anderton was put there to say: “Look ladies and gentlemen can you please give us more exports?” 
New Zealand First believes that is the right way to go. We have had deep concerns about the amount of consumption that has been going on in the last few years but that having happened we believe it is essential that we now get back and support our exporters—to the degree that New Zealand First has insisted that 2007 be an export year and that the Government put emphasis on making exporters important again. 
Although that toing and froing is going on between the two major parties over what is happening and what has been promised New Zealand First has to come down on the side of Dr Cullen in carefully harbouring an $8 billion or so surplus. We know that if the economy heads south—if it weakens—that surplus will disappear in a heartbeat. We applaud him for hanging on to that surplus in the face of National’s calls to give it away in tax cuts. It is all very well to say—and we have all heard the line—that it is the people’s money and that we should not be taking it off them. Mr Key was going on about that; it was the main point of his address in this debate. But unfortunately history tells us that both in this country and—dare I say it—in America when tax cuts are given across the board they do not go to productive enterprise. That is the history. It is not me saying it and it is not New Zealand First saying it; it is what has happened traditionally in this country and it is what is happening in the United States of America at this point in time. If tax cuts are given across the board people will go out and spend more. I will not go into the detail of that but it is certainly what has happened. 
So in the situation we face now where we are having to do something about a $14 billion export deficit we will have to encourage exporters while being careful about what we import. That situation is certainly not going to be helped by one of the two major parties promising tax cuts across the board. I just hope that that party will not put so much pressure on the Government that Dr Cullen will be forced into a position of having to promise those things as we approach the next election. 
 We believe that the economy is not as robust as we are being told it is—we certainly agree with National on that front. We believe there is a downturn coming. We believe there is a sense of unreasoned optimism shall we say. We believe that internationally sharemarkets are showing signs of nervousness. We believe that New Zealand in total should put aside its differences between the parties and we believe we should be very very careful about how we go in the next few years because we do not believe we are in a position to give away anything in the way of tax cuts or anything that encourages consumption in order to get votes at the next election. 
We are scared that if those things were to happen we could get a 1987 situation. I am a positive person; I am not one to run around the country preaching doom and gloom and I am not suggesting that that will happen. But if we look at the fact that a couple of financial lending institutions have collapsed just recently—and I know the reasons for that—and if we look at what is happening in the financial markets then we would have to say it is a time for caution. It is not time for the gung-ho type of behaviour we are seeing from the National Party and with due respect from the Labour Party. It is time for this country to hunker down recognise that we have a debt recognise that the debt has to be paid and do something about it. New Zealand First for its part is saying that encouraging the Government to make 2007 an export year and to put our resources into that is the way to go. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 It is becoming just a little bit clearer every day that along with waste instability is becoming part of the way this Government does business. We have only to see the charade that has been played out in the last few weeks by Trevor Mallard over his aspirations to the role of Minister of Finance to understand what is happening in the Labour Government. Helen Clark has now essentially left Wellington and she sees herself as campaigning full time for a fourth term. We know that her mind is on the big picture when her office instructs organisations that organise events to which she goes to make sure of two things: firstly that the National Party has no official role in the public function and secondly that the Labour candidate for that electorate must be on the platform. She did this in Lawrence in my electorate. I found out because the organisers rang me to find out who the failed Labour candidate was and none of us could remember. I do not yet know whether that person found his or her way to the platform. 
That is the petty level to which the Prime Minister of New Zealand is now descending. She is going around the country and handing out large cheques with $1 million written on them and is making sure that the local National MP who in most cases worked very hard for the project is not allowed on the platform and the failed Labour candidate is. Helen Clark does not want to be in Wellington because what is going on here is much more important to the country and it has now slipped out of her control—the battle for succession of the Minister of Finance’s job. Helen Clark has effectively given Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard permission to go into battle. She has done that by doing what she does with such masterly effect—nothing. When Dr Cullen’s Budget fell flat and the public decided that he was getting far too much of the surplus and they were not getting enough Helen Clark did not lift one finger to defend him. In fact if one was not a New Zealand voter one would not have known after the Budget that Helen Clark was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. One would have thought it was Michael Cullen. She had nothing to say. She has taken no position on whether there should have been tax cuts. She left Dr Cullen to it and that gave permission to Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff. Well what a battle that will be. Trevor Mallard will be much better at fighting his way to get the job than he ever will be at doing the job. Phil Goff as my colleague Tony Ryall has said is sitting in his caravan in Mount Roskill and waiting waiting waiting. 
When the members on the Government front bench are starting to talk openly about their ambitions and when the Prime Minister has lost control of those headstrong individuals we then know that the Government is headed for a period of trouble. In its third term that period will extend to the election it will lose. The signs are all there. It does not matter how much Dr Cullen protests about journalists or about his colleagues as I am sure he did when Trevor Mallard lost his grip on the difference between assets and liabilities. Trevor Mallard is the man who wants to be in charge of—what is the size of the New Zealand Government’s balance sheet? He does not know which side anything should be on. Actually that does not surprise me in Trevor Mallard’s case. I do not know why everyone else is surprised—we have always known that. 
The problem with Dr Cullen is that the public has stopped believing him. He has kept shifting the fiscal goalposts. He started out with the operating balance as his fiscal target and that got too big so he changed it to the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes which is a variation of the operating balance and that got too big to justify not giving tax cuts. So he reverted to the 1950s and started talking about cash flow. Then that got too big to justify not giving tax cuts. Worst of all for him the public has simply stopped believing what he says. There is a wisdom in the crowd because they know that a cash flow measure is simply the wrong measure. It is not a measure of the financial state of the Government or its ability to give tax cuts; it is a measure of how much capital spending Dr Cullen has been able to finance out of current revenue—of how many houses he has been able to buy with his annual income. Actually because his annual income has been growing pretty fast he has been able to buy quite a few houses. So the public has just simply stopped believing him and that is a good thing. 
We have had 6 or 7 years when Dr Cullen has spent most of his effort trying to prove that he is more fiscally conservative than Arnold Nordmeyer and Walter Nash. That might be his little personal problem but this country does not have a problem with debt—it has a problem with growth. It is the prospect for getting our growth up that is the worry—and that he is doing nothing about—not the problem of getting our debt down which has been substantially dealt with. 
So Mr Goff and Mr Mallard are on the go and we have heard the code for it. Who heard Clayton Cosgrove talk about what would happen if Dr Cullen was hit by a bus? Any caucus knows that that is the tripwire. If someone was hit by a bus who would the caucus support? If someone was hit by a bus who would look better on TV? If someone was hit by a bus who would the public warm to? So the bus conversations have started. In Labour leadership conversations are barbeque conversations led by Phil Goff but this is a bus that Phil Goff thinks he is already on. 
Anne Tolley 
: He’s sitting in it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He is sitting in the bus. If Michael Cullen is hit by Phil Goff’s bus I can tell members who will get the job and it will not be Mr Mallard—nor should it be because he simply lacks the credibility. 
Hon David Carter 
: He can’t read a balance sheet. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He cannot read a balance sheet but more seriously than that he just lacks the credibility. A person cannot go round in politics for a decade making the kinds of wild allegations that this man makes and making a fool of himself and his party and be regarded as a prospect for the Minister of Finance which is a job whereby credibility is everything. It is not just one of the important things—it is everything. So count Trevor Mallard out and Phil Goff in. Then there are the ones racing for the Associate Minister jobs—all the rising stars! Is that not a disease in the Labour Party. [ 
Interruption 
] Fortunately the member for Otaki almost lost his seat so he has lost his “rising star” tag. I say to him that that is a good thing because we forget that one rising star was David Benson-Pope. Look what happened to him. The next one was David Parker. Look what happened to him. 
Anne Tolley 
: Russell Fairbrother. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Look what happened to him. The next one was David Cunliffe who rings up companies—Crown Law actually—in the middle of question time to ask a company to do him a political favour when he is making a multimillion dollar decision about that company. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is absolutely not true and that member knows it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is true. It is in the answers to the parliamentary questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He knows that’s absolutely untrue. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No no. It is in the answers to the parliamentary questions and that is why that man cannot be Minister of Finance. The answers to the parliamentary questions from David Cunliffe say that he rang Crown Law in the middle of question time to get the letter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No not that “he” did. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is what it says. The problem now for Labour is that it increasingly has to live with the consequences of its own decisions. 
The doctors’ strike is the consequence of a period when Annette King gave everyone in health everything they wanted. Everyone in health knows that they made an agreement with the junior doctors last time that was ridiculous because the Minister said they should do it. Now someone has to unwind it. What is happening? Thousands of New Zealanders are being inconvenienced and there is no solution in sight. 
The same sort of thing is happening in education where the Government has spent and spent. As Mr Mallard has said himself spending on schools has gone up 50 percent since 1998 yet schools feel under more pressure than ever. Steve Maharey is giving them an operations grant review to try to string it out for a couple of years to try to make a promise before the election. The Government is now living with the consequences of its own mistakes not ours and will pay for it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The time for that member’s speech has expired and whereas he was quite close to becoming National’s leader about 3 months ago as time goes on his leadership ambitions will slowly evaporate. That is true also for John Key. National has reached a gridlock. Bill English John Key Simon Power Gerry Brownlee and Don Brash are all holding 20 percent plus or minus a bit in terms of their support. National knows that Don Brash cannot do the job but that it cannot change its leader until it gets a majority for someone else. National cannot do that now so Bill English is propping up Don Brash John Key is now propping up Don Brash Simon Power is now propping up Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee is now propping up Don Brash. 
The problem with the arguments the previous speaker expounded is that he tried to play both sides of the street. When one is having an economic debate one just cannot do that. That is the member whose leader in a taxpayer-funded postcard—and I underline “taxpayer-funded” so that everyone knows the taxpayer paid for those postcards although about 3 or 4 weeks ago the National Party said it would never do anything like that—that we all got through the letterbox last week paid for by deliverers and paid for by the taxpayer committed the National Party to $2.2 billion a year worth of tax cuts. What did the previous speaker say today? He confirmed— 
Hon Bill English 
: Show us where it says $2.2 billion. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: $2.2 billion. I am not saying the member said it. I am saying that the person who represents him sent out a postcard that confirmed the National Party’s intention as at the last election to give out $2.2 billion worth of tax cuts. But what did that member do? Today he started to list out the further spending that he wants. Is he consistent? Is he responsible? Did he learn anything while he was understudying Bill Birch? No he learnt almost nothing. 
One thing Bill English did not learn was Bill Birch’s approach to State-owned enterprise board chairs which was that the first question he asked a board chair was how much that person had given to the party at the last election. What an outrageous approach that was! It is not the approach that this Government takes. We also do not take the approach— 
Hon Bill English 
: That is the Labour Party. Ha ha! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I wonder whether Bill English has the spine to go outside the House and say that Jim Bolger donates money to the Labour Party that Paul East donates—well he might now; he has become more sensible. But would he say that Paul East a former Attorney-General donates money to the Labour Party? I would like him to run through the board chairs and other State-owned enterprise members and find people other than Mike Williams and possibly Stan Rodger who make donations to the Labour Party. I think he would have quite a lot of trouble in doing so. We believe in appointing competent people to boards just as we believe in appointing competent people in the House unlike the National Party which goes for the “Flash Harry’s” like John Key. National is now discovering it has a bit of a problem with him and I think the problem will become more obvious as time goes on. 
The National Party also goes for losers like Bill English. He lost worse than any National Party leader has ever lost before. But the trouble is that he is probably the best that National has. National has a terrible leadership dilemma. It has the old fellow who everyone knows cannot win and the person who thinks of himself as a Holyoake or a John Howard: someone who loses really really badly but then comes back and has quite a long reign— 
Darren Hughes 
: Like Dr Hewson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Bill English has certainly been flashing around the place the figures on Howard and Holyoake and the fact that he thinks it is time for history to repeat itself. 
Hon Bill English 
: I have not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He says he has not done that this week. Well I am sorry but it is early in the week; it is only Tuesday. I will give the member a chance to do it a bit more at some stage in the future. 
But I say to Bill English that when he is the leader he will have to get some control over the rest of his caucus. The National Party has someone called Borrows or “Burrow” as an MP apparently in Wanganui. He says there are not enough ambulances. 
Darren Hughes 
: Borrows. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Borrows from Wanganui a National Party member apparently says National wants to give more money to the ambulance services. Then there is someone called Jo “Godhew”—or is it Goodhew? Some of these people I have never heard of. 
Darren Hughes 
: Goodhew. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is one called Jo Goodhew who wants a massive increase in pay for home carers. I tell her that so do I but I think we have to get things in line as to their affordability. Just writing out cheques in the way she is proposing will not work. 
Here is one National member I have heard of: Gerry Brownlee and he wants more money for the Waitangi Tribunal and for Treaty settlements. He says it is not enough. I have also heard of this one: Maurice Williamson. He said today that the roading funding the extra $685 million announced as part of the Budget was not enough. There is another one: Jacqui Dean. Is she an MP? 
Darren Hughes 
: Yes she is an MP. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Jacqui Dean is not from around here; I presume she is from out of town somewhere. She wants an enormous— 
Anne Tolley 
: She won her seat. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She won her seat. That is something that is very special; it something that Don Brash has never done in his life regardless of all the attempts he has made. Anne Tolley was a member here once before and I think in the interim was appointed as a political crony to something or other. 
Anne Tolley 
: No I was not. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sure she was—a political hack. In her case “hack” would be a good description. She was appointed to something I am sure. Then we have Tony Ryall—and I compliment him on his recent developments—who says that a whole pile more money is needed for health. Bill English says a whole pile more money is needed for education and I would love to do that. I have the somewhat sad job of doing work on expenditure control. I have to work with my colleagues who have lots of very very good ideas and I have to tell them I am sorry but we cannot afford them this year because we have Budget parameters and we are going to stick within them—and we do that. 
Darren Hughes 
: Year after year. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Year after year for some particular projects—too often my own. Bill English wants to spend much more money on education. 
John Key is sort of like a day of the future past really. He was seen by many of us to have some real potential. He could have been a star then he opened himself up to the media and to the world. As a result of that people saw right through him. It is actually quite sad that someone who made so much money by playing the markets and pushing our dollar around and who is personally very very well off is as shallow as a bird bath. As soon as the light went on John Key as Lockwood Smith knows he was shown not to have the life experience or the political experience to do a job like that. So what is John Key doing? In order to try to boost his own numbers in caucus he is running around some of his old mates in the financial sector trying to get them to come into Parliament and be the bright young stars in order to give him the numbers. 
National is really a pretty sad party. It was once the grand old National Party. I know that it will have to do a bit of turnover especially off the current front bench but I hope it can recover. There are one or two bright ones further back. There is John Hayes from Wellington Central who appears to have some potential. I forget the name of the other one. I am certain that over a period of time the National members can renew themselves and do much better than they are doing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to refer to the supplementary estimate on Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That will be a change. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is right it is so topical. I know that the House is fascinated by such issues because they are some of the most serious issues this country will face. It is very important that if we are going to future-proof our country and make sure we have a sustainable economy that will last many generations into the future we do take these issues seriously and develop policy to deal with them. So let us just have a little look at what is happening with Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. 
There is an increase in Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in the supplementary estimates of $112 million. Of that $111 million relates to other expenses to be incurred by the Crown Kyoto Protocol forecast liability. The forecast liability in June 2005 for the Kyoto Protocol was around $310 million. It has now increased to $627 million for two reasons. One is the reforecast of deforestation in this country which reduces the credits available to New Zealand from forest sinks because we keep on cutting down our forests; and secondly the decision not to proceed with the carbon charge which means that our projected greenhouse emissions are set to rise by 13 million tonnes a year. 
It is absolutely clear despite some naysayer scientists—and only a very few of them—that levels of carbon dioxide worldwide are increasing. The recent predictions are that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for 650000 years. That is a horrible and shocking figure for people to hear and people sometimes do not quite understand why that is so important and feel that perhaps it is excessive but it is not. It is scientifically recognised as being the current understanding of carbon dioxide levels and we must take it very seriously because we are seeing effects—unprecedented ice melt at the polar caps; the acidification of our oceans; the slowing down of the Gulf Stream which if it gets too bad could significantly decrease the temperature of northern Europe; the thawing of the tundra which is leading to the extinction of species; and freak storms droughts and floods. We need only to look at our own country at the moment; parts of our country are still without power because of such freak storms. That is actually happening to our own people in our own land right now. 
This Government has no new plans to address these issues since it abandoned the carbon charge. Recently at the climate change conference Simon Upton said that the carbon charge was the simplest most effective and fairest way of putting a price signal on carbon to encourage a change in behaviour. What is most surprising is that National members could oppose this mechanism. They are committed to market tools. They advocate for the management of scarce resources like water by the use of market tools yet when a market tool is used for carbon—one of the most serious issues facing this planet—they oppose the carbon charge. It is very unfortunate that National has such an inconsistent policy and principle approach. How can it possibly have a rational responsible environmental policy if it cannot even deal with these issues by using its own tools effectively? 
The carbon charge sets the price for carbon across the whole economy and it makes energy efficiency and renewable energy options much more effective. It would provide real incentives to reduce the burning of fossil fuels which would increase the sustainability of our natural resources on which our economy is highly dependent—fisheries forestry and farming are highly dependent on the natural resources of this country. A carbon charge would help to stimulate market responses to the demand for energy and fuel alternatives. This would shift our economy from a dead-end extractive one that goes nowhere to a sustainable economy future-proofed against environmental and international vagaries of all kinds. This could make us world leaders in innovative sustainable technology. 
But instead of opening the door to this potential for our country—this potential sustainable future for us all—National and Labour are both responsible for the complete policy vacuum that exists in New Zealand at the moment. So New Zealand is continuing to dig up fossil fuels out of pristine fragile New Zealand ecosystems—fossil fuels that will contribute millions and millions of tonnes to the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. We continue to spend precious transport dollars which could be used to protect against rising fuel costs not on public transport—which people actually want they actually use and they say they need—but on building more roads on which only the rich will be able to drive. 
That is not a sustainable economy. There is no future-proofing plan or policy in place to deal with the rising costs of oil and the resultant massive increases in the current account deficit—something like 9.5 percent of our GDP—or with the rising mortgage interest rates that result from the price of oil going up overseas. The Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency supplementary estimate—the new money that is needed—is indicative of the complete lack of planning and care that this Government and National have in making sure we can have a sustainable economy in a sustainable country that our environment is able to provide for us long into the future for our children and grandchildren and which protects our economy and our development over time. 
The Greens have a proposal called  
Turn Down the Heat 
 which we released earlier this year. It contains a wide range of policy options that could be used to help address this policy vacuum. It has been very well received by people in the know—by specialists who understand these issues—and it has been relatively well received by the Government which is great. We look to all the parties in this House to take seriously the proposals in that plan because it is the only plan on the table. We are the ones who have seriously put time energy and effort into finding out what those options are for us if we do not have a carbon charge and if we do not deal with the Kyoto Protocol. We are urging parties across the House to really consider these proposals because we can future-proof our country if these proposals are taken seriously. These are the only options on the table and they must be considered by the Government and other parties as well. 
 This country has so much potential to do amazing things for itself and for the world. The world is crying out for innovative technology sustainable ideas and ways of protecting ourselves and the planet into the future. We need to make sure the way we live is socially just so that all people have what they need to live well and have healthy lives and environmentally sound so that our planet is protected resources are available for many generations of people to use and consume and systems are in place to manage waste so that we do not continue to poison our rivers lands and seas with the dregs of what we choose not to use—with what comes from our excessive consumption. 
These options and opportunities are truly available to us. We need only the political will and forethought to think not just about ourselves or the next election but about what our children and grandchildren will truly need in the future. We strongly urge this House and the parties and MPs in it to take a future-looking view to make sure that we have a future-proofed country and a sustainable economy. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. At this time a Government can set out its agenda and look at how that relates to its main priorities. Before I do so I want to refute something Bill English said. He claimed that the Prime Minister controls certain events and who gets invited to them. I absolutely refute that. It is the sort of nasty little thing some people in Opposition will say. I am just sorry that Bill English wants to be one of those nasty people. I can tell this House that Bill English was invited to an event in Lawrence recently—not controlled—and his apology was read out. He had a much more important event to go to than the one in Lawrence. He was going to a National Party conference which obviously was far more important than the Lawrence event. However he would like to make out that in fact he was not invited. He was invited and I know of many occasions to which he was invited when I was Minister of Health and to which he may or may not have turned up. 
He might like to consider that people who invite him do not take kindly to being abused when he arrives. Recently he did exactly that. At the opening of the velodrome he abused the master of ceremonies because he claimed he was not recognised properly. So before Bill English slates the Prime Minister in this House and makes up stories he should consider his own actions and what he does in his own electorate. This is not the place to be a lion; the place to be a lion is his own electorate where he should turn up to events he is invited to and make them a priority. 
Today I want to talk about two of my four portfolios. I wish to talk about Vote Transport and Vote Police and how they relate to the Government’s three main themes: economic transformation families young and old and national identity. I would like to begin with transport. As the new Minister of Transport I was particularly lucky to receive a major boost for transport in the last Budget. In fact I was very lucky in police as well with a major boost in the police budget thanks to our work with New Zealand First and our arrangement with it. 
The Budget 2006 transport package really is an investment in the future. The Government is trying to deal with past neglect. It is true that infrastructure investment is sadly lacking in New Zealand. I think it is fair to say that it is sadly lacking in the Auckland area particularly. We have to acknowledge a lack of investment in Auckland. Auckland did not get its proper share of money and investment over a decade in the 1990s and we need to ensure that Auckland catches up. Auckland is a powerhouse of our economy and an important part of New Zealand. Over a third of the people of New Zealand live there. Although the rest of New Zealand is of course important one neglects Auckland at one’s peril. So part of what the Government is doing with the transport budget is to invest in the deficit gap in transport. 
The thing about infrastructure investment is that it must be ongoing; it cannot be stop-start. One cannot put a bit of money in then stop look around and wait to see what will happen. Unfortunately we saw a lot of stopping in the 1990s and not much starting—National stopped and we started. So we have investment going into transport infrastructure. I know that many members of this House welcome that because they know that it is so important not only for their regions but also particularly for the Auckland area. An extra $1.3 billion of investment is guaranteed to go into the State highway programme to be locked in for the next 5 years. That is a major change to what has been done in transport in the past. We have usually had a 1-year Budget cycle. It is very difficult to have ongoing infrastructural development planning and strategy when one does not know what the funding will be from one year to the next. 
As this House knows the outlook around funding has been uncertain because funding is related to money that comes in from excise duty from road-user charges and so on and that fluctuates. That made it very hard to plan what roads would be built and how they would be funded in the future. In this Budget we see for the first time the funding locked in over a 5-year period to bring forward projects that were on the 10-year plans of Transit and Land Transport New Zealand—to say that those projects will be done in that 5-year period and to put the funding behind it. 
A very important part of that is that we will spend all the money that comes in from road-user charges and excise duty. Not only will we spend it all but also over the next 5 years we will invest $300 million more than what comes in from those charges. That is important. The National Party says it was committed to doing that—it was committed to moving petrol tax to fund roads over a 6-year period. That was just petrol tax. We have done that now and over the next 5 years an extra $300 million will go into funding New Zealand’s transport infrastructure. That is a very large investment—in fact it is an unprecedented level of spending on land transport. It will increase by $13.4 billion over the next 5 years to guarantee and accelerate the country’s largest-ever road-building programme. 
I have been asked why we have not spent more on passenger transport and public transport. I have to say that the answer is yes we should spend more—and we are spending more—but I remind the House that public transport never had a high profile in the 1990s. I have looked back at investment in public transport. Maybe it did not seem so important then but throughout the 1990s funding for public transport was frozen at around $40 million a year. Members need to know that the annual spending on public transport has increased by over 700 percent since 1999 from $43 million to an estimated $360 million in 2006-07. Of course I think we can do even better in public transport. As we look at our needs over the years going forward passenger transport and public transport are very important indeed. But the truth is that alongside public transport we still need the roads for the buses to travel on and so on. 
In the few minutes I have left I want to speak about the New Zealand Police. As a country we can be very proud of the New Zealand Police. If we look around the world we will see that other police forces do not necessarily have the integrity of our police. They are not necessarily as well trained and well coached as our police. I believe that the investment the Government puts in over the next 4 years will be very important indeed as we train 1000 more sworn police and 250 more non-sworn police over that period of time. 
 As I said extra police funding came out of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. The total funding for this initiative in the Budget and through to 2008 is likely to reach around $500 million. That is a huge investment into New Zealand Police. What is important is not only having the additional human resource but also how we actually use those police in helping our communities. I believe that the important thing is the engagement the police have with communities the community safety initiatives they undertake and the prevention and early intervention of our police to try to prevent the sorts of crimes we see happening in our communities. The police have a big role to play in that. 
I have seen—in my short time as Minister—some very very good projects around New Zealand where police work closely with communities. I ask members to take the example of Neighbourhood Support or Community Patrols. I opened their conference just a week ago in Rotorua. We had 300 to 400 people involved in Community Patrol—the eyes and ears of the police—scattered all around New Zealand and working very hard on behalf of but with the police. I think that sort of approach is very important as we go into the future. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The Hon Annette King has just provided a very interesting contrast to a previous speaker. She actually talked about the Labour Government’s programme as it looks ahead. I do not agree with everything she said but at least I have to give her some credit for talking about what her Government plans to do. In contrast there was the Hon Trevor Mallard the pretender to the role of Minister of Finance. I ask members to compare those two front-bench Ministers. Trevor Mallard just made up anything when he spoke to this House half an hour ago. I came into this Parliament in 1984 the same year as Trevor Mallard. He was just a bully-boy back then—a gutter fighter—and he has not improved. If he thinks he will take over the role of Minister of Finance for this Labour Government God help this Labour Government! 
Mind you I gather his competition is Phil Goff. I followed Phil Goff as Minister of Education in 1990. The very first appointment the Ministry of Education asked me to have as Minister was with John Gill the financial controller. He contacted my office and said to my senior private secretary that he had to see me urgently. He came into my office and said: “Minister there are some things you must know.” He laid out in front of me—as the new Minister—the illegal spending that had been ordered by Phil Goff the previous Minister of Education leading up to the 1990 election. Phil Goff had spent money not appropriated by Parliament to try to buy votes for Labour which knew that it was on the skids and on the way out. 
That is the integrity of Phil Goff when it comes to financial matters. Phil Goff was illegally spending taxpayers’ money—hundreds of millions—to try to buy votes for Labour on its way out. I have never forgotten that because—as the new Minister—I had to pass legislation through Parliament to make Phil Goff’s dishonest spending legal. And Phil Goff wants a claim to the role of Minister of Finance! Mind you the guy they seek to replace Michael Cullen was Associate Minister of Finance at the time and he brought into Parliament one of the most deceitful Budgets and one of the most dishonest Budgets seen here in the last 20 years. Michael Cullen as Associate Minister of Finance brought into Parliament the 1990 Budget. It claimed a $79 million surplus— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: That’s right! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Pete Hodgson says that is right. It was—after the books were fiddled—because the revenue included the proceeds from the sale of forestry assets that should never have been included. That was blatantly dishonest. And what is more shortly after that when the books were opened after the election that $79 million surplus proved to be a multibillion-dollar deficit. Those members were all implicated. Trevor Mallard was here Michael Cullen was partly responsible for it and Phil Goff contributed to that huge deficit blowout because he spent hundreds of millions of dollars—that had never been authorised by Parliament—to buy votes. I will never forget that because I was the Minister who had to pass the legislation to make that dishonest spending legal. 
I will talk now about this latest Budget and the supplementary estimates we are meant to debate today. This Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill provides an extra $14.697 million to Vote Revenue for departmental output expense “information services”. That extra $14.697 million is to enable this Government to promote its Working for Families and interest-free student loan policies. This is $15 million extra on top of the $116 million that the Inland Revenue Department already has for information services to put spin on its Working for Families package. 
I am not surprised the Government has to do this because this Labour Government—with Michael Cullen Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard—claims that someone on an income of $60000 should be on the top tax rate of 39c in the dollar. They consider that people with an income of $60000 are so wealthy they should pay the top tax rate. I am not surprised they have to spend $15 million on promoting Working for Families because under this scheme a person earning $60000 and on the top tax rate who has one dependent child gets a benefit. From 1 April next year a person who is earning enough to be on the top tax rate and has one dependent child can put out his or her hand out and get a benefit and become a beneficiary under this Labour Government. What an outrage and what a shocking policy this is that people are taxed at the top tax rate and then the Government has to spend another $15 million explaining to these people that they can also get welfare. 
Working for Families needs a lot of explaining. People earning $47000 with 3 dependent children will have $10500 PAYE deducted by their employers for the year. But under Working for Families people can go cap in hand to the Government to get welfare and get every single cent of it back. People on $47000—which is above the average full-time ordinary wage in this country—and with three dependent children pay $10500 in tax and get $10500 of welfare. That is a dumb absurd policy because it costs taxpayers more to channel the money through the bureaucracy to pay it all back. 
Would it not make a bit of sense to actually cut the tax that people are paying in the first place? Instead of taxing people $10500 and asking them to come cap in hand to get it all back—and on $47000 they get every single cent of it back—I would have thought it would be better policy to tax them a bit less. It is no wonder this Government has to spend $15 million to explain this package because how will it explain it to poorer families? 
There are families trying to get off the domestic purposes benefit or the unemployment benefit who have three children and are earning at the moment $10000 of extra income. If they earn an extra $15000 a year this will take them up to $25000 of extra earned income. For poorer people at $15 an hour that is an extra 20 hours work a week; at $12 an hour for some of our lower-paid people that is an extra 25 hours’ work a week; they earn $15000 extra income in the year. Do members know how much of that the Government takes off them? Under Working for Families this wonderful wonderful package that it is spending $15 million explaining the Government will take $13306 of that $15000 from that poor family. The Government will take 89 percent of every extra dollar earned by that poor family as it earns between $10000 and $25000 of extra income to try to get off the benefit. This Labour Government which says that it cares about poor families will take 89 percent off every one of those extra dollars earned and will leave with that family $1.30 per hour for that extra work. Minimum wages—where the hell is the minimum wage when the Government takes so much tax off that extra money earned that the family is left with $1.30 an hour for every one of those extra hours worked? That family works an extra 25 hours a week and it is left with $1.30 an hour. It is little wonder New Zealanders are sick of this Government and sick of its taxation policies. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
Tena tatou te Whare. I understand that amongst other things the supplementary estimates list the changes in appropriation since the Budget and often I hear those changes mean funding cuts. That means of course that when the spotlight is on the Budget Treasury can promise the earth knowing that it can make the cuts later when nobody is watching—good politics probably but hardly good leadership. 
These estimates can take into account policy shifts and reality checks and they can even be used to respond to extraordinary actions of the moment such as the tragic and preventable deaths of the twins over the weekend. As usual talkback radio has been freely accusing all and sundry over the epidemic of child abuse and murder—who did it and who is responsible for stopping it. 
Knowing that I would be speaking to this bill today I decided to have a look at the supplementary estimates for Child Youth and Family Services. What did I find? Well it would seem that the State has been so successful in putting an end to child abuse and promoting the well-being of children young people and their families that the supplementary estimates show funding has actually been cut. For example funding was withdrawn from the “Prevention Services” output because of—members should get this—“Changes in Departmental structure in response to the first principles baseline review.” whatever that means. In another output ”Family Wellbeing Services” we see a further $1.5 million slash from services to improve the life outcomes for children young people and their families through programmes to prevent future harm and abuse. 
These cuts are being made while the statistics are telling us that in the 10 years from 1990 to 2000 86 children were killed—34 Pakeha 42 Maori 2 Indian 3 Asian 3 Pacific and 2 others. The nation is reeling from the double tragedy over the weekend and we are all struggling to find the answers. An unfortunate by-product of that debate of course is the rehashing of the names of other children whose deaths have also become burnt into our souls. 
It is also inevitable that the names of Maori children who have been senselessly and sometimes brutally killed rise quickly in the public memory. New Zealanders are quick to ask what Maori are doing to stop this trail of despicable murders while somehow not being able to remember even one of the names of the many non-Maori kids killed during the same time. But I do not dodge the question about Maori deaths because as a past chairman of a kohanga reo and current chairman of a kura kaupapa Maori it is a question that is very very close to my own heart. 
There is much that is being done and I am happy to acknowledge the work being done by iwi in my own home electorate as part of a joint project known as Amokura—involving the iwi authorities of Ngapuhi Aupouri Ngati Kahu Whaingaroa Te Rarawa and Ngati Wai. They made a strong statement to encourage and promote a culture of non-violence. They have not done it by just trying to lecture people either. Last year their contribution to the Amokura project Te Runanga Whaingaroa launched a waka tete to symbolise the value of women and to recognise in a special way mana wahine mana tane and mana tangata. Although the construction of the waka was overseen by internationally renowned carver and navigator Hekenukumai Busby women were also called in to help with the carving. The waka  
Uerangi 
 projects the sense of unity between men and women and the sanctity of the children born by us all. 
Another Amokura project was the launching of a series “Step Back” concerts to promote non-violence and the production of a series of radio stings such as “Raising a hand don’t make you a man” asking people to step back and think before their rage takes over. Initiatives such as these are not just happening up north. Next week Kahungunu launches its own violence–free strategy and action plan to help its iwi reject violence because it wants its actions to be based on meaningful and productive tikanga and kaupapa rather than simply adopt Government’s family violence prevention strategy which is not kaupapa based. 
We need more of these initiatives not less. We need all citizens of Aotearoa to step back and think and to make the changes necessary to stop us from lashing out. Last summer more than 6000 kids suffered from family violence and for those 6000 last summer will be a holiday they will never forget. We must stop the blame step back and think for a bit and then step forward together with answers and resources. Yes there is much that is being done but equally yes there is much more that can be done. We challenge this Government to invest in positive action and flourishing communities rather than take money away from those who desperately need it most. Kia ora tatou. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am going to use the majority of my time in this debate on the supplementary estimates for 2005-06 to talk about our forecast liability under the Kyoto Protocol. Our liability period begins in 2008 and goes through to 2012. It is interesting to note that on 30 June 2005 our liability under that protocol was estimated in the Crown accounts at $310 million. In these supplementary estimates it has gone up on a forecast as at 31 March 2006 to $627 million. That is an increase of some $317 million. The report we have received on this matter is that that is still only an estimate and it could go up further by the time the Crown accounts are finalised on 30 June 2006. So this is like an interim measure. 
I am very very concerned indeed because a large part of that increase in our Kyoto Protocol forecast liability results from the fact that there has been a faster rate of deforestation than the former Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues forecast. That of course boosts New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations because in cutting forests down we actually reduce the amount of carbon capture and the number of forest sinks in our country. The converse of that is also true of course that by planting more trees and encouraging harvesters to delay harvests we indeed increase carbon capture and with that reduce our liability to the rest of the Kyoto Protocol nations. 
This represents a serious breakdown of policy of the most serious kind. Time spent by the Government on its failed “burp and fart tax” and time spent on the flawed carbon tax could have been used to strongly incentivise the planting of new forests. That should have begun 6 years ago. One of the problems with this whole area is that time is against us. We cannot recapture the last 10 years; we cannot go back now and reinvent them. So there has been a real failure over the last 6 years. We have not incentivised the planting of new forests in this country. Instead of being $700 million in deficit at this point of time I think that if action had been taken earlier over that 6-year period we could have reduced that amount and reduced it very significantly. In fact I would venture to say that we could probably have come to a break-even situation. 
It is not really rocket science. The Government needs to stop dragging the chain on getting trees planted and move into getting strongly incentivised forestation campaigns under way. We have already lost 6 years. How much more time will be allowed to drift by? Every day is important and every hour is important. Surely it is better to spend a few hundred million dollars now on tree planting rather than pay out up to $700 million a year to some overseas jurisdiction under the Kyoto Protocol. But that is where we are heading. Continued delay is a disgrace. I ask the Government to please get on with doing something about planting more trees in this country.  
The other thing I want to mention to do with the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill concerns the New Zealand Railways Corporation. ONTRACK is its trading name but we have gone back to using the more old-fashioned name for it now the New Zealand Railways Corporation. Another $93 million has been put aside for railways. Of course the Crown again now owns the land around and under the tracks the stations etc. I suggest to the House that the Crown has an opportunity to look at building parking buildings around railway stations in the Auckland and Wellington suburban areas. Overseas they call it park-and-ride. People would like to catch the train because of the increased price of motor fuel but all the surveys show that they still have to use their car to get from their home to the station and when they get to the station there is nowhere to park it. So I suggest to the Government that it looks positively at that issue over the next few years to see whether we can indeed build parking buildings at railway stations. The private sector will put up the money. This would be an opportunity for what we call public-private partnerships. As I said the Crown owns the land and it could lease the land to a private sector company. If we built some car-parks then a lot more people would travel on our trains as a result. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and to look at the expenditure for the Government because of course this debate takes place within the context of the broader programme that the Government has embarked on—and in fact the country has embarked on. It is I think common knowledge now that the focus of the Government is on a programme of very serious change in New Zealand. In fact we have gone so far as to use the words “transformation of New Zealand” by which we mean that we want to go from the way we were to the way we are meant to be if we are to succeed in the 21st century. 
Stated quite simply what I mean by that is that if we look at what we were we can see that most of the people in this House—not some of the people here but the majority of them—who have grown up here during the past century have lived in a country that had low skills low wages and low productivity and that was highly successful in employment. It was a highly successful society but it was a society based largely on the production of things that we did not have to do much about. We took advantage of the fact that we lived in a country with good water good air good grass good growth and a good climate and we lived as people used to say in the old days off the sheep’s back. We know today that that simply will not get us through the 21st century. We know that we must go through a period of major change. We have been going through those changes but we are not there yet. We have not yet got over the hurdles that will take us to what we need to do in the 21st century. 
What we need to do today is to become what most people would refer to as a knowledge-based economy and society. In simple terms that means we have to produce more knowledge in New Zealand—we produce about 0.01 percent of the world’s knowledge in this country at the present time—and we need to apply more knowledge. We may be able to produce a little more but we can apply a lot more because we can take the whole stock of knowledge around the world that is relevant to us and make use of it right here in this country. That is the aim of this Government. We can call it a smart society or a smart economy—whatever we want to say—but we know we need to do that. We need to focus ruthlessly on the process of making ourselves a knowledge-based economy and society. If we are to do that then we have to invest. That is really what this debate is about. It is about how to invest the money we take off New Zealanders like ourselves like the families who are working hard to get by and like the businesses. We take money off them and we invest it. 
One of the arguments we have heard so far is that an investment would be to cut taxes—to give large personal tax cuts. What would happen if that was done? Would person X in Wanganui today say to Mr Ryall or anybody else on the National Party side: “Thank you. I’m an average income earner and I know you’ve just given $250 to people who are well off like Dr Brash but as an average earner I have $10. I am sitting at my kitchen table and I want New Zealand to be a knowledge-based society and economy because my kids need to have a real future. So I will take the $10 and invest a little bit in health to make Mr Hodgson happy that he can do things about trying to resolve the issue of all New Zealanders getting access to health care when they need it. Health care is always going to be rationed. It’s a tough job but he could always use some more money so I will give him some. I will give a bit to Mr Maharey because we want to have great schools and to employ more teachers. And I will give a little bit to Mrs King so we can have a few more roads.” And the old $10 is being split up in that example in a way that just will not happen in reality—it just will not happen. 
Does any member in the House—it is packed in here at the present time I tell those listeners to this debate who are at home—think New Zealanders in the average household who have their $10-a-week tax cut would sit there and divide it up in that way? No they would not. They would spend it across the shop counter and cause inflation in our already overheating economy. So that $10 would be worth nothing in minutes because people would have pumped it into the economy for consumption. That is what would happen and then those people would come back and ask where the investment was for health education roads housing driving our economy science and everything else we need to transform the country. It is a simple choice to make. How do we invest the taxes we take? Do we invest them through individual microchoices in households where people spend their 10 bucks or do we aggregate that money so we can attack the issues that are holding back the transformation of this country? 
It is interesting that in Australia people have had exactly that debate in the business communities there. Where is the investment in the things that will transform Australia? Where is the money that underpins the research and development Australia needs in order to get smarter businesses so they can sell elaborately transformed manufactured products and earn a better living long term for Australia? Eventually Australia will have to stop digging up coal and sending it to China. It will actually have to make a living off being smart. That is what Australia argued for and that is what New Zealand argues for and that is why in this Budget we see investment in the economy in society in groups like Maori in groups that are concerned about our biosecurity and environment in infrastructure like roading and in the creativity that will drive this country to do the kinds of thing I am talking about. 
As someone who is interested in social policy issues I am pleased to see that the Government will continue to invest in the social areas of this country because it is not as many people see it the case that when we invest in areas like health or education and so on it is like having a limitless blank cheque. Those investments are made into trying to keep New Zealanders healthy so they can contribute educated so they can contribute and well housed so they can contribute. In fact we now know that if we do not develop socially there is an eventual break in what we can do economically. If we do not invest in literacy and in the kids in South Auckland who are living in homes where they are not eating properly and who are going to school without having the aspiration to stay there after they are 16 and get a qualification then they are not going to be part of the transformation of New Zealand at all. So social investment is important. 
In this Budget we have seen some wonderful social investment in the areas I am closest to such as education. We know and have argued for a long time in this country that investment in early childhood education—in the kids with the smallest shoes as they used to be called—is the best expenditure we can make of any education dollar. If we can get those kids to become socially and educationally poised to go on to the compulsory school system and really start to take advantage of what they are doing we know they will accelerate right through the education system. So we have put money into free early childhood education and playcentres. We have adjusted the funding rates for early childhood education. We have invested in the primary school sector—in new teachers in school property and in the operations fund going up by $37 per child every year. We have invested in information and communications technology so we can make sure that people have a choice wherever they may be in terms of their education. 
We have invested in the other area that helps us with what we are doing in knowledge and that is research science and technology. We are boosting commercialisation. We are investing more in our Crown research institutes. We are investing in pastoral research energy biosecurity and biodiversity. We are investing in our partnerships with scientists all around the world. We are piloting new programmes to get young people in schools interested in science so they can go on and make a career that includes science in whatever they may do. 
Anne Tolley 
: They should do more research. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Making those kinds of investments is what we are doing with taxpayer dollars. 
Mrs Tolley may want the people of Gisborne to sit around with their $10 clip it up and decide whether to put that money into roads education and so on but she knows in her heart of hearts that that would not happen. She knows in her heart of hearts that the only reason the region she comes from is growing is that 6 years ago a Government came into power led by Labour that said it would invest again in the regions and in the things that make regions grow and every single region is growing as a result of it. It is therefore extraordinary to see after 6 years of the Government making that investment that the National Party wants to cash up those advantages and bugger off and spend the money. That is basically what it wants to do whereas for members on the Government side of the House this Budget was another investment Budget that we believe strongly in. 
I close by thanking Michael Cullen for his stewardship over the last 6 years and for another fantastic Budget. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 If Phil Goff is in his caravan this afternoon with the transistor turned on I think he will be sitting there—having heard from Minister Maharey one of the pretenders who offers no hope for the future of New Zealand—and thinking: “I haven’t got long to wait.” The House is sitting at a time of untold industrial strife within the public health service and at a time when fewer and fewer New Zealanders are getting the services they want. Listeners would have been angry at Mr Maharey’s comment that this Government was investing in social infrastructure in this Budget. Minister Maharey should tell that to the 8-year-old girl who cannot get plastic surgery for a smile. He should tell that to the women of New Zealand who cannot get breast reconstruction following their mastectomies. He should tell that to the New Zealand women who have been told they were culled off the radiotherapy waiting list during the radiotherapists’ strike. Those women have still not been given a date for their treatment and they have heard the Minister of Health in the House today say some patients may wait 2 months to get back on to the theatre list. How do those women feel given that they need to have their treatment now? What about their social structure? What about those women who are waiting? 
What will happen to the thousands of New Zealanders who have been dumped from hospital waiting lists in the last few months? What about the 20000 New Zealanders who will be dumped from hospital waiting lists in the next financial year because of the Minister’s edict? We know that that is what New Zealanders are facing. In the Health Committee that considered the issues of the estimates in Vote Health last Wednesday Ministry of Health officials said that it was their expectation that the district health boards would cull their waiting lists down to the targets set by the elective service indicators—that is a 6-month waiting list—and officials said that that added up to around 25000 New Zealanders— 
Anne Tolley 
: Off the list. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Twenty-five thousand more New Zealanders will be off the list. That should be set within the following context: the Minister has admitted in this House that fewer New Zealanders received elective surgery in the last financial year than received it 5 years earlier. That is what the Minister of Health had to admit. He can stand up in this House and talk about case-weighted this and all that but when it boils down to who got an operation he had to say that fewer New Zealanders were getting elective surgery in the last financial year than they did 5 years earlier. 
Anne Tolley 
: So what happened to the money? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is the issue. Four billion dollars has been spent and fewer people are getting elective surgery. The Government says that is not a problem. If it is not a problem why did Michael Cullen point this out as a major problem in the health sector and why is a team of Treasury officials working on value for money in Vote Health if the Government does not believe that this is an issue? The Government does believe it is an issue. The first person to blow the whistle on the issue of productivity was in fact the outgoing Minister of Finance. He said it was an issue and we have been looking at those figures to see what services New Zealanders have got. Even the Minister of Health was forced to stand up in the House and say fewer people got elective surgery in the last financial year as compared with 5 years earlier. 
In this forthcoming Budget year what action will we see on the workforce issues in the health sector? What indications are there that the Government values general practice—general practitioners family doctors? Members should remember that the Government is putting an awful lot more pressure on the family doctor. What does the Government say about the 20000-odd people culled off the waiting list? It says: “Go back to your general practitioner.” What did the Government say to the 17000 people who could not see their specialist or have elective surgery because of the strike? It said: “Not a problem. Go back to your general practitioner.” What does the Government say to the general practitioner workforce in New Zealand? 
Anne Tolley 
: “Do what we say.” 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It says: “Do what we tell you to do. Set the fees according to our requirement.” But the Government has backed down on that in the last day. Minister Hodgson can chuckle but we know that that is the case. 
In respect of the general practitioner workforce so many sensible things could be done to get more family doctors. This is the Labour Government that is apparently investing in social structure. Its members should tell that to the almost 800 people on the Kapiti coast who cannot get on a general practitioner’s books. They should tell the people of Timaru that they cannot see a general practitioner—and that is investing in the social structure—and they should tell that to the people of Gisborne who it has been reported cannot get on to a general practitioner’s books. 
One might ask what the problem is if someone cannot get on to a general practitioner’s books and that that person should go to accident and medical. The problem is that if one is not registered one will not get cheaper doctors’ visits—one pays the full price. So the almost 800 people on the Kapiti coast who cannot get registered—many of them are people of low income—are facing the barrier to access that the Government identifies with high general practitioner fees. 
There is another disconnect that nothing in this Budget will do anything about. The Government is telling New Zealanders that it wants them to see their general practitioner. So it is lowering the cost of going to the doctor for some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand and is telling people to see their general practitioner. But the disconnect is that if those people see their general practitioner there is no way they will get anywhere near the hospital if they are sick. If people are sick and need to see a specialist and have elective surgery those people will find that the Government is making it harder for them to get there. 
In fact the Government will make it a lot harder because I can tell the House that the consequence of the Government’s policy to cull hospital waiting lists is that the thresholds needed to get surgery in New Zealand are going up. District health board after district health board has come before the parliamentary select committee and said the patients they are treating have to be sicker to be seen in their hospital. The people that they are dealing with have to be sicker to be treated. In fact did not the cartoonist in the  
Press 
 sum it up best with the picture of Mr Hodgson sitting at his desk as Minister of Health saying that the trouble is now that patients have to be as sick as the health system to get any care? That is the situation we are in. 
This Budget offers no hope for the parlous state of the New Zealand health service mainly because it presents no vision or coherence as to how to deal with the very fundamental issues facing the system that need to be dealt with—that is we need more elective surgery and we need to deal with the waiting lists professionally. 
One of New Zealand’s leading breast cancer surgeons Belinda Scott says that the health service has fallen to Third World standards we have the head of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons saying that the system is a disaster and the head of plastic surgeons in New Zealand is talking about the fact that New Zealanders are missing out on the sort of care that is the basis of any other system around the world—and that party opposite calls itself a Labour Government. The problem is that those members have become completely tied up in a system that is not working they have a huge focus on bureaucracy they think that a strategy a hui and a plan— 
Anne Tolley 
: A review. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —or a review—will fix everything rather than taking any action. The wages and salaries of bureaucrats and managers are now over $500 million for the first time. We know that for every 2.5 nurses the Government has employed an extra manager. That is ridiculous and that is why we have a Minister of Health who is being routinely mocked by the media by the surgeons and—more important—by patients around this country. After 6 years of Annette King keeping a lid on this issue Mr Hodgson is showing himself to be as incompetent with health as he was with New Zealand’s greenhouse gas policy when he promised that the Kyoto Protocol deal was worth a $500 million cheque—and it was worth a $500 million bill. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and I want to devote my short speech to the supplementary estimates for Vote Defence Force. No doubt the Government thought it was being very generous in allocating an extra $39 million to Vote Defence Force and I expect that New Zealanders are supposed to be eternally grateful for that move as are probably the Army Navy and Air Force. But when we look at the supplementary estimates we see that most of the extra allocation although perfectly reasonable is symptomatic of the chronic underfunding of our military defence forces at present. Most of the extra money goes to various line areas in the estimates and covers changes to the capital charge and depreciation so we will see very little extra as a result of that extra spending. 
In fact at Budget time the estimates themselves referred to a multi-year appropriation which means that funding will be spread over 3 years as opposed to being year by year. The concept is a sound one and it gives some security in planning. However there are fishhooks in there and I will highlight those today. On page 333 of the estimates under the heading “Operationally Deployed Forces” is a very interesting paragraph. It is almost at the very end of the estimates and I quote from it: “It is projected that the total three-year funding appropriated for this MYA”—multi-year appropriation—“will have been expended by the end of the second year”. What is the point in having a 3-year plan when the Government has sanctioned the spending of all the money by the end of the second year? Very little I would have thought. 
The same paragraph goes on to state $24.8 million is the expected actual expenditure “as at year end 2005/06 year and $40.575 [million] being budgeted for 2006/07. This projection is based on projected commitments to operational deployments in 2006/07.” the financial year we are about to move into. Heaven help us if anything else happens and we need peacekeeping troops or whatever in the 20007-08 year because there is no money for that. What would happen is the Defence Force would have to go cap in hand to the Government yet again for extra spending. That very point was highlighted earlier in the estimates document under the heading “Comparison of Departmental Output Expenses: 2005/06 and 2006/07” where the document states: “the NZDF may request an additional appropriation from Cabinet for the incremental costs” of any major operational deployment. But that hardly gives the Defence Force any surety or ability to plan for what may be proposed or for any engagements it may have to undertake. 
One thing that I think has not been highlighted at all in the estimates is the fact that our reserve forces are undervalued. Balanced capable forces have strong reserves and we do not need to look very far overseas to see that that is absolutely true. Why do we have reserves? They are a contingency plan and they provide extras in the times of need. In fact our regular forces do rely on our Territorial Force now. Very recently we have had extra troops go to Timor and to the Solomons. The troops were deployed very quickly because of escalating tensions and our Government felt that it was right and proper that we should contribute towards peacekeeping in both of those places. 
What we are seeing because of the lack of funding is a complacency. The attitude of the Government is one of complacency. The implication is that our Government can predict every eventuality and that of course is not the case. We need to see some sort of commitment to our reserves and Regular Force troops and an avoidance of Government complacency. They should not be buried in outputs in hefty tomes and documents such as the Budget ones but we need to ring-fence some specific funding. This Government despite the fact that it can justifiably say it has increased military spending needs to go a long way further than it has gone. Our forces operate on a shoestring and it is time they were looked at seriously so that we can fulfil our obligations to the rest of the world. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 In tonight’s debate I will turn my mind to some of the commercial announcements the Government has made. I would like to focus on some of the recent announcements made by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and Minister for Economic Development Trevor Mallard. When we looked at some of the budgetary documents many of us had hoped to see some kind of indication of where the big changes would be to put in place this grand plan for economic transformation. It comes with great regret to evaluate some of those plans and to talk about some of the latest announcements—in particular the new plan for State-owned enterprises. 
I think that what the Government has attempted to do is to point to some activity in the area of State-owned enterprises so it can look as if it is doing something in the area of commercial development but of course the rhetoric does not necessarily match the activity. So some of the announcements made by Minister Mallard are cause for concern because it is very clear from comments that have been made after those announcements that policy has been made on the hoof. 
In fact the nature of the announcement in the Government’s grand plan seems to change almost on a daily basis with every interview that Mr Mallard makes. In the last interview he started discussing the issue of privatisation—not privatisation of State-owned enterprises one must understand but privatisation of subsidiaries of State-owned enterprises. So how he can start to discern a difference between not selling the silver as he would put it in one area and putting the silver in another drawer and selling that I do not know. 
But what is of concern is the total lack of analysis from those officials whom many of us put faith in. Many of us rely on their views and their knowledge in a lot of areas and the rather damning comments made by various officials—albeit in diplomatic language—about some of the changes that Minister Mallard was putting forward were of concern. The Ministry of Economic Development just as one example said that it was very concerned about governance and about the ability of State-owned enterprises to undertake some of those risky expansion plans as presented by the Minister. 
That is an interesting point which was overlooked by Cabinet I think in approving those plans and it is exactly the point we have heard discussed in the House today. As a result of research done by Victoria University we have seen today that concerns are held not just by the Opposition or the Ministry of Economic Development in relation to governance; they are held also by enterprise board directors themselves who have responded to an anonymous survey in which they have told the researcher how they felt about some of the capabilities around the board table. The results of that research today is rather telling. Board directors are saying they have real concerns about the types of skills they have around the tables of State-owned enterprises and they are concerned that some of the processes around the selection of board directors are more about political selection and the rewarding of people for party activity than about having the capabilities and skills to be able to do the job. 
Minister Mallard in the House today started talking about State-owned enterprises being training grounds for new directors. That in itself is cause for concern because if someone is going to go on to a State-owned enterprise board it should be as a result of the experience that person has had in the financial community and he or she should already have demonstrated the ability to make good commercial decisions before entering into businesses that are very complex and increasingly more risky as a result of the plans that have been announced. State-owned enterprises are not simple businesses. Over the years they have become very complex businesses and very large businesses. Frankly we do not need trainees; we need people who are at the top of their game who have the ability to make good commercial decisions and who understand the financial implications of various investments. 
It is not an area where one puts people just on the basis that they have had lots of life experience as Minister Mallard said he would like to do. Life experience is great and it counts for something but when we are talking about the governance of State-owned enterprises we need to appoint board members who are able to understand facts figures and business and who have worked at a very high level. It is not good enough suddenly to use those appointments as paybacks for those who are party-friendly. If Labour has done anything it has methodically placed on those boards people who are to the boards’ detriment as we have seen in the research released today. 
The Minister wants everybody to think he knows more than the officials who advised Cabinet in making this decision. The Ministry of Economic Development expressed huge concerns; Treasury said there were associated risks with that new plan and that those risks were significant; and the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit said the same. So I think that it is the height of arrogance for the Minister to override their concerns and pretend he knows more than they do when it comes to expanding the role of State-owned enterprises. 
The Minister continued to use glowing examples of successes offshore but of course overlooked the fact that those projects had already been conducted and carried out prior to that new announcement. He pointed to Southern Hydro which was a success for Meridian Energy and which generated some $600 million but that will not be the case for many other risky projects that State-owned enterprises embark on. The Minister seems to think that if State-owned enterprise projects go belly up something quite different will happen to those enterprises that does not happen to other companies that face financially dire circumstances. He seems to think that a State-owned enterprise going belly up is OK because the Government still owns the assets—the dams the windmills etc. Well I have news for Mr Mallard: creditors do not care who owns a company; creditors just want their money back at the end and they will do anything they can to get it back. So I think it showed major commercial naivety on the part of the Minister even to make a statement of that kind. 
But as we have seen in just recent announcements that Minister thinks he is the pretender to Michael Cullen’s throne. Well I would like to think that anybody who inherits that title would at least know about risk and would at least know that assets come hand in hand with annoying things called liabilities and that the Minister who takes over would at least have a basic grasp of what is required on those boards as they look at new projects. I think the Minister will be upset to hear that the business community does not share the same faith he has in his ability to have the final sign-off on many commercial projects. 
One of the things I think we need to address is the whole governance issue and when Minister Mallard says he will deliberately continue to make placements of people on that board who do not have commercial skills that is something I think all of us should be concerned about. We need to hear more from the Minister about his reconciliation between his statements in the House last week—that he was more than happy with the skills around the board table—and today’s revelation that board members themselves are frustrated by the capabilities that as a combined board they have access to as well as the statements that have been made through that research which demonstrate that the reality is quite different for those who are actually trying to do the work. 
State-owned enterprises within their present framework have always had the flexibility to get into new projects. Some chief executives of State-owned enterprises are privately saying that very little will change—that this is more about spin than actual reality—but it concerns me that the Minister will want to come up with some pet projects he can point to and herald as being successes. That is not the way I think State-owned enterprises should conduct their business and the business community is not feeling at all confident that an ex-teacher and an ex-historian have the ability to sign off what could be complex projects put forward by those enterprises in an ever-complex business arena. 
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he knows best when in fact all his officials have said that the contrary might be correct and that there are some real concerns. Economic transformation cannot be achieved if the Government continues to ignore the big issues like tax the Resource Management Act etc. so that is why this Budget has been a real disappointment to all of us. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The great opportunity of this debate is for the public to have some view of comparison between and to weigh up what the Labour-led Government is doing and the proposals put forward by National. It was a bit rich for the previous member to talk about State-owned enterprises because that is clearly where one of the differences lies between the two parties. National would go back to flogging off those enterprises but the Labour-led Government has said that no it will retain them. 
When Dr Brash made the following comment in 2003 everyone thought that it sounded a bit refreshing. He said that he did not want National to show fear of the electorate by watering down its message. The big problem of course is that unless National waters down its message it is not electable. That is the huge dilemma National has and everyone recognises that. 
On the subject of State-owned enterprises for example it is interesting to hear what Dr Brash said a few years ago back in 2003. He said there were some things he would not sell like Transpower for example but he could not quite see the logic of the Government owning a business that was operating in a very competitive environment. Did we hear much about that during the election campaign? I do not think so. Did we hear Dr Brash go out and say that National would flog off State assets again? No he did not say that. He said first of all that National would get rid of Kiwibank. Then I seem to remember National members saying they would keep it. Then they talked about flogging off Landcorp but when the pressure went on they said that oh no they would sell only one or two farms. 
So the problem National has—and the public has—is that the public does not understand what National is on about. In my view that move is quite deliberate. National does that quite deliberately because if it told the public exactly what it wants to do in relation to flogging off State assets—and I will refer to that a bit later; it was completely avoided in the speech made by the previous speaker—then it would be unelectable. So it is a case of the old “tell the people something before the election and do something else after the election” trick. I tell members that the New Zealand public have had a gutsful of that. That is why they do not trust the National Party and that is why National will not be back in Government for a very very long time. 
Let us compare National’s approach with the incredibly productive and constructive approach this Labour-led Government is taking. We have the three main themes around economic transformation around families and around building national identity. The Budget itself and the estimates build on the things that have already been done. What are the key things this time? More funding is going into transport. After many long hours of arguing by very good and capable former Ministers of Transport who have been arguing for transport issues now for many years—one is sitting next to me and another one is close by—what do we hear from the National Party? It wants to cut taxes but at the same time it does not tell people that in doing that it will have to cut money from roading. 
It goes back to the old National Party economics. Something I have never understood about the National Party is that it believes that somehow we can cut taxes—cut revenue—and spend more. I have never quite understood that. It is something the National Party has tried to kid the rest of New Zealand about but of course the fact is that people do not believe it. That is why National Party members are sitting over there and we are sitting here. 
We are unbundling the local loop and there is a whole new phase around industry training picking up on the fact that in the 1990s it was completely demolished. Bill Birch brought the apprenticeship system to its knees and we have had to completely reconstruct that. We are also doing things around student support and research science and technology and we have a whole export-led innovation programme. 
So when people weigh up what this Labour-led Government is doing they can see quite clearly that this Government is trying to take New Zealand forward. The National Party wants to take us back to the 1990s where the National Party told the public one thing in 1990 and then did completely the opposite thing through the “mother of all Budgets” in 1991. Those are the things that the public of New Zealand remember. 
The reason why the National Party does not want to come clean to the public about what its message is and what it will do is that if it did it would not be electable. That is the difference. The Labour Party does what it says and the National Party confuses people by not doing what it says. It knows that if it does do what it says it will never be back on the Government benches again—and thank God for that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 We know that a Government is in trouble when it brings a has-been like Paul Swain down to the Chamber to make a Budget speech. The supplementary estimates debate is one of the most important debates we have in the year and along came Paul Swain. He did not manage to struggle through a 10-minute speech; all the man could manage was a 5-minute contribution. We know that the Government is in trouble. 
However to be fair to Paul Swain it was my understanding that that speaking slot was meant to be taken by the Hon Jim Anderton. That was what was determined at the Business Committee. But Mr Anderton who is part of the Progressive party—in fact he is the only part of the Progressive party—was unable to come to the Chamber to make his contribution to the supplementary estimates debate because he knows there is nothing he can say his party achieved in that Budget. Mr Anderton is also a has-been the Progressive party is a has-been and nothing in the “Bondi Budget” of 2006 can be attributed to anything that Mr Anderton and his political party have been able to achieve. 
I am delighted to take part in this debate because it is a fascinating debate in which the Government has the opportunity to defend the “Bondi Budget”. For me what has really been interesting in this debate is the fact that none of the Labour Ministers who have come to make a contribution have actually spent any time at all talking about the good things in the “Bondi Budget”. 
We had a really interesting contribution from that up-and-coming star of the Labour Party the heir apparent Minister of Finance the Hon Trevor Mallard. One would have thought after his public statements of the last few days that if he does want to be the next Minister of Finance he would have taken the opportunity to come to the Chamber tonight to make a serious contribution in order to display to the listeners of New Zealand and to Parliament that he actually understands something about finance. But no he came to the Chamber and he managed to display his lack of knowledge of even who the 121 members of Parliament in this House are. I heard Mr Mallard say he did not know who Jo Goodhew was who Jacqui Dean was or who Chester Borrows was. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Well give us a hand. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister of Health is interjecting as well now. Maybe he does not know so I will take this opportunity to tell him who those three members are. They are part of the up-and-coming National Party team that will be in Government after 2008. 
For the information of Mr Hodgson Chester Borrows is now the member of Parliament for Whanganui because he beat Jill Pettis. Jo Goodhew is the member of Parliament for Aoraki because she beat the previous safely ensconced Labour Minister Jim Sutton. Jacqui Dean of course is now the member of Parliament for Otago because she managed to take that seat from the Labour member David Parker. Eric Roy is in the House tonight. He managed to take yet another seat from the Labour Party—the seat of Invercargill. So those are just a few of the talented people in the National Party who are lining up to be part of the next National Government as soon as the stench of decay reaches the stage where the Labour Government is well and truly finished. 
In this debate on the supplementary estimates to Budget 2006 I heard the most incredible comment from the Minister of Finance himself. He came into the House this afternoon and displayed to anybody who was listening to his contribution that he is a man under extreme pressure. He is a man who now needs urgent treatment for his anger management. But to be fair to Michael Cullen he is under tremendous pressure because Helen Clark has put him on the Labour Party dog-tucker list as well. 
Michael Cullen has now consecutively presented two disastrous Budgets for the Labour Government. The first one was Budget 2005. 
Anne Tolley 
: Chewing gum. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Anne Tolley is so right—it became known throughout New Zealand as the “chewing gum Budget”. Then Dr Cullen had the chance to do a little better this year. He was sitting on an $8 billion - plus surplus. He could have actually done something to make it a Budget to remember but instead it has been labelled the “Bondi Budget”. It followed a week after Peter Costello presented the Australian Budget which delivered to Australians $45 billion worth of tax cuts and made Australia a very attractive place for talented young New Zealanders to go and work. So Dr Cullen is under pressure. He has given two disastrous Budgets one after another. It is not surprising that he has joined the dog-tucker list that Helen Clark has to deal with over the next few months. 
Dr Cullen is in good company. He joins people like Jill Pettis who has been here for quite a number of years. She is not known by many New Zealanders because her list of achievements would not take long to complete. But Helen Clark knows her as someone who lost the good safe Labour seat of Whanganui—it had been held by the Labour Party for election after election. It is now held by my colleague Chester Borrows because Jill Pettis failed to perform. 
Next on that list are people like Dianne Yates. She is looking forward to her retirement—well whether or not she is looking forward to it Helen Clark will tell Dianne Yates very shortly that she is part of the renewal process because she lost her safe Labour seat in Hamilton. Then there is my old sparring partner Jim Sutton. He was the Minister of Agriculture in the last Government. He managed to make sure he turned off every farmer in New Zealand with his arrogance and disinterest in the issues that face New Zealand farmers. We know that he has been offered— 
Anne Tolley 
: He lost his seat. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: To find out when that seat was last held by the National Party we would have to go right back to a by-election held after the death of Sir Basil Arthur when Maurice McTigue held it. That would be the last time the National Party held effectively the seat of Timaru. That safe Labour seat was lost to Jo Goodhew and she is doing a tremendous job as its member. 
Those names are just part of Labour dog-tucker list which Helen Clark is working on. Then there is Russell Fairbrother or Fairweather— 
Anne Tolley 
: Fairfax? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No not Fairfax but Fair-something. He is going too. Then there is Dover Samuels and of course there is the man who spoke first in this debate—Michael Cullen. He is on his way out. The Government faces some real issues over the next while because there is a real stench of decay amongst its members. If the Government lasts until 2008 I will be very very surprised. 
But whenever the thing finally falls to bits—and it might be when Winston Peters departs to replace Jonathan Hunt in London which I suspect will be any time soon— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Doug Woolerton knows; he is a goner. Doug Woolerton is a goner. He is looking forward to picking up the pension very very shortly because New Zealand First— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’m a survivor mate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well Winston Peters was a survivor. He said he would never pick up the baubles of power—until he was offered the ministerial car the ministerial salary and the house. That is what he took. 
I conclude by repeating the comments made by the Prime Minister when interviewed on  
Breakfast  
on TV. Paul Henry asked her about the big snow that hit the South Island the other day. She said: “There’s certainly a lot of snow.” and: “I’m very pleased to see the snow.” Paul Henry said incredulously: “What about the farmers? Aren’t you concerned?”. The Prime Minister responded: “Well I love skiing so it’s good to see they’re getting off to a great start with the ski season.” That shows the arrogance of the Prime Minister. While those people without electricity suffered day after day she was more interested in being able to do a bit of skiing in the House adjournment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 That speech is another example of why National is not about to reach the Government benches any time soon. That gentleman spent most of his discussion which was supposedly about the Budget on a sort of rollicking ad hominem attack on people who have been defeated by other people. I ask the member who did he defeat in the last election? Who did he take out in the last election? What electorate success does that member think that he can offer the House? That member ought to do something more with a debate like this than talk about who defeated whom. I congratulate those members of Parliament on the opposite benches who enjoyed electorate success in the recent polls. I congratulate them. I hope their stay here is good. I do not of course hope that it is long. 
In the election we have just mentioned we actually had a debate going on in our society about whether we would use the idea of investment as a way forward or whether we would disburse the largesse of the State into tax cuts we could not afford especially as the National Party made sure that it had targeted them towards the rich. The National Party put $11 billion on the table and asked: “Are you interested?” and of course New Zealanders around the country were and they sniffed pretty hard at it. They gave it a sniff test and they said: “This is not affordable. The damage to be done to roading investment health police education or whatever would be too high.” That is why this Government was returned. 
That happened despite the fact that National promised $11 billion of tax cuts and despite the fact that National rolled out the Exclusive Brethren a very strange group of white men who do not even vote who put a million dollars on the table to help the National Party get across the line and went very close to breaching electoral law in this country in doing so. That is a very strange group of people. They were the people that Don Brash “did not meet” until he met them “oh well perhaps once” then until he met them “oh well perhaps more than once” and then until it became clear in the course of the campaign that he had met with them several times. Then the scales dropped from the eyes of those New Zealanders who were taken in by the $11 billion worth of tax cuts and the Labour Government was returned to office. 
New Zealanders said no. Because they said no we have funding to make student loans interest-free. Because they said no we can build roads rail and public transport infrastructure throughout New Zealand. Because they said no we can invest further in research science and technology in both the public and private sectors; we can invest in economic development; we can develop exporters further; and we can invest in our tertiary education our early childhood education and for that matter in our primary and secondary education. We can invest in health because New Zealanders said no to the $11 billion tax bribe. They said no to $11 billion over 4 years and of that $11 billion precisely $3 billion is going into health over the next 4 years. 
We will put $3 billion extra into health. That is enabling us to build hospitals to continue the building programme that starts in Kaitaia and finishes in Invercargill. Not far from here an entire new hospital is being built in Wellington. The one most recently opened was in the Wairarapa just a few weeks ago with the Prime Minister. We are able to invest in new buildings but we are also able to invest in primary health care. We are able to say to New Zealanders that there can be lower fees when they go to the doctor. We can say to people working in our primary health care sector that we are pleased they are doing better than they were before that general practices around the country are somewhat more sustainable and that general practitioners are making more money and are worth more on the market. One would not know that if one heard the National Party talking. But that is the fact of the matter. 
While I am on that point I would like to congratulate all those people who were party to the negotiations that concluded at 9 o’clock this morning as we saw the roll-out of the next phase of the Primary Health Care Strategy so that 45 to 64-year-olds can have access to cheaper doctors’ fees from 1 July—just 10 days from now. I thank those people who took part in those negotiations. We have achieved a good deal. We have made sure we have transparency. We have made sure we have worked out what a consultation actually is. We have made sure that in the unlikely event that a recalcitrant doctor decides to put the money in his or her pocket we have a way of stopping that. All those things are important. That has been achieved and I congratulate those who were involved in the negotiations. 
We have made progress in this country. Because the people said no we were able to roll out further funding into mental health further funding into Maori health. One never hears the National Party talking about those areas of health. National does not care about them. We have made further investment into mental health further investment into Maori health and further investment into the health of older people. We have made a bigger investment this year than ever before when all the bits are added up. We have made a bigger investment than we have ever had before into the disability support directorate into those people who do not consider themselves part of the health system but who live with a disability of one form or another and who are supported to live a more ordinary life—one day one hopes an even ordinary life—because we are able to improve the support services for those people. 
What about children’s health? One does not hear the National Party talking about children’s health. It could not care less when it was announced today that there had been a 90 percent reduction in meningococcal disease amongst Maori children in Auckland. Members opposite could not care less that nine cases out of 10 now do not occur and that we have had a very successful roll-out of a vaccination for a very very serious disease. They seem to be uninterested that this country is about to move into the screening of newborns for hearing loss so that if children are discovered to have hearing loss it can be addressed very early in their life. 
National seems to be unconcerned that we have decided to pay attention to oral health for children. It is a fact that the improvement in oral health in New Zealand’s children has stopped. Our children’s teeth used to get better and better as each decade went by. Now it is not getting better any more; in some measurements it is actually getting worse. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. How did it happen? 
Hon David Carter 
: Blame the Government. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well we will blame the previous National Government because in the 1990s guess what happened? This country stopped training dental nurses. Unbelievably in the 1990s this country stopped training dental nurses—now called dental therapists. 
 So in the 7 long years of this Government we began first of all a course in dental therapy at the dental school at Otago University and secondly a second course in dental therapy at the Auckland University of Technology. Those courses have been developed people have entered the courses and they have completed the courses so that this February for the first time we had graduates from those courses going into the dental service. So in this Budget we decided we had better make sure we had decent clinics and decent pay for them. That is something we will never hear the National Party talk about. 
We will never hear National members talk about the Cancer Control Strategy. We will never hear them talk about diabetes or cardiovascular disease. All we will hear them talk about is electives. In this Budget we continued the roll-out of the orthopaedic initiative which doubles the number of major hip replacements performed in this country and we continued the roll-out of the initiative to increase cataract surgery by 50 percent on what it was earlier. These are the things that a Government can do when it decides to invest in our health. This is what we can do to enable 60-year-old people to live well through into their 70s and 80s because they have received a hip replacement or a cataract operation in a timely manner. That is what happens when we invest in people; when we invest in children; when we invest in a public health system. 
What we have heard from National members is them simply hollering up a storm and dialling up a crisis and their being professional grizzle-guts—even though they went to the polls 9 months ago and said: “We do not need to put any more money into health you can have it in tax cuts.” Now they say that somehow or another the expenditure is not enough even though it was increased by 8 percent in 1 year in the last Budget. They say that we spend it on bureaucrats even when they are confronted with proof that the ratio of bureaucrats in the New Zealand health system is dropping. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill which is related to the 2006 Budget. I was going to raise a point of order earlier—but I let it lie—because I think the bill may be misnamed. It should probably be the “Misappropriation of Taxation Bill” because about $60 billion of hard-earned New Zealand funds have been snaffled by Mr Cullen and his cohorts on the other side for the purposes they deem best for the country to build their socialist utopia. 
I thank the previous speaker for his congratulations on my winning the seat of Tukituki. I came into this House about 9 months ago having won the seat of Tukituki Hawke’s Bay. This is a House full of great history and I thought it should have a Government with integrity accountability transparency and most of all one that took responsibility. It should take responsibility not abdicate responsibility. It should admit when things go wrong. It should admit when it has mucked up. It should fess up and take responsibility. That is what gives integrity accountability and adds to the great history of this House. 
I understand that the scuttlebutt about the Prime Minister and Cabinet was that they were furious that they lost the two Hawke’s Bay seats Napier and Tukituki. They could not understand it. Labour lost those two seats and it could not understand how ungrateful the people of Hawke’s Bay were because it had pumped so much welfare into that area. So much welfare dependency was created in Hawke’s Bay that Labour could not understand why the good people of Hawke’s Bay kicked out two of its MPs one of whom was a Minister. That shows how out of touch Labour members are. That was the exact reason they got kicked out. The good people of Hawke’s Bay and the rest of New Zealand do not want to be dependent on some bureaucrats and the whims of a Cabinet that will do anything for the front page and whose members think of short-term gain for themselves as opposed to the medium - long-term future of New Zealand. 
It has been 7 long years and all that this Labour Government could deliver recently was the “Bondi Budget”. It is getting pretty tiresome. Every line from the previous speakers opposite every attack and every debating point is about the 1990s. Labour members should get over it and get up with the programme. Every time a point of order is raised by certain Government poodles it is prefaced with comments referring to 1996 1992 and so on. They should get over it and lurch into the next millennium. If you keep looking back as you are now New Zealand is in trouble. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. The chickens are coming home to roost. They are the chickens from 7 long wasteful unproductive unaccountable years. It has been an expansionary and inflationary “spend-athon” from a visionless Government. The suffocating impact of its snatching 45 percent more tax revenue in the year 2005-06 than was taken in 1999 is starting to come home. We have had the smashing of the 1999 election pledge when only 5 percent of taxpayers were supposed to be in top tax bracket. Now it is 11 percent. With the impact of the suffocating tax grab the breaking of tax thresholds and the abandonment of any indexation the chickens are coming home to roost. 
I am concerned. The current economic conditions in New Zealand are perilous and that is not good. The consumer price index has burst out of the top of the band and is nudging 4 percent. Consumer price index expectations for the next 18 months at least are also 4 percent. Members might recall that the target band is between 1 and 3 percent. Growth is forecast to be flat or virtually non-existent. 
Mr Cullen took great pleasure today in announcing that he thought the March quarter growth would be something like half a percent. He was ecstatic. That is pathetic. Annual growth of 1 to 2 percent is pathetic. Annual growth of 1 to 2 percent is forecast for New Zealand over the coming months. That is one-quarter of the growth in the countries we are now competing against in Asia. 
We are in a period of increasing inflation decreasing growth and declining asset prices. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand in its recent policy statement warned of this exact scenario. It is translated into stagflation which is perilous and incredibly dangerous for our economy. 
I am astounded that I have yet to hear the word “productivity” from any member opposite. Productivity has not even been mentioned. We have had a massive explosion in spending on health and on education with little or no result. It is not just I who is saying that. My learned colleagues are of course saying it but also Treasury the Inland Revenue Department and independent economists are saying it. Where will we get the productivity gains? Productivity gains are the only way out of the inflationary trap set by Mr Cullen and Labour’s “spend-athon”. They are out of control with their spending. The loose fiscal policy that they have forecast for the next year or so is exactly why inflation is north of the 3 percent band. It is exactly why interest rates are higher than they need to be. 
A few months ago we heard about the razor gang. Mr Trevor Mallard announced he was in charge of the razor gang. Has anyone heard anything since? Whenever the borax comes on the need to cut spending and to be more productive they disappear from the headlines. 
A previous speaker Mr John Key pointed out that one out of every two buildings in Wellington is now run by Government departments. Fifty percent of the office space in Wellington is for Governmental purposes. That is nuts. Where is the productivity gain there? A lot of people ask me how on earth Mr Cullen and Labour have blown 5 years of once-in-a-lifetime economic conditions. Those economic conditions have been set by higher commodity prices around the world which neither Mr Cullen nor the rest of the Labour Government has had anything whatsoever to do with. 
Many people ask me how they blew it. How did they waste so much? Why have they taken so much? How have they taken so much for so long to spend on so few—those squeaky wheels who speak the loudest who scream the loudest? 
I understand that Mr Cullen was devastated at the reaction to his earlier “chewing gum Budget” which offered a tax cut of 67c a week to hard-working New Zealanders. What a gross insult! 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Prior to the dinner break I was talking about Mr Cullen’s 2005 Budget the “chewing gum Budget” which offered 67c in tax relief in 2 or 3 years’ time. In the recent Finance and Expenditure Committee discussions with Mr Cullen he said that wage claims over 4 percent were extravagant in the current environment and he would do his utmost to prevent them. By the way last year Mr Cullen received an 8.1 percent increase in his salary package. I also point out as we are talking about percentages that if New Zealanders really do want a decent increase they should note that Australian after-tax incomes are currently 33 percent ahead of New Zealanders’—and that is before the recent tax cut package announced by Mr Costello.  
Talking of tax cuts if National’s policy were implemented—if this were our Budget 2006—85 percent of New Zealanders would be on a 19 percent tax rate. That is not too bad. Also Ministers such as the Hon Judith Tizard who earn nearly $200000 would still pay north of $60000 in tax—those high-income earners would still pay $60000 in tax. 
One further point is that the Finance vote is about $55 million per annum and the advice and policy part of that vote is I think about $5.5 million. I suggest that if Mr Cullen is looking for savings given that he and Mr Mallard are ignoring the advice of Treasury the Reserve Bank of New Zealand the Inland Revenue Department and the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit perhaps he should abolish the Treasury department. If Treasury’s advice is described as an “ideological burp” every few years when it advises Mr Mallard not to venture into the DFC New Zealand Ltd world of selling State assets or advises against getting political appointments made to the board and the advice is again ignored I suggest that some money could be saved there and taxpayers could get some value for money. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I follow the mokopuna of Granny Smith from the Hawke’s Bay otherwise known on the Finance and Expenditure Committee as “the Fossum in the headlights”. 
I rise to support the programme that has been outlined. I along with everyone else have heard a great deal of drivel from our friends in the Opposition—but I shall say more about that shortly. Some underlying themes inform our thinking in relation to the programme that as a consequence of our capturing the attention and imagination of the voting public we on this side are presenting. One of the key notions is caring; another is being prepared to invest in equity. What does that actually mean? It means looking at a person’s life identifying those who are unable always to fend for themselves and ensuring that they can rely upon the compassion and appropriate interventions of the State from the time they are very young. 
That is why we are very proud to introduce and sustain policies that will improve the prospects of those children before they go to school and assist the parents of those children to enrol them and to promote their education. This would be impossible if we were proceeding on the ill-founded thinking of the Opposition with indiscriminate tax cuts and attendant service cuts. 
Moving on from that we have invested substantial amounts of money in the school sector because we want a school sector that—unlike the unfortunate experience we saw recently in Vanuatu—is available to all people at minimal cost irrespective of creed colour or background. The State has an ongoing role to play in that regard. 
As we have listened to the various speakers during this debate and earlier debates we have witnessed the fact that no credible Opposition exists only a group of personalities here who treat politics as a hobby not a vocation. When they do not get their own way they sink very quickly into personality sniping. Of course they come off second-best there because we on this side of the House have some of the most able parliamentary debaters. What the Opposition particularly did not do during the election campaign—and we did which is why we are rolling out this fantastic programme—is talk about anything but tax cuts. For example what about something as important as the future shape form and funding of welfare policy? 
What do we find when we go to the Opposition’s website to try to find out what it would do about welfare in the unlikely event that it ever occupies this side of the House? We find the message “This domain is parked”. Well we know that as a consequence of leadership squabbles the Opposition is parked. The current leader is just about to move out of “park” mode but he is in a horseless carriage. We know that Mr Key with his fantastic ambitions is running on high-octane fuel in a very flash vehicle. But will that go down well with the Kiwis? No. The Kiwis do not like a smart alec approach to politics and people who feel they constantly need to wear either their wealth or their earlier prowess—enjoyed and demonstrated in another life—in this House. The Kiwis like a political culture and political personalities that care for people and bring a sense of humility to this very important vocation. So we see that the domain is parked. 
Recently Mr Key leader-in-waiting—in the unlikely event that he comes to enjoy that status; I am sure Bill English will deny him that as time goes on—presented his Budget ideas. He basically said that we needed to firstly increase infrastructure spending; secondly invest more in schools; thirdly have a competitive tax system especially in corporate affairs; fourthly encourage more research and development spending; and fifthly increase savings. He is not only an aspirant to the leadership but also a plagiarist of exactly what this Budget does. Firstly this Budget increases expenditure on infrastructure to a level that has not been heard of or seen for many a generation. Secondly this Budget revitalises skill training. 
I have recently been through the Tairawhiti and up and down the East Coast. One of the common complaints in that area is shortage of skilled staff—shortage of qualified tradesmen and related personnel. I will tell the House why. The reason is that during the 1990s some brilliant schemes—not the least of which was the Maori apprenticeships scheme—were smashed and nothing was put in their place because of a silly naive belief that somehow the market would deliver a suitable level of skills. On occasions of course the market works. I have had the pleasure of seeing it work to our benefit. But on the question of human capital training and skills it did not work. It has left us with a deficit. It has left us with a situation we are now scrambling to remedy—and fortunately we are in power and we are able to do so. 
I lament the day apprenticeships and skill enhancement strategies were smashed in the 1990s. Had fate dealt us a sinister hand and put the members opposite on this side of the House we would now be seeing a similar destruction decrease and undermining of the entire human capital strategy—a reversion to the 1990s. 
 I will talk very briefly about the third point; why Mr Key has flattered the Government by plagiarising what exactly this Budget proposes to do. Not least he overlooked the fact that in the OECD the average worker in New Zealand enjoys the status of having the third-lowest tax burden. Why and how do we arrive at that calculation? Firstly it is lower than Australia’s rate. Secondly there is a very competitive corporate tax system that does not involve stamp duty payroll taxes land taxes and a myriad of other obscure taxes that conveniently do not find a place in either the rhetoric or the dodgy narrative put forward by Dr Brash. 
I am sure listeners up and down thehau e wha the four winds listening to this level of oratory will not fail to notice that we have a business tax review coming up soon that will substantially improve our competitiveness. With assistance from our friends in New Zealand First there will be a particular focus on not only export activities but on identifying how businesses will gain greater efficiency and greater competitiveness. 
On the question of research and development it is beyond cavil. The evidence is clearly outlined in the various pages comprising the Budget and the different policies that we are rolling out that research and development is not only identified as a key component but also has been substantially and handsomely invested in. That beats the rhetoric of envy and deep disappointment. Those are the sorts of policies the Opposition had the time to put before the country chose not to and sought to cakewalk from Opposition into Government on the basis of promises of tax cuts. I am sorry it did not work then and it will not work in the future. 
My final point is on savings. Recently we had the Singaporean Prime Minister here and we also know that Mr John Key and a host of others have been to Singapore recently to look at how its economic miracle has been constituted. He did not need to go to Singapore to learn about the importance of savings. We have a Government with the character and courage to introduce a savings scheme that will be very soon faithfully implemented called the KiwiSaver. To all Kiwis listening I say kia ora tatou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bills read a second time. 
Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Law Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Dog Control Act 1996 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 This bill the Local Government Law Reform Bill is the most dopey legislation we have seen come into this Parliament in a long period of time. I start by thanking Helen Clark and Michael Cullen for giving us such a defining issue so soon in the electoral cycle. Mark my words the people of New Zealand will remember this issue when the real stench of decay from this Government finally settles and we go into a general election. The dog microchipping legislation the Government is trying to ram through tonight will be remembered by New Zealanders at the polling booth. 
New Zealanders will also well remember how the political parties have positioned themselves on this issue. I note the fact that at least the Labour Government has been consistent. It has said it will be stupid and now it is here tonight enacting that stupidity with this legislation. We know where New Zealand First has been. It has been blindly stupid. The baubles of office were offered to Winston Peters he rolled over like the true poodle that he is and he took every other poodle in New Zealand First with him. New Zealand First members will support the Government. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Will he be microchipped? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He certainly should be. 
Let us look at who has consistently opposed the legislation. The National Party has opposed this legislation from the time Chris Carter introduced it as a Supplementary Order Paper a few years ago. I pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues who have worked the country—all the Federated Farmers meetings—collecting those 10000 signatures on a petition in the name of Kate Wilkinson. A petition with 10000 signatures to be tabled in Parliament tomorrow shows how much of a concern this issue is and I thank my colleagues for their work in achieving that. 
I will now look at the other smaller parties because New Zealand voters deserve to know about them. In fairness to the Greens they have been absolutely consistent in their opposition to this legislation. The ACT party has been consistent. The Maori Party since it arrived in Parliament has been consistent in its opposition to the legislation. So we are left with the one party that will determine whether this law passes tonight—that is United Future. 
I can do no better to highlight United Future’s position than to quote from a printout from my computer today. It is a New Zealand Press Association highlight of the week in politics that had this to say about that member Gordon Copeland: “They say that every dog has his day but for United Future MP Gordon Copeland his tough talk over microchipping of dogs lasts only a few hours. In the morning”—this is from Tuesday of last week—“Copeland claims to have the Government in a corner saying they will have to back his plans to exempt farm dogs or face total defeat. By the afternoon Gordon Copeland rolls over and plays dead.” That was from the New Zealand Press Association—it knows how much gumption Gordon Copeland and United Future have over this issue. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: No gumption. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They have no gumption at all it appears. But we live in hope. United Future members changed their minds within a few hours last time they took a substantial position and there are still a few hours to go. Gordon Copeland may be in a position where common sense will prevail. He will know that his party’s votes will determine whether this microchipping fiasco is foisted on all dog owners in this country. 
National has two substantive amendments which we will have a chance to vote on later on tonight or maybe tomorrow depending on how long we are allowed to have this debate. One amendment exempts all farm working dogs and the other amendment exempts all dogs. At this stage what might happen is that the way those votes are cast will depend at the end of the day on United Future—Peter Dunne and his team including Gordon Copeland. So here is Gordon Copeland’s opportunity to actually front up stand by his tough talk of a week ago put the Government in a corner and let us see whether we can defeat the Government. If we are not successful then it will be substantially because of United Future—and Doug Woolerton but we know that we are wasting our time with Doug. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 That was a close call! I thought for a minute that somebody who had not been microchipped was going to get the call. It is a real worry around here. We are all buzzing and the only thing I can think of is that someone has tried to sing out and it did not work. 
I want to make the important point that if people think that microchipping dogs will stop even one dog attack or one child from being bitten they are absolutely deluding themselves. If they believe that microchipping will stop dog attacks they are stark raving mad. The only thing I can think of is that if someone had a decent microchip and slammed it right through a dog’s nozzle and bent it over then maybe— 
Colin King 
: Through both ends! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well one could stick it through both ways I guess. But the point is that that will not happen. The sad thing is that people out there who are influenced by those political parties supporting microchipping will think that this legislation will stop dog attacks on people and particularly attacks on young children. I am afraid they will be sadly disillusioned. Indeed we are seeing reports from the SPCA that it is turning dogs away because so many owners are trying to get rid of them because they do not want to have to microchip. 
Do members know what really disappoints me in this place? 
Bob Clarkson 
: What? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is when particular political parties change their mind for the sake of political expediency. That is really disappointing. I look across at my friend and colleague Doug Woolerton. Three years ago he belonged to a party that had a fellow called Jim Peters. He stood up in the House and said that microchipping was nuts. He said that New Zealand First did not like it and would not support it.” That party was against the microchipping of dogs until Helen Clark waved the microchip in front of Winston Peters’ nose. Then all of a sudden he thought: “Here’s something I like. I’ll accept this little chip.” So Winston took it. The rest of his party had to follow and Doug Woolerton a guy who normally stands up for what he thinks and what he says had to roll over. 
I say to Doug that I am seriously disappointed. He is the sort of guy one can sit down with and have a beer and a bit of a yarn. He is a guy who normally stands true to his word but he backed off. He backed off just so his boss could continue to have free travel around the world looking at other things and not worrying about microchips. I say to Doug that it is a real disgrace when that sort of thing happens in this Parliament. People should stand by what they think and do what they said they would do. Unfortunately New Zealand First members have let themselves down and let the country down. That is disgraceful. 
But sitting behind New Zealand First members is another party United Future. A former member Paul Adams thought that microchipping was great. He was part of United Future. But now all of a sudden Mr Copeland is saying one thing one day one thing another day barking to any tune goodness knows what and whimpering away. 
I tell Mr Copeland that the sad thing is that we could seriously make a difference tonight to the nation if we took a sensible rational approach to this whole issue. But what will happen for some reason that I do not understand—there is some thinking going on which only Gordon can explain—is that he will let the side down he will seriously let the Parliament down and let the people of this country down. The whole nation will be looking at Gordon Copeland and thinking: “That guy backed off that guy let us down that guy prevented us from stopping this silly move by an incompetent Government.” 
It is bad enough that a whole lot of people down in the South Island are without power because we have a silly incompetent Minister of Civil Defence but now we have somebody who wants us to make people put microchips in their dogs when we cannot even get power to people in the South Island. We have a Government that cannot look after the needs of the people but is happy to make sure that dogs are damn well microchipped. That is just not good enough. I say to Doug Woolerton and Gordon Copeland: “You guys have really let the side down.” 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) 
: 
 The debate on this issue has been the most overblown that I have heard for a long time. Microchipping is just a better more modern way of identifying dogs. Dog collars break they come off; identification tags come off; and one cannot tell whether a dog without a collar has been registered. Collars get lost and they break whereas a microchip stays put. It is there for life. 
I have heard it suggested by some of the opponents to this legislation that farm dogs do not bite people. What a lot of rot. Dogs bite people. When I was 9 years old I was bitten on the face by a neighbour’s sheepdog while I was waiting for the school bus. Now that is not such an unusual thing. To say that farm dogs never bite people is utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never stray is more utter nonsense. To say that farm dogs never run away and worry other people’s stock is more complete nonsense. Microchipping dogs does help to get those sorts of issues under control and that has been well demonstrated in for example some of the Australian states that introduced dog microchipping some time ago. It does encourage over time more responsible dog ownership. I think that is very worth while doing. 
I know that New Zealanders do worry about the odd dog attacks and we should do things that encourage more responsible dog ownership. Microchipping discourages the keeping of inherently dangerous and aggressive breeds of dogs and this measure is a pretty good place to start. Before Federated Farmers got off on their annual subscription drumming-up exercise the campaign for dog microchipping was led by dog control officers around New Zealand employed by our territorial local authorities. Those people were on the front line of trying to combat the plague of dangerous uncontrolled dogs particularly in our cities and suburbs and in areas around our cities and on farms where dogs do not so much worry people but livestock; where they are a plague on the farmer who wants to keep his stock undisturbed. 
I say that this measure will help. It has arguments to and fro but it will help. We should just get on with it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and that was very wise if I may say so. The Committee has heard from the Carter twins—the rich one and the poor one—and they have brought a lot of colleagues to the Chamber. In fact I have not seen as many people as there are on the National Party side of the Chamber waiting to be excited for many a long day. But unfortunately they are going to be disappointed. 
The honourable Minister Jim Sutton is right; this is a registration method. The honourable Minister said that dogs lose their collars. He could have gone one step further which I intend to do. Farmers do not even put the collars on their dogs and other farmers know that. When we come to the issue of who voted for the legislation 3 years ago and who did not I can tell members that everybody in this House 3 years ago including the National Party voted for it with the exception of the ACT party. So it is not correct for those gentlemen excited though they may be to hop up now and say they did not vote for it. 
As I said to my friends in Federated Farmers this afternoon David Carter took an opportunity—and as a professional politician I can admire him for this—to go into this omnibus bill and ask how he could cause some mischief. What he came up with—and goodness knows how he convinced Federated Farmers of this because normally they are sensible people—was to say that he could raise some mischief here by putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt farm dogs from microchipping. There will be a modern dog microchipping - dog registration regime and those silly people in the National Party are saying they would exempt farm dogs. They should get with the programme. How silly is that? We have moved past the days of registering dogs on a little bit of leather we have gone past the days of registering them on a little bit of paper and we most certainly have gone past the days of carving a registration in stone. 
But the National Party members do not know that and they are again trying to defy gravity and deny reality. They are going down that road and sadly taking some of my very very close dear friends in Federated Farmers along with them. I look forward to the day when Federated Farmers understand most clearly that they have been duped in a most serious and cynical manner. They will feel very very humiliated and ashamed of themselves. They will come flocking to New Zealand First by the hundreds of thousands with their votes. 
I cannot close without saying that I was deeply hurt by Mr David Carter saying to me that when he had finished with me around the farming community I would not show my face in front of Federated Farmers or at any other meeting with farmers. Well that will be the day when I do not front up to farmers anywhere in the country at any time. In fact farmers and I have a mutual love thing going on. It is unseemly but it is true. Federated Farmers will come to their senses sooner or later and like any other jilted people they will be very very angry at the people in the National Party who have duped them so conclusively and cynically. 
For the good of the country for the good of farmers for the good of dogs and for the good of our future New Zealand First has much pleasure in supporting this bill. We look forward to a successful dog registration regime replacing the pathetic old failed system. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I say for a start that bad cases make bad law. We all know how this bill arrived in Parliament: it was a reaction to the horrendous attack on Carolina Anderson that young girl in Auckland. I also say to this Parliament that once one has sat through a select committee process on something as controversial as this where all the evidence—100 percent—is against the notion that this dopey legislation will work and then the Government decides to proceed with it you do have to ask what really motivates this Government. If the answer is not politics politics politics then what is the answer? The answer is politics; that is all that motivates Government members. Nothing else matters. The facts never ever get in the way of a good piece of politics with this Government. 
I say to the support parties that I hope the poodles do not have too many microchips in them because when the Government consumes them it might choke on the microchips. That is what will happen. If members have never seen a case of Christians being fed to the lions then it is here tonight in the House with Gordon Copeland—absolutely. He is a very good Christian and what has happened is he has been gobbled up by the lions over in the Labour caucus tonight. I hope they do not choke on his microchip. 
I say to the House tonight that this technology will not work. That is a fact. It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated that with a lot of dog breeds—not all of them but with many of them—if we insert a microchip into a 6-month-old pup as the law requires and as stated in this bill by the time the dog is 18 months old the chip will have disappeared so far into the dog’s body fat that the scanning device will not read the technology. That is what Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party found out at the Local Government and Environment Committee which is why she put forward an amendment to the bill in relation to this particular legislation. 
It is interesting to see one of the Labour Government’s old dogs Jim Sutton over there in the back corner yapping away. I am not sure whether he is now a lapdog or a Labrador or where exactly he fits into it but it is good to see him back. Why is he not on the front bench? Why is the honourable member Jim Anderton the Minister of Agriculture? 
Jim Sutton said he would back the farmers and when he had the chance in this Parliament to back the farmers what happened? The legislation was voted down 61 to 60. Whose vote was that? With the one chance he had to actually demonstrate to the farming community he was going to back them when he had an opportunity right here in Parliament what did he do? He voted them down. Jim Sutton is another I think former Christian I could say. I am not sure; I do not want to get into that. But he is another one who has been consumed by the lions that is for sure. So much for Jim Sutton. Out there on the hustings— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’m a Christian. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well one thing that is consistent about New Zealand First members is their support for this measure. So I say to my good colleague Doug Woolerton that at least he has been consistent. He is absolutely wrong but he is consistently wrong so that is good. At least we know he will be wrong and consistently wrong. I think Doug Woolerton knows this himself without it being stated in the House but I say to him that his party will be dog-tucker. The reality is that when the vote is counted and as Winston disappears over the horizon somewhere—I am not sure whether it will be Canada or London but it will be somewhere like that—New Zealand First will be dog-tucker. Poor Ron Mark is a good fighting battling man but potentially he will not make it over the line. So there it is. I say to the members of New Zealand First that at least they are consistent. 
Coming back to the point of this legislation I say that none of the members on this side of the Chamber really understands it—because it is wrong. We understand common sense. We understand something that people can support if it makes sense—even if we disagree with it—but this legislation makes no sense. So why would we proceed with something that makes absolutely no sense and that will not prevent one single dog attack will not save one single child like Carolina Anderson and will not do anything except add a whole layer of costs and compliance to the poor old mum in Glenfield with her little poodle and to the farmer out there who has 16 or 18 dogs in one dog kennel? 
I also say that the members of the Green Party ought to be congratulated. Those members took a principled position. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 When this issue first arose I was not overly enthusiastic about microchipping dogs. However having read through the issues having thought about them for some time and having been part of the decision-making process I can say that I accept the decision. 
I have absolutely zero tolerance for any dog that would harm a person—I would shoot those dogs on the spot. Of course the key driver for this legislation was an attempt by the Government to reduce the harm caused by dogs mainly on humans. But of course there is also the ongoing and quite prevalent issue of dogs worrying farm stock which the National Party seems to have forgotten. We had two objectives. The first objective was to try to reduce the number of horrible attacks on people—young and old big and small—that were occurring up and down this country. In my view if any dog were to attack a person I would have that dog destroyed on the spot. 
Hon Member 
: Absolutely. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: So what can Parliament do about it? Well the Government has put forward this proposal and there are a couple of benefits for the farming community in it. Firstly there is the issue of reducing the number of attacks on farmers’ animals. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Perhaps the member has been away from her farming community for too long to know that those attacks still occur. My approach over time would be that any dog without a microchip would be destroyed on the spot. 
There is another big issue that farmers should see in this whole debate. In the long term farmers will not be able to sell food from this country anywhere around the world unless they can show full traceability so that the steak on a plate in the UK can be traced back to a farm somewhere in New Zealand. Currently there are stories in most of the farming newspapers about problems around eartags including the fact that they are dropping out and the fact that we cannot clearly identify animals. That matter is important firstly for the control of tuberculosis of course but secondly because the companies that kill the stock do not know exactly where that stock has come from and they cannot show traceability down through their production chain. 
I believe that before very long those European and US buyers of our meat will demand not only that the animals the meat comes from must be clearly identified but also that all animals in the food production system are to be identified—that includes farm dogs as well—so we will have to be able to guarantee absolutely that any animal in a farm production system can be accurately identified. How should we do that? 
We currently have a dog registration system—maybe the National Party will propose doing away with that; I am not sure why it would not do so if it wanted to be consistent. Under our current dog registration system people used to receive a collar when they registered their dogs but nowadays they do not get one. Many farmers do not put collars on their dogs and many farmers do not register their dogs. One either argues for the integrity of the system or one does not. 
Currently in food production systems in this country and particularly in aquaculture people are microchipping eels and salmon. Why? The reason is that the people involved in food production know they need to identify their animals so they can prove that the food they are selling comes from a salmon food production system. If we can microchip eels and salmon in this country I would suggest that the cost of microchipping dogs is not too prohibitive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say to members that chaos maybe fruitful in furthering some forms of management but it will not be the parent of good order here—that is the first thing. The second thing I inform members of is that although I expect interjections I will not allow another speaker to be drowned out. The third thing I would suggest to all new members is that they look up Speaker’s ruling 57/3 regarding interjections. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 During the first reading debate in this House Minister Burton confessed that this legislation would not stop a dog from biting a child. That is what he said. Therefore we have to ask why we are debating this bill today. It is time in this Committee to admit we got it wrong. We have got a number of bills wrong and we should admit that we have got this bill wrong and move on from it. It has happened in the past. We do not doubt that the bill came with good intentions. The Minister said that it was with the best of intentions that the bill was developed. We were all thoroughly alarmed about the heart-tugging case that involved Carolina Anderson and we tugged at our heartstrings for all the right reasons. We passed the wrong legislation and we have had time to reflect on it so let us admit we got it wrong. 
The other point is that when we get legislation wrong in this Parliament there tends to be a rising tide of opposition to it. That is exactly what we have seen all around New Zealand. Sensible councils all over New Zealand are saying that the bill is unenforceable and stupid. I ask members to guess what happens when a large proportion of society is opposed to legislation. The answer is that it does not work. We have seen that happen with cannabis and with many other laws. When legislation is widely opposed and society thinks it is stupid it does not work. 
Another issue that has not really been widely raised in this debate concerns the comment made in the last debate that National Party members should be microchipped—ha ha! But actually that is not so silly because it could be a case of dogs today and humans tomorrow—members should mark my words. This is surveillance technology. This is Orwellian technology. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members about Speaker’s ruling 57/3. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The technology of inserting microchips into human beings has moved from the realm of science fiction into a genuine business strategy astonishingly quickly. The technology now has high-profile supporters such as Microsoft chairman Bill Gates; President Bush’s former health secretary; and so forth. Manufacturers standing to benefit from the trend are now targeting workforces in the UK and USA. So we should be quite clear that once we have legitimised this practice for dogs eels and salmon it will be us next. They will make it voluntary first—one cannot get insurance without a microchip—then it will be beneficiaries and then there will be microchipping all over New Zealand. 
A wider issue though is the question of what ever happened to the trusting relaxed friendly New Zealand society. We all trusted each other but now our communities will be running around microchipping dogs. What happened? We used to be a nice trusting society. This is just one symptom of how we seem to be fast turning into an authoritarian Orwellian society. We are rushing around microchipping our dogs when we know it will not work. That is crazy stuff. The Government knows it but it will not back down. 
The Minister said he had reflected long and hard about it and had come round to deciding he agreed with it. In truth the Minister and every other member who does not agree with it—and I am sure there are plenty who do not—have been whipped into line. This has been made part of those parties’ confidence and supply agreements. I say to Gordon Copeland: “Good on you!”. He has tried and he has flailed around but in the end he has been whipped into line because of his party’s confidence and supply agreement. That is all this is about. It is about being whipped into line. Most of those members know that it is wrong and that it will not stop one dog from biting one child. They are putting this stupid legislation through just because they are being pigheaded and do not want to admit that they have got it wrong. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by informing the Committee that I did look up the  
Hansard 
 of 2003 when the amendment to the Dog Control Act came into being. As my friend Doug Woolerton has correctly stated if we look at it and ask ourselves whether Labour voted for microchipping we see the answer is yes. Did the Progressives vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did United Future vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did New Zealand First vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did the Green Party vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. Did the National Party vote for microchipping? The answer is yes. There was only one party in this House that on the third reading of that bill—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell David Carter to go and look at  
Hansard 
 and he will see that the only party that voted against the bill on its third reading was the ACT party. The Maori Party was not here at that stage but I am sure that if it had been here its members would have been convinced by the arguments too. 
Let us put some facts on the table about what happened in 2003. Essentially United Future has not changed its position since 2003—unlike the Greens who have done a complete backflip. There is no disputing that they voted for the amendment in 2003 and now they are totally against it. They said we got it wrong. I do not believe we got it wrong; I believe we got it significantly right. However I have an open mind and a common-sense mind. When Federated Farmers came to me earlier this year and made a case for exempting working farm dogs from microchipping and I heard their figures and saw the facts of the situation—that 40 percent of all dogs are responsible for 2 percent of dog attacks—I thought that yes they had a good case. Immediately we decided as a caucus that we would work towards an exemption for working farm dogs and that has been our position from that day to this notwithstanding the comments to the contrary from some of our opponents. 
I will let the record show this too. If we go back and look—and the media are quite aware of this—who do we see was the first person to suggest a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from microchipping? I was. I was the first person to come up with that idea and David Carter who had not thought of that idea jumped on to the bandwagon very very quickly. So tonight I want to thank the National Party members for their endorsement of the common-sense position we initiated. Those are the facts and those members can talk about them as much as they like but the media are aware of that situation. We have led this issue from day one because it does make common sense. I think the clever little slogan of “one law for all dogs” is just that—it is a clever slogan. It is a bit like a bumper sticker. It does not depend on much logic or analysis. For that reason I will be voting for David Carter’s Supplementary Order Paper tonight and I hope that National Party members will vote for mine. 
Hon David Carter 
: Both of them? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I will vote only for the first one. 
So let us again put a few facts on the record. These are the facts. If any member wants to refute them I encourage him or her to take a call and I will be happy to hear it. New South Wales introduced a microchipping regime in 1999—at about this time of the year I think. It has now been going for 7 years. In 1997 before that was done there were 521 dog attacks in New South Wales. What has happened since then? In 2003 which is the latest figure we have there were 167 dog attacks. Why? I will tell members. A lot of people have asked me how it works. It is very simple really. In 7 years from now all the dogs in New Zealand will be microchipped—and if I had my way we would exempt working farm dogs but it looks as though that will not happen. With that situation immediately an unsupervised dog is found without a microchip it is put down on the spot. That is how microchipping works and that is why it works. Nobody here really has their mind around why it works but it works because unsupervised dogs are put down. I tell members that once a farmer loses an expensive well-trained dog to a .22 rifle or an injection microchipping will take off in the farming community like we would not believe. 
I am really disappointed that so many people in this House including particularly the Labour Government New Zealand First and the Greens do not become a bit more pragmatic because the fact of the matter is that Federated Farmers have dug their toes in. They have said they will have a campaign of civil disobedience and I for one believe them. We have councils that say they will give microchipping a low priority and I for one believe them. All we had to do was the common-sense thing and make microchipping voluntary for working farm dogs. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Firstly can I say that the National Party is deadly serious about dealing to dogs that savage people particularly children. I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon Damien O’Connor and he said words to the effect that if he had his way he would destroy any dog that bit a person. Well I have to say to him that it is his lucky day. Earlier in the day I tabled two amendments. One of them is an amendment to clause 8A. It states: “Any dog savaging a child under 13 years of age shall be put down.” That is how serious we are about dealing with this problem. 
Let me just explain about the age factor. The principal issue that brought this up was the attack on Carolina Anderson—so any child being savaged is the issue. Why 13? Well it is an arbitrary age but it is for this reason. If we have a companion dog that wards off someone attacking us there ought to be some recognition of that fact. Simply if a person is under 13 years of age that person is not likely to be attacking other people. It is most unlikely. So this amendment— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Why not 15? 
ERIC ROY 
: I can see that Mr O’Connor is delighted because anybody who does not vote for this amendment says that dogs are more important than children. That is the first point I wish to make. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: So a 14-year-old’s not important? 
ERIC ROY 
: I ask how serious Damien O’Connor was on actually backing that up. That is my first amendment. 
I will raise some other issues about microchipping generally before I move to my second amendment. At the introduction of this legislation and at the report back I talked about the efficacy of microchipping. The Local Government and Environment Committee received a great deal of evidence about people who have had their dogs microchipped and the microchips could not be read a very short space of time afterwards. We heard of golden retrievers that had been microchipped before they left Great Britain and when they arrived here on the plane those microchips were not able to be read. So there is a suspect efficacy issue around microchipping. Because I have been making these points when I took a dog to the vet the technician said—and I will repeat it again—that I would need to check this every year. The Government has not told people that but there is an ongoing cost to make sure that this technology actually works. The vets wrote to me and said this was a good reason for microchipping: 30 percent of the dogs in New Zealand are unregistered therefore we should microchip. Well I have to say that if 30 percent are unregistered now with the simple cost of registration how many will be unregistered later? 
Hon Member 
: 50 percent. 
ERIC ROY 
: I have to say that I spent this evening with a number of farmers and I tell members that this legislation will be largely ignored. 
I also make this point. If this technology seriously worked why are we introducing it for dogs that are under 6 months on 1 July? I have had dogs all my life. I have had a team of dogs. I currently have one dog Kate who is 17 years of age. I had another dog Penny who lived to 19. Kate had her first litter of pups at 15 and I have no doubt she will make 19. But this bill says that in the year 2025 there will be dogs still not microchipped. How good a system is that to actually control a kind of database about where dogs are and how effective this legislation will be in identifying dogs? There will be a greater degree of disobedience about registering and there will be such a time lag that it will not mean anything till about 2030. How effective a piece of legislation is that to actually deal with the problem? 
I have to say that this bill is nutty. Yes we should be doing something. That is why I introduced this handwritten amendment that says that any dog savaging a child must be destroyed. That will modify the behaviour of dog owners more quickly than anything else. It does not matter whether dogs are registered or unregistered but if they attack a child the problem will be removed and that will modify the behaviour of people who have dogs that are unsupervised or dogs that attack people. 
I am looking forward to the support of the Hon Damien O'Connor and of anyone else. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 I cannot honestly support any amendments put up by the National Party because I do not believe its members are genuine in their support of the intent of this bill. They were back in 2002 when they understood what we were trying to do. This legislation will not solve the problem of dogs savaging people; it is however the best intent of this Parliament at this point in time to move ahead in this very complex area. The previous speaker referred to the “simple” process of dog registration—the simple process that sees 30 percent of the dogs in this country not registered. Well that is not simple enough I would suggest. 
The other issue is cost. I understand that it costs from $12 up to $200 to register a dog. That is no small fee for many people. The cost of a microchip is negligible. In relation to the issues raised about cost by members on the other side of the Chamber I say that as we have seen in every area of technology the costs will come down particularly as the volumes go up. I would expect that we will be paying no more than $5 for a chip. Yes there will be a cost for putting it in place but I would suggest that in the future the microchipping of dogs will be a replacement for registration. It will be an accurate way of identifying a dog for life. 
At the moment on farms we have electronic means of identifying cows as they run through a race—the implant of an electronic tag that can or cannot fall out. It can accurately identify an animal and the farmer with the use of technology can tell where that animal should be and which animal it is. I suggest that it will not be too far into the future—when this bill is passed—that a simple cost for most councils will allow them to identify accurately from a distance whether a dog is microchipped. 
Eric Roy 
: That’s not a microchip! 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Oh the members—the Neanderthals over there—think that that cannot be done. Well I suggest that as has happened for many years now with technology and improving focus we can do anything if we want. But what I feel really sad about in this whole debate is that both the National Party and the Green Party have fallen in. 
I have to say that it has been an odd debate to have the Green Party and the National Party cuddling up for quite different philosophical reasons but for one main reason—political opportunism. I feel quite sad because I am a passionate advocate for farmers and for rural communities but National members aided and assisted by a few people at the top of Federated Farmers have gone around and stirred up everyone. 
I would like to see Federated Farmers led in a way that focuses them on the real issues—issues like farm safety. We are killing more farmers in this country every year because of a lack of leadership—that is what I put to members. There is not enough focus on farm safety because National members and the members of Federated Farmers are running around talking about microchipping. Well let us get on to the real issues. What is happening about the restructuring in the dairy industry? What is happening about the wool industry? What are Federated Farmers saying about those issues? If they would get off their butts and focus on the real issues instead of on microchipping—a cheap political opportunity—they would have the opportunity to assist in reducing the number of horrific attacks on people be they 12 13 or 14; 17 or 18; or whatever the age I tell Mr Roy. 
There are horrific attacks by dogs on people and we are trying to do our best to reduce them. We are also trying to assist the farming community by reducing the attacks on farm animals because with technology and microchipping we will be able to identify whether a dog is microchipped. I put to members that as we start with new pups on 1 July—and some farmers do not realise that fact—and as we move into a position of assuming that all dogs will be microchipped any dog that is not should be destroyed on the spot. End of story! 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this Local Government Law Reform Bill which makes me reflect that the honourable member Damien O’Connor has called this an odd debate. Yes it is odd is it not? It is very odd indeed to think that microchipping a dog will protect kids from dogs. That is a very very odd point of view. This bill will not stop a dog from biting a child. Microchipping dogs will achieve nothing. Earlier this evening I was talking to a member of Federated Farmers who is a farmer himself. He said: “You know why are you people spending so much time on this microchipping of dogs?”. I said: “Well I’m blowed if I know but I tell you what—it is a stupid argument; it is a dopey argument.” Do members know what that farmer said to me? He said—and he spoke kind of slowly because farmers sometimes do—“I’ve tried to look at this issue from all angles but I just cannot see the sense in it.” 
And what about the dogs in all this? It is not good enough for this Labour Government to be taxing people—oh no—to be overtaxing hard-working dog-loving New Zealanders but now it wants to tax the dogs. Do members know what is worse? This new tax on dog ownership this new proposed requirement to microchip dogs will mean a death sentence for many many dogs. I refer members to an item on Newstalk ZB this morning which began: “Auckland SPCA turns away dogs”. The Auckland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is not taking in any more dogs or puppies—little furry puppies—this week and it is absolutely desperate to find foster families for dogs and puppies until new homes can be found for them. 
Do members know why? Well the shelter manager whose name is Rachel Foster has never seen so many dogs abandoned. Do members know why? OK—the reason is a combination of bad weather and the fact that dog registration which is a cost is due. But she tends to think that microchipping is also having an impact on the number of dogs being abandoned at the Auckland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This piece of madness has not even become law and already the dogs are paying the price. 
Also the Central Hawke’s Bay Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals chairperson Kim Halligan has noticed a dramatic increase in the adoption of dogs in recent months. Guess what? She thinks it is largely due to the microchipping of dogs. Worse she also thinks microchipping could mean an increase in the number of canines abandoned at the shelter. Even worse she says the types of people who drop off their dogs are those who—these are her words—are likely to get another puppy in order to save paying. She went on to say that this happens a lot—it is horrifying. 
It is the dogs that will suffer from this legislation. This legislation will not protect a single child from a dog attack. Microchipping will not save another child from a dog attack. The local authorities will be lumbered yet again—as is the way with this Labour Government—with another piece of legislation to enact but without the cheque attached. So what will it mean for the local authorities? 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you very much; I am exhausted in just seeking the call! Let me start by putting a couple of things right for the record. Doug Woolerton has never been a man to let the truth get in the way of a good story. I looked up the voting pattern in the Committee stage of the Dog Control Amendment Bill and I want the Committee to understand this about when the question was put on “… the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 167 …”. The voting pattern was: New Zealand Labour 52 in favour; New Zealand First 13 in favour; Green Party 9 in favour; and United Future 7 in favour. The Noes consisted of New Zealand National—the entire caucus said no—and Paul Adams from United Future said no as well. 
Gordon Copeland has stood up and bought into those mistruths as well. He read out the voting patterns knowing very well that the National Party voted against this nonsense right from the outset. Well I say to Gordon Copeland that there is an old saying that one can be either a hydrant or a dog. The way that Mr Copeland is being treated by this Government shows that he is the hydrant. 
Jim Sutton then took a call. He told the Committee that this was a registration argument—which was in stark contrast to what the Prime Minister told the House. She said this bill was about trying to stop savage dog attacks but the former Minister of Agriculture argued that it was a registration argument. In retrospect I say to the member that it is no wonder he lost his seat of Aoraki and no wonder he is the former Minister of Agriculture. 
More mystifyingly Damien O’Connor stood up and regaled the Committee about sheep worrying. He said the real reason this bill was brought to Parliament was to do with sheep worrying. I ask the Committee how many people around the country rose up in righteous outrage the last time four or five sheep in a paddock down in mid-Canterbury were attacked. The answer is none. But how many rose up in righteous anger when a child was attacked on a street in one of our cities? Thousands did. Gordon Copeland is voting for legislation that he knows will do absolutely nothing to fix that problem. How that man lies straight in his bed at night I will never know. 
Damien O’Connor then went on with some extraordinary argument about registering salmon. Well I will never look in the same way at the giant salmon statue in Rakaia; I will have nightmares thinking that it is going to come after me. I will have that statue taken down the first time I am back in Rakaia. I cannot have that—I will check and see whether it is chipped in the first place—we just cannot have that. 
I tell members that if a dog is worrying on my property it will be microchipped with a .22. That is the way such dogs should be dealt with. Anyone in this Chamber with a bit of common sense knows that that is the way such dogs should be dealt with. 
Let me say to members that this is not a rural problem; it is an urban problem. Savage dog attacks are out of control. Let me tell the Committee a couple of facts. In New Zealand accident and emergency staff and general practitioners treat around 20 people each day for wounds inflicted by dogs. One person is hospitalised every day as a result of a dog attack and many more incidents go unreported. Cross-breeds like mastiffs Rottweilers and pit bulls account for nearly all of those attacks. Why is that? It is because those dogs are savage. They are bred to do exactly what they do. If we were serious about dealing with this problem we would stop importing those types of dogs we would stop breeding them and we would take those dogs out of circulation. How many more kids have to be attacked before we actually get off our butts—to use an O’Connor-ism—and actually do something? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I think that member over there meant to say that Doug Woolerton never lets the facts get in the way of an accurate story. Let me read this. On 13 November 2003 the vote for the Dog Control Amendment Bill went like this: New Zealand Labour 52 in favour; New Zealand National 27 in favour; New Zealand First 13 in favour; Green Party 9 in favour; and United Future 8 in favour. So let the fact remain that at the third reading of the Dog Control Amendment Bill National members voted for it. 
This is a wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of discussion on the issue of microchipping but this is a particular quote that I think is most illuminating and that I think most members will be quite interested in: “I think an important thing for us in the future as the microchip is developed and as local authorities have better means of identifying the dog through the mode of microchips is that Parliament passes legislation that allows for dogs throughout the country to have microchips implanted. When that happens we will have a proper means of identifying dogs. We will then be able to find those dog owners who are irresponsible enough not to register their dogs.” That speech was made by John Carter the National Party member. That is the kind of thing that was said some time ago and has been forgotten all of a sudden. 
The Government has said that microchips in themselves will not stop dog attacks. We have always acknowledged that. However strengthened dog control measures including microchipping actually give councils more power to deal with dangerous threatening lost or problem animals as well as give greater certainty about ownership by linking animals with their rightful owners. There has been much talk in the Chamber tonight about dogs worrying stock but the mere fact of the matter is that—and I have been visited by farmers throughout the period of discussion on this particular issue—if a dog worries a farmer’s stock the farmer shoots it. It is as simple as that. If a dog was microchipped the farmer could still shoot the dog and could identify the owner of the dog and then claim for the damages that have been done. There has been no talk about the fact that that would be very helpful to farmers. 
Microchipping also provides a safe certain and lifelong means of identifying a dog. I think that is really good. It links a dog to its owner and enables easy enforcement of an owner’s responsibility and that is what this is all about. It is really a framework to ensure responsible ownership. Owners of microchipped dogs including dogs without collars that have attacked people or stock and have been seized can be more easily identified. I have made some comment to farmers on the benefits of that if their stock are worried by a dog. Having an integrated national dog database means councils can easily share information about problem dogs and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their area. Again I say that this is very helpful legislation that can improve the situation. Farmers will benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing the owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Anecdotally I have heard that many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing collars. 
 Can I just say that on the issue of microchipping and registration members on both sides of the Chamber know that in some districts like the Hauraki District the cost of registration is $26 for a working dog that is neutered. So already there are ways in which local authorities have responded favourably in terms of their rural communities. It is important to note that only dogs newly registered as of 1 July will be affected by the bill. Members opposite have made a big thing of the cost but it is a very small part of the total cost. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Again the cost to farmers is tax deductible but there is very little talk about that. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The cost ranges from $35 to $70. It is a one-off charge. Microchipping should be looked at in the context of the other measures in the Dog Control Act. Opposition members have demonstrated monumentally that they have not read Part 1 and the measures that will be very helpful in providing greater enforcement of the Dog Control Act. 
Finally the definition of “disability assist dog” is very favourable to that grouping of dogs and I think the recommendation will be very helpful. Another useful amendment is the issuing of a warrant to enable a dog control officer to go on to a property to seize a dog. That is really important. If an officer needs to seize a dog in order to enforce the Dog Control Act then a warrant will be needed. It must be issued by a District Court judge and the officer must be accompanied by a police officer. The bill has other provisions that will be particularly helpful. 
Opposition members have tended to focus quite heavily on the claim that microchipping will not stop dog attacks. Well the Government has already said that but those members have made it an issue and blown it way out of proportion. They have spent more time talking about dogs than about the substantial and positive measures in the rest of the bill such as rates rebates. That shows where the Opposition’s priorities lie. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin by addressing the issue of support for the legislation in 2003 because back then we were talking about the Dog Control Amendment Bill. It was a large piece of legislation that contained a whole number of dog control measures and I think it would have been irresponsible for any party to have not voted for that bill in the third reading. But that does not mean that parties supported all parts of it—in particular the microchipping of dogs. In fact Mike Ward spoke against microchipping and raised concerns on behalf of the Green Party during the Committee stage. To say that a vote in favour of the third reading indicated support for microchipping is like saying that voting for New Zealand First or United Future meant that a party was supporting a Labour Government. That is not true in terms of those voters. That was just an unforeseen side effect of the package. 
I think that today Minister O’Connor revealed the Government’s true objective in relation to microchipping because he talked about eels and salmon and how this bill was all about being able to trace the food chain in terms of New Zealand’s food exports. It seems to me that Damien O’Connor wants to microchip every damn thing. He wants to microchip cows dogs ostriches pigs hamsters rabbits—the lot! That is what this bill is really about. 
The Green Party says that it is one thing to allow microchipping of dogs but it is quite another thing to require it. No one is opposing the ability of people to microchip their dogs and that is what the comments of the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta were all about. The Greens do not think that people should be required to microchip their dogs. Damien O’Connor said that microchipping is really just an up-to-date registration method. But that is not how the measure is being sold. It is being sold as a way of protecting people against being bitten by dogs. Then the Minister changed tack and said: “No no it’s really about dog bites on farm animals.” 
Hon Members 
: Ah! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: He said that this is all about protecting farm stock from dog bites. I say: “Come on get real!”. That is not what it is about. 
The reality is that this was sold to us as a means of protecting little children and other people from being bitten by dogs. The requirement to microchip will not achieve that purpose; it will not stop those dog attacks. The technology is unreliable. Eric Roy said it will have to be monitored every year in order to be effective. It will lead to massive non-compliance. Farmers are already saying they will run a civil disobedience campaign. Poor people will be punished by this. It will be simply another dog tax and those of us who remember New Zealand history will know what that was about. In reality dangerous dogs are the dogs least likely to be chipped. It is exactly the same issue with regard to attacks on stock. Sure one can shoot the dog and see whether it is microchipped but only dogs that are owned by responsible owners will be chipped and the other dogs will probably not be. The sad fact is that the Government has backed itself into a corner and now is trying to find new excuses for why we should pass this bill. That is simply wrong. 
I direct my last comment to Mr Copeland. I think he has elevated petulance to a point of principle. He says: “If you are not going to play my game I am not going to play at all. Do it my way or you will get nothing.” I do not understand how he justifies his intransigence in being prepared only to benefit farmers rather than all New Zealanders. That is not what farmers want. They want it to apply to all dogs. They do not want exemptions just for farm dogs. They do not want a requirement for any dogs to be microchipped. I cannot understand how Mr Copeland can justify the position that we should exempt only farm dogs. Actually he told us. He said that it was because farmers were going to run a civil disobedience campaign. That is the reason he gave us today. He said it was that farmers were going to run that campaign. 
So if we can get the whole of the population—grandma and her spaniel—to refuse to microchip their dogs then maybe we will move United Future to change its position. That is an unfortunate attitude. What has happened to sensible policy? What has happened to treating people equally? The issue is not about one law for all dogs; it is about treating all people the same regardless of whether they live in the country or the town. That is what this is all about. It will not work for any dog. Microchipping is simply a failure as a way of protecting people from dog bites. It will be to the eternal shame of United Future if the bill is passed in its current form. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to compliment all the members on the Opposition side of the Chamber on their sterling effort in opposing this ridiculous legislation. I would like to comment about Gordon Copeland as well. I happened to be at a Federated Farmers meeting that he attended. He said he would not support any exemption from the microchipping of dogs. Now he has done an about-face an about-turn or something. We are not sure what he is doing and I am not sure whether he knows that either. 
I would like to pick up one of the comments of the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta about the national database. In fact we could have had a national database as a result of dog registration that would have served everybody’s purpose—and it is being developed right now—without any microchipping taking place. Some dogs are microchipped already. Some owners voluntarily microchip dogs right now because they want to do it. I have spoken to people who say they will no longer do it if they are being forced. That is what is happening around the country. People feel they are being forced to do something they might have been happy to do voluntarily but certainly they do not want to be forced into. Feral dogs will not be microchipped because more than likely they are not registered. The dogs that are not registered are those most likely not to be microchipped. Those owners will just replace those dogs. If a dog is picked up they will just replace it with another one. So those owners will not get caught at all; they will fall outside the system. 
I want to raise the issue of disability assist dogs. The only reason for their inclusion in this bill is that I introduced a member’s bill in which I provided that epilepsy assist dogs be included in the original disability assist dog category. That would not have happened if it had not been for my member’s bill being drawn out of the ballot; that definition would not have been put into the bill we are debating. I raised the issue with the Minister who was very very slow to act and support Epilepsy New Zealand. Quite frankly that was a gross oversight on the part of the Government and the Minister. I think it shows clearly that the Government is starting to fail the people it purports to represent. It has not supported the disability sector in regard to that matter. 
It is only through the actions of National that the recognition of disability assist dogs has come about. I pay tribute especially to Eric Roy who made some very very good suggestions at the Local Government and Environment Committee which meant some substantial and unanimous changes to the bill. They gave disability assist dogs a new definition and the bill now allows for other disability assist dogs to be included in the legislation by way of an Order in Council. That was a sterling effort on the part of Eric Roy and it brings about a hugely practical and sensible change to the bill. He should be commended and acknowledged for that. 
In so doing I would like to identify an amendment to the legislation that I have put forward. It is to amend section 2 of the Dog Control Act so that we recognise the disability sector some of the constraints it operates under and the fact that funding can be a considerable issue. My amendment calls for at least disability assist dogs to be exempt from microchipping. I exhort all members to give that amendment serious consideration. I ask New Zealand First to support that amendment and support the disability sector in getting an exemption at least for disability assist dogs. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Did you think of this yourself or did somebody help you? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: How heartless the member is to say without even considering the amendment that he would not support it. 
I ask Government members whether they will support disability assist dogs being exempt from microchipping as a way of supporting the disability sector. I see a Government member actually shaking her head. How heartless it is that those members will not even consider supporting the disability sector. 
Colin King 
: Mean-spirited! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It is mean-spirited; the member is absolutely right. But I am sure we will be supported by the Green Party and the Maori Party and certainly my colleagues will support that amendment. I can see a nod of approval from the Green Party. I thank the Green Party for that acknowledgment and I hope it will give the amendment some consideration when it comes before the Committee. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call and remind some of the new members opposite about Carolina Anderson. When the attack happened to her I went to visit her in Auckland Hospital at the request of her father to start to workshop ideas about how we could make amendments to the Dog Control Act at that time—amendments that might make a difference. I must admit that in our discussion microchipping was not one of the things we even contemplated. I did not even know the technology was there. But then when the Minister worked on a little dog control amendment bill that I proposed as a result of that—and I congratulate Sandra Goudie on getting her disability assist dog legislation incorporated into this bill—we then passed it over to Chris Carter to look at what raft of amendments we would need to make to the Dog Control Act to make sure we could minimise and mitigate the level of attack we saw. I can remember very clearly going to the meeting when Mr Carter announced that raft of amendments and every spokesperson for every party went there to get a photo opportunity with John Anderson and to say: “We’re with you. We’re going to support you 100 percent. We think it was a terrible attack on your daughter and we will do all that we can in our power as MPs to make sure we mitigate future attacks.” 
Well that is what this legislation is about today. I am not going to get hysterical about it but I say to members opposite that I remember their spokespersons going up there and being just as horrified and saying: “Yes Mr Carter we want you to do all that you can in your powers.” That is why the legislation was voted on so unanimously at that time but now that it is reality it has sunk in. Now that Opposition members have done a bit of thinking about it they have been caught up in the rhetoric of those who have come to them to say that it is another cost impost but we are tired of hearing that. 
I met with Federated Farmers in my community. They came to me with a one-page sheet of the top 10 issues for Federated Farmers. Do members know that they did not even have export markets for sheep and beef cattle products internationally on that sheet? I asked: “Is microchipping your top agenda item?” and the Rotorua Federated Farmers said: “This isn’t actually our sheet Steve. We’re a little bit embarrassed about some of the things that are on here and some of the omissions.” I thought I knew who had written that sheet for them because the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua farmers have gone against the tide of the rest of the Federated Farmers branches in New Zealand. They are tired of dog attacks on stock on their farms. They say they support microchipping. So as a good MP—which is my position in the Chamber in relation to Federated Farmers—I held my little focus group meeting with them. I trust them I like them and they work well with us—and I tell members that they want microchipping. 
It is very interesting too for those of us who have had local body experience—which I have; I used to be on the district council—that the two issues that drive councils barking mad are dogs and trees. It is the dog control officers around the country who say that every aspect of dog control in this bill—and we are hearing only about microchipping—is absolutely welcomed. Kerry Prendergast from Local Government New Zealand came to the select committee and we were advised of the cost for some smaller areas in the country and that there were variations. But we as a select committee were also told that the dog register of every local council and local authority in this country is already set up. So what are Opposition members talking about when they talk about a massive cost impost upon local authorities? Dog registers are currently set up. 
This legislation already gives dog control officers an extension of their powers to deal with dog attacks in relation to dangerous and menacing dogs with power of entry for officers and provisions for feeding and sheltering dogs. They are all fantastic aspects. They are all about making sure that dog owners increase their level of responsibility and that councils do what they can within their powers to mitigate dog attacks. No one has ever said that a microchip alone will stop a dog attack. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I guess that this is an interesting debate but microchipping is quite frankly nuts. This proposal this bill and much of the logic here have the texture the aroma and the chunkiness of stale and old Jellimeat. Members should smell it for a moment if they will because that is what this bill is like. In early May in Napier and in Waipukurau we had the first major New Zealand protests against microchipping. On an absolutely shocking day we had over 50 people in Napier and well over 100 people in Waipukurau—[ 
Interruption 
]—and if the gentleman opposite had watched TV he would have seen that. 
Bloodthirsty chihuahuas vicious dachshunds and apparently some dodgy eels should be shaking in their boots tonight if this proposal goes through. Law-abiding Kiwis again have to pay the price for those who choose not to abide by the laws of this country. There is double-dipping under this proposal because first of all law-abiding Kiwis register their dogs look after their dogs and have them treated at the vet. Goodness knows the bills keep racking up. Now if this measure becomes law yes they would probably chip their dogs because they are law-abiding Kiwis—and they will have to pay up twice. 
There are many points of view in this debate but I point to the advice given in Treasury papers. Members on this side of the Chamber have put up some very sensible arguments but again some more Treasury advice to the Government has been rejected. Perhaps that is another ideological burp but I would like to read from Treasury papers released under the Official Information Act. I ask members to let me quote some of the reasoning behind Treasury’s recommendation that microchipping not happen: “The size of the dog problem suggests that it is a small number of problem dogs that needs to be addressed through stronger dog control. The current information on the problem dogs is”—and I quote further—“about 6 to 8 percent of dogs are not registered and this small proportion of the total accounts for about half of the dog attacks recorded in a year of approximately 3500 attacks recorded by councils.” That is from Treasury. Those are the people we taxpayers pay $55 million a year to fund. It is pretty good advice. 
Let me continue with some of the advice that has been rejected by the current administration: “Targeting people who already comply with the law would be unlikely to reduce the risk of dog attack. The Treasury considers that there are three options for addressing these problem dogs and to provide a higher level of public protection from dangerous dogs etc. Microchipping is not one of those recommendations.” 
Let me quote further from Treasury: “Moreover problem dogs are unlikely to be registered and therefore not captured by the database.” That refers to the national database that the previous speaker talked so highly of. The advice continues: “If the objective is reducing the probability of dog attacks then a more focused approach of a database of dangerous dogs is more likely to be effective.” That is incredibly sound and good logic from our friends at Treasury. Furthermore Treasury states: “The Treasury is concerned that the transition period for the establishment of a national database will be 10-15 years. A transition period of this length is likely to increase uncertainty of registration confusion and higher costs.” That again is Treasury—learned good solid sensible people giving advice that this legislation essentially smells like Jellimeat. 
In summary Treasury advises: “only microchipping dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs and the storing of this information on a national dangerous dog database along with [whether] the owner is probationary or discretionary or if there are infringement notices or other enforcement activity undertaken.” Essentially Treasury states this proposal will not work. 
It was interesting to hear the Mayor of Wellington speak in favour I think of the measure referred to. Well in heartland provincial and rural New Zealand every mayor almost to a person I think is speaking against this legislation. Currently we are totally swamped with various compliance measures and nonsensical legislation and regulation from the Government. I could quote the chief executive of Tasman District Council for example. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I will take the opportunity to pull us back to the fact that this is the Local Government Law Reform Bill. I want to do that because it came through in the examination of the bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee that this is an example of the Government being very selfish. The Government has totally ignored the fact that it will not be doing the work. The Government will not be doing the policing. It will not be in front of the public when the public gives councils arseholes for this stupid bit of legislation. I say that quite sincerely because I have just had the pleasure of spending a couple of days in Hamilton at a stand where people have been queuing—they have not needed to be encouraged; they have been queuing—to sign the petition of the member Kate Wilkinson suggesting that farm dogs be exempt. 
The point that seems most relevant and had the greatest impact on me is that these are people of all shapes sizes ages and sexes and every single one of them cannot come to grips with why this bill is before the House. They cannot come to grips with the fact that this bill is here. I heard many words that I would not use in this House to describe the performance of the Government on this legislation. It is very very sad. The saddest part is that one must have a huge degree of sympathy for every council that goes out there and tries to do what it soon may legally have to do. That is very sad because councils will get a shitload of abuse from people out in the community. [ 
Interruption 
] Apologies. 
Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I need to take exception on two counts now to language that I consider unparliamentary. I do not think it is even appropriate for National Radio. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I was giving the House just a small taste of the language I confronted when the petition was being signed. 
One of the problems I heard about when the public and in particular kids were signing the petition is the same problem I have in my household. Winston is a dog who regularly walks down Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. He regularly eats and drinks in that area. Many women come up to him and he attacks them viciously with a huge lick. Winston is my Norwich terrier. He is a lovely little dog—and I can assure the Committee that he is no poodle—named after the honourable Winston Churchill as I am sure members have rightly recognised. One of the problems I have with this legislation is that at the end of the day my little gorgeous 2-year-old the fluffiest wee thing whom they just love to bits when I take him for a walk—he is the best dog to go walking with by the way because we get a lot of attention from people who just want to pat him—will have to be microchipped. Why on earth will I have to spend up to $100 to get him microchipped? Why will he have to be microchipped? He is the fluffiest most gorgeous little thing. He has a collar he is registered and we are classed as good owners. But from 1 July all new owners of dogs like Winston will have to get them microchipped—will have to be absolutely wrapped up in the bureaucracy of the Government. I think that that is an abuse of why we are here. 
When I was Mayor of Wellington I used to have to stand up and defend—even if I disagreed with them—the rules and regulations that council put out into the community. I cannot see how any member of Parliament can stand up in any community and defend ludicrous legislation that leaves many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders asking why. Remember the days of closing the windows when we thought a van with radar on its roof might come round to see whether we had a TV in the house and our mums wanted us to shut the windows because they did not really want anyone to know we had a TV in the house when the house was not licensed to have a TV? I can see us going back to those days. It is very wrong it is very retrograde and as I said it is just not what Parliament is really here for. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 What we have just heard from the ex-Mayor of Wellington Mr Blumsky is an excellent example—and we should learn by it—of how to trivialise a most serious situation. It has been an exercise in trivialising things that are of concern in this country. This is exactly what the National Party has done with the debate this evening. National members are not treating it with the seriousness it deserves. We can hear the laughter and the joking. This is a joke to the National Party because at the end of the day—and the public of New Zealand knows this—it is a political stunt on the part of the National Party. 
In spite of what Mr Brian Connell said the National Party voted for this measure. When the seriousness of dog attacks was uppermost in their minds as Steve Chadwick said National Party members voted for some form of sensible dog registration. But as time has gone on at the first opportunity to overturn their decision they have done so. They have quite cynically mobilised Federated Farmers through a person called Annabel Young who used to be a member of the National Party and of this Parliament. The influence that that woman has had on Federated Farmers is increasingly obvious day by day from its increased militancy over stupid pathetic small things—which are basically the only things she can understand. 
 We have the trivialising of a serious situation. It has been said time and time again by the supporters of this dog chipping legislation that it will not—in itself—stop dog biting. That is acknowledged but it is a serious attempt at getting some better form of dog control. That is precisely what it is. It will be phased in so as not to be a ridiculous impost on farmers and people who have working dogs. Not only that but also the cost of dog control is brought into this debate as though it is something new and brought about by dog chipping. It is not. The cost of dog control is present today and has been for many years. The fact that the job is not being done very well is another thing entirely. That cost is one that has been with us for years and is not brought about by the chipping of dogs. The chipping of dogs is a one-off cost and it is not huge in the manner of farm costs today. Members heard the Minister say it would be between $35 and $75. But the cost of the chip is something like $10 or $12 or between $10 and $20 if people have the expertise to put them in their dogs themselves. This is a political stunt by the National Party. 
I was almost shot down by Jacqui Dean. We had people asking what difference this was going to make to dogs and saying that it would not attend to the problem at all. Yet Jacqui Dean hopped up and said—unwittingly I might add—that in Auckland people are already bringing their dogs along and saying they can no longer look after them. I suggest to the public that those people never could look after those dogs but this impending legislation has brought the idea to their minds that they should either be responsible dog owners or they should not be dog owners at all. I think that points to the fact that people will be more responsible for their dogs in the cities and in the rural communities because of this legislation. 
Let us sort out this thing. Mr Connell said to me that I am not a man who would let the truth get in the way of a good story. And God bless her the Minister put that right. National voted for this legislation 3 years ago. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am taking a call in what I think is a vitally important debate for the nation tonight. I have come down to the House because I am particularly looking forward to the Hon David Carter and Eric Roy speaking to the amendments they have moved to this bill and which I will be strongly supporting. I think the most important question Parliament can be asked is whether this legislation will save a child from being bitten by a dog. Will it save a child from being attacked by a dog? That is the genesis of this legislation. Mr Foss from Tukituki pointed out that 8 percent of New Zealand’s domestic dogs—all dogs—are unregistered but cause well over half of all the dog attacks in this country. New Zealanders need to realise that problem dog owners in this country do not register their dogs now. If members talk to any dog control officers in any local authority in New Zealand they will be told that problem dogs—the dogs that are menacing threatening and are causing the disturbances in their communities—are by and large unregistered. 
But even if they were registered how does microchipping prevent some child from being attacked? How does microchipping stop people who are calling from door to door from being bitten by dogs? The issue is one of owners taking responsibility for their dogs and of how authorities match owners to dogs. The dog registration system has failed with that over many years in this country and it is my view that microchipping of dogs will not fix the problem the Government is identifying. The Government thinks it is doing something that can be pointed to next time there is a bad dog attack in this country. Government members think they can say they have microchipped dogs and that will fix the problem. The fact that there will be another dog attack in this country—even when microchipping is passed—is indication that the Government’s motivation will not work. 
If the Government were serious about dog control it would be looking at providing additional powers to local authority dog control officers it would be looking at incentives for responsible dog ownership it would be looking at what could be done about the control of dogs in public spaces. Those would be the areas where a serious Government that wants to protect New Zealanders from threatening and menacing dogs would act. Instead as members on the National side of the House have said this Government is penalising the good dog owners of New Zealand. Good people will take their puppies down to get microchipped at a cost of maybe $100 a pop. Good people will register their dogs every year; in some local authority areas it is a six-figure amount to register a dog. On top of that owners will now have to pay for microchipping and the good owners will do it. But the bad people—the bad dog owners the people who do not exercise discretion over their animals—will not register their dogs and they will not microchip. 
Today in this House we have heard well-thought-out debate by National members responding to the knee-jerk reaction of a Government that thought it needed to do something to deal with the menacing dog issue in this country. Dog ownership and menacing dogs are very big issues. I have complete appreciation for those people who have been attacked by dogs; it is a dreadful experience and it happened to me when I was campaigning in the 1990 general election. The dog bit me but if it had been the Labour candidate it would have eaten her. The point about that was that it was an unregistered dog. 
Hon Member 
: How did you know? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I knew it was an unregistered dog because I talked to the council afterwards. The dog had no tag and no collar but it was clear where the ownership was. I raise the point that even if that dog had been tagged I would have still been bitten. Even if the dog had been tagged other dreadful menacing acts might have happened. This would apply to any other dogs around the country. The really important issue that the National Party is making here is that this legislation will not protect people. It is penalising good dog owners. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 My legs are full of blood from rising and sitting down while trying to take a call for the last hour and a half on what is an extremely important issue. All law-abiding responsible dog owners in this country are barking mad at this Government. This is another compliance cost being imposed by a Government that has lost touch with reality. It has lost the plot. All law-abiding dog owners will be forced to pay another compliance cost. We have heard the cost will be between $20 $50 $70 and $200. Let us call it $100 per dog. It is another compliance cost that is being rammed down the throats of good law-abiding dog owners in this country. 
We all know that about 200000 dogs in this country are not registered. Their owners will be let off scot-free if this legislation comes into effect on 1 July. There are 200000 dog owners in this country for whom this legislation will not make one iota of difference. They will be let off scot-free. Those people actually cause the harmful dog attacks in this country. Let us read some figures from the Treasury report. Eight percent of those dogs cause 50 percent of the attacks and there are 3500 dog attacks in this country per annum. This legislation will not stop dog attacks but people who are law-abiding citizens will front up as they do at councils pay their registration fee and then have to get their dogs microchipped. 
Let us talk about the reliability of the jolly microchip. I know of an instance of a man who was a representative of New Zealand in the dog trial team that travelled off to Ireland last year. All the dogs had to be microchipped before they got on the plane. Months and months of training took place before the team went to Ireland to represent our country. They were getting ready to go through customs and the dogs were being scanned. Unfortunately a microchip could not be read so the man’s dog was sent down to be X-rayed in order to prove it was microchipped. The microchip could be seen under the coat of the dog but unfortunately that dog could not travel. So let us talk about the reliability of microchipping because that has not been raised in the debate this evening. What about trying to read the microchips in dogs with long coats in the wet weather? There is a certain amount of unreliability in that case. 
What about the costs that will actually be passed down to local government? What about those costs? It seems to be that legislation is passed in this Parliament willy-nilly and it is left to local ratepayers to pick up the bill. This legislation is estimated to cost between $3 million and $7 million and we all know that it will not actually reduce the number of dog attacks in this country. 
So here we have Government members supporting microchipping with the support of the two “poodle parties” United Future and New Zealand First. The members of those parties speak tough here in the Chamber but everyone knows that their knees go all wobbly when they are out there talking to people. When they talk on the hustings at the next election all the voters will remember this—the two “poodle parties” that supported a Government that is out of touch and has lost touch with reality. 
Let us not forget Mr Anderton. He was talking tough with Federated Farmers. He was going to do a deal and allow farm dogs to be exempt from microchipping. He has had his second big test with the rural community and they are giving him the thumbs down now. 
Hon David Carter 
: He has failed. 
NATHAN GUY 
: He has failed all right. He did not support the Green Party bill that we supported. Jim Anderton could have forced a change. The rural community has lost heart in Jim Anderton. When he heads around the country and talks to Federated Farmers they all sit in the back row whispering away: “Let’s get rid of him; let’s get rid of him.” 
This legislation will do nothing to reduce dog attacks in this country. This evening I am supporting David Carter and Eric Roy who are putting in vital changes to the legislation and I also need to applaud Kate Wilkinson. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have been very strong on this issue and we have used every possible parliamentary option open to us to change the law so that the compulsory microchipping of dogs other than dangerous and menacing dogs is gone from our law books. We even went so far as to put in a member’s bill which was pulled from the ballot—which was fantastic—and failed by only one vote. It was a great disappointment to us that this opportunity was lost and that United Future New Zealand First and Labour did not see that this was what the community wanted. Federated Farmers totally agree with our position. The Kennel Club completely agrees with our position. We have support from thousands of New Zealanders and from parties across the political spectrum that do not normally work with us such as National. It just shows that we can work together which is fantastic. 
Hon David Carter 
: A great coalition coming up! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Ha ha! I think it is important to recognise the principle behind the Greens’ position and why we do not support an exemption for farm dogs. I will give just one small illustration. Grandma and grandad are sitting around the fire in their old rural home. Grandma’s poodle has a microchip and grandad’s border collie does not. Can anyone truly say that grandma’s poodle which requires a microchip is more dangerous than grandad’s border collie which goes out with stock generally ranges free during the day and does not require one? No it is not a principled position. That is why we will not support an exemption. There is no reason to discriminate between dogs. Dog owners across the country completely agree with us. 
Because the Greens are good parliamentarians and we believe in this process we have proposed even more changes to the legislation. We put in an amendment at the Local Government and Environment Committee and National supported it but the Government did not. The select committee took out that amendment which would have got rid of microchipping. We have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 46 to restore that change to the bill so if we get cross-party support and the amendment is included compulsory microchipping for dogs other than dangerous and menacing dogs will be gone. 
If that amendment does not pass during this Committee stage we have five other amendments on the Table that are all designed to find a way through the impasse—to find a way to get cross-party support. I want just briefly to go through those five amendments. The first amendment alters Minister Burton’s amendment and effectively repeals section 36A in its entirety. We certainly hope we can get support for that amendment. If that is not successful we are looking to change the date at which newly registered dogs must be microchipped from 2006 to 2007 and perhaps even to 2008 so that there is a delay and we have more time to make the changes we need to the legislation. If that fails we have an amendment to repeal section 36A(1)(c) which requires that newly registered dogs be microchipped. We hope that that might get through. If that fails we have an amendment to section 36A(6) that removes the penalties if a person does not microchip his or her dog. The amendment retains the penalty—a very severe penalty I must say—of a $3000 fine if a dog is dangerous and menacing and the owner has not microchipped it but it gets rid of that $3000 fine if just an ordinary dog has not been microchipped. Perhaps that might help us to get some support from the Committee. 
Finally we have an amendment to change section 36A(2) which provides that owners must register their dogs. We would like to add the little paragraph: “unless the owner advises the territorial authority in writing that the dog provides social practical or economic services or support to the owner including but not limited to the purpose of herding or driving stock.” How can United Future oppose that change? That change directly addresses United Future’s issues and those of the Green Party. It takes account of United Future’s concern for working dogs and the concern of the Greens and National for grandma’s poodle. There is no reason why this amendment could not be voted for and supported by this Committee so as to change the bill. Owners would therefore only have to write to their territorial authority that their dog is a working dog or provide them with emotional or social support and so should not be microchipped and they would not be required to do it. 
These are the options the Greens are putting forward because we are looking for ways to make the changes that need to be made in order to provide United Future and New Zealand First with options they can choose from. We want cross-party support for the communities those parties represent which look to those parties for these changes and which are very disappointed that they have not had support from them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is quite true that United Future and the Greens have not always agreed on everything but this is a time to set aside those political differences get rid of those nagging issues between us and really do what is best for the community. That has always been the Green Party’s purpose. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and add to the National Party’s voice. Why is it that we are all here en masse debating the Local Government Law Reform Bill? It is because we feel very very strongly about it. The point of this bill that we feel most strongly about is the microchipping issue. Why are we focusing on that? It is quite simple really; we have had at least 10000 people sign petitions. National has been sent a really strong message which is for us to get into Parliament and make sure this measure does not happen. We have worked very very hard on it. We are very disappointed in some of the smaller parties that cannot see sense on this one. 
I have a press release from Nanaia Mahuta and I was perplexed when I read the heading: “Govt working with councils on dog control measures.” Well I say we should ask the councils about that. They would say the Government is working against them. They would say it is an imposition of costs. The press release I mentioned states: “The government is committed to working with all local authorities to ensure that new dog control laws are phased in as smoothly as possible.” Hang on a minute! What about all the ruts they had in the road? What about all the speed humps? I can tell members that the four local authorities the local councils in my electorate would tell a different story. Those councils of Timaru Waimate Waitaki and Mackenzie will say this is just an imposition of more cost on them and more cost therefore on their ratepayers. 
The one law for all dogs is a law that they have microchips. It is not a law that states that they will not bite little girls and boys. Members should make no mistake about that. That is not what the law states; it states that dogs will have microchips. It will not stop them biting little boys and girls because as other speakers have already said dangerous dogs will not be registered or microchipped. 
I just want to cover a few points made by some of the members on the Government side of the House. Jim Anderton has in the past asked what we do not understand about No 3. Well No 3 it would seem would be quite a powerful position to be in on the front bench over there. Jim Anderton asked what we did not understand about the fact that he was going to take his appeal to Cabinet that there be reconsideration of the microchipping of farm dogs. But then what happened was that Labour fed him some Tux dog biscuits which are the same dog biscuits that they keep a really good bag of for Winston Peters over on the Government side of the House. Winston jumps up on to his feet and responds to the Tux dog biscuits. We have seen that every day in the House when the poodle extraordinaire gets up there and responds to the dog biscuits on offer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Have you got a dog called Winston as well? 
Jo Goodhew 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Jim Sutton took a call tonight as well. He was wrong on a number of counts. He said that farm dogs were part of the problem. Members should ask the Accident Compensation Corporation how many farm dogs have caused bites and they would then know that farm dogs are not the problem that needs to be fixed. It is the unregistered and likely to be unchipped dogs that are most of the problem as my colleagues have said. Jim Sutton has given up on Federated Farmers; he certainly squashed their campaign flat tonight. Perhaps the Labour Government feels it does not need Federated Farmers or maybe it feels it has just lost them wholeheartedly. Labour has completely lost them—they have walked—and therefore it will not worry about them. 
Even Doug Woolerton had a go at Federated Farmers. I wonder whether he has realised what the number of people here who are prepared to have input into this debate really means. He suggested we thought it was a joke. I ask my colleagues whether it is a joke. 
Hon Members 
: No. 
JO GOODHEW 
: Of course it is not a joke; we would not all be wasting time on preparing to debate this bill if we thought it was a joke. 
Then we heard from Damien O’Connor who was deluding himself that this bill would prevent attacks on stock. Again I will say that microchipping is not a muzzle; it will not prevent any dog from attacking stock—nor from attacking children. He said a number of times that he felt sad and he called us Neanderthals. The Minister should be sad because he is barking mad if he thinks microchipping will actually solve the problem. 
I attended Mystery Creek last Thursday and there were two petitions there against this particular bill. There were queues for both of those petitions and people flocked to sign them. We wished we had more boards to put the petitions on because not everybody could wait long enough to sign the petitions. They were urban and rural people. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate this evening— 
Simon Power 
: Rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Mr Power that through the amazing technology of the wireless I have been listening to the debate this evening. It is hard to think of a similar debate in this Parliament that has gone more off-track than the debate about microchipping. I admit that when the issue of microchipping first came up in the last Parliament I did not think it was a good idea. Everyone got very wound up about it. All the parties in this House that lined up to have their photos taken with young Carolina Anderson and her parents were quite happy to say they thought there was a need to bring dog registration into the 21st century as so many other countries had done. Those parties were all happy to have their photos taken with those grieving parents—let us not forget that. 
I did not necessarily think dog microchipping was a particularly good idea at the time—I did not know what it would achieve. But unlike members opposite I decided to go away and look at the evidence from countries that have done microchipping and say it has worked well and from countries that believe it has reduced the number of dog attacks not because putting a microchip in a dog will control its behaviour—unless there is something about the microchip that they are not telling us—but because of the powers that local authorities have been given to deal with their dogs across the entire region that is being looked at. 
One of the big problems we have is that as soon as a dog starts to exhibit menacing behaviour it comes to the attention of a regional or district council. Often that dog will be shifted or given to someone else; it could be registered under another name or simply moved into another regional authority district where that local authority is not aware of the dog’s behaviour in the past. Let us remember that because of all the misinformation that was being spread about dog attacks a dog control officer in Gisborne felt compelled to come out in the media and say that about 99 percent of dog attacks happen on a dog’s property—they are not stray dogs; people stay away from stray dogs—and they often happen because a dog has been provoked. 
He also said the overwhelming majority of dog attacks come from registered dogs—dogs that are known about. Stray dogs are not the dangerous ones. We need to remember that all dogs have the capacity to be dangerous in the wrong situation. A dog is a dog and I keep having to tell my father that a dog is not another child; it is a dog. We need to remember that every dog can be dangerous and we need to let people know that so that when people teach children not to poke sticks through a fence at a dog we will be likely to get fewer dog attacks. 
What has been found in New South Wales is that if a dog is brought in and then gets picked up it is compulsorily microchipped if it has not already been microchipped. So a dog that has been picked up by a dog ranger for menacing behaviour will have its microchip zapped by the ranger who could find out that that dog has a serious history of menacing behaviour in a different region of New South Wales. Dog rangers have had the power to have that sort of dog destroyed which has meant that that dog was destroyed before it ripped the kid’s face off. That is why in New South Wales it is believed that microchipping has reduced the number of dog attacks. That is not the case because a microchip changes a dog’s behaviour but because we get what is essentially a criminal record of a dog so that we know where the dangerous dogs are and can stop their movement around the country where it can be hidden. So a local authority if it has a dog coming in for the first time knows what that dog has done in previous regional authorities that it has been in. 
John Hayes 
: Nonsense! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well then John Hayes might explain why in New South Wales dog attacks have plummeted since the introduction of the exact kind of reforms that are being introduced here today. I say that as someone who did not agree with microchipping in the first place. But when I made the effort to go out and look at what has happened overseas I realised we would not be doing the people of New Zealand a service—we would be doing them an injustice—if we did not put the stupid politics aside. Is it only because Federated Farmers do not like it that we will jump up and down—or will we say: “Hang on. Is there actually something here that might prevent dog attacks before they happen because we have control of our dog population and when a dog is moved across into a different council it becomes a completely different entity and because of that we deserve to give this due consideration?” I ask members to think about it. They do not have to like it. I do not expect members to drop all party lines and say that because the evidence shows something they will change their minds. But we may well end up if this fails with a worse system because of the politicking. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Following on from the fine speech of my colleague Moana Mackey I will make just three points to clarify matters now that we are coming to the end of the night because Opposition members have said some blatant mistruths. The first one relates to the issue of costs. There has been a lot of misinformation coming from Opposition members around the issue of costs but the costs they could be talking about are the costs attributed to the national dog database. To implement the national dog database across all of New Zealand will cost about $1.1 million in total. So while that database beds in the Government has agreed to meet governance depreciation and capital charge costs which account for just over half of that amount—and that is a fact. Apart from a small fixed cost faced by all local authorities the remaining costs of implementing the national dog database will be levied on councils according to the size of their area’s population and the number of registered dogs they have in that area. 
Universal microchipping will assist territorial authorities to impose a registration regime to make sure all dog owners are brought into a responsible dog ownership framework. That means generally that smaller rural councils with fewer people and fewer registered dogs in their areas will pay less than urban councils—and that is a fact. 
The next issue concerns dangerous dogs. Dangerous dogs must be classified and existing dogs that are classified as from 2003 must be microchipped—so that is a fact. 
The other issue was on the relevance of statistics and I just want to follow up on a comment that was made previously. A survey was conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs which is on the department’s website if people want to look at it. Thirty councils responded to that particular survey and of those councils 56 percent reported attacks by dogs that were registered for the period of 2001-02. So a lot of mistruths have been coming from members on the other side of the Chamber and it is important to put facts on record in that regard. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to cover a couple of issues surrounding the two handwritten amendments I have put forward in my name. I firstly respond to Doug Woolerton who accused the National Party of trivialising the issue. I simply say that I consider it is trivialising the issue to bring in something that does not effectively do anything to stop dogs from biting people. That is the first thing. It is trivialising the issue to recognise that there is a problem with unregistered dogs that menace and bite people but to do nothing to solve that. On the contrary it is trivialising the issue to put in place a regime that is likely to increase the number of unregistered dogs out there. 
I say to Mr Woolerton and to those on the other side of the Chamber that they should have a look at my amendment that will require that any dog savaging a child under the age of 13 is put down. Let us see the colour of that member’s commitment to actually deal with the problem. Who is now trivialising the issue? 
The other issue I wish to bring before the Committee—and I have delivered an amendment on it to the Table—concerns the “reporting dead dogs” clause. An issue has been raised with us several times about the cost of compliance. Let us put microchipping aside for one moment and look at where this bill starts seriously to increase costs. If members look at clause 9D which inserts new section 41A they will see that: “(1) The owner of a dog must notify the territorial authority with which the dog is registered if the dog dies.” Well there are several standards of untruths about dogs. There is a serious untruth a “dog lie” if one says that one’s dog is dead when it is not. Members can understand that that is serious if the authority is really wanting to keep its database in order. 
But I simply cannot understand the logic of requiring local authorities to have “dead dog counting officers” or whatever to literally ensure that the authority is notified about dead dogs. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.