Volume 628 Week 4 - Tuesday 6 December 2005 
Volume 628 Week 4 - Tuesday 6 December 2005 
[Volume:628;Page:521] 
Tuesday 6 December 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Under Speaker’s ruling 127/2 “Denial by a member of a charge or insinuation or of a statement imputed to the member must be accepted.” This is a very old Speaker’s ruling going back to 1881. It seems to me that we have a quandary because the Hon David Benson-Pope said on 12 May in this House that he did not commit the two assaults and as I understand Speakers’ rulings we have to accept that in this House. You know that I have raised this matter with you. You ruled it out in the first instance on 7 June for a lack of evidence and said that if I got more material I could put it to you. I wrote to you again once the police came out with their press statement and on 24 November you came back to me and said that I was out of time. 
Now the precise situation is that the police report released yesterday said that the evidence was essentially overwhelming that the two assaults took place. I am in the position that I believe—like a great many members in this House including some of the Labour back-benchers I have spoken to—that the police version is to be accepted. So I believe the police. That leaves me in the quandary that if I stand up in this House and say that I believe the police report I am essentially breaking the Standing Orders because Mr Benson-Pope has denied that the two assaults took place. That seems to me to be a silly situation when the House as a whole believes it took place—the police certainly do and so do the public of New Zealand. I am wondering Madam Speaker in relation to this very old ruling that goes back to 1881 whether you can shed some light on how we might proceed in the light of the police report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member cannot refer the matter of a privilege issue from the floor of the House. As the member indicated he has written to me again on the matter. As the member is also aware he has not been precluded from anything yet until a determination has been made on that matter. If the member has a question he wishes to ask to be ruled out of order or a debating point he wishes to make in a debate that is ruled out of order then he can ask the Speaker to reconsider those rulings at that time. The matter at this moment is at large and has not been determined. I think we should leave the matter there until it is and move on. 
Personal Explanations 
Email—Apology 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350. My explanation relates to an email sent by me to an Auckland secondary school principal which has been the subject of recent publicity. I wish to apologise for the email and for the sending of the email and apologise to all who found it objectionable. In particular I apologise to the recipient of the email. I accept full and sole responsibility for what happened. It was by my own standards not good enough. 
Questions to Ministers 
Trade Barriers—Energy Efficiency and Labelling 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Has he told China Korea and Argentina that New Zealand rejects their claim that energy-efficiency standards and labels should be treated as non-tariff trade barriers; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Not yet. The World Trade Organization negotiations are still at the point of winnowing out and identifying non-tariff barriers for further action. At this stage it would be premature for New Zealand to initiate bilateral exchanges with individual members on single items identified through the initial phase. If I were to engage with China Korea and Argentina on whether energy-efficiency standards should be treated as non-tariff barriers our starting point would be that energy-efficiency standards can be an effective instrument to achieve energy-efficiency savings. World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow members to set standards that contribute to a healthy environment as long as the standards are necessary transparent and applied in a non-discriminatory way. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given that notification of those attempts has been around on the website for over a year now would it not be a good idea to try to influence the final form in which those proposals are put; and will the Minister make the strongest possible statement at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting next week against these measures—which would weaken every country’s efforts to limit climate change—and not trade away our energy-efficiency standards and labels in return for increased market access for agricultural products? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I think it unlikely that this matter will require debate at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting. However I do welcome the honourable member’s support as recently as yesterday for removing unnecessarily complex regulations on some products. New Zealand has been actively involved in work to address non-tariff barriers that affect the use of timber in building construction. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Given the Minister’s response that the issue is unlikely to be raised will the Government therefore speak out strongly against that? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government takes the need for environmental standards very seriously and those measures are developed in a rigorous way to ensure compliance with WTO agreements. WTO rules—including the agreement on technical barriers to trade which covers standards and technical regulations—allow members to pursue environmental objectives as long as I said as the standards are necessary and non-discriminatory.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that the United States wants the WTO to outlaw tax concessions for the purchase of small-engined cars on the grounds that it discriminates against large-engined cars; and will the Government make it clear that it has no truck with such proposals given the effect they would have on the efficiency of the New Zealand vehicle fleet and the cost of our oil imports? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: My great sympathy for the member’s position on this is curtailed by the realisation that the WTO will have its work cut out to liberalise trade without taking on the burden of the Kyoto Protocol as well.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that he believes that the WTO should proceed to make its decisions about non-tariff trade barriers without any consideration of the effects they might have on other international treaties such as Kyoto? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Absolutely not. It is the long-established policy of this Government that progress in trade should not be purchased at the expense of going backwards on either environmental or labour issues.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that a flood of cheap inefficient Chinese air conditioners could cause a power blackout in Auckland as it nearly did a few years ago in Brisbane; and why will he not now make a clear statement at the WTO that energy efficiency standards are non-negotiable? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Because I am not the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency.  
Social Development and Employment Minister—Confidence 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister for Social Development and Employment; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she regard it as an acceptable standard of conduct for the Hon David Benson-Pope to circulate material to the media that deliberately misrepresented the police report into accusations that he had assaulted pupils; if not what advice does she have for the Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The matter could have been handled better and advice will be forthcoming to the Minister.  
Dr Don Brash 
: Why should the public have any confidence in the Hon David Benson-Pope when his own office leaked part of the police report to the  
Herald on Sunday 
 which stated in a story that Mr Benson-Pope had declined an interview; or does she think that is acceptable behaviour since it is clearly modelled on her own conduct in the case of former Police Commissioner Peter Doone? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is for Mr Benson-Pope to decide how he handles that matter.  
Dr Don Brash 
: Why should the public have any confidence in the Hon David Benson-Pope when he told Parliament on 12 May this year that he “refuted” allegations that he had ever tied a student’s hands yet the police said there was “sufficient evidence to say that this incident did occur”; does she not see that her Minister for Social Development and Employment now has zero credibility with the media and the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member might want to refer to the legal advice offered by Mr Benson-Pope’s lawyer on Morning Report this morning. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why has she allowed the Hon David Benson-Pope to get away with misleading the media when she declined to accept such conduct from the Hon Lianne Dalziel and dismissed her from her portfolio? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have dealt directly with the matter of the misleading of the media by referring the staff member concerned to Ministerial Services. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not a bit rich for the Prime Minister to criticise Rongo Wetere for the early release of the audit report into the wananga when one of her own Ministers did exactly the same thing when his office selectively and deliberately leaked parts of a police report and even suggested that the leak came from the police? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: To the best of my knowledge no one has ever breached an Auditor-General’s embargo before. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Can the Prime Minister recall saying on 28 June 2000 that the then Minister of Maori Affairs Dover Samuels had to be sacked from his portfolio because he could not be effective while “allegations controversy and public debate swirl around him.” and how can she maintain David Benson-Pope in his Cabinet position while allegations controversy and public debate swirl around him? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Both matters were referred to the police for full investigation. The reality is that both Ministers referred to are Ministers today. 
Civil Union Act—Marriage Act 
3.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the statement made to the House by former Associate Minister of Justice the Hon David Benson-Pope that “marriage has always been and will continue to be available solely to a man and a woman”; if so is this still Government policy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does he agree with the advice tendered by the Ministry of Justice to the then Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen that the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Quilter case may be reconsidered in light of recent overseas judgments; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I note that the Quilter case constitutes the current position of the law in New Zealand. There has been no such appeal. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: On what does he base his answer to the principal question? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have just referred to in part in my reply to the previous supplementary question the legal position has been clearly stated in  
Quilter  
v 
 Attorney-General  
in 1998. The Court of Appeal held that the Marriage Act applies only to marriage between a man and a woman. Nothing since then has changed the situation. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will Cabinet in light of David Benson-Pope’s confirmation that marriage should continue to be solely between a man and a woman and in light of the Minister’s acknowledgment of the advice from the Ministry of Justice that the Quilter decision may be reconsidered vote in support of my Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill which codifies and confirms that marriage is exclusively between a man and woman; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I have already indicated there is no such basis to reconsider the position so no. To vote in favour of the bill in my view would constitute a poor process and a complete waste of Parliament’s time. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the advice tendered by the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney-General on 9 May 2005 which states that the Quilter decision may be reconsidered in light of overseas decisions. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a DigiPoll taken on 25 July 2005 which shows that 57 percent of New Zealanders believe that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I seek leave for the benefit of members’ full information to table a copy of the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Minister of Justice on the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Police Decision 
4.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Who from his office supplied parts of the police files involving historic allegations against him to the  
Herald on Sunday 
 and did he authorise that action by his office? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 It is clear from my press release of 4 December that I authorised my press secretary to give a briefing to the  
Herald on Sunday 
. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question was put down on notice so the Minister had some considerable time to look at that question but that was not a complete answer to the two parts of the question that were asked. I suggest to you that to have some discipline in question time a question on notice should be answered. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Minister did address the question. 
Judith Collins 
: Where did the Minister’s staff member get the police report from and what instructions did the Minister give his staff member about the release of that material? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The report came from the CD-ROM that we had obtained from central police in Wellington. Although I was not aware of any restraint placed on me with regard to the files in my possession in hindsight I recognise that releasing details was not the wisest course of action. 
Judith Collins 
: At what point on Sunday did he learn that his office had misled the media about the leak of the police file and why did he not issue a statement clarifying his position as soon as he realised that selected parts of the report had been leaked? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: At some time on Sunday afternoon as soon as I was made aware of that issue I had it corrected. As the Prime Minister commented earlier the staff member involved was in error and it is now a staff disciplinary matter. 
Judith Collins 
: Was the  
Dominion Post 
 report of Saturday 3 December correct when it stated: “Social Development Minister David Benson-Pope has asked police to withhold parts of a report into allegations that he bullied pupils while he was a teacher.”; if so what was the nature of those deletions? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As part of an Official Information Act process I have every right—as does any other individual when a report is being considered for release—to ask for material to be deleted. The only material that my lawyer or I asked to be removed was to do with matters that were completely irrelevant to the investigation. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he understand why people might think he is deceitful when he states that the release of the police report is in the hands of the police then his office leaks it; when he states he is not available for comment yet he releases selected highlights that favour him; and when he says he is no longer restrained in speaking to the media then refuses all invitations to do so; if not does he accept that the people of New Zealand can no longer have any confidence in him as a Cabinet Minister? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Can I stress that the analysis that was released was in no way selective. I do—[ 
Interruption 
] I will happily request leave to table that analysis at the end of this question time. Can I stress that I believe I have acted in a perfectly upfront way in all matters and have not been deceitful. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree that by his actions he misled the media he misled the public of New Zealand and he has misled his parliamentary colleagues and will he now simply do the decent thing and resign? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No and no. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table an excerpt from the police report. This is the report from Detective Sergeant Inglis. It has 10 pages and it is the report that the Prime Minister did not have time to read. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a document that was handed out by staff from Mr Benson-Pope’s office in the press gallery yesterday entitled  
The Weaver File: New Evidence 
. These are the excerpts. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Radio New Zealand  
Morning Report 
 interview that the Prime Minister has today referred us to in relation to so-called legal advice from Mr Benson-Pope’s lawyer. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the police report released yesterday on CD-ROM does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 12 May where he said: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” and: “I am quite happy to confirm”—[ 
Interruption 
] Well Mr Peters can sit on the side and try to chip. He has done it three times and I actually look to you Madam Speaker for some protection. I am entitled to ask a question without interruption. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is always too much chatter when people are asking the questions so I ask members to keep their comments to themselves. I ask Mr Hide to please repeat his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: My question—[ 
Interruption 
] He has just done it again. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has just done it again despite your advice that he should not be doing it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I did not hear what the member said to be frank. 
Rodney Hide 
: It does not matter what he said; the point is that he interrupted when I was asking my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not even hear the interruption and I apologise for that. I ask the Minister to please refrain from any comment and I ask the member to complete his question please. 
Rodney Hide 
: He will get his chance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask his question without comment. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the police report on the CD-ROM that was released yesterday does the Minister stand by the statements he made in this House on 12 May in respect of the two claims of assault that “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” and that “I am quite happy to confirm and repeat my statement earlier that I have not been guilty of or involved in any inappropriate behaviour in my 24 years as a secondary school teacher.”; in light of the police report if he does stand by these claims why does he? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to confirm that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened. 
Judith Collins 
: Which statement does the Minister stand by: his one to the House on 12 May 2005 when he said in respect of the tennis ball allegation: “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.” or the statement he made in a press release a day ago: “I have no recollection of these events and I do not believe what was alleged happened.” And is his softer tone a result of nine former pupils saying that it did happen and the police believing them not him? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I must repeat for the member that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We actually have ourselves now in a very difficult situation because the Minister has actually changed his answer without personal explanation. What he told the House on 12 May was that it did not happen. He did not say that once he did not say it twice and he did not say it three times; he denied it categorically four times in no uncertain terms. 
 What he is actually trying to say now in the House to avoid having a breach of privilege raised against him within time is that he cannot recall. If that is going to be his answer he needs to correct his original statement to the House. The Minister is quite entitled to make a personal explanation and he needs to be clear about what he is saying. Is he denying the charges categorically as he did on 12 May or is he now telling the House that he cannot remember? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. The Minister is required to address the question. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of that reply; that is for others to do. The matter that the member has raised is of course a debatable matter and could be refuted in the context of the debate. I would remind not only that member but all members who are raising points of order that question time is not the time for debate and that the Speaker cannot reopen question time that took place in May when that matter was in fact debated. 
Judith Collins 
: Did the tennis ball incident happen or are these nine people who say it did happen lying? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have ministerial responsibility for his teaching at that time. He is responsible only for actions as a Minister. Maybe the member would like to rephrase her question. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House on 12 May 2005 that the incident did not happen or are the nine people who say it did happen lying? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have just answered that question twice. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are again getting into the situation where Ministers burn up supplementary questions from this side of the House by failing even to address the question. I think three or four supplementary questions were asked and the Minister did not address them. This is a very very important point in this House. The Minister was asked whether he stood by his statement and had those nine people committed perjury. It is an important point because either they have committed perjury or the Minister has misled the House and the three former students who are supporting him have committed perjury. This is a very important point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for repeating a previous point of order. The Minister did address the question. The answer may not have been satisfactory to members; that is for others to judge. But he is perfectly entitled as all Ministers are to repeat an answer to a previous question. That is addressing the question when the question that was asked was similar to the one before. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you not simply ask the Minister to give a straight answer to a straight question instead of this mucking around? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order and it is not for the Speaker to take that responsibility. It is for members to ask questions and it is for Ministers to respond to them in the context of the Standing Orders. As members know and as has been repeated many times it is not the Speaker who is the judge of the quality of the questions or the answers. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House on 12 May 2005 concerning the tennis ball incident that “I find such allegations ridiculous and I refute them.”; can he please give us a straight answer? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: For the member’s benefit I repeat that I am one of the 19 people who either do not recall the alleged events or do not believe they happened. Furthermore I would add that the police made the decision not to prosecute and that is where the matter lies. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does he see any connection between the leader of the National Party’s inability to remember a conversation with senators a matter of months ago and the Minister’s inability to remember something that happened 20 years ago? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not believe I have responsibility for the memory loss problems of the Leader of the Opposition.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order is why you would ever allow that question to be asked in this House when it was clearly out of order. We sit here trying to get a straight answer yet that member can put an incorrect question that does not comply with the Standing Orders—it was clearly outside the Standing Orders. I was actually waiting for you to rule it out. It was clearly out of order.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Surely the point at issue is the question of someone’s memory. All I am asking is if someone cannot remember a conversation he had with such senior and august people as senators from the United States a matter of months ago is it fair by comparison or by way of connection to liken that to someone who cannot remember what happened 20 years ago? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you; I thank members. That was not a point of order. As members know and as has been ruled upon before members are entitled to ask hypothetical questions. That question was hypothetical and a response was given. But I would say to members that there are times when perhaps such questions would be better not asked. We shall now move on.  
Teachers—Professional Development Support 
5.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about professional development support given to teachers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government has invested more than $100 million in 2005 for professional development of teachers including over $20 million to enable teachers to lift students’ literacy and numeracy standards around $12 million to increase teachers’ skill and confidence in the use of information and communications technology and around $7 million to support professional development of school principals. Those are all very good policies. 
Moana Mackey 
: What reports has he seen on professional development advice given to school principals? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) that describes one piece of professional advice to a college principal as “unprovoked malicious unethical and inexcusable”. That advice concludes: “Yes I do have a knife in your back so be careful!”. The comment was made by National’s current associate education spokesperson Allan Peachey to a college principal in his own Tamaki electorate. Although Mr Peachey has apologised for being caught out he has not yet explained his words or reassured the school that he has no intention of putting them into action.  
Question No. 6 to Minister 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note the Minister of Police is not in the Chamber today and I seek leave of the House to hold this question over until the Minister is present. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Social Development and Employment Minister—Police Decision 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she agree with her colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment that the Southern Police District commander used “bozo-ish” language when saying that there was a prima facie case against the Hon David Benson-Pope; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 The Minister states that she has read the media release issued on 23 November 2005 by the southern district commander at the time he decided the police would not prosecute. The Minister is satisfied with the language Superintendent Fraser used. Mr Benson-Pope has told her that it was wrong to use the language he used and that he regretted it. The Minister has conveyed Mr Benson-Pope’s regrets to Superintendent Fraser. 
Simon Power 
: What exactly does she consider “bozo-ish” about the police report that found a prima facie case against Mr Benson-Pope including the aggravating factors of Mr Benson-Pope’s position of authority and his complete denial of the charges or does she perhaps not consider any of that to be “bozo-ish” at all? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have a copy of the press statement that Superintendent Fraser made and I have to say that the reasons he has given for not prosecuting appear to me to be totally sensible. There is nothing— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Answer the question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am answering the question if members want to listen instead of interrupting. Superintendent Fraser states for example that the alleged events happened more than 22 years ago and the victims were not motivated to lay complaints with the police for many years. He states that if the person at the centre of the inquiry did not have a high current public profile it was unlikely that the matter would have surfaced in the way it did in 2005. I agree with the superintendent. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister concerned that Mr Benson-Pope through representatives speaking on his behalf has accused the police of leaking information on two occasions both of which accusations have not been true and what action will she be taking about those accusations against police in her ministry? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: On behalf of the Minister of Police I say there is no evidence of the police leaking any of that information and therefore it is not appropriate to blame the police. That view has been conveyed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is this the same Superintendent Fraser who 12 days ago in this House the National Party implied was lying when he said he was subject to no external pressure in the decision he had arrived at; if so has the Acting Minister had any indication that an apology has been made by the National Party to Superintendent Fraser? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am appalled that any member of this House including one who has had experience in the area of justice and been a Minister of Justice would without foundation claim that a superintendent of police is lying. I would invite any member who has the courage to make such a defamatory statement to make it outside the House where legal action would certainly be taken against him. I think that the member’s comments were absolutely deplorable and a smear against that superintendent who has a fine record in the police force. 
Simon Power 
: Will the police be taking any action against Mr Benson-Pope for releasing details of the police file to the media prior to the papers being made public by the police or is the Minister happy for that “bozo-ish” behaviour to be overlooked simply because he is a Cabinet colleague? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I doubt whether the police would take any action for that although that is a decision for them. The reason they would not take that action is that no offence was committed. 
Simon Power 
: Whose definition is correct: the one in Butterworth’s  
New Zealand Law Dictionary 
 which considers a prima facie case to be “when the evidence in his or her favour is sufficiently strong for his or her opponent to be called on to answer” or Mr Benson-Pope’s definition which is “simply that someone has laid a complaint”; and is the Minister concerned that perhaps Mr Benson-Pope does not quite realise how close he came to being taken to court over the prima facie case of assault that was found? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member has just made an assumption that he is in absolutely no position to make. The words “prima facie” of course are Latin for “at first view” which gives the member the impression of what a prima facie case is. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. Can I add to that Professor Henaghan’s comments that the existence of a prima facie case did not necessarily mean a prosecution was cut and dried but it did mean that the police had enough to start a prosecution if they chose. I think those are accurate definitions of “prima facie”. 
Human Rights—United Nations Special Rapporteur 
7.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha te tana whakautu ki te korero a te kairipoata mo te Roopu Whakakotahi tangata o te Ao ara a Rodolfo Stavenhagen “Kei te tino awangawanga kei te tipu ake te ahua o te rawa kore i waenganui i te Maori me etahi atu a kei muri te Maori a haere ana.”?  
[ 
What is his response to the following statement from Professor Stavenhagen the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples that: “There is also widespread concern that the gap in social and economic conditions is actually growing larger and that an increasing proportion of Maori are being left behind.”? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
He maha nga korero a te professor i roto i ana korero ki nga nupepa mo tana haere mai ki konei. Ko etahi o ana korero e pa ana ki nga whanaketanga o te iwi Maori e whakaatu mai ana ahakoa e kitea ana te ahu whakamua a te iwi Maori. He nui tonu nga mahi hei mahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Professor Stavenhagen made a number of observations in his press release about his visit here. Some of his observations about Maori development indicate that while Maori have made positive progress there is still work to be done. 
] 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: How does the Minister reconcile the fact that the Government’s own figures reveal that the unemployment rate for Maori has steadily increased over the last year from 8.3 percent in September 2004 to 9.1 percent in September 2005 with the fact that the unemployment rate for Pakeha has steadily decreased over the same period; and given that the gap looks to be increasing how can the Minister say that it is actually closing? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I te wa i whakamanatia ai tenei Kawanatanga 20 pai heneti te maha o nga tangata kaore i te whiwhi mahi. I tenei wa kua taka mai tenei maha mo tauiwi ki te 3 pai heneti a mo te Maori 9 pai heneti a kei te heke haere tonu. He tino rereketanga tenei. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
When this Government came into power the unemployment rate was at about 20 percent. The general rate is now at 3 percent and the Maori rate is at 9 percent and decreasing. This is a huge difference. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Could the Minister identify where inequalities have been reduced in Maori health specifically life expectancy; in Maori education specifically school-leaver qualifications; and Maori household ownership rates? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: He nui ake ano nga take i roto i nga take pera i a te hauora me nga take katoa. He maha tonu nga paetae kua taea e te iwi Maori i roto i nga ono tau kua hipa ki muri. Hei tauira: te rekota mo te tino maha o nga Maori kei te whiwhi mahi; te whiwhi i nga tino rawa me nga taonga i roto i nga wahanga e pa ana ki nga ngahere nga haonga ika me era atu e riro ana ma te Maori e whakahaere. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
There are really many aspects in matters such as health and others. There have been a number of important achievements for Maori over the last 6 years: for example the highest employment for Maori on record; and key commercial assets in the primary production sector are now being managed by Maori with the fisheries allocation process under way. 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer that the Minister of Maori Affairs gave and I am assured by my colleagues to my left that it was a very good answer. Unfortunately I think the translation into English was somewhat truncated and those of us who are still struggling with te reo would maybe like a fuller translation. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am pleased to assist my colleague over there who is searching keenly to understand our language. What I said was that I agreed with my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell about all those aspects pertaining to health and education—that there were a lot of things to be done. I also was quite explicit that this Government has created a record for Maori participating in the workplace. Beyond that I also said that assets such as forestry and fish are now being steered and managed by Maori governance. That is what the translation was. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It appears that the answers that Mr Horomia is giving are somewhat out of sync with the responses coming from the interpreter. I am not sure; perhaps it is that the numbers on the pages are not corresponding because they both appear to have the answers in front of them. Maybe in future we should just publish the answers and completely do away with oral questions to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. I just remind members that it is not a translation that is given; it is in fact an interpretation. It was a summary of the answer and the Minister obliged on the point of order that was given. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is it appropriate if a member gets up and asks: “How long is a piece of string?” if the Minister answers: “Mary Jane”? The question that was asked was about inequalities in terms of Maori health specifically life expectancy; Maori education specifically school-leaver qualifications; and Maori household ownership rates; and the answers that were given were about forestry and fisheries. He did not actually answer the question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. The Minister did address the question obviously not to the satisfaction or the specificity of the member but a full answer was given. 
Dave Hereora 
: E whakaae ana te Minita ki nga korero o te kaikorero mo te Whakakotahitanga o nga Iwi o te Ao? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does the Minister agree with what was said by the representative of the United Nations? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: E whakaae ana au ki te nuinga o ana korero no te mea e tautoko ana i nga mahi kua mahia e te Kawanatanga. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I agree with the majority of what he said because it supports the work the Government has done. 
] 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Development Adviser 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Did the Government pay $127605 for the services of a development adviser appointed in June 2002 to assist the council of Te Wananga o Aotearoa to improve governance of the institution and to attend council meetings; if so did that adviser report to the Ministry of Education or Ministers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes and Mr McNally reported on his work assisting the council in the first instance to the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit. I am advised that some reports are made direct to Ministers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with Trevor Mallard who wrote to the wananga on 20 June 2005 telling it he had made a preliminary decision to sack the wananga council and replace it with a commissioner; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I can confirm that my predecessor wrote that letter and I agree that he had made that preliminary decision. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Government today backed down on its threat to sack the council when the Auditor-General has just issued a report that found financial mismanagement badly managed conflicts of interest and an institution to which the Government will pay well over $100 million of taxpayers’ money this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The process begun by my predecessor was due to the intervention of the election clearly out of time. There were legal doubts about whether that could be completed. More important the High Court has found—and this is now subject to appeal so I must be careful how I phrase this—that the council reconstituted itself and a number of members have resigned from the council. The residual council has been engaged in working with the Crown manager and Crown observer—the same person—to reconstitute a great deal of the operations of the wananga. Progress is being made very significantly in relation to the matters raised by the Auditor-General’s report which of course was for the years 2002 2003 and 2004. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of advising the National Party freshmen who came in here on the backs of Orewa I and Orewa II I ask the Minister whether he remembers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I agree; the member will please be seated. Could the member please comply with the Standing Orders when asking the question and remove all superfluous comments and just ask the question directly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am happy to do that Madam Speaker. Does the Minister remember which party when in Government maintained a cap on funding to Te Wananga o Aotearoa and which party governing by itself in 1999 uncapped funding which led to the present situation of that institution? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The wananga was approved for creation in 1993 under the previous National Government. The funding was uncapped in 1999. Of course when people who represented the wananga and the Aotearoa Institute came to this Parliament only a few short weeks ago to protest against the Government’s actions in intervening in the wananga they were met by a delegation from the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now asking Parliament to believe that the content of the Auditor-General’s report released today should reassure members that the wananga council should not be sacked when back in June Trevor Mallard told the council that it met all six statutory criteria to be sacked and replaced by a commissioner; and what is it in the Auditor-General’s report that should give this Parliament so much reassurance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nothing in the Auditor-General’s report—which is a sorry picture indeed of what was happening in the wananga. The difference is that the council that is now running the wananga is not the council that was in office in July 2005 as a large number of members of that council have now been deemed to have resigned. If of course the situation changes in any shape or form I reserve the right to do one of three things: first to restart the commissioner process; second to investigate and to apply for the possibility of a statutory manager and preliminary work has already been undertaken on that; and third if necessary to come to this House for support for legislation which has already been drafted and is being held in reserve. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Have any of the Minister’s officials been confused by the sight of the National Party visiting the wananga in the pre-election period hongi-ing and talking to its people in the most friendly terms inside on the marae and in the institution and then going out and saying something totally different to the media? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can that have any reference to the debate going on at the moment? The Minister has no responsibility for that. What happens in the election period for National is our business and that member is completely out of order. His question should be struck out for that reason. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was asked whether I have any reports that my officials had been confused by those matters and I would be very happy to respond on that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was so much noise I did not actually hear the end of the member’s question so I was waiting before I ruled on it. I ask the member to repeat the question please.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports from his officials regarding any confusion they may have in their minds they having seen National Party members in the pre-election period go to the wananga hongi with all the senior officials of that institution at their place of domicile and then go outside and say something totally different and opposite to the New Zealand media? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whether officials are confused is hardly a question that a Minister can answer. The reality is that most Ministers particularly in that Minister’s ministry are extremely confused and it would be no surprise to find that officials throughout the Government are confused. If the Minister were to stand up and say that he has seen reports about confused Ministers that would come as no surprise but we would be very pleased if he would table all of those reports.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I ask the Minister to reply. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not aware of my officials ever being confused by anything that National members say—I am not sure that they are interested in that. I am aware that Mr Wetere stated at one point that he was looking forward to the election of a National Government which would help him to reinstate himself to his position in the wananga.  
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister has said he is aware of the letter that Trevor Mallard wrote to the council on 20 June 2005 with his decision to sack the council which of the six criteria for sacking that the council then met but now do not apply which means that the Minister has backed down on the threat that was issued? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I explained to the member that my legal advice was that fundamentally the process was out of time. More important I explained to the member and I will repeat it for him that the High Court has ruled that in effect a large proportion of the council has resigned. The people who are now in effect functioning as the council do not represent the same kinds of views attitudes and practices that the Auditor-General’s report has condemned. Therefore it is possible that we are able to arrive at a satisfactory outcome without further heavy-handed intervention. I repeat that I keep in my back pocket the possibility of firstly sending in a commissioner which requires a consultation process that takes weeks; secondly sending in a statutory manager; or thirdly legislation which I am sure the National Party will then find a reason to oppose.  
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Government exercise some accountability in respect of the two Ministers and hundreds of officials who sat and watched the financial mismanagement and badly managed conflicts of interest for the last 5 years and who did nothing about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is completely incorrect to say that nothing has been done about it. Apart from the fact that the primary question refers to one particular intervention in that respect a Crown observer was appointed in February the council appointed a Crown manager in March and the commission process started in July. The Government is continuing to work with the new smaller council at Te Wananga o Aotearoa. There is every reason to believe that the problems of governance and management that pertained for a number of years at the wananga are now being addressed. I repeat that should any part of that situation change I will invite members opposite to vote if need be for legislation which is already drafted to provide for intervention.  
Defence—Exercise Silver Warrior 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What was the purpose of Exercise Silver Warrior and what were the results of the exercise? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The purpose of the exercise was to test the effectiveness of the Army’s motorised battalion now that modern state-of-the-art equipment has replaced vehicles that were 20 to 40 years old. The initial feedback from the New Zealand Army is that it believes that the exercise demonstrated that the battalion now meets the required level of capability and it was pleased with the results.  
Dianne Yates 
: What feedback was received about the performance of the new Pinzgauer light operational vehicles in the exercise and in actual operational use? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Very positive feedback has been received. There were as the House will be aware some initial teething problems following delivery of the light operational vehicles. In particular there was a problem with the transmission overheating but that problem has been dealt with at the expense of the manufacturer and the vehicles have performed well. The Pinzgauers have recently been deployed in Afghanistan and work under what are probably the harshest conditions anywhere in the world. When soldiers who had used the Pinzgauers came back I spoke to them and they were hugely positive about what the vehicles had been able to do. They believed that those vehicles had some really important advantages over alternative options such as for example Humvees.  
Dianne Yates 
: Why was it necessary to purchase the light armoured vehicles that Exercise Silver Warrior was based on? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The M113 armoured personnel carriers that the LAVIIIs replaced were purchased way back in the 1960s and were over 35 years old. The truth is that our participation in peacekeeping in Bosnia in the mid-1990s highlighted that the Army lacked the means to be able to move and manoeuvre its forces with the necessary degree of protection and speed to ensure the effectiveness and survivability of the force. We were unable to operate in peacekeeping or any other operations in anything other than a low-risk environment and it is an absolute disgrace that the National Party deployed our forces with such antiquated equipment.  
United States Relationship—Australian Assistance 
10.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What assistance did he seek from the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer to bring about a stronger relationship between New Zealand and the United States and what assistance did Mr Downer promise to provide? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I advised Mr Downer on our meeting at APEC in Korea that New Zealand was interested in continuing to make progress in our relations with the US and that any assistance would be appreciated as we paddled our own canoe or waka. Mr Downer undertook to refer to New Zealand’s interest in taking forward its relationship with the US when he next saw the US Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister see the public statement from the Prime Minister on 25 October that New Zealand did not need any help from Australia because we could “paddle our own canoe” and why did he ignore her instructions just over 2 weeks later and ask Mr Downer for help anyway? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is because the Prime Minister would have received erroneous information via the press which I have no difficulty in proving and I challenge any of those up in the press gallery to say otherwise. I want to say very clearly that the Prime Minister and I share the same objective of progressing our relations with the US. Is that not great news? It is in the interests of all New Zealanders for the Government to work to further strengthen relationships with all our key partners including the United States. This requires patient sustained effort. I make no promises to have this all sorted out by lunchtime. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What report can the Minister give the House on his work to advance New Zealand’s interests since his appointment? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the baubles. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please just settle down so that we can all hear the answer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I ask Rodney Hide to take a pill—a Valium or something. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know he suffers from the condition of recognition hunger but he should not be dominating proceedings here. I have represented the New Zealand interest successfully at the APEC ministerial meetings and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Foreign Ministers meetings. I have participated in ministerial consultation with the European Union presidency and have undertaken a bilateral visit to the United Kingdom and knowing as I do people like Andy Irvine I was personally invited by him to the rugby. Without exception the 21 counterparts that I met from around the world warmly congratulated me on my appointment and said they looked forward to seeing me again in the near future. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister as a hard-working and conscientious Foreign Minister itemise which official engagements or which official discussions he had relating to his ministry during his visit to Scotland a visit during which he was able to find time in his busy and pressing schedule to view the All Blacks at Murrayfield from the royal box; and does he stand by his plea to the New Zealand media made just 1 day before he attended the rugby at Murrayfield to give him a second chance and stop criticising him for taking the baubles of office? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am not concerned about members of Parliament who report the erroneous comments of journalistic meerkats. The reality is that I purely pointed out that I had hardly got the job and surely the media would give me a chance to try to do this job. However I know that I was overly optimistic in that respect. But let me make this very clear: I could set out all 21 meetings that I have had in respect of overseas counterparts including the meetings in Glasgow and in Edinburgh and including meetings with business groups that relate to New Zealand interests. I might add that that was over the weekend. But more important I was not at both the rugby league and the rugby as some members of the media again reported. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister tell the House which is the official foreign policy position of the Government: the Prime Minister’s position that the relationship with the United States does not need to be improved and that we do not want any help from Australia; or his position that the relationship does need to be improved and that we would appreciate some help from Australia? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me just say that the Prime Minister agrees with me and I happen to agree with the Government’s position that it is in the interests of our foreign policy that we improve our relations with every nation—in particular those that are old trading partners and allies. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why if he and the Government are so unified on this matter the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr Cullen told the House 2 weeks ago that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had not sought assistance from the Australian Minister when in fact he had sought assistance as he has just confirmed today? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am not certain why certain members of this Parliament want to engage in what are simple verbal semantics but the reality is—[ 
Interruption 
] It is purely semantics. I made it very clear to Mr Downer that if there were discussions in negotiation with the United States and New Zealand came up I would appreciate it if he would put a good word in for us. Which person in my position would not do that? Which Foreign Minister in a similar circumstance would not do that? I want to refer to what some correspondents now think of this and I will read from an article where a commentator states: “I am getting heartily sick of the childish nonsense that the ACT party and the National Party have been indulging in ever since the election.” 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can I ask the Minister to explain the public statement made by his colleague Mr Goff that he had told the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Downer: “Policies from Winston will not be policies spun off the top of anybody’s head but the policy of a Labour-led Government.” and can he tell the House whether his request for help from Mr Downer was to use Mr Goff’s terms the policy of the Labour-led Government or policies spun off the top of somebody’s head? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was made very clear at the time this Government was formed and the various portfolios were decided upon that the Foreign Affairs policy of this country would be that of the will of Parliament as expressed by Cabinet. It is pretty axiomatic really when we think about it that way and I do not get— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But you’re not in Cabinet. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We can see why the member did not last long as deputy leader of the National Party can we not? In fact how long did he last—did he make 48 hours? No. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The simple plain fact is that the policy articulated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the policy decided by Cabinet and it always has been. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can I ask the Minister whether he found it helpful that his colleague Mr Goff chose to reveal to the New Zealand media that Mr Downer had asked for an explanation as to the role that the Minister plays as our new Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so in what way did Mr Goff’s revelations to the media assist with our representation overseas? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Again this is in line with certain media reports and certain interpretations. For example the fact that one Green member in Europe—in all those Parliaments—asked the question was painted as “Peters in trouble in Europe”. There is a certain pattern behind this. Frankly in the case of Mr Downer he did ask me the same question as to how we think we will get on in the next 3 years as a Government and I said that given who we are facing we will roar in. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can the Minister inform the House whether the Prime Minister’s actions in calling into question his attempt to improve the relationship between New Zealand and the United States have simply served to reinforce the view he expressed in this House on 15 May 2003 that Helen Clark is “the only politician in the Western World who can talk on foreign affairs with both her feet in her mouth”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can understand why someone who is the only member of this House who can eat a banana sideways would be asking that question but the reality is that it is 2005 and things have moved on. I also say that in  
Trans Tasman 
 that member promised there would be fireworks in the House today and I want to know why we have just faced a damp squib. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have looked at the questions today and I want to know whether you vetoed any questions on Foreign Affairs from either the ACT party or the National Party because if that was the fireworks that were promised then I am going to ask the Prime Minister for a new job. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Screen Productions—Government Encouragement 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to encourage large-budget screen productions to New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Large Budget Screen Production Grant recipients have injected around $363 million into the New Zealand economy producing direct economic benefits of up to $227 million. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How do Kiwis benefit from having a greater number of large-budget screen productions in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Obviously a lot of cash goes in there are numerous jobs fantastic creative skills are developed and there are tourism spin-offs. There are forthcoming films— 
King Kong 
  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
 and  
River Queen— 
that are all providing a tremendous opportunity— 
Shane Ardern 
: Which one’s the Minister in? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we know which one that member will star in—although it is a real shame that Don Brash has promised to scrap that fund. 
Carbon Tax—Income Tax Thresholds 
12.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Does he accept that scrapping the proposed carbon tax would also mean the end of proposed increases in personal income tax thresholds; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 No and in fact no decisions have been taken since the election on either the carbon tax or the level of personal tax thresholds. 
John Key 
: What are the reservations he has about the carbon tax that led him to say in a recent radio interview: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: My view has always been that the way in which the carbon tax has been designed to date makes it unworkable. That is why as part of the agreement with the Labour-led Government we agreed to have an independent analysis of it before any final decisions were made. The reality is—[ 
Interruption 
]; if the member would just be quiet for a moment; he has this tendency to rush in—until that review is completed no decisions will be made on the outcome. 
Craig Foss 
: Does he agree with Treasury’s assessment that the carbon tax will have almost no effect on people’s behaviour in which case does he think the purpose of the carbon tax is solely to raise revenue; if not what is the purpose of the carbon tax? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think that the two connections that the member has made are actually inconsistent; if it is to have no impact on people’s behaviour it probably will not raise a great deal of revenue. It is those sorts of issues that lead to the need for an independent review which is what we have obtained what will be carried out and what will be the basis of any decisions that are eventually made. 
Chris Tremain 
: Will he be listening to the results of the poll on United Future’s own website which asks: “Is Labour’s proposed carbon tax good for NZ?” and where 71 percent of respondents have so far voted “No”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I will certainly be listening to it for the very simple reason that I instigated the question. 
John Key 
: Could the Minister confirm that when he answered my first supplementary question before and he confirmed his quote “our view” was he answering “our view” as the view of the Government for which he is the Minister of Revenue? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In my first answer to the member I dealt with his substantive question and I said in response to it that no decisions have yet been made on either the carbon tax or the level of personal income tax thresholds. I do not recall making any reference to “our view” as the member quotes in response to that question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is fair that the House has some clarity from the Minister. In his original answer he described the carbon tax as unworkable and my colleague John Key sought clarification as to whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government. I think this goes to the core of our Standing Orders and the accountability of Ministers. It is very plain in our Standing Orders that Ministers are in fact answering on behalf of the Government. We have a quite bizarre arrangement whereby we have Ministers who pretend they are not part of the Government. I think it is proper for you to clarify to the House whether the Minister of Revenue was in fact doing just that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. When a Minister is responding the Minister is always replying on behalf of the Government. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the confusion that has arisen is that the question that was asked is as printed on the Order Paper. I have quoted twice the answer I gave in response to Mr Key’s question. I think what he meant to refer to was his first supplementary question not his substantive question. 
John Key 
: He said that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No he did not. He said in response to my first question and that was what I answered. I am happy to deal with the point but the question that was asked first was the one I answered first. 
John Key 
: Because the Minister said he could not recall using the term “our view” before I seek leave to table the transcript of his interview on National Radio on  
Checkpoint 
 
where he was introduced as the Minister of Revenue and where in answering the questions he said: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.” He is the Minister of Revenue and we should therefore be able to assume he is answering as the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker it is true of course as you have just ruled that in speaking in the House any Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. But the Minister is perfectly free in speaking on  
Checkpoint 
 to speak as the leader of United Future; “our view” is clearly referring to the United Future party’s view. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not want to make a confusing situation even more so but the original question from Mr Key as I said in my previous answer related to his first question. As for the supplementary question that he gave where he ran the “our view” quote only now do we discover that the “our view” quote was actually from a  
Checkpoint  
programme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well it is actually two different things. The reality is when I spoke on the  
Checkpoint  
programme—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is speaking to a point of order not having a debate so would the member please be heard in silence. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is a very simple issue. The “our view” referred to in the  
Checkpoint  
programme was made in my capacity as leader of the United Future party. I do not recall—and I am happy to be corrected on this point—using the words “our view” in the House this afternoon. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I need no more help on this particular point of order. It is not a point of order. I think however the clarifications that were given were quite helpful as to who was speaking in what capacity. But I repeat that in this House when a Minister speaks he or she speaks on behalf of the Government. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider for a moment the point of order Dr Cullen raised in which he said it was quite possible for the Minister in this case to be answering a question using the term “our view” and not be representing the Government. I assume that is therefore the interpretation Dr Cullen would have when Mr Peters answers a question on foreign policy—that when he uses the term “our view” he would be referring to his own position. That is not the position in terms of their support agreement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member is relitigating my ruling. When Ministers speak in this House they speak on behalf of the Government. When they speak outside that will be a matter of the context. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is an issue here that actually goes a little further than I think you have allowed so far in your ruling. If you have just ruled that the two Ministers who are outside Cabinet and have ministerial responsibilities when speaking outside this House are not speaking as Ministers and therefore are not accountable as part of the Government are you ruling that we cannot question them in this House as Ministers for what they say outside this Parliament? Because if you are ruling— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well I humbly suggest that you actually clarify the situation because what you have just told this House leaves it very messy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I would like to point out that in your ruling you were very very clear. You said that “outside” the House depends on the context. That seems to have escaped the member who raised the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker you cannot have a different context surely for someone who is speaking about a matter that is part of a ministerial portfolio. This is one of the things that we asked you to consider a few weeks ago because we have an absolute right to question Ministers about their involvement in their portfolios as they relate to the Government. But what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to ask the Minister whether on this day he had on his Minister’s hat or his party leader’s hat? Or is it incumbent upon Ministers on each occasion to explain exactly what they are there for? There is no guidance at all for this House at the present time just press statements made by various members of the Government and also a speech— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sit down! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please the member has not finished his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We also had a speech from Michael Cullen saying that we live in a time of an evolving constitution. Ministerial responsibility is important. This House has a right to know what its bounds are if they are being changed. You Madam Speaker as the person who claims the privilege of the House do have a role in ensuring we know exactly what those bounds are. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The issue of whether it is in context is very important. If a member of United Future or New Zealand First was speaking at a New Zealand First conference one would expect him or her to be speaking about his or her party’s policy and the party’s position. I have noted from reading  
Hansard  
and other reports that some members in this House are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. It is best evidenced by the fact that lawyers from the National Party side of the House are not arguing that. All those who are unqualified—the sort of home-made Blackstones of the National Party—are getting on their feet and embarrassing themselves in front of their back bench. Their back bench must be deeply concerned that that is the kind of constitutional argument being put up here by the National Party—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member is still continuing on his existing point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I am entitled to have my point of order heard in silence not this barracking that you are hearing right now. Again they refuse to keep silent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is simply this. The issue of whether a speech is being made in a certain context is fundamentally important. If one is speaking in this House as a Minister obviously one is speaking on behalf of the Government’s position. But outside this House in a range of different venues it may well be as you say Madam Speaker that the context is as a party leader with a party policy. Now anybody could understand that but I can see why Gerry Brownlee cannot. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the position is very clear. The National Party has made a hash of question time and is now trying to resolve the matter by points of order—and we see the foremost member himself. [ 
Interruption 
] If I might point something out having the advantage of the microphone over the members opposite— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a very important point— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I wish to hear it in silence otherwise members will be leaving this Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I would have made this point earlier. The reason why no objection was taken to the original question is that it brought into issue the personal income tax thresholds which are clearly within the province of the Minister of Revenue. But the policy responsibility for the carbon tax does not lie with the Minister of Revenue it lies with the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues Mr David Parker and the Minister of— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Finance. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is right myself. So the issue that is being raised by members opposite is actually irrelevant in any case because the member who is answering the questions is not responsible for the carriage of the carbon charge policy either inside the House or outside it.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry I have heard enough. If this is a different point of order the member may raise it but the member has already spoken once on this point of order and I am ruling. There has been considerable debate and discussion on it. The point I made in my original ruling was that when a Minister speaks as a Minister in this House or if members want clarification outside the House he or she speaks for the Government. The point I made about context is that the Speaker does not know outside the House whether that person is speaking as a Minister. That is the ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Does that ruling then go against the view that Dr Cullen has that someone such as Mr Dunne in fact cannot answer a question like this because he does not speak for the Government other than on the very tight and narrow bounds of his portfolio? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He can’t speak for the Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I rule that it does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am sorry I will ask a question. You have just given a ruling in which you said that if a Minister speaks in the House he speaks for the Government. Now I have just asked you whether that counters the view that Michael Cullen offered which was that Peter Dunne could not answer this because he is not the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues nor is he the Minister of Finance. You said: “Yes that’s right.” Now which is it to be? We need to have those bounds clearly understood and clearly spelt out for us. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. When a member is speaking as a Minister within his or her portfolio obviously he or she speaks for the Government. My understanding of the point that Dr Cullen was making was that the question actually referred to matters that were outside the specific ministerial responsibilities. I hope that clarifies it for the member in which case then that would not be the case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question then arises why did Mr Dunne answer the question? It further arises why was the question directed—given that the Government chooses who answers questions—to the Minister of Revenue? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If the member cared to read the principal question carbon tax is not actually the principal part of the question. It is a question of if the carbon tax went what are the implications for the income tax thresholds which of course is part of the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. That is why the original question was in order. I could have raised a point of order during one of the supplementary questions but unlike members opposite I do not bob up every few minutes on a point of order just to hear myself speak. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the National Radio transcript in which Mr Peter Dunne is described as the Minister of Revenue and stated: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I pray for your indulgence in this because I want to refer to a number of Speakers’ rulings. It relates to the manner of questions and the manner of answers to questions and it flows on from my colleague Hone Harawira who used the piece of string and Jack and Jill answer. First of all Speaker’s ruling 154/6 states: “Questions are an important means by which Ministers are accountable to the House. For a Minister to respond in an irrelevant manner is to act contrary to the spirit of the question process. It is incumbent on Ministers to treat questions in a manner that is consistent with their constitutional responsibilities.” Speaker’s ruling 154/1 has within it the words: “Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” Speaker’s ruling 155/2 states: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for …” then the ruling states that the Minister can do so. So basically the Minister should reply with the bare facts and provide some supplementary answer. Speaker’s ruling 153/3 states: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest; …”. 
Now I want to tell you Madam Speaker that in my 18 years in this place I have seen a deterioration in the ability of members of this House to hold the executive to account—very simple “yes” “no” questions. I remember once asking the Minister for Tertiary Education whether student debt had gone up or down. The Minister would not answer the question and the Speaker’s ruling was that he had addressed the question. I came away from this House not knowing what the answer was. I asked the Speaker Jonathan Hunt afterwards what the answer was. He did not know either. So the Minister had not addressed the question because it was specific. I can understand in some questions that are wide ranging calling for an opinion or need a fairly lengthy answer why members on this side may be unhappy with it. But when my colleague Judith Collins asked a very specific question: “Does the Minister stand by his statement?” I would like you to refer to each one of those Speakers’ rulings made by a number of Speakers and say that it is in the interests of this House it is in the interests of holding the executive to account and it is actually in the public interest for the Minister to be held accountable by you rather than the excuse “Oh well he addressed the question.” As Hone Harawira did he could just say “Jack and Jill” and he has addressed the question. If it is a specific question of that nature you say to the Minister: “It was a specific question. It deserves a specific answer” and the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings I think back that up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation and dissertation on the Speakers’ rulings. They have of course been noted. I do not think any Minister has at least in this session responded in an irrelevant manner though I do accept that it may not have always been satisfactory. But I think the matters have been taken seriously. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Allegations—Hon David Benson-Pope 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received two applications under Standing Order 380 one from Rodney Hide on the release of a police report relating to allegations against the Hon David Benson-Pope and the other from the Hon Bill English in relation to the release of the report by the Controller and Auditor-General into Te Wananga o Aotearoa. They are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial and administrative responsibility of the Government. I would have been inclined to accept either one of the applications. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded that given the implications for tertiary institutions the report into the wananga is the most important matter and must be given priority in accordance with the Standing Orders. 
I therefore accept the application from the Hon Bill English and I call upon him to move that the House take note of a particular case of recent importance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for both those debates to be held today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.  
Urgent Debates 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Auditor-General’s Report 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Today the Government backed down on its decision to sack the council of the wananga. There can be no other interpretation of Dr Cullen’s public statement. I might just give the House a little bit of history so it understands just how far Dr Cullen has backed down. As early as April 2002 the Government was aware of significant issues at the wananga. There was a long difficult and sad history of officials knowing exactly what was going on at the wananga but doing nothing about it. Then it came to election year. But back in 2002 the Government had appointed a development adviser to the wananga. That person was Mr Graeme McNally. He earned $127000 in fees and was meant to be overseeing improvements in governance and financial management at the wananga. 
John Key 
: Over what period? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over a long period because there was plenty to do. Of course he became frustrated. No one particularly Ministers seemed to be taking any notice of him and therefore a box of incriminating material turned up in Ken Shirley’s office—a member who has now left Parliament.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are you accusing him of doing that? Go and do that outside Parliament! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A box of material turned up—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister feels very anxious about the issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member interjecting to stand withdraw and apologise. He cannot insinuate that the member is a liar. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Trevor Mallard feels very sensitive about this issue because he was the Minister of Education for 6 years and in that time he oversaw the growth of the wananga from fewer than 1000 equivalent full-time students when National left office to 35000 at its peak. Trevor Mallard wrote out every cheque. He ticked off every Cabinet decision every year. He was chief banker for the wananga.  
John Key 
: How much was involved? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over that 5-year period I am guessing well over $600 million was paid to the wananga by Dr Cullen and Trevor Mallard.  
John Key 
: What a disgrace! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It was a disgrace. What did he do about it? Well he did nothing until February 2005. [ 
Interruption 
] I would laugh at the member’s efforts too if I were him. 
In 2005 this Parliament saw that box of incriminating material from the wananga and Mr Mallard decided he should do something. He figured out that in election year he had better look like he was kicking the wananga pretty hard. The Government’s strategy was to make as much noise as possible in the run-up to the election then after the election back off. That is what has happened today. I can tell the public of New Zealand that if there were to be an election in a month’s time the wananga council would have been sacked today on the basis of this damning report from the Auditor-General. 
In June 2005 Mr Mallard wrote to the chair of the council: “Notice of preliminary decision to appoint a commissioner”. The letter stated that he had “formed the preliminary view that the council should be dissolved and a commissioner appointed in its place”. So he had decided to sack the council. It was a preliminary view whereby the council was given a bit of time to come back and plead its case—by Monday 11 July a couple of weeks after he wrote the letter. As I recall that letter received quite a lot of publicity. In fact it got the Minister off the hook; he had been under a fair bit of pressure over what was going on with the wananga. 
He was thorough: there were six criteria in the statute that had to be met in order for the council to be sacked. It is my guess that because the Minister is reasonably thorough—about some things but not about the wananga—he sought legal advice. He went through and made sure the council met all the criteria and it turned out it did. He made it clear that the viability of the institution as a going concern was the main serious risk. So there we were—the wananga council had a decision from the Minister that it was going to be sacked and it had 2 weeks to respond. Well after 2 weeks it was given an extension because by that time Labour had figured out how much damage that was doing to its Maori support and all the people who supported the wananga were going to support the Maori Party. So Trevor Mallard decided he needed to back off. 
What excuse did he come up with? Well here it is! Mr Mallard on 21 September about 7 weeks after the deadline was meant to have expired said: “I am waiting for the report from the Auditor-General.” He had not moved to sack the council because he did not have the report of the Auditor-General’s investigation. He said: “I am still waiting for information. I have said it was my intention to decide before the election.” Well he did not do that because he knew that the Maori Party would have won seven seats if he had fired the council. So it was a pretty delicate balancing act. He had to get the Pakeha electorate assured that he was going to kick the Maoris hard enough but not kick them so hard that they would all go and vote for the Maori Party. He was kind of half right. But he has left the Government with a very difficult problem today. Of course he thinks it does not matter because in his own cynical way it does not matter. He did say he was going to sack the council. He said he was going to wait for the Auditor-General’s report. Well ladies and gentlemen today we have the Auditor-General’s report.  
It states that the wananga is “operating according to procedures that are not fit for a public entity.” It outlines unidentified and badly managed conflicts of interest; lack of procedure around large-scale financial decisions such as multimillion dollar purchases of assets; and problems with the credit cards of senior management which go into tens of thousands of dollars. I have had a look through that report to see whether there is anything at all that means there is less reason to sack the council. 
John Key 
: Is there? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No there are a great deal many more reasons to sack the council and put in a commissioner. 
So what is the hold-up? That is the question Dr Cullen has to answer today. Why has the Government backed down on a well-documented process where it said it would sack the council; where it also said— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’re just thick. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ah so we are thick! We do not understand! That is a bit like David Benson-Pope’s staff member—he did not understand that if he did what the Minister told him he would get sacked. He did not understand that. Well I tell Dr Cullen that we do understand and we want him to tell the House why he has backed down. I suspect there is some deal in the background and it probably goes like this: if the new council sacks Rongo Wetere then the Minister will leave the council in place. I think that is probably the deal. 
When the Minister gets a chance to speak I want him to tell the House which of six criteria do not now apply. The wananga met six criteria—it met every one of them—for getting the council sacked. If we believe Dr Cullen today the Auditor-General’s report tells us that that is no longer the case that somehow the wananga is in a better condition than it was. 
Well if that is the case then the Auditor-General’s report is I suppose Dr Cullen would say completely out of date. Is that what he will tell the House—that the Auditor-General’s report has nothing to do with what is happening in the wananga? Yes I think that is what he will get up and say. He will say that 5 years of massive growth financial mismanagement and deals for family members have all been cleaned up in the last couple of months that they have all gone—there are now no concerns at all. Well it is possible he might believe that because he has believed everything that officials told him over the last 5 years when they kept saying: “We have to tread softly here. We have to take our time. We have to take it easy.” What did happen over that time is that Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey had over 50 briefings on the problems at Te Wananga o Aotearoa including 2003 weekly briefings in 2003. 
John Key 
: What did they learn? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a question Dr Cullen could give us the answer to. When we read the Auditor-General’s report we see it says a whole lot of things that are in a report that was given to the Government in 2002. 
John Key 
: That can’t be right. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It can’t be right? Well it is right. The same statements about arrangements with family members financial mismanagement and difficulties with governance are in a report dated April 2002. It was not in late 2002 but in April 2002. 
This is where we come to the issue of accountability. Who is going to be accountable for the 6 years during which the Labour Government poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this institution knowing that that public money was being badly managed? They knew in April 2002. There is nothing new in the Auditor-General’s report. All the same things that are being said now were said then. Hundreds of public officials saw the arrangements among the family members. 
John Key 
: Didn’t like it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know whether they liked it. Maybe they reported to Ministers; maybe they did not. If they did report to Ministers what did the Ministers do about it? If as recently as June 2005 the Auditor-General was still able to report one of those spaghetti diagrams that shows everyone in business with everyone else and they are all related then Dr Cullen when he gets up in this House should tell us who will be held accountable. Is it the Ministers? Is it the officials? Is it him? Is it Shane Jones who sat on the audit and finance committee of the wananga for a couple of years? Mr Shane Jones is the man they brought in to tidy it up. He knows all about it. So why do they not let him get up and speak? Why does he not explain the fees that he collected to oversee what the Auditor-General has described as “an organisation with procedures not fit to be a public entity.”? So the burden of accountability falls heavily on the front row today: Dr Cullen who has backed down today by not sacking the council; Trevor Mallard who wrote out every cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars knowing where that taxpayers’ money was going; and Shane Jones who was brought in to clean it up and by all accounts probably made it worse according to the Auditor-General’s report. I look forward to hearing three fine speeches from them saying: “We were responsible.” because it is the Labour Cabinet that is responsible. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Is it not wonderful that in a 15-minute speech on the wananga Mr English in that failed leadership bid managed not once to mention Rongo Wetere or the Wetere family. It is me who took over only a few weeks ago who is the Minister responsible for what happened in 2002 2003 and 2004 not Rongo Wetere! That is not what the Auditor-General’s report says. 
What did Mr English say when he was crawling around a Maori Television programme with Willie Jackson? What did he say about the wananga on 13 June 2005? I assume it must have been a Friday as it was the 13th given the quotes. He said that what Mr Mallard needs to do now is to stop trying to run the wananga. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. I think the speech we just heard said the exact opposite. “Apply the same kind of criteria that he is meant to apply to all the other tertiary education institutions and let them get on with the job.” Let Rongo get on with the job of making sure his family gets rich out of Te Wananga o Aotearoa. Why? Because Rongo Wetere is a paid-up member of the National Party. Rongo Wetere said that he was looking forward to the National Party getting back in office because it meant they would be looked after by Mr English and his mates. That is why when his mates all turned up outside Parliament a few weeks ago the National Party was there to meet them. My goodness me! There is a big “h” word for all of this and outside the House I will be tempted to use it on a number of occasions. 
But he said more than that. He said that as much as Labour talks about wanting to help people at the bottom it is much more interested in preserving institutions like polytechs than—listen to this—helping or letting an institution like the wananga have its head. Today of course he has demanded that we should have had their heads collectively. He has missed an important point. I told him three times during question time but Mr English does not ever listen to the answers given in question time. I do not know why Ministers even bother to address questions let alone answer them when Mr English is asking them because he never listens to the answers. I told him that in July after Mr Mallard had written to the council saying he had formed the conclusion that they should be dismissed and a commissioner sent in six members of that council resigned by resolution. The five persons left on the council have not been supportive of the Rongo Wetere regime. Indeed Mr Wetere has been on leave throughout most of that period. They have been moving to address the questions and to do what needs to be done to put the wananga on a sound financial governance and management basis because as Mr English rightly said it has courses that do have value and that do reach a lot of people. 
What should not happen here is that we throw the baby out with the bathwater and in some blind attempt to wind up the Pakeha vote we are back to the National Party’s classic bit of Maori kicking so that we can try to win some votes—except of course when one is talking to the Maori Party trying to form a Government we offer them everything. In terms of some of the things that were being offered in the talks between the National Party and the Maori Party they would have been offered a wananga on every street corner just about. 
It was the National Party that set up the wananga. Long before Dr Smith needed his pills National set up and uncapped the wananga in 1999 and ensured therefore that it could grow. It was the National Party that was cosied up to the wananga for the last 2 or 3 months and Mr Wetere made it clear that they had given—[ 
Interruption 
] Because the council which was threatened with dismissal is not the council in place now. That is the fifth time of answering for poor Mr English. If he would take the sheepskins out of his ears he might be able to hear what is being said in question time in the House. 
The report is not about the Government it is about the governance and the management of Te Wananga o Aotearoa. There was poor decision-making and practices in respect of significant expenditure. They have buildings to which they do not have title on leased land. Under common law that means the landowner can walk off with the building if he or she wants to. Who owns the land? The Aotearoa Institute. Who is connected with that institute? Rongo Wetere and the rest of the family. It is disgraceful. It is a disgraceful situation but Mr English does not condemn it at all. All he wants to do is sack a council that had sacked itself in July of this year. 
There has been inadequate identification and management of conflicts of interest—not small; we are talking $70 million between the various elements of the family. This is a small family business that has turned into a 63000-strong institution and is still behaving like a small family business. I do need to add that Mrs Susan Cullen is no relation of mine. There are only four people with my surname who are related to me and she is not one of them. But even she is telling her father that it is time to resign for the good of the wananga and to move on so that change can occur as the current council and the current Crown observer and manager are in fact planning and I have been in close contact with them. 
There were unacceptable practices in senior management. We are told of course by Mr Wetere that in fact information was not provided to the Controller and Auditor-General. That is not true. When the information was collected he was still the chief executive in 2004. So if it was not given he was the person who did not give it. That excuse on radio this morning will not do. He claimed he had no direct involvement in the conflicts of interest. There are 10 major circumstances listed in the report where Mr Wetere had direct involvement in the conflicts of interest including massive elements such as the Mahi Ora joint venture. These are not small conflicts of interest these are massive conflicts of interest that actually occurred. 
This report is not just hard; it is also sad. People talk about “the wananga” but there are two others which have been in no strife or difficulty at all. Even this wananga has performed many good things and done very very good things particularly with many Maori people who have not successfully been through their first chance in education and have been reconnected to education and skills and thereby to the workforce. 
The issue now is ensure the long-term viability of te wananga on the basis of proper governance and management. There are still legal arguments before the court. Mr Wetere has a legal argument about his employment status. There is an argument still about whether the council in fact has been acting legally since July. There is of course the Waitangi Tribunal case which is finished but has yet to be reported on in terms of its conclusions. 
There has been an attempt to argue that we misunderstand tikanga Maori in taking a hard attitude to these matters and that there has been Crown bullying. Well Mr English complained that there has been no Crown bullying. As for tikanga Maori it does not mean $70 million of contracts going out to members of one’s family without proper processes. If it is then it needs to change—but it is not. The other wananga are not engaged in these activities and the current council is dominated by Maori who do not approve of those practices and have dissociated themselves from those practices. That I say to Mr English is why I do not need to sack them. But circumstances may change. There are things that can happen— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did you back down? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I did not back down. The council backed down by six of its members resigning leaving in place a majority that in fact supports the Government’s efforts to reform Te Wananga o Aotearoa. But of course big brave Dr Smith will take the pills charge in there and say: “We know you’re on our side but we’re going to sack you anyway because we want to show that we can beat up Maori even when they are doing it properly. We can beat them up because we’re just big tough Pakeha boys.”—and by God are they boys and they have shown that again this afternoon in this House in the way that they have behaved. It is not Crown bullying to say that an institution receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of Government funding must have proper accountability processes must have proper governance and must have proper management on behalf of the people that it is working for. At the present time we have a process in place. That process has been quietly working for months. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Years. You were told in 2002. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is no information in this report I say to Dr Smith that—[ 
Interruption 
] There is nothing in this report about events since July 2005. All the events referred to in this report are in 2002 2003 and 2004. I say to Dr Smith that he has to add on a year to get to the present time. There is nothing in this report about what is happening at the present time and no amount of bluster from the member or from Mr English is going to change that particular fact. 
A Crown manager has been in place since March to handle the financial affairs of the wananga. The wananga is on a very tight financial leash. Its current loan has been turned over for a few weeks and expires again on 15 December. They are not going to be let on to a long financial leash for some time yet—until I am fully satisfied. 
It is possible that things may change. If for example other people come back on to the council and there is an attempt to revert to the previous practices I will have no hesitation but to move. I repeat what I said in the House this afternoon. I am ready to move at any stage and notify the council that if necessary we will appoint a commissioner. We have already in the last few weeks investigated the issue of a statutory manager and if certain things change we will be able to move on that if need be. Finally—and sorry I say to Dr Smith; he does not have one of his member’s bills ready—I have already got a bill ready to send commissioners into te wananga if necessary. If events change that bill will be activated if that seems the most desirable option. But I guarantee that if we do those adolescents on the other side of the House will once again find a reason to oppose it. They will say that it is too little too late or too much too early or too much too little too late too early or whatever other reason the National Party always finds to say no. 
National is still a party hopelessly mired in an Opposition mentality with middle-aged ex - young men facing the prospect of being elderly before they have any chance of being in Government again. They know very well that when they talk about the wananga they are simply playing the race card yet again when what needs to be done is to do exactly what we are doing—quietly working with the reconstituted council working with the Crown manager and Crown observer keeping our options open and ensuring that this institution can be reconstructed in terms of its governance and management on a sound and secure basis. But of course that is not what the National Party wants. What the National Party wants is Maori failure. The one thing National members cannot stand is Maori success because that is not part of the world view that people like Mr English and Dr Smith have though it is part of the world view of some of the new back-benchers who came into the National Party for their first term this year. We have nothing to apologise for at all but there are people out there associated with the previous governance of this institution who have a great deal to apologise for and it is time they did so and faced up to their responsibilities. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 It is certainly true that the report of the Controller and Auditor-General is a bad report. It does not exonerate Rongo Wetere. The conflicts of interest which are set out in the report were extensive and over a long period of time and the financial transactions that were involved and integrated into those conflicts of interest reached the many millions of dollars. It shows in our view a very clear failure on the part of those who were managing te wananga at the time to manage properly the public funds that were set for a very critical public function. We believe that the management including any of the Government appointees and all the Government-associated organisations that were involved with the wananga over that time—all of them—must take full responsibility for their part in these failures. They should do this because they should protect the tauira who are the real point of the wananga’s existence.  
There has been considerable criticism about the roll growth at the wananga and what this has actually demonstrated is the desperate need for an institution like this. Sixty thousand students have found a supportive and responsive environment; obviously one they could not find anywhere in the tertiary sector. The report alongside its more damning comments notes that the wananga attracts a very high proportion of mature students Maori students and students without previous qualifications. Here lies the real strength of the wananga its intention and what it is really good at doing: providing support and education for those people. The wananga fills a gap that has been left by decades of a State education system that has failed generations of Maori and Pakeha alike. Its roll growth is a clear example of that.  
I have seen some of the restructuring proposals by some of the people currently involved with the wananga sharing how they will restructure the wananga so that it is effective and continues to deliver for the students and staff. These restructuring proposals support the core business of the wananga are clear about the functions and the fundamental purpose of the wananga’s existence support the students in the sorts of services they want to see provided by the wananga and support the staff who in some ways are the most affected and the most voiceless in these circumstances.  
I know of a number of courses in Dunedin being run under the wananga and a number of marae—particularly north of Dunedin on the coast—that run wananga courses for things like weaving for example and other courses. These are small marae working for their community. They provide inclusive courses for their community which are not for Maori only as the Government seems to insist—an obviously discriminatory and exclusive system—but are an inclusive means for these people to come together to learn new skills and ideas and to share them with their community.  
These marae are community focused and they provide a focal point for community action. Because they are small and marae based they support the students and staff in a wide range of areas not just in the skills that they are working on at the time. With some of them—and with one in particular just north of Dunedin on the coast—there is extraordinary success for those tauira in developing artistic skills in particular. This has led to a number of those tauira participating in very prestigious exhibitions in Dunedin alongside polytechnic and university fine-art students’ work. It clearly shows that there is a role for the wananga in providing these services. People need them and the wananga is able to get to the smallest possible communities and provide that support.  
We cannot allow the tauira and the staff to suffer any more uncertainty than they already have in the political debacle that has surrounded the wananga. Politicians in this House—particularly those from National and ACT—should also take full responsibility about their role in driving up that uncertainty which makes it more and more difficult for staff and students to continue to operate within the wananga environment given the extraordinary support that the wananga can provide for them.  
Finally I urge those responsible for the mismanagement of the wananga—and it is clear that there has been considerable mismanagement—to think first and foremost about the students and staff and to take the action they need to take. If that means resigning then they should resign. They should take full responsibility for their failures so that those students and staff can have a sense of being able to continue with their work and have some security about what they are doing. I urge the Government also to take responsibility for its failed management of which there have been considerable examples—of course it always seems to get away with not taking that responsibility—for its refusal to provide the settlement funds that it was supposed to provide and continues not to; for its failure in its policy that allowed for the rapid expansion in the number of students for its failure to constrain in its policy framework that rapid growth; and for the failure of the Government appointees and all of the Government agencies that have continually reviewed and looked at the wananga over a number of years to manage the situation effectively. In fact the Government could have done a lot more to make sure that the wananga did not get to this point. It failed to do so—why I do not know—and therefore has contributed considerably to the failure of the wananga and needs to take full responsibility for that.  
In the end our concern is for the staff and students of the wananga. We strongly support the wananga’s intention and its purpose. We believe it provides a very good essential service to a large number of members of the community that no other institution is able to provide and we hope that in the future the wananga will continue to provide those services to its people. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Just before we came into the House today Dr Cullen issued a press release stating: “I believe it would be in the best interests of the wananga if Rongo Wetere listened to some of those closest to him and stood aside as chief executive.” Such a statement is hardly surprising when we turn to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General which focuses heavily on Rongo Wetere and members of the whanau while acknowledging that they were not solely responsible for governing and managing Te Wananga o Aotearoa. We are not here to make judgments on either Mr Wetere or his whanau. Our role is not to usurp the role of the judiciary the police the Auditor-General or any other statutory body that takes on this role but we are here on behalf of our constituency to ask questions about the basic standards of justice and fair treatment before the law.  
Despite the reservation that governance and management did not reside solely with Mr Wetere the report suggests that it was not necessary to name the other individuals whom it states “play important roles in its governance and management”. The report stated further that although the council and senior management of Te Wananga have been so heavily involved: “Rongo Wetere has not had adequate help and advice from those around him”. On 9 May this year the Minister of Education described Te Wananga o Aotearoa as being in a very very serious financial governance and managerial situation. So began the unprecedented pursuit of one man and his family. The question we have always asked is why the focus was not put on those for whom oversight of those activities was their responsibility. A serious financial governance and managerial situation is surely something that needs a comprehensive analysis of all factors including the Crown watchdogs—the nature of the support made available by Crown resources and its early warning systems.  
Can anyone in this House recollect a situation when an organisation a flagship of Aotearoa was losing over $1 million a day as a result of poor decision-making practices for significant expenditure? Indeed this organisation has experienced the biggest financial loss in New Zealand’s corporate history. So severe was the loss that the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen handed over a taxpayer loan of $550 million at commercial rates conditional upon a satisfactory outcome of due diligence. The $550 million was not enough; another $300 million was required from Brierley’s and Singapore Airlines to get this flagship into a situation of profit again. We are not talking about Te Wananga o Aotearoa here; this is Air New Zealand the so-called national symbol of the country’s airlines with many of the top commercial brains in the country.  
Four years ago Dr Cullen was happy to bail out this flagship with taxpayer money without an inquiry such as the one Te Wananga o Aotearoa has had to endure. If further action needs to be taken now then we would encourage the Government to take it. If crimes have been committed then we would support natural justice following its course. The $20 million suspensory loan that has been represented as being a generous offer by the Government should have been made available last year. Moreover it should have been a capital grant not a loan. If this were done the shortfall between the wananga’s capital funding and that of other tertiary institutions would still be substantial.  
I want to raise one further issue at this point of inquiry. The settlement agreement was made not to exclude students but to allow for the growth of Maori numbers in tertiary education. That growth has exceeded all expectations. Ministry of Education statistics reveal that Maori participation in tertiary education almost doubled from 1999 to 2003 from 32825 to 62574 students. But so too has the growth of non-Maori participation. Why then would any thinking Minister want to inhibit such healthy racial interactions as those provided at the wananga? This country’s largest tertiary educational institution Te Wananga o Aotearoa has single-handedly created a Maori tertiary education market. In 3 or 4 years it has achieved what successive Governments have promised decade after decade but have failed to deliver. The Maori Party wonders therefore whether the real agenda by exposing Te Wananga o Aotearoa to successive inquiry upon inquiry is because of the Government’s own inability to adequately monitor and give advice to all tertiary institutions including polytechnics and universities. All those organisations have difficulty with managing budgets which is why they regularly increase their fees to their students. Indeed the Government has had to bail out some of those organisations—just as it should. Tertiary education is after all very important for this country in going forward.  
What Te Wananga o Aotearoa has to offer students many of whom are experiencing tertiary education for the first time is also important for this country in going forward. To undermine the wananga’s existence would be a blight on our society. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 The inquiry by the Controller and Auditor-General into Te Wananga o Aotearoa is an interesting situation because we have always known that failure is a good teacher. Possibly the failure in this case was the failure to deal appropriately with what appears to be phenomenal success. During the Address in Reply debate I said that I had some concerns regarding our response to the crisis faced by the wananga. I was concerned that we did not develop a knee-jerk reaction and throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater because the interesting thing for me as someone with an education background is the amazing success that we have had with the wananga in terms of second-chance education. People who have gone into that institution lacking a huge amount of confidence and who have lacked belief in themselves that they could improve their lot through education have been given the chance through some courses that are confidence-building. Such courses might not result in great employable skill levels but they start people down the road towards tertiary education. There is huge anecdotal evidence that the wananga has delivered well on those courses. 
However the institution seems to have failed to manage that growth. Let us have a look at what we are talking about. The wananga moved from having just over 1000 students in 1999 to having up to 63387 students by the year 2003. That equates to 34280 equivalent full-time students—a phenomenal and rapid growth. The wananga ended up with 1232 staff at that same time. I believe that it failed to consolidate that growth at any stage and to upgrade its procedures and accountability around that growth. I have some sympathy with that. I imagine that it is very difficult to put brakes on what is compelling demand that meets real needs.  
In the brief time I have to speak on this I want to feature the lessons we need to learn when things are going well. Sometimes it is more difficult to manage success than it is to rectify failure and I think that that is probably the situation we are facing here. The issues that have been highlighted by the Controller and Auditor-General are not small matters. There have been poor decision-making practices particularly around the issue of significant expenditure. There have been inadequate identification and management where there are clear conflicts of interest. Good practice is well established for how conflicts of interest are managed and identified but these principles have all seemed to be lost in the wash of success. There have been unacceptable practices in senior management expenses particularly concerning international travel and credit card expenditure. Yet in the middle of all that we must not lose sight of what second-chance education has meant for literally thousands of New Zealanders. So my concern today is that as we address this issue and encourage those who should have been more watchful and supportive—those who should have been asking questions a lot more and those who should have been responding when asked serious questions—let us make sure that as answers are found we are watchful also of other initiatives where success is enjoyed into the future and learn from them. Let us not arrive back here again on another issue. 
At the same time let us not undermine the very good work that has happened through the wananga. I believe that courses have been on offer that have stretched the bounds of good second-chance education. There have been loose arrangements around what was acceptable and what was not and those do need to be corrected. I have been concerned at times to hear members of this House mock some of the ice-breaker activities that have obviously been run on some of those courses yet ice-breaker activities are common even on corporate courses where a group of people needs to be pulled together to build some team spirit for the short-term purpose of a course. Some sort of silly activity is run to break down those barriers so that people can participate quickly and overcome the natural social boundaries that often exist between people who are new to each other. I have heard members of this House ridicule and mock the content of some of those courses—content that included silly ice-breakers that are common to many courses. Such sarcasm has undermined what have been actually quite worthwhile courses that have seen those who participated go on to some really significant qualification courses. They needed to start with that ice-breaker course which members have often taken time to mock in this House. People needed to start somewhere where they were safe where they could achieve and where the measuring of their success was such that it built their confidence and not repeated in them that sense of failure they were often left with from their primary and secondary education. 
As I finish this speech I want to caution the House and ask for us to be really careful. Let us ask the hard questions let us hold people to account and let us make sure we learn the lessons that need to be learnt. Let us make sure that those who need to put up their hands and make changes do so but let us not do that at the expense of people who have relied on Te Wananga o Aotearoa who have gained huge benefit from its courses and who have gone on to be extremely productive. They are the people of whom the wananga is proud to say: “ They went through our institution and look what they are achieving now.” I think we should be supportive of that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This Auditor-General’s report brings into very serious question both the credibility and the competence of this decaying rotten Government that we have. I will firstly deal with the issue of credibility.  
We have a letter from the previous Minister of Education Trevor Mallard dated 20 June stating that the council of Te Wananga o Aotearoa should be fired. That is what he stated in June but was it fired? No it was not. That was a cute pre-election exercise to try to pretend to the public of New Zealand that the Government was all about action when in fact there was nothing but inaction. Then during the latter stages of the election campaign Trevor Mallard said that the decision on firing the council would be made before the election. Well did that happen? Was that promise of that Government Minister followed through on? No it was not. [ 
Interruption 
] Just after the election I tell Mr Hodgson Mr Mallard said that the decision would be made when the Auditor-General's report was tabled. Well the Auditor-General’s report was tabled yesterday. Do members know what Government members now say? They say it is has been too long since the Government agreed to fire the wananga’s council to follow through on that. This situation is just like that of David Benson-Pope. We cannot believe what Ministers say any more. The credibility of Ministers in this Government cannot be believed.  
Then we come to the issue of the council of the wananga. That body is legally responsible for over $600 million of hard-earned public money. Dr Cullen has said to us that we should not be concerned because members of the council have changed—that even though we are sitting on a damning report about the wananga we should not be concerned because there have been changes. Well let us hang on a moment because Mr Craig Coxhead is still the chair of the wananga council. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What did the courts say about this man? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Government members do not want to talk about the wananga; they will make every possible diversion.  
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court judge say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Mr Hughes who is piping up to talk about the wananga. Who takes responsibility for this report from the Auditor-General and for the $600 million of public money?  
Let us go back to the public record. We can go back to a report to the full Cabinet—Mr Hodgson was there—dated April 2002. The Ministry of Education reported to Ministers that there were gross issues of accountability and serious issues of governance that needed to be addressed. The report went on to state that there were significant audit concerns about the wananga. When was that report released? It is dated April 2002. Members on the Opposition side of the House ask why Ministers sat on advice given in April 2002 with the result that 3½ years later the Auditor-General states that the problems still have not been fixed and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of public money have been wasted. We ask the Government who is accountable. Who is accountable for this damning report from the Auditor-General? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The Auditor-General.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The former Minister of Education Trevor Mallard says that it is the Auditor-General. I say to the Minister that when I left the position of Minister of Education in 1999 the wananga was receiving $5 million per year. Under Mr Mallard’s watch that funding increased to $239 million per year. Who in this House was accountable for Vote Education? Trevor Mallard was responsible for it in that period. Why have we not heard Trevor Mallard take some accountability in this debate for the huge issues raised in the Auditor-General’s report?  
Let us look at some of the things the Auditor-General stated about the wananga in this report. The report states that there was a loose policy in respect of credit cards being used to pay for international travel. What does that mean? It means that there has been globetrotting at taxpayers’ expense while young New Zealanders who should have been receiving a quality education were not doing so. The report states that there were gross conflicts of interest in terms of the financial management of arrangements made between people at the wananga and their close relatives. That is nepotism in a Government-funded organisation that is receiving $239 million of public money. What do Government Ministers say? They say that nobody is accountable. Has any Minister stood up and said he or she is the Minister responsible for the huge increase in funding and that he or she accepts a share of the responsibility for this damning report from the Auditor-General? We get absolute silence.  
We can then ask Minister Trevor Mallard when he first became concerned about governance and financial management at the wananga. Do members know what Mr Mallard has said? He has said it was when he first became the Minister. Well that was in 1999. If we take him at his word that he was concerned about the wananga in 1999 then I have a simple question for him: why did he increase the funding from $5 million per year to $239 million per year if he had concerns about the financial accountability of that organisation from day one?  
But the plot thickens. Do members know who was on the wananga’s audit and risk committee during the period covered by this damning report from the Auditor-General? It was Mr Shane Jones. Who is Mr Shane Jones? Is he not the new star light and saviour of the Labour Party? I would like Mr Jones to make a contribution in this afternoon’s debate. He has been paid public money to keep an eye on the $600 million of public money that has been paid to the wananga by serving on the very audit and risk committee responsible for that and we have not heard one jot from him. I ask the next Government member who speaks to tell us why the Government is so keen to damn some people but Mr Shane Jones’ name has not been mentioned.  
Then we can question just what was going on in the Government. We know that back in 2003 Ministers Maharey and Mallard were getting weekly briefings—not just briefings but weekly briefings—on the wananga.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No they weren’t.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Mallard pipes up.  
Hon Bill English 
: That’s what the papers state.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what the papers state.  
Hon Bill English 
: Maybe he didn’t turn up to them.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is quite likely that as my colleague Bill English said the Minister did not turn up to the meetings. But the papers state that Mr Mallard was receiving weekly briefings.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says I should tell the truth. Let me look at the papers. I see I have a briefing paper to the Minister of Education who was Trevor Mallard dated 23 April 2002. It states that the auditor reported a number of significant concerns related to management governance and huge increases in enrolments.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He doesn’t make a weekly briefing you fool.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says he has never had a weekly briefing. He did have these papers; he did nothing. The Government poured millions of dollars more into the wananga. We now have a damning audit report and the Government says that it is not at fault.  
We on the Opposition benches say to Mr Mallard and Mr Maharey that they are accountable. They are accountable for the mess and for the damning audit report. We want to know why the chair of the wananga council remains the same and the chief executive of the wananga remains the same. No Minister is accepting responsibility. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve some answers as to who is responsible for this damning report on $600 million of public money that has been so poorly spent by this Labour Government.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is interesting to watch as a debate goes on. After one has been around this place for some time one notes that a degree of shrillness comes into members’ voices at the point when they see their futures disappearing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did you back down? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will get back to the member’s many errors soon. The member Nick Smith realises probably along with Bill English that he must do something soon about the position of the National Party. People have been in the House long enough to know that National members had so many opportunities to attack the Government today yet they did so badly. That is why the level of shrillness keeps going up and up. I do not always agree with my ministerial colleague Winston Peters but I think he got it absolutely right today when he pointed out how badly the National Party has done in Opposition. Unlike this party which is a very reasonable group—even to the point of sharing each other’s water on occasions; I will have a new one please— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Six hundred million dollars and you’re talking about the water! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Here we go. The member should hold his for a while. The member opposite is getting very very shrill because he knows that by the time the National Party is next in Government he will no longer be a member of Parliament and he certainly will not be in consideration for a Cabinet position. He knows that and he is beginning to panic. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why don’t you talk about the Auditor-General’s report? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well that is the member who punched the former chief whip. He is trying to say: “Have a balanced approach to life.” but his approach is to go around beating up his colleagues when he gets a bit tired and emotional. That is the approach of Nick Smith.  
But we go back to Bill English. He tries to be balanced to be fair to him. He says one thing to Pakeha and another thing to Maori. I saw Willie Jackson in the Gallery—I can see him again—he knows what Bill English said on his radio programme. He said: “Let the wananga have its head. Let it go. Mallard should not control it.” That is what Bill English said but what did he do today? He came into the House and said that I should have controlled it more.  
There has been a really delicate approach to this matter. It is clear that we are dealing with a chief executive who through a council started a very small business had it converted to a Crown entity and never grew the proper systems in order to continue to do the work that was necessary. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So why did you give them more money? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The only decision that was taken by a Government to give them more money was when Nick Smith was the Minister of Education in 1999 because unlike the National Party this Government does not decide course by course and institution by institution how much money tertiary institutions should get.  
We are having a lot of interjections from a very tired and shrill Nick Smith. [ 
Interruption 
] I would not even say strident. No “strident” involves some sort of control. One has to know what one is doing to be strident and Nick Smith cannot do that.  
The key is that Rongo Wetere never developed the systems for a Crown entity. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Who are his political mates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is clearly a National Party member. I want to know in fact how much of the $42000 that was taken out in cash actually went to the National Party. That would be one of the questions for that National Party member. How much of that $42000 of unaccounted cash which was taken out of cash machines by Rongo Wetere ended up in the pockets of Don Brash and his mates for their campaign? He is a National Party member. He campaigned for the National Party. He was told by Don Brash inside that he had Don Brash’s support. Of course when Don Brash went outside in his normal way he said something else but that is one of the things that is done in the National Party.  
It is what Bill English does. When he is addressing brown people he is very supportive of them and when he goes outside he attacks them. When he comes here he attacks the wananga in such a way that if he did it outside it would be described as racist. But what does he say when he is on Willie Jackson’s programme? He is totally supportive of the wananga on Willie Jackson’s programme but when he comes into the House he is critical of it. One of the things you will find out Bill English is that you get caught. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is not allowed to refer to you as part of the debate. You should bring him to order for doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. If I brought all members to order when they used the word “you” during the course of this debate we would not even have a debate. But the member is quite correct. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In the interests of clarity I make it clear that I want to talk to Bill English and make it clear to him that this Government is disgusted by people who say one thing inside the wananga who say the same thing on Willie Jackson’s radio programme but who go on National Radio and come to this House and say exactly the opposite. There is a word for people like Bill English. One is not allowed to use that word in the House because it is not parliamentary. It is one of the reasons that John Key not Bill English will be the leader of the National Party in 12 months’ time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that the former Minister of Education has now spoken for 7 of his 10 minutes. We are supposed to be debating the Auditor-General’s report on Te Wananga o Aotearoa and its financial difficulties. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I think those hard-working taxpayers who have contributed the $600 million would actually like some answers. We have heard all sorts of personal abuse of members of the Opposition and anybody else but I just wonder Mr Assistant Speaker whether you would be able bring the Minister back to the point of the debate which is the Auditor-General’s report into the wananga. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I have been listening at length and the member has referred at times during his speech to the wananga. But I ask him to continue to do so for the last 3 minutes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: All I ask for is that National Party members be consistent. Let us be consistent. Let us say the same thing inside the wananga and the same thing outside it rather than as Bill English does time and time again saying one thing when he thinks only brown people are listening and saying something else when he thinks only white people are listening. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After what must be the fifth or sixth repetition of the member’s accusations I take offence and ask him to withdraw because they are not true and they are offensive. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is taking objection under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I will be very clear. When that member speaks on Willie Jackson’s programme which is heard by Maori people he says one thing and when he comes into this House he says something else. I make one thing clear: the members have repeatedly asked what changed. 
Hon Bill English 
: What happened to your $600 million? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member cannot even add. In July six of the wananga council—a majority of the council—resigned. That meant— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about the chairman? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The chair did not resign. The chair is a man of incredible integrity unlike the member. The man has an amazing amount of integrity. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Parliament is a robust place where people can say many things but they are not allowed to question the integrity of another member as Mr Mallard did quite directly just then. He should have to withdraw that remark. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order there is an obvious approach that needs to be taken. If Nick Smith to whom the point was addressed wants to take offence of course I will withdraw. One cannot take offence on behalf of another member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 39/4 “Words or phrases used robustly in debate but which do not impugn the honour of a member will not be ruled out of order.” Unless someone takes personal exception to his or her integrity or courage being challenged then we will continue with a robust debate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have put up with all sorts of personal abuse from the Minister during the course of the last 8 minutes. His latest statement is out of order. He said that the chairman of the wananga who has been responsible during this appalling Auditor-General’s report has far more integrity than I do. I think that is a poor reflection on my own integrity; I take offence—as my colleague said he said that I had none. That is clearly a breach of the Standing Orders. I take offence and I ask him to withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has now taken offence under Standing Order 116. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. The point that I would make is that six out of the 11 resigned. The majority went and therefore I agreed to let things run until we got the Auditor-General’s report. It is very clear that if things go off the rails then the commissioners are on their way. The members opposite know that; they have known that for months unless they are absolutely stupid. [ 
Interruption 
] No I did hope to make the decision before the election—absolutely right. Do people know why? The reason was that the Auditor-General’s report was due in May. When did we get it? It was today. That is why the decision could not be made and if those members are so slow that they do not understand that it is about time some of the bright members from the back of the House came down the front. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I listened very carefully to the 10-minute contribution from the previous Minister of Education who was responsible for that period but not at any time did I hear reference made to the very serious concerns raised in this report. I also note that we have two speaking slots including one from New Zealand First that have not been taken up. I think the House should give leave for at least one Government Minister actually to address the issues that have been raised in the Auditor-General’s report and I seek leave in order for that to take place. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is right on one count—that there is a speaking slot available. It belongs to ACT which has chosen not to take it. As for the other issue a member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 November. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I speak against the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) which I consider to be flawed legislation. Supposedly it hopes to wipe off half a billion dollars of penalty interest owed so that parents who have been feeling very overwhelmed by that financial responsibility will at the stroke of a pen take on their responsibility. We have to ask whether that will work. I do not think it will work.  
Half of the penalty interest owed is owed by expatriate parents—parents who are not living in New Zealand and who have clearly isolated themselves geographically from their children. It is simplistic to think that those parents at the stroke of a pen will suddenly face up to a new responsibility when they have not done so already. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It won’t happen. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: No it will not happen.  
The timing is very odd indeed. In 2000 the total debt owed by those parents was $400 million. 
David Bennett 
: $400 million? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes $400 million—huge. In 2005 it has suddenly gone up to $1 billion. Why did the Government not act in 2000? I will tell people why it did not act. Members of the Government did not act until 2005 because an election was coming their way. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They had their chance. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: They had their chance. The Government introduced this bill in August this year—a month before the election. It was window dressing. In 2000 the shameful amount of $400 million of debt was clearly just loose change rattling around in the Government’s pockets.  
Chris Auchinvole 
: They didn’t care. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: The Government did not care.  
What sort of signal does this bill give to the community? It gives a terrible signal. It tells people that parents who have been paying their child support in full and on time should ask what the point of doing that is. It discourages responsible parents and rewards irresponsible parents. The bill tells responsible parents that nanny State will look after their children—or better still that “mum and dad State” will look after their families. What about other groups in the community? Is this legislation fair? I know of a private group that is doing important work in the health area in Auckland under contract. It has through no fault of its own to pay penalty interest rates on its tax which it has been unable to pay. Will the Government race to its aid? I do not think so. What about a family that has fallen behind on its mortgage repayments and is looking at losing the family home? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Will the Government help them? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: No it will not. The Government certainly will not be rushing to such a family’s aid but it will rush to the aid of parents who have not been paying for their children. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What about the students? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: I will get to that issue in a minute.  
There are two new exemptions from paying child support in this bill. Young people under 16 will be exempt so that they can get on with their studies which is fair enough. I am also pleased to see that the victims of sex offences will be exempt where the sex offender has been convicted. But the victims of sex offences may not always be able to take the offender to court and see that offender convicted so I think that exemption needs to be reworked. If this bill goes to the select committee the committee will need to look at that area.  
Chris Auchinvole 
: Good. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes.  
This legislation in my opinion is dishonest. It actually disguises the fact that a debt has been owed and the hard-working taxpayer has to carry the can yet again under this Labour Government. The situation is not dissimilar to that of hospital waiting lists. This year the Ministry of Health absolutely slashed hospital waiting lists by reclassifying patients disguising the fact that thousands of people were waiting for important operations. 
Paula Bennett 
: Shame! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: It is shameful and dishonest. There is also the student loan policy. This bill is not dissimilar to the student loan policy where the incentive is for students to borrow the maximum amount of money but there is no incentive to pay any of it back earlier than is absolutely necessary.  
I think that this legislation is sloppy flawed and dishonest. It will not work and it needs to be chucked out. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be referred to the Social Services Committee 
referred to Social Services Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.referred to Social Services Committee 
Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Deputy Prime Minister 
: I move  
That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
The bill has a history in this House and many members will be familiar with its provisions. It is directed against party hopping or waka jumping—the situation where an MP ceases to be a member of the political party for which he or she was elected to Parliament at the last general election either to become an Independent MP or to defect to another political party. The legislation has its roots in a member’s bill that Dr Cullen moved in 1999. It was reintroduced in 2000 by the Government and passed as the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 because circumstances showed there was a real need to bring stability to parliamentary arrangements. In the two Parliaments before the last Act was introduced a total of 22 MPs defected from the parties for which they were elected. This was unacceptable to the general public particularly because the MPs concerned often used their votes quite irresponsibly to tip the balance of power. In short the amount of party hopping that occurred prior to 2001 brought Parliament into disrepute. 
Under the MMP electoral system that New Zealand has adopted voters have a right to expect that the parties they elect to Parliament will remain in the same proportion for the next 3 years. The previous Act had a sunset clause and it lapsed at the last general election. The Government has agreed to support reintroduction of the legislation in order to allow the current Parliament to decide whether it is an arrangement that should be reinstated permanently. 
The legislation sets up a very simple mechanism: where a parliamentarian ceases to be a member of the political party that he or she stood for at the last election the bill provides a procedure that allows the seat to be declared vacant by the Speaker. A member can notify the Speaker that he or she has left the political party; alternatively the leader of that member’s parliamentary party can notify the Speaker that he or she believes that the member has distorted the proportionality of Parliament and is likely to continue to do so. The leader needs the support of two-thirds of the caucus to give such a notice so there is a built-in safeguard that ensures the leader is acting with the support of a significant majority. 
Experience has shown that the measures have been very effective in halting the avalanche of defections. The number of defections and resignations from parties has been very small over the past 4 years and we have seen considerably greater stability in Parliament. Equally important public confidence in the institution has improved. The public can now trust the electoral process to deliver enduring stable arrangements that reflect their decisions at the ballot box. 
A lot of criticism was levelled at the legislation when it was introduced in 2000. Since that time however the legislation has been road-tested. Four years of practical experience have shown that many of the criticisms were misplaced and the legislation has a really positive impact on the stability of Parliament. 
With this background it may be worthwhile to respond to some of the early criticisms. One criticism of the legislation when it was introduced last time was that New Zealand was embarking on a different path from that of most other countries. At that time the countries that had anti-defection legislation were dismissed as a handful of banana republics but the reality is that more than 30 jurisdictions have introduced legislative restrictions on MPs who defect from or otherwise part ways with the party they were voted in on. This is across a range of electoral systems including a plural majority system MMP and proportional representation. The truth is that such legislation has been used internationally as countries find it necessary to ensure stability in their electoral arrangements. 
There was also a criticism that the arrangements would give too much power to political parties. The fear was that there would be a chilling effect on freedom of expression and that this would undermine democracy. In truth this criticism was made without a proper understanding of modern government and the nature of MMP. The reality is that MMP Parliaments quite unlike those under the first-past-the-post system are made up of a number of parties with a plurality of views. Minority Governments are the norm and this means that debate on legislation occurs much more intensively on the floor of the House than it ever did before. Select committees are made up of a much broader range of parties and those committees have become a very active forum in which views are expressed on legislation. There is also regular consultation with other parties on policy so a range of viewpoints are built in before bills even reach the House. In contrast to the criticism that was made of the electoral integrity amendments then debate on legislation has been alive and well over the past 4 years. This is because freedom of expression is built into the MMP environment. 
There was also uncertainty about how the legislation would be interpreted by the courts. Since the Act was passed the electoral integrity provisions have been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of  
Prebble and Ors  
v  
Huata 
. I am sure the select committee will want to look at the bill and see whether that decision justifies any modifications to it. Justice Keith in particular gave a very considered judgment and it may be worthwhile recording some of the points he made. He documented the history of political parties in New Zealand and indicated that under MMP the party is more important than it ever was before. However he did not consider that the electoral integrity amendments would place too much power in the hands of political parties and lead to a chilling of freedom of expression. Members may be interested in what he said in this respect: “Because of the dominant role of party their freedom of expression is for the most part to be exercised within caucus and other party processes. The central role of party already well established by 1993 has been enhanced by the introduction of a proportional electoral system.” 
Another point that is worth emphasising is the way the bill deals with constituency members and list members. One criticism made about the electoral integrity amendments the last time they were in the House was that they should distinguish between constituency MPs and list MPs. It is true that the bill itself makes no distinction between the two types of parliamentarian but there are real differences in the way each is treated upon defecting from their party. Where a constituency MP’s seat becomes vacant under the bill there is a by-election. The MP is entitled to stand again and test the will of the voters about his or her decision to defect from the party he or she was originally voted in on. In contrast where a list MP’s seat becomes vacant under the bill the next person on the party list is promoted to Parliament. There is no by-election and the MP must wait until the next general election to test his or her mandate. This is a neat solution because it reflects the electoral mandate that attaches to each type of MP. Constituency MPs are voted in on a combination of party and electorate support. It seems fair that they should be entitled to test their mandate with the constituency immediately if they defect. List MPs in contrast are voted in purely on party grounds. Where they defect they arguably have very little mandate to remain in Parliament as Independent MPs or as part of any other political party. They should wait until the next general election before receiving the opportunity to start again. 
Finally we should not let ourselves be confused by arguments about the application of Edmund Burke’s philosophy in this debate. The last time that electoral integrity amendments were in the House some members suggested that the bill cut across his ideas about representative democracy. Those contributions simply showed that members had not gone away and read Burke’s essays. Burke was a political philosopher who wrote in the 18th century. The environment was completely different with the Westminster political system only just beginning to take on its modern form. At that time English members of the House of Commons were often nominees of landed gentry and were expected to vote in the House according to the view of their sponsor. Burke’s theory of representative democracy was a reaction against this. He argued that members of Parliament should not simply be proxies for their constituents. It was a discussion about the relationship between MPs and their constituents not MPs and their parties. On the relationship between a member of Parliament and his or her party—and that is the debate that is before us now—Burke was much more ready to concede that parliamentarians should be ready to submit to the collective will. 
In conclusion the practical experience of the last 4 years shows that the legislation works well and that there has been a real improvement in the stability of Parliament which is why the Government has agreed to support the introduction of this bill into the House to allow Parliament to decide whether it is an arrangement that should be reinstated permanently. I commend the bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That speech just delivered by the Hon Pete Hodgson in support of this bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill was written by those in the Beehive responsible for Government propaganda because this bill has nothing to do with electoral integrity and everything to do with the Government being able to manage its numbers through as long a period as possible. I think it is extremely unfortunate that whoever wrote that speech should pervert the thinking of Edmund Burke in the way in which the Minister presented it. When Mr Burke spoke about the need for MPs to exercise their conscience and to be without any outside influence because of the electoral system in Britain some 200 years ago he was railing against outside influence on members of Parliament when they exercise their vote for their constituents. This bill puts that authority very directly outside the House. It empowers political parties to influence from the administrative side the law and its progress in this country.  
We need to go back to the essence of our democracy and think back to just a couple of weeks ago when we were all returned to this House. At the Commission Opening we were required to come in and take the oath or affirmation and none of us were called by our party group. None of us were called in a block according to our political allegiance. Every member was called simply in alphabetical order and sworn in as an individual member because the principle inside a Parliament such as this is that every member sits here as a free and unencumbered individual. The choices any of us might make about belonging to a political party caucus are for us to make.  
But this bill determines that the leader of any political party is the person who decides what any other one of us may or may not think or how we may or may not vote inside this House. It is no longer a matter of choice. It is no longer a matter of a member representing his or her constituents by choosing to belong to a political party and participating in that political party’s activity because it is good for his or her constituents in his or her view; it is now a case of join up and be told what to do. If one does not like what one is told to do then one is simply removed. The processes as outlined in this bill streamline those in previous legislation. They are much simpler much clearer and give much greater authority to party leaders.  
One of the points that I think we need to understand is that this bill effectively destroys the integrity of members of Parliament. Members of Parliament choose to belong to a political party. They do that because their beliefs their philosophies and their integrity can be best expressed through that political party. It should not be a problem if someone decides that he or she does not agree with an aspect of that political party’s philosophy—or should I say if that person agrees with its philosophy and perhaps not its policy—for them to be able to express it by crossing the floor.  
Tomorrow both the major parties will have split votes on a particular bill. Yet if the leader of either of those parties had determined otherwise and this bill were in place the consequences for members splitting their votes away from their political party could well be the termination of their time as parliamentarians. That is wrong because surely part of the exercise of one’s political integrity is making sure that one votes only for things that one believes are good for one’s constituents.  
It is very interesting that New Zealand First members are so keen to support this legislation. Yesterday there was a conference in this establishment run by Victoria University in which no less than three of New Zealand First members took part and they bagged their leader mercilessly for his performance in the election campaign. They of course are now trying to tell us that they are quite happy to come in here and shackle themselves totally to his views of how New Zealand First should present itself. That is what they will do. I think any one of them could easily be accused of completely ignoring the constituency that sent them here by virtue of giving up their right to speak freely as members of Parliament.  
I know how uncomfortable New Zealand First members were today when we pointed out that the leader of the New Zealand First Party—the man who said he did not want the trappings and baubles of office—managed to take a flight paid for by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from Malta to Glasgow and then across to Edinburgh so that he could instruct ministry officials to go cap in hand to the Scottish Rugby Union and demand that he was seated appropriately behind the All Black captain as he received the trophy for winning the grand slam. Mr Peters is a man who did not want any of the trappings of office but is very quick to take them and equally quick to shut his own members out of it.  
That is the problem we get with bills such as this. It puts enormous amounts of authority in the hands of Winston Peters in the hands of Helen Clark even in the hands of Don Brash and any other party leader who happens to hold sway in this House. I ask the question: why do we have a democratic process to put members in Parliament if immediately the franchise of that member of Parliament is constrained—and even removed as I would suggest is the case with this bill—and handed to a political party leader?  
The Minister over there said that one of the great things about MMP is that it has seen a diversity of views come into this House. Well the reality is that that diversity is only going to be to the extent that any political party leader allows. So we will have the Green Party members all pretty much clones of their leader the New Zealand First Party members almost clones of their leader and we already know that the Labour Party members of course choose to be clones of Helen Clark—certainly devotees anyway. That cannot be good for Parliament. That cannot be good for democracy in this country.  
I ask the question also: if the party-hopping legislation worked so well in the last 4 years why did we see the debacle over the Alliance breakdown and the absolute disgrace of Mr Anderton sitting in the House as the parliamentary leader of the Alliance but outside Parliament being the leader of the Progressive Party? That sort of nonsense could well be replicated over and over by a bill such as this. So any suggestion that it tidies up this place and that it somehow makes things better is just plain wrong.  
I know that in 1996 and in the subsequent years leading up to the New Zealand First breakdown people such as Mr Woolerton wanted desperately to get away from the New Zealand First Party—wanted desperately to walk away. But because he was a man of integrity he chose not to. His reward for that choice—for that exercise of integrity—has been two further terms in this House. The public understands how these things work and the public do not need the protection of a draconian bill like this because it is one of those bills where the protection actually takes away significant rights.  
The National Party will not be supporting this bill. We do not think this adds anything to democracy and we know that the only point of its being on the programme today is in fact to give the Government a management tool to ensure that New Zealand First does not walk away from the extremely shonky relations and arrangements it has to be the Government. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I was privileged to chair the Justice and Electoral Committee back in 1999-2000 when the predecessor to this bill was referred to our select committee. We conducted a comprehensive public consultation on the bill recommended it back to the House and then it became law. So I think it is very appropriate that I should pass just a few comments in relation to what went on and also on how the law has worked since then.  
I freely admit that as somebody who is an electorate member of Parliament and who like all electorate MPs gives priority to the issues in the electorate I approached the predecessor to this bill with some caution back in 1999-2000. But the legal guarantees we got and the working of the legislation since has certainly proven to me that this has become another essential building block of what is the emergent New Zealand electoral system as represented in our Parliament.  
I guess in relation to every piece of legislation one has to ask: where is the threat? In a Parliament as finely balanced as this one—a Parliament with eight parties represented and with three of those parties having four three and two members and another having one member—clearly a single change in a member of Parliament from one party to another can actually have a massive effect. I think this Parliament is a very good illustration of the wrong that this legislation seeks to right because a move by one member of Parliament could have a profound effect on the whole balance in this Chamber. It is fascinating also that this legislation which arose out of the issues in the 1996-99 Government and was treated with great care during the ending of the Alliance in Parliament towards 2002 was tested by ACT in the Donna Awatere Huata case which went through to the Supreme Court. As a result her departure from this House was confirmed.  
At the end of the day political balance is the essence of this legislation and in order to make sure that it will be effective processes are clearly laid out in it. Either the individual member of Parliament will write to the Speaker effectively resigning from the House or the parliamentary leader of the party will write stating that the member is no longer effectively a member of the political party he or she belonged to when elected. That process has to be identified particularly carefully. It is laid down in the legislation that firstly the parliamentary leader has to believe that the member concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of Parliament—that is shows a pattern of voting against the political party—and secondly after consideration of the conduct of the member by the party he or she belonged to two-thirds of the caucus has to agree that the member is no longer operating as a member of that party. That is necessarily an imprecise science because we are talking about human behaviour in this most heated of environments.  
Over time MMP develops and in New Zealand unlike other countries with an MMP system we have not seen a rapid reduction in the number of parties elected to our Parliament. Therefore with the existence of small parties and with the existence of tight majorities this kind of legislation has an importance. Indeed our MMP system may be similar to that of other countries with our unique factors at play here.  
I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the ending of the time limitation because over the last 6 years this legislation has proven to be one of the essential building blocks to make our electoral system work better. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 It is so disappointing that the Parliament finds itself again debating the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. When Parliament passed the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act back in the first term of the current Government I was relieved it had an expiry clause so this abomination on the Parliament would come to an end. It did but we did not realise just how self-serving the new Government arrangements would be that have given rise to the agreement between Labour and New Zealand First to bring this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to the House.  
I contend that this bill is a cynical use of power by the executive. In Parliament now we have this strange situation where the executive accords itself a wide-ranging flexibility for the arrangements that it makes in order to keep itself in power. So we have this innovative and entrepreneurial arrangement between Labour and Mr Peters—and Mr Dunne to be fair—whereby they can function in quite an unprecedented way. They can be Ministers in the Government and Opposition in the Parliament. They have to follow collective responsibility in their portfolio areas but they are not bound by collective responsibility in any other area.  
So the executive has kept to itself all the advantages of the flexibility of the New Zealand constitution. It is exploiting that flexibility and it has some grand talk about what it is doing. It says that MMP is developing; that we are coming up with new conventions; let us just say that everyone agrees with the Government arrangement that has been put together. I certainly do not and the National Party does not agree with that arrangement because fundamentally it lacks integrity. But we accept that it will be put to the test by the pressures of government and then it will be put to the test by the next election. However that flexibility is something that Helen Clark and Winston Peters want to make very sure is not available to any member of this Parliament. So they want a set of rules for the executive that are endlessly flexible and totally open-ended so they can make whatever arrangement they like to suit themselves but they want to make absolutely sure that the representatives in the House—elected by the people—do not have it.  
The executive is not elected by the people; it is elected either by the Labour Party caucus in the case of the Labour Party or selected by the leader in the case of the National Party. I am not quite sure how the Greens would do it; and I hesitate to even imagine it! The executive is not elected by the people but the MPs are. That is what is so wrong with this legislation. The executive unelected has decided to make whatever rules it likes to suit itself but those who were elected by the people—the MPs right through this Parliament—are going to be prevented from making what would be an extreme decision and that is to leave their party and thereby disturb the proportionality of Parliament.  
Let us just think about the consequences in this Parliament of different people making the sorts of decisions that this legislation is aimed at. If an MP leaves a party within the Opposition and stays in the Opposition sure it does disturb the proportionality of Parliament but it does not make any difference to the Government; it does not change any of the decisions that it is making. In this Parliament with the arrangements that are in place an MP can leave one of the governing parties—the New Zealand First Party or United Future or Labour—and cross to the Opposition and it does not make any difference to what is going to happen in the Parliament under the current arrangements. So this bill will stop that from happening whereas it does not make any difference.  
Let us see what would make a difference. Say for example Mr Winston Peters decides to leave the Government. Well that might bring it down it might cause an election. Certainly he will leave the Government; it is just a matter of time. That could bring the Government down and cause a change of Government or cause an election—the two things can happen separately. But both are from the point of view of voters fairly drastic results. There are pretty important consequences from that.  
Is Parliament going to pass any legislation that says: “Once you’ve signed a confidence agreement you must keep it for the term of office.”? No we are not even though that is the measure that would make the biggest difference to the stability of government. Why do we not do it? We do not because we believe that it is better that those arrangements are tested by the pressures of government by the flow of public opinion and by the scrutiny of Parliament and the media. We know that under those pressures those arrangements generally fail. They did between 1996 and 1999 a couple of times and in fact they did before 1996. They failed between 1999 and 2002 and I will come back to that. They did not fail in the last term of office and Peter Dunne paid the price and he feels very sorry for himself because of it. And they will fail this time because it is Winston Peters.  
Those arrangements do stand the test of political reality and that is what should happen for MPs who leave their party. They should stand the test of the political reality of an election. What we do know is that any New Zealand MP who becomes an Independent loses. Those people are never seen again. That is pretty harsh punishment. They get dealt to.  
The other point about this legislation is that if members want to get around it they can. I can recall the absurdity of Jim Anderton sitting in the House saying: “I am leader of the Alliance in the House and leader of the Progressives outside the House.” Do members know what is so cunning about this legislation? It is that only the leader of a party can get away with it because he or she cannot put in the letter. The leader of a party can get away with it and Jim Anderton did. So leaders of parties can get around this legislation. Is not that ironic? Helen Clark and Winston Peters two party leaders who want to take every political advantage of flexibility of our constitution that they can in order to form a Government and maintain executive power then present the Parliament with legislation that only party leaders can avoid the consequences of because they do not put in the letter. We know this from the historical record because Jim Anderton did it. He was the leader of one party in the House and the leader of another party outside the House.  
I notice Government members quoting the Supreme Court in support of this legislation. The Supreme Court made a decision in the context of the legislation that was on the books. It would be quite wrong to read Sir Kenneth Keith’s opinion as being supportive of the legislation. That is our job to decide. He had no choice but to render a judgment on it and in the terms of the legislation he rendered a wise judgment. But it is not to support the legislation.  
So that is what is wrong with this legislation. It gives privilege to the executive. It takes from MPs privileges the executive have kept which is the ability to make their own decisions about their own destiny—as Winston Peters will and we know that. Doug Woolerton knows that too. The day will come. But Doug Woolerton cannot leave his party. Winston Peters can leave the Government for political reasons but Doug Woolerton cannot leave his party. Is not that just ridiculous? This is stealing from the representatives of the people the fundamental longstanding and deeply held privileges of representation. That is what it did in the Government’s last term in office and it is to my great regret that this Government the Government of New Zealand has decided now to remove those privileges forever because there is no wind-out clause in this legislation. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has pleasure in supporting the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has had experience with people upsetting the balance of the Parliament by leaving our party and sitting with parties that opposed us. The electoral integrity legislation lapsed on election night and it needs to be put back in place. It is all very well for Bill English and the National Party to talk about what they see as right. It is all very well for them to say that the legislation takes away rights from individual MPs. It does not. If a person stands up before the public and says he or she is standing for the New Zealand First Party and will represent what that party stands for whether as a list MP or as a constituent MP through the next 3 years then that person should stay with that party.  
In the case of a constituent MP if that member disagrees to such an extent with the party or if the views of the member’s electorate are at such divergence with the party’s views that he or she sees fit to leave the party— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Or personal views. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: —or personal views then the electorate can have a by-election and that is rightly so. God bless the electorate. Everybody can get into the by-election. The member can test and seek the mandate of the people. However if a list MP stands in the name of a party and then disagrees with the party in my view honour dictates that the MP should leave the party. If the member does not leave then I think it is right and proper that by majority the other members through the party leader can ask the member to leave.  
It is ironic that the ACT party having opposed the original bill was the first and only party to use the legislation successfully. And it did not cause any upsets. The matter was handled not necessarily with decorum and taste but it was not a bun fight. It was handled properly through the courts.  
What National members will not understand and choose not to understand—and Bill English talked about this—is the fact that in the case of any person who stands for National in the Piako electorate for instance where the Luxtons held court for many many years and now Lindsay Tisch holds the seat it is the party seeking of the candidacy that is important. Once a candidate is on the National Party ticket he or she is in. The person can go out and campaign in all the other electorates around the country or wherever he or she desires because that person knows that the National Party in Piako will carry him or her home. It does not matter a toss whom the party puts in there as long as the person is halfway respectable. If Mr English feels uncomfortable about that and if it makes him sad and insecure to know that anybody the National Party chooses in Clutha-Southland will do just as good a job as him will represent the people just as well as him and will hold the National flag just as high as him then I am sorry but that is the situation. Even in a constituency seat it is the party that reigns supreme. The 10-minute effort read out by the Hon Pete Hodgson said all of those things—and a very good speech it was too.  
There are times when that is overturned. My own leader Winston Peters stood as an Independent in Tauranga and overturned that. But that is a minority case and members can still do that. A list MP who is required to leave a party that he or she fundamentally agrees with on a majority vote of the people within it and the leader can go and stand again for whomever he or she decides to stand for. The legislation does not disbar the person from office. It does not disbar the person from standing for whomever he or she wishes to stand for in the future. It is a nonsense to say the legislation is anti-democratic. Although a person got in on the party’s coat-tails or by representing a party it is rightful that when that person no longer agrees with the party he or she should go out and seek another seat or seek another position with another party if he or she so desires. There is nothing undemocratic about that. I think that is absolutely sensible and I think this legislation is sensible.  
I make no bones about the fact that since starting as a party branch secretary in the National Party when I was 21 years of age I have been and am known as a party man. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Grown up since then. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I have certainly grown up since then. I am a party man because I recognised even at that age that it is the party that puts people into Parliament. There is a simple test and it is a test I put to Tau Henare when he was leaving New Zealand First to go and sit with National. At least he has tidied that up and he can now be called an honourable member of the National Party but back then he could not. The test is that if someone does not believe that it is the party that gets a person into Parliament then he or she should try standing as an Independent without any party backing any time anywhere. I say such people should not belong to any party but should go out there on their own devices put their names up to stand for Parliament and see how far they get. I say that they will not get elected to Parliament because that has been proven time and time again. It is the party that brings people into this place and therefore it is the party and its policies that should be respected.  
In spite of what the Opposition may say nobody has argued more vigorously than me within either the National Party or New Zealand First even though I was a founding member and president of the latter party for 12 years and am still an MP. Nobody has argued more vigorously than I have within those parties. Nobody has challenged the leadership of those parties or the local party officials more than I have. I know all about that. I have been there done that and bought the T-shirt. It is popular—it is a cliché—to say that New Zealand First is a one-man band that one cannot disagree with Winston Peters and so on and so forth. I disagree with Winston Peters and I have disagreed with him many times on many issues over many years. We are still friends and the party will not fall apart and nobody will leave New Zealand First in this term I can promise members that. In the National Party however one’s future was not quite as certain as that but I have done the same thing there. Provided that one observes the rules of debate as it were in a political party one can disagree argue put one’s viewpoint and make one’s voice heard.  
Of course if members choose to go back on the things that they promised at an election and to go against the things that their party stood for then they will have a spot of bother and every person in this House knows that. But this legislation will not cause the problems. This legislation will ensure that the public of New Zealand having elected what the Yanks call “a ticket” to Parliament have the surety that that ticket will sustain through the 3 years and I think that that is honourable. I think it is just and I think it is what should happen. We are supporting this bill for those reasons. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like Mr English I find it extraordinary to be rising to make a speech on a bill that seeks to reinstate the 2001 Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act. It is like a weird kind of purgatory where Parliament relives its worst legislative moments over and over again. It is like déjà vu or cheesy Christmas television. In fact my greatest fear is that this whole session of Parliament descends into some kind of B movie rerun channel with Mr Winston Peters playing Bela Lugosi. Because of course this is all about Winston Peters and of course we can understand that. He must be terrified right now. He has been exported by the Government to charm parliamentarians and trade officials around the world—people whom just a few weeks ago he was calling Osamas and Ying-Tongs. The shamelessness of the man is quite extraordinary. So now he has been sent overseas by the Government and he is the ultimate vacant feline and while the cat is away it is clear that there is a little dissension among the rodents.  
Mr Doug Woolerton is a man beloved by all the blokes in Parliament for his humour but he is not known for making the grand dramatic gesture. Yet he could not stomach watching his leader clutching at the baubles of office despite his strong language to the contrary during the election campaign and his resignation as party president must have been a severe shot up the arm for his boss.  
Mr Woolerton said he disagreed with his leader many times in the past. The question is: how many times has he won? The latest media interest in the internal feedback on the New Zealand First election campaign is simply another indication of the subterranean rumblings in its caucus which would be fine if Mr Peters had not lost the ultimate weapon for keeping his MPs in line. Up until now it has been his grip on Tauranga that has been the party’s guarantee of representation in Parliament. Party polling goes up and down for New Zealand First but it has always been able to count on Tauranga—until now. His boss has lost his ultimate bludgeon and the desperate court battle to wrench the electorate away from the man who won it—Bob Clarkson—simply confirms Mr Peters’ fear.  
New Zealand First MPs can sniff freedom and they like it. That is the context in which we must understand this bill. It is not so much a resurrection as some kind of weird taxidermy and it is something that the Government was so ashamed of in 1999 that it included a sunset clause to ensure that there was an end to its misery. It must be to its intense embarrassment that it has to return to that shame to use the biblical phrase like a dog to its own vomit and all because Winston Peters is losing his grip. Part of the price of his support for the Government is this draconian piece of legislation to lock in his power and return to his arm the ability to make the king hit in his caucus. This bill epitomises the anti-democratic processes within New Zealand First. We know that the election campaign political strategy direction list-ranking process and even speaking slots and times are decided by Mr Peters in consultation with his mirror. If members doubt the truth of that they should just recall the beginning of the last term of Parliament when all the New Zealand First MPs had their maiden speeches cut short because Mr Peters wanted more time for himself.  
Well with this bill Mr Peters will have the ability to expel elected but independent-minded MPs not just from his own caucus but from the Parliament itself. While some members may say that such a creature would be rare to find in the New Zealand First caucus due to the rigorous selection process I have already alluded to I must say that this is a serious concern for all members of Parliament and our right of free speech.  
Let us look at the bill. Clause 4 inserts among other new sections new section 55A “Member ceasing to be parliamentary member of political party” if as new subsection (3)(b) states “the parliamentary leader of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected delivers to the Speaker a written notice”. That written notice must according to new section 55D(a) “state that the parliamentary leader reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election;”.  
Well what does that actually mean? If a party leader were to act in a way that was contrary to his or her promises to the electorate and/or contrary to the party’s policy—I am talking here about a party where policy is determined by the membership not by sticking a wet finger in the air—then an independent-minded MP of that party could challenge the leader over his or her dishonesty in which case the leader could simply refuse to renew the party membership of that member. That would be a sufficient basis to argue that the member concerned had distorted the proportionality of Parliament even if he or she continued to vote largely with the party he or she had been a member of.  
Mr Woolerton said that we must respect the party and the policies and that is exactly my point—this bill does exactly the opposite. That is not entirely hypothetical because that is more or less what happened with the ACT party and Donna Awatere Huata. While the ACT members’ decision may have been motivated by embarrassment at the allegations being made against her rather than embarrassment at criticism of their party leader the legislation does not and is absolutely incapable of making a distinction based on motivation.  
Supporters of the bill will argue that there is a safeguard because the leader must also reassure the Speaker that two-thirds of the caucus support the notice but that is not very much comfort at all when the list selection process for the next election remains primarily in the hands of the party leader. If the caucus wants to oppose its leader in making such a notice it had better be prepared to roll the leader at the same time.  
As an aside for Mr English’s edification the Green Party list-ranking process is as far as I am aware the only democratic list-ranking process of any political party in this country. Every member of our party gets an equal vote over the final list position and I do not think there is another party in this House that can make a claim even remotely close to that.  
This Parliament has heard all these arguments before as has the public almost 6 years ago back in 1999 when the chaos of the first MMP Parliament was still fresh in people’s minds. I am hoping that Tau Henare does make a contribution to this debate because I think he would have a useful perspective for us.  
 This House debated the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and if one goes back to the newspaper reports of the time one can see that it is quite interesting reading. The 
 New Zealand Herald 
 in November of that year summed up the argument well when it stated that Labour and the Alliance “… ought to be careful about changing an important constitutional convention … The disgust is symptomatic of failures deeper than party-switching and requires solutions more sophisticated than an oppressive parliamentary rule.” It goes on to state: “Who owns a political party—its parliamentary leaders its executive council? Jim Anderton did not believe so when he left Labour and remained in Parliament proclaiming that he alone was true to the party’s principles. Voters are the best judge of MPs who follow that course. It would be infinitely wiser to leave it to them.” Of course it makes us bear in mind that that bill was in response to the Alliance’s need to shore up its independent-minded MPs just as this bill today is about New Zealand First doing the same thing.  
The message of that  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial is exactly the point. That is the message. In the words of my Green colleague Metiria Turei who said when challenging Mr Peters’ assertion that he had the support of all the parties of this House in passing this bill: “The Greens have long argued that the voters and only the voters should decide whether an MP has left their party for the right or the wrong reasons. Political parties must not be allowed to take away from voters the power to unelect members of Parliament.” If Winston Peters wants the State to give legal power to his authority over his MPs the Greens will not help him. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 This bill is essentially to preserve the position of the minority Labour-led Government. This Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill lacks integrity. This bill is based on fear. It is a glue to hold together a very shaky coalition relationship. It is a prop to assist very different party philosophies to stay together. It is a device to prevent the Government coalition from imploding. 
Coming back to integrity—or the lack of it—I say that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill seems to be part of the deal that New Zealand First struck with those who were desperate to hold on to power so that they might exercise this power in any way they saw fit. The Maori Party on the other hand was created on the basis of integrity. Our co-leader Tariana Turia showed integrity when she walked away from those who had lost it. The Maori Party does not see the need for such a bill. Since the inception of the Maori Party we have declared that—regardless of what people may think of us—we will as parliamentarians in this House and indeed as citizens of our country always act with integrity. 
We have spent some time discussing this bill and although we initially supported the concept we realised that integrity could not be legislated for. The Maori Party questions the need for a bill that has been designed to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. Our party is driven by kaupapa one of which is integrity. Even if this bill is passed into law we do not believe that we would ever have occasion to use it. We do not need the gorilla of laws to frighten or threaten us in order to guide our behaviour. Ours is not a party that uses fear intimidation or bullying as a means of achieving discipline. Discipline must come from within. 
We also ask why it is necessary to enhance the maintenance of political party proportional representation in Parliament. Should not the real litmus test—the integrity of parliamentarians—be evident to all through the performance in this very House the performance on the streets the performance of politicians walking the talk the performance of parliamentarians taking Parliament to the people? 
 We believe in the power of korero whakawhiti and humarie. We believe in reconciliation and restorative processes and we believe in our ability to arrive at consensus without rancour and bitter divisiveness. We will talk with anyone and we have demonstrated that in our short time as a party in this House. Talking with people does not mean selling one’s soul or selling out to one’s people. Although we are new in this House we will never ever sell out on our people. Talking brings understanding and informed decision-making. 
There will be opportunities for difference and this is one party that celebrates difference. We have neither central control nor rigid hierarchical control. Our process of reaching decisions is through consensus. It is a kaupapa Maori solution. It was laid down by our national executive and accepted by our 21000 members. In that respect we have come from a culture that has never had to use the law to achieve integrity. 
Is not our greatest possibility to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system evident through the challenges we set before ourselves? They are personal standards that are acted out in a political arena. There are members in this House like Ross Robertson Nandor Tanczos Sue Kedgley and of course we in the Maori Party who are extremely keen on establishing a code of conduct for use in this House. A code of conduct would include not using race or ethnicity as political footballs. That is something I referred to in my maiden speech and seems commonplace in this House. The public of this country want integrity in this House to mean standards of behaviour—appropriate codes of decorum—not subservience to a party line. Blind loyalty to party allegiances is the King Kong factor breathing over us. We should instead be reflecting how our party philosophy directs us to act not acting in fear because a gorilla might drop in on us. The Maori Party has come into Parliament to stand up and be counted for the things that matter. We will uphold integrity as being of the highest value in our behaviour and our processes in this House. This is of our own making. 
We note that New Zealand First will be supporting the Labour Government sponsored Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill because as its leader has stated it is a positive step in ensuring stability. This is perhaps an admission or a confession by New Zealand First that it lacks the discipline—in fact the stability—to ensure that this marriage to Labour will be of at least 3 years’ duration. 
The title of this bill has the word “integrity” in brackets. We want to bring the concept of integrity out of the brackets and back into Parliament. We do not believe that the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill will do this. It is for this reason that we do not support this bill. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During my speech I indicated that the Green Party was the only party with a democratic list selection process. I want to correct the record because I understand that the Maori Party also has such a process. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 At 1 minute to 6 it is my pleasure to rise and make a contribution in opposition to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.  
Parliament knows that legislation is poor legislation when the original version of that legislation contained a sunset clause. No enduring well-thought-out or far-sighted legislation contains a sunset clause and I know that many Labour members are deeply embarrassed about the fact that this legislation has found its way back on to the Order Paper.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SIMON POWER 
: The National Party in Opposition has difficulty with the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that legislation that is pure and true will stand the test of time and is well-thought-through does not need a sunset clause. Legislation that will stand the test of time and is good law does not need a sunset clause. Originally when this bill came before this Parliament from late in 1999 to early in 2000 the then Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill did have a sunset clause for two parliamentary terms.  
The reason for that was straightforward: Jim Anderton foresaw the difficulty he was going to get himself into with the Alliance party in Parliament. Proof that that legislation did not work in a satisfactory manner occurred when the Alliance fell apart at the end of 2002 and this Parliament found itself in the most extraordinary of positions because of the legislation. We had—[ 
Interruption 
] Well that member Jim Sutton had a promising career; whatever happened to that Minister? He was well regarded on all sides of the House before the fated election. With the previous legislation we had a leader of the Alliance in the House in the person of Jim Anderton we had a leader of the Alliance outside the House but present in the House as a member of Parliament in the person of the Hon Laila Harré and we had a leader of a political party outside the House in Jim Anderton as leader of the Progressives. So Jim Anderton was leader of two different parties at the same time and Laila Harré was the leader of one party outside the Chamber and was in a different party when she was present in Parliament.  
I know that this bill is all about limiting the possibilities of Winston Peters losing control of his caucus; that is the sad fact. The previous bill like this had a sunset clause and this one now being proposed is without a sunset clause—giving it an everlasting life until the Government changes and it is repealed. It allows the leader of particularly a small political party to have complete control over its members. 
Pita Paraone 
: Where’s that party now? 
SIMON POWER 
: Well that member chips in but let me tell him that if something goes wrong in that member’s caucus over the next short while—such as I do not know let us pluck something out of the air: the president of that party who also happens to be an MP after 12 years decides to resign in protest at his leader grabbing the baubles of office against the better judgment and wishes of the wider caucus—what can that caucus do about it? If this legislation is passed its members can do nothing. They will be at the mercy of their leader regardless of what direction what office or what baubles that leader takes.  
If the real test of this legislation is that collective responsibility is important to a party and that the power of the party is more important than any one individual then why do we not pass an amendment to this bill that will allow any member of a political party to write to the Speaker in order to prevent the leader from leaving that political party? That seems pretty reasonable to me and I would have thought that if the purpose of this legislation was that the party machinery is above any individual then it should not be just the leader who is able to write to the Speaker; it should be any member.  
So if Pita Paraone who is sitting over there has a day when Winston Peters decides he will do something that is not in the best interests of the party—let us just fantasise for a moment—but is in Mr Peters’ best interests that member and other members of his caucus should be able to write to the Speaker and say: “No we’re reining our leader back in.” If it is good enough for the leader to be able to write the letter and if the important principle of this legislation is that the party machinery is king then why cannot any member of the caucus write to the Speaker? I look forward to testing that idea in the months ahead if by some miracle this bill passes its first reading.  
We have already seen with the “Save Winston Peters Bill” Peter Brown and Brian Donnelly—both members I might say that members of this House have a fair deal of respect for—say publicly in the media over the weekend that all is not well in New Zealand First. Is it not interesting that they chose the weekend before this bill came in to start saying that things were not well in New Zealand First? They have to get it done before this bill comes in—before Winston Peters can write to the Speaker in order to stop members of New Zealand First criticising the actions of their leader during and subsequent to the election campaign.  
With this legislation we do not just see that the Westminster convention of collective responsibility has shattered; we do not just see that with this Parliament—as we have seen with Ministers who are responsible only for designated areas and with no collective responsibility at all. Now we see an attempt to prevent individual members of Parliament from having any attachment or accountability to their electorates over and above the party machinery. And that has to be the most undemocratic principle of all. This legislation is simply undemocratic. 
I know that Peter Dunne the leader of United Future knows more than most about people seeking democracy. His views on Taiwan are well known; he is a man who holds democracy very dear. But this legislation I say to Mr Dunne is the least democratic legislation that will come before this Parliament over the next short time. It was bad legislation to start with because the previous bill had a sunset clause in it. This bill has no sunset clause; it will have to stand for an infinite length of time on the statute book in the event that it is passed and that cannot be acceptable to somebody who holds democracy so dear.  
The legislation is bowing to the party machine and worse still it is bowing to the party leader. If the principle were right any member of Parliament should be able to write to the Speaker and say that a member of his or her caucus is going to be subject to the terms of this bill—including the leader. New Zealand First members I predict will have more trouble containing the actions of their leader than they will containing the actions of any other member of their caucus but this legislation will render them powerless to do anything about it. It would be quite the opposite if one of them acted up and Mr Peters felt that he was in danger of being scuppered in his own caucus.  
So I urge all members of this House who hold democracy dear not to vote for legislation that the last time it was introduced to this House ended up needing a sunset clause for it to work. I urge them to vote against this legislation and to restore the spine of democracy to this Government and to this Parliament. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I do cherish democracy. I believe it is one of the most precious things we have at the core of our society and I believe that one of the traditions of democracy that we cannot afford to do away with is that it is an effective representation of the public will. For that reason I and my party will vote for the introduction of this legislation and its referral to a select committee. 
 The issues addressed in this bill need to be thoroughly examined. I say that for a number of reasons. Mr Power alluded to my attachment to the republic of China—Taiwan—as an instance of support for democracy. 
I thought he was going to allude to the fact that I have been through some changes in my own political career that relate to the provisions of this bill. I know what it is like to leave a party to go out on one’s own and to build a new party as a consequence. I know the challenges that emerge when the public who vote for one try to work out what all the implications of the changes have been for them.  
It is important that members of Parliament who are elected to represent constituencies have the unfettered right to express their views their aspirations and the concerns of their constituents to this Parliament without fear or favour. I have long felt that one of the deficiencies in this legislation as it was previously was that it did not make a distinction between electorate members of Parliament who draw their strength from the support of voters and party list members who come in essentially—and I say this with no disrespect to colleagues on the list from all sides of the House—because of the support they receive from their parties. I think that one of the issues the select committee ought to consider is whether in fact there should be a distinction in law between the two.  
I think that the reason for passing this legislation in 2000 based around the instability of the transitional period to MMP can be argued further. But it is unarguable that in the last 6 years there has not been the degree of inter-party movement that occurred in the 6 years previous. The question is whether that is because the system has settled down or because of the existence of this legislation. That is something the select committee ought to examine because quite frankly we do not have a definitive judgment on that point. I think also that the one occasion this legislation was implemented during the previous Parliament showed up a number of deficiencies that will need to be examined by the select committee. I find it ironic that the party that perhaps campaigned most actively against the legislation was the only party to have implemented it so far but I do not hold that against it.  
Rodney Hide 
: We do.  
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well Mr Hide may do so in terms of his party’s own internal manoeuvrings but that is not my problem. But I do think that issues were raised during that whole unfortunate saga that need to be further examined in the legislation and refined in light of that.  
Mr Power talked a great deal about democracy freedom the unshackling of conscience the right to express a view the eternal triumph of liberty and all those things and I agree with that. But at the same time the balance we have to strike is between the public’s expectation that the people they send to this Parliament as the representatives of particular parties will represent those parties in Parliament and that ability to express an individual viewpoint. That is why I do think as I said earlier that the distinction between the list member and the constituency member needs to be further examined.  
I have little problem with legislation of this type applying to list members of Parliament because of the nature of their election. They owe their selection to the support of their parties. It is entirely reasonable in those circumstances that they therefore return that support in terms of their presence in this House. It is a more difficult proposition in respect of those of us who represent electorates. We are voted in. Members may well argue that we are voted in on the basis of support for our party. That may have been the case under the first-past-the-post system—I think that inevitably it was—but I think it is a more difficult proposition to be definitive on in an MMP environment where people have two votes. How often have we all heard people say to us: “I will give you my electorate vote because I think you do a good job but I will not for your party for various reasons.”? I think that to shackle electorate members of Parliament is more difficult as a consequence.  
I give notice that one of the issues we will want the select committee to examine thoroughly and will need to be satisfied upon before we give any indication of support for this bill beyond the first reading is that very point. Although this legislation has worked well on the face of it in the last 6 years—and I think the issue of the sunset clause is to that extent somewhat irrelevant—the point about its longevity has to be its credibility which will emerge only if people feel that the legislation is fundamentally fair.  
When this legislation was first brought to the House 6 years ago it came against a backdrop—whatever one thought of it—of public frustration at the level of inter-party movement in the preceding 6 years. The backdrop to this legislation is different. It is actually more preventive than reactive. It is about us saying that we have not had any examples but that we should not run the risk that they might occur in the future. So inevitably the expectations that people will have will be different as well. I think that the opportunity to be a little bit more reflective about how this legislation might work if it is to work is therefore greater as a result.  
I do hope that the people who expressed outrage all those years ago about what happened and then expressed the same outrage that legislation was being put in place to prevent it take the opportunity to come to the select committee to give a considered view on what has happened over the last 6 years. I do hope that as a result of the Awatere Huata judgment and the manoeuvrings that led to that there is the opportunity to see whether this legislation can be made more effective or whether the problems and tribulations inherent in that manoeuvre are in fact automatically inherent in this legislation and we cannot do any better.  
As a mature democracy where we respect the rule of law where we respect the role of representative Government and where we have a proportional system that relies on the proportional vote of electors being given expression in Parliament it is reasonable to consider legislation of this type. I do not think the same argument would apply under our old first-past-the-post system. I do think it applies in the limited instance of list members under this system and therefore I am prepared to support this bill going to a select committee on that basis so that these issues can be debated further.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I rise to oppose this legislation as inherently anti-democratic and anti the rights and privileges— 
Shane Jones 
: Oh! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I hear Shane Jones going on. He has been here 5 minutes. He should wait until Labour falls on top of him and he has to kick into line as every other Maori in that party has done. They all had to go along like little sheep to the slaughter and vote for the Foreshore and Seabed Bill because of legislation like this. 
When we come into this Parliament we do not swear allegiance to our party; we swear allegiance to the Sovereign and to the people of New Zealand. We owe our allegiance to them not to a political party. Yet this legislation says that we owe our allegiance to a political party and that MPs are no more than functionaries of that political party. If an MP steps out of line—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the leader can bully 75 percent of the caucus into line and fire off a letter to the Speaker and that MP will be sacked. That MP will not be sacked by the people of New Zealand at an election—will not be sacked by a vote—but will be sacked by the leader of a party and the caucus.  
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tyranny. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a tyranny.  
Shane Jones 
: Poor Donna. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Shane Jones calls out: “Poor Donna!”. 
Hon Member 
: He wouldn’t know. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He would not know what went on. I say to Mr Jones that ACT voted against that bill becoming law but we believe that Donna Awatere Huata should not have been in Parliament for what she had done. It was the Labour Government that handed her all the money by the way; it was the ACT party that actually dealt to it once again cleaning up Labour’s mess. We used what means were given to us by this Parliament. 
 We stand here as the only party that has used this legislation but we still think it is wrong because there are good reasons for MPs to stand up against their party to speak out from their conscience and to speak out on behalf of what they believe in. We know it suits Labour to run a noose around all its MPs and for the MPs to do what Helen Clark says on so-called conscience votes. I ask members to look at what has happened to poor Phillip Field because he voted the wrong way—with his conscience. 
I am shocked by my colleague Mr Peter Dunne who in the past on this matter has been very very sound. I say to Mr Dunne that I think I am correct in saying that he voted against this bill. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He voted against this bill when it was first becoming law. He declared it to be anti-democratic and tyrannical. In fact Mr Dunne who has now just voted for this waka-jumping bill had this to say about it in the Christchurch  
Press 
 on 19 July 2003: “I think it is certainly an anachronism now.”—that is a big word for me; I know my colleague Dr Richard Worth will know what it means—“It was never necessary. I don’t think it’s achieved anything.” That is what Peter Dunne said about the bill that he has just walked in to vote for—after being corralled up by Helen Clark. He said that it was an anachronism that it was never necessary and that he did not think it had achieved anything. And he said this—and this is the truth; I say to Mr Dunne that he was right when he said this—“The electorate will always be the ultimate regulator. Its judgment will always prevail.” 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Absolutely. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Peter Dunne is sitting there saying: “Absolutely.” so does he agree that the bill is an anachronism? He cannot answer. That was something he told the people of New Zealand 2 years ago. He yelled out chipped in and said that he agreed with it then but he has changed his mind. 
Let us cut to the nub of the matter about why we are debating this bill. It is very simple; it is because of “old bauble”. Mr Peters said: “I’m going to pull a fast one. I’m going to grab all the baubles that I can get because ‘Bob the Builder’ has killed me in Tauranga and my career is over so I might as well grab the best 3 years that I can. Sayonara I’m off on the overseas trips. I’m going to go to every rugby game I can; I am going to go to every hot city that I can; and I am going to have the time of my life.” [ 
Interruption 
] Pita Paraone is right. Mr Paraone does stay home. He and the other New Zealand First MPs all have to stay home. 
Pita Paraone 
: But we’re not complaining. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Pita Paraone says he is not complaining. Actually I have heard nothing but complaints from New Zealand First MPs. But I am with Mr Paraone; I actually agree with him and his complaints about Winston Peters. Winston Peters said: “I’m going to have a problem Prime Minister. I’ll come across and I’ll support you. I’ll give you our votes. You give me foreign affairs in exchange but I will need to corral in my MPs because they will not be happy. I have not even consulted them about becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs and going back on the promise I made to the people of New Zealand.” Indeed that was the promise that Pita Paraone made to the people of New Zealand. 
Pita Paraone 
: Do I look sad? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am not worried; I know Pita Paraone. He is just so happy to be here. He cannot believe his luck.  
Pita Paraone 
: I am just happy to be the member for Auckland! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: For wherever! He is the member for Winston Peters. They are all the members for Winston Peters. 
Mr Peters said: “I’ve got a problem Prime Minister because a couple of them could walk.” They really all want to be members of the National Party where they can be properly looked after. They see how well Tau Henare is doing. They see how happy he is. They see Tau Henare as an operating member of Parliament. They see the Maori Party voting as it sees fit not as it is told to by Helen Clark and Winston Peters. Yes Brian Donnelly and Ron Mark would both love to be in the National Party would they not? So the solution from Helen Clark Winston Peters and Peter Dunne—going back on what he used to tell the public of New Zealand—is to legislate that MPs will owe their allegiance to their party leader and their party first and foremost—not to their conscience not to the people of New Zealand not to the Sovereign but to the party. 
I can say that we do not need this legislation in our caucus. The caucus is happy and it will stay in ACT. It does not need to be legislated to stay in the party as the New Zealand First caucus does. I think Peter Dunne must be worried about his caucus because why else would he change his vote? Why would he vote against this legislation consistently speak out against it in Parliament speak out about it in public to the  
Press 
 in July 2003 and then troop down here and suddenly say that it is a huge democratic measure and that we need this anti - waka-jumping bill. 
Of all people Peter Dunne jumped from his party—the Labour Party. He did not go back and have a by-election. Winston Peters jumped from his party—the National Party. 
Pita Paraone 
: No he didn’t jump. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He jumped. He at least had a by-election and held the seat of Tauranga in that by-election. But my understanding is that he lost the seat at the last election that he is no longer the member for Tauranga and that he does not have a chance in court against “Bob the Builder”. 
Pita Paraone 
: But he’s still here. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is actually not here. Where is he? He has been overseas. This is the first day he has been in Parliament since the first week of Parliament. Mr Peters is not here and that is why we have the bill. The ACT party stands four-square against this bill and it is throwing the weight of its entire caucus against it. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is time to remind people what this bill is about. It amends the Electoral Act 1993 in order to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. It is also designed to enhance the maintenance of the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined—if we are talking about democracy—by the electors. The bill reinstates the operative provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 which expired at the close of 17 September 2005. The Government believes that these provisions are a useful part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework.  
This is an anti - waka-jumping bill. When I came into Parliament I said to myself that if ever I strongly disagreed with my party I hoped I would have the moral integrity to resign and stand again if that were the case. That is what this bill enshrines. A member of the party that has used the electoral integrity legislation was speaking against it a few minutes ago. That to me means that that person cannot be trusted. This bill ensures that parliamentarians who are voted in by their electors and who are standing for parties whether on the list or for a seat should not be waka jumpers. If MPs do not like the stand on which they came into Parliament and if they disagree with party policy then they should have the personal integrity to resign and stand again. It seems that we have to have this Act of Parliament in order to teach people what integrity is what trust is and what the electors want. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment bill is a short bill for all practical purposes. Apart from the sunset clause upon which others have spoken it is identical to the Act that preceded it which as the previous speaker just said expired at the close of 17 September 2005.  
National opposes the bill just as it opposed the Act. It does so against a background of having seen the workings of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 in operation. I welcome the reservations expressed by the Hon Peter Dunne and the comments made by the previous speaker Dianne Yates that certainly on one view of it would seem to be quite hostile to the continuation of this type of legislation. 
 The bill on its face—and I am referring to clause 3—asserts a purpose to “(a) enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system;” and those are lofty constitutional words. I guess they recall the words of Edmund Burke in his speech to the electors of Bristol.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh not Edmund Burke! 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Those are old words. They pre-date the arrival of Dr Cullen to this Parliament yet they have I suggest a timeliness that remains apposite even today.  
What Edmund Burke said in 1774 was this: “Certainly … it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose his pleasures his satisfactions to theirs; and above all ever and in all cases to prefer their interest to his own.” The crunch words then come: “But his unbiassed opinion his mature judgment his enlightened conscience he ought not to sacrifice to you to any man or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”  
I will go on in a moment and relate those comments that Edmund Burke made to comments that the Rt Hon Winston Peters made at the passage of this bill’s predecessor legislation. But Edmund Burke goes on to say this which seems also apposite in the context of a discussion of this legislation: “To deliver an opinion is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion which a representative ought to always rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But  
authoritative 
 instructions;  
mandates 
 issued which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey to vote and to argue for though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience—these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”  
Dianne Yates made very similar comments to what Edmund Burke said so long ago. I believe that those comments—that considered opinion—is very much the starting point for any discussion about what this bill is allegedly about: electoral integrity because quite clearly this bill starkly conflicts with established principles of parliamentary representation and political duty.  
This proposed legislation comes to us as part of the political baggage of the support arrangement between New Zealand First and the Labour Government. In the case of Mr Peters the current leader of New Zealand First the agreement represents a backtrack on two key election promises made by him. The first promise was to abstain on confidence and supply and the second as others have said was to shun the baubles of office. So in the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government dated 17 October 2005 under the heading “Policy Programme” there was a commitment by the Government to meet the special needs of Mr Peters to support the reintroduction of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.  
I refer briefly to comments that Winston Peters made to this House on the second and third readings of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. The comments are related to the issue of the baubles of office. He made the comments on 18 December 2001 the day on which both the second and third readings of that bill took place. That was the predecessor legislation and clearly it was being rushed through in circumstances of urgency. Mr Peters was attacking the National Party through most of his speech and he spoke about the right of a party to offer people positions preferment salaries and the baubles of office in order to break with the public will. He went on to state: “There is a word for it but I cannot use it.” We have seen in his actions—which I do not believe were really supported by his party—a breaking of that very clear position which he expressed in such terms that it would be untenable to break such arrangements.  
In a later speech in the third reading on the same day Mr Peters spoke about the “venal stink and stench of people who offer preferment and the baubles of office to people to change their political loyalties.” And sadly that is what we have seen played out in the discussions that have led to the setting up of the present Government. [ 
Interruption 
] It is also interesting I say to Dr Cullen that in the particular speech to which I am now referring Mr Peters spoke of the “Burkean principle of an MP’s conscience” and that has been wholly abandoned in this bill.  
So I would say that the words “electoral integrity” have not been the watchwords of this Government. This Government has committed itself not to electoral integrity but to the “Maharey principle”—that is doing one thing in Opposition and the opposite in Government—and I think that the phrase “Maharey principle” has now passed into the language of Parliament. It is something we all understand—the “Maharey principle”.  
I would like for a moment in the short time that I have available just to talk about what I would judge to be the hallmarks of electoral integrity and they are not to be found in this proposed legislation. I say that they are simply these. First of all is an election manifesto that is created with integrity and similarly implemented by a successful Government. That has been hugely lacking in the case of this present Government and in the unravelling processes that will see us in urgency next week. The second hallmark is a commitment to the principles articulated so long ago by Edmund Burke which Dianne Yates has recently supported. The third one is a shunning of the so-called baubles of office by coalition and support parties when they have made those pledges.  
This Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is not about any of those things. It has been specifically designed to cover the situation where loyalty cannot be secured through voluntary commitment and for such loyalty to be enforced by statutory measures. I would say that approach is utterly shameful. The Greens as a matter of principle will not support this bill. Rod Donald made a good comment I think about that which I will not refer to in the absence of time but he made it very clear that the sort of legislation we are talking about would not enjoy the support of the Greens; nor does it enjoy the support of National; nor should it enjoy the support of this Parliament. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a second time 
. As the House will be aware Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Good idea; we should use them more often. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed.  
The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 1 August this year. It amends 29 Acts administered in 12 different departments. All the proposed amendments have received cross-party support. Briefly they include amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1990 which clarify that more than one Order in Council can be made to bring into force provisions of that Act; an amendment to the Continental Shelf Act 1964 which makes technical changes to the definition of “continental shelf” and adds a related definition of the shelf’s seaward-side boundaries; amendments to the Corrections Act 2004 which set out the functions of probation officers and allow for the powers and functions of controlling officers to be prescribed by regulation; amendments to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 which correct mistaken references and clarify the role of the Retirement Commissioner; and finally amendments to the Wine Act 2003—an Act near and dear to many members in this House I am sure—which correct mistaken cross-references and provide for the director-general to waive or modify the requirement under the Act for an independent evaluation report to be submitted.  
Finally I wish to take the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a proposal by the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne to include further amendments in the bill by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. The proposed amendments are to the Child Support Act 1991. I understand that in the course of today all parties have agreed to that. Given that that is the case I know that my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove the Minister with responsibility for this bill has agreed to the inclusion of the Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5). We have Supplementary Order Paper 383 which was tabled on 21 June 2005. However the Minister’s comment about the possibility of a later Supplementary Order Paper being tabled surprises me. I take it that that will come in the Committee stage—I see that the member is nodding his head there.  
One of the major issues we have with regard to Supplementary Order Papers which I have mentioned on numerous occasions is the last-minute attempt to bring in legislation without the full scrutiny of the House. The bill has had its first reading and been to a select committee and now the Government intends to introduce in the Committee stage a Supplementary Order Paper that no one has had a look at. I do not even know the name of it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Fred. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well I will be interested when we come to the Committee stage in whether the Minister will take a call to show us and articulate to us why it is so necessary to introduce legislation that has not been scrutinised in a first reading or by a select committee. Here we are now debating the bill’s second reading. This Government is getting into the habit of bringing in legislation at the eleventh hour and I am well known for saying on record that that needs to be tidied up and that to bring in legislation without proper scrutiny is unacceptable. There will have to be a very good reason for members to accept a Supplementary Order Paper during the late stage of the Committee of the whole House so I look forward to it being tabled.  
I want to draw the House’s attention to one part of the bill. As the Minister said the bill originally had 25 parts but some new parts have been inserted bringing the total number up to 29. The area that I want to look at particularly is Part 7 “Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001”. We have supported dairy restructuring and I have with me in the House tonight people who were very much involved in dairying. Colin King is probably more from the sheep side of agriculture but we have Nathan Guy who has been with his family very much involved in dairying. We have supported the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act which has opened up the opportunity for people to be involved from outside the traditional mainstream companies like Fonterra. Up in my areawe have the Open Country Cheese Co. which is a very progressive company that was chaired and set up by a former member of this House the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech.  
 Part 7 of this legislation tidies up an area that we and the industry have had major concerns about which is the reason that the industry supports the amendment. Should a farmer decide to exit the industry or move to another company then the company he or she was supplying actually has to pay that person out. It has to buy the shares back from that particular farmer. This bill safeguards companies from that draw-down on their capital. If say Fonterra had a run on its capital because so many farmers decided to move out and set up their own businesses or to go out of dairying and move into alternative forms of land use then that company would have a huge drain on its capital. This bill offers the opportunity to have redeemable shares and that is a positive move. At some stage however the company will have to buy those shares out. With that in mind this legislation is important. It safeguards industries from a draw-down on their capital. The industry supports that and National supports it as well.  
I will not go through the other points in the major parts of the bill. The Minister has articulated what they are. They range from amendments to legislation affecting animal welfare right through to that affecting Government superannuation gambling and the protection of flags emblems and names. Such amendments are commonplace in bills brought in to tidy up legislation and that is acceptable. But we do not accept and we will be looking very very closely at the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister mentioned in his address. I give notice that we will look at it very very closely to see whether it adds value and is worthy of support from the Opposition side of the House. I remind members that if we do not support it then it will not happen. We want to make sure that it is worthy of our support. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) as the previous chair of the Government Administration Committee. I thank all the members of that committee for the work they did on this bill because as Mr Tisch rightly pointed out this bill covers amendments to a number of Acts.  
Select committees are rather nervous about dealing with the breadth of legislation covered here and the scrutiny the Government Administration Committee gave these matters was considered. A number of officials came before the committee and in many cases we went back to Ministers to explain why the changes had to be made. We also know that there was cross-party consultation on these changes so Mr Tisch does make a very good point about the Supplementary Order Paper. No doubt when it comes before the Committee of the whole House it also will be scrutinised very carefully. 
Once again I thank the Government Administration Committee. It covers a wide range of legislation particularly in Statutes Amendment bills. It is very careful about small technical amendments; sometimes they end up being much larger than people may have anticipated. Once again I thank members of the committee for the scrutiny they gave this legislation. I also thank the officials who worked on the legislation. On some occasions we demanded quite a bit of the officials sending them back to answer many questions—so a big thanks to everybody involved. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was taken somewhat unawares there because week after week National Party members have been telling New Zealand First members that they want proportional representation when it comes to speaking in Parliament and here with their second call on this bill they cannot take it. They wave the white flag. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: We’re actually supporting it. That’s why we’re not taking a second call. 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell Mr Tisch that this bill has enough meat in it for him to stand up and say what he thinks about it. I might make it clear that New Zealand First is totally in support of it.  
Lindsay Tisch 
: I will stand up if the member wishes. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know that the National Party wants us to sit down but part of this bill fixes up a glaring National Party stuff-up. If I can be critical of the current Government it is to ask why it has taken so long. I am talking about fixing up the Maritime Transport Act of 1994. For the new members here—and I know that a number of them do not understand what the 1994 Act actually does—a coastal ship chartered from overseas registered elsewhere and fully manned by New Zealanders has to get the Minister’s permission to go off route or to an external port that is not on its normal route whilst a foreign ship that is manned by goodness knows who that works under a favourable tax regime— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: —Wayne Mapp laughs—and that pays no accident compensation can come into this country and pick up coastal cargo taking it anywhere it likes. No permission is needed. Let me tell honourable members over there—because I can see that some of them are listening and can understand the importance of shipping to this country—that in excess of 99 percent of cargo in and out of this country comes and goes by ship. And how many foreign ships do we have? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How many? 
PETER BROWN 
: Zilch none. Not one. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Not one? 
PETER BROWN 
: No because the National Government stuffed the environment. It would not look at them. We had a shipping conference where you heard the problems firsthand and you thumbed your nose at it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: I realise that the honourable Speaker did not; he was far— 
Pita Paraone 
: More learned than that. 
PETER BROWN 
: —more learned than that as my colleague said. However I say to my colleague the Labour Government has not done very much more. It had a shipping review but it has sat on it for 6 or 7 years and has done nothing about it. This legislation is a little move in the right direction. Nowadays this country has very few ships. It has none trading overseas—just a few trading around the coast and they are struggling. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is that a problem?  
PETER BROWN 
: It is a problem. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Has New Zealand had overseas traders? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member has asked a question and I am prepared to answer it. But where will we an island nation tucked way down at the bottom of the South Pacific get future maritime expertise from? Tell me that we do not need maritime expertise in this country! That member would not go as far as that— 
Pita Paraone 
: It’s not politically correct! 
PETER BROWN 
: No it is not politically correct. New Zealand First will support this bill. Personally and speaking from the heart I am delighted that this Parliament is about to pass unanimously sensible legislation in favour of the New Zealand ship operator—and I say: “About time too!”. 
Bill read a second time. 
Parliamentary Service Commission 
Membership 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 the following be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission: Tim Barnett Peter Brown Rodney Hide Keith Locke Tariana Turia Judy Turner and Lindsay Tisch. 
For those members not familiar with the Parliamentary Service Act it defines the membership as the Leader of the Opposition the Leader of the House or their nominees. Not everybody knows those important facts. These are statutory positions so I or my nominee who is Mr Burton do not have to be listed; nor does Dr Brash whose nominee is I think Mr Power or Mr Brownlee—I cannot remember. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: John Carter. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: John Carter—that is correct. But the other members then have to be nominated one for each party within Parliament. Those members are of course nominated by their own parties. By convention obviously Parliament does not interfere with each party’s own nomination. Theoretically one could but that in my view would be a gross misuse of any temporary passing majority within the House. The Parliamentary Service Commission does extremely important work. It is therefore crucial that the parties are all represented on it. 
Motion agreed to. 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental  Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time it will be moved that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee not of course because this is a transport issue but because it does relate very broadly to the industrial relations area.  
But now that I am on my feet and the oratorical opportunities have overcome me in this respect let me simply say that of course it has been the intention since paid parental leave was first introduced to extend it to self-employed people. It was recognised from the beginning that actually the most difficult part of paid parental leave is not so much how to define who is self-employed but how to define relevant earnings etc. It is much more difficult obviously for self-employed people than it is for those people who are employed. But clearly in terms of the original provision within the legislation there was a recognised inequity—that not to include self-employed people was a hole. An undertaking was given right from the beginning that that hole would be filled at a reasonably early opportunity.  
I might say that the National Party opposed paid parental leave. The most extraordinary sight was its women’s spokesperson who had availed herself of some significantly paid parental leave at the time actually opposing paid parental leave for the general workforce and everyone else. The primary purposes of that legislation were first of all to assist parents—particularly in the first stages of a baby’s life—and secondly particularly for women to provide the mechanism that enables the maintenance of a connection with the paid workforce. That clearly had worked overseas. It was the primary justification in many respects of the introduction of paid parental leave and I think the evidence since that time of increased female participation within the workforce has demonstrated that that has proved successful.  
I might say by the side of that that one should not go overboard. The United States in terms of its benefit system applies a work test to a parent when a baby is as young as 3-12 months. Ninety-odd percent of mothers who are not in employment are below the poverty line but appallingly 40 percent of sole parents who are in employment are also below the poverty line. That suggests that a much broader approach to these issues and a more generous one is actually appropriate. But I shall leave that to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson to explain in more detail. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National will be supporting the bill to the select committee but I think that Dr Cullen had a bit of a hospital pass there. The Minister in charge of the bill perhaps did not arrive in proper time to speak on it but I note that Dr Cullen did canvass the issues quite widely.  
This bill is belated recognition of the issue and it is all very well for Dr Cullen to say that the Government was going to fix this issue at an early time. Well that was not the case. It took time for them to recognise that reality and it is 3 years since the original legislation was passed into law. I acknowledge that it has been reasonably popular legislation and I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is why it took Labour 3 years to do this. Is it because it is dominated by unionists— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —who like the Minister tend to look at the world through only the eyes of employees? They cannot really see broader than that at all. The failure to include the self-employed was one of National’s major objections at the time. My colleagues Anne Tolley and Dr Lynda Scott put this directly in their speeches at the time. Dr Lynda Scott asked in 2002 what rural women and the self-employed got from the original bill. Well she had the clear answer—they got a big fat nothing. That was the truth of it. So this legislation is belated recognition and frankly National takes some credit for the fact that the bill is here now. We raised this issue up and down the country. I was at meetings held by my colleagues who were concerned about this. I read some of the submissions at the time. I know that in my former legal profession this was a real concern of women lawyers. I know that my colleague Judith Collins raised this issue at an early point because women in the legal profession had been campaigning for years and years to get some form of recognition.  
One of the flaws of Labour’s argument its philosophical approach is that they did have choices—in particular the self-employed. What Labour is doing here is providing a benefit from the welfare system at a set figure of $375 according to the commentary on the bill. The alternative is a tax deduction. These are hugely different things because they speak volumes about the philosophical approach of the parties. Self-employed people actually do not want a handout from the State; they do not want to be turned into beneficiaries by this Government. Maybe the select committee will look at the options that are available because I am prepared to bet that many of the submissions that will come from the self-employed because that is who will be making them primarily will say that maybe a tax deduction might be a better way of doing it. Just think of the advantages: under the beneficiary system there is a whole range of inspectorate systems.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How can people have a tax deduction if they’re not in paid work? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The bill has labour inspectors checking to see whether people are taking time off work whether they are still involved in the work and how much they are involved in the work. It is all there in the bill if the Minister would care to look. That is exactly what New Zealanders hate—particularly the self-employed. They hate the intrusion of the State into their lives in that particular way. I point out to the Minister that that is the advantage of a tax deduction. It gives people choices—something Labour seems to struggle with in reality.  
We need only to think of the way people run their businesses. We do not have labour inspectors checking to see whether every particular little tax deduction in one’s tax return is proper; it is all done through an efficient and effective system called the “IRD”—very efficient and low compliance costs through the department. The interjections made by the Minister of Labour simply show her lack of understanding of the world of small business the world of the self-employed who want choices and who do not want the intrusion of the State and Department of Labour inspectors into their lives.  
I ask the Government to take on board the issues that are raised in the submissions. There will be proposals to treat this in a different way because in reality it is very hard for those who are self-employed to absent themselves completely from their business. They want some supervisory role. They will be ringing up the office checking on things. Women at home will be wanting to do that. They do not want to have to get approval from the Department of Labour to see whether they can do that. They just want to be able to do that and get on with their lives and at the very minimum they should have the choice between a tax deduction and receiving a State benefit. I can imagine in some instances people might actually want a State benefit but women who are self-employed who are taking time out to have a family and still want to be involved in their business ought to have the choice of a tax deduction as well.  
National is supporting the bill to the select committee. We see this legislation as a belated although inadequate measure. We understand that the Government will say this is all part of its commitments made in the election campaign and so forth. I just ask the Government whether it really went out and talked to self-employed women. Does it understand how self-employed women think about their lives think about the way they run their businesses think about the way they run their households and then ask whether self-employed women actually want to become beneficiaries of the State? Because that is the dependency mindset that the Government would put them into.  
I have a particular role that has gained a certain momentum—that is political correctness eradication. One of the key issues is that New Zealanders say they are sick of the intrusion of the State into their lives. That is a key way of looking at political correctness. So what does the Government do? In the guise of assisting women—and that is a good thing—it loads on more bureaucracy. That is the very thing that New Zealanders do not want more of. I ask the Government to take note of the submissions understand that people in self-employment operate differently from employees and give them choices because that is the sort of thing that will be put to the select committee when it hears the evidence on the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It gives me huge pleasure to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. Paid parental leave is a significant component of our Government’s policy to promote high-quality working lives. Since we introduced paid parental leave in 2002 over 52000 working parents have benefited from paid leave from work on the birth or adoption of their child. The Government conducted a review of paid parental leave in 2003 which showed that the scheme has been successful and that employees and employers have adjusted well to the entitlement. I do not recall that a single submission said that people would prefer tax cuts. They all said that it had been very successful. 
 Since that review in December of last year the Government extended paid parental leave for employees from 12 weeks to 13 weeks with a further extension from 1 December this year to 14 weeks. That review also showed though that the scheme could be improved to extend coverage to self-employed parents who are not currently eligible for paid parental leave.  
I would like at this point to make it clear that there are currently some parents who work in their own businesses who are eligible for paid parental leave. Where a company’s shareholders are also legitimately employees of the company they are eligible for parental leave payments as employees under the current scheme. This applies only to those who are legitimately shareholder employees. It is an offence under the Act to provide misleading information to obtain paid parental leave.  
This bill provides for 14 weeks’ paid parental leave from 1 July 2006 for self-employed mothers. The bill is intended to provide paid parental payments to self-employed people on a basis consistent with that currently provided to employees while recognising the particular circumstances of self-employment. It is estimated that over 2170 self-employed parents will apply for paid parental leave each year.  
Self-employed mothers will be eligible if they work an average of 10 hours a week or more during either a 6 or 12-month period immediately before the expected date of delivery of their child or adoption. Self-employed mothers will have the same right as employees to transfer this leave to their eligible partners who may either be self-employed or employees. A self-employed person will be entitled to paid parental leave if he or she is engaged in more than one type of work consecutively and/or if he or she has a break of 30 days or fewer between engagements. Like employees they will be required to stop working while receiving payments but they will be able to maintain a level of oversight of their business during the leave period.  
Parental leave payments for the self-employed will equal their average weekly income up to the maximum rate paid to employees of $357.30 per week before tax. Those who make a loss or earn less than the minimum wage for at least 10 hours a week will be entitled to payments for 10 hours a week at the minimum wage.  
The bill also provides that employees will become eligible for a second or subsequent period of parental leave and parental leave payments if the expected date of delivery or adoption is at least 6 months after the return to work from a previous period of parental leave rather than 12 months as at present. This will extend eligibility for paid parental leave to a small number of employees. It also provides that self-employed women will be eligible for parental leave payments for second and subsequent children 6 months following previous parental leave payments. It is important that these provisions are aligned with the minimum eligibility criteria for first-time mothers.  
The bill also includes a new provision which explicitly provides that an employee or self-employed person can apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a review of the decision made by the Department of Labour about his or her eligibility for a parental leave payment. It enables the department to approve applicants for payment where there are technical problems with the application. Currently these applications must go to the Employment Relations Authority before they can be approved. This amendment will save applicants from having to go through this process. But the department may not approve applications if the problem is a dispute between the employer and the employee.  
This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to provide paid parental leave for working families. It will extend coverage to a range of self-employed activities including the working arrangements of farming families. This is a significant step giving practical financial help to families when new mothers have been self-employed and it supports positive health outcomes for both mothers and babies. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am looking forward to making a contribution to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. It is not before time that self-employed women and self-employed parents are included within this legislation. It always appeared to me to be a glaring omission from the very first legislation put before the House.  
I understand the principles behind the bill. It is very much the Kiwi way I think to look to support Kiwis when they are unwell when they are unable to work or when they are at some stage in their life where they are not able to participate. One of the things we need to appreciate is that after a baby is born many women are unable to work and are unable to participate. As a result of that I am totally comfortable with the concept of paid parental leave.  
Having said that though the fact that self-employed women were not originally included in this legislation was very hard to debate. I look back at some of the points the Minister made at the time when defending the fact that self-employed women were not part of this scheme. It was argued that it was difficult to measure a self-employed parent’s income. It was argued that it was too difficult to manage and that it would be difficult to administer. A lot of those arguments did not hold water at all. If someone is unable to work that is quite clear.  
The fact is that paid parental leave offers a finite amount being some $350-odd a week. It was not as if we had a paid parental leave scheme as overseas where it is linked to a certain level of income that one may or may not be earning at the time. It seemed to me to be discriminatory that self-employed women were not part of the scheme right from the outset. It was difficult to argue to self-employed hairdressers who might have a contract seat in a salon to women who were working in local retail shops that they owned or to rural women who were involved in the dairy industry or farming that they were not able to be part of the scheme. I think that this is a step forward which is why I am pleased that my party is supporting this bill going to a select committee.  
It is also important to tell some truth about the genesis of this bill because the Labour Government is very quick to claim credit for it. We need to remember that Laila Harré first brought this up as an issue. When the debate was first raised Helen Clark said: “Over my dead body!” would there be paid parental leave. In fact while Labour wants to claim credit for this scheme the credit lies with some people who are now outside the House.  
This bill is a step forward. I think it is important that we debate some of these issues and look further at the scheme. I am glad the bill is going to a select committee because that will give us the opportunity to detail some of the important points to do with this legislation. But if we look at the number of women who will now be included a lot of working women will be shaking their heads in wonder trying to understand why they were not included in the first place. A lot of our self-employed women are not people earning multimillion-dollar salaries. They tend to be those who have done the right thing gone out and created businesses for themselves and employed themselves but they tend to be part of small-business operations which make up some 95 percent of all firms in this country.  
If we look at those who will be captured by this bill it makes sense that we include self-employed women. Let us face it any new mum is in the same situation. It should not matter for a moment who employs a new parent. The issue is that that parent should have the same ability as anybody else to access support when it is required.  
As I look at my own situation and look back at my political life probably one of the dumbest things I did was attempt to go back to work some 2 weeks after the birth of my two children. I think it is a good thing that we take time and allow some new parents just to get on with bonding with their baby and enjoying those first few weeks. I think one of the problems we have with working currently is that a lot of parents feel they have to rush back to work at that very very important time.  
I think that the scheme we have in New Zealand has proved able to support a number of parents over the last couple of years. But we are not being fair to all new parents because until recently many have not been able to enjoy the same rights with the scheme. It was discriminatory not to have self-employed women as part of the original scheme. Some of the arguments put up in my view did not hold water and if we look at trying to track the engagement of self-employed mothers and fathers with the scheme we see that it is not that hard to do. It is certainly not as hard as that to determine whether they have had children and whether they will be engaged in work.  
It will be interesting to see the sorts of submissions we get at the select committee level. I think we will see the same sorts of groups endorsing the inclusion of self-employed women. We need to remember some of the submissions made by groups like Rural Women New Zealand. Representatives from that group made the very pertinent point that many of their members coming from the rural community and being involved in sheep and dairy farms needed that break and the ability to take time out more than anybody else in the same situation and they needed to be able to protect their incomes during such a difficult time. But they were not able to be part of the scheme. So they were paying taxes and contributing to a scheme to pay for a whole bunch of other parents who were in exactly the same situation as themselves.  
I recall receiving many many letters from rural women involved in the daily graft of a family farming operation asking why they were not allowed to engage in the scheme and saying it was not fair. Their taxes were going to support other new parents but they were trying to juggle a new baby and a family farming operation and they were not able to be part of the scheme. So I suspect we will get a lot of submissions from the rural community making exactly that point. We will welcome those submissions when they come.  
A lot of self-employed new parents are not actually wealthy individuals. One of the myths the Government side of the House wants to perpetuate is the idea that if people are in business they are wealthy and well off. That is not the case. Many self-employed people up and down the country make up what could be described as the working poor. They are doing the right thing in getting up every day to go to work paying their taxes being burdened with compliance costs and making sure that they play their part in the community but they can also fall on times when I think they deserve additional support as well. It is just as important for those parents to have the time to bond with their children and to take that time out as it is for any other employee.  
The fact that a woman happens to be her own boss was never an excuse to leave her out of this scheme. Such people are very easy to track. They were always going to gain a finite amount of income from the scheme. The arguments put forward to lock them out of the scheme were always discriminatory and quite unfair.  
I suspect we will see a lot of industry groups put forward submissions—from the hairdressers association to the legal fraternity to accountancy firms. I think a number of professional women will have a view on this inclusion and we will welcome every single one of those submissions and look forward to hearing them at the select committee. We do not know what sort of amendments and suggestions they will make but it is important that this bill gets as far as the select committee and the select committee can make amendments and improvements. If we have seen anything from this Government it is that often it will put before a select committee a poorly drafted bill that needs a lot of work if it is to make it through to being an Act that will actually work.  
For self-employed women—and for new dads as well; I cannot leave them out—this is a step forward. We look forward to the select committee process and I hope the public will rise to the occasion and put forward their views. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call because I think that the member who has just resumed her seat has explained in quite some detail the background behind this bill and how important it is. She made one mistake though: she described it as a step forward. New Zealand First would be a lot more positive than that; we would say that this bill is an essential requirement. It is essential for fairness alone. It was a sad fact that self-employed women were left out of the last bill. New Zealand First did not vote for the last bill for that reason. We thought the last bill was totally unfair. We supported the first bill. We support the concept of paid parental leave but we thought the last bill should have addressed this issue fairly comprehensively—a year ago was it? It is actually a sad reflection on the Government that it has taken 3 years to recognise self-employed women.  
There is a statement I want to read from the explanatory note of the bill. It is on page 12 if anybody is interested in two bullet points. It states: “self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare:”. Did we not all know that? We did not have to have some sort of evaluation exercise to know that. The explanatory note goes on to state: “self-employed parents did not receive parental leave payments despite helping to fund the scheme through their tax payments.” That is absolutely true and it is a disgrace that this Parliament has not addressed that issue much much sooner. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But we are now. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Government is now doing so—and I would not skite about it because although some very highly paid women in this country can get paid parental leave the small operator the self-employed woman gets nothing. She pays tax and gets nothing— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But they will be able to get something. 
PETER BROWN 
: —and I say to honourable members that it is about time we addressed that issue. There is no obligation for employed people to go back to the job they came from. There is an obligation for the employer to hold the job open but there is no obligation for the employee to go back to that job. I almost guarantee that self-employed women will go back to the same job. They play a very positive and prominent part in our society.  
New Zealand First supports this bill. No doubt there will be glitches in it that will need to be tidied up by the select committee but we will support its referral to the select committee and we welcome its fast-tracking through the House simply to make the whole thing fair. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are that this bill is finally before the House. We will definitely be supporting this legislation right through to its third reading as we have advocated strongly over the last 6 years for the ability of self-employed parents to get paid parental leave. I remember as I am sure other Opposition members do the promise made by the Minister during discussions on the last paid parental leave amendment bill in 2004 when she pledged that policy development relating to the self-employed was a very high priority for the Government. It is great to see that Ruth Dyson has been able to keep this promise with the support of her own party the Greens and other parties in this House.  
Over recent weeks I have heard concerns from some women that they have planned their pregnancies so that the birth of their baby will coincide with the implementation of this legislation on 1 July next year. I dare say it is a risky business to organise one’s pregnancy on the basis of a Government’s declared intentions. I have been a bit nervous about this in relation to the progress of the legislation as have those women but sometimes people do seem to believe what Governments tell them. I just hope that we will be able to progress this bill quickly enough so that those particular self-employed parents who have aligned the birth of their child with the timing of this bill’s passage into law will not be disappointed. I believe that there are plans for this bill to be heard with some urgency at the select committee. That will be necessary or there will be some very sad parents out there.  
As we all realise a large number of potential mothers are in this category. About 66000 women of childbearing age in the self-employed workforce are not able to access the existing system of paid parental leave. I remember well as my colleague Katherine Rich has just said that when we heard the submissions at the select committee for the first paid parental leave bill we heard some very telling advocacy from groups of self-employed business people in the urban areas and from rural women about the inequity of our passing legislation that would give something to parents working for an employer which was to be denied to those in self-employment.  
There has never been any rationale on equity grounds to grant paid parental leave to one lot of parents and not to another when both are in the workforce and both have equal need of the many benefits that up to 14 weeks’ paid parental leave can provide. 
 All employed and self-employed parents deserve the opportunity to plan ahead for the births of their children in the knowledge that they will be eligible to receive up to 14 weeks’ pay to help compensate for their loss of income during that period. Whether a mother is working as a sharemilker a self-employed management consultant a farmer a shop owner or in any other form of self-employment she deserves the same chances as other mothers-to-be in the employed workforce. This new extension of paid parental leave to the self-employed will also carry with it the opportunity for the transfer of payments by a self-employed mother to her eligible partner whether that partner is self-employed or an employee himself or herself.  
Although paid parental leave is only one part of a much bigger picture when it comes to providing more and better support for parents and children it is a critical component. Paid parental leave of 14 weeks is at least a bare minimum which gives parents time to have a breathing space away from work to focus their full attention on their new child and their growing family and allows them to build those early bonds and to recover from childbirth.  
One of the main reasons that the self-employed were not included within the paid parental leave framework earlier was because the Government found it difficult to sort out suitable eligibility criteria and a workable methodology. I could never understand why this was so hard when the Accident Compensation Corporation already has elaborate systems for providing various forms of cover for the self-employed. I am glad that the Government has now broken through its self-imposed fiscal and administrative impediments so that an estimated 2000-plus self-employed parents a year will receive eligibility from 2006 onwards.  
Although applauding the Government for keeping its promises on this one I will say in finishing that we in Aotearoa New Zealand still have a long way to go. We are way behind a number of other countries in this area particularly the UK and Europe. Just to give one example in February this year the UK Government announced plans to extend paid maternity leave from 6 months to 9 months by April 2007 with the aim of taking it out to a full year in its next term of Parliament. The British Labour Party is certainly giving its New Zealand counterparts something to aim for. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 The Maori Party believes there is no greater responsibility and honour than that of raising the next generation. The privilege of parenting should be one that all parties seek to protect and support through a variety of means and this bill is one of those means. This is not to say that one must always be paid to undertake duties as a result of choosing to continue the existence of the human race kao! 
The desire of the Maori Party is for our people to go forth and multiply. Our policy commitment is to strengthen and support whanau to take up their responsibilities for child rearing. The Maori Party believes that parents—solo parents and couples—grandparents and aunties and uncles should have the choice to stay at home and look after their children their tamariki. That is their choice. We do not see this as another welfare payment. In fact it should not be because despite anything that might be said welfare is a net that entangles one—he taura ka herea atu ki te kaki o te tangata: it tightens like a noose around the throat.  
There are alternatives to welfare. We are supportive of the concept of the reduction of taxation if the family income is under the poverty line. Currently 1.9 million taxpayers are on an income of $25000 or less. Those people are paying $3.5 billion in tax -while the Government is accumulating surpluses of between $4 billion and $7 billion each year. If we could use $1.75 billion of the $3.5 billion on those 1.9 million taxpayers to give a tax discount of 50 percent to our low-income people we could achieve significant changes in the welfare and well-being of these people—and they could achieve choice.  
The primary aim of the bill is to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 and to extend the 14-week paid parental leave scheme to self-employed individuals who are not currently covered. It is interesting to note that women are significantly under-represented amongst the self-employed—particularly Maori women. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has found that only around 44 percent of applicants seeking Enterprise Awards Scheme grants were women and only 8 percent of applicants had identified themselves as Maori. 
 The December 2000 household labour force survey reported only 4500 self-employed Maori women which is about 6.4 percent of the total number of self-employed women. In addition 1300 self-employed Maori women employed others which is only 3.3 percent of the total number of women in that category. Although we are very surprised to see that Maori women are under-represented in this area we should not be because we know from bitter experience how difficult it is for Maori to access loan facilities to enable them to give substance to their entrepreneurial talents. They also lack the material assets from which they can borrow. That Maori—and Maori women in particular—are entrepreneurial cannot be disputed. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor now covers 41 countries and is the largest survey of entrepreneurship undertaken in the world. It is ironic that Maori are more likely to be necessity entrepreneurs—that is forced to start a business due to job loss or redundancy—than are non-Maori or the global average. One has to ask then whether it was a necessity to achieve international recognition as being entrepreneurial. Although we are supportive of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill it might dull the entrepreneurial spirit and that would be another irony.  
Within the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey 83 percent more Maori women than men at 30 percent identify themselves as opportunity entrepreneurs—that is those able to spot a business opportunity. Again we question the irony of this international achievement. Maori women are successful at spotting a business opportunity but perhaps up until the time of this legislation they were unable to act on the opportunity because they lacked resources including parental leave and parental leave payments in order to maintain a decent standard of living. We are optimistic that this legislation will help to do something about this situation and ensure that those women can maintain their entrepreneurial spirit in enterprises by the assistance it will give them. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor survey covering female entrepreneurs found Maori women to be remarkably more entrepreneurial than non-Maori New Zealand women. Female entrepreneurs account for 13 percent of the general Maori population compared with 8.7 percent amongst non-Maori and 6.4 percent for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor world.  
Again with all the success being heralded overseas it is sobering that despite these talents reality paints a quite different picture. The latest report of the Ministry of Social Development shows that despite improvements inequalities remain all too real. It notes that hourly wage and salary rates for Maori still trail European rates—$13.76 against $16—and literacy skills and educational achievement are also lower. That is an indictment on our national and international standing yet again. It is to our national shame that Professor Stavenhagen the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples found only 2 weeks ago that “there is also widespread concern that the gap in social and economic conditions is actually growing larger and that an increasing proportion of Maori are being left behind.”  
The Government’s own figures reveal that the unemployment rate for Maori has steadily increased over the last year from an actual rate of 8.3 percent in September 2004 to 9.1 percent in September 2005 with the unemployment rate for Pakeha still steadily decreasing over the same period. All of those figures go to show that despite the international recognition of the entrepreneurial spirit of Maori women much still has to be done to address the inequities within our society. To that extent the Maori Party supports the introduction of this bill as one means to address the inequities. 
 The bill is consistent with Maori Party kaupapa that underscores the importance of a whanau’s financial security and its implication of assistance to whanau when a parent is temporarily out of the paid workforce. We should let such parents be paid out of the annual tax take which they have contributed to. A question we have around the bill however is whether it is possible for the bill to include those in multiple or casual employment situations. There are criteria contained that restrict eligibility to mean that one must be working at least 10 hours a week in concurrent employment and also that any break between consecutive types of work is for only 30 days or less. We would like to know what that will actually mean for self-employed persons in real terms. Parenting for us is important. The Maori Party applauds this bill as it supports parenting for those people who are also wealth creators and creators of employment. Tena tatou katoa. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill 2005. Like other parties United Future is very pleased to see the advent of this bill. We congratulate the Minister on taking the necessary steps to advance the development of this legislation and we look forward to assisting its passage in whatever way we can.  
The bill does four main things. The first obviously is to extend the provisions of parental leave to the self-employed. Second it allows for that leave to be shared or transferred and I think that that is important when we start to understand that there are families for whom fathers may be the most suitable to provide parental care in those essential first few weeks. Third the bill also clarifies eligibility particularly for the self-employed and allows them to maintain some sort of business oversight while still qualifying for help. Fourth it establishes clearly what that rate of payment will be. We have known for a long time that self-employed parents who actually do face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare are the same people who have not received parental leave payments despite the fact that they have helped to fund the scheme through their tax payments. So the advent of this bill is long overdue and we welcome it.  
It is so interesting that just within the last week or so the Hon Peter Dunne received from one of his constituents an email asking for the time frame in anticipation. She said: “I struggle to understand why self-employed mothers who work just as hard as anyone else and pay their taxes are not entitled to parental leave. Both my husband and I work extremely hard and are both self-employed. We have struggled with how we could possibly have a baby as it will require me to take time out from my demanding business. I am a one-man band and will still need to employ someone to run the business while I have time out thus putting a huge financial strain on us and we were giving up hope that we could possibly do it.” So is it not exciting that so close to receiving that email we are now doing the first reading of this bill? I agree and I am thrilled.  
One of the great things about the presence of the Maori Party in this House is that it is another party I think that celebrates parenthood as we do. For myself of all the things I have achieved in my life the thing that most fills me with pride is the fact that I have been the mother of three children. It supersedes any other achievement that I have ever had and the most precious 11 years of my life were spent focusing on that job. We have to face the fact that it is very difficult for families now to get ahead own a home and pay off student loans on a single income as was possible though difficult even a few years ago when I was parenting our three children at home as an unpaid mother.  
I believe that beyond even this legislation we need to have Parliament think very carefully about the expectations we put on parents who can survive only by having two incomes. That debate will have to happen on another day but that is why United Future still advocates income splitting. That is an opportunity for families with two parents to think carefully about how they manage the parenting of their children. Currently people in business are already income splitting but in relation to the tax system it is an opportunity to actually make some choices available to parents regarding the parenting arrangements for their children. We would like to see in many ways that reversed out to the employed so they were able to have those kinds of options as well. But as I said that is a debate for another day.  
Right now we are thrilled to think that for the nearly 66500 women of fertile age who are currently self-employed this new opportunity is before them. It is interesting that it is estimated by officials that about 2173 self-employed parents will be applying for this paid parental leave each year. That is an interesting statistic and it is good to see that the Government is seeing this as a priority.  
I am also very interested in the Bills Digest on the bill which refers specifically to farming families because that is also my background. I was raised in a farming family and unlike a lot of situations today my mother would probably never have called herself a farmer. I think she tried it for a couple of weeks after she got married to my father but after she took out a concrete strainer post that he had spent a lot of time putting into the ground I think she retired to domestic duties and voluntary work in the community. I think he was quite relieved. But I do know that many women in our rural community spent a huge number of hours at the cowshed and helping on the farm and that that was the way their farms survived. They did it at great cost and at great risk to be quite honest—knowing that there were often young children at home unsupervised while mum was down helping milk the cows. That situation which we would now consider appalling was the way those families survived and made their farms pay. So it is very exciting to see specific reference in the Bills Digest to farming families who I do believe face particular challenges in that regard. It is going to be pretty exciting to see provisions rolled out to them as well.  
I also reiterate my interest in and will be interested to see what submissions come in on the issue of transferability of parental leave payments and the sharing of leave. As dads start to take a much more proactive role in parenting their children—which I think is an exciting development—that gives again a whole series of new choices to families about that important period of time. It will be very interesting to see what the uptake of that is and it will also be very interesting to see what submitters make of that and whether there are any additional suggestions in that regard that need to be considered. I think that this is an exciting addition and I am looking forward to hearing what comes up in the select committee on that matter and what submissions are made on it.  
The other thing I would like to pick up on is a suggestion just made by the Maori Party that we need to look very carefully at people in multiple employment situations who may fall through the cracks of the provisions in the bill. I think that that needs to be seriously looked at. Maybe we need to add together the hours they work in jobs on a regular basis and if together the hours make up over 10 hours those provisions could be extended. That is something again that the committee might want to look at amending through the select committee process and United Future would be very keen to see that work continued.  
I think that probably everything that needs to be said on this bill has been said. We look forward very much to seeing its passage progress with speed and to hearing from the community on this matter to see if any other areas where this important provision could be extended can be identified. I thank the Minister again for the work she has done in advancing this legislation and I also express my gratitude to all parties in this House for being so positive about this bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is good to be speaking in this debate and I am looking forward to the bill coming to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee where I am sure we will deal with it as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.  
It was interesting to hear some of the speeches tonight. I certainly agreed with Peter Brown’s sentiment that things should have happened a lot sooner. I think it should have been backdated 28 years for everybody—I think that is how old my daughter is now—but unfortunately I did not succeed in getting that bit of policy through. However I was somewhat surprised to hear Dr Wayne Mapp say that people really did not want this.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I didn’t say that at all. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Maybe I misheard the member. I thought he said that parents should get tax cuts instead and that they hated having to apply for these sorts of things. Well I have noted that since 2002 52000 working parents have benefited from this Government’s wonderful policy. Not one of them has complained to me. I ask any members of this House who agree with Wayne Mapp to put their hands up and say that all those people have complained to them that paid parental leave is something they do not want. People call Wayne Mapp “the eradicator”. He is eradicating the National Party’s vote with every speech of that sort that he makes. At least Katherine Rich had the sense to recognise a good policy when she saw it and she indicated that the National Party would— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She benefited from it. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes she benefited substantially more than what this bill will give to people.  
Yet again the Government is moving policy forward. We get a little bit tired of Opposition politicians talking about being family friendly and having family values when we hear that whingeing sort of speech about how parents really want tax cuts instead of this policy. We will be very interested when we get to the end of the process and the bill has been through the select committee to see what the National Party does. Does it want to eradicate more votes as “the eradicator” said or does it want to vote for sensible policies that put families at the forefront? I think the Minister should be congratulated. Other changes in the bill will be useful in terms of speeding up some of the processes if there is a problem about eligibility. Also as the Maori Party speaker said some people want to go forth and multiply much more quickly than others. The bill allows that to happen because now a parent will be eligible for paid parental leave after only 6 months of work rather than the 12 months in the current legislation.  
This bill is yet again the work of a very good Minister and a very good Government and a very good select committee will put this bill through the select committee process. We are looking forward to the cooperation of all members of the select committee in getting submissions in. We will call for submissions this week so that there is plenty of time over January and February for the public to make their submissions then we will come back and make sure that this House passes the bill in good time which is what the parents of this country want. It is a good bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. National wishes the next call to be a split call of 5 minutes each between Paula Bennett and Chris Tremain. I understand that there will be a bell at 4 minutes prior to the 5-minute bell. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be a split call for National between Paula Bennett and Chris Tremain. There will be a first bell at 4 minutes.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 These people are our backbone. They are the people who work hard and take risks who have built our businesses and who are building a future for our country. So I stand in support of the bill.  
It is about time it was passed. When I was reading  
Hansard  
before I was amazed to find that 3 years ago Anne Tolley and Bob Simcock said that self-employed people should be considered in the bill that went through. It was then that we should have done this. It saddens me that we are having to address this issue at this time when we could have dealt with it 3 years ago as National members called for. It is shameful but here we are and thank goodness we are getting it right now. Those people are our backbone. They deserve equal rights and they deserve the paid parental leave that others get. Those people deserve to be recognised as other men and women who have young babies do. They deserve the right to get paid parental leave. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members like me to quote from it— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What a bunch of plonkers! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Is the member going to tell me off? Was there something he would like to say?  
Hon Member 
: Watch the tennis ball! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I hope not! I would like to address some of the things in this bill. It was discriminatory that parents who were self-employed were not included in this legislation in the first place. It is time we addressed that. This bill is about giving women choice. It is about giving them the option to take time out to raise their newborns without being penalised as they currently are because they happen to be especially ambitious or entrepreneurial enough to start their own business. It is time for us to address that discrepancy and to make sure that self-employed parents are given equal opportunity under the law.  
When we ask self-employed people what they would like as they move forward they say that they would like less bureaucracy. They would like an opportunity to run their businesses and their lives with less Government involvement. They would like to be paying less tax. They would like an opportunity to move forward and to build a future for both themselves and future generations. This bill goes some way to addressing those issues and I look forward to receiving submissions at the select committee where we can start to look at the will of the people. Self-employed people deserve to be looked at in an equal way.  
Those people want time to raise their babies. This is about breastfeeding. Dr Jackie Blue is sitting next to me and she will certainly tell us about the importance of breastfeeding in a baby’s early days. We need that time. At the moment self-employed women are thinking about either not having babies or if they do have babies rushing back to work because they do not have the same rights as other parents in the country. It is time to address that role so I give credit to the Labour Government for finally bringing about this legislation. But I am quite saddened that we are having to do this 3 years after the initial legislation was passed. It just seems a bit of a waste of Parliament’s and the select committee’s time that we did not address this issue when the National Party identified and raised it 3 years ago. They just point-blank said—[ 
Interruption 
] Anne Tolley said that rural women would be excluded by the legislation because they were self-employed.  
Let us ask self-employed people what they want. They want equal rights under the law and this bill goes some way to doing that. The National Party will support this bill going to the select committee and we look forward with interest to seeing the submissions that are received.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 The National Party will support the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill 2005. We will support ensuring the scheme is accessible to a wider number of individuals we will support enhancing equity by allowing employed people to access paid parental leave irrespective of whether they are employees or self-employed we will support enabling a self-employed parent to take leave for the period of income replacement and lastly we support the health and well-being of new mothers and their babies.  
Let us examine how this amendment came about. Apart from the pressure exerted by the National Party this amendment came about by an outstanding piece of research commissioned by the Labour Government. An evaluation of paid parental leave was completed in 2003 and it “identified that the benefits of paid parental leave are not being able to be accessed by the self-employed.” That amazing piece of research uncovered the earth-shattering evidence—hold on wait for it here is a drum roll: “that self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare;”. Holy heck! Secondly we found out: “self-employed parents did not receive parental leave payments despite helping to fund the scheme through their tax payments.” That research absolutely astounds me. It is research that any person with an ounce of common sense would have known. It is research that proves entirely where the focus of this Government is aimed—obviously nowhere near anyone who has the gumption to own and run their own business.  
The fact that the Government needed to conduct an evaluation of this nature is indeed quite disheartening as is the fact that it is so far out of touch with the self-employed business people of this country that an evaluation had to be undertaken to uncover that I repeat: “self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare;”. No way! Do they? It is as though self-employed parents come from another planet.  
Well it is these aliens—these parents—that I want to talk about in some detail for they are not aliens to me and they are certainly not aliens to the National Party. Although they are no more important as individual human beings than anyone else in this nation they should definitely not be forgotten. Small-business people and self-employed people are an essential ingredient of this nation. They are the entrepreneurs the risk takers the innovators and the wealth creators. They are an essential element in improving our nation’s growth and our balance of payments. They are our job providers our family supporters and our community fundraisers. Small businesses are massive taxpayers.  
As at February 2004 there were 312000 enterprises employing under 20 people—209000 of those employed zero people. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon David Cunliffe in the September 2003 landmark Government discussion document entitled—wait for this one—“Making tax easier for small businesses” make this very telling point: “Small businesses are important not only in number but also in the extent of their tax contribution. Self-employed individuals who work on their own and businesses that employ five or fewer staff contribute around 40 percent of the business income tax revenue. Most of the remainder comes from a small number of large businesses.” So at least to give them credit Michael Cullen and David Cunliffe already knew back in 2003 that self-employed people were an important ingredient of the economy. Despite this they still needed an evaluation under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave) Amendment Act to understand that self-employed parents were an important ingredient in our country. Effectively this group of parents pays for one-third of the health budget of this country.  
So the Labour Government knew back in 2003 how important self-employed people were to this economy. What they forgot though is that those aliens actually have families as well. Shock horror! Self-employed people have families. Like I said it is earth-shattering stuff. So I tell members that self-employed parents today face far greater difficulties than employed parents. Some people might not like to notice that but it is a fact. First let me qualify this by saying that many employees out there work like they own their own businesses and I give them full credit for that. But at the end of the day employees can walk away from their jobs thereby leaving the responsibility of the replacement with the owner of the business. Self-employed people especially one-man bands do not have that luxury. They are the driver of their business; they are the leaders. They are the people who are so passionate about their business that they will crawl over broken glass to make sure that business is successful. Yet this Government forgot about them. It needed an evaluation to uncover the earth-shattering fact that self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents. Holy heck! And the Government got it wrong. Any half-decent researcher would have reported back that self-employed parents face much tougher difficulties. That is why the National Party and I will support the bill. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a delight to contribute to the debate on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. I am especially pleased to hear the contributions from members on the opposite side of the House. I welcome all the latter-day converts to paid parental leave. I am very pleased that members opposite have finally seen the worth of paid parental leave having had an unblemished history of opposition to it until this moment. However I welcome their conversion.  
I want to make a couple of comments. This is a progressive measure in a series of progressive measures and I think that is how good legislation is built. Five years ago I offered paid parental leave in a collective employment agreement that covered some 1700 employees in advance of legislation. So paid parental leave has been around for a long time but it has not been available to the extent that it became available in 2002 through legislation because there were not a lot of employers around who saw it as a useful productive worker and family-friendly measure to promote.  
In the public sector for example there used to be maternity grants for teachers and 6 weeks’ pay was provided when women left to have their babies. In the health sector women tended to be given a grant on their return to work. So there was no incentive to remain at home with the child but in fact there was an incentive to get back to work as quickly as possible. That anachronistic crude retention device has long since been overtaken by what parents and families now require as a better understanding of working life and home life requirements in the workplace. So we moved from maternity grants grants on return to work some kind of split arrangement of the two 3 weeks’ paid leave when one left to have a child or to adopt one and 3 weeks when one came back to work to a system that was introduced with the legislation of the Labour-led Government in 2002 which actually provided money when people needed it most—not when they came back to work but when they left to have their child or to adopt their child. That has been progressively improved from 12 weeks to 14 weeks and it will be improved in the future. This is simply another progressive improvement that has taken this understanding of the need to support families who are working and allows self-employed people to take advantage of the same provision as employees.  
So I welcome this as a sensible measure. It was something that became apparent in the course of the application of the paid parental leave provisions and the thousands upon thousands of people and therefore families who have taken advantage of paid parent leave since its inception in 2002 will now be augmented by another 2000 or so who will be eligible to take advantage of it. We should not underestimate the impact and the benefit of this for the families who are represented by the parents who will avail themselves of those provisions.  
I would also like to add my congratulations to the Minister because she has shepherded the whole progression of paid parental leave from the beginning and I am very pleased to add my support. The fact that self-employed people will be able to access the same provision—the maximum of $357 or so per week after tax—is a benefit. I look forward to hearing expressed the series of congratulatory notes that I am sure will be sent to the Minister for the work she has done on bringing this bill to the House. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on this bill.  
There is a totally different sense in the House tonight than there was in 2002. I just want to recap for the benefit of new members in the House that the debate at the time Ruth Dyson submitted the original bill to the House was simply appalling. I remember Katherine Rich putting her head in her hands in shame at the stance that the National Party took. She was appalled and there simply were not enough women in the House to support her at that time. I also remember the member Judith Collins making absolutely outlandish statements and I am on record as saying that I would take them back to every women’s group every midwife and every group in the country that I could possibly get the opportunity to talk to. She said that paid parental leave was not required and not needed. She voted against it. She said that people needed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps get on with their lives and not expect help from the Government. That was appalling and we did go out there and talk.  
I welcome the new women MPs. They have added something to the Opposition that has changed the whole tenor of the House tonight. Women now make up 32 percent of the members in the House and it was Labour women originally with the support of our then Minister of Women’s Affairs who introduced the bill.  
Another feature of the bill which I think is very significant is that it extends paid parental leave to self-employed people. We knew at the time that the lack of such a provision in the original legislation was inequitable. Also at the time the Minister said that over time we would introduce an affordable regime—and it is affordable—and we would address the situation of self-employed women so that they came under the same protections. We are here tonight and I congratulate her on that; it has not even been a long gestation.  
Another significant aspect to this bill is that paid parental leave increased in December to 14 weeks. Now why is 14 weeks’ leave significant? As a midwife I will tell people why. Women breastfeed their babies exclusively for 12 weeks—that is a great goal which will help with obesity and diabetes in later life—but at 12 weeks that infant demands a lot more milk and goes through a bit of a growth surge. Where women were having to go back to work at 13 weeks many were deciding to stop breastfeeding. They would have had to cope with bottles if they went back to work so they gave up breastfeeding and that was terribly sad. Our national statistics for the exclusive breastfeeding of children were becoming something that we were very concerned about. By extending that leave to 14 weeks women get over that hurdle. As women also realise that all the protections that have gone into making workplaces friendly for breastfeeding—the fact that they can go and express in rooms not toilet cubicles; that they can store the milk in fridges; and that the infant can actually come into the workplace to be fed—are part of the norm of a working woman’s existence we will see an increase in breastfeeding in this country.  
I congratulate the Minister on this bill and I will give the Minister another challenge. I remember the Prime Minister saying through the Speech from the Throne that we needed to look at the Scandinavian model and that the gold-plated parental leave would be 6 months. I look forward to the day when we can slowly and incrementally increase parental leave provisions as they become affordable up to 6 months. Then we really will be working for women men children and families in New Zealand. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
The House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.