Volume 653 Week 8 - Wednesday 1 April 2009 
Volume 653 Week 8 - Wednesday 1 April 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2271] 
Wednesday 1 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Rt Hon Helen Clark—Appointment as Head of United Nations  Development Programme 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice to express endorsement of the appointment of the Rt Hon Helen Clark as head of the United Nations Development Programme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this House expresses its congratulations to New Zealand’s former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark on securing the very important role of head of the United Nations Development Programme.  
Today at around 8.30 a.m. New Zealand time the United Nations General Assembly voted to endorse Helen Clark in this role following the nomination of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The vote represents the end of a long and challenging process as individuals from around the world have competed for this much sought-after position. It is a great achievement for Helen Clark personally and is one that all New Zealanders can be proud of. Her new role holds the rank of Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and is the third-highest ranking position in the UN. 
Helen Clark has reached these new heights after many years of service to New Zealanders at home and on the world stage. She is one of our country’s longest-serving members of Parliament. She has been a member of this House for 27 years and one who has always worked hard on behalf of the New Zealanders she came to serve. Her abilities and the respect that New Zealanders have for her is reflected in the variety of senior roles she has exercised during that time culminating in her service as New Zealand’s first elected female Prime Minister. She held that position for 9 years—a duration that ranks her amongst New Zealand’s longest-serving Prime Ministers. 
Throughout that time—and indeed prior to her election to Parliament—Helen Clark has shown qualities that prepare her well for her new job. She has always shown a passionate interest in international affairs and she has dealt with complex domestic politics and gained the trust and respect of New Zealanders. She has never been afraid to exercise her views on issues even when they placed her at odds with others. I am sure these qualities have prepared her well for what will be a complex and demanding role at the United Nations. 
The scope of the job is difficult to overstate. It will see Helen Clark running United Nations programmes in all developing countries with a budget of around US$5 billion. She will be working to help establish democracies reduce poverty improve healthcare help in crisis prevention and recovery and assist with environmental issues. She will be working to get buy-in for her initiatives and to ensure follow-through on the ground. She will do so in the context of what is a particularly challenging economic time for the world. Many developed countries will be financially stretched in the coming years yet the needs of poorer developing countries will be no fewer. It will fall to Helen Clark in her new role to ensure that the world’s wealthy nations—no matter the difficulty of the times—continue to provide support to those less fortunate. In other words the United Nations Development Programme needs someone who can front for it mobilise resources and give the organisation a human face. In appointing Helen Clark it has endorsed someone it believes is capable of that task. The challenges ahead of her are formidable yet I am confident she will rise to them. On behalf of this House and all New Zealanders I offer Helen Clark our ongoing support in her new role. The New Zealand Government offered our full and formal endorsement to her bid and we take great pleasure in her success. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have played a role in supporting Helen Clark’s campaign for this international position particularly in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In particular let me single out Rosemary Banks who in her role as New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York has worked hard for this outcome. I personally wrote and spoke to the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to convey the Government’s support for Helen Clark’s bid and as Prime Minister I spoke to many international leaders to encourage their support. I am pleased to report that their support came willingly and from many corners and parts of the world. Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum gave their support as did the Australian and United Kingdom Governments as well as many many other leaders. 
But let me be plain: in the end their support did not come because of the advocacy of the New Zealand Government; ultimately the reason Helen Clark won the leaders’ support for her bid and indeed this role was the personal abilities she brought to the table. Her successes demonstrate the respect that so many in the international community have for her. This support has been underscored by the universal welcome that UN member countries have shown for her appointment. Helen Clark should be very proud of her achievement and New Zealanders should be very proud of her. 
On a personal note let me say how pleased I am that Helen Clark will have this opportunity to further her achievements on the world stage. We come from different sides of the political spectrum; in the last election campaign and in the years leading up to it I competed vigorously against her for the right to govern this country—that is politics. We have brought different approaches priorities and outlooks to the issues that the country faces and we have each voiced those views strongly. That we have been able to do so is one of the great strengths of New Zealand society. Although we have had our disagreements Helen I say this to you: viewed from the world stage our differences are not so great. I am sure all New Zealanders no matter their political beliefs know that your achievements today warrant the putting aside of politics. Over the past days many have quipped that no matter how important he is many New Zealanders do not know the name of the current United Nations Development Programme administrator. However I am certain that by the end of Helen Clark’s term New Zealanders will know not only who she is but what she does and most important they will know what countries the United Nations Development Programme is assisting and why. If their engagement with Helen is anything like mine has been over the last couple of months they will have many text messages along the way. 
I for one Helen wish you the very best. We will work with you Helen as you take up this most demanding role. We will proudly stand alongside you in your new endeavour. Your appointment is not only a proud day for you personally but also a very very proud day for all New Zealanders and I personally want to offer you my congratulations. 
[ 
Applause 
] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is a very rare occasion in this House when we get a unanimous standing ovation for a member who has served this country so well and who will go on to serve not only New Zealand but the whole of the international community in the job she is about to undertake. On behalf of the Labour Party I warmly support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. The nomination by Ban Ki-moon as Secretary-General of the United Nations and the confirmation by the General Assembly of the United Nations this morning of Helen Clark as leader of the United Nations Development Programme is a singular reflection of the very high regard in which Helen Clark is held internationally. Everyone in this House has already demonstrated this but I am sure overwhelmingly New Zealanders would wish to show their congratulations to Helen Clark as well and to wish her well as she meets the challenges of this new job. 
Helen Clark’s job is one of the most important jobs in the United Nations. It has a large budget of $5 billion. I am sure that she will be working very hard to make that budget even larger than it is because of the scale of the task that she has to fulfil: to meet the development needs of all of the countries in the developing world. The task is consistent with the values that Helen Clark has pursued throughout her long political career. Those values are ones of support for development social justice sustainability democracy and good governance. Helen Clark brings to the job skills and integrity. She brings to it her renowned commitment and determination her mastery of detail and her international knowledge and networks which make her an ideal choice for this position. As a small country of 4.3 million people we can be truly proud that a New Zealander has been chosen ahead of others from countries much more powerful and much larger than our own to head such an important international agency. 
I join the Prime Minister in thanking the people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They do a huge job. When given a task of this nature they do it with skill and they do it with diplomacy and they have delivered for us. I also thank the Government for continuing a bipartisan tradition that has seen both major parties and other parties in this House endorse New Zealanders for international positions—people such as the former Director-General of the World Trade Organization Mike Moore and the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Don McKinnon. I think it is important that our country shows our unanimity in support of people who seek such high international positions. 
Finally I thank you Helen personally for the contributions that you have made through the Labour Party to New Zealand over a long political career spanning some 27 years. Helen we are proud of what you have achieved for New Zealand and we know that you will represent our country with distinction in the position that you will hold. Thank you Helen. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very pleased to be able to congratulate Helen Clark on her appointment to the position of Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. What a pleasure it is to see the House in accord about something. 
Helen Clark has served this country well in many ways. We are delighted that she now has the opportunity to serve a wider constituency: the hungry the homeless the very poor the sick and the illiterate in the world’s developing countries. In the 9 years that I have worked with Helen in party to party discussions although we have not always agreed I have observed her keen intelligence her vast knowledge of international affairs her commitment to her principles of social democracy and her considerable diplomatic skills. Her appointment is a great honour for Helen and it is a great honour for New Zealand. It is a signal that our country is well-regarded in international circles for making a constructive contribution well beyond our size. It is an indication that we are not too small to count and that we can make a difference. 
And a difference urgently needs to be made. The opportunities and the challenges that Helen will face in this new job are daunting. Since 1980 world GDP has increased nearly sixfold. In the same time the number of people living on less than $2 a day has declined only marginally. Current policies are not working. There is no way that people can be raised out of desperate poverty by business as usual. For everyone to aspire to the level of consumption of resources of the United States would take some seven planets and we have only one. And that one planet is so seriously degraded that it is limiting the development prospects of much of humanity. 
In the year 2000 the United Nations Development Programme adopted the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which included halving poverty by 2015. In 2005 its Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published; it showed that degradation in ecosystem services was a major barrier to ever reaching those goals. This substantial report by dozens of authors and peer reviewers found that there will simply not be enough clean fresh water water purification by wetlands or fisheries—to name just a few examples—to permit the basics of a decent life to be met over coming generations unless we adopt a radically different tack. 
Since then we have watched the effects of the early stages of global warming melting the Himalayan glaciers on which a quarter of the world’s people depend for their drinking water. We have watched it worsen droughts in countries already struggling to produce enough food. We have watched it increase the risk of tropical diseases from which mainly the poor suffer and threaten to inundate the homes of millions in communities in the Pacific Islands Bangladesh and South China. Stopping and then reversing the degradation of ecosystems is a precondition to international development and must become a core part of the United Nations Development Programme. I am heartened by the fact that I know that Helen understands that. 
Since the beginning of economics world leaders have relied on generalised and indiscriminate economic growth to lift the poor out of poverty. The saying is that a rising tide lifts all boats but some boats are chained to the bottom by poor health a lack of education living in war zones discrimination and violence and they will not be lifted unless those impediments are tackled directly. Beyond even that world economic activity is already bumping up against the limits to resources whether they be oil gas fresh water land for food growing—as shown in recent grain price rises—fish stocks or climate. Relying on generalised economic growth in these circumstances will simply allow the better-off to capture even more of those limited resources leaving even less for those at the bottom. 
A story that has stuck in my mind for decades since I was a young woman is that when thousands of people in Ethiopia were dying of hunger in one of their recurring droughts—I think it was in the 1960s—their country was exporting canned beef grown on their land by multinational companies. That of course showed up as GDP growth but it was the very opposite of development. 
Most fish stocks in the world are now depleted and some have crashed. They have not in the main been crashed by poor people trying to feed themselves from coastal fisheries but by global companies with the technology to strip the coast bare. Only when local fisheries are returned to local control will coastal communities be able to feed themselves. 
This job will need massive resources. It is frightening to me that the total budget of the United Nations Development Programme is only NZ$9 billion compared with our GDP of about NZ$177 billion. The budget that Helen was in charge of to run the New Zealand Government was very much larger than the budget she will be in charge of in New York. Levels of international aid need to be significantly increased not least in New Zealand if the world is to meet this challenge. Until hard negotiations forced the last Budget to increase New Zealand’s development aid budget it had been less than 0.3 percent. We hope that will not be an obstacle as the new administrator goes begging to other Governments for more funds and we hope the New Zealand Government will increase our aid budget to show support for our top international representative. 
Helen the opportunity beckons to support all those who are working for a new model of development based on strengthening local food and renewable energy production returning land to those who live there community and women’s development resource-conserving technologies and protection of natural resources. That new model cannot succeed unless global efforts to tackle climate change also succeed. You have the capacity to drive that agenda further. You go with the very warmest best wishes of the Green Party. What we wish most for you is that in the endless round of cocktail parties travel and high-level meetings and negotiations to which you are no stranger the most desperate people—who rely on the United Nations Development Programme to eat to be housed and to be healthy and educated—are always top of your mind. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the motion on the appointment of the Rt Hon Helen Clark to be the head of the United Nations Development Programme. I think it is fair to say that Helen Clark and ACT have often not agreed politically over the years. Our political relationship is perhaps best put in Ms Clark’s own words about ACT: “A clear set of principles to guide decisions—not ones that Labour subscribes to but principles nonetheless.” However that has not stopped ACT MPs past and present from gaining a healthy respect for her ability and work ethic. Helen Clark is widely acknowledged as a leader of consensus politics. 
I think all New Zealanders were proud of and moved by what she claims as her greatest achievement—the return of the Unknown Warrior to New Zealand soil. There are many other achievements too numerous to count but those that stand out for me are the free-trade deal with China progressing a similar deal with the United States and gaining international recognition of New Zealand’s respect for the rule of law in terms of both peacekeeping and diplomacy. It is appropriate given these achievements on the world stage that she has now been given a lead role in international affairs. 
On becoming head of the United Nations Development Programme—the third-ranked position in the UN—Helen Clark joins an exclusive list of New Zealanders appointed to top international posts. In recent memory we have seen another former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore lead the World Trade Organization and Don McKinnon serve two terms as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. In the UN also New Zealanders have reached the highest levels. Currently Sir Kenneth Keith sits as a judge on the International Court of Justice the judicial organ of the United Nations. All have made their mark and we have no doubt that Helen Clark will do so in leading the UN Development Programme. 
There is much work to be done by this and similar organisations particularly in this time of global economic crisis. Wallets are closing and belts are tightening around the world. Considerable skill will be required to uphold the programme’s functions: poverty reduction improving democratic governance crisis prevention alleviating environmental degradation and very importantly stemming the tide of HIV/AIDS. About 4 billion people worldwide are living on less than $2 a day. Infection rates for AIDS in southern and eastern Africa are around 25 percent and are steadily rising in Asia and the Pacific. In too many countries women are forbidden from involving themselves in even the most basic activities in society let alone engaging in the democratic process. 
So it is with good wishes and pride in the success of a fellow Kiwi that we congratulate and farewell Miss Clark on her appointment as the head of the United Nations Development Programme. Helen Clark nga mihi nui me te aroha nui. Congratulations and best wishes. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. I am delighted to stand on behalf of the Maori Party today to offer our congratulations to the Rt Hon Helen Clark on the prestigious honour she has received for herself and for Aotearoa. Her appointment as the head of the United Nations Development Programme is a tribute to her outstanding abilities and leadership experience. Our tupuna used to say “Ina te mahi he rangatira!” meaning literally “See how he or she does; a leader indeed!”. For Helen Clark we can indeed say “Ina te mahi he rangatira!”. 
For all of her academic and professional life and no doubt in her primary school days at Te Pahu School Helen has been the consummate politician. She has researched political representation she has lectured in political studies she has held office at every level of the Labour Party she has achieved the ultimate aspiration of wearing the warrant of Prime Minister of our nation and now she is taking that political leadership to the world. We know she will serve well. 
Helen has the most formidable capacity for work. In fact I have always thought her passion for climbing mountains was absolutely true to form. Although for many of us the prospect of ascending Mount Kilimanjaro would be bordering on impossible I can well imagine Helen literally leaping up the ascent and still being ready for some more. Such is the nature of her leadership that she has always been able to inspire followers to believe that the impossible could be possible the improbable probable. She has commanded respect by her sheer energy for the role. 
I must acknowledge too her commitment to connect with people. I remember her once flying in from London immediately boarding a plane and heading up north for one of the “engaging with Maori” hui. Our people appreciated that Helen and I mihi to you for all the personal commitment that I know it took. I think one of the most endearing qualities that our people will remember of Helen’s leadership was her impressive memory. I can recall her greeting someone whom she had met only once at least 10 years before at a hospital in Kawakawa. That sort of personal touch is remarkable and I have no doubt that it will be extremely useful in the United Nations environment. Our people loved the ordinariness of the person some called Auntie Helen. They knew her to be an ordinary person who could enjoy a joke and laugh uproariously while at the same time demonstrate extraordinary talents as the leader of our country. It was not all perfect but there was more that we agreed on than disagreed on and I will always speak with the highest respect for a person who has made such a significant contribution to the future of Aotearoa. 
Many aspects of Helen’s leadership have earned her international recognition. In 1986 she was awarded the annual peace prize of the Danish Peace Foundation for her work in promoting international peace and disarmament. We acknowledge her as the first elected woman Prime Minister and the longest-serving woman MP. While Prime Minister she was a member of the Council of Women World Leaders whose mission is to mobilise the highest-level women globally for collective action on issues of importance to women in equitable development. I am sure that the council will be proud that one of its members is now heading the United Nations global development network with a potential to advance knowledge and experience across the world. 
We will remember the encouraging support that she provided to the arts community and her role as Minister of Health in sponsoring the introduction of tobacco control legislation. Those in the House who have enjoyed her friendship her leadership her mentorship her frequent text messages her animated telephone calls and her direct way of speaking will no doubt keep their memories alive in their own way. But for this moment I simply wish to place on the record our acknowledgment from the Maori Party of the dedicated role that she has played in shaping this nation. 
We wish her well too on what will be colossal challenges ahead—the urgency of eliminating poverty the desperate need to control the ferocious spread of HIV/AIDS and the significance of getting it right for supporting developing nations into a position of much greater strength which is a critical task for our global positioning. This is not goodbye; this is our time to be able to say ka kite ano. Na reira ka nui te mihi rawa atu ki a koe Helen. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
I will see you again. Therefore Helen I acknowledge you greatly. Greetings to you collectively and to all of us. 
] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to warmly join with other colleagues who have spoken this afternoon and say on behalf of United Future how much we congratulate the Rt Hon Helen Clark on this most worthy appointment and endorse the sentiments that have been expressed. I have had the privilege of knowing Helen for just over 25 years and in that time we have worked together on a number of things and we have worked against each other on a number of things but there has been one constant throughout which I think is relevant to this appointment: Helen has always displayed a huge sense of integrity a deep sense of compassion I think a real commitment to the underdog and a determination not only to see what is right but to do what is right. I believe they are all qualities that will be critical in the role that she is about to undertake as the administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. 
Much has already been said this afternoon about the challenges that Helen will face in that role. I do not want to rehearse those; this is not the time to give lectures on one’s view of international relations. But it is the time to acknowledge that this a signal honour for a very important popular and famous New Zealander. I think it is relevant to observe that only a few weeks ago a newspaper poll installed Helen Clark as the most significant living New Zealander. I think that that is a possible explanation of why this appointment has been so widely greeted. 
Many people say many things about the United Nations and its organisations. They claim it to be inefficient unfocused and unable to deliver on objectives. If those allegations are true—and I suspect there is more than a moment of truth in them—then I also suspect very strongly that the United Nations Development Programme is about to undertake the first wave of change. I cannot conceive of the new administrator allowing the organisation to be unfocused—not to have a clear sense of purpose and a time line by which it will achieve its objectives and not to have clear directives issued to those working on its behalf of the expectations that are placed upon them. 
We like to think about New Zealanders occupying high places on the world stage and it is true that many examples can be drawn to mind. But it is also true that this appointment is the most significant appointment that a New Zealander has yet occupied on the international stage and I cannot think of a more appropriate person to take up that role than the Rt Hon Helen Clark. 
Helen you go with the blessings and the good wishes of this House the eager enthusiasm of this country to see you do well and the pride of our knowing that from this small nation such a prominent and successful person has emerged—one who will do good not just in the continuing interests of this country but on the world stage. My very best wishes to you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I thank all the leaders who have spoken today for their very generous comments and also the House for the vote in support of the Prime Minister’s motion. 
It has been possible to mount a successful campaign for this position only because of very widespread support across political boundaries and that started at home. It has been the tradition that candidacies of this kind—and others have mentioned those of the Rt Hon Don McKinnon and the Rt Hon Mike Moore—are handed in a bipartisan way. I want to thank John Key for his early upfront and enthusiastic support. I know John that you picked up the phone and that you worked the international meetings you have been at and that has been very greatly appreciated. Provided that you do not change your cellphone number you will still be getting texts from me from time to time. 
The New Zealand Labour Party of course has given me its total goodwill on this. After many years of service I guess we are joined at the hip and that will always be the case. 
I want to particularly thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the incredible support it gave me with the Prime Minister’s full blessing. It emanated out from head office in Wellington to posts around the world but particularly in New York where our Permanent Representative to the United Nations Rosemary Banks led her team in an incredible astute and effective lobbying effort. 
Many other Governments were supportive. The Pacific family strongly endorsed the candidacy from the time that our Prime Minister raised it at the Pacific Island Forum leaders’ meeting in Port Moresby. Kevin Rudd was particularly supportive as was the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other old friends like the United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister of Norway Mr Stoltenberg were early out of the blocks but there were many many others too numerous to mention. 
All who have spoken today have referred to the huge task ahead. Here in New Zealand we feel the effects of recession we feel the effects of erratic climate and we feel the effects of high food prices high fuel prices and water issues. How much more then do those who live in the poorest countries on Earth feel these pressures? They feel them tremendously and particularly at this time of recession. Things are pretty desperate for many of the world’s people and those are the issues to deal with immediately. 
In the wider context I am very grateful for the many leadership opportunities that New Zealand has given me. They have enabled me to be a credible contender for this position. I could not have done that if I had not had the opportunities that this small country has made available. 
In the relatively near future I will give my valedictory speech to Parliament. I am told that the convention is that for former Prime Ministers there is no limit on time. Of course judgment will be exercised on that as it is by me on all things. Other comments can wait until that time. For now I thank everyone who has spoken for the kind words they have said and that will be something special for me to take with me to New York. Kia ora. 
[ 
Applause 
] 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax Cuts—Implementation 
1. NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What tax changes has his Government delivered today? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 From today the threshold above which people pay 33c in the dollar rises from $40000 to $48000 a year. This means that 80 percent of taxpayers will now face a top rate of only 21c in the dollar. A new independent earner tax credit will return $10 a week to people earning between $24000 and $44000 a year who do not receive any other type of income support from the Government. In addition the top tax rate drops from 39c in the dollar to 38c in the dollar. In total 1.5 million workers will receive a personal tax cut today. 
Nathan Guy 
: What are the benefits of these tax cuts? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: They are many and varied. The tax cuts we have delivered today will inject an extra $1 billion into the economy over the coming year thereby helping to stimulate the economy during this recession. More important over the longer term these tax cuts will reward hard work and help to encourage people to invest in their own skills in order to earn and keep more money. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it correct that low-income families with children will get nothing from the tax cuts today and that that is why the Prime Minister told high-income earners who get hundreds of dollars extra in tax cuts that they should give to charities in line with his trickle-down theory? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is not true. They get a Working for Families increase which started on 1 October. Let me make this one point: let us take somebody on $44000 a year with two children. It is true that he or she gets a small tax cut— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No tax cut! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: On $44000 the person does Phil; do the maths. But that person does not pay any tax. Somebody on $44000 a year with two children pays zero tax. 
Nathan Guy 
: How many people will be eligible for the independent earner tax credit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Inland Revenue Department estimates that around 630000 lower-income earners will be eligible for this tax credit. People will need to change their tax code in order to get this tax credit each day so it is important that people know about the tax credit. They will have to go about getting it. That is why we have set up a very modest advertising campaign with a budget that is one-fortieth of the amount that Labour set aside for the Working for Families advertising. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can it possibly be good policy and be right to give large tax cuts to those earning $100000 a year or more—like Cabinet Ministers and others—while those struggling on $20000 a year will see their PAYE” tax deductions increase today? Is it any coincidence that this is coming in on April Fool’s Day which might be renamed “Fool the Low-paid Workers Day” because they are going to end up paying more tax than they did previously? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To start off we have a progressive tax system in New Zealand so inevitably when we have adjustments it will affect higher-income earners more than others. But secondly I think that New Zealanders should acknowledge the fact that those high-income earners pay a huge proportion of PAYE tax in this country. They work hard; they pay a lot of taxes. Nevertheless a fact of life today is that 1.5 million New Zealanders are getting a tax cut and they did not have to wait for 9 years under a National Government to get it. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Eric Leeper’s statement in the latest Reserve Bank  
Bulletin  
that counter-cyclical fiscal policy could actually be counter-productive; if not why not; if yes why then is he borrowing $1 billion plus interest a year in order to give tax relief of $1 billion? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not agree with that statement. The reason why we are having tax cuts at this time is that if we look at most of the stimulatory packages in countries around the world and not just in New Zealand we see they have a tax cut component as part of those packages and that is an important stimulatory part of those economies. In my view if we were not to do that then we would drive our economy into a much deeper recession. I acknowledge that Sir Roger Douglas and the ACT Party probably would want to have a much more contractionary position but in my view that would actually drive us into a deeper recession. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly claim that his tax cuts are progressive when as he can see from this graph if people earn under $40000 a year under National they get nothing but if they earn $1.5 million a year they get $500 a week in tax cuts? How is that progressive; how can that possibly be fair? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We have a progressive tax system; 1.5 million New Zealanders are getting a tax cut. If those who earn under $40000 a year and who get Working for Families payments have more than one child then they pay no tax whatsoever. If those people earn between $38000 and $40000 a year they pay a tiny bit of tax. So ours is a very fair tax policy. New Zealanders have not had to wait 9 years for it and I think New Zealanders will welcome it today. 
Rahui Katene 
: How do low-income New Zealanders benefit from the tax changes introduced today? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: They benefit because 630000 New Zealanders—the New Zealanders who do not have children and who have been relatively low-income New Zealanders and who got absolutely nothing under the previous Labour Government for 9 years—get $10 a week or $500 a year. It is a small start and it will be welcomed. 
Nathan Guy 
: Are businesses also getting the benefit of any tax changes? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. A number of tax changes begin today that make it simpler and less expensive for small to medium sized businesses to pay tax. These tax changes are worth $484 million to small to medium sized enterprises over the next 4 years. They include changes to GST PAYE and fringe benefit tax thresholds and the temporary removal of the 5 percent uplift rate that businesses pay in advance on provisional tax instalments throughout the year. I have to say there has been overwhelming support from the business community and small to medium sized enterprises which are welcoming the tax changes the reduction in compliance costs and frankly the National Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm in the light of the last answer that a business that employs a person on the mean average wage who is in KiwiSaver today will have to pay another $960 a year in tax? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it will pay more but one of the—[ 
Interruption 
] No the business will pay more at one level and the reason for that is it will actually pay less overall because it is not having to increase its KiwiSaver payments to 4 percent. 
Tax Cuts—Prime Minister’s Statement 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “From 1 April every working New Zealander will get more money in their pocket”; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I certainly do. Those families who receive Working for Families had their expected 1 April increase brought forward to 1 October last year. That was part of the National Government’s policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was part of our policy I am afraid. All other full-time workers get an increase from 1 April. Therefore it is true to say that after 1 April all working New Zealanders not just those on Working for Families will have more money in their pockets. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that in fact most New Zealanders who earn under $40000 and have the responsibility of raising kids get absolutely nothing from the tax cuts today despite the fact that those are the families that are really struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am prepared to admit two things today. The first is that 1.5 million New Zealanders will be grateful they have a National Government because they have a tax cut. The second thing that I am prepared to admit is that not all is happy within the Labour ranks. You see unlike my good friend Mr Brownlee I happen to be a little bit versed in cyberspace so I went on to David Cunliffe’s Twitter statement— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know what the point of order is. You know what the Prime Minister is about to do. As he has done constantly—and you have not pulled him up for it—he is about to give an answer that is totally irrelevant to the question that was asked. That will provoke disorder from this side of the House. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was just making the very valuable point that Mr Cunliffe on his— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister must not use— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The matter will be dealt with because the Prime Minister will not answer the question any further. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I seek leave to table David Cunliffe’s Twitter statement where he says that he should be given more chances to answer questions in the House that he would “kick their proverbials” if he was given more of a chance and that if he is not given the chance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister must resume his seat [ 
Interruption 
] And that member will resume his seat as well. When I am on my feet even the Prime Minister will resume his seat. I will not tolerate that rule being breached further. Leave has been sought to table a Twitter statement. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the honourable member will excuse me for a moment. Points of order must be heard in silence. I know that the House is in a fairly boisterous mood but points of order do need to be heard in silence. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Standing Orders provide a remedy for misrepresentation. I submit to you that the Prime Minister has misrepresented me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member cannot use a point of order to make a debating point. He can if he wishes seek leave to make a personal explanation. Alternatively during question time he can ask questions to establish whether the Prime Minister has in fact perhaps not represented something correctly. During question time that is the correct manner for addressing these issues. He cannot use the point of order process to do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You allowed the Prime Minister in seeking leave to table a document to read at great length from a document that cannot have come from my colleague because he does not have a Twitter account. Somebody else has done it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During question time it is quite easy to establish these kinds of things. Further supplementary questions are available to the members. That is the correct way to establish whether there is concern over answers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to make a personal statement in regard to the matter that has been raised by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection. The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister had not actually raised the matter in an answer to a supplementary question. He had not had that opportunity. So how can the member give a personal explanation about a matter that had not been raised in answer to the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need to hear anything further on this matter. Obviously a member can seek leave to make a personal explanation in this situation. I see no Standing Order that prevents that from happening. As I understand it though the member did seek leave to make a personal explanation. There was objection. I take it that that objection is sustained? 
Hon Bill English 
: Ask him again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may seek leave again. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I am happy— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member should resume his seat. Leave has been given for the member to make a personal explanation. I think it is not appropriate to then interrupt that with a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: My personal explanation is simply that I do not have and have never had an account on the Internet site Twitter. I have never sent a tweet and I have never even to my knowledge received a tweet. So whoever it was who made that statement it could not have been me. I leave it to members to surmise who may be behind this jack-up. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why has the Government introduce the independent earner tax credit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The independent earner tax credit gives tax relief to those hard-working lower-income earners who have regularly missed out on increases in Working for Families benefits and superannuation. In particular lower-income earners with children have received considerable tax relief over recent years through Working for Families amounting in many cases to several hundreds of dollars a week. This Government is maintaining those payments but we also want to tell lower-income earners who do not have children that they are valued as well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister justify his comments on TV3 the other day that these tax cuts are fair when the changes made by National to the tax package last year result in a third of all the new money going into tax cuts going to just 3 percent of taxpayers—the top 3 percent of taxpayers—while 81 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50000 a year get less than $2 a week extra? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Today 1.5 million New Zealanders got a tax cut; 630000 New Zealanders will get $10 extra a week. They have been waiting for a long time. This Government has not taken 9 years to cut taxes. I call that fair. 
Chris Tremain 
: How many people would have received the tax cut today under Labour? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I regret to tell the member that not one single person would have got a personal income tax cut today under Labour—not one person. The other point I want to make is that the previous Labour Government took 3231 days after being elected to cut taxes; this National Government took just 144 days. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it fair that someone on a high salary—let us use for example somebody on a salary of the level of the Prime Minister’s—gets $120 extra a week today while someone on the median wage with kids gets nothing? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said earlier the reality of a progressive system is that higher-income earners pay a lot more tax. The reality is that a very small percentage of New Zealanders pay a lot of PAYE tax. But today the National Government has been very fair in its tax cuts. The average worker is getting around $20 a week. It is a very fair tax system. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is this as good as it is going to get for families and low-income earners who get nothing given the clear signals from the Minister of Finance that the future tax cuts promised so sincerely by National in the campaign will now likely be scrapped? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: What is not fair is that New Zealanders had to wait 3231 days in some of the best economic conditions that the world has seen in order to get a tax cut. New Zealanders are doing well under a National Government—630000 people who got nothing for 9 years now get $10 a week. New Zealanders under a National Government are having their entitlements maintained. That is why the tax cut programme announced today delivered today when compared with the Labour programme of nothing today is being well-received by everybody except the Labour members who are very grumpy that the National Government is actually delivering on its promises. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s answer to critics including his coalition partner Roger Douglas who say that these tax cuts are a scam because he is borrowing to pay for them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe that stimulation is important for the economy when a global recession is going on. It is quite important. It will help the retail sector. I fondly remember coming back in January of this year and hearing Phil Goff say that the Government was not doing enough when every country around the world has some sort of tax cut programme going on at the moment. When Phil Goff wanted to argue that the Government was not doing enough he was happy to shout from the rooftops but now that we are cutting personal taxes Mr Goff wants to take those cuts away from New Zealanders. The only message coming out today is vote for a Labour Government and taxes will go up. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should Mr Key’s high-minded protestations about not wanting a rise in salary this year be seen by the public as anything other than double standards when today the Government has just given its members and other high-income people much higher effective wage increases by biasing tax cuts to the well-off? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The tax cuts are not biased to the well-off. They are across the board and fair. But we know the way that Labour members feel about successful entrepreneurial well-off people. It was the same when they were in Government; it is the same now that they are in Opposition. 
Electricity—Production and Delivery to Consumers 
3.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that “electricity is produced and delivered to all classes of consumers in an efficient fair reliable and environmentally sustainable manner”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 This morning I announced a ministerial review of electricity market performance. The Government is very concerned as are consumers about the affordability of electricity security of supply and regulatory governance arrangements within the sector. A number of reports into these matters are being or have been carried out by various agencies and it makes sense to draw these threads into one body of work. The purpose of the review will be to improve the performance of the electricity market and its governance arrangements in order to better achieve the Government’s objectives for the electricity sector. It is interesting to note that the essence of the question asked by the member is contained in the Electricity Act from some time back but apparently this had no relevance to the previous Government for some 9 years as it allowed the retail price of electricity to rise by some 72 percent against just a 28 percent CPI increase. That is why something has to be done and why we are doing it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are very surprised that the House was able to be subjected to an answer from the Minister that was quite as long as that. It was clearly getting into the category of being a speech rather than a succinct answer. I thought that if short questions were asked short answers would be expected. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point and I say to Ministers that answers have been excessively long today. It is April Fool’s Day I guess— 
Hon Annette King 
: Only until midday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK; so that is no excuse. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask honourable members to please ease back a little because it is getting very hard to hear. There is nothing wrong with the House being robust. The issues that have been raised in question time today are issues where opinions are held passionately. There is no problem with question time being robust but it is getting quite hard to hear and answers are too long. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How will the ministerial review be carried out? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have appointed a technical advisory team of independent experts to work alongside a project team of officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and from Treasury. The team will carry out much of the work but will report to me. The work will proceed in two phases. The first phase will look at regulatory and governance arrangements and the second phase will take a broader look at the operation of the electricity market. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned that the $74 million that Genesis has spent on planning for the Rodney gas-fired power station—which even it admits will probably never be built—actually represents more than 2.5c a kilowatt-hour for all the electricity it sells which is four times its recent price increase; and when will he tell it to stop putting up power prices in order to pay for a white elephant? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The decisions around the Genesis proposals are operational matters and are not for any Minister to make but what I would say is that the decision to even consider that project indicates why we desperately need to look at a review of governance arrangements inside the marketing of electricity in this country. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What else is the Government doing to improve the delivery of electricity to consumers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has published a new  
Draft Government Policy Statement on Electricity Governance 
 which proposes streamlined and simplified processes for transmission investments of under $20 million. The current processes can involve lengthy duplication and engineering and systems planning. The consultation on the policy statement has now finished. The Government will shortly be announcing the new Government policy statement. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Which of the following measures taken already by his Government will contribute most effectively to the energy goals outlined by the primary questioner: throwing climate change policy into confusion by setting up a select committee on whether to retain the emissions trading scheme when that scheme is already in force getting rid of the biofuels obligation legislating in a way that leads directly to consent being given to a gas-fired power station that has no forward contract for gas supplies having a Prime Minister who continues to leave open the science on climate change calling in State-owned enterprise chairs to the Beehive to demand higher dividends or referring to a project to paint power pylons as “a major upgrade to the national grid”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know how that member can believe that anyone could separate out any one thing that needs to be done to sort out the enormous mess that the Labour Government left behind. What consumers know is that a 72 percent price rise for electricity for residential consumers as against a 29 percent CPI increase over the same period is an utter disgrace. That member should not be asking any questions; he should simply be listening and learning. 
Tax Cuts—Fairness 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe his tax cuts are fair; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; from today most New Zealand workers will receive a tax cut whereas under Labour policy they would have received nothing. Many New Zealanders who got no reductions in tax in the 9 years Labour was in power receive a tax cut today. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister deny the probability that by 1 October 2011 New Zealanders will have experienced just two tax cuts over 3 years—$1 billion from National skewed to the wealthy; and $2 billion from Labour skewed to low and middle income New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There was a debate in election year about which tax package New Zealanders wanted and as I recall that debate was settled quite decisively through the National Party winning the election by a long way. 
Craig Foss 
: What reports has the Minister seen on alternative approaches to tax cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have received a number of confusing reports about Labour’s position on tax cuts. A few weeks ago Labour members were advocating that the Government should do a lot more fiscal stimulation. Recently they have called for today’s tax cuts to be scrapped. This would strip over a billion dollars out of the pockets of 1.5 million workers and take the independent earner tax credit off 600000 lower-income earners who received nothing from the Labour Government until 1 October 2008. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that the population of New Zealand is over 4 million and that if 1.5 million workers are getting a tax cut the implication is that most New Zealanders are not; and does he accept that if these tax cuts were spread more evenly they would have had a bigger more constructive and more cost-effective impact on fighting this recession than robbing from the poor and giving to the rich? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm for that member that as of 1 April—today—every superannuitant will be getting an increase and every beneficiary will be getting an increase. I also explain to the member that looking back over the tax cut debate since the 2005 election National is pleased that it pushed Labour into finally making tax cuts on 1 October 2008. We have introduced tax cuts that spread those benefits to a wider range of taxpayers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister therefore confirming that the only way he can get to his supposed number of 1.5 million people benefiting from tax cuts is if he includes superannuitants? On our analysis 71 percent of New Zealanders will get nothing and 3 percent of New Zealanders will get one-third of the money. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well superannuitants certainly will benefit from these tax cuts. Superannuation is adjusted according to the after-tax average wage which will go up because we have given a significant tax break to people on the average wage. But the Labour spokesperson on finance needs to decide whether his problem is that the tax cuts are not big enough or that they are too big. It is pretty hard to understand his position from listening to him today. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is it when so many New Zealanders down here on this graph are struggling to make ends meet that 33 percent of the value of this tax package goes to the 3 percent of New Zealanders who are up here on the graph? What about that situation does that tweet think is fair? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should answer his own question. His party was in Government for 9 years during the best economic times we will see for a long time. If people at the end of that period were struggling then it is his fault not ours. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What mechanisms does the Minister have to compensate for the lack of tax cuts for low-income New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This tax package has a specific feature designed for low-income New Zealanders and that is the independent earner tax credit. The effect of that credit is that 630000 New Zealanders who earn between the minimum wage and the average wage and who do not have children will for the first time get a tax cut following on from some benefit that they got from the 1 October 2008 tax cuts under Labour. They deserve the extra $10 a week; Labour should say today whether it is going to take it off them. 
Electoral Finance Reform—Input 
5.  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement made during the first reading debate of the Electoral Amendment Bill that it was his intention that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage on the process of electoral finance reform; if so what progress has been made to date? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I stand by that statement. Today I am releasing a milestone paper that sets out the time line for electoral finance reform. This includes three formal opportunities for the public and for political parties to have a say. In response to the second part of the question I say that today I am also releasing the scope of the electoral finance reform which will provide the framework for the issues paper. I have consulted all parties in the House on the scope paper and I thank them and their representatives for their willingness to engage. 
Simon Bridges 
: Are there any time constraints on the process of electoral finance reform? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes. The passage of the Electoral Amendment Bill earlier this year means that there is an interim regime in place to cover the upcoming by-election in Mt Albert. However in order to put new law into place in time for the next general election in 2011 we will need to pass legislation next year. Within that constraint we have attempted to provide as many opportunities as possible for input from the public and from political parties. 
Minimum Wage—Real Income Gain 
6.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What will be the gain in real income per hour adjusted for inflation since 1 April 2008 of a full-time worker on the minimum wage as a result of today’s increase to the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The member has a short memory. I answered that question on 11 February as $3.78 for a week. If he divides that figures by 40 his calculator will tell him that the answer is just under 10c an hour. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was the recommended option in the Minister’s first Cabinet committee paper for a nil increase? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Several options were recommended to Cabinet. Cabinet decided that $12.50 was the fair minimum wage to set bearing in mind the economic conditions and that protecting jobs was our priority. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen several reports including one from Mr Mallard himself who said he could not commit to a large increase in the minimum wage due to the economic conditions in October last year—conditions that we know have since worsened. I have seen a report from Phil Goff demanding a rise to $13. I have seen the Labour Party’s election manifesto which promotes an increase to $12.65. Yet Labour members’ own colleague Darien Fenton has gone on to describe today’s increase as miserable and measly. I ask where the Opposition actually stands on the minimum wage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members please—I simply cannot hear when there is quite so much noise. As I say I do not mind a boisterous question time—that is good—but this is a wee bit over the top. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was the Minister’s recommended option in her first Cabinet paper for a nil increase? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: There were three options in the Cabinet paper: one was a nil increase one was an increase to $12.50 and one was an increase to $12.65. We had to bear in mind the economic conditions and the priority to protect jobs and not encumber businesses with extra expenses that would result in job losses. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister accept that some New Zealanders are still not being paid the minimum wage; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I understand it between 94000 and 123000 people will actually get an increase in their wage as a result of the increase in the minimum wage. There are some New Zealanders who do not receive the minimum wage for various reasons. One reason for example is that they might be under 16 years of age. There are some breaches of the minimum wage regulations and legislation and we take that very seriously. If any workers are being exploited by unscrupulous employers we do not condone that sort of activity as the member well knows. 
Prisons—Drug Testing 
7.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What reports has she received on drug testing in prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I have received a report that shows that the percentage of positive random drug tests has fallen to 10.5 percent as at the end of February 2009. This is the lowest level ever achieved in New Zealand’s State-run prisons. 
Paul Quinn 
: What is being done to stem the flow of drugs and contraband into prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Corrections Amendment Act (No 2) sadly ignored by the previous Government comes into force on Friday. It provides for new search powers to make it easier to detect drugs and provides for stronger disincentives to smuggle drugs into prisons. 
Paul Quinn 
: What is being done to reduce prisoners’ demand for drugs? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: More prisoners than ever before will start drug treatment programmes this year. As at February 2009 333 prisoners had started treatment in a drug treatment unit almost matching the 346 who started programmes in the entire 2007-08 year. I expect this growth to continue as the Government is committed to doubling the number of places in drug treatment units over the next few years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she stand by her statement on Television One’s  
Q+A 
 programme on Sunday 29 March that after her term as corrections Minister she should be judged on whether “we will have fewer prisoners who are taking drugs in prison”; if so could she define for the House in percentage terms what she sees as an acceptable decrease in the number of prisoners taking drugs in prison so that the New Zealand public can properly hold her to account in the future. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes; and obviously there has already been a drop so I suppose by the member’s standards I would have actually got there already. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question in reference— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Get on with it! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Excuse me Mr Speaker could you ask the person from  
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 
 not to interject on a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had a legitimate grievance when he raised his point of order. I would ask all members to allow points of order to be heard in silence. But he seriously— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I was responding to an interjection. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should not do that. The member’s point of order is being dealt with. It will be heard in silence. Can the member carry on with his point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: My point of order is that I asked the Minister whether she could confirm—or define if you will—what she meant in a quote from a  
Q+A 
 programme where she said that she will be judged on fewer prisoners taking drugs in prison. I did not ask her about what the previous Government did which she referred to because the previous Government put in place the programmes that gave her the figures she referred to as of February. I asked a specific question which was whether she can she define what “fewer” means. She made the statement Mr Speaker. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I point out that the member asked two questions. I answered one; it was “Yes”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the honourable member were to check his  
Hansard 
 I think he would see that he started his question with the words “Can she tell this House” and the Minister said “Yes”. If one wants answers then one has to be very precise with one’s questioning. I believe that the Minister did answer that supplementary question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister think that a two-thirds decrease in the use of drugs in our public prisons in 10 years would be an acceptable decrease; and is she aware that the Labour Government achieved exactly that—reducing drug use in our public prisons from 34 percent to 14 percent in the decade to 2008—or is she too scared to give the New Zealand people a figure so that in her own words they can judge her accordingly in the next few years? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am never too scared actually but I am happy to say that the improvement in the drug figures was off a very high base. When the Labour Government took over the rate in the privately run prison was 5.5 percent and in State-run prisons it was 20 percent. It was a very high rate. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that the amount of drug taking in prisons under Labour’s term in Government decreased from approximately one-third of inmates to half— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member tell the House what the document is though. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The document will be a document that I have in my room that will have been based on information provided by the Department of Corrections when I was the Minister of Corrections. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order should be heard in silence. I must alert members that we have been breaching this very seriously today. Did we establish what the document was? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The document is a document I had from my time as Minister of Corrections based on information provided by the Department of Corrections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document from the Department of Corrections. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree that a policy of non-contact visits in all prisons would greatly reduce drug availability in prisons; if not why not; and if so will she agree to roll out this policy in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member might well be correct in his assumption. I have been advised by the Department of Corrections that non-contact visits are now used for inmates who fail drug tests. But I am always willing to look at ideas on how to further reduce drug use in prisons. 
Plastic Bags—User Charge 
8.  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does his statement that “encouraging more environmentally friendly behaviour with financial incentive rather than through regulation or prohibition” still apply to his efforts to encourage a reduction in plastic bag use; if not why not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Prime Minister’s veto of the Minister’s plastic bag levy mean that regulation or prohibition is the Government’s preferred policy; if not did the Prime Minister or his office advocate any other policy ideas? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In response to a letter about 6 weeks ago I simply said that the Ministry for the Environment was investigating possible solutions. That was as much as was said and as the member notes in her primary question this is a Government that is about voluntary measures and about good financial incentives for improving environmental behaviour. That is for instance why I congratulated the Warehouse when it introduced a small charge to reduce plastic bag usage for that particular store. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Prime Minister’s veto of the Minister’s plastic bag levy demonstrate a growing lack of confidence in him and is that the reason why the Prime Minister’s office has taken to answering written questions to the Minister? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Prime Minister does not answer written questions to me. The member’s claim that somehow we have done anything more than ask the Ministry for the Environment to investigate something is no big deal. I have rejected a ban on plastic bags but I do say to this House collectively that a billion plastic bags for a country of our size is too many and there are some good voluntary measures— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Then why don’t you do something about it? Why don’t you stand up to the Prime Minister? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well one member of the Labour Party is saying that Labour supports a ban and someone else is saying it does not. It would be nice to know the Labour Party’s position. National’s position is that there are sensible voluntary initiatives that we can take to reduce plastic bag usage. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister have any other ideas to deal with the excessive use of plastic bags that the Prime Minister might agree with or is this just another example of his Government’s relegation of environmental issues to the bottom of the “to do” list? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Environmental issues are very important to this Government and we have a number of important initiatives covering water climate change air quality and a whole number of other areas. I personally do not believe that plastic bags are the biggest issue for the environment. They make up a very small part of the overall waste mix. It is true that in responding to a letter 6 weeks ago I noted that I was happy for the Ministry for the Environment to investigate ways in which plastic bag usage could be reduced. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table answers to written questions to the Minister for the Environment where the PM’s office’s advocated answer has been given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table two answers to written questions to the Minister. Is there any objection to those questions being tabled? There is objection. 
Personal Explanation—Twitter 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a further personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. 
Hon Annette King 
: What about? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It probably is reasonable to indicate what it is in relation to. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is in relation to the matter of Twitter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the matter of Twitter. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In my earlier personal explanation I noted that I have never been on the website Twitter and have never sent a tweet. I can further advise the House that there are a number of bogus Twitter accounts in use and in respect of my own notification was provided to Twitter on 29 March—Monday morning our time—that this was a bogus account. So it would appear that not only has the Prime Minister incorrectly used this material— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use a personal explanation to comment on another member. It is only about his matters and I thank him for that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the notification that was sent by our communications staff to the Twitter website notifying it that the comments were bogus. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the difficulties that the posting of bogus material on the Internet can cause for people and the Government’s desire to review the process for take-down at the moment I wonder whether Mr Cunliffe given this experience could indicate to the House whether he will be giving a favourable submission to that inquiry in order that take-down notices can be more effectively exercised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what issue of order the member is seeking me to address. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Finding that it’s not a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Today I guess with members anything is going because the House is in such a boisterous mood but let us try to focus if we could on questions for oral answer. 
Auckland Governance Report—Local Representation 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his statement concerning the royal commission’s report on Auckland governance that “I have some concerns about whether the report provides for adequate local representation in our many diverse communities and I want to look more closely at this issue”; if so why? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Local Government 
: 
Yes; because there are many diverse communities. That is why the Minister is in Auckland today meeting with Mike Lee chair of the Auckland Regional Council; Alasdair Thompson chief executive of the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association; and Mike Cohen chair of New Zealand Community Boards and chairperson of the Devonport Community Board. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree that many of the commission’s proposals actually undermine rather than strengthen local democracy in Auckland such as its proposal to wipe out most community boards strip local councils of their powers and relegate them to the status of local branch offices and concentrate extraordinary power in the office of the mayor? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister agrees that the report of the royal commission is a large and significant document. The Government is still considering the details of the report and no decisions have yet been made. The Government intends to make a response to the report in due course. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: In the new Auckland-wide unitary authority how many voters exist in that area and how will the 10 new region-wide councillors be accountable to that volume of voters? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: To the best of my knowledge there are about 1 million voters but I can be corrected on that figure. In response to the second part of the question I say to the member that the report of the royal commission is a large and significant document. The Government is still considering the details of the report and no decisions have been made. The Government intends to respond to the report in due course. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree with commentator Gordon Campbell that: “In an era where Big Government is supposed to be such a bad word this proposal will entail a centralisation of power unimagined by any left wing activist with Stalinist tendencies.”; and will he seek to ensure that there are checks on the extraordinary concentration of power in the office of the mayor? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I have seen a number of comments by a number of commentators who have different views but I would say to the member that the report of the royal commission is a large and significant document. The Government is still considering the detail of the report and no decisions have been made. The Government intends to make a response to the report in due course. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was no attempt to address the question in that answer. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need help on this. The difficulty is that the question really asked for an opinion and the opinion the Minister gave may not have been quite the opinion that was being sought. But if one seeks an opinion in a question one will get an opinion. That is the dilemma with that kind of question. 
Keith Locke 
: When the Minister says the Government will be deciding in due course does that mean as has been reported that there will be a decision at this coming Monday’s Cabinet meeting on whether the Government goes along with the general lines of the royal commission’s report; and how much time will the good citizens of Auckland be given to comment on the far-reaching proposals of the royal commission? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Government intends to respond to the commission’s report in due course but no date for that has been announced at this time. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why will he not confirm to the House the promise he made to Aucklanders during the election campaign that they would be extensively consulted over the future of the mega-city for Auckland? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The whole process of the royal commission was about consultation; there has been extensive consultation for more than 20 months. We have now received the report of the commission which is a significant document with many details and the Government will give a considered response to it in due course. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister share the concern of the Green Party and of many of the people in Auckland that having the mayor and 10 councillors elected at large undermines fair community input into the council from all parts of the region and will inevitably result in elections that only the rich and famous will have any chance at all of winning? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: One thing that does not occupy a lot of the time of the Minister is the concerns of the Greens. But I would say that the report of the royal commission is a large document. The Government is considering the details of it and will respond to it in due course. 
Energy Strategy—Goals 
10.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does the Government still subscribe to the New Zealand Energy Strategy 2007—in particular the goals of achieving 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025 and halving domestic transport emissions per capita by 2040? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 If the member did not spend so much time nosying about the Facebook pages of my staff he might have read some of my speeches in which I acknowledge that the previous Government’s Energy Strategy is considered by the current Government to be inefficient in a number of respects. It will be updated later in the year. However as regards the targets the member mentions they remain important aspirational goals. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister seen any recent reports about thermal electricity generation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I have. I have seen a report that between 2000 and 2008 when Labour was in office well over half of all the new electricity generation that came on stream was generated from thermal sources. The Labour Government gave a gas guarantee to Genesis so that it could build the new 385-megawatt gas-fired station at Huntly and electricity generated from coal grew astronomically. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments that renewable energy will be incentivised by a price on carbon; if so how does he expect that to happen when his colleague Nick Smith has already answered in Parliament that he has no idea when the emissions trading scheme will be operational? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I do stand by that. The Government as the member knows has a select committee reviewing the previous Government’s legislation and remains of the view that New Zealand should have an emissions trading scheme and that there should be a price on carbon. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “Transport makes up nearly half of New Zealand’s energy use … but only 0.7% of the sector’s energy use is renewable. We need to change that over time if we are to start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”; if he does when will he introduce sustainability standards for biofuels given his Government’s opposition to adding biofuels into New Zealand’s energy mix until such standards are introduced? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There were a number of questions there so I will go through them slowly. Firstly the Ministry for the Environment is currently working on standards which will soon be promulgated for the production of biofuel in New Zealand. The second question was whether I stand by my statement that we need to reduce emissions from transport over time. I do. I liken it to someone in about 1880 deciding whether there should be a significant reduction in horse droppings on the roads over the next 30-odd years. The answer then was yes and we are in exactly the same sort of period of technology transformation at the present time. I think the member should be comforted by the fact that I stated earlier that transport emission reduction is in fact an aspirational goal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One can only conclude that the Government is actually wanting to waste time today with answers as long as that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question had four parts to it. I did my best to answer because you are keen that Ministers answer members’ questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was perfectly happy to allow the Minister time to answer the parts of the question because there were a number of parts in it. But then he continued on much after that. Charles Chauvel supplementary question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Hopefully we will get the answer from the right end of the horse on this one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to ask a supplementary question he will just ask it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will we ever see an energy policy from the Minister’s Government that shows an understanding of the sustainability challenges faced by New Zealand or will he just continue to dismantle all of the previous Government’s work in this area while continuing to claim the credit for the results of that work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I make no attempt to claim credit for half of the new generation produced or commissioned under that member’s Government relying on thermal fuel. I make no claim to the 72 percent increase in electricity retail prices over the term of his Government. I simply answer his two questions with yes and no. 
Primary Production—Food Miles and Carbon Footprint 
11.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What initiatives is the Government undertaking in the primary sector to address the challenges posed by food miles and carbon footprinting? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Considerable Government work is under way to address the growing international demand for carbon footprinting for our primary products. At the heart of this is the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Footprinting Strategy that takes a partnership approach to assist our primary sector to respond to increasing attention on the environmental impacts of production and consumption. It focuses on building capability domestically to measure and manage environmental performance as well as driving efficiency right across the supply chain. 
Shane Ardern 
: What progress has there been on the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Footprinting Strategy? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: A lot. In coming weeks both the kiwifruit and dairy sectors will announce the results of their studies into measuring the emission footprints of their products. This is a world first. I expect similar announcements through the year in relation to forestry wine lamb beef pipfruit and many other primary products. Additionally I will soon be announcing which university has successfully tendered for the inaugural Government-funded professorship in life cycle management in agriculture and forestry. 
Shane Ardern 
: What do these developments mean for New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They demonstrate to our trading partners and overseas consumers New Zealand’s absolute commitment to measuring managing and verifying our primary sector’s environmental performance. 
Early Childhood Education—Priority 
12.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What level of priority if any does she give to quality early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government. This includes doing more to ensure participation in quality early childhood services by those who are not currently participating. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why then has the New Zealand Playcentre Federation accused the Government of backtracking on its election promise of funding 20 hours’ early childhood education for playcentres? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government will be honouring its commitment to extend the 20 hours programme to playcentres and kohanga reo because unlike the previous Government we recognise the quality input from parents and we recognise that these institutions provide valuable early childhood education and care to our youngest New Zealanders. I say to the member that the funding formulas are very complex and the ministry will be working with the sector to design these formulas for these services so that the Government can deliver on its commitment. 
Sue Moroney 
: If early childhood education is such a high priority for the Government why is it taking so long for the Minister to mandate her ministry to enter into collective employment negotiations for kindergarten teachers whose employment agreement has already expired on 28 February and also for school support staff whose agreement expired on 1 March? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I expect to take bargaining parameters to Cabinet shortly and bargaining will begin as soon as possible after that. I say to the member that it is all very well for the Labour Party to shed crocodile tears over the start of these negotiations when on the previous occasion the Labour Government did not present an offer to the New Zealand Educational Institute until 7 weeks after the expiry of the collective agreement and the time before that it was 5 weeks. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Ministry of Education dated 20 March in which the author says that they are ready to start bargaining but that they have not had a mandate from the Minister yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled “Teachers’ union considers legal action over pay talks”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the document? 
Sue Moroney 
: It is an article from the Christchurch  
Press 
 dated 1 April— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a press release. I appeal to the honourable member that the Standing Orders Committee has asked that members do not seek to table local press releases. It would be different if it was an overseas newspaper but I seriously wonder at the wisdom of wasting the time of the House on a local press statement. However the member is entitled to do so if she insists. 
Sue Moroney 
: I would like to seek the leave of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Members 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did any staff member acting at the direction of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee invite John Judge to attend the financial review of the ACC for the 2000-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 My understanding is that no staff member under my direction invited Mr Judge to attend the meeting of 12 March. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You will recognise this question; I will ask it again. Did any staff member acting for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee invite John Judge to attend the financial review of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for the 2007-08 financial year? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: As I said I have no understanding of any member of the staff inviting Mr Judge to attend the meeting of 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a question that was set down on notice as it was yesterday. It is relatively easy for the chair to consult with the select committee staff— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —there are only two staff—to ask whether they invited Mr Judge. He appears not to have done it despite more than 24 hours’ notice. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I first point out that there was a word left out of the question asked by the honourable member which could be relevant. But in essence the chairman of the select committee has twice given him an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The actual question that the Hon Trevor Mallard just asked was a supplementary question so he cannot have left a word out of it. In fact the supplementary question was slightly different from the question for which notice was given. I invite the honourable member to repeat his supplementary question so the House can hear the answer to it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did any staff member acting for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee invite John Judge to attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I am not aware of any staff member under my direction or the direction of the committee inviting Mr Judge to the meeting of 12 March. Mr Judge will be attending the meeting tomorrow and the select committee has agreed upon his attendance then. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have already allowed the member Trevor Mallard a couple of supplementary questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I still haven’t had an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we did get an answer because the member told the House that as far as he was aware the answer was no. I invite the honourable member to go on to question No. 2. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Who told him that John Judge was not going to attend the meeting of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 12 March 2009 for the financial review of the ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I did not ask Mr Judge to attend the meeting on 12 March so it is not about whether he was going to attend. It was agreed however that the Minister would attend the meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How could he tell the committee that Dr Smith was replacing Mr Judge if he was not aware that Mr Judge was not coming? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This is a similar question to the one we had yesterday. I checked the transcript of the meeting. I did not tell the committee that Dr Smith was there replacing Mr Judge. That was my recollection of what happened. I checked the transcript and that confirmed my recollection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will have silence for this point of order; I thank members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is a very serious matter. That member is absolutely aware that that transcript covers the evidence given at the committee and the period of that evidence. It does not cover his comments to the committee. They could not be in there because that part was not recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a very interesting issue. The dilemma the House has is that if it was not recorded because the committee was in committee at the time then what was said cannot be part of a question in this House because it is not available to this House to be questioned on until such time as the report is made to the House. That is the way I see it. I am happy to hear the member further because I understand the seriousness of what he is trying to raise but my understanding of the situation is that because it was in committee this House cannot question a chair on what was said there. This House can question only on proceedings not on what was said by someone in that committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that is generally the case. The exception is an area to do with the process of the committee for which the chairperson is responsible and this is something that the member is responsible for. He has taken responsibility in this House. Dr Nick Smith has made some very clear statements in this House which I referred to yesterday. This member has made comments in this House relating to that process. We are allowed to ask about the process for which that chairman is responsible. That is an exception and it is a longstanding one. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With regard to the process of the select committee and the questions that have been asked David Bennett has answered those questions. If Mr Mallard is trying to suggest that there is something strange in Mr Bennett’s observing at the start of the committee meeting that someone Mr Mallard expected to have turned up was not there then surely it would be no great problem. Mr Bennett did not invite this gentleman— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well this is not a matter of order. The member has exceeded— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With respect the questioning of a member in the House in this context is refined to the procedures of the committee. I think we almost stepped outside that on a number of occasions yesterday but I think that Mr Bennett has answered procedural questions very very satisfactorily today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue that the member raises is a perfectly proper issue in that members can question chairs of committees on procedure. There is no question about that; it is absolutely correct. Where we get into difficulty here is that to question the chair on what was said in a committee is I think starting to stretch that a little bit far. The member has told the House that he did not ask Mr Judge to attend and the House has to accept his word on that. I really think that the honourable member should now come to his third question because I cannot support further questioning on what he said in committee because this House is not entitled to question him on what he said. Questions as to how he took the committee into committee we can certainly have but I cannot permit questioning on what he said in that committee. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he agree before the meeting of 12 March 2009 that the Minister for ACC would appear instead of John Judge at that meeting on the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year; if so with whom did he agree? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I agreed with the Minister that he would appear at the meeting of 12 March but not necessarily instead of the chair as I had not asked Mr Judge to attend. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did Dr Nick Smith indicate to this House that he was appearing instead of John Judge with that member’s agreement? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that can be in order because— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will try again if you like Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member one further supplementary question as I have ruled that one out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can he reconcile that answer with the answer given by Dr Nick Smith to the House that the chairperson and Dr Nick Smith agreed that Dr Smith would appear instead of Mr Judge? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order because although I accept the change in construction of the question the chair of the committee is not responsible for reconciling anything. He might have agreed with what some other member including the Minister might have said in this House. He cannot be responsible for that as chair of the committee. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that raises an interesting point because it seems to me we will now end up in a position to argue that we cannot ask Mr Bennett to reconcile his statement with Dr Nick Smith’s statement because he is not responsible for Dr Smith’s statement; and we will not be able to ask Dr Smith to reconcile his statement with Mr Bennett’s statement because he is not responsible for Mr Bennett’s statement. In other words any two members of the Government can say different things but we cannot ask either of them how they reconcile them. I think that puts the Opposition in a rather difficult position to put it mildly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure it is not beyond the wit of Opposition members though to work out ways of elucidating those matters if they wish to do so. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: In response to that point of order I say simply that Dr Cullen will remember the very awkward time during the early part of 2002 when many parts of the Government of the day claimed they were not responsible for each other. We went through days and days of it in this House. There were rulings from the then Speaker that ridiculous as it may seem make that perfectly the case in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that brings to a close questions for oral answer for today. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Yesterday we saw the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister describing a Minister of the Crown as being “stupid” and “unwise”—stupid and unwise. Those are his words not mine. Today the country is asking the question as to why a person who is stupid and unwise continues to hold a ministerial portfolio. The answers given in the House yesterday by Dr Worth were at the very best ambiguous. There is a murkiness around that private business junket using the Minister’s title and the perks of office that has not yet been explained by Dr Worth and he should explain. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister was at pains to defend the Minister of Trade Tim Groser for failing to resign from the directorships of two commercial enterprises that were clearly a conflict of interest with the role of Minister of Trade. I have been the Minister of Trade. I know that one has inside information that one is privileged to hold. One cannot hold a commercial directorship and carry out the functions as Minister of Trade. Although Mr Key was at pains to defend Mr Groser for taking 3 months to resign from those directorships it took Dr Worth just 2 hours when he was caught out on his junket and conflict of interest. What Mr Key never told the House was that as he was answering the question Mr Groser continued to hold shares in the company the Indian Overseas Trade Group. Mr Groser continued to hold those shares which is something that was revealed only last night when the media put that question to him. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has matched the high standard that he promised he would set for his Ministers. Do members remember what it was? It was “one strike and you’re out”. There have been many strikes; no Minister has yet resigned. 
Very fortunately New Zealand has a strong reputation as a country that has a high level of integrity and as a country that is intolerant of corruption. One reason that is the case in Government is this manual. It is called the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and it works very clearly to prevent conflicts of interest. Every one of us on our appointments as Ministers was required to fill out a checklist against which we could judge whether there were conflicts of interest. If that was not enough we then had a personal and confidential interview with the Cabinet Office to make sure that there were no conflicts of interest. Mr Key must explain to this House how having had those checklists and confidential interviews two of his Ministers failed to recognise or disclose conflicts of interest and held those conflicts of interest in Dr Worth’s case until he was caught out and in the case of Mr Groser’s directorships for 3 months followed by his failure to disclose a shareholding. 
I accept from Mr Groser his word as an honourable member of this House that that was an oversight but an oversight is not acceptable. David Parker resigned from his portfolio because he could not remember the facts surrounding an allegation that was made against him. He had the integrity to say: “I don’t remember. I therefore resign because the demands of this office and the importance of this office are such that I should do so.” He was cleared entirely of any wrongdoing but he did the decent thing and one has to ask when Dr Worth and Mr Groser will do the decent thing in this House. 
Dr Worth went on a trip using his ministerial title and was facilitated through the airport. Mr Key said yesterday that that did not cost any money. That is rubbish. It did cost money and Mr Key knows that. Dr Worth took the whole delegation through. He went there on a private business junket to promote an enterprise in which a company of which he was a director was in joint venture. That is clearly a conflict of interest. He was asked whether he paid for his own trip. He said yes. When he was asked more closely and in more detail he gave a very ambiguous answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Was it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I found it interesting because at the end one or two of his caucus members applauded. That is quite unusual for this particular Leader of the Opposition. The two words that are out there in the minds of New Zealanders at the moment if they notice and if they are interested are why the Leader of the Opposition is so invisible and so ineffective. We have seen today some examples of exactly why that is. It is because the Labour Party team is not even slightly united behind its leader. 
I refer to these apparently bogus Twitter entries on the Twitter website. I accept the statement made by David Cunliffe that it was not his work because I know that anything that is good David Cunliffe claims and anything that is bad he does not and this is very very bad. It indicates that there are people out there who are presumably close to him and who want to promote him or to put it about on Twitter that he is the man to replace Phil Goff. What was absent this afternoon was the question about Mr Clayton Cosgrove. Apparently Mr Clayton Cosgrove also has a Twitter webpage. On that webpage he makes a number of comments that indicate he is also waiting in the wings for Mr Goff to trip over and fall in the hole. The talk on Twitter around the Labour Party is that it is just a matter of time for Phil. We will say goodbye to Helen Clark and to any other senior members who might be on their way and then we will have a massive and bloody spill. 
Here we are on 1 April a day when the Government is doing serious good things for the people of New Zealand that will make a difference in strapped economic times and all we can get from Labour members is the holding up of a Labour-National poll that shows the rapid incline of National’s support among the voters of this nation. It is no wonder that the incline is so steep. We have personal tax cuts coming into effect today. Members opposite can say that the tax cuts are not big enough or good enough or that things could have been better. Of course the other half of them say that there should not be any tax cuts at all. I know that at a time when the commodities that households require are on an upward price-path these tax cuts will be very much welcomed. 
Today also sees the start of the small-business initiative for the raft of small-business enterprises in this country that employ so many New Zealanders. That package totals some $480 million and is designed to make business a little easier for those business people so that they do not have to be consumed by the day-to-day inanities of their businesses and can focus instead on growing them and providing the work opportunities that so many people will need. 
Then there is the extraordinary situation where Labour members are saying that it would have been better to not raise the minimum wage rather than just put another 50c on it. How pathetic is that? Everybody working in those minimum wage jobs will be very happy to get their extra 50c an hour. That is another example of the fact that even in tight times the National Government is very attuned to the needs of those at the bottom end of society. 
Day by day businesses are having to face the difficulties of redundancy and the Government has packages in place so we have to ask why the Labour Party is so upset by programmes that might help those people through the Restart programme the 9-day working fortnight and the various other interventions designed to help people through difficult times. It is also interesting to note the criticism that comes from Labour members about the Government’s huge boost in infrastructure investment in New Zealand. A $500 million programme has been outlined so far. We also have the big broadband roll-out. That $1.5 million programme is designed to ensure that when New Zealand like the rest of the world reaches better times the ability to participate will be so much better. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We have just heard a speech on Twitter from Parliament’s biggest twit. His speech ended with just a tweet. I have to say that it was one of the weakest speeches I have ever heard from that member. The only thing he could say was “Look at our big broadband.” Well I invite him to say that to the people of the West Coast. Mr Joyce said that people who live up the end of a long road—the farmers—will have to wait some time. I tell the National Government that actually there are people on the West Coast who live in towns. Quite a few thousand of them actually live in towns. They are asking where the broadband is for them. 
We learnt today on 1 April April Fool’s Day that the National Government’s tax cuts are the “more is less” tax cuts because the people who get the most get more and those who get the least get nothing. That is what these tax cuts are. They are the “more is less” tax cuts. It is probably a red-letter day and a black-letter day for New Zealanders. It is a red-letter day for those who are lucky enough to get the tax cuts and I say good on them. People will welcome those tax cuts. When people are struggling they will be happy to get a few extra dollars in their pockets. I am pleased for them. I say that for those who do not get the tax cuts it is a black-letter day indeed. It is a black-letter day for many many New Zealanders. 
Let us look at my own electorate where 62 percent of the people do not get the tax cuts that were announced today. It is an ordinary electorate. I know that people there vote Labour and probably do not deserve to have a tax cut under a National Government but 62 percent of people in my electorate get no tax cuts. In fact right across New Zealand 71 percent of people do not get these tax cuts. 
We know that the 3 percent who get most of the money in New Zealand will get a third of the cash in their pockets. Is that fair? Is that what these tax cuts are about? I have to tell members that I believe this is a defining moment for National. I hope that the Maori Party is listening to this speech. These tax cuts define National’s idea of fairness. National believes that fairness is giving the most to those who already have it. We are not saying there should not be tax cuts; we are saying that the Government should give tax cuts to those who need them. Why would they want to give more to the chief executive officer of Telecom who is already earning over a million dollars— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: $5 million. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is $5 million. Well he will get $500 a week more from these tax cuts but the family that is on under $40000 a year—the struggling family with kids—will not get anything. It is also a black-letter day for all those people who have just lost their jobs because they will not get a tax cut. They will not get anything with these tax cuts. We know that the number of people losing their jobs is accelerating by the day. Almost 2000 people signed up for the unemployment benefit in just 1 month. We know that the number of people going to Work and Income for assistance is climbing rapidly. There is little assistance for those people unless they meet a very narrow range of criteria. 
There is nothing new from the Minister for Social Development and Employment. In fact Paula Bennett has spent 5 months as Minister working out what she will do for the non-governmental organisation sector. Today we know that the tax cuts ought to be given to charity according to Mr John Key the Prime Minister. I suppose charity will give the money to the non-governmental organisation sector because it is not getting any joy out of that Minister. She crows that she called in people from the non-governmental organisation sector for a meeting to talk about it but we know that those people are talking about what they are not going to get in this Budget. The Pathways to Partnership programme is on the skids. It is on the skids because the Minister cannot provide funding for the non-governmental organisations to be able to continue to provide the absolutely crucial services that New Zealanders need at this time. It is a black-letter day for them and it is a black-letter day for thousands and thousands of taxpayers in this country. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Aside from the dubious maths that we hear from members on the other side of the House can we just have a look at what they have been spending their time on over the last several weeks in the House. They have spent a lot of time on who attends select committees which is a very important topic of discussion. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why don’t you look us in the eyes Mr Joyce? That’s right; we’re the Opposition. Here we are. We’re just here. Look at us. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I know the members over there are trying to make themselves relevant but it involves more than Mr Cunliffe waving his arms around. They have been twittering away and focusing on who attends select committees making mountains out of molehills about Government procedures and most of all mourning the loss of their own poorly performing programmes. Opposition members spend a lot of time mourning the loss of their own programmes. We get a lot of that in question time. They ask: “How could you possibly change this programme?”. They do that all the time. But what do we hear about the big issues? What do we hear about getting ourselves out of the decade of deficits they left us with? The answer is absolutely nothing. What do we hear about improving productivity? What do we hear about that? We hear absolutely nothing. What do we hear about improving our foreign exchange deficit? We hear absolutely nothing. All we get is a list of programmes that they may or may not support. 
Opposition members have also made statements on the tax package—either: “It is not enough.” “Why are you borrowing to cut taxes?” “I personally support it.” “The tax cuts should be cancelled.” “We need more fiscal stimulus.” or it is: “You need to show more responsibility.” Which statement on reducing taxes so that people can work hard and get ahead is the one Opposition members believe? They do not have a position. 
Do they have a position on the 9-day working fortnight? Yes they oppose that I think. Do they have a position on the tourism initiative—the cycleway? They are not sure; they are still thinking about that. Sometimes it is OK; sometimes it is not so good. What about the ReStart package? They oppose it. What about short-term infrastructure funding? They are not really sure about that; they have not been able to count it yet but they mostly oppose it. What about personal tax rates? We have been there. They are opposed to them; maybe they are in favour of them; they are not really sure. They ask for more fiscal stimulus or maybe not. 
What about helping small businesses with the small to medium sized enterprise package? There may be a little bit of support for that. They are not really sure about that one. They think they might have done something along those lines themselves but they cannot really remember. What about transport infrastructure? They oppose it I think. What about broadband infrastructure? They say it is not enough or it is too much. I think David Cunliffe said it was too much and Clare Curran said it was not enough. What about reforming the Resource Management Act? Labour members supported the introduction of the bill to reform that Act. It will be interesting to see whether they will actually get us to the end. What about moving public resources into front-line services? They definitely oppose it. 
These are all things that will help to improve New Zealand’s productivity. My question for Opposition members is that if they oppose most of those things what are they actually proposing to solve their own decade of deficits that they left the Government with when they left power? Or will they be obsessed with trivia over the next 6 months? Will they spend their time dealing with a whole lot of stuff that is not relevant and talking all the time about who attends select committees and who does not which the public of New Zealand do not care about? The public of New Zealand want to know how the New Zealand economy is going to grow stronger and how it will grow more quickly out of the global recession we are in. In order for that to happen they will want to know how we will improve the country’s productivity. That is what members of the public need to know but we hear absolutely nothing at all from Opposition members on those topics. 
My challenge for the next speaker who might be the Hon David Cunliffe is to tell us which of the initiatives that I have just listed they are prepared to support and if there are not any then where the initiatives are that they are prepared to support. Where are Labour’s solutions on productivity? Where are Labour’s solutions on improving our balance of payments deficit? Where are Labour’s solutions on encouraging growth? We need to know and the country needs to know and until Labour members come up with some solutions instead of twittering away on a whole bunch of irrelevant trivial stuff then the country will continue to ignore them. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Normally when one challenges an Opposition one at least looks the members in the eyes. One raises one’s head and one’s sights and one eyeballs them rather than having one’s chin in one’s lap and looking like a crash helmet on legs. The reason that bloke is called “Re-Joyce” is that he is so glum about governing. He wants a suggestion for improving productivity so I will give him one. National should adopt Labour’s broadband plan. That will save at least half a billion dollars and get more broadband in the ground. That would be a good start. 
Today is April Fool’s Day and Mr Key has gone back to his office to kick the butts of the staff who got him to try that silly question about Twitter. Not only have I never posted a tweet but that Minister obviously was not informed that the same person who set up a bogus site for me has also done so for three other Labour members. At least as early as Monday of this week a notice posted on Twitter made it clear that the site was false. But wait; there is more! It turns out that the person who set up these four bogus sites is actually a right-wing blogger. 
Why would someone not have told Mr Key that one of his own whanau was responsible for this gimmick? Was that person trying to make Mr Key look like a tweet on April Fool’s Day or does it come naturally? Perhaps he or she was trying to take attention away from the great “Robin Hood in reverse” tax swindle. That is where one borrows a billion dollars and gives a third of it to the top 3 percent of income earners. Even Roger Douglas can tell that it is nonsense to borrow a billion dollars give a third to the top 3 percent and ensure that 71 percent get nothing—nada zip no income tax cut. Seventy-one percent of Kiwis get nothing 3 percent get a third—and it is borrowed money. 
That is why John Key has been on radio and TV in the last week saying: “Well you know those tax cuts next year—we’ve really got to try to be clear that the conditions will allow it.” That is why Mr English was talking them down in the media. That is why Ganesh Nana from the Business and Economic Research Ltd said today that he does not think it will happen. That is why the press gallery knows full well it will never happen. 
What does that mean for New Zealanders? It means that almost all the people underneath that blessed top 3 percent will be worse off under this Government than they would have been if a Labour Government had enacted the legislation it had set out in Budget 2008. It is not just the 71 percent who miss out today—April Fool’s Day—with these April Fool’s Day tax cuts; it is almost everybody outside the top table and outside the big end of town. It is payback time for the donors to the National Party who insisted on the top personal tax rate being cut. 
As well as being grossly inequitable and highly unprincipled that is really stupid economics because—and I point this out in case someone did not explain it to the Prime Minister—we are in a recession. What do people do in a recession? People spend money in such a way that it stays in circulation. One has the highest possible multiplier and that does not come from the people at the high end of the income scale. It comes from the people at the lower end of the income scale because they need it. They are credit constrained and whatever relief they get they spend. They spend it at the corner dairy they spend it at the supermarket they put a new tyre on the car they pay the school donation for their children they buy their children books or they take their kids to the doctor—if they do not qualify for the free stuff that Labour has already put in place. 
Families need it and that is why Labour put in place the Working for Families package and that is why members opposite have done a political gimmick which even the Minister of Revenue disagrees with with the independent earner tax credit. That is a $10 a week gimmick that is available to people who do not have kids and it is meant to make them feel a bit better. But the people with children are the ones who are shelling out for so many of the necessaries. People at the bottom end are suffering. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The member who has just taken his seat David Cunliffe decided he would talk about eye contact and how important that is yet he spent his 5 minutes performing nicely for the camera. It was all about him trying to run his show and trying to make his bid for leadership. We know there is nervousness over there and we know there is a twitter in the Labour ranks as its members watch their leader performing so badly. Mr Cunliffe stood up performed nicely for the cameras and spent his whole time with his eyes on those and the gallery while trying to make some pretty minor points. 
I will talk a little about wilful blindness: it is a legal term for people pointedly ignoring something they should have known about. That is what the previous Government showed last year. It saw that the economy was starting to do something and if it did not see that then it was well and truly a case of wilful blindness. The previous Government saw unemployment numbers rising for three consecutive terms. 
Chris Tremain 
: And what did Ruth Dyson say? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We heard that having 29000 unemployed people was not a bad thing. What did we see in three consecutive quarters from the previous Government when it came to addressing the issue of people losing their jobs and being out of work? Absolutely nothing! As early as the beginning of last year commentators were predicting trouble. With an eye on America those commentators could see that it was happening. Did we see anything from Labour on that? We saw a programme of spending leading up to the election. We saw a dying Government gasping for breath and making reckless promises that it did not fund. We saw an accident compensation fund that was quite frankly in trouble and that the National Government is now having to fix up. We heard nothing about the concerns that needed to be addressed. The previous Government was so focused on trying to win an election that this country became tired; it had had enough. There were no new ideas and as a consequence the people spoke. Labour was raiding workers’ piggy banks in the weeks leading up to the election. It sneakily brought forward the family tax adjustment just weeks before the country went to the vote. It really amazes me that the former Minister had the gall to then go and give those people their own money back. 
This Government today is raising the minimum wage to $12.50. I am thrilled for those people who need it most and that even in these tough times this Government has seen the need for something and is raising the wage. I stand up proudly and say that this Government is helping over 900000 Kiwis get extra payments in their benefits today. Our superannuitants and our veterans will be seeing an increase in payments of at least 3.38 percent on their main superannuation. People on other benefits will be seeing an increase too which could be up to $13 a week; that will make a difference for them. 
In National’s first few weeks in Government it introduced the ReStart scheme and over 1200 people are on ReStart already. We are unfortunately seeing more redundancies and that number will increase but this Government is prepared to step up for those people and be counted. The Job Support Scheme is allowing companies to work with their staff in order to keep people in their jobs while they are experiencing short-term difficulties. We have had over 30 companies contacting us and wanting to be a part of that scheme and we are in discussion with them. 
So what did Labour do to help those most vulnerable people they keep spouting on about? Actually its track record is not so good. It did a lot of banning of stuff. Do members remember the Government banning showerheads and saying what kind of showerhead people could have? It banned some light bulbs and tried to make people have the most expensive ones. It decided what children could eat or not eat in schools and it made a whole lot of other rules. I loved the thing about parents becoming caregivers and guardians—we had a lot of that sort of language. Beneficiaries were turned into clients and that is what the focus was on. Members will be pleased to know that I am discovering a lot of impact seminars—whatever they are. I constantly read in reports from the previous Government about collaboration fatigue and I have come across some truly astonishing pieces of research. There was a lot of navel-gazing and a lot of hand-wringing but what we did not see was actual action for the people who needed it most. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As Annette King said today is a truly defining moment in this Parliament. Just before I continue with my speech I point out that the previous speaker Paula Bennett asked what we did for people. When we left office we gave New Zealanders 3.4 percent unemployment. We left office with a legacy—[ 
Interruption 
]—and those members do not like it—of 365000 jobs created. I think this is a defining moment. In my electorate of Waimakariri 72 percent of the families and folks on a median income of $24000 a year get nothing. I can remember the candidate who stood against me and others. Do members remember the slogan of the National Party? I agree that the people voted for the party; at that time they accepted the slogan “You can be ambitious for New Zealand”. I think the slogan to the people of New Zealand was: “You can have fairness in New Zealand. If you want it choose it”. And the people did. I think John Key’s tag line was “Just choose it”. Well people thought they were choosing that. They were told there would be fairness and they were told there would be equity. They were told they would get one hell of a tax cut. Again as Annette King said we are not opposed to tax cuts. National members will whinge and whine and say it took us 9 years— 
Colin King 
: It took you 9 years. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there they go. There is the parrot at the back of the Chamber. We had a few other priorities like 365000 jobs and paying off the debt of the legacy we got. 
So what did the people actually choose? They thought they were choosing fairness and they thought they were being to quote Mr Key ambitious for New Zealand. Now 72 percent of my electorate in Waimakariri are scratching their heads tonight. When they get their pay packets they will be asking how ambitious it is that Mr Key gets $124 a week in his pay packet and then some. The member who stood against me Ms Wilkinson smirks. In fact I think I was called a liar on the campaign trail when I said the National Party would get up to its old tricks. Maybe we did not do as well as we should have but we did try to tell people warn people and convince people that the National Party would do what it has done for 100 years—or however long it has been here—and that is that it would provide the wealthiest like Mr Key with 124 bucks or the substantial 30-odd percent of the tax cuts and that those earning under $40000 a year would get nothing. I was called a liar by that member on the campaign trail was I not? Oh yes. Ms Wilkinson said that would not happen. 
Well now today of course we have a cathartic moment in Parliament because the divide has moved back the clock has been turned back and I say to colleagues that this is of course a traditional— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Is this a leadership bid? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Is that the best Ms Wilkinson can do?Why does that member not get on her feet and justify what she said before the election? Why does she not get on her feet and justify what she told people in my electorate—that there would be fairness and that they would all get a slice of the National tax cut? That is what that member said. That is what every one of her colleagues over there said. I look forward to her and her little mates who write letters to the editor—and I have the quotes from them—getting up and trying to defend the fact that she said to every constituent in my electorate that there would be fairness. Today 72 percent of my electorate of Waimakariri and 71 percent of New Zealanders in this country with families will get nothing. 
I ask the National members as they crow about what the Labour Government did or what our policy was how these tax cuts are fair. I can remember being in Government and hearing speeches where Ms Bennett said National members did not want the Government talking about what they did. We asked National members for a policy and they refused to give one. I just ask National members—because this is a defining moment—what they will say to their constituents when they open their pay packets in the next couple of weeks and find that 71 percent of them get nothing. How is that ambitious for New Zealand? Well it is ambitious for some people. It is ambitious for those earning in the top 3 percent because they get one-third of it. That is very ambitious; that is fantastic ambition! 
It is not ambitious if people are struggling out there in the recession and 1000 jobs are being lost every week—and no one celebrates that. Maybe those members over there celebrate that but we do not. How will they explain to those people who have lost their jobs that they get nothing? How do they explain to the family earning under $40000 a year that they get nothing? They believed the National Party. Maybe we should have had a stronger—well I do not know what we should have done. But people believed the National Party members when they talked about ambition when they talked about fairness and when they talked about equity. Nick Smith interjected on one of our people during question time and parroted “Politics of envy.” Is it envy to say that if I was on a salary of $40000 I would want a fair shake because that was what I was promised by National? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member Clayton Cosgrove. It is clearly a sign of a frustrated politician when the bulk of a member’s speech consists of harking back to the salad days of the previous Government. There is a sense of political impotence about a member who whines about what the people of New Zealand have constructively voted for and are now getting. But the one point I did agree with him on is that today is a defining moment. Today 1.5 million New Zealanders are getting a tax cut and $1 billion is being injected into the New Zealand economy. That is what this country voted for at the last election. There was a debate; Labour lost it. People voted for what they are getting today. I think there will be widespread celebration throughout the country at what this Government is delivering. This Government delivers on its promises. 
The Opposition is really caught in a lose-lose situation because whatever happens is bad for Labour. We see that Helen Clark is leaving Parliament—she has had a wonderful career; it was a great achievement to get this UN job—and Labour is weaker. Phil Goff is staying in Parliament and Labour is weaker with Phil Goff at 3.8 percent in a poll for preferred Prime Minister. So whatever happens Labour cannot win. It is lose-lose for Labour when one looks at what will happen in the Mt Albert electorate as a result of the by-election. If Labour wins the seat—it has been a safe Labour seat—Judith Tizard will come in. But if Labour loses the seat it is a disaster. It needs to win the seat by a crushing majority or it will look bad for Labour in Mt Albert. It is a lose-lose situation. 
This is similar to the tax situation that we have heard about today. All Labour can do is criticise the situation. It has nothing to put up in response. The fact is that the people of New Zealand voted for the pragmatic popular policies of John Key. He is a Prime Minister with the vision and the leadership that appeals to people across party lines. Labour is not able to get any traction in response. Whatever policy promises National delivers on—for example with broadband or moving services to the front line—it is pretty hard for Labour to do anything but try to deflect the debate. Labour members try to do this by having minor discussions about what happened in a select committee and discussions about what trips people went on and these guys do this because substantially they have lost the debate. There is a lot of discontent in that camp over there—Labour members do not know where to turn next. 
One of the funniest things on television over the last adjournment was watching the Labour caucus go down to the West Coast to ask where it went wrong. If ever there was a lose-lose situation it was that one. If Labour does not go to the West Coast then it is accused of not fronting up but when it does go the West Coasters actually get to meet the Labour caucus and are reminded why they did not want these people in Government in the first place. Labour members are in a very very difficult situation. Throughout the country there are many seats like the West Coast seat and the more often Labour members are sent there the less likely it is that Labour will be able to take those seats back. 
I agree with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that today is a watershed day. But it is a day on which New Zealanders will actually receive the fruits of the choice they made last November. They will see the promises being delivered on. Whether it is about promises on health tax or education these guys have lost the debate. They got a thrashing at the polls and they are getting a thrashing now in the opinion polls. It is all downhill for Labour and I cannot see it coming back anytime soon because New Zealand now has a popular Prime Minister who delivers on his promises. He is a man who is pragmatic and who is moving away from that political prism through which Labour delivered whatever it tried to deliver over its 9 years in power. There is an electorate that will go for John Key’s type of leadership an electorate to whom it appeals and frankly an electorate that will back this Prime Minister for a long long time to come. When the Prime Minister says he is going to do something he actually does it; it is delivered on. 
It is a great day for New Zealanders today. Today 1.5 million New Zealanders will be getting a tax cut and 630000 single people without children who have never had anything in 9 years from a Labour Government will get an extra 520 bucks a year in their pay packets. I was talking to an ex - Labour supporter on Saturday night. He said: “Look I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Labour at the last election because for 9 years as a single person without children I never got anything.” That is the problem Labour is facing: it has never delivered on its promises; it was never up to it. Labour has lost; we are delivering. The electorate is happy. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder—and this is a test for members—what country Robert Reich a former US Secretary of Labor under President Clinton was referring to on 2 March when he said that a budget would “represent the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than 40 years. … We can basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.” Was he referring to England? Potentially. Australia? He could have been. Most countries in the Western World? Probably. It could be nearly every country except New Zealand because the economic philosophy of the National Government is rooted in the discredited theories of last century. 
It is no coincidence that the current National Minister of Finance is the same Minister of Finance who got it so wrong the last time there was a mini-recession in New Zealand—last century. He is still getting it wrong—yes he is. These tax cuts are simply a nasty farce. Here we are in times of economic hardship when by the National Government’s own admission unemployment will double—if we are lucky. Yet these tax cuts deliver 30 percent by value to the top 3 percent of taxpayers. Is that fair? Seventy percent of all New Zealand taxpayers will miss out on a tax cut. Is that fair? Seventy percent of New Zealanders who have children will get nothing. Is that fair? Not at all! The Prime Minister—National’s wonderful Prime Minister—will get an extra $120 a week in his pay packet yet those from McGehan Close will end up with nothing. Is that fair? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
STUART NASH 
: No it is not. This supply-side economic philosophy as practised by Mr English’s National Government was discredited last century. No longer do the majority of economists central bankers or finance Ministers believe that paying the wealthy more stimulates the economy; the less fortunate have no money to spend on increased goods and services because they are concentrating on trying to make ends meet in places like Rotorua. The tax cuts introduced today are not stimulatory because in times of recession the wealthy tend to either retire debt or save; they do not go out and spend money. The trickle-down theory simply does not work. 
Mr Obama—with whom the tweeter Key compares himself—the Labour Party and the vast majority of Governments around the world now know what Mr Key and Mr English do not know: Keynesian economic theory is now recognised as the only philosophy that can mitigate the risks of this growing recession for global citizens in which group New Zealanders are included. This philosophy of social democratic Governments around the world is about delivering tax cuts to those who need them as per that quote by Robert Reich. By creating demand through the provision of money into the pockets— 
Colin King 
: What about people keeping more of what they earn instead of taking it out of the provinces? 
STUART NASH 
: Who did Economics 101? Did Colin King ever do Economics 101? He should go back and read his text books and should go and talk to his constituents about what they think when they find out that 70 percent of them who have children will get nothing. Equity does not just signify shareholding in a company; equity is about delivering services in a fair and just manner to all those who require them. I tell Colin King to go and talk to his electorate and see what it has to say. 
Not only have Mr Key and Mr English robbed—I say “robbed”—70 percent of New Zealanders of their fully deserved tax cuts but they have also robbed this country and its citizens of an optimal future by slashing the provisions of KiwiSaver. It is unbelievable. Employers who were going to contribute a maximum of 4 percent of an employee’s salary to top up their KiwiSaver accounts will now have to pay only 2 percent of that employee’s salary. That means that any KiwiSaver participants who are earning under $50000 will have to top up their accounts voluntarily in order to receive the maximum Government contribution. Shame! Once again the ordinary Kiwi battler who works hard to put food on the table has been screwed. Parents will have to say: “Sorry son there are no rugby boots this year because there are no tax cuts there is no increase in my KiwiSaver contribution and there is no food in the cupboard.” 
I say to the mothers and fathers of New Zealand that they will have to wait only 2½ long years before they get a chance to change this Government. Let me ask the people of New Zealand again: 70 percent of all New Zealand taxpayers will miss out on a tax cut; is that fair? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 E te Mana Whakawa i runga i nga tikanga o nga tipuna kua mihi tenei Whare ki te rangatira a Helen Clark i tenei ahiahi. E tautoko ana ahau nga mihi mai i te Pirimia a John Key huri noa i te Whare ki a Helen. Na reira e tika ana e tu ana ahau ki te mihi ki a ia hoki. 
It is appropriate in our customs to support the greetings that have been given this afternoon to the former Prime Minister Helen Clark on achieving this magnificent position at the United Nations Development Programme so I support the words of our Prime Minister the Hon John Key and all of those who have spoken this afternoon. It is appropriate in our tikanga that we greet the kaupapa of the ra and then we talk of those that have gone before. 
Well what has gone before? We had 9 years of the best of economic times before we got a tax cut. We had 9 years of the best of economic times yet we saw squandered opportunities. We had 9 years of turning up to hui before we got any actual Treaty settlements. We had 9 years of turning independent people into people dependent on the Government. We had 9 years of changing our vocabulary for the traditional relationships which we understood to “caregivers” and “facilitators” as my colleague said earlier this afternoon. We had 9 years of ideology rather than real investment in sustainable change. We had 9 years of a Government that thought it knew better for New Zealanders than New Zealanders themselves. That is why it is a shock to have a Government that actually respects that people can make up their own minds about the quality of life they want and respects that they have the ability to make choices and to be accountable for those choices. This Government believes in New Zealanders and it believes in their right and opportunity to make choices for themselves. 
Now we turn to the present. There has not been much different from the Opposition members today. They have focused on jeering and gossip while we are about jobs and growth. We want to focus on real and sustainable change. It seems to have escaped the Opposition members’ notice that we are part of a global recession. This Government understands that we have to soften the edges for New Zealanders who are experiencing tough times. We are a Government that understands that there is no single response to the multiple challenges that face us. [ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps if Opposition members took the opportunity to actually listen for a change I would finish a thought and then we might get an intelligent response. Let me continue. We are part of a global recession. There is no single response to this and that is why members see laid out before them by this National-led Government a comprehensive approach. Understanding that tax cuts are part of that approach we have not waited 9 years; we have understood that we have to stimulate the economy and that we have to take an approach that says that we need tax cuts.  
Sue Moroney 
: For the rich! 
Hon Member 
: They get to keep more of what they earn. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: They get to keep more of what they earn—thank you. 
We understand that what motivates people is how they personally experience what is happening to them. We understand that people who do not have children nevertheless want to benefit from our economy. That is why this Government has introduced the independent earner tax rebate. Those people therefore—630000 of them—will enjoy that opportunity. There are 1.5 million people who will get the benefit of our progressive tax system and its cuts—another conceptual methodology that the Opposition members seem incapable of understanding. We have a progressive tax system and therefore it progressively affects people in different ways. We propose a comprehensive approach. New Zealand is a diverse community that responds to different incentives. We understand that we need to take a short medium and long-term approach. We keep our word. 
In the short tem in our first 100 days we delivered absolutely everything that we said we would. We are now focused on the medium term: our jobs and growth plan. We have cut personal taxes. Speaking as a former small-business owner I say that we have focused on how we encourage motivate and incentivise the real earners of New Zealand to stay in business to keep their employees to continue backing themselves and to invest in their small businesses. We understand that the compliance regime that they have laboured under makes it too difficult for them so we have moved to ensure that they get greater opportunity. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to follow Hekia Parata and the great speech that she has just presented to the House. I do not want to talk about tax cuts and those things important though they are. I am far more interested in investing in our young people and I will talk about young people. 
The former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said: “No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth. A society that cuts off from its youth severs its lifeline.” We can help our young people evolve into future leaders exemplary citizens and devoted parents—the shapers and thinkers of tomorrow. We must as a moral obligation to the future generations invest well in youth potential and create the positive opportunities that will encourage them to demonstrate leadership as a matter of course. 
I recently shared in the celebrations of a youth centre in Wellington called Evolve. It is a one-stop health shop employing doctors and nurses—great people doing a great job. The youth support worker for that organisation Josh Briggs had just been honoured with a World of Difference award and the difference that he and Evolve have made to the lives of the young people they work with was absolutely evidenced. They had created an innovative activity space with everything from kick-boxing yoga movie-making dance creative writing and employment skills with art and music therapists and even a Narcotics Anonymous. 
It seems to me that the youth health services—the one-stop shops like Evolve—are exactly the types of programme we need to invest in to nurture the future potential of our young. Another programme I have been really excited by is Nga Kanohi Marae o Wairarapa which the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia will be well aware of. This project is supported by 11 marae in Wairarapa and I am telling the House that to get that level of support from all of the marae in the rohe is pretty significant by itself. Their whole focus is on developing opportunities for the people of Wairarapa by developing marae as centres of potential. 
They started off with a couple of goals in mind. One goal was to teach their rangatahi the trade skills they wanted to learn and the other goal was to upgrade and maintain their marae facilities. The programme therefore allows youth to be taught trade skills while undertaking maintenance and development work on the marae. The programme targets primarily youth of 16 years. It is fee-free and based around the whare tapawha concept of holistic wellness. As well as building construction and allied trade skills there are cultural and life skills such as te reo waiata haka whakapapa tikanga kawa Te Tiriti o Waitangi computer training numeracy and literacy to mention but a few. 
I want to draw attention to these two initiatives because I think they demonstrate the type of investment that will lead our young people onwards to be fully rounded global citizens. I contrast that with a decision that was made just before Christmas to cut an alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre in the Waikato. I received an email from a researcher shortly after that decision and I want to share it with the House: “I have seen met and talked with youth that go through the services of Rongo Atea. Our youth have the right to have access to support that will understand their world view and empower them to move forward. There are three things that I wish for my children and all of our children: Health Happiness and a world to live in that accepts them as the precious taonga that they are.” 
Rongo Atea provided specialised mental health services for youth children and their families within the context of comprehensive community-based mental health services. The community that Rongo Atea served was absolutely aghast when the decision was made that Rongo Atea alongside six other community-based child youth and adolescent services—which included Parentline—within Hamilton City would be cut; that the community that was in effect supporting their young people was being turned away. 
I return to the thought that a community that cuts off its youth severs its lifeline. We spend so much time in this House talking about how to get tough and how to exert control and discipline over our young. Why not do something new? We must be positive. We must actually give opportunities and we must invest in the potential of youth. It is a challenge that I am willing to live up to. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There is no doubt that like the All Black team and the New Zealand Maori team this finely tuned National Party team has hit the ground running. Like all high performance teams there are many aspects to our winning ways. Before each game we take time to examine the opposition we are going to play. We carefully analyse their performance—we look for areas of strength and we look for areas of weakness. We plan to nullify their strengths and we prepare to attack their weaknesses in order to score the winning runs. 
The starting point for any analysis of course is the leadership team. Let us look at “Captain Goff”. The problem with the captain is that not only do we know he is on shaky ground but also unfortunately Opposition members know that he is on shaky ground. How can a team have confidence if the captain is not an automatic selection in the team? To have confidence one must know that the captain will always be an automatic selection. But this is not the case. He is always looking over his shoulder. He will not have any problems from “Vice-Captain Annette” because—now what is that saying about a sinking ship? Is it something about rats and mice? No it is: “Women and children first.”—that is right. Of course she will be diving off to prepare for her Wellington mayoral campaign; she will be out of here at a rate of knots. 
The other key member of the leadership team is “Coach Cullen”. Let us look at “Coach Cullen”. The critical job of a coach is to get the team ready to get it to a level of preparedness so that when it goes into battle it can go into the game with confidence. The problem we believe is that “Coach Cullen” is probably the Opposition’s weakest link. The reason is that he has not analysed the real issues confronting the team. Members will recall that during the adjournment debate “Coach Cullen” expressed the view that the reason Labour lost the election was the “underwear principle”. Do members recall the “underwear principle”? Until “Coach Cullen” realises that New Zealand decided that the stench of 9 years of unchanged nappies was too much and just got rid of them and until he plans to address that issue Labour has no chance. 
I now turn to my dear friend and colleague Parekura Horomia. He is the cornerstone of the scrum; the Carl Hayman of the Opposition; the man mountain of the front bench. The trouble is that he bleeds a lot and takes regular trips to the blood bin. We think that our tactic of a fast-paced game will run him out of breath. The advantage for our team is that as he makes regular trips to the blood bin to take in oxygen and to recover Labour will be in serious trouble as it will have to send on “Old Moper” and “Clodhopper” from the reserve bench as replacements. Both Mr Mallard and Mr Cosgrove are easily niggled. The difficulty for them is that they regularly spend time getting yellow cards—they have a real problem. In fact we have come to the conclusion that there is a glaring weakness in their front row. Old Charles Chauvel is thrown in as hooker and Grant Robertson at loose-head prop and they are backed up by Pete Hodgson and Chris Carter at lock. What a front five! I actually feel sorry for the front row. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 31 March. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Where was I with that speech? I think I had got to “Hurricane Hughes” at half back. We thought that he would be a problem. We reviewed a couple of extra tapes and on closer examination we found that he had been dropped from selection so there is no problem there. Of course in relation to the rest of Labour’s backline—I am sorry its backbench—our new protégé and wonder kid Nikki Kaye at first five will have no problems at all— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have moved on to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I ask the member to address the question if he wishes to use his time. The House has moved on. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am sorry; I have done so much speaking recently. 
I join with those who spoke last night in support of the bill because it provides an avenue that has been established within our semi-judicial process by way of tribunals to enable people—particularly those in small business but also others—to pay a fee and access justice when they are experiencing some difficulty or disagreement with another party. I am talking about electricians or plumbers for example who are sole traders and have great difficulty at times in trying to get paid particularly when they have contracts with bigger corporates. The process of access to a tribunal has been used and has very successfully been established as an avenue for assisting individuals particularly those in small businesses to recover payments or to have their day in court—but without the expense of court. We all know that courts can be very litigious places and very expensive particularly when a corporate has big resources and can confront a sole trader who has very limited resources. 
The critical thing is that the thresholds that are established in the Disputes Tribunals Act date back to 1988 and are way out of kilter with the real cost; they are way out of date. The bill endeavours to shift the threshold from $7000 up to $15000 automatically whether or not one party agrees and to shift the threshold from $12000 up to $20000 where both parties agree. During the debate last evening there appeared to be a difference of view—let me put it that way to be kind to the Opposition—about what those increases represented. I think Ms Ardern said the threshold was too high but I may be mistaken. I tried to reference the  
Hansard 
 but unfortunately it was unavailable. I think the member complained that it was too high whereas Ms Pillay thought it could be higher. I am sure the select committee will have an interesting debate on that issue and that there will be robust discussions. 
The important thing is that we are in the right headspace about lifting the threshold to ensure that it keeps up with modern times. The disputes tribunal is important because as I say lawyers can be very expensive particularly where one party is better resourced than the other. That level of moneys can be used by one party to drag the process out beyond the resources available to the other party. The bill is very good in terms of disputes tribunals; the National Party supports the concept of bringing this process—or dragging it if you like—into the 21st century. We look forward to the select committee’s receiving the submissions which I am sure will be robust but also very supportive of the bill. I think the main area of contention will be around the adequacy of the thresholds to take cases to the disputes tribunal. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I come to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill as probably one of the very few people in this House with any experience—admittedly not personal—with the disputes tribunal. I venture I am definitely one of the few former lawyers in this House to steer clients away from litigation and towards mediation through the disputes tribunal. I come with a particular preconceived view which is that disputes tribunals are fantastic. This is high praise indeed but it is also a reflection of the fact that those tribunals are an excellent mechanism for keeping people out of the courts. 
Unlike other political parties the Maori Party has no tolerance of the obsession with building up the court docks and prison cells by getting tough on crime. We promote restorative justice systems and our actions in this House show that the Maori Party has consistently supported legislative changes that increase access to justice. It is our view that any real move towards increased access to justice is a community benefit and warrants our support. 
The key benefit in keeping people out of the courts is that it is a significantly cheaper approach for claimants not to mention the long-term costs saved to society. The process is mediated and as a consequence can be more restorative in nature than a court setting. There are no lawyers so the setting is more accessible and less alienating as a result. Rather than being scared off by the legalistic vocabulary people can actually understand what is going on; a peculiar concept I know but true. Another benefit that we consider to be of high value is the fact that there can be whanau support and/or advocates to talk on behalf of claimants if they are not confident to do that themselves. 
One piece of information that did not come up during the debate in the House last night is a more comprehensive analysis of who actually uses these tribunals. A survey commissioned by the Ministry of Justice as part of the tribunal reform project interviewed some 813 people both applicants and respondents who had used the disputes tribunal amongst a range of other tribunals. The figures showed that the key users of tribunals were more likely to be European with under-representation of both Maori and Pasifika; to be male; to have an income of $50000 or more; and to be aged 40 to 59 years rather than aged 15 to 29 years. That analysis was very informative in demonstrating some specific issues that clearly needed to be addressed in any reform process. 
Just to test my theory I went to the Maori Legal Service to gain a flaxroots on-the-ground perspective of how well this all works. In the last 12 months the service has had three clients seeking remedies with the disputes tribunal. None of those clients knew what the tribunal did or what to do to pursue a complaint. As a consequence the service needed to educate those clients about the tribunal and to assist them to write their application. In the end however the service was unable to confirm whether any of those clients had filed their forms as each of them thought the $100 filing fee was too expensive. There is no current ability to waive that fee at the tribunal. 
My suspicion is that the tribunal is not well known to Maori people. Perhaps it is not well profiled in Maori communities. I suspect that even the $100 filing fee is a barrier to access to the tribunal as well. I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister of whether the changes will increase the filing fees which will inevitably increase barriers to justice for our community. Also I note there is no concerted effort to profile the tribunal to Maori communities and I wonder whether that will also increase barriers. 
As other speakers have mentioned the purpose of the bill is to allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this—hopefully—affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. We believe the process could be improved by requiring the referral of claimants to community law centres where appropriate to assist people in filling out the forms and perhaps gaining better access to the law. 
The process is comparably user-friendly already—that is in relation to trying to deal with the complexities of litigation through the District Court or the High Court. But we in the Maori Party believe that the disputes tribunal process could be made even more user-friendly. Given that there are forms to fill out it would be helpful to have someone to explain the procedures and what needs to go where on the forms. This is where organisations like community law centres come in. We would like to see the court staff routinely referring parties to community law centres for help with this. Although this is done now on an ad hoc basis it would be a positive move for it to be a requirement where appropriate. 
We also believe that the process could be far more Maori-friendly. Disputes tribunals offer a mediated process they can be more restorative they try to avoid legal language so that people can understand what is going on they can have whanau representation and they are significantly less expensive than going to court. A tribunal may permit someone to be present at the hearing to assist the party in the presentation of his or her case if it appears to the tribunal to be proper in all the circumstances and if the tribunal approves such persons. In approving a representative the tribunal can also impose conditions to ensure that no other party is substantially disadvantaged. The tribunal either can help the parties to come to their own solution or will determine the dispute. Any ruling it makes is binding and will if necessary be enforced by the courts. All of these aspects are a very positive foundation for providing a positive way in which Maori can access dispute procedures other than the formal courts. Therefore the process is something that we wish to support. 
Aside from the general context that disputes tribunals offer to the legal environment the purpose of this bill is ostensibly to increase the maximum claim level. The last time the claim levels were set for the tribunal was in 1998 so it makes plain common sense that the relative value of this level has inevitably eroded due to inflation and the rising cost of litigation. Other speakers have canvassed the figures such as the increase of the maximum claim to $20000 but the point we simply wish to make is that we support the intention that the maximum claim level should be increased in order to restore it to the original level set a decade ago. The level needs to be updated to allow more people to use the disputes tribunal. At present claimants are faced with a choice of reducing the value of their claim facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings—which may not be a viable option given these costs—or not pursuing their claim. None of these options seems viable hence the reason for this bill. 
We need to maintain accessibility and to ensure that the level of protections is relevant and appropriate in order to ensure that the groups of New Zealanders affected by this bill will still be able to access the tribunals without unnecessary barriers being introduced. Every party to a claim is entitled to attend and be heard and to our mind this is the very hallmark of a democratic and fair justice system. However with some exceptions no party is entitled to representation unless the tribunal considers it proper to allow it and approves a representative. We want to ensure that the tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple cheap and fast access to justice. 
Finally the last set of issues that we believe are reflected in this bill is that the legislation will allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. The bill should be seen in the context of the package of proposals designed to assist small and medium sized enterprises. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the first reading debate on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill 2009— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Tell us about your dispute with Anne Tolley. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I also note that the troublesome fourth former on the other side of the House has started again. 
This legislation is just one more example of this Government which was overwhelmingly elected in November 2008 keeping the promises it made to the electorate. The National Party now the Government promised to increase the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals in order to reduce pressure on the District Court system. This bill keeps that promise. The disputes tribunals are divisions of the District Court so they are very very important bodies. Their jurisdiction is exercised by referees who are appointed under warrant by the Governor-General for 3-year terms and those terms are renewable. Disputes tribunal referees have the same status as justices of the peace in criminal cases. The proceedings of the tribunals are judicial proceedings. In general tribunal decisions are enforced as a District Court decision. So the bodies that we are dealing with and the increased jurisdiction that we are providing are very very important parts of the New Zealand judicial system. 
The bill has two main provisions. The first is to increase the maximum amount of claims from the current $7500 to $15000 or with the consent of all parties from $12000 to $20000. This is a sensible logical move particularly given that those thresholds have not been changed in 10 years—not since the last National Government did so in 1998. 
The bill does something else. It makes consequential amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 the Fair Trading Act 1986 the Fencing Act 1978 the Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 and the Retirement Villages Act 2003. Just as an aside when we go through that list of legislation that has to have consequential change made to it we realise what an over-governed country this is. However that is a subject for another day. 
The raising of the thresholds will do a number of things. Firstly it will reduce the pressure on owners of small to medium sized businesses and individuals who are trying to collect disputed debts. This will allow more parties to access the tribunals and thereby reduce the costs to all parties of resolving disputes. 
It is anticipated that about 3600 more cases each year will be heard by the disputes tribunals as a result of this amendment than is currently the case. As more and more cases are dealt with by the tribunals we will have a system that is much more cost-effective than otherwise would have been the case. In other words the tribunals will for more New Zealanders now provide a cheap simple process with fast access to the justice system and in a forum that avoids the legality and the formality of the District Court room. An additional 3600 cases a year will be able to be heard in the disputes tribunals rather than having to go to the District Court with everything that that involves. 
The second effect of raising the thresholds is that more businesses and individuals will benefit because filing fees are significantly lower in the disputes tribunals than they are in the courts. No lawyers are allowed. That in itself greatly reduces the costs of taking claims. The fact that third parties like lawyers are not involved means that the cost of using the disputes tribunals is considerably less than New Zealanders have to incur when working through the courts. 
The third result of the raising of the thresholds will be to reduce pressure on District Courts. We know that there are major workload pressures on our court system. By increasing the maximum level of a claim and allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to use the disputes tribunal system less pressure will be put on the District Court system and that will result in more New Zealanders experiencing the timely delivery of justice. This must always be an underpinning point of the judicial system: the timely delivery of justice the timely hearing of disputes and the timely hearing of cases. I think it is widely recognised that not all New Zealanders enjoy access to that timely delivery of justice. For many New Zealanders the timely delivery of their rights through the processes of the District Court is not up to standard. This bill will take a small but significant step towards rectifying that. In other words one of the effects of the bill will be to speed up the delivery of justice not only to those who are seeking to use the disputes tribunal but also to other New Zealanders who are involved in the court system. 
Fourthly by making the enforcement of debt easier as a result of the disputes tribunal system small to medium sized businesses will benefit from the increased cash flow that results. It is interesting to listen to Labour members sniping away; it brings home to me the understanding and realisation that members opposite just do not understand the significance of businesses and the cost structure of businesses. I would have thought that given the outcome of the last election it would be wiser for members opposite to sit quietly and not show their ignorance. 
There will be significant and noticeable improvements in the operation of dispute resolutions as a result of this bill. It is just one more item on the list of initiatives that this Government has announced to help businesses and individuals. In conclusion I invite the House to reflect on this: the last time the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal was increased was 10 years ago. 
Todd McClay 
: How long? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It was a long time ago—10 years. It was when National was last in office. Labour did nothing for 9 years and now this afternoon Labour parrots away with little understanding of what this bill is all about. I commend this bill to the House. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill brings in changes that will allow parties to resolve their disputes in a more cost-effective manner. Unfortunately disputes are a part of life business and politics as we know in this House. Though we will never be free from disputes how we handle them is very important. A process that is simple easy to access and cheap enables people to resolve disputes and get on with the business of earning a living and getting this country growing again. 
That is why this Government is putting through this measure as part of our economic relief package during a time of recession. The last thing we want is to be caught up in a process that is toxic complicated expensive and destabilising for citizens and their businesses. Right now there is a gap that some disputes are falling through. The cases are too big for the disputes tribunal yet they are not big enough to take to a District Court because of the associated costs involved. 
Do we really want to have a heavily litigious society or do we want to seek a process of mediation when the costs of dispute resolutions are excessively high? When the level for resolution in a disputes tribunal is too high it leaves people feeling that they cannot access justice. It leaves people angry and dissatisfied about the issues they are facing. 
Part of the reason for people wanting to live in New Zealand and not move overseas is having a process whereby a proper and just resolution of disputes can take place that is not going to break the bank. We do not want people moving overseas to work because they feel they cannot do business in a just and successful way in New Zealand because it is just too hard. This gap is there because inflationary pressure has made the present maximum level of claims of less value. This bill brings through an inflationary adjustment to lift the maximum level of claims to an amount more in keeping with what it should be. Back in 1998 this maximum level was lifted from $7500 to $12000. This bill proposes that the maximum level be lifted to $15000 or by consent of both parties to $20000. 
If we do not make these amendments it means that the costs of recovering anything over the maximum amount of $12000 would incur the associated litigation costs of going to a District Court which would make it unviable for many. The result is that some people would simply walk away from their claim but sadly in the case of many people if they walk away from their claim it could put their business in jeopardy. There are still many businesses in New Zealand where $12000 to $20000 is a large amount of money. For many it would be the difference between success or failure or employing a person or not. Businesses want to spend their money on productivity and growth not on a litigious process of going to a District Court hiring solicitors and going through all the filing fees they would incur. 
We need to make the resolution of disputes more accessible simple and cheap. This amendment bill makes the disputes process more accessible. As my colleague Allan Peachey said 3600 more New Zealanders would be able to access this process than are able to now. 
Simon Bridges 
: How many? 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Three-thousand six-hundred more New Zealanders would be able to access a process to resolve disputes than are able to at present. The disputes tribunal offers that ability. It avoids the legality and formality of the courtroom filing fees are significantly lower and lawyers are not allowed. Therefore the costs of taking a claim to the tribunal are significantly lower than in the courts. 
The best outcome of making the disputes tribunal more accessible to more New Zealanders is that we will see our country and particularly small businesses get going and get growing. The best outcome of this amendment bill is to enable businesses in particular to get back into business instead of tying up their resources and time in litigation. 
This move will also reduce pressure on District Courts as we have heard. This bill is part of the measures introduced by the Government to fulfil our election promise that we would expand the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. It is also part of our commitment to helping small businesses through the economic downturn. 
The most recent increase in the maximum level of claims was back in 1998—11 years ago—under the previous National Government so the proposed increase is well overdue. I particularly like clause 6 of the bill. In clause 6 we have an amendment to section 14 of the Disputes Tribunals Act to lift the provision to $15000. Clause 6 enables a person to abandon part of a claim in order to bring the claim within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. A person with a claim of $16000 may choose to forgo his or her right to claim the full $16000 and may claim only $15000 instead. The thinking is that this would enable that person to claim $15000 and to save perhaps $1000 on legal costs. For many people that becomes a very workable solution. 
We need to understand that having such a process gives people access to a process of resolution but there are limitations of protection and we must understand that. In order for the disputes tribunal to provide cheap simple fast and less formal access there are limits to the protections that would normally be found with a court. Referees’ decisions are not necessarily based on law but rather on the substantial merits and justice of the case. Grounds for appeal are extremely limited. Appeals can be made only if the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. The disputes tribunal does not allow the legal representation of parties etc. Proceedings are held in private and the decisions are not published. 
This bill makes available a process that is cheaper quicker and simpler for people to be able to resolve their disputes in a timely manner. As we know from the research it gives 3600 New Zealanders the opportunity essentially to get back into business to use their resources for productivity and growth and not to lose their resources in a litigious way. 
The bill proposes an increase in claim levels from $12000 to $15000 or to $20000 with the consent of both parties. This will achieve the objectives of improving access to the tribunal and of allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to be able to reduce their costs when resolving small civil claims. This bill will increase access without compromising the nature of the tribunal. The current level of protections would continue to be relevant and appropriate for the amounts of money involved in disputes. The only changes to the tribunal will be operational in managing the increased number of cases coming before it. 
I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this amendment bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Maori Trustee Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister of Maori Affairs for the work on which this bill is based. Tena koe Parekura. Nau i para te huarahi i tenei pire. This bill is extremely significant not in the least because of the scale of what is involved. As of March 2007 the Maori Trustee acted as a trustee or agent for over 188000 owners and more than 2094 properties covering 11658 acres. 
The concept of a Maori Trustee is one that has an interesting history. The need for a Maori Trustee arose because of the intergenerational effects of successive colonial and post-colonial land policies. There is no dispute over the fact that Maori customary rights over land are complex. Different kinship groupings and sub-groupings can have rights to use land or resources in different ways or at different times in the same area. By contrast the English-based legal system that came to apply in New Zealand put in place exclusive and individualised title to land. I guess it is the difference between the right to occupation and the right of ownership. In this process tangata whenua—literally the people of the land—were permanently separated from their land. The whenua was extracted from the tangata. In other cases children succeeded to their parents’ individual interests in Maori land. Inevitably much Maori land became scattered small blocks each with many owners. In many instances today the Maori Trustee looks after land because the owners cannot be found or cannot manage the land themselves. It is important therefore that the Maori Trustee is an effective organisation able to carry out its many functions. The bill introduces significant changes relating to the Maori Trustee. In particular it establishes the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and changes the way in which income is paid to the beneficiaries. 
When the original Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill had its first reading last year the Maori Party did not support it. We did not support it because we were concerned about the proposal that was then included in the bill to transfer $35 million of the Maori Trustee’s general purpose fund to a new body promoting Maori economic development. It was also questionable whether the Maori Trustee would in fact be able to be independent. 
During the last term of Parliament I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the Maori Affairs Committee which considered the bill. The Maori Affairs Committee looked at the very issues that concerned us. So last year after careful and at times agonising scrutiny the Maori Affairs Committee divided the original bill into two. The bill now before us the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill sets up the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. This bill received the unanimous support of the Maori Affairs Committee. The provisions relating to the establishment of a new statutory corporation to promote Maori economic development and to transfer money from the general purpose fund are in the second bill the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. 
I will be giving careful consideration to the best ways of encouraging Maori economic development and to what if any legislation will be required in this area. I thank the 15 submitters who provided submissions to the original bill and the approximately 2000 Maori who came along to earlier consultation hui in 2007 to discuss the proposals to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. 
The bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments that clarify aspects of the bill and I shall refer to these later. I also intend moving some minor technical amendments to the bill in the Committee stage. These will mainly tidy up the effects of dividing the original bill and will change a date in the bill to reflect the passage of time. 
One of the key changes progressed by this bill is in establishing the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. Submissions to the select committee and earlier consultation with Maori stakeholders indicated widespread support for having a stand-alone Maori Trustee provided that the trustee was funded at a sustainable level. I am committed to ensuring that the new stand-alone Maori Trustee is able to operate as an effective organisation and is able to fulfil the trustee’s responsibilities to Maori. That is very important to me. 
Last year decisions were made to significantly increase the operational funding of the Maori Trustee. Ongoing operational funding has been effectively doubled. Additional transitional and capital funding will also be provided to the Maori Trustee. Decisions were also made to write off the Maori Trustee’s accumulated debt to the Crown once this bill is passed. This debt was $61343 million at the end of June 2008. These significant funding decisions will ensure the sustainability of the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone entity and will enable the Maori Trustee to provide enhanced services to Maori. I am confident that these initiatives place the Maori Trustee in a sound financial position for the future. 
As a stand-alone entity the Maori Trustee will be listed in schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. The Maori Trustee will be required to produce an annual report and statement of service performance. This provides a balance between the Maori Trustee’s need for independence and the need for reporting arrangements that provide accountability for public funding. 
At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on a public servant employed in a Government department. In future the Maori Trustee will be a person appointed specifically to that position. The appointment will be made by the Minister of Maori Affairs and will be based on merit. I have previously had concerns about the process of appointing. However Ministers are accountable to the public and to Maori through well-established administrative political and legal processes. Many significant appointments such as the appointment of judges are made by Ministers or on the recommendation of Ministers. I will ensure that the processes supporting appointment include appropriate consultation. I want to make that commitment very clear here today. I intend to give priority to the consultation process to ensure that the beneficial owners of Maori land have due notice to advise me on what will best meet their needs from the office and role of the Maori Trustee. The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill also gives the Maori Trustee the power to appoint a Deputy Maori Trustee. This will help the new stand-alone organisation to operate efficiently. 
The bill makes another reform that is very important to Maori. The Maori Trustee Act 1953 currently requires the Maori Trustee to pay interest rates set by regulation. At present these are set at 3 4 and 5 percent depending on the amount of money. The bill provides that the account holders will be paid the amount the Maori Trustee gets from the investment of money that is held in trust in the common fund less a management fee where applicable. The Maori Trustee will also be required to report to the account holders on these payments. Some amendments were made at the select committee to better clarify the intention of these provisions. The term “distributable income” replaces the term “interest” as this better describes the money to be paid to the account holders. The way in which the common fund money is routed through the Maori Trustee’s accounts will be simplified. The bill currently states that these particular changes must take place by 1 July 2009. Due to the passage of time I will be proposing an amendment to allow the Maori Trustee 6 months to adjust the necessary systems. 
The bill was also amended through the select committee process to repeal sections 19 and 21 of the principal Act. These sections provide that the Maori Trustee account can be operated on only by cheques or other instruments signed by the authorised officers. New powers of delegation in clause 7 and the proposed application of section 158 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 make these sections unnecessary. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act gives the Minister of Finance the power to require the Maori Trustee to pay back funds advanced for salaries and other expenses of the Maori Trust Office. Once the Maori Trustee’s historical debt to the Crown has been written off this power will no longer be necessary. The bill has therefore been amended to repeal section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953. A new section 29A further provides for continuity in tax-related matters. 
As a stand-alone entity the Maori Trustee will be well positioned to provide quality services to Maori. All employees of the Maori Trust Office will be transferred to a stand-alone entity on terms and conditions no less favourable than their existing terms and conditions. This will provide for continuity for clients as well as for staff. We recognise that there is an ongoing need for a Maori Trustee for the benefit of Maori. The changes proposed in this bill position the Maori Trustee to be able to fulfil that role for the future. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 E mihi kau ana ki te Minita Maori mo te take nei. E tika tonu ki te tautokotia atu nga mihimihi i puta a-waha i a koe Hekia mo to tatou kaiwhakahaere a Helen. E mohio atu tatou e tautokotia atu te katoa o Maori. No reira tena tatou. 
[ 
I acknowledge the Minister of Maori Affairs in respect of this matter. It is fitting indeed that I endorse the acknowledgments expressed by you Hekia about our leader Helen. We know that all Maori are in total support. So greetings to us 
.] 
I recognise the Minister of Maori Affairs for bringing the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill through to this stage. Hopefully after further discussions he might clip on the other part of the bill that has been cut off because this was a whole package. I certainly want to recognise the Minister for doing that. 
The Maori Affairs Committee stated in its report: “The bill as introduced addresses two distinct subjects. First it would introduce changes to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. … the bill sets up a new independent statutory corporation to further Maori economic development”—and I repeat “Maori economic development” which seems to be the buzz in the air at the moment—“by utilising the resources available to Maori. Having considered and heard submissions on the bill [the committee] concluded that the first intention of the bill to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation has considerable merit and support. We believe however that the arrangements proposed for the statutory corporation to further Maori economic development are contentious and deserve further consideration.” I further quote the select committee: “The new bill which would establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation has been renamed the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. The new bill to set up the independent statutory corporation to further Maori economic development will continue to be known as the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill.” and the committee has recommended changes to the bill. 
This has been a long drawn-out exercise. There have been reviews and more reviews in relation to the Maori Trustee to those aspects that align with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and to the complications I suppose of both ownership tenure and intergenerational adjustments by new lots of Maori who may not have the old tikanga in relation to land tenure and what happens to it. There have been complications. Multiplicity has brought some of those about. There have been complications with legislation in the sense that sometimes only 75 percent has to be in agreement to do any development. That is why I again recommend to the Minister that he should consider the tail end of this bill which should really be the front end and the issue of a revolving fund to ensure that the enterprise generated off the land is aided and abetted. 
We support the changes introduced to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Maori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions that were not there before. In respect of funding provided by the Crown one of the things that was never really understood by the nation was that the Crown continually purchased certain aspects that the Maori Trustee managed on its behalf. That money was paid in and it was supposed to be returned. It accumulated to a fine figure of nearly $63 million and the previous Government had agreed to write that off in exchange for other developments. That is something that needs to be tidied up and I was pleased to hear that the Minister will continue to tidy that up. There has been a long debate between successive Governments and the Maori Trustee about whether it is a true debt a loan or a fund of ours. I think that it needs to be tidied up. The fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act is quite interesting; other organisations have similar arrangements. The Maori Trustee will be given autonomy but also be allowed to do those things it is struggling to do within confining legislation. 
The bill provides that the Maori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs—and that is right because it is the Minister’s responsibility—for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments will enable the new stand-alone Maori Trustee to employ his or her own staff. The previous Maori Trustee was part of the ministry of Te Puni Kokiri. This bill splits the Maori Trustee apart from Te Puni Kokiri giving it its own entity and the opportunity to choose staff. On the staff matter then that should give the Maori Trustee the flexibility to get those skills and expertise we need around a very large opportunity in the sense of enterprise development on the land. 
The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined. It has been the past practice that interest earned by the Maori Trustee was split and banked and the minimum which at times was between 3 and 4 percent was returned to owners. This legislation will give more opportunity for owners to have a more participatory role in the sense of the fund so that it can help to trigger the capital needs they may have. 
One of the real flaws tensions and strains—no different for Pakeha or Asian businesses—is the availability of capital. One thing we had been discussing which was discussed at length at hui around the country was the attempt to put together a revolving fund accumulated up to about $200 million. That is real because it would have been Maori money whether it came from the Poutama Maori Business Trust the Crown Forestry Rental Trust or the Maori Trustee. The Government was prepared to make a commitment of $40 million. I recognise encourage and understand what the Minister of Maori Affairs has now done with his commission and so on but I strongly recommend to the Minister that that revolving fund should be reconsidered. It has a whole lot of answers that we would struggle to go and find elsewhere in the sense of chasing and buttering up to people to give Maori some money. We are talking about Maori money—real Maori money—in a revolving fund. I thought I would mention that seeing that the bill is being split. 
The common fund is where the difference has been—between banking the interest or using it. This bill now gives the Maori Trustee the flexibility to be more innovative and at least to have a template so that people can understand what they can go along and get support for. I see the Maori Trustee in the future as being one of the key conduits in relation to enterprise and development because again those seem to be the buzzwords everywhere else. We should understand that a lot of Maori are already there whether in kiwifruit or beef and cattle. It is no mean feat that Maori are the biggest exporters of meat in this country—the single biggest. They are heading towards being the single biggest forest owners and they have a huge say in the kiwifruit area. 
The real question is whether the bill goes far enough. Maori were consulted on proposals to set up the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation as well as on the changes to reporting arrangements. During consultation with Maori on the proposals for a stand-alone trustee a wider discussion emerged at hui in relation to the revolving fund. Maori are feeling the sharp edge of the recession and I hear the Prime Minister and his Ministers continually saying that they want to engineer and engender an economy that is strong and that can be sustained in this country. This bill is one way to do that. By utilising the Maori Trustee and the assets there Maori can really help themselves and ensure that their contribution to the economy is of their doing is from their capital support and is not from having to wait cap in hand for everybody else. 
The operation of the accumulated debt to the Crown write-off is important. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 allows the Minister of Finance to recover amounts paid for the expenses of the Maori Trust Office—that is before 1 July 2008 which is when the previous Government moved to have the debt written off. The money held in the common fund needs to be invested. I suggest that the fund is a great platform for Maori. Everybody else tries to use it—for example major companies in this country with the products that come from them. This is a major opportunity and here is one of the rare examples we have of Maori having money in a fund. 
I am certainly encouraged by the Minister of Maori Affairs’ continuation of this bill in ensuring that it gets to a place where it is better off. I certainly want to recommend it. We will be supporting the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech: “Never before in the field of human conflict have so many been—”. What is it? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “—have so many owed so much to so few.” 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Was he Ngapuhi? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually I think he was but that is another matter. “—owed so much to so few.” Do members know who those so few are? They are the beneficiaries. They are the beneficiaries that the former Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia talks about and gets it wrong. He thinks—and the Labour members think—that the beneficiaries’ money is Maori money. It is not; it never has been and never should be. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s Tory money. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It has nothing to do with Tory money; it has everything to do with Maori money and beneficiary money. There are two differences. If it is Maori money then it belongs to everybody and it belongs to all those so-called urbans. But if it is beneficiary money then it belongs to those people it comes from. It is like me saying to a trust “Well actually because you sort of represent me I’ll have some of your dividends.” But the dividends of that company or trust belong to those beneficiaries; they do not belong to anybody else. The former Minister of Maori Affairs can get up on his feet and pontificate about this being a great time but at the end of the day at the close of play and in the final analysis what that side tried to do last year was to pilfer purloin steal—whatever members want to call it—$35 million of beneficiaries’ money. That is what they tried to do and this side stopped them. This side with the help of the Maori Party and the good leadership of Dr Pita Sharples stopped them in their tracks. 
What the former Minister failed to say in his speech when he said he consulted—he consulted iwi leaders and a few other people—was that he did not consult the beneficiaries. My question is whether if Labour was truly interested in finding all of these people and getting those benefits out to the beneficiaries then why it did not call in the Inland Revenue Department or Bay Collection Agency or a place like that which within 5 seconds can find anybody apparently who owes money. The Inland Revenue Department is able to find someone who owes it money. Why not use the apparatus of the State to try to find some beneficiaries for this fund? The former Minister said it was a long-drawn-out process. Well of course it was a long-drawn-out process; Labour was in Government for 9 years. It is no wonder that it was a long-drawn-out process. But let us not quibble. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What happened in your day? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I had only 3 years and got most of my work done. There might even be some more work to do. 
But this bill is not about me; this is about the poor beneficiary who has been waiting for the odd $400 payout and for the odd $3500 payout because he or she has had some land shares or value in land that has been held by the Maori Trustee and the Maori Trustee—not him personally but the Maori Trustee Office—has not been able to find him or her for some reason. The bill introduces a whole new level of transparency and accountability which will not go amiss in these days of hard times and the recession that is upon us. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If Labour members want to go outside and have a conversation they surely can but standing up and having a conversation— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Continue with your speech. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: It’s not about you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: You know it is not about me; it is really about how useless that lot were for the last 9 years. But this is not about them either; this is about an opportunity as the former Minister of Maori Affairs has said. He wants a revolving fund. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break it is interesting that the former Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia has said that this is a great opportunity to get $35 million to set up some sort of bank some sort of revolving fund. But I ask what he was doing during the 9 years of the previous Government. If he had sequestered $5 million a year for those 9 years he would be just short of $50 million. If he had sequestered from the Budget $10 million a year he would be just short of $100 million. But what did he do in his last year of office—in the 9th year? 
Nathan Guy 
: What? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He tried to purloin $35 million of beneficiaries’ money. He rose in the House today and had the temerity to ask us not to forget the add-on. When the Maori Affairs Committee reported to the House last year it recommended that the bill be split. The former Minister was told that time and time again. Even in the first reading of the original Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill he was told that the provision we are discussing now was not a problem and should go through—that it was easy peasy lemon squeezy or whatever the saying is. It was an administrative issue that could have been sorted out without too much problem. 
In fact the bill would have passed in the last Parliament but the Minister was so entrenched. That led me to believe that the real reason behind Labour’s promotion of the original bill in the last Parliament was not the stand-alone transparency and accountability issues of the Maori Trustee but to get its hands on the $35 million. There is no doubt in my mind. Now when Labour members know that the Maori electorate and the electorate of New Zealand said they did not want them to come back on Monday they still have the gall to ask us to take $35 million from Maori beneficiaries to use as a revolving fund. That was the first time in 10 years that I heard the former Minister talk about a revolving fund. Why did he move so late in the piece? It is because he had nothing to show for 9 years. 
National is absolutely in favour of this bill—of having a stand-alone Maori Trustee. We support the independence—or move towards the independence—of the Maori Trustee which will hopefully one day be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs or some other body that is more representative than just an offshoot of Te Puni Kokiri. Who would not be in favour of that? I would be quite surprised if anybody in this House voted against the bill tonight. If it was coupled with that other rubbish then we would not be supporting it. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Otira kia ora tatou. Wahi tuatahi ano e tika ana kia tautoko i nga korero whakatau nei i runga i te wahine o te motu i tenei haora a te honore a Helen Clark. Kua korerohia e te Pirimia tana korero ki te whakanui i te turanga kua whiwhi mai ra i tenei wahine rangatira. No reira tenei na ko te tu ake ki te tautoko ake. 
[ 
Greetings indeed to us. But first and foremost it is fitting that I endorse the congratulatory messages bestowed upon the lady of this hour and of the nation the Rt Hon Helen Clark. In his congratulatory address the Prime Minister extolled the position that this great leader had secured. I rise to support it 
.] 
Before referring to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill I join the Prime Minister and other speakers in the House today in congratulating the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her magnificent achievement in gaining the position she now holds. As was said on the 6 p.m. news tonight it was good to see this House unanimous in its support for her in acknowledging her great achievement. Naturally we all wish her well. 
I refer to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill before us this evening. This is the second reading of the bill. I am in some ways amused and bemused in particular by some of the comments made by the previous speaker Tau Henare whom I see has now left the House which is fine. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot comment that a member is not here. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I apologise for that Mr Deputy Speaker. No offence was intended. 
I acknowledge the support of the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples for this bill. In particular I acknowledge the efforts and foresight of the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia who basically listened very very carefully to a number of leading Maori commentators who have been saying for a number of years that the Maori Trust Office needed to be a stand-alone organisation. In other words it should not be an attachment to the Ministry of Maori Development whose primary role is to provide policy advice to the Government whichever Government it may be. 
The role of the Maori Trustee is to administer multiple-owned Maori lands that have not been succeeded to and over a number of years considerable putea or returns have accumulated. I have on many occasions heard Maori leaders say that this fund needs to be utilised. I am sure that during my years employed at Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Maori Development the then chief executive Harawira Gardiner also expressed those views. 
I am glad that this evening we are debating this particular matter. Part 1 sits comfortably with a number of people in this House. However Part 2 has met with some considerable resistance. I can go back to the comments made by a former Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Tau Henare who basically exaggerated a lot of the comments made at the Maori Affairs Committee. I am amused or bemused by the fact that he is opposed to Maori utilising this particular fund when it has been sitting there for a number of years underutilised. It could be utilised in a positive way to promote Maori development particularly in the area of business development. That is what is intended in the case of Part 2. 
I recall that Mr Henare worked during the 6 years when he was out of this House—when he was on the bench as we might say—for an organisation that was partly established by this fund. I am wondering why it was OK back then but that now when we are looking to formalise the utilisation of the fund it is not OK. In fact he described this bill as stealing money from Maori landowners. This is their money; there is no dispute about that. What he overlooked is that many of those who would be able to utilise this fund are also the beneficiaries of the fund. Why Maori have not succeeded to their interest in Maori land is a question that will be around for a very very long time. I remind that member that he needs to show some consistency. If it was all right for him to be employed by an organisation that utilised this fund for its establishment then I ask why he is so against Maori across the board using the fund for economic development. It certainly eludes me. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: What was that organisation? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I do not want to name the organisation because it is a very very credible and honourable organisation—may it reign for a very long time. 
I also acknowledge that since the change in Government there has also been a change in the membership of the Maori Affairs Committee. That committee had a very very difficult task given the opposition of the National members on the committee. The National members had their own reasons and we have no issue with that but as I said there needs to be consistency. 
There certainly needs to be an acknowledgment of the efforts of the officials from Te Puni Kokiri and in particular of members of the Maori Affairs Committee. Dave Hereora is no longer in Parliament but he managed to facilitate and chair a very very difficult committee through a difficult time. 
Nathan Guy 
: What’s he doing now? What’s he up to? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I tell the member to keep quiet as he might learn something. I also acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa who is no longer in this House. He provided some very very sound advice to the Maori Affairs Committee. The New Zealand First member Pita Paraone also had a lifetime of experience in Maori development with the Ministry of Maori Development and the Maori Trust Office. Those people brought valuable information knowledge and skills to the table when we were discussing the merits of this bill. Those people could tell the members stories of a number of organisations that have in the past accessed this fund. 
I am concerned that when people in some organisations are out in the community working they have a particular point of view as they should but when they come into this House and take over the Treasury benches their view is completely different. In fact what is good for them is not good for everybody else. That is the whole issue here. The fact that this accumulated fund with the Maori Trust Office has never been properly utilised to facilitate Maori economic development is a tragedy. 
As the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia highlighted in his speech in the House this afternoon a lot of work has gone into the development of this amendment bill. A lot of discussion has also taken place not just in the last few months of 2008 but over a number of years. I personally take offence when the Hon Tau Henare says that the previous Minister of Maori Affairs did nothing prior to the 2008 election. That is not true and if that member had not been out of here and on the bench the past 6 years then he would know that for a fact. I am sure that other Maori members in this House of whichever persuasion are aware of that as well. 
The previous Minister of Maori Affairs made it very clear when he became the Minister of Maori Affairs that his intention was to find innovative ways to assist Maori economic development. This bill is one of the ways in which—with the assistance of his Cabinet colleagues and particularly the previous Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Finance—he was able to do that. The previous Government was going to make a considerable contribution to this particular fund not only to assist in the development of Maori economic development but also to accelerate it. Now that opportunity may be lost. 
By the way when the former Minister of Maori Affairs became the Minister he enjoyed an appropriation in excess of $300 million annually for Maori development but when he left office it was below $57 million annually. I would like to ask the member who is not in the House how that happened. I think it was because as members have heard in the House this evening he has a do-nothing attitude—of not making the hard decisions because he may have to live with them. Well what is wrong with that? That is why the member is here. He should learn to suck it up and get on with the job. That is what people expect from him. 
This bill is very similar to other pieces of legislation that have come before the Maori Affairs Committee and those are too numerous to name. But I find that the attitude from some members has been the same—do nothing because it is too tough to make the right decision. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I am happy to stand today in support of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill for a number of very good reasons. First the bill deals with issues that have been the subject of successive reviews and considerable debate. Second it tidies up matters that have been contentious and controversial for many Maori for a very long time. Third the bill brings the longstanding review of the Maori Trustee to a conclusion. Fourth it helps set a more positive path forward for the Maori Trustee and the many Maori who have interests administered by the trustee. Fifth by supporting the bill I get to support the Hon Dr Pita Sharples co-leader of the mighty Maori Party. He is the very first Minister of Maori Affairs in the 155-year history of the House to present a bill as a member of an independent Maori party and as a member of the independent Maori Party itself—the parliamentary wing of Te Ao Maori. 
The Maori Trustee has touched the lives of large numbers of Maori and their whanau since it was first established back in 1920 when it was known as the Native Trustee. It has had a chequered and not always popular history over the years including its involvement in the passing of the Maori Trustee Act in 1953 decades of massive social and economic upheaval for Maori and the many policy changes affecting Maori land such as the 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act with its recognition of the importance of land to Maori. 
The Maori Trustee has been publicly slated as well like when it was roundly criticised in the Ngai Tahu report of 1991 for its successive failure as the Crown’s appointed trustee to administer reserved land properly. This included the failure of the trustee to consult with owners failure to act as a prudent trustee failure to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands and failure to prevent land from being taken for public works. There was also the submission from Nga Ruahine that stated that right from when the Maori Trustee was established it did no favours for Maori people and actually lost large tracts of Maori land through trustee mismanagement. So this bill has been a long time coming. 
One feature of this bill is that it sets up the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation—a proposal that had been widely supported by those making submissions and those involved in the consultation hui held throughout the country in 2007 under the previous Minister of Maori Affairs. The bill also addresses one of the key concerns repeated through many of the submissions which is for the Maori Trustee to become more independent of the Crown because although the Maori Trustee is controlled by Government departments there can be very little accountability to Maori. In fact 20 years ago people recommended that many of the functions of the Maori Trustee be devolved from the Department of Maori Affairs to hapu and iwi. Others have also argued that if the Maori Trustee were to continue then independent appointment and monitoring of it would be critical to the credibility of the office. 
Currently the job of Maori Trustee is given to a public servant employed by Te Puni Kokiri. I acknowledge the role that my whanaunga John Paki played in steering the waka forward to this point. As everyone in this House knows there was some pretty dynamic debate about this issue all around the country and at the select committee with some submissions calling for beneficial owners to have a say in the appointment of the Maori Trustee. So it is great to know that under the new arrangement with the trustee being appointed directly by the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister has already signalled a commitment to consult with beneficial owners about the appointment procedure and to ensure that their voices are included as part of the whole process. I give big ups to the Minister for being willing to front to listen and to be accountable to the very people who give the Maori Trustee its power. 
It is good to hear the Minister give a commitment to working with the owners of Maori land under the guardianship of the Maori Trustee and to revitalising the Maori Trustee’s ability to provide good service to its beneficial owners given that the Maori Trustee looks after the interests of many owners who are not known cannot be found have not succeeded to their land interests may not even be aware that they can succeed or may not know how to. It is also good to know that the Minister will be focusing energy on finding many of those owners to ensure that they are able to re-establish their links to their land and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. 
That brings me to another important aspect of this bill which is the change to the way the returns on money held by the Maori Trustee are paid to the beneficial owners so that instead of being specified by regulation owners will get returns paid on a pro rata basis of that received by the trustee. That is another plus for beneficial owners. 
As a bonus it is really great to note that the historical debt to the Crown for servicing the Maori Trust Office will also be written off. So a massive debt has also been wiped through this new bill. That is another plus for the beneficial owners whose returns will not now be diminished by major debt-servicing. 
Finally I note the new reporting arrangements for the Crown funding which will ensure transparency and accountability for the funding and services provided. That is another plus for beneficial owners who will now have a clearer idea of the future costs involved in the running of the trustee’s office. 
This is a big bill it is an important bill and it is a bill for Maori. If managed well it will also benefit all New Zealanders by providing more certainty to the operations of a major Maori financial support institution in times when uncertainty and insecurity are dominating influences in our world. Sure there will always be areas that can be improved and over time we hope to improve them with the support of all Maori in this House but this bill will provide certainty to the office and positive benefits to the beneficial owners. Importantly the bill will go down in history as the first bill ever presented to a New Zealand Parliament by a Minister of Maori Affairs representing an independent Maori voice in Parliament and an independent Maori party in the nation’s House of Representatives. For that we can all be grateful and we can look ahead to bigger and better things. For all those reasons the Maori Party will support this bill. Tena tatou katoa. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa otira tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and indeed to all of us 
.] 
I rise to speak in support of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it might be helpful to provide a little bit of historical context to the Maori Trustee and the Maori Trust Office so that we might better consider the particular provisions of the bill before us. I can do no better than to remind members of that snippet of historical context that was provided in the first reading by my colleague now the Attorney-General the Hon Christopher Finlayson. 
In 1882 the Native Reserves Act was passed. It provided for the vesting of Crown administered Maori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee of these lands. That trustee later had added to the office two Maori trustees but the reading of history suggests that that was a very unsatisfactory arrangement because the board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Maori members to represent Maori interests. 
In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882 the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887 the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892 and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. However because of the concerns on the part of Maori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee the whole issue was reviewed—as is the way of many Maori enterprises—in 1913. There was a commission of inquiry into the Public Trust Office and it was latterly recommended that an independent body should be established. That is how the first Maori Trustee was born in 1920 after the First World War. 
In 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. That history directly leads us to the consideration of the bill before us today. This is the second reading of this bill; the first reading occurred under the previous administration. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: A brilliant administration it was. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Previous speakers tell us that it was not as brilliant as the member opposite is suggesting. 
In fact there were two parts to the bill the second part directly proving the necessity for the first part. The first part suggests that the Maori Trust Office should be stand-alone so that it may be untrammelled in its focus on protecting the beneficial owners and their interests. In the first reading of the bill there was provision for the establishment of a new entity that would basically become a capital fund for lending and moneys from the Maori Trustee were going to be used to capitalise that fund. Thus a decision was being made—yet again on behalf of the beneficial owners without their full consultation or understanding—that there was a better way of using their moneys and their interests. One would venture to suggest that it was one of the last vestiges of the paternalistic bureaucracy that Maori have suffered under for many many long years. 
I stand to heartily endorse this second reading now that the two parts have been separated. I just say that the former Minister talked about the desirability of maintaining the second part of the bill and I completely understand that the intent of that part of the bill was honourable and that it was intended to be of assistance to Maori. However I continue to believe that it would have been a misappropriation of the beneficial owners’ moneys and their interests. So now that this Minister is proposing that the second part be taken out of the bill and that the stand-alone provisions for the Maori Trustee be the focus of our attention instead I am delighted to support it. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Very good. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you. I now turn to an overview of the bill. Following the deliberations of the Maori Affairs Committee a number of amendments have been made principal amongst which is the one that I have already referred to—the Maori Trust Office being a stand-alone entity. The second is that the appointment of the Maori Trustee should occur— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Who will he be accountable to? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Well I say to Mr Jones that it may not be a he. The person appointed will be a person capable of carrying out the role independent of their gender and the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice in exercising that power. 
The term “interest” is to be replaced with the term “distributable income” which is a far more accurate description of how moneys are to be paid to account holders. The bill instructs that income from the investment of money in the common fund form part of the common fund rather than being transferred to the existing general purpose fund and distributed from that account. The Maori Trust fund is as complex as most trust funds are and so the opportunity to clarify and simplify as much of that complexity as possible is a highly desirable outcome. 
The bill allows for the accumulated debt of the Maori Trustee to be written off and so it should because the accumulated debt has occurred as a result of the Maori Trustee trying to observe the many restrictions and constraints upon the actions of that office that have been largely—if not exclusively—imposed by the Crown. The bill requires that the Maori Trustee conduct a quarterly comparison of the distributable income and fair market value of similar distributions with similar funds. Again this allows the beneficial owners to achieve the priority and the considerations of the Maori Trustee which they should always have enjoyed by ensuring that there is an explicit benchmark by which comparisons can be made as to the funds that beneficial owners should be receiving. 
I take a moment to remind members that the appropriate vocabulary when discussing the people who have interests in these is “beneficial owners”. I trust members have noticed that I have been labouring on this term. There has been use of the term “beneficiaries” which is quite a different category of people—no less no more—but the point is that the trust provides for people who have a property right an ownership interest and the opportunity to receive distributable income from that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Oh they don’t even know it’s there. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I say to Mr Jones that that is precisely why we have a trustee whose responsibility it is to ensure that whether or not a beneficial owner knows he or she has a property right it is incumbent upon that office-holder to make every attempt to ensure that the beneficial owner is made aware of the potential for receiving some interest off that ownership right. 
The bill goes on to introduce a requirement for disclosure by the Maori Trustee to account holders of the amount of distributable income payable the management fee charged or retained by the trustee the net amount of distributable income to be paid and other matters that the Maori Trustee considers necessary or desirable. 
Quickly coming to my peroration I say that generally the bill introduces a level of accountability for the office of the Maori Trustee that has not been previously required. The bill allows for the Maori Trustee to be free from political pressure by establishing it as a stand-alone organisation. It provides for better more open communication between the Maori Trustee and its beneficial owners. 
The provisions of the bill mean that the beneficiaries of the Maori Trustee can be sure they are receiving equitable income from the common fund. Our support for the bill shows our commitment to property rights to the recognition thereof to the fair market rate at which those interests should be recognised to removing complicated bureaucracy and to ensuring that Maori have the opportunity to be independent in respect of their own property. It also shows that in the current financial climate it is important that all public entities be seen as transparent and accountable. 
Moreover it demonstrates the commitment in the National-led Government to our coalition with our partners the Maori Party together with whom we are committed to ensuring that there are fair and equitable outcomes for Maori and that the legislation we pass in this House has the opportunity to realise some of the values that our Prime Minister has talked about such as putting real discipline around Government spending. 
Finally I point out that the trustee’s assets are collectively owned by and for the benefit of the trust’s beneficial owners. Those assets are not owned by anyone else but them and therefore they deserve to have the best machinery possible to defend them. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker tenei au e tu ana ki te tapiri atu aku nei whakaaro ki era kua mihia ki to tatou nei rangatira wahine ki a Helen me te turanga i whiwhi i a ia. He honore tenei mo tatou katoa. No reira ka nui te mihi atu ki a ia. 
[ 
Mr Deputy Speaker I rise to add my thoughts to those expressed to this great stateswoman of ours Helen and the role she has gained. This indeed is an honour for all of us so I acknowledge her greatly 
.] 
I will add to the many remarks made by colleagues in this House to acknowledge the role that has been gained by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She will do a fine job for New Zealanders and we should be proud of her. I certainly endorse the many comments made in this House. 
I rise to speak to the second reading of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and I support the intent with which it was introduced by the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia. Although statements have been made in regard to the full intent of the bill I will come back to that point later because there are some salient aspects of the intent with which he wanted to ensure that the Maori Trustee existing as a stand-alone entity could also contribute to opportunities in Maori economic development. 
I have spent some time listening carefully to the debate in the House and I have to say that the comments made by a former Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Tau Henare who got one shot at it— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Who? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Hon Tau Henare who in his time as Minister did not attempt to do anything in this space. So I found it a little rich to hear his iterations in the House that really for a whole 5 minutes had nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with anything else except the bill. But therein probably lies his future. He will only ever get one shot at being the Minister of Maori Affairs and he will always only ever be a backbencher in his own Government. 
The point Tau Henare raised was essentially that we should not be spending the money of unidentified beneficiaries—in fact he says we should do nothing at all. I find it incredible to believe that he as a former Minister would promote a tread-water type of scenario. But when we look at his term in office we should be under no illusion: a do-nothing approach from that member is what one could expect. 
More important Tau Henare talked about all these unidentified beneficiaries. Members in Maori electorates will know that when they get the book of unclaimed moneys from the Maori Trust Office every year it is a very difficult task to go through it and identify in their rohe who might be eligible to receive something. I have done this many times and it is actually a very hard task. If it is hard for a member in a Maori electorate to find those people then it damn sure is hard for the Maori Trustee. 
Even though we know that is the case no members of the current Government have asked what more they could do or said how they would help the Maori Trustee to improve this demand that we must try to find those unidentified beneficiaries. No one in the House actually offered a solution and as members of the Government they have the capacity to try to strengthen any opportunity the Maori Trustee has to identify those beneficial owners for all the moneys those members claim can never be used—money that just sits and waits in abeyance as part of a do-nothing approach. 
I have to go back to the earlier comments of the Hon Parekura Horomia. I believe that yes his intent was honourable. Every day in our tribal authorities we allow our organisations to exercise responsibility for those tribal members whether or not they are identified to make collective investments for our beneficial interest and opportunity going forward. Yet we deny that opportunity to the Maori Trustee and all he was asking is why have funds sitting there doing nothing when they could contribute to the collective economic development of Maori as a whole—not any one particular group of Maori but Maori as a whole. What we know when we talk about economic development when we walk down that path is that if we are making a good strong contribution in that area then what is good for Maori is good for everybody. That is all it was. There was nothing sinister about it. 
I need to acknowledge the contribution of former members of the Maori Affairs Committee to the debate. It was vociferous. We received a lot of feedback. 
When one goes back to a community and asks the people whether they would rather that somebody’s unclaimed $5.24 sits in a fund and does nothing or that we try to do something to build the opportunity for all of us the answer is easy. People will put that $5.24 into a bigger putea to try to do something good for all of us. It is a no-brainer. 
Tribal organisations face that question every day when they look at how to better utilise their Treaty settlements. They could ask every tribal member whether they could aggregate the amount of the settlement to every tribal member. We did that back in 1995 in Waikato-Tainui when we got our settlement and tribal members were to get about $9.56 each. We tried to convince them that rather than take out their $9.56 each we should put it into the collective pool and do something for all of us. 
It is the same question that the Maori Trust Office should face and must answer. That really is the challenge because when we look at a lot of the issues around the way in which the Maori Trust Office operates and at how it invests this funding we can only hope and expect that it will be accountable for the investments it makes that it will make a valuable contribution to Maori economic development and that it will be accountable to obviously those whom it can identify as beneficial owners but more important that we free up some of the constraints around its role to be able to accelerate and support Maori economic development. 
The difficulty with multiple-owned Maori land—and I am not saying anything new to those Maori members in the House who know the constraints—is that it is often very difficult to identify every owner who has a stake in a bit of land to try to get hold of them and to then agree to a decision on what is happening on that bit of land. That is why so many parcels of land around the country cannot have anything done on them because it is such a hard task to try to get everyone to agree to make something happen. Every Maori member in this House knows that this is the reality. It is the same reality that the office of the Maori Trustee faces when it tries to do things so let us not bring to this House a high moral principled approach that because we cannot do this we should not do anything. Let us free up the underutilised capacity of a whole lot of pockets of Maori land that could better contribute to economic development in this country. 
I am pleased that Pita Sharples as the Minister of Maori Affairs has taken up the task of continuing the work started by our Government in terms of the rating and valuation of Maori land. That is a valuable piece of work that the National-led Government should look to when it continues to arrest the failure of the underutilisation of Maori land in our country. I hope the Government will support that work to free up the opportunities on unutilised Maori land so that it can better contribute to the economic opportunities in our communities and regions. 
This is a second reading of the bill. Many of the changes have been referred to. Once again I commend the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia and the current Minister of Maori Affairs for seeing fit to introduce the bill and then bring it forward for its second reading. I hope that in the third reading debate there may be some opportunity for the Government and the Maori Party to demonstrate what their contribution will be to accelerate Maori development. Members on this side of the House know that the previous Labour Government had solutions. We are just waiting to hear solutions from them. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to be able to take a call on this very important legislation the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. 
I start by making a couple of comments about what I have heard in the debate. We are a very responsible Government but a number of times Opposition members have criticised us for not providing the opportunity to thoroughly debate bills as they pass through the House. I have been sitting here for some time and so far have heard only two members of the Opposition rise to speak; they were supposedly speaking to this bill yet neither of them actually spoke to it. I sat patiently and listened with great intent and interest hoping to hear some pearls of wisdom from my second cousin Mita Ririnui because of course one looks up to the elders to be inspired by their learned knowledge. All one can say in summary about what he had to pass on was that it was a whole lot of valedictions to members who have departed from this House—most of them booted out at the last election. I am not sure why he went through the process of mentioning them all and I guess embarrassing them by drawing the House’s attention to the fact they are no longer here. I am not quite sure but I guess he had his reasons. So I did not learn anything about the bill from him. We have just had a contribution from Ms Nanaia Mahuta and again sadly Ms Mahuta spent most of her time slagging off the National Party about its non-contribution if you will to Maori development and singing the praises in a wayward fashion of the previous Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Having been on the edges of the bill’s formation—if I can put it that way—one of the things that struck me is that it was introduced into the House in November 2007. I note also that an enormous amount of work was done prior to its introduction with lots of to-ing and fro-ing as to what would be in the bill in respect of getting it before the House. The simple fact is that although the name of the previous Minister the Hon Parekura Horomia is attached to the bill I suggest that it is there in name only. 
I say that because in the first reading debate the bill was fundamentally in two parts. One aspect dealt with the separation of the Maori Trustee from Te Puni Kokiri and making it a stand-alone organisation. The other aspect was about rolling that organisation into some sort of Maori incorporation. At that time the National Party opposed the bill simply because of the second limb of the proposal. The Maori Affairs Committee considered this bill and deliberated on it and it is pleasing to note that the intellectual grunt provided by the National Party members and Maori Party members on the committee at that time—now members of the current Government—clearly drove the restructuring of this bill. 
The bill before us now in its second reading is actually what the National Party wanted. That is the concept of a Maori incorporation—if I can phrase it in such a way; sort of a money-laundering thing—has been removed. It was the sort of thing that Shane Jones was probably keen to get his hands on simply because he is the master of double-dipping. In that respect I can enlighten the House that in 2006-07 he was double-dipping to the extent of an annualised figure in excess of $100000 in his role at Te Ohu Kaimoana. When he talks to me about double-dipping—for volunteer work in fact—I remind him of the large fees that he was earning not only at that commission but also from the taxpayer. He was taking from Maori people and the taxpayer to continue the lifestyle that he chose. I notice that he did not have his way because we removed the Maori incorporation— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the member should be reminded to stick to the point of this bill and leave the testosterone alone. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments. 
Nathan Guy 
: The member raising the point of order has been a member for a long time and she will realise that a first second or third reading is a wide-ranging debate. My colleague like the rest of the House is engaging in this robust debate under the Standing Orders. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments. I will ask the member however— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Yes it is. I would like to point out the key difference between that member and myself: I was good at my job. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I ask the honourable member Paul Quinn to continue and to confine his comments to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I think the  
Hansard 
 will demonstrate that I was talking about the separation of this bill at the moment the junior Labour whip stood to take the point of order. To say that I was not addressing this bill is not correct. Perhaps the member should have her hearing checked. 
I will get back to the point that was so rudely interrupted. The second limb of the proposal which I was talking about before I was interrupted has now been removed thanks to the leadership shown by the National Party and the Maori Party which are now the Government in taking responsibility for this bill. We are dealing now with only the reorganisation and the stand-alone nature of the Maori Trustee. 
I turn more specifically now to some of the detail in this bill. As I just said it establishes the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The second intention of the original bill was to propose arrangements for a statutory corporation which of course we have now removed. So the two limbs that we are now talking about are first a stand-alone organisation and more important transparency—proper reporting back by those who must do so. The bill allows the Maori Trustee to be free from political pressure which of course was a concern given the way the previous Government used to appoint all its cronies—like Dianne Yates—to various boards as it tried to silently move those members on. Judith Tizard might have turned up on a board somewhere—who knows? The bill provides for better more open communication between the Maori Trustee and the beneficial owners. 
It is indeed with some pleasure that I stand and support the Minister of Maori Affairs who is now responsible for driving this bill through the House and who is showing outstanding leadership in that role—one that we are all very proud of as a Government. It gives me great pleasure to be able to join with my colleagues who spoke previously in giving my full and unequivocal support to this bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 A te mea tuatahi maku he tapiri i oku mihi ki to tatou nei whaea rangatira nga mihi kua uhia ki runga i ona pokohiwi i te ahiahi nei. First of all I would like to acknowledge and support the words that were heaped upon our previous Prime Minister Helen Clark on her gaining her new job with the United Nations. 
I am not a member of the Labour Opposition who gets annoyed with Mr Quinn’s speeches. In fact I quite enjoy them and I can see a number of months ahead of us where—late into the night—we will need the likes of Mr Quinn speaking just to keep us awake. But I want to correct a terrible injustice that occurred earlier this evening—we were not speaking about the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill which I will get to shortly—when Mr Quinn drew an analogy between the Labour Party and a rugby team. A terrible injustice occurred to our good colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia when a terrible stereotype was perpetuated by referring to him as a prop. Parekura’s feelings were terribly hurt and he signalled to me that he will not play for the parliamentary rugby team unless he gets to play on the wing. He was prepared to have a sprint-off against Mr Quinn and to give him a 10-yard handicap. 
Coming back to the bill I refer the Hon Tau Henare’s comments earlier this evening when he wondered why the Labour Government had not found the beneficiaries and distributed the money owing to them. He said that it would take 5 seconds for a debt collection agency to locate these people. Based on that estimate I have figured that it would take 54 days—24-hour days I would have to say—to locate those 188000 owners of this money. Because the Labour Party would not expect people to work a 24-hour day it would mean 164 40-hour days! That means that in less than 6 months National will be able to find the beneficiaries and return all this money to them. To some extent this bill is actually a waste of time because in 6 months’ time the National Government will have distributed all this money so there is not much point in continuing the debate. However we know that is silly logic. It is difficult to find the 188000 beneficiaries of all this money. 
One of the big problems is multiplicity: the number of Maori owners owning a bit of land or whatever. I would like to use my own family as an example. My father has 94 first cousins—we are pretty prolific breeders. Each of those 94 cousins has on average five kids so if we roughly multiply 94 by five there are 500 of my generation. If those 500 have five kids of their own there is another 2500. Members can now understand how quickly there are a number of multiple owners and multiple beneficiaries in Maori whanau. 
I support in particular the purpose of the bill. The bill as introduced was intended to make changes arising out of a review of the Maori Trustee and Maori Trust Office to bring together functions supporting Maori businesses undertaken by Te Puni Kokiri the Maori Trustee and perhaps other organisations. The bill also provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Maori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. I have nothing against accountability; we have to be accountable. But the part of the bill where I think we are really missing an opportunity was in splitting it. Where it is difficult to distribute those funds to the beneficiaries we do not make use of those funds. It is really important that those funds be used to invest in Maori enterprise Maori business and of course Maori employment. When those funds are used and Maori businesses become successful it would not take much thinking outside the square to create a facility within this bill for those people to return a dividend to the fund. 
I would like to describe a project that my whanaunga in Ngati Hine up north have participated in. The project has taken a lot of initiative and it has taken a lot of effort money and resourcing to get off the ground. It would have been really good if some of this type of funding was used to support this Maori initiative to get off the ground. It is the taunahanaha project undertaken by our whanaunga in Motatau which is very hilly country whereby they have developed a plan of the land using mapping where they can identify particular areas of the farms that suit particular crops or particular yields. So instead of planting potatoes they should be planting corn on particular blocks of land or raising sheep instead of planting pine trees. For that sort of initiative there is a lot of investment there is a lot of development and it has taken a lot of time. It would be really good if we could use the funds from the Maori Trustee to support that sort of Maori development. 
I also got a call from a mate of mine who runs an oyster farm in Te Hapua. He is upset that the Northland Regional Council expect oyster farmers to pay a bond of $22000 per hectare in case the farmers walk off their oyster farms for whatever reason. The oyster farms up north are very successful enterprises. However with a $22000 bond per hectare—and my mate has a 13-hectare oyster farm—it will cost him $286000 just to pay for the bond. This is an instance where the Maori Trustee funds could be used to support Maori enterprise to pay this bill. When that enterprise is highly successful then it would be really cool if we had a facility in this bill where it could pay part of that back. 
Another cousin of mine set up a Maori enterprise in Moerewa called the Tuna Café where different types of Maori food are for sale. For example instead of having egg bolognese and things like that— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Egg whatever. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Whatever it is. They have tuna and kumara and those sorts of Maori-based recipes. It was not bolognese—I apologise for that one. But they have formulated a menu that is based around— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is a lot of chit-chat going. I am having difficulty hearing the member. If members want to converse please go to the lobbies. I am sorry to interrupt the member. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: To conclude I think there is money from the Maori Trustee that could be used to support Maori initiatives. We are in a recession and this is a great time to invest money from the Maori Trustee in order to create jobs to create employment to support Maori businesses and to help us just get on with life. It does not take much thinking outside of the square to use this bill in a positive way so that Maori are able to be highly successful participants in our society. 
I finish by saying that I support the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and I would like to think that the second part that was cut off the bottom of the original bill will be included. Kia ora. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. As previously mentioned by many speakers tonight this is a largely uncontroversial bill. It was introduced in the previous Parliament before my time. The key change to this bill from the Maori Affairs Committee is the removal of what the previous speaker Kelvin Davis was talking about—the splitting-off of anything to do with the $35 million of trust moneys into what essentially could have become a Labour Party Maori development slush fund. 
Paul Quinn 
: They’re thieves. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Yes. The bill separates the Maori Trustee as a formal separate body from Te Puni Kokiri and it provides associated governance administration methods for this to occur. I must admit to recently not knowing much about what the Maori Trustee does or its role. Upon further investigation I was surprised and I now consider the separation in a legal sense from Te Puni Kokiri to be a step in the right direction for the Maori Trustee and for Maoridom. 
The role of the Maori Trustee is broad. It can be seen as basically a body that bridges the gap between the Maori people and communities and the rights and assets that the Maori Trustee holds on their behalf. Over 111000 hectares of land is controlled by the Maori Trustee and there are over 186000 owners who have land across 2000 properties. That is about 50 hectares per owner per property. That makes the Maori Trustee effectively one of the largest landowners and land managers in New Zealand with land covering an area about the size of Banks Peninsula—where my family is from—but spread over the entire country. 
The land is on average mostly unproductive rural land. For that reason the Maori Trustee acts to obtain the economies of scale from a single office across large numbers of owners. The Maori Trustee also manages a number of scholarships and that is something that has not been mentioned much tonight and that I wish I had known about when I went to university. In particular the prestigious Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship honours one of our truly greatest New Zealanders. If the work of the Maori Trustee can inspire more young New Zealanders through that scholarship to strive to achieve what he did then I think that as a nation we would be better for it. The Maori Trustee being separate from Te Puni Kokiri should allow that to happen more and it will not be cluttered up with the other issues that Te Puni Kokiri has to deal with such as similar Government agency scholarships. 
One of the more interesting issues I found over the past day in research on the Maori Trustee was that in Te Wai Pounamu there are over 300 people who have money owing to them including $67000 in one instance to one individual. Many thousands of others are owed money down to $200 or $300 in some instances. I was shocked by this and I recommend that every member of this House review that list to find family or friends who may have money owing to them. For myself I found one cousin who is owed some money and I intend to ring him tomorrow to make sure he follows up on it. 
It is interesting that we annually see ads from the Inland Revenue Department. We see “Get your tax refund now!” advertised in local shopping malls on TV and in newspaper ads but we do not see any similar type of thing for the Maori Trustee. Maybe this bill will allow the Maori Trustee to have more flexibility and freedom to make such innovations in order to get more funding to people who deserve it. Perhaps more creatively it will allow the Maori Trustee to think and to get out from under the skirts of Te Puni Kokiri so that many more people and Maori in particular who are entitled to this money and who are generally poor can efficiently and effectively get access to the money that they need. 
It is interesting that following the consultation on the Maori Trustee that was undertaken up and down the country many iwi wanted this Maori Trustee to be more independent of Te Puni Kokiri—for many reasons that Hone Harawira and others spoke about tonight. There is a distinct benefit in having more independent governance for the Maori Trustee especially in reporting and controls so that people can see where the money goes how it is spent and what it is used for in terms of administration. The bill appoints the Maori Trustee for an initial period of 5 years and allows the Minister of Maori Affairs to appoint a person to act as effectively the chief executive officer of the Maori Trustee. The bill also undertakes the associated tidy-up of a large number of administrative issues to enable the Maori Trustee to effectively and efficiently undertake its role on behalf of Maori. The bill also enables the Maori Trustee to have surety of income by making it clear how the Maori Trustee can get its costs recovered and what will eventually go through to those people who are beneficiaries. 
The other important aspect that has only been touched on by one speaker tonight is the removal of the debt that exists with the Maori Trustee. About $52 million dollars of debt exists and that is a massive debt. This allows the Maori Trustee to instead focus on value creation for the benefit of Maori rather than on the issues that exist around trying to resolve that debt issue. 
For those reasons I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing the results of the Maori Trustee improve. Then people will be more comfortable with the role and results of the Maori Trustee and they can get the money that they deserve in an increasingly effective and efficient fashion. The Maori Trustee can deliver what it was set up to do in education in land management and in terms of getting money to those people who deserve it and are in need. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. The Government recognises that in an increasingly difficult economic environment we need to take positive steps to improve the international competitiveness of New Zealand businesses. The bill contributes to this aim by assuring our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected. To this end the bill amends the Privacy Act 1993 by introducing new provisions to govern the cross-border transfer of personal data and to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws. 
As things stand there is nothing in the Privacy Act to prevent data received from overseas being transferred outside New Zealand to a jurisdiction without adequate privacy protection. Nor does the Privacy Act allow foreign nationals who are resident overseas to make privacy information requests. In an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce our inability to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected is a potential impediment to growth. This is a serious risk for New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses that wish to enter into international arrangements. Currently the only option is for those companies to enter into special contractual arrangements for privacy protection resulting in additional transaction costs. 
This Government is committed to doing all that it can to enhance New Zealand’s competitive advantage—for example as a supplier of information communications and technology services in the international business arena. This bill will enhance New Zealand’s case for a finding by the European Union that we have adequate data protection and privacy laws. Countries that have an adequate privacy legal framework may be given so-called white list status meaning that data from Europe may be sent and received freely. EU approval will mean that New Zealand businesses face reduced red tape and costs when doing business with Europe. 
Although the changes aim to more closely align New Zealand’s privacy laws with the current EU directive on privacy the bill is not solely Eurocentric. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I was going to say that! 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I thought you might. It has wide international application. Recognition by the EU will assist New Zealand to gain recognition by other countries and trading blocs that maintain data export controls. Although such countries do not generally have formal approval processes they are likely to recognise an EU finding given the stringent standards involved. The changes will also enhance New Zealand’s standing as a privacy-conscious and privacy-protective country with our existing and developing international business partners. 
The bill authorises the Privacy Commissioner to issue a data transfer prohibition notice if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that personal information received from overseas is being routed through New Zealand to circumvent another country’s privacy laws. It will be an offence to fail to comply with a transfer prohibition notice but existing appeal rights to the Human Rights Review Tribunal will be available to affected parties. An essential part of all privacy regimes is ensuring individuals are able to access and correct the data that agencies hold about them. The bill will enable foreign nationals who are not in New Zealand to access any of their personal information that is held here. 
The bill also looks to future international arrangements with overseas privacy enforcement authorities. The amendments dealing with the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws will complement the European Union directive on privacy. The bill is the first step in facilitating the adoption of the OECD’s mutual assistance framework and compliance with the APEC privacy framework which when fully implemented will contribute to APEC’s efforts to increase cross-border trade and grow regional e-commerce. 
The bill also authorises the Privacy Commissioner to consult with overseas privacy enforcement authorities like the Privacy Commissioner where there is a potential for overlapping jurisdiction or where it appears that the overseas authority has sole jurisdiction. The Privacy Commissioner will be able to transfer all or part of a complaint to an overseas authority but only if both the complainant and the overseas authority agree. Likewise New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner may receive complaints transferred from an overseas privacy enforcement authority. The cross-border privacy enforcement provisions establish a mutual assistance framework between enforcement authorities that will benefit individuals both here and overseas. 
The Privacy Commissioner has stated: “Globally businesses are becoming extremely aware that information is an asset and are seeking to put measures in place to protect that information against loss or misuse.” I agree as I am sure the Hon Lianne Dalziel does with those comments. New Zealand cannot continue to do what it has always done if we wish to foster greater competitiveness in an increasingly international economy. The changes to the Privacy Act that are proposed by this bill which are no doubt supported by many parties in this House will directly benefit New Zealand from both a business and an individual privacy perspective. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I do not know why I feel as if I have nothing left to say before I have even begun but never mind let me try my best. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. I just said to one of my colleagues that perhaps I could spend a few minutes explaining why the Minister Simon Power says “priv-acy” and why I say “pry-vacy” but we would just call the whole thing off I think! 
The reality is that this legislation had its genesis way back when I first entered Parliament actually—in 1993 when the original legislation was passed. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Surely not; the member looks too young to have been here in 1993. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I was here even before 1993 as the member knows. I sat on the select committee that dealt with the original Privacy Bill. In fact I think the Hon Peter Dunne who was my colleague in those days introduced a member’s bill but it was superseded by a Government bill which the select committee considered at the same time. 
A lot of people get hung up on the whole issue of privacy. Quite a lot of people use that expression “political correctness” when the Privacy Act is used to protect people’s right to privacy. But in fact a lot of the legislation we already have in this country with its many flow-on effects in terms of our economy comes from the fact that it is about protecting private information. It is data protection that drives the European Union in terms of its response to other countries and their mechanisms that are in place to protect data that is collected. Given the period of time that I have been in Parliament the ability to gather information with the surveillance systems we have in place now has increased enormously since the Act was passed. Even when we travel a large amount of information is held by airline databases and customs organisations in various countries. All of that information is held in huge databases that enable a lot of searching to be undertaken in terms of people’s movements. 
So what we do today is monitored in quite a significant way. What we do with information when we gather it is very very important and this bill is so important because it is about data protection in terms of how we are seen to be dealing with other nations. The Minister quite rightly said that this bill is not purely Eurocentric but it does stem from European Union requirements and the fact that if we want to have trade relationships with other countries then we must have data protection provisions that are up to scratch and are accepted by those countries as providing sufficient protection—or adequacy to use the correct word. 
I will go back to quote a speech that I gave on 28 March 2003—that was not so long ago was it? Only 6 years ago almost to the day I stated: “My appointment as Minister of Commerce has meant that I have taken a particular interest in trade matters. Most recently my officials have been working on the Privacy Commissioner’s proposals to make changes so that we can advance our request to be granted a ruling that our data protection laws are ‘adequate’ for the purposes of the European Data Protection Directive. The EU Directive is likely to prove highly influential outside the EU because of the data flow controls that it instigates. Our trading partners from Europe will obtain a measure of satisfaction from knowing that our data protection laws meet their standards for data protection. Accordingly a ruling of ‘adequacy’ will enhance New Zealand’s position in world trade.” Well we have been a little bit slow in getting that up and running but finally the day has come when I can stand in Parliament to talk about this bill. Tragically I do not stand as the Minister introducing the bill; otherwise I would have had a very very good speech to deliver. But I thought that the Minister delivered the introduction speech very well instead. 
The point is that this legislation has been on the agenda for quite some time. We can be flippant about the fact that it has taken a number of years but I think it is important to realise that it is hard to get relatively minor amendments to controversial legislation on to the agenda at any time. 
I will spend just a minute explaining why I think the Privacy Act comes out of this as controversial legislation when it ought not to be. I have heard members in this House talk about privacy laws as if somehow we are firstly protecting the politically correct attitudes that we might have—nanny State—and secondly acting so that people cannot pass on information about other people without their consent. But I think people need to realise that important trade implications come from our not allowing overseas nationals to apply for information held by New Zealand databases and from our not having security around what happens to information that is transferred out of New Zealand and perhaps into the hands of those without adequate data protection laws. This legislation is designed to address those two features of our privacy law. 
I will use an example I used back in 2003 when I was talking about why it was important to have privacy legislation in place. I talked about how easy it was to make flippant comments about giving up the right to privacy and to argue that somehow the legislation is something that is imposed on people by Governments. The example that I always used was the sign that appeared on airline counters after the law was originally passed in 1993. I remember seeing this sign on the stand outside the Air New Zealand counter as I went up to buy my airline ticket or to confirm my booking. The sign said that the airline would not give out information about passengers due to the operation of the Government’s Privacy Act 1993. The airline made it very clear that the reason it would not give out passenger information was the Government’s requirements under the Privacy Act which had just been passed. My view is that the sign if it was honest would have read: “Because we value our passengers’ right to privacy we do not give out information about our passengers to anyone without their permission.” By saying that the airline would have said what it had always said before the Privacy Act was passed. Members would have noticed that Air New Zealand never gave out information about its passengers but hey it was really convenient for it to blame nanny State and the Government for imposing this requirement on it to the inconvenience of all. 
I want my privacy protected. I do not want people to be told information about when I am travelling where I am travelling or what I am up to. What is on the public record is on the public record but for private matters I believe that it is important that we maintain privacy. I am prepared to stand up in this House to defend the principles that lie behind the Privacy Act and to say that I support these amendments to it because they will advance New Zealand’s interests at the same time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the first reading of this bill. I hope people realise that it is not worth making flippant asides in respect of privacy and that privacy is an important human right that Parliament should protect. 
In protecting privacy we are motivated by different reasons. On my own side I believe that it is a valuable human right. It is my right to privacy and I am the one who gets to decide what private information about me is put on the public record. If others are collecting private information about me I have the right to request to see that information and I have the right to correct that information if it is incorrect. Our law allows that to happen. This bill is an extension of that. It makes it a commercial right as well. If we do not have adequate data protection laws in this country we will not be able to enter into trade negotiations with countries that require our exporters to have that security. If we leave it up to individual companies to negotiate it then that will add an unreasonable compliance cost on to their businesses. 
I support this bill. I am glad that after 6 years we are finally able to get to it and I look forward to its progress through the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is great to be in the House on a day when we all seem to be agreeing on so much. As has been articulated by previous speakers it is interesting to see the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill finally come before the House after such a long preamble. It is good to see it here. It is anticipated that it will facilitate trade and give security to people who travel to New Zealand that their travel arrangements will remain private. That is a good thing. It is something that is expected when we live in such a global community and when people travel between countries with such frequency. The amendments are intended to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when they deal with businesses in New Zealand. They are designed to ensure that personal data that originates overseas and is sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection. 
It has always amazed me that New Zealanders are so besotted with privacy and at the same time so besotted with obtaining information. It is interesting to think for a moment about the debate we had on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill when we heard that over 183000 people are unidentified while money sits waiting for them in the account of the Maori Trustee. Funnily enough information that would identify well over half of those people if not damn near all of them actually lies on Government records at the moment. If we had half a dozen police officers checking in their down time for instance the National Intelligence Application database that is held within the New Zealand Police we would find that most of those 183000 people have a firearms licence own a motor vehicle or have an interest in one have been a witness for the police or have had their name recorded or have been issued with a traffic ticket or a notice for some other infringement within the last 10 years. Their names addresses ages occupations and dates of birth would all be sitting there on the database. It would be a relatively easy matter for someone to find out just where those 183000 people are but we will never know that because we are not allowed to look. Our privacy laws prevent us from doing that. So it seems to me that on many occasions our privacy laws act against us but on this particular occasion the privacy legislation will act for us. 
I note that the Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said on 2 July 2008 that she welcomed the introduction of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill saying it would have benefits for New Zealand’s trading opportunities and would enhance personal rights. She said: “The bill will have two main impacts: first it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and second it will remove an anomaly so that people living overseas can access their personal information held in New Zealand. New Zealand business is operating in a global data processing economy and our data protection law needs to be recognised as stacking up internationally.” She also said: “It is important that our privacy law keeps pace in order to facilitate international trading opportunities. These changes should help to secure a finding from the European Union that New Zealand law offers an adequate standard of data protection.” 
It is important that we as a smaller country and especially in fairly tight times are able to punch above our weight as we continue to do on the international stage. That means that our systems and protections must have the integrity of those overseas and of our larger trading partners. It is important to note that the amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries. I am sure that members can relate to the information that we have had over recent times about the lengths that people will go to in order to infringe the law in other countries by using New Zealand as a safe haven or conduit for either sending goods on to another country because New Zealand is seen as a fairly benign country— 
Sandra Goudie 
: A soft touch. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Or as a soft touch as my friend and colleague Sandra Goudie says. Other countries that see goods coming in from New Zealand and that see information coming from New Zealand into other countries do not take quite as much notice as maybe they should. 
The amendments also aim to increase the competitive advantage for trade between New Zealand and the European Union and other current developing trade partners. The Law Commission and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner agreed that the bill should go ahead at this time. It is good to be part of a Government that has recognised the need for this bill and that is kicking on with legislation that is not contentious at least among the bigger parties in the House. It will be interesting to see for instance just where the Green Party will go on this bill bearing in mind the stance it has sometimes taken in the past in relation to data collection and privacy information. Largely the bill seeks to enhance New Zealand’s opportunities as a trading nation. It seeks to prevent the malicious acquisition of private information and the use of that information against those whom it would identify. The Privacy Act also makes it clear that there are important trans-border dimensions to the application of privacy legislation. This bill is a useful addition to the Act. The Law Commission’s view on the bill was sought and it has indicated that it supports the bill as well. 
It is my pleasure to be able to endorse the process of this legislation which acts in New Zealand’s best trade interests and uses all opportunities it can to enhance our position as a global trader. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill which was introduced by the previous Labour Government on 2 July 2008. Before I address the bill I say that I have taken a bit of a poll of my Labour colleagues and I think the consensus is that we say “pry-vacy” and members on the opposite side of the House say “pri-vacy”. I think that says something about the differences between us. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What exactly? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Make what you will of it. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Yes. 
This bill is a Labour bill and therefore we support it. It is a good bill. It amends the Privacy Act 1993 by introducing new provisions dealing with the cross-border transfer of personal data. To complement these changes the bill includes new provisions that facilitate the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws. The aim of the bill is to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand’s being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. Currently the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests and further nothing in the Act prevents data received from overseas from being transferred outside New Zealand to a jurisdiction that does not have adequate privacy protection. That means New Zealand is unable to provide the assurance requested by overseas trade partners that we can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy. 
As previous speakers have said in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce our inability to give this assurance is a potential impediment to trade. So getting our privacy laws right is important both for individuals and for businesses. Major advances in technology have changed the way personal data is collected stored and used. The challenge for businesses is to ensure that the benefits obtained through using new technology do not compromise individuals’ expectations about the security and use of their personal information. Businesses must be able to assure their customers that their privacy will be respected. 
This bill complements a privacy review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. I will talk a bit about that. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of privacy values technology change and international trends and their implications for New Zealand law. The terms of reference for the review were released in October 2006. The project is proceeding in stages with reports being made at each stage. In stage one of the project the Law Commission is undertaking a high-level policy overview to assess privacy values changes in technology and international trends and their implications for New Zealand’s civil criminal and statute law. The Law Commission will conduct a survey of these trends in conjunction with the Australian Law Reform Commission and a report on the overview will be published. 
In stage two of the project the Law Commission is considering whether the law relating to public registers requires systematic alteration as a result of privacy considerations and emerging technology. In stage three of the project the commission is considering and reporting on how adequate New Zealand’s civil law remedies are for invasions of privacy including tortious and equitable remedies and the adequacy of New Zealand’s criminal law to deal with invasions of privacy. In stage four of the project the commission will review the Privacy Act 1993 with a view to updating it taking into account any changes in the legislation that have been made by the time this stage of the project has been reached. Stages one and two were completed in early 2008 with the publication of a study paper and a report and the Law Commission is currently engaged in stages three and four of the project. 
In commenting on the review and the introduction of this bill the Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff last year welcomed the introduction of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill saying it would have benefits for New Zealand’s trading opportunities and would enhance personal rights. She said the bill would have two main impacts: “first it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and second it will remove an anomaly so that people who live overseas can access their personal information that is held in New Zealand.” She said: “New Zealand business is operating in a global data processing economy and our data protection law needs to be recognised as stacking up internationally. It is important that our privacy law keeps pace in order to facilitate international trading opportunities. These changes should help to secure a finding from the European Union that New Zealand law offers an adequate standard of data protection. The Bill will also give the Privacy Commissioner the ability to cooperate with overseas privacy authorities when dealing with or transferring privacy complaints. This reflects a priority area in the privacy work of both APEC and the OECD.” 
Labour supports this bill. In essence it will remove the current restrictions on who can make an information privacy request it will enable public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals it will provide for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority and it will establish a mechanism to control the transfer of information outside of New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country from where the information came. 
This bill is a Labour bill. We commend it to the House but we wonder to ourselves where National’s ideas are and how this bill will stimulate the economy save jobs and lift us out of a recession. There are important things the Government could be putting before us in the middle of a recession—not that this bill is not important. It is important but we have to wonder—particularly in light of a global financial crisis of which the likely effects have been described as the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the most severe recession since World War II: job losses; businesses going to the wall in many countries such as the US the UK and those in Europe; financial companies falling over; and thousands of small investors losing their savings. To some extent that is happening in New Zealand. The International Monetary Fund chief economist has advised world Governments to commit whatever it will take to avoid a depression which means making clear policies and acting decisively—doing too much rather than too little. Gee where is the Government’s plan and where are the measures that are being put into place immediately to deal with the financial crisis? 
This bill is a good bill and we support it. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel talked about data protection is extremely important and it has important trade implications. They are both extremely important issues that this legislation is designed to address. The bill has been on the agenda for some time and we commend it to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. We are very keen on protecting people’s privacy and this bill goes some way towards achieving that. It is driven mainly by the requirements of the European Union countries which are at the forefront of the world in protecting databases and privacy. In order for those countries to exchange data they make it a condition for the countries they exchange it with to be up to the required standard. We have some country-to-country arrangements with European nations’ Governments such as the Netherlands. 
As the previous speaker Claire Curran indicated in her description of what the Law Commission is up to on the privacy issue and also the Privacy Commissioner herself when one reads her stuff this bill is touching only the edges of the problem. The issue goes much deeper than what is in this bill. But it is good that we are updating our law to fit in with the European Union requirements and be on what was called earlier its “white list”. 
One of the problems is that so much information is international these days that it is very hard for any one national jurisdiction to really get a handle on the problem and to protect the privacy of databases. If one listens to people like Marie Shroff the Privacy Commissioner one hears them talk now about what I believe is called cloud computing whereby people are not storing information so much on their own computers and hardware but on the Internet. That does not mean it is in the middle of space; it is on a server somewhere. But sometimes one cannot work out which country the server is in and in that respect it is very hard to protect the privacy of databases. 
We also know and it is happening in New Zealand that call centres are going to overseas locations. In New Zealand call centres are now basing themselves in countries like India or the Philippines in particular. Although the countries might have data protection—they are supposed to have passwords and the like to get into the system as well as firewalls; you name it—if one deals with countries like the Philippines the governance is not particularly strong and the workers are not unionised. One cannot necessarily guarantee the privacy of the New Zealand data when there are call centres or data being processed in the Philippines using cheap non-unionised labour in many cases. There is a big problem there. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about the advanced passenger processing system and the protection of data within that system. Airlines have to keep the data secret so that people do not know where travellers are going except that under some of the laws brought in over the last couple of years the airlines have to hand out the data. They have to hand it out not only to New Zealand agencies but to overseas agencies with which New Zealand has an advanced passenger processing agreement. Information such as the details of a passenger’s 28 days of travel or projected travel on either side of the date of departure goes all around the world. 
The European Union which as I said is at the forefront of a lot of this privacy stuff had a big fight with the United States over the passenger processing system. One of the problems was that the American law enforcement agencies said they were after terrorists around the world and therefore wanted information on passengers coming from Europe to America. The European population got a bit upset. So the European Parliament passed motions about for example situations when Europeans—and it would be the same with New Zealanders—paid for an airline ticket with their credit card. The American law enforcement agencies said they wanted as part of their advanced passenger processing terrorist-checking system the credit card numbers on their database for people who paid with their credit card when they booked flights in London or Brussels. The Europeans said that that was all very well except that the Americans did not have any serious data protection systems. They do not—that is one of America’s big weaknesses. New Zealand has an advanced passenger processing exchange with America but we do not really know where the data we are exchanging ends up. 
When we were discussing legislation in Parliament 3 or 4 years ago to guide the advanced passenger processing system we added a provision to tighten it up. The provision said that if information were given to say the US customs or immigration departments the departments could not pass on that information—there was a whole pile of about 20 bits of data on each individual including nationality; you name it—to some other agency unless it was for a continuation of the original purpose. In reality how could that ever be worked out? Since that time the US has set up the Department of Homeland Security which incorporates all the different agencies. The last I heard it had on its database the names of about 70000 people whom it considered a security risk. So there is a lot of room for error discrimination and leakage of data in that whole US system. 
There are cases when people think they are transferring personal information just from one country to another but really it goes around a big circuit of other countries. There was the case about 5 years ago of a man in Auckland called Mohammad Abbas who had a sick relative in India. He wanted to send the relative some money for help in getting hospital treatment. He went into Western Union—an American company—in Auckland to transfer the money. But it did not get to the other end which caused big distress to his family in India. Then it was discovered that Western Union had put the information through to an American Government database and that Mohammad Abbas’ name had come up as having terrorist links so the money never got through. In fact it was just a confusion of names. Mohammad is a very common name and Abbas is a very common name. There will be a whole lot of common names in any database of doubtful people. Abbas had a hell of a problem. There was no guarantee that Mohammad Abbas’ information would not circulate in directions he was unaware of when he first went into Western Union in Auckland. 
There is also the problem of financial data relating to individuals and companies. It is very important private data. It is circulated and exchanged through banks around the world through a computer system called SWIFT. Although it is operated out of Brussels it is American-owned with a mirror of the data running in America as well so that the American agencies can get hold of the information if they want to use it to track down terrorists. Sure we want to track down money transfers between terrorists but in the process currently used to do so the whole privacy system tends to break down. The Europeans have been a bit upset about the SWIFT system and some of its problems. 
There is another problem with the internationalisation of data through law enforcement agencies and even with what information comes up in newspapers. Poor old Ahmed Zaoui had this problem in a different way when he arrived here several years back. The Refugee Status Board did the first processing of his refugee status application and it was much criticised by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority afterwards. An officer at the Refugee Status Board did a Google search and came up with a whole lot of newspaper clippings about Ahmed Zaoui in Belgium and France. The officer thought that Ahmed Zaoui must have some links with terrorism and denied his refugee status application on the basis of media information from abroad that was untested. 
I have been involved as an advocate in other immigration cases. Police files have emails and stuff from agencies overseas that have come through. Supposedly the information is about things like people’s job background but none of it is tested or verified. People have been discriminated against because of that information. There is a free exchange of very personal information between in particular Government databases and going beyond that private databases as well. Sometimes people can get a raw deal because of that. It is good that the European Union is trying to set the pace in terms of protecting privacy. The Green Party supports this bill and wishes the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner well in trying to deal with these very difficult and complex issues of protecting people’s privacy. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 There are a lot of bus stops between here and Auckland and there are a lot of bus stops around the world that our data travels through. Sometimes people at those places open packages in order to find out what they can see. The aim of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is to amend the Privacy Act 1993 in order to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as a bus stop for the avoidance of other States’ tougher privacy laws. Where there is a hole in a net fish will swim there in order to get through to the other side. Right now New Zealand has a hole in its regulatory regime that is attracting fish that might have slipped through the privacy laws of their own countries. 
This bill brings consistency with overseas States’ requirements with regard to the transference of information and data across their borders. With consistency of standards come confidence and trust. It is important for New Zealand to be seen as a trusted trading partner especially with the European Union—we need its confidence. The changes proposed in this bill address the concern of some of New Zealand’s trading partners—especially European Union members—that overseas businesses have been locating operations and computer servers in New Zealand in order to benefit from our more flexible regulatory environment. 
The Privacy Act became law in 1993. Like the privacy laws in many other jurisdictions it was formulated in the 1990s and at that time personal information was largely stored manually. With the advent of the power and the reach of the Internet information about all of us is far more easily collected and disseminated throughout the world. An example of that is the spam scams that hit our email in-boxes on occasion. Even last week I received email correspondence yet again from Nigeria where people have copious amounts of money that they want to distribute around the world to worthy individuals. They want to bestow the magnificence of their generosity on such people. Well they found me—although I do not consider myself worthy enough to benefit from their spare millions of dollars. I suggest that members on the other side of the House would be far more worthy than I. So I will not be sending the Nigerians my bank account number. Fortunately I am not a member of Twitter so I am no twit. 
The Nigerian letter—also called the 419 fraud Nigerian bank scam or Nigerian money offer—originated in the early 1980s as the oil-based Nigerian economy declined. Several unemployed university students first used the scam as a means of manipulating business visitors interested in shady deals in the Nigerian oil sector before targeting business people in the West and later the wider population of the planet. Scammers in the early to mid-1990s targeted companies sending scam messages via letter fax or telex. But then the spread of email and easy access to email harvesting software significantly lowered the cost of sending scam letters by utilising the Internet and greatly increased the opportunity that spammer-scammers had. Hence the invitation that I received—and I am sure some of the other members of the House received it—last week. Somehow the spammer-scammers have accessed nearly every email address I have had. 
In the 2000s the 419 scam has spurred imitations from other locations in Africa Asia and Eastern Europe. More recently there have been imitations from North America and Western Europe—mainly the UK—and even from our cousins across the Ditch in Australia. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 now deals with that sort of practice but what it highlights is the open window that the Internet has provided to the world to access our private information. The collection use storage and disclosure of one’s personal information can happen unnoticed across borders and at lightening speed. 
I was visiting my brother who is a medical researcher in San Diego in the early 1990s. We went to a famous American department store called Sears where there was a computer available to shoppers. One typed in the name of a friend who was getting married and up came a list of preferred gifts—a Ferrari a Porsche and a red Corvette soft-top would be on my list. So I typed in my name. Surprisingly—and I say “Surprisingly” because I did not think that I was a person with a very common name—up came eight Jonathan Youngs who were all getting married in the US. I do not know how they managed to steal my identity. I did not know that I was as prolific as that. I must admit I left the department store dazed and depressed both at the same time. 
Tim Macindoe 
: I went to all eight before I found you. Cost me a fortune too! 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: That is right—broke but depressed at the lack of my uniqueness. That too demonstrates the power of computerisation and the ability to identify people’s information across the world. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: You can even Twitter! 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Exactly. 
The main purpose of this bill is to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when dealing with businesses in New Zealand. That is a very important thing—we need to give our international traders confidence that they can trust our systems. The bill is intended to ensure that personal data that originates overseas and is sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection. The amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries. We are stitching up the hole in the net so to speak. The amendments aim to increase competitive advantage for trade between New Zealand and the European Union and with our other current and developing trade partners. 
The bill has wide support. We note that the Law Commission and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner agree that the bill should go ahead at this time. The Privacy Act makes it clear that there are important trans-border dimensions to the application of privacy legislation. This bill is a useful addition to the Act. The Law Commission’s view was sought on the bill and it has indicated that it supports it. We want and need to protect our data here in New Zealand and to protect what comes to New Zealand from around the world. We need to repair the hole in the net so that international traders feel confident in the protection we offer. Then New Zealand businesses can become and will continue to be the trusted traders and partners they seek them to be. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill another bill introduced by the Labour Government and it was introduced in July 2008. Speaking on this bill at its first reading I want to emphasise two points. The first one is in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce how can privacy law in New Zealand be better adapted to enhance our trade opportunities and assist our businesses in gaining access to international markets? The second is how can our privacy law be better drafted to reflect the notions “privacy is your business” and “good privacy is good business”? 
The Privacy Act 1993 currently does not allow foreign nationals living overseas to make information privacy requests. What is an information privacy request? It is a request made to obtain confirmation of whether an agency holds personal information to be given access to personal information and/or for the correction of personal information. There is also nothing in the Act to prevent data received from overseas being transferred to a jurisdiction without adequate privacy protection outside of New Zealand. That means New Zealand is unable to provide the level of assurance requested by overseas trade partners that it can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy. In today’s world of increasing globalisation and e-commerce our inability to give that assurance is a potential impediment to trade. 
In that regard this bill is primarily designed to address two main issues: firstly to ensure that New Zealand’s privacy law meets the expectations of New Zealand’s trading partners by assuring them that their privacy will be protected; and secondly to enable people living overseas who are not citizens or permanent residents of New Zealand to access their personal information held in New Zealand. Currently the Privacy Act provides that an individual must be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand or be in New Zealand to make such a request. 
There are four main provisions in this bill. The first concerns the transfer of personal information outside of New Zealand. One purpose of the bill is to establish a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country where the information originated. The bill provides the Privacy Commissioner with a discretion to prohibit on reasonable grounds the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another country. Secondly the bill removes the residency restriction from persons who may make an information privacy request. Thirdly the commissioner may authorise a public sector agency to impose a charge. Fourthly the bill provides for complaints about breaches of the Act to be referred to overseas privacy enforcement authorities. 
The changes proposed by this bill reflect the fact that the movement of personal information increasingly transcends national borders. The current Privacy Act 1993 like the privacy laws in many other jurisdictions was formulated in the 1990s. At that time most personal information was stored manually and it was not easy to copy or disseminate written information. Things have changed dramatically. Individuals may be perceived in a millisecond as a piece of information in an email or on a website such as YouTube or Facebook. Participants in a transaction may be on the other side of the world from each other. In my own case for example my maiden speech was broadcast live via the Internet as far away as Beijing Hong Kong and Taipei. 
Tim Macindoe 
: To an internationally wonderful welcome. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Thank you. My subsequent speeches in this House as I have learnt were also watched reviewed and reported overseas on Chinese language websites. 
With the extensive use of technology it is much easier to collect copy or distribute information than it was in the 1990s. By extending the scope of persons who may request access to personal information in New Zealand the bill is especially relevant to the growing number of New Zealand businesses that trade offshore. 
An aim of this bill is of course to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. The changes in that regard are considered necessary because many States will not allow personal information held within their borders to be transferred to a jurisdiction where the personal information will not receive equivalent protection. One might infer that entities might have been locating operations and computer servers in New Zealand to benefit from a more flexible regulatory regime. Having said that and with some trepidation I suddenly had a feeling that we may need to get this bill passed with some sense of urgency. 
I tell members to look at other jurisdictions; regulators seem to be seeking enhanced powers. In European Union countries we see signs of more stringent laws sought and enhanced enforcement penalties planned. Across the Ditch the Australian Law Reform Commission initiated in August 2008 a comprehensive review of its privacy and confidentiality laws. Similar measures have also been implemented in Hong Kong. This bill is therefore necessary and is expected to provide a timely boost to our businesses trading offshore. The history of New Zealand’s privacy legislation lies in part in the desire to be consistent with the OECD guidelines. I recall that our Privacy Commissioner once said that good privacy is good business. Indeed businesses can help themselves by developing top-down privacy-conscious cultures. 
To conclude I support this bill because it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and it will remove an anomaly so that people living overseas can access their personal information held in New Zealand. The bill also complements the privacy review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. 
Overall business is global and politics is local. I am pleased indeed to see that this bill originally introduced by the previous Labour Government seems to have received bipartisan support. I am sure that it is only the first part of a more extensive modernisation of our privacy laws. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. It is important in an increasingly global economy that New Zealand is able to compete without burdens or barriers. This bill improves data collection and the security of information. 
If we think back to 1993 when the Privacy Act was first passed and if we compare the technology that was used in 1993 with what we use now we see that it is vastly different. I want the House to reflect for a moment on the sorts of ways that we used to collect information. It may have been on paper cards or it may have been in notebooks. It definitely was nothing like what we have the capability to do today. So it is really important that we review the legislation and make sure it keeps pace with the speed of technology and that it is relevant and puts in place the appropriate security nets. 
I was going to talk about some points of interest that have been made by Opposition members tonight but in reality of the points I have heard there is really not too much in dispute. So I will move on instead. I support the comments made by my colleagues Simon Power and Chester Borrows and made so well by Jonathan Young. The aim of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is to amend the Privacy Act 1993 in order to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand’s being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other countries’ privacy laws. 
I will reinforce the points that have been made this evening so that we are all clear about what this bill would achieve. Firstly it will remove the current restrictions on who may make an information privacy request. It will enable public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals. It will provide for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority. It will also establish a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country from where the information originated. At present the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests and does nothing to control the transfer of information outside of New Zealand in cases where information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws. This bill addresses both of those deficits in the Privacy Act. 
I will give members a couple of examples to make this amendment bill a bit more relevant. I will start with clause 5 which repeals section 34 of the Privacy Act of 1993. I was fortunate in 1994 and 1995 to work with the then Privacy Commissioner Bruce Slane. The former Privacy Commissioner made the following comment during an address to the 13th annual Industrial Relations Conference meeting: “First section 34 of the Privacy Act restricts making information privacy requests (requests for access to personal information) to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents wherever they are and to other individuals who are in New Zealand. So a European who has formerly lived and worked in New Zealand has no right of access to information held about him here unless he is in New Zealand when he makes his request.” Bruce Slane recommended that the standing requirements in section 34 be abolished and that is what we are doing today. The bill will also enable any individual to make an information privacy request. That means individuals do not have to be New Zealand permanent residents or citizens or here in New Zealand at the time the request is made. 
I will look at another example which was raised in 
 NZ Marketing Magazine 
 by a business owner who queried how the privacy laws work. The owner stated that he had a database that included a customer’s personal information which is what most New Zealand businesses hold. However the owner had affiliations with offshore companies and he wanted to know whether he needed to change the way he handled the customer’s personal information. This bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for avoiding privacy laws in the United States—an important thing indeed. 
Under this bill the Privacy Commissioner will have authority to prohibit the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another State if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds on three points. First the information has been or will be received in New Zealand from another State and is likely to be transferred to a third party where it will not be subject to a law providing comparable safeguards to the Act. Second the transfer of the information may circumvent the privacy or data-protection laws of the State from which it has been or will be received. Third the transfer would be likely to lead to a contravention of the basic principles of national application set out in part 2 of the OECD guidelines. Prohibition of the transfer of the information is effected by the commissioner when he or she uses a transfer prohibition notice to the agency proposing to transfer the personal information. If someone failed to comply with a notice that person would be liable and could be fined up to $10000. It is important to note that the bill enables any individual to make an information privacy request. As I stated before individuals do not have to be New Zealand permanent residents or citizens or here at the time that the request is made. 
The collection use storage and disclosure of personal information can happen unnoticed across borders and at phenomenal speeds. If we think for a moment about the significant advancements of technology data collection data sharing and data transfer we realise it is vital that the legislation keeps up. With our legislative process it is doubtful that our legislation will keep up at the same speed as technology advances as that advance happens on a daily basis. But this amendment bill takes us a good way down the track in terms of protecting that information. 
The amendments are intended to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when dealing with businesses in New Zealand. We need to make sure that New Zealand is seen and recognised as a safe productive and competitive place to do business. The amendments are designed to ensure that personal data originating overseas and sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection. The transfer prohibition notice mechanism will ensure that foreign personal data cannot be sent via New Zealand to jurisdictions without adequate privacy protection. The amendments will enable New Zealanders and New Zealand companies to assure their important trade partners that the New Zealand law will ensure their privacy is protected. The amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries. 
I am delighted to support the first reading of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by our very capable and hard-working commerce Minister Simon Power. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. I will begin where Louise Upston left off by congratulating Simon Power the hard-working and diligent Minister in charge of the bill. I will take only a brief call because I know that the Minister is eager to get on to the next bill on the Order Paper which is also in his name as is the bill after that. Tony Ryall is allowed a brief turn on the Order Paper then the next three bills are in the Minister’s name. As a matter of fact if we count all of the bills on the Order Paper we find that 15 out of the 35 bills are in the name of Simon Power. It could be that the reason we are discussing so many of Simon Power’s bills is that a significant number of the other bills are in Richard Worth’s name and he has been told he is not allowed to participate in the debate at the moment. 
I note that this bill like all of the other bills I can see on the Order Paper was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Although Simon Power is a conscientious and hard-working Minister in charge of this bill he does appear to be somewhat advantaged by the fact that a significant number of bills in his portfolios were introduced by the last Labour Government. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Somewhat advantaged! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. 
This debate today is fairly topical because privacy is integral to avoiding issues around identity theft. As we have heard in the House today identity theft can apply to anybody. Politicians and members of this House are not immune to issues of identity theft. Changes in technology have made identity theft so much more possible and we saw that just this afternoon when the Government aided and abetted a right-wing blogger’s attempt to be passed off as a member of this House in order to discredit that member. I am sure that is something we would like to avoid and that we would not encourage in any way. 
The issues around privacy have been heated. I for one do not profess to be an expert on privacy issues in any way shape or form but I like the idea that any information stored about me is kept securely and will not be passed on to somebody who is not entitled to have it. I understand that private information that comes into New Zealand as a result of our trading relationships with people from overseas should also have that same protection. I like the thought that if the private information stored about me is incorrect I will have the ability to access that information and to correct it. When international trading partners and their customers are involved those rights should be extended to them also. 
I agree with Louise Upston that the environment we live in now is very very different from what it was in 1993 when the Privacy Act was passed. We do not have file cards and things like that so much any more. The information is all stored electronically and that introduces a whole range of new challenges. 
As this bill progresses through the House I will be interested in the enforceability of this law and in how it will be enforced. Again I do not profess to be an expert on privacy issues but if we look at the provisions in the bill and the powers given to the Privacy Commissioner it is difficult for us to see how some of those things will be enforced. For example if the Privacy Commissioner prohibits the transfer of a certain amount of personal information the ruling would be difficult to enforce given how easy it is in the current technological climate for information to be exchanged very quickly. 
The aim of the bill is to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. The bill removes the current restrictions on who may make an information privacy request by enabling public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals by providing for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority and by establishing a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country where the information originated. 
Getting our privacy laws right is important for both individuals and for businesses. Major advances in technology have changed the way in which personal data is collected stored and used. The challenge for businesses is to ensure that the benefits obtained through the use of new technology do not compromise individuals’ expectations about the security and use of their personal information. Businesses must be able to assure their customers that their privacy will be respected. Currently the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests. 
Further nothing in the Act prevents data received from overseas from being transferred outside New Zealand to jurisdictions without adequate privacy protection. This means that New Zealand is unable to provide the level of assurance requested by overseas trade partners that we can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce. Our inability to give this assurance is a potential impediment to trade. 
This bill complements the privacy law review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. It is a good bill. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government and I commend it to the House. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is good to have an opportunity to speak in a debate that has been conducted in a positive and constructive spirit and that clearly enjoys bipartisan support in our Parliament. As other speakers have noted the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill aims to protect the rights of New Zealanders and to reduce the possibility of foreign personal data being sent via New Zealand to jurisdictions that do not respect the high standard of “priv-acy” or “pry-vacy” protection that we in this country hold dear. 
Clare Curran 
: “Pry-vacy”? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I use both pronunciations of “privacy” because although I note that apparently members on this side of the House are meant to pronounce the word one way and members opposite another way my parents were always divided over how to pronounce that word—and I can assure Ms Curran that neither of them ever voted Labour. 
Listeners to this debate—including those in the packed public gallery and television viewers with a shortage of alternative channels—will be relieved to know that this House is for the umpteenth time since the change of Government completing the unfinished business of the last Parliament. I have to say that as a new member I am at a loss to understand how the previous Labour Government so comprehensively lost control of its own legislative agenda. But I guess that is history now and the important thing is that we have a Government that is getting things done and mopping up Labour’s mess. 
For Ms Curran to ask where National’s ideas are is unbelievable. A responsible Government finishes important business even when it was started by a previous Government and we are doing just that. A responsible political party campaigns on the issues that matter and offers solutions to problems that concern the electorate at large. That is what we did last year it is why National was elected to lead the Government in November and it is what we have been doing I say to Ms Curran ever since. So to ask where National’s ideas are when Ms Curran repeatedly complained about how quickly we got on with the job during our first 100 days of action—and have continued to do so subsequently—will fool no one up in the gallery tonight or in the country at large. 
The country knows what National stands for and what our ideas are and people are delighted to have a Government that knows what it is doing and that has such excellent Ministers as the very energetic member for Rangitikei the Hon Simon Power. When we consider all that Mr Power has achieved since the change of Government and the myriad of marvellous measures he has managed so magnificently in this House since he took up his ministerial warrant the suggestion that he is somehow lacking in ideas is patently ridiculous. 
It is clear that the international business community not only expects legislative protection of this kind but depends upon it. Several previous speakers have rightly explained that point in some detail. I will focus for a few moments on the extra challenges that rapid technological advances have generated. They significantly underline the importance of achieving the enactment of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill as soon as possible. 
My excellent colleague Jonathan Young represents the fine people of New Plymouth not only in this House but also on the world stage. That reminds me that I would like to add my personal congratulations to the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her significant appointment that was confirmed this morning and to note that she as a prolific texter will also benefit from the extra security provided by this bill—but I digress and that is totally out of character. The very fine Mr Young as I was saying—who apparently managed to find eight brides in the United States last month alone such an outstanding and popular public figure is he—drew attention to the plague of bogus email and other seemingly unstoppable spam which drives us all nuts on a daily basis. The sad fact is that many innocent people have been taken in by such nonsense as the endless Nigerian money offers the apparent Eastern European bequests and the amazing lottery wins from Uzbekistan that arrive on a daily basis. Although the discovery tonight that I shall have to share my winnings with Dr Blue is a shattering one I would come to terms with my grief if someone could stop me from receiving any more such glad tidings of dubious joy. 
Seriously this is a vital and widely supported measure. Let us get on and add it to Mr Power’s list of stunning achievements. I commend this bill to the House and thank the gallery and my mother—who is glued to her radio at home—for their rapt attention. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Legal Services Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
Sadly this bill was born from tragedy. Members of the House will recall the senseless death of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of paroled murderer Graeme Burton. Members may also recall that in January 2008 Karl Kuchenbecker’s former partner received a letter from the Legal Services Agency. The letter set out the theoretical maximum amount of $19000 that she would be required to repay in respect of legal aid granted to her for representation at the coronial inquiry into Mr Kuchenbecker’s death. 
It is not acceptable that victims should be treated in this way adding insult to injury by raising the prospect that they may be liable for significant repayments. Within days the then Minister of Justice the Hon Annette King said “If the legal aid system is producing this sort of result for victims it has to be changed urgently. I have already spoken to the Secretary for Justice and asked for an urgent report that will examine what changes are needed to ensure that victims are treated in a caring and compassionate way. I am very serious about this. Victims should not be re-victimised under any circumstances.” I give credit to Mrs King for taking that stance. 
Unfortunately we were told that the bill would be introduced in May and passed soon after that. May rolled around and the then Prime Minister said that it seemed outrageous that Mr Kuchenbecker’s widow would face such a steep bill and that legislation was ready to be introduced into Parliament very quickly. On 14 August 7 months after the letter was received by Karl Kuchenbecker’s widow the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced to Parliament. In our first 100 days we have introduced a bill to Parliament to levy offenders to pay for enhanced services to victims. I can tell the House that the review of victims’ rights that we promised at the election is also under way. 
This bill amends the Legal Services Act 2000 to change the way the legal aid scheme operates for victims of crime who apply for legal aid in respect of coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. The Act generally requires an applicant to meet financial eligibility criteria and to make repayments in respect of aid granted. There are existing exceptions to some of the general requirements in the Act notably in relation to victims’ claims proceedings. This bill ensures that victims affected by an offence including alleged offences not proven in court who seek legal aid to attend a coronial inquest or Parole Board hearing will not be subject to financial eligibility tests. It also ensures that no repayment of legal aid will be required. 
The bill also makes amendments of an administrative nature. Currently the Legal Services Agency has discretion to write off legal aid debt on a case by case basis if the agency considers it is just and equitable to do so. However this may occur only at the end of any legal proceedings. This bill enables the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will provide certainty for applicants in circumstances justifying a write-off as the agency will be able to let them know as early as possible that they will not be required to make repayments. 
The bill also introduces a regulation-making power so that the Governor-General can by Order in Council exempt particular classes of persons or proceedings from the financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. There may be further unforeseen classes of persons or proceedings for which the requirements regarding financial eligibility for and the repayment of legal aid are not in the public interest do not facilitate access to justice and are not just and equitable in the circumstances. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to unforeseen situations like the tragic Kuchenbecker case that may arise in the future—a swifter response I have to say than the time line this bill was on. 
We now rectify that matter seek the referral of the bill to a select committee and trust that the House will support this bill on such a delicate but important matter. I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.