Volume 620 Week 69 - Thursday 7 October 2004 
Volume 620 Week 69 - Thursday 7 October 2004 
[Volume:620;Page:15945] 
Thursday 7 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill the Holidays Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 My having noticed the amount of legislation that the Government has on its hands and the relatively slow progress of that legislation and my also having noticed how much legislation is about to come out of select committees that the Government has indicated it wants passed by Christmas I ask whether the House can expect the Government to call for urgency during either this sitting period or the next. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the member is making an offer I would be very pleased to meet with him and follow it up. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have any remarks made like that. The member will stand up withdraw and apologise. He is very lucky to stay in the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better not be in relation to that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better not be in relation to withdrawing that particular comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No of course not. Mr Speaker a number of times you have made it very clear that when we go into this process we should be asking questions that relate strictly to the business of the House and that this is not an occasion for political point-scoring. You have pointed that out a number of times. I wonder whether the Minister given his relevant inexperience in this role might take that advice and just give us a straight answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Hon Mark Burton give a straight answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I cannot give the member any indication at this stage of any intended urgency. 
Personal Explanations 
Apology—Withdrawal of Comment 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Yesterday during the general debate I attempted to interpret an allegation made by Mr Tanczos and cast over all members of this House—an allegation to which I took personal offence. In doing so I unintentionally caused offence to another member of this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That was unintended on my part. I wish to withdraw that comment and to apologise to Mr Peters for any personal slight or incorrect inference that could be taken from my comments yesterday. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether that fish and chip throwaway called the  
New Zealand Herald  
which wrote that stinking editorial byline this morning could possibly do the same tomorrow and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If you can instruct the New Zealand press on what to do then you are slightly better than I am. 
Points of Order 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—Procedure 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For reasons that I am prepared to divulge if necessary last night I sought through the Chair of the Committee of the whole House to obtain information on who voted for and against clauses and parts where parties were recording a split vote. I am well aware that that procedure was agreed to in the Business Committee but it never occurred to me or my colleagues that we would be denied that information. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That bill is still before the Committee. I cannot rule at this stage. The time to raise that point of order is once we get back into Committee on that bill. 
Request for Apology—“Rope-head” Comments Made in House 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While we are on the subject of apologies I want to say that yesterday in the House my colleague Rod Donald raised a point of order in which he asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw his “rope-head” comment if it had been intended in a derogatory manner and you asked Mr Peters to withdraw that comment if that had been the case. The Rt Hon Winston Peters responded with: “I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope-heads which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament.” I have subsequently examined the  
Hansard  
and have found that Mr Peters said: “ … and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament?”. I am raising this point of order in the House to allow Winston Peters the opportunity to withdraw his comment and apologise; otherwise I do intend to take this further as a matter of privilege by way of his deliberately misleading the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I get any letter to that effect of course I will rule on that matter then. That is nothing to do with me at this stage. 
Obituaries 
Maurice Wilkins 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a non-debatable non-controversial motion concerning the death in London last night of Maurice Wilkins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Maurice Wilkins who died in London last night aged 88 was one of three people who were instrumental in discovering the helix structure of DNA. He is one of only three Nobel Prize winners from New Zealand and his death now leaves only one Nobel Prize winner left and that is Alan MacDiarmid. I read with great interest about the work he had conducted— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the member could just move the motion first. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I said: “I seek leave to move …”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been given leave to move so just move the motion please. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I move the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will construct something from that. I know what the member’s intention is and I have no desire in any way to denigrate this person who was a very very fine New Zealander. I presume the member is moving a motion acknowledging his life and works. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes indeed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I would like to add the Government’s comments to the motion properly put by the member who has just resumed his seat. Maurice Wilkins was born and raised in the lower half of the North Island and attended Victoria University. His main contribution to the world of science— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no objection at all to members of the House on this occasion expressing their views sentiments and concern about the loss to the scientific community of a prominent scientist who happened also to be a prominent New Zealander. You have just asked Maurice Williamson to resume his seat— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I asked him to move the motion. He could have carried on speaking at any time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well the inference taken was that you had had enough of listening to the member and wanted him to sit down. I am just going to say that if Mr Hodgson is going to add his comments and others intend to do that as well I think it would be fair to give Mr Williamson the opportunity to have his comments put on the  
Hansard 
 record. But he did seek leave for a non-debatable motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem I have is that Mr Williamson then did not move a motion; he just made some comments. No one objected when I asked whether there was any objection—there was not any—and I then called the member. The member could then have moved the motion; he would have been able to do so. All that I wanted him to do was to move the motion. I assumed that because he had already begun talking about this very influential New Zealander we would construct a motion along those lines. That is why I accepted what he did. [ 
Interruption 
] Well perhaps the member would like to do that now. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I certainly was going to move a motion but wanted to put a bit of background. I will start with the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House do express great sympathy at the loss of Maurice Wilkins a prominent New Zealander famous for his work with DNA and on the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb 
. Some people in this House will not know that he worked on the atomic bomb. Interestingly he was so appalled at the ability of that device to take such an enormous amount of life that he then became a prominent member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and worked on that for a long time in his life. One of the most interesting things I found on the Internet in an item about his death was that he was born in Pongaroa in the Wairarapa and the Internet article stated that the nearest big town to that is Pahiatua—which I found quite fascinating. I hope this House does express that sympathy. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I shall continue with some brief remarks. I note that having graduated from Victoria University Dr Wilkins spent most of the rest of his life in Britain although sometimes in the United States. Having worked on the Manhattan Project as a physicist he then made his contribution in the emerging collision between physics and biology as an X-ray diffraction expert. He produced a photograph in 1953 from which weeks later Watson and Crick derived the structure of DNA thus opening an era that today we call biotechnology. He was the third man of DNA and his passing is sorely missed. 
Motion agreed to. 
Motions 
Scottish Parliament Building—Opening 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That this House extend its congratulations to the people of Scotland as they mark the opening of their new Parliament Building at Holyrood on Saturday 9 October 2004 and offer its best wishes to all of our Scottish parliamentary counterparts for a successful opening and ongoing representation of constituents into the future. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Te Arawa—Rotorua Lakebeds 
1. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Why has the Government agreed to transfer title to 14 Rotorua lakebeds to Te Arawa when Te Arawa originally transferred the ownership of those lakes to the Crown in return for an annuity and their grievance related to the size of the annuity rather than an issue of title? I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To make the question grammatically correct the word “is” should be in there—“is their grievance …”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a slight correction to questions No. 1 and No. 2. I was going to allow the member to do that and I will allow the member to change one word in question No. 2 as well. So we will take the question as the member said it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In March 1999 the Crown signed a terms of negotiation with Te Arawa that acknowledge the need to resolve a grievance relating to the lakes. The grievances in those terms were wider than the terms of the 1992 agreement and the inadequacy of that annuity. The grievance relates to the impact of the Crown’s acts and omissions on Te Arawa’s relationship with the lakes including their customary associations the management of the lakes’ waters and fisheries the pollution of the lakes and the loss of value of the annuity. In July 2001 the Crown reaffirmed the terms of negotiation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can anyone be expected to believe the Government’s claims that treaty settlements under its administration will be full and final when this is the overturning of an honourable agreement reached in 1922 and when in fact the issue has not been about the title to the lakes but rather the annuity; and on what basis does she expect New Zealanders to believe that treaty negotiations and treaty claims will ever come to an end? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said this grievance is not only about the 1992 agreement. Several grievances were filed with the tribunal but rather than proceed with the tribunal the previous National Government agreed to enter into negotiations to resolve all the grievances relating to the lakes. So in that sense it is a full and final agreement and it does not directly relate in the sense that the member is referring I think to the 1992 agreement. Of course it is related to it but it is wider than that particular matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not like to tell this Minister her job but I am referring to a 1922 settlement with Te Arawa whereby the beds of the lakes were transferred to Government ownership and a £6000 a year annuity was agreed to be paid to Te Arawa. Everyone accepts that that annuity—unlinked to inflation—now looks rather pathetic. I am simply asking why it is that the Government is prepared to undo an agreement that was honourably reached in 1922. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister had not quite finished her answer but I will invite her to finish it and address that part of the question. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said the grievance relates not only to matters that arise from that but subsequent to that. It is all grievances up to 1992. That was agreed by the Government of which the member was a part and was continued in that obligation to this day. 
Darren Hughes 
: What are the differences with the Te Arawa lake settlements as they compare with past settlements relating to lakes? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: One of the many differences is that this Government has not agreed to give away water columns and airspace in the lakes. We believe these should be retained by the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders unlike National which gave both away on Lake Taupo. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One thing that happens in this House is that there is an orchestrated outburst when the Minister is under some pressure from a question. It comes in the form of claps yahoos or whatever. It is not spontaneous and it actually interferes with the next question. If members on this side of the House do it I notice that you jump on it quite quickly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not correct. I allow quite a lot of interjection to be made during answers and the member knows it. That is another point of order he has raised that is not a point of order. 
Stephen Franks 
: Is the Minister aware that Te Arawa appears to have dropped its claim to the only one of the 14 lakes that has a reserve status which would require public consultation before a change of status and what consultation can she assure New Zealanders there will be for the people of Rotorua and New Zealand before she gives away what the Crown bought in 1922? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As part of the negotiations to date—and the deed has yet to be signed—the consultation has taken place at this stage with the local authorities that are affected and with those recreational groups that have an interest. The next stage of the consultation of course appears in this House where the members who represent the people of New Zealand will have a full opportunity to be able to debate and to discuss the matter in select committee as well as in debate in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was there any demur from members of the ACT party or anybody in the National Party at that time—that is in 1992— 
Stephen Franks 
: In 1922? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No in 1992. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is the one warning today about interjecting whilst questions are being asked. Members have a right to ask a question in silence. The Hon Winston Peters will please start again. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was there any demur from members of the National Party or members of the ACT party when the 1992 terms of agreement were entered into by the National Party and what does one call that if it is not a boomerang? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even in supplementary questions facts are required to be authenticated. The ACT party was not formed in 1992 so I would like to know how the member thinks that a party that was not formed could have made representations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I had difficulty with the question too. I could not see how it dealt with the responsibility of the Minister at that particular time because even I was not in the House then. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that she received advice from Treasury the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Conservation that the settlement proposal from Te Arawa “does not advance special circumstances that are sufficient to justify an exception to principles or confine the precedent risk.”; and if she did why has she decided to enter this precedent-setting settlement? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: A variety of advice has been given by various officials since 1999 when this matter first came for negotiation. I cannot recall the specific matters referred to by the member. If he wishes to refer them to me I will be able to give him a fuller and more informed answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a press release put out by the Minister in which she states that the Taupo deal she referred to earlier in question time set no precedent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Teachers—Professional Development and Curriculum Support 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What initiatives would be under threat if targeted funding for professional development and curriculum support was abolished? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 If such support was abolished as some have suggested recently a number of outstanding programmes such as the Rural Education Activities Programme the retraining support for those returning to teaching and school arts coordinators would go. It could also include the Gateway programme which offers structured and assessed workplace learning for around 4000 senior secondary school students at 126 schools. That in turn would impact on our shared goal with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs that by 2007 all 15 to 19-year-olds will be in education training or employment. Gateway is an important strand of our strategy to achieve that goal as are Modern Apprenticeships Designing Careers and the new Youth Transitions Service. All require proper funding. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the Government doing to build on the successful Gateway initiative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Today we are announcing the 55 new schools that will join the Gateway programme in 2006. The Gateway programme currently offers structured and assessed workplace learning for around 4000 students in 126 schools. Next year that will increase to around 6000 students at 180 schools including Patea High School Cullinane College and Wanganui High School in the member’s own electorate. The last of those is one of a group of 21 schools that are the first decile 6 schools to enter the programme. Gateway opportunities will be available to all decile 1 to 6 schools in 2008. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is Government policy that much of the new money going into education is spent through the Ministry of Education on his little ideas while parents and schools are raising around half a billion dollars per year just to keep their own schools running for children who show up to class every day? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only say that I think the member does not come here to the House for the questions because he has been told before that a good deal of that money is raised through international students and that no matter how much money went to schools schools would continue as they always have and that is to fund-raise. That is the way it goes. Of course free education is the policy of this Government. 
Overseas Investment—Quality 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What policies will be implemented if any to enable the Government to better determine the quality of overseas investment in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government plans to improve the overseas investment regime to provide greater protection for heritage sites improve monitoring enforcement and reduce the barriers to business investments that can make positive contributions to the economy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that interest and dividends remitted overseas cost New Zealand $8.9 billion in the year to March 2004 of which $4.9 billion resulted from investment under the overseas investment criteria and what will he do about that mindless rubber stamping of every purchase by foreign interests? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That may be the member’s view. My understanding is that direct foreign investment in New Zealand is now at about 40 percent of GDP and last year it was also about 40 percent. When he was Treasurer it was 60 percent. There has been a significant drop. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What other initiatives has the Government introduced to encourage positive foreign investment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The current taxation bill before the House provides an exemption from income tax for non-residents who are exempt in their own countries from taxation on gains made from share sales in unlisted New Zealand companies. That move is designed to make it easier for New Zealand companies to access offshore venture capital and will align our rules more closely with Australia’s. Given that we want to have high-quality investment that is a good move. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister remember the glorious Labour Government sale of Air New Zealand or the magnificent sale by the previous National Government of New Zealand Rail and is it not a fact that the amount being made by foreigners out of the New Zealand economy equates to the same amount that New Zealand makes from the export of milk-powder butter and cheese and is many times more than any new trade agreement would promise let alone deliver? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not sure of the member’s figures; he does not always have accurate figures. But I do remind him— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister cannot deviate into totally untruthful territory for a start that is not to the point of the answer. He has just challenged my figures. The figures that I have happen to have been put together by someone— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member states there are figures. The Minister in answering can dispute the figures. That addresses the question concerned. If the member wants to table any documents at the end of his question to prove his point he is perfectly entitled to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He is not disputing the figures at all. He does not have any. He is making an allegation that my figures are not accurate without any access to the background of that information. That is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the Minister carry on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I repeat that I do not always rely on the figures the right honourable gentleman gives me for good reason. The figures that I do have indicate that in 1998 just after that member had been appointed Treasurer of this country direct foreign investment totalled 60 percent of GDP. It now totals 40 percent. It has gone—[ 
Interruption 
] The economy has grown as Lockwood Smith knows. The proportion has dropped. Mr Peters does not like it but he was the one who did exactly what he is saying this Government should stop doing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth is the Minister making out that argument when he knows full well that New Zealand First had legislation passed on foreign investment that the later National Government refused to have signed off by the Governor-General but that the Government Mr Mallard belongs to did and that it is that that has led to an improvement not anything that he might have done himself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may comment briefly in so far as it relates to his responsibilities. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think my responsibility is that I am aware of what happened in the past. But what I am also aware of is that right from the time that the sealers and the whalers came to New Zealand high-quality foreign investment was important. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article on the foreign investment trade 
“New Zealand Economic Register for the World” by a senior researcher with the Christchurch-based Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Somebody behind me said that that has got to be a joke. He is right. There is a joke and it is sitting behind me. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has not yet been a valid point of order raised today but I am hopeful that this is the first. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: During the answers to question No. 1 to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations she indicated to the House that in the transfer of title to the Taupo lake bed to Tuwharetoa in 1992—an incident that occurred under the National Government—title was also transferred to the airspace and I believe the Minister used the term “water columns”. I must let the House know that I was not prepared to ask a subsequent supplementary question on the basis that I took the Minister at her word. I have now checked and have found out that was not the case and I would ask that the Minister table the transfer title documentation in the House so that all members of Parliament and the press can see that the argument the Labour Party Government is currently running is wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No matter of order is involved. 
Land Transport—Tolling 
4.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What efforts has he made to ensure that the public understands tolling and its place in the land transport regime and has he received any recent reports that suggest that those efforts have been less than successful? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Act allows for the tolling of new roads. I have seen a report from Peter Brown MP stating that Government expenditure on roads has fallen and that the Penlink road has been declared non-toll. Both claims suggest that the Government has some way to go with public understanding on these issues. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Penlink be tolled or has that been ruled out; and is the Minister aware of any other portion of State highway that is a potential candidate for tolling? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the Rodney District Council has told Transfund that it is interested in pursuing Penlink as a toll road in conjunction with Transit and the House will be aware that a proposal to toll the Albany-Puhoi link is being progressed towards a decision. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Has the Minister done anything to acquaint himself with the plethora of comments from his Labour Party colleagues in the 1990s concerning the evils of tolling our roads; and if so how does he intend to handle the embarrassment when the first toll road comes on stream in New Zealand under a Labour Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Labour Government that the member just spoke of has passed legislation since the 1990s called the Land Transport Management Act in which it states that a toll will proceed if it has a high level of support from the community. That is the difference. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister ensure that no toll gantries or booths are built until after the next election when the “ever-vigilant after the event never compromising never lying down” party will have all but disappeared and New Zealand First will have a significant presence in Government—otherwise we will have to spend taxpayers’ money dismantling them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as the question relates to the Minister’s direct ministerial responsibility he may comment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Regrettably the member’s question has come too late. There are already gantries in place for collecting tolls in Tauranga where the member lives. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister comment on the assertion in Peter Brown’s article that road spending has fallen as a percentage of GDP? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: By next year expenditure on roading— 
Opposition Members 
: Ha ha! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely the point that was raised earlier by another member on the other side of the House and he himself was one of the worst contributors at this point. I heard him from afar. I am prepared to allow comments to be made and I have no objection to them but at least give the Minister a bit of a chance to say a few words. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the point that Mr Hide made is when Ministers give answers in the way they are doing generally those answers are well scripted and indeed the response to them is pretty well rehearsed under the Labour whips. What you just saw from us on this side of the House was a spontaneous reaction to a Minister who clearly is not in control of his portfolio. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well once again that is not a point of order. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: By next year expenditure on New Zealand roading will be $400 million per annum greater than it was at the time we came to office. Notwithstanding the stunning economic growth under this Government one would need to be drawing a very long bow to assert that this was a decrease in GDP. It is not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So Peter Brown was right when he wrote that statement in the article; and why should any New Zealand motorist contemplate any tolls when for every $2 that he as Minister collects for the purpose of road construction maintenance and repair less than $1 is going for that purpose? Just because the “poodle party” supports it is no reason that the rest of us should. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the first question is no Peter Brown is not correct. In respect of the second I simply say that every cent of every increase in tax on petrol under this Government has gone to roading. What is more the proportion of petrol tax being shifted on to roading under this Government is higher than it has ever been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just say to the Minister that I thought the answer he gave was a little long. However if he wants to extend question time that is his business. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The claim just made by the Minister is known by every member of Parliament to be absurdly untrue. Every cent collected in respect of that tax is not spent on roading. Every Minister of Finance or Treasurer knows that and every member of Parliament knows it. Such an answer cannot be to the point or exact in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Minister received any reports on land transport funding in the Bay of Plenty and in particular would the amount of petrol excise duty collected in Tauranga be enough to fund the $600 million of road expenditure needed there in the next 10 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Expenditure in the Bay of Plenty this year is about $68 million. On passage of legislation to raise the excise duty by a further 5c an additional $134 million will go to Tauranga—it was never more—and even with projected increases over the next 10 years we will not get there by petrol tax alone. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would it be that the road leading to this country’s biggest port and the Tauranga Harbour Bridge have to be financed by tolls when it is an essential national highway for the economy of this country? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Leaving aside the fact that it was under his Government and leaving aside the fact that it is not a State highway—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to say. I do not want “leaving asides”; I just want an answer to the question. Please answer the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot remember the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I just want to throw in that it was under a Labour member of Parliament and Minister of Transport that the Tauranga bridge was first built if the Minister does not recall it. It was the 1984-90 Lange Labour Government. More important why would a bridge leading to this country’s biggest port not be designated part of a national highway and paid for out of the general taxation collected for that purpose rather than by tolls? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If it were to be designated a State highway which it is not that would not mean it would not be tolled. 
Larry Baldock 
: Are articles like the one written by Peter Brown in the Tauranga newspaper that contain errors regarding the Penlink road helpful when it comes to ensuring that the public understand tolling and its place in the land transport regime? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table the article written by Peter Brown MP in the local Tauranga newspaper. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is this country not ensuring that it has the funds to attend to the huge infrastructural deficit this country has in roading and other matters now when the amount to pay any borrowings on it can be assured for the next 10 to 20 years because it amounts to far more than is required rather than it being taken off to the consolidated account—which it is—and being spent on any other “loony tune” project? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the member cares so much about funding for roading he has an opportunity soon to send legislation to a select committee; we will see what he does. However if the member is of the view that we should borrow and have no way of servicing that borrowing which is what Peter Brown’s article suggests then I suggest that we have a re-emergence in this country of Social Credit. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I seek leave to table a graph from the Allen Consulting Group report made public 2 months ago which shows that spending on roading as a percentage of GDP has dropped every year under the Labour Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I seek leave to table a graph that seeks to dispute very much the graph that has just been tabled by the Hon Maurice Williamson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that graph. Is there any objection? 
Hon Members 
: Where’s it from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member where it is from. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was drawn from Government sources of course. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no point of order. If there is any objection that is the end of the matter. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I am seeking clarification before I object because he has not told us what the graph is. If it is a graph of expenditure as a percentage of GDP I would be happy for him to tell members that it is different. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It’s upside down. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Oh that is OK—it is upside down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has indicated that he has answered “Yes” to the member’s questions. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Treaty of Waitangi 
5.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does Housing New Zealand Corporation have a “two-world view” of the Treaty of Waitangi; if so what two views of the world does Housing New Zealand Corporation have? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 No the corporation does not have a “two-world view” of the Treaty of Waitangi. The corporation simply acknowledges that different people have different ways of looking at the world often based on their distinct culture traditions and beliefs. As a public service the corporation must be responsive to all New Zealanders. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Housing New Zealand Corporation chief executive officer Helen Fulcher test with him the statements: “… the two treaty partners have different ways of looking at the world including beliefs values and experience.” and: “By looking from both of these perspectives we can develop a two-world view for the Corporation …” as she said she would in her email dated 11 August 2003; and does he support the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s “two-world view”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No those particular statements have not been tested with me. The chief executive of course has the right to organise her department as she would like in terms of everyday operations. Do I support the department’s “two-world view” of the Treaty of Waitangi? As I said in my principal answer there is no “two-world view” of the Treaty of Waitangi. Do I support the department understanding that different cultures traditions and beliefs may lead to different ways of looking at the world? Yes. Indeed in this Parliament for example we have the ACT party: it has a shrinking world view but it has a world view. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Given the Minister’s answer to the primary question what impact does this issue have on how the Housing New Zealand Corporation responds to tenants? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: All New Zealanders are treated the same in terms of the housing allocation and the rights and responsibilities that go with being a tenant. The social allocation system which is used to determine eligibility is blind to ethnicity. It is all about housing need. It simply means that the corporation acknowledges that different people may have different needs values and so on. As a public service it needs to be responsive to those matters and that benefits everyone. 
Katherine Rich 
: If the Housing New Zealand Corporation is not flirting with the idea of having a “two-world view” then why do official documents from the corporation point out that the risks of adopting a “two-world view” include “espousing a two-world view approach and practising Crown dominance approach when the pressure is on” and “failing to handle positively unhelpful media interest and attack when it comes”; and will the corporation’s “two-world view” go the way of the Community Employment Group the Social Entrepreneur Fund and closing the gaps if the issue becomes too hot for the Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is one world view but as I said in my principal answer there is no “two-world view” of the Treaty of Waitangi. However the department does intend to ensure that it responds to the needs of all New Zealanders. Quite often those needs are based upon different traditions values and beliefs. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Housing New Zealand Corporation have a “two-world view” culture as detailed in a paper to the board dated 28 May 2003 by the chief executive Helen Fulcher; the general manager of strategic services Jordan Alexander; and Tony Spelman the project manager of a Maori capability plan? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I was not at the board meeting for the discussion but the member might like to know that of course the department has a policy of looking at the world from different cultural perspectives so that it can provide different ways of approaching housing. But that makes no difference to the allocation of housing which is blind to ethnicity. People get it on the basis of need. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a minute: is this a supplementary question? 
Rodney Hide 
: It is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What about? 
Rodney Hide 
: The answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer perfectly addressed the question. What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh well I will ask another question but it is hopeless here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Rodney Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Minister saying that the board of the Housing New Zealand Corporation has rejected the proposal for a “two-world view” within the corporation or is he saying that he does not know about it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am saying that no the board has not rejected that point of view. What I am pointing out is that the board and the Housing New Zealand Corporation accept that there are different ways of looking at the world. The ACT view for example is shrinking but valid and respected in this House. The board and the corporation respect that there are different points of view and they accept that as part of the way they operate the business. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why under the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s “two-world view” policy the allocation of priority housing status is provided to Maori applicants “with affiliation to a marae”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I need to be very clear that the housing allocation system within the Housing New Zealand Corporation is based upon need and is blind to ethnicity. However the department does respond to quite different needs in the way it approaches housing needs around the country. It may be that on occasion it works with a local marae in relation to its housing. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am sorry; I might have jumped in a bit early. I will do this now because it will help the Minister. I seek the leave of the House to table an email from the chief executive officer Helen Fulcher dated 11 August 2003 where she sets out the “two-world view” and how she is— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table two documents dated 28 May 2003 and 30 January 2003 that update the board of the Housing New Zealand Corporation on the development of the “two-world view”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the induction programme for professional development within the Housing New Zealand Corporation for new staff which includes the lesson plan for the “two-world view” that the Minister has just denied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that plan. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this another supplementary question? We would like to have the supplementary questions before we have the tabling. The member made a mistake. Dr Muriel Newman wants a supplementary question and she can have it. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: What is the Minister’s response to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s plan under its “two-world view” strategy to provide “interest free loans to hapu/iwi to establish their own rental portfolios”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will be aware that over a long period of time there has been such a thing as multiple ownership of Maori land. When we are dealing with that land we quite often work with the owners so that they can build new houses. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table a Housing New Zealand Corporation internal capability plan that sets out the risks and benefits of implementing a “two-world view”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that plan. Is there any objection? There is. 
Teachers—Professional Development and Curriculum Support 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on proposed changes to the provision of teacher professional development and support? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a suggestion that the entire allocation for teacher professional development and curriculum support should be scrapped. This proposal would affect thousands of teachers who are benefiting from professional development aimed at improving how they teach maths reading and writing with the ultimate benefits going to the children they teach. There would for example be no laptops for teachers no programmes aimed at reducing truancy no high-speed Internet access and no help for gifted children. It is very clear from Bill English’s proposal that he is out of touch with what is important in schools. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Does the Minister intend to adopt the suggestion that targeted funding for teacher professional development and curriculum support be abolished; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. Our Government is committed to raising education standards and that means investing money where it can make the biggest difference as opposed to the approach proposed by Mr English who said he would cut the $200 million that the ministry spends on professional development. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen a report from his own public agency the Education Review Office which states that half of new secondary teachers are ineffective and a third of new primary teachers are ineffective; and why does he not get on and fix the teachers who are in classrooms today in front of 20000 children instead of engaging in stupid political point-scoring? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government is working very hard with younger teachers and older teachers by supplying high-quality professional development to help literacy and numeracy in a way that the previous Government did not do. That is why our records are not as good as they should be. And National says it would scrap professional development! This is a Government for standards; that is an Opposition with no standards at all. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has spent $32.3 million on providing facilitators to help teachers in just 100 schools with professional development in literacy; that it is a complete failure; and that that is why he is refusing to release to me under the Official Information Act reports that confirm as much? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I cannot confirm that. I have abstained to date from giving incomplete reports to the member. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Will the Minister consider a shift in focus for the Teachers Council from processing teacher registrations to proactive evaluation of teacher quality including coordinating professional development and support; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I might at the point that I am convinced it is capable of doing it. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: What confidence does the Minister have in the Teachers Council the body supposedly entrusted with responsibility for teacher quality when the council has taken nearly 3 long years and has spent $95000 yet still has not completed its very first task which was to produce a code of ethics? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that the Teachers Council has not performed up to my expectations. 
Remand Prisoners—Police Custody 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What responsibility does he take for the supervision and safety of remand inmates in police cells? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Supervision and safety of prisoners in police cells are the responsibility of the district commander as set out in general police instruction P104. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Are security guards in police cells operating in accord with departmental instructions and under sworn officer supervision; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We do have people contracted to guard prisoners. I would remind the member that the police deal with some 120000 prisoners per annum on average and basically they do it pretty well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear. It requires a “Yes” or a “No” answer. It is pivotal to the issue. Are security guards in police cells operating in accord with departmental instructions and under sworn officer supervision? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A brief answer can be given to that part of the question. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: If they are not they are sent packing. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What has brought about the current prisoner situation in police cells? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: In a referendum in 1999 the people of New Zealand called for tougher sentences following 9 years of inaction by the previous National Government. We delivered on that. There are increased prisoner numbers because the Government has introduced tougher bail sentencing and parole legislation which is combined with strong improvement in police resolution rates. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister seen reports of senior police confirming that the police are too stretched to provide suitable supervision in accord with departmental instructions; and which Minister is responsible for the rapidly deteriorating situation in the country’s police cells with police reportedly now investigating an alleged rape an alleged sexual assault a security guard turning up drunk and another found smoking with inmates in the cells? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell that member that of course there are always—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell that member that from time to time there are instances of police assaulting people in police cells. I have one here dated 20 March 1996 an inquiry going back to 3 April 1995. There are always problems in police cells because of the nature of the people who go into police cells. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: If the woman allegedly raped while on remand in police custody was to receive reparation for her alleged rape under the Government’s newly announced policy would she have to give that money to her victims if she was convicted even if she was convicted of a much lesser offence? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not an area for which the Minister has responsibility. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 by Louisa Cleave about senior police talking about the fact that departmental instructions are not being followed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave of the House given that the Hon Phil Goff seemed keen to answer my question that he be allowed to give an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member must read the Standing Orders. No one can seek leave on behalf of anyone else. 
Kyoto Protocol—Reports 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What reports has he received on the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 I have received two reports over the weekend containing the welcome news that Russia intends to ratify bringing the protocol into force. Then yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand said he wishes to renounce the protocol and that he is uncomfortable even with the underlying science. His language is starting to approach that of a bewildered conspiracy theorist. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen reports regarding what overseas conservative Opposition leaders say on climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. The Conservative leader in Britain for example said last month with his simple clarity that: “Like the war on terror or the drive for responsible free trade no one can opt out of the fight against global warming.” 
Gordon Copeland 
: How does the Minister reconcile the Government’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and the tax on carbon with the necessity to generate much-needed electricity through projects such as that of Mighty River Power to retrofit the Marsden Point power station using coal; and does the Government have plans to overcome that conflict so that the project can proceed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The idea of a carbon charge is so that anyone who emits carbon dioxide pays for it. The end result of any carbon charge would be that renewable energies would be preferred over thermal energies all other things being equal. It will not stop thermal generation. It will just mean that the people who undertake it will pay for their pollution. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What risks does he see to business and consumer certainty and long term to the economy from threats to cancel a carbon charge and welsh on international responsibilities; and given the grave threat of climate change to our economy is it not time for a bipartisan or even multipartisan approach in the interests of New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One would hope so. Given that the person who signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was one Rob Storey from the National Party and that the person who signed the Kyoto Protocol was one Simon Upton one would have hoped for some consistency from the Opposition. 
Reserve Bank—Cash Rate 
9.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his recent statement regarding the official cash rate: “The bank has indicated the near certainty of one more move and then one or two more after that if one reads their published statements”; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes the Minister of Finance has read their statements. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister telling the mortgage payers of New Zealand that floating rates are going up three more times this year to 9 percent; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am telling this House that the Minister of Finance has read the latest Monetary Policy Statement appendix 1 page 25. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What are the Reserve Bank’s published statements that Dr Cullen based his comment upon? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The latest Monetary Policy Statement appendix 1 page 25 shows the 90-day bill rate rising by a further 50 basis points to 6.75 percent by the first half of next year. The 90-day bill track is generally interpreted by economists as indicative of the official cash rate track. I would also note that the futures market is pricing an official cash rate of 6.75 percent by the end of this year. I say—not on behalf of the Minister this time—that the Minister can read. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister know that he has told the House that the official cash rate is going to 6.75 percent—it happens to be 6.25 percent today so three more moves will take us to 7 percent; does the Minister understand simple official cash rate documents? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I suggest that the member read the comments made by the Minister of Finance where he said “two or three.” The member should know the difference between 2.5 percent and 3 percent. If he does not he is stupid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment from the Minister was out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
John Key 
: Is the Minister of Finance going to continue this habit of blurting out interest rate hikes before the Governor of the Reserve Bank has had the chance to announce them himself; if so why when and how often? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister of Finance did not blurt out the official cash rate track. What the Minister of Finance did was comment on page 25 of the latest Monetary Policy Statement. I would have thought the member as Opposition spokesperson on finance and someone who has made a lot of money out of junk bonds would know how to read it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows that he made a statement in the middle of all that which was out of order. I will not have it repeated. The Minister knows that that is not correct and he will withdraw and apologise immediately. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know that I made such a statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I do—in relation to the income of Mr John Key. I want the member to withdraw that comment and apologise for it and I do not want it repeated. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If it was the comment relating to the income source of the member that is something that is on record and it is something that the member himself did not object to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. It is a personal reflection on the member. I do not appreciate it at all. The Minister is now severely cautioned. I do not want to have to send him out because he has another question to answer but if he does make any other comment in that regard that is the end of the matter. 
Economy—Fuel Prices 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any advice on the long-term effect of increased fuel prices on the economic well-being of this country; if so what was that advice? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury advice is that a sustained increase in world oil prices could subtract 0.5 percent from world growth with obvious flow-on effects for New Zealand. The impact in the short term however has been masked by the high exchange rate and high commodity prices. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister even consider postponing the proposed price hike stipulated in the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill which increases petrol prices by 5.6c per litre from next April because he must be aware that for some people out there petrol prices are financially crippling; and does he remember that he is a representative of a party that advocates for the working people? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Working people in New Zealand like having roads to drive on. Every cent raised by this increase will go to easing congestion: $94 million for roading particularly for severely congested roads; $30 million for roads in regions—the first time that that has been a dedicated area—$30 million for rail and other alternatives to roading; and $36 million for public transport. The people of New Zealand want to get around and I do not understand why New Zealand First opposes that. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Government have a long-term energy strategy to help to address uncertainties over oil supply and price? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes the Government has a comprehensive strategy to address these issues. On the supply side we have introduced incentives for oil and gas exploration and on the demand side we are moving to encourage energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that it will assist our long-term economic well-being including that of working people to invest revenue from increased fuel prices in building sustainable transport infrastructure such as public transport rail and coasting shipping before oil prices rise so far that it becomes too expensive to do this? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and that is why the Government is heading in that direction with the support of the Greens on that particular package. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister had any concerns whatsoever expressed to him by the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Jim Anderton in regard to fuel costs and proposed increases—noting that that Minister once described himself as the “Minister for Low Petrol Prices” or some such term? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance I regret that the Acting Minister of Finance has not been briefed on that particular issue. 
Resource Management Act—Candidates for Non-local Decision-making 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for the Environment 
: Was a list titled “Possible candidates for non local decision-making under the RMA” attached to a draft Cabinet paper in June; if so why did he reportedly deny the existence of this list when it was requested under the Official Information Act 1982 in August this year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No such list was attached to any draft Cabinet paper. I am advised that a list entitled “Possible candidates for non local decision-making under the RMA” has never been attached to a Cabinet paper draft or otherwise. However I am further advised that a list with that title which had been compiled by the Ministry of Economic Development for other purposes was erroneously included in a Ministry for the Environment draft Resource Management Act discussion paper while that paper was in the process of being written. I am informed that it remained in that draft document between 21 and 24 June 2004 before it was removed from the draft document because in the view of the ministry it was misleading as to the Government’s view about any of these projects. Finally I am advised that the discussion document was finalised on 24 June and did not contain any such list. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister sign a letter on 20 September stating: “No specific list of major projects has been prepared under the RMA review” and furthermore why did an email from his office state: “Neither the Minister nor the ministry holds a list of projects suitable for non local government decision-making” when I have here a paper dated 24 June with no draft or anything else attached to it on ministry letterhead listing 59 projects and titled quite specifically “Possible candidates for non local decision-making under the RMA”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The official information request from the Forest and Bird Protection Society asked for—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members would keep quiet they would hear the answer. People have asked the Minister to speak up and I now ask Opposition members to keep quiet while the answer is being given. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Official Information Act request from the Forest and Bird Protection Society asked for—and I quote from its letter—“A list held by the Government of major or infrastructure projects that could be suitable for the non local decision-making process outlined in the officials paper on the RMA review.” I have just said very clearly that the list that was referred to was neither titled in those terms nor— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it was. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to the member that semantics and the exact meaning of words are important. If that member paid some attention to the actual meaning of words he would not be wasting so much money settling defamation cases out of court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comments made by the Minister were out of order and he will withdraw them. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw. 
Tim Barnett 
: What solutions has the Government come up with to assist local communities when they are considering large or complex consent applications that might potentially—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr English that this is the one warning today. I will not have interjections while questions are being asked. I am being quite generous because I think it might have been the second but I will reconsider that next time. The member can now ask the question. He can start the question again. 
Tim Barnett 
: What solutions has the Government come up with to assist local communities when they are considering large or complex consent applications that might potentially be overwhelming? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government is proposing a menu of solutions to support local decision-making. They include central government providing information about any national interest through a submission on a proposal funding an independent coordinator to ensure processes are run effectively directing that an application be heard jointly by councils if more than one council must give consent and also the use of the existing call-in mechanisms in the current law. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did his office yesterday state to the New Zealand Press Association that the list of major projects had nothing to do with the Resource Management Act review—and I also refer to his answer to my earlier question that there was nothing in the paper about the Resource Management Act review—when the list of projects is titled “Possible candidates for non-local decision-making under the RMA”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Because it does not. I repeat that the list was compiled some time ago by the Ministry of Economic Development. The list was both speculative and outdated. If Dr Smith looked at the list he would notice that at least three of the projects on that list have already received their resource consents under existing legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this in order to table something? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. Because of the answer from the Minister I seek leave of the House to read exactly what the Ministry for the Environment paper states. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to read that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Do the existence of the list which includes some prisons and the Minister’s announced policies on call-in suggest that the Minister has now adopted the National Party’s policy as outlined by Don Brash a couple of months ago of removing appeal rights against prisons; if so how will he explain to the public that he proposes to take away their appeal rights against this long list of major projects that could be bulldozed through their communities? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The answer to the first question is no. I will add only that there is considerable capacity for ongoing public input and contribution on that matter indeed including as part of that select committee process which that member will chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister expecting this House and the people of New Zealand to believe that his denial of the existence of that document—not once not twice but again in the House today—was anything other than a deliberate attempt to hide the most embarrassing of the documents prepared in the course of the Resource Management Act review? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have never denied the existence of a list of major infrastructure projects. It is part of the job of the Government to monitor such economic activity. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can he say that he has never denied the existence of such a document when his letter of 20 September states: “I am advised that no specific list of major projects suitable for non-local decision-making process has been prepared as part of the RMA review process. My office therefore holds no such list.” and furthermore an email that was sent from his office stated that neither the Minister nor the Ministry for the Environment held a list of projects suitable for non-local decision-making? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: At the end of the question I will seek leave to table both the Official Information Act request from the Forest and Bird Protection Society and my reply. It will be a matter of public record. There is no contradiction in the statements that have been made in those two letters. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister having been caught not once not twice but three times being less than truthful about the information— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use that phrase. He will withdraw and apologise and he will then ask the question without that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. Will the Minister having been caught not once not twice but three times denying the existence of the list as part of a Ministry for the Environment paper follow the example of Lianne Dalziel and resign as he should? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As I have just said there is no inconsistency in either the written or oral statements that have been made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table a paper from the Ministry for the Environment dated 24 June 2004 titled “Package of improvements to the RMA” and notably attachment 2 which includes a list of 59 projects— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Official Information Act request of 12 August the letter from Mr David Benson-Pope and the email from his staff member denying the existence of the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those three documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the Official Information Act request from the Forest and Bird Protection Society to my office on this matter and the second is my reply. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Dioxin—Exposure 
12.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does he have confidence in the advice provided by health officials about the health effects of dioxin; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes because they have provided sound advice on this issue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he agree with the statement by the chair of the Ministry of Health expert advisory group on dioxins reported in the  
Daily News 
 in New Plymouth that “Children excrete dioxin very quickly.” implying that even if children are exposed to dioxin there would be no risks to their health? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Although as a mere politician I am reluctant to get into the technical details and debate with an expert—and those people are experts; that is why they were appointed—I know that dioxin is excreted from the bodies of children and adults. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that he has already said in an answer to a question from me that it takes up to 8 years or more for a child’s dioxin levels to return to normal after the child has been breastfed by a mother with elevated dioxin levels why has the ministry made no effort to correct that false information provided to the people of New Plymouth when it has spent 2 weeks and thousands of dollars on preparing a media strategy on the release of the dioxin tests; in other words why is there a double standard between on the one hand the enormous effort to manage the release of a report that shows cause for concern and on the other hand the lack of any attempt to correct misinformation that falsely downplays the risk to children? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I do not think we have ever at any stage downplayed the risk to children but it is important that we do not overplay the risk to children. It has been identified in a group of 24 people tested in a study so far that they do have higher levels of dioxin. I am not aware of how many of those are breastfeeding their children but if that is the case I am sure they have had adequate medical advice on that situation. We have moved very very quickly as soon as we have had sound knowledge in this area. But it is important that we have good accurate information and that we do not falsely alarm people when it is not necessary. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that it takes 15 years for a child’s dioxin levels to return to normal after it has been breastfed does the Minister not think it is misleading to say that children excrete dioxin very quickly and why is the ministry’s 0800 number telling people that dioxin is not transferred in breast milk when even its own website admits that it is and why is the Government’s expensive communications campaign— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has already had two parts to that supplementary questions that started with “given that” which is out of order. That is enough. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I believe that the member has referred to two different time frames for the excretion of dioxin from children. I am not sure which one is correct but any level of dioxin in children would depend upon the amount of breastfeeding they have had in their upbringing and the level of dioxin in a parent. It is hard to say what a normal level of dioxin is. The objective of this Government and of the Ministry of Health of course is to have the very lowest level and in fact to eliminate dioxin from the body. That is not possible because it is in most normal diets. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is the Government’s expensive communications campaign spreading that sort of misleading information about the health risks of dioxin and does he agree that those sorts of misleading comments give the impression that the ministry is continuing its 30-year campaign to downplay and deny the risks of dioxin instead of being upfront and honest about them? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We do not have misleading campaigns. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 During this question the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations stated that the 1992 transfer between the Minister of Conservation and the TuwharetoaMaori Trust Board of the Lake Taupo lake bed also included the airspace above the lake. I did not pursue that matter because I thought it was worth looking at the deed before doing that. We have now been able to locate a copy of the deed and the question I would have asked the Minister was where in this deed such a transfer of airspace was made. I seek the leave of the House to ask that question of the Minister now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the agreement transferring the lake bed of Lake Taupo to Tuwharetoa in 1992 which does not show any transfer of airspace. 
Document not tabled. 
Questions to Members 
Justice and Electoral Committee—Civil Union Bill 
1.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee 
: Were any submitters to the Civil Union Bill who asked to give an oral submission incorrectly coded as having not requested to appear before the committee; if so how many? 
TIM BARNETT (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee) 
: 
 So far as the committee and its staff are aware one submission out of the 6236 received by the committee was incorrectly coded leading to the submitter not being offered an opportunity to be heard by the committee. 
Murray Smith 
: Can he confirm that apart from any submitters denied a hearing due to administrative error the committee has heard all submitters who requested to be heard; if so is he prepared to recommend to the committee that submitters who asked to be heard should not be denied the right given to everyone else simply because they were the subject of an error entirely outside their control; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question can be asked of the member but he answers as chairperson of the committee and of course he cannot answer on behalf of the committee. 
TIM BARNETT 
: I can confirm that during the process of hearing evidence the committee heard 352 submissions. As the member well knows the committee has no obligation to hear every submitter who requests to make an oral presentation although we aspire to do so. At any stage the member could have provided committee staff or myself as chair of the committee with details of submitters who had approached him concerned that their desire to be heard had not been acted on. He has not done that. The committee has now completed its hearing of submissions. 
Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee—Member's Submission 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Did he consult with the committee’s independent specialist adviser outside of the committee meeting over which submitters would appear; if not was the decision on whether Nanaia Mahuta would appear left to the specialist adviser? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the chairperson of the committee advise the committee that he was consulting the specialist independent adviser over whether Nanaia Mahuta would appear? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: No. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Was it the chairperson who decided whether Nanaia Mahuta would appear or was it the specialist adviser? Which? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: The specialist adviser made the decision. The committee first of all selected submitters on the basis of a set of criteria agreed upon then committee members were asked from time to time to forward any additional names. That was done including some from Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the specialist adviser is making decisions of this magnitude why does the member not just resign from the chairmanship and indeed from Parliament as the people of Napier would have him do? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not relevant to the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a difficulty that we have from yesterday concerning today’s answers. Mr Fairbrother was asked by Dr Wayne Mapp whether he had consulted with a specialist adviser. The answer from Mr Russell Fairbrother was: “As much as he consulted with Dr Wayne Mapp.” We have just had an answer that is inconsistent with the answer given yesterday and I suggest through you that the appropriate thing for Mr Fairbrother to do is to immediately take a point of order to explain his answer and to correct it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a debating matter and not a point for me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect to your call that Mr Peters’ question was inappropriate the second part of it may well have been inappropriate but the first part was very relevant. The question asked why this man is staying in the chair of the select committee when clearly he is not the person making decisions about procedures that the select committee follows. It seems that for the chairman of a select committee to say that the decision to hear a particular submitter was made by the adviser and presumably after some plea being made by the adviser to the chair suggests that he is not in control of that committee and it is a fair question to ask why he is still in the chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had stopped halfway through the question it would have been in order. He rendered it out of order by what he said after that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case I seek leave to re-put the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right. The member seeks leave to re-put his question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Holidays Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their diligent work on the bill in the short time frame that they were presented with. The minor amendments that they have recommended to the bill further ensure that the unintended consequences of the Holidays Act 2003 are removed. I note that the bill addresses only the unintended consequences of the Holidays Act and that the Government’s core policies in this area have not changed. The underlying policy of the Holidays Act was to give all employees basic minimum rights to holidays and sick and bereavement leave. 
The Government remains committed to ensuring employees are guaranteed an additional payment for working on a public holiday. Most New Zealanders think this is fair. We also are bringing in 4 weeks’ annual leave from 2007 to bring us in line with our key trading partners notably Australia which has had 4 weeks’ annual leave for about 30 years. I point out to the House that the National Party has pledged to remove the right to 4 weeks’ annual leave notwithstanding the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had 4 weeks’ annual leave as of right when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
However putting that aside there have been concerns about the implementation of the Holidays Act and in July this year I established a working-group to look at the issues and discuss how the Act could be amended to remove any actual or potential unintended consequences. The working-group consisted of employer and union organisation representatives as well as some large employers. I commend the working-group for the constructive approach taken by all participants despite their varied interests. 
The bill amends the requirement for an employee to be paid time and a half on a public holiday to ensure that the employee is not paid this on top of an amount already designed to compensate for working on a public holiday or a particular day of the week. This amendment will prevent double-dipping. In response to concerns from submitters the select committee has also clarified that payments for a sixth or seventh day of work or other similar payments are not considered payments for a public holiday or a particular day of the week. This formulation will mean that employers are fairly remunerated with a minimum entitlement of time and a half while preventing a windfall for employees who already receive a superior entitlement under their employment agreement. 
The Holidays Act provided for situations where an employer has in the past incorporated public holiday penal rates into an employee’s regular or composite pay rate. The Act currently allows employers to pay for work on a public holiday with the employees’ regular pay until 1 April 2005 to give the parties time to determine whether the penal component of the pay rate has been included. The bill proposed to extend this transitional provision for collective agreements until the later date of either 1 April 2007 or the date when a replacement collective agreement comes into force. In addition the bill now provides with recommendations back from the committee that where individual employment agreements incorporate public holiday penal rates in the employees’ regular pay these employees can also be paid on this basis until 1 April 2007. 
The bill clarifies the position regarding an employee who is sick or bereaved on a public holiday. The bill provides that the day will be treated as an unworked public holiday rather than as sick or bereavement leave and the employee will not receive any extra payment of time and a half or a paid day in lieu. This change addresses a significant area of concern and was well received by submitters to the select committee. 
At present an employer may seek proof of sickness or injury if an employee has been absent for 3 consecutive days. The bill entitles the employer to seek proof of sickness within the 3-day period where the employer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine informs the employee as early as possible and bears the cost of obtaining the proof. The bill now clarifies that an employee is entitled to visit a doctor of his or her choice to obtain proof of sickness as an employer does not have the right to direct the employee as to which doctor he or she must visit. The select committee also considered that employers should not be required to pay for any unnecessary expenses incurred by the employee in obtaining proof of sickness. Therefore the employer will now be required to pay only the employee’s reasonable expenses in obtaining the proof. 
Some submitters expressed concern that an employee may be unable to provide proof because he or she may not be able to afford to or because a dependant refuses to go to a doctor. Under the Act an employer is not required to pay an employee for sick leave if the employee does not provide the proof. In response to that the select committee considered that the bill should be amended to provide that an employer does not have to pay an employee for sick leave if the employee unreasonably fails to provide proof. 
To conclude the bill retains the integrity of the Holidays Act and its emphasis on ensuring basic holiday leave sick leave and bereavement leave entitlements for employees. At the same time the bill makes some changes to clarify areas of uncertainty and to accommodate legitimate employer concerns about how particular aspects of the Act may be impacting unfairly on employers. I congratulate the select committee and the people who made submissions. It was a short period of time and the select committee has come back with a very good piece of work. 
I am very keen to hear from the Opposition spokesperson whether the National Party still continues to pursue its policy of pledging to remove the right to 4 weeks’ annual leave which will come into force on 1 April 2007. That of course was a right that the Leader of the Opposition had when he himself was the Governor of the Reserve Bank. If that is the case the member should know that there will be a campaign based along the lines of this statement: “The Leader of the Opposition wants to take a holiday—everyone else’s.” I recommend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This Holidays Amendment Bill is an enormous missed opportunity. It is as if the house is falling down and Labour’s response is merely to straighten the furniture. The Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee know full well that the major grievance with the Holidays Act relates to a new concept introduced into that Act and known as relevant daily pay. That was a concept introduced after all submissions had been heard last year that was invented by officials. The problem is that people can actually end up getting paid more when they are sick or on holiday than when they are working. That is an absurdity and it is exactly the problem that every submitter from business had with this legislation. 
Why is that the case? It is because section 9 of the Holidays Act defines relevant daily pay as the ordinary pay a person would have received plus productivity bonuses incentive-based payments payments for overtime and the cash value of any board and lodging. All those things added on top of ordinary pay can mean that a person who is on sick leave or on holiday will get more than someone working. That is the absurdity that Business New Zealand wants to fix. Businesses right across this country want to fix that. 
What is particularly serious about it is that the Government inserted that provision at the very last possible moment knowing full well there was no possibility of people making submissions on it. That is the flaw that people want to fix. We in this House all know that that kind of legislation is visited only now and then. This was the opportunity for the Government to fix that particular problem and it chose not to do so. 
The facts speak for themselves. There has been an enormous increase in the numbers of sick-leave days being taken. For instance in the Riverlands meat plants sick leave alone has cost an extra $6.5 million per year and members should remember that the legislation has been in force only since April of this year. That is a huge increase—way more than any additional week’s leave might be. Air New Zealand the Government-owned airline felt that in its annual report it had to bring directly to the attention of the Government the fact that the increased costs due to the Holidays Act—which can all be pinned to that concept of relevant daily pay—were an extra $17. 5 million. That is 5 percent of its payroll. Those are enormous increases that no one in business could have reasonably expected to plan for. 
At the select committee business submitter after business submitter made it very very clear that that was the problem they wanted fixed. Mr Carlaw was actually asked whether he would sooner have the minor tinkering with the legislation that the Minister referred to as being done by Labour weekend or a proper review dealing with the problems arising out of relevant daily pay. Mr Carlaw was very clear: he would sooner scrap this bill and deal with a proper review. When given the clear choice that is what he wanted. Well the union officials—otherwise known as Labour members of Parliament—sitting on that select committee— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: All of them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—all of them—simply ignored that. Their response is to shift the furniture whilst the house falls down around their ears. 
 The Government I guess thought that business would embrace this bill. Government members have gone out and said: “We’re here to help.” But when given the choice business has said: “Don’t do this. Fix it properly.” and that is the heart of the problem. 
One of the facts that was brought to our attention was the case of Heinz-Wattie. In that case due to the way the relevant daily pay works an employee could receive a rate of $82 per hour—four times more than his or her ordinary rate. That is extraordinary! The problem is not fixed in this bill I might add. The problem was all to do with relevant daily pay but the Government again just ignored that kind of submission. This bill is an enormous missed opportunity. As I said there are not many opportunities to fix those kinds of problems and the Government has blown it. 
I said at the outset that the problem with relevant daily pay is that it can pay one more to be sick than to work. How would that actually happen? If we picture a meat trader—and the Meat Exporters Council brought this evidence directly to the select committee—we know that chains work on the basis of people being there who are able to fulfil productivity and incentive bonuses. They do the work and they get the money. It is pretty straightforward and pretty simple. The relevant daily pay is based on previous 4-week averages. So if workers are sick they get the effects of the previous 4 weeks’ productivity incentives overtime and so on and so forth. But what happens when the chain is so short of people that the people at work cannot achieve the productivity incentive on a particular day? Well they will not get the productivity incentive but the person who is sick will get it. 
That is the problem that was clearly and directly brought to the Government in evidence by responsible people yet the Government has chosen to ignore it. In fact it went out and defended the concept of relevant daily pay and seemed to think it reasonable that people should be paid more for being sick—or for being on a holiday—than for working. How on earth can that be justifiable? 
The facts speak for themselves. Most industries have 10 or more days available for sick leave through their various agreements and in every industry there has been an enormous upsurge in sick-leave days being taken. What happens is that in many cases they are taken on Mondays—surprise surprise! Some people have heard the phrase “taking a sickie”. Well that is what is happening. We know the truth of the situation. When there is such an enormous increase in sick leave being taken it is not a coincidence. It is because the legislation passed by the Government last year has incentivised that kind of behaviour. 
This Government had an opportunity to fix the problem. It refused to take that opportunity and we will see rort after rort in certain industries. There will be a greater increase seen in the so-called Mondayisation of sick leave which we all know to be a rort. Every New Zealander has heard the phrase “taking a sickie” but the Government has passed law to encourage precisely that behaviour. That is not the action of a responsible Government; it is the action of an irresponsible Government. It had the opportunity to fix it but it refused to. That is negligence. That is incompetence. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There will be another one. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No there will not be another bill. This Government believes in that kind of incompetence and negligence and we are opposed to this appalling legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. It is interesting to follow on from Dr Mapp who finished his address by talking about what the Opposition believed in. I guess that although this bill is only a technical bill that corrects any unintended consequences from the Holidays Act of last year as the Minister of Labour has rightly said it does come down to quite a big difference between the philosophy and the beliefs of members on the Government side of the House and what the National Party would believe. 
We know that even though this bill does not address the issue of 4 weeks’ leave for example—the principal Act does that—Dr Brash who comes down to the Chamber to lead the National Party Opposition on measures like this bill that improve the lot of workers is one of the people who like to take 4 weeks’ leave themselves. I ask whether there is a National Party member in the House today who would pledge to take only 3 weeks’ holiday next year. I ask Dr Mapp that question: will he take 3 weeks’ holiday next year or will he take more than that? I know he will take more than that. Every single one of the 27 incompetent lazy hopeless National Party Opposition members of Parliament will take the maximum number of holidays for themselves and then deny 4 weeks’ holiday as a minimum for other people in this country because those people do not do the jobs of members of Parliament. National Party members say other workers are not entitled to that. So the issue is about a fundamental difference between the Labour Party members of Parliament supported by other parties in the House and what the National Party believes in. 
I want Dr Brash to say— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How many days do you get at your school? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Well of course at university one gets 6 months’ annual leave when the amount is considered completely and altogether. But this legislation is for workers. We are limiting them to just 4 weeks and that is probably a bit tough in some regards when one compares it in that way. But the issue is not just that Dr Brash gets 4 weeks’ minimum leave now as a member of Parliament. I think that he should come down to the House and tell members what he got when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Dr Brash is going all around the place and saying that there are too many people working in the State sector. What was he doing before this job? He was a public sector employee himself. I think that he should tell us what was in his employment agreement because I tell the House that I will bet it was more than 4 weeks’ holiday. I bet that Dr Brash took more than 4 weeks’ holiday himself when he was a worker. [ 
Interruption 
] That is confirmed by his No. 3. Mr Power says that Dr Brash did take more than 4 weeks’ holiday when he had that job as Governor of the Reserve Bank and now those members oppose that being provided for other workers. 
So as my friend and colleague the Minister of Labour has said with this bill we are to correct some unintended consequences of the Act which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has looked at. But the principles that this party is committed to in Government about fairness security and equity for workers are well upheld. I support the bill because I support workers in this country getting at least the same holidays as members of Parliament get. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member who has just resumed his seat but I have to tell him because he obviously does not know this that there is no mention of 4 weeks’ holiday in this current bill. That all went through in the Holidays Act of 2003. 
Simon Power 
: Is the member’s party abstaining? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Power that in due course he will get our answer. Let me make New Zealand First’s position clear. We support people in this country getting 4 weeks’ leave particularly low-paid people who have been on 3 weeks for umpteen years while Australia has had 4 weeks’ leave for— 
Hon Member 
: Since 1972. 
PETER BROWN 
: Since 1972? I can hardly remember back as far as that I am so young. We are supportive of that provision which comes into force in 2007. We are quite comfortable with that part of the principal Act. We are also comfortable with low-paid workers in particular being paid time and a half for working on a public holiday. We find nothing wrong with that. Again our Australian cousins across the Tasman have been doing that for quite some time. 
Having said that I say we made some real blunders in the principal Act. When I say “we” I mean the parties that voted for the Holidays Bill. We voted in relevant daily pay we voted in almost unlimited sick leave which is out of control and unbeknown to ourselves we voted in a provision that somebody could be off sick on a public holiday and still be paid penal rates. That is absolutely stupid. New Zealand First welcomes this bill to tidy up the Act. In fairness to New Zealand First we did warn that it would not be very long before the Act came back to the House to be debated. We knew there were errors in the original bill but the errors are greater than we had foreseen. I suggest they are greater than most of the submitters foresaw also. The honourable Wayne Mapp outlined a very good case when he said that the Act had cost Air New Zealand $17 million—is that the figure? I was not aware until I heard the honourable member speak that that was 5 percent of its payroll. Is that correct? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s what they told me. 
PETER BROWN 
: Its representatives told you that privately. I do not remember Air New Zealand saying that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Seventeen point five million dollars is in the annual report. 
PETER BROWN 
: I knew the $17 million figure. That is a horrendous figure and therefore we are obliged for that reason alone to relook at the Act. 
I recall that when Simon Carlaw was pressed on whether he would prefer this bill to go through now or for us to leave the whole thing and tidy it up later on he did not sound terribly emphatic to me. He did not make that statement with any real conviction. I suggest to the honourable Wayne Mapp that most employers want some of this legislation to be tidied up forthwith particularly small employers. 
To answer the question Mr Power posed to me a little while back New Zealand First will support this bill for at least the next step. Having said that I advise members that we have real concerns over the relevant daily pay. We believe that that is not what we should base holiday payments on. That is in section 9 of the Act I think. It bases holiday pay on bonuses that are earned over an average period of 4 weeks from memory. We think that is too generous. We believe it will have to be reviewed again but that should not necessarily stop this bill from proceeding. If we can solve some of the errors in the Holidays Act then I think we should do that. But I say to the Minister the Hon Paul Swain—because I know he is listening intently—that the relevant daily pay clause in the Act and sick leave and bereavement leave are too generous and must be addressed. 
The question that we in New Zealand First posed to ourselves was whether we should support this bill knowing it is flawed until it can be tidied up. We asked whether we should support it thus far and tidy it up at a later stage whether we should abstain from voting and let it go through or whether we should try to halt its progress and tidy the whole thing up. I will say that again. The question New Zealand First posed to itself was whether it is better to tidy up some of the Act or better to—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank the honourable member but I will just say that we find ourselves in a catch-22 situation as to whether to tidy up the legislation partially—because we know there is more to be done—or to leave it and tidy it all up later on. We have come to the conclusion that we will support this bill going on to the Committee stage. I tell the Minister that we will make an effort to tidy up some of the concerns. Relevant daily pay is one such concern. From listening to Wayne Mapp I think he may have an idea of where that should go so if he wants to come up with some sort of position paper on it New Zealand First would be keen to look at it. We think that the relevant daily pay clause is awful in a nutshell and that it has to be tidied up. 
The second thing we believe is that people on a salary should be able to have a salary that has been freely negotiated between employer and employee and that does not take any cognisance at all of public holidays and what have you. I know that when I was— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is how ACT would like it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sometimes I agree with the honourable member. ACT is not totally wrong just wrong for 99.5 percent of the time. It is the luck of the draw that one will get something right sometimes; even ACT can manage that. We believe that people on a salary and executives in particular should have an all-embracing salary that accommodates them for working on a public holiday whether it is on every public holiday or some public holidays. I know that when I was the manager of a stevedoring company I was given a salary that I agreed with. I worked every hour that God made to be honest. I did not receive any extra remuneration for that—I did not ask for it—and I had no problems with regard to that at all. I believe that many New Zealanders would like a clean-cut employment contract just like that. They want a fair reward for doing the job required of them as and when it is required of them. 
 So those are two areas in particular that New Zealand First is keen to look at in the Committee stage. We think the relevant daily pay should not apply to public holidays. We believe that the pay for a public holiday should revolve around the hourly rate of pay plus any industry allowances on top of that plus any bonuses that are earned on that day—but not be multiplied by the factor of time and a half. If necessary and if the employer wants to be more generous he or she could establish an extra rate for working on a holiday. I know that has been done in the past and I presume that it has been done in recent times in some organisations. 
I repeat that New Zealand First is in a catch-22 situation. We do not like what the holidays legislation will be when this bill comes into force but it will be better than the legislation we have right now. So we are voting for this bill to proceed through to the Committee stage and we will reserve our decision as to how we will vote when we come to the third reading. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 There is a classic headline in the  
Dominion Post  
of 2 September of this year which states: “Unions retreat as Swain removes socialist edges of employment law”. The article goes on to state: “On Tuesday Mr Swain delivered the first leg of the double with a package of distinctly business-friendly measures on the Holidays Act.” I do not think it is exactly the unions that are retreating with regard to this bill. Rather I lay the blame firmly at the doorstep of the Labour Party which for some reason has found itself convinced by employers that certain measures must be taken to address unintended consequences of the Holidays Act that was so recently passed last year. Although the Green Party agrees that there is one unintended consequence in particular that is worthy of attention—an anomaly that may allow some workers to claim penal rates twice for working on a public holiday—we certainly do not accept that a core achievement of the Holidays Act in the area of obtaining proof of sickness or injury should be reversed. Labour last year boasted of the fact that finally with its new holidays legislation workers could not be required to produce a medical certificate until after they had been away for at least 3 days with a sickness or injury either to themselves or to their children or other dependants. This amending bill in effect partially reverses that erstwhile progressive measure by allowing employers to require staff to produce medical certificates during or after they have taken even 1 day off if the employer has so-called “reasonable grounds” to suspect that the sick leave that is being taken is not genuine. 
There is a whole raft of problems with this amendment. Firstly there is no clear proof that the kind of abuse this measure is aimed at is occurring on a greater scale than would happen anyway with or without the Act of 2003. Although the Council of Trade Unions has been assiduous in seeking hard evidence from employers as to whether an increased level of inappropriate sick leave is happening as far as I know none has been produced. Allegations based on hearsay have been bandied about but that is not the same as hard evidence of the widespread flouting of the rules and of the abuse of sick leave in that way. I do accept—and I have been an employer myself—that there will always be people who at times have a tendency to take Mondays or Fridays off as sick days for reasons that are not down to sickness or injury. Anyone who has ever worked on a big site or who has been an employer or manager knows that. But in fact with only 5 paid sick days a year there is a limit to how much the rules can be flouted. As well I believe that good employers have in the past treated this kind of problem and will continue to treat it in the future as a human resource issue by working with the staff member if there is a problem in order to try to see what is going wrong and if the problem persists by dealing with it through the normal and regular disciplinary procedures available to the employer. This age-old problem does not require a wholesale reversal of the Government policy on medical certificates. 
Secondly employers and the Government keep on talking about a pattern of behaviour that will lead employers to be suspicious of an employee’s absences from work. Like many union people I find it hard to imagine how much of a pattern of behaviour can be established by workers taking somewhere between 1 and 5 days’ sick leave. Has the Government considered how an employer will prove reasonable grounds after 1 2 or 3 days’ absence? From an employee’s point of view working one’s way through this labyrinth of definition and mistrust with an employer on the worksite will be possible barely if the worker has an active union to help advocate for him or her. But I despair of the ramifications of this new law for the 80 percent of our employed workforce who are not members of trade unions. I guess that one unforeseen consequence of all this from a big-business point of view may well be that more people will decide that it may make sense to join a union. 
A third problem with this amendment is that there will be real financial difficulties for workers who are required to provide proof of sickness or injury. Although the Government has at least seen fit to require employers in this situation to agree to meet employees’ reasonable expenses for obtaining such proof that does not address the fact that people are usually required to pay a doctor emergency centre or other provider upfront and will only be able to seek reimbursement later on. A huge number of workers in this country are on wages of somewhere between the adult minimum of a pitiful $9 an hour and around $12 to $13 an hour. Those people are trying to house feed clothe and generally support themselves and their families. Being required to pay up to $60 or more especially if it is on the weekend in order to get a medical certificate—or even the lower fees of $15 to $20 if they are lucky—will often simply not be possible. The money is not there. I do not know whether the people supporting this law change really understand what life is like on the margins. When will workers be paid back for the money that they have to front up with? That is if they can find it in the first place. What happens to them if they cannot afford to pay the doctor or clinic? Will they still be subject to disciplinary action for the non-production of proof of sickness or injury basically because they are poor? What if there is a dispute with the employer about the responsibility for costs later on? All of that creates a further unnecessary tangle and potential extra costs in terms of time money and compliance for both a staff member and an employer. 
I know that the Government’s response to that may well be to say that we now have primary health organisations everywhere which are offering lower charges. However it has become all too apparent that in some cases the primary health organisations are actually charging their patients as much if not more than their component doctors or medical practices were charging before joining the primary health organisation. 
A fourth area of concern for the Green Party is that this amendment covers not only the worker who is taking sick leave because of his or her own ill health but also people who take time off because they need to care for their sick or injured children. I wonder to what extent the Government has considered that aspect and the fact that sick children may have to be dragged off to the doctor to satisfy an employer’s suspicions even when they do not need to go and would be better to be tucked up safely in bed at home with mum or dad. One could end up with a nonsensical situation in which an ill child or a frail elderly dependant becomes subject to the costs and inconvenience of an unnecessary medical examination simply because his or her primary caregiver cannot risk not taking proof to the employer. What privacy rights will dependants have in relation to an employer with whom they have no connection reading medical certificates that relate to them? There is no clarity at all in the bill about who owns those medical certificates and what happens with the private health information that is held within them. 
The only good thing that can be said about this part of the bill as reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is that at least the Government has agreed to add a clause that specifies that an employer does not have the right to force an employee to see a company doctor rather than his or her own doctor. As the bill was first drafted we would have seen an even worse situation comparable with that which faces so many accident compensation claimants in which employers could require staff to see a doctor of the employer’s choice with even more alarming consequences than those we are left with this afternoon. However that mild improvement to the original amendment does not go anywhere near to justifying or ameliorating all its other negative impacts. The Green Party firmly believes that the clauses in this bill around proof of sickness or injury are inconsistent with the intentions of the Act and are simply an attempt by the Government to pacify some elements in the business community. 
Turning briefly again to the matter of penal rates we were pleased that the Government saw fit to amend new section 50 in order to clarify that the definition of penal rates includes payments only for particular days of the week or for public holidays and not payment for other days such as the sixth and seventh days of work. However that improvement like the one around allowing workers to see their own doctor rather than a company one is not enough to bring us to support the bill. Overall the Green Party does not see the need to amend the Act along those lines and does not think sufficient evidence has been brought forward to justify the changes. We will vote against this bill today and at all further stages of its progress through the House as we believe it introduces unnecessary retrograde and punitive measures especially in the area of sick leave that run counter to the intentions of not only the Holidays Act but also the Employment Relations Act. This bill unfortunately panders to a culture of distrust and suspicion found among a minority of employers. It is a real pity that Labour has chosen to head off in that direction despite the good moves in other employment legislation that is currently before the House. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Holidays Amendment Bill—and the ACT party recommends to the House that we do not vote for this bill. I will start with the point raised by Sue Bradford from the Greens with regard to medical notes. Of course it is the Green Party’s fault. They are the ones who wanted to have amendments introduced into employment law setting out various requirements with regard to medical certificates. For 50 years we have had no law on the matter and no problems at all. There is no need for the Government to start getting involved and telling employers and employees when they need to produce medical certificates. 
Sue Bradford 
: That was nothing to do with us. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I have heard the Green Party raving on about medical certificates and wanting the laws changed on that. The best law change would be to have no law at all. There was no problem prior to the “Green” Labour Party deciding that it had to tell employers and employees when or whether they should produce medical certificates. 
But let me turn to a second point—the major claim of the Government that this was an inadvertent mistake. Well that is interesting. The inadvertent mistake was that people could get paid double time on double time. I say that that is interesting because the Council of Trade Unions turned up to the select committee and said: “No it wasn’t. We always knew that that would be the intention.” Why is that interesting? Well one of the reasons it is interesting is that under the Official Information Act we now know that the original legislation was the result of secret talks between the Government and the Council of Trade Unions when they wrote the Holidays Amendment Bill. Only after that did they go through the sham—and I call it a sham—of asking the rest of the country what it thought about it. 
Employers warned the Government earlier this year. The ACT party warned the Government that it should not be passing a law of this sort. I agree with the Council of Trade Unions on this matter that this is another bungle by the Government and that it is not an unintended consequence. All that has happened is that the Government has found it impossible to publicly justify the fact that some people are able to receive what is really a very large sum of money indeed for working on a statutory holiday especially when their contract of employment contemplated that they would be working on that statutory holiday and they would be paid accordingly. I will give one example that I know of personally as a former Minister of Railways. When I was Minister of Railways— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: As if we could forget! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the member—he says that he remembers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He will be long remembered for that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the member. The railway engine drivers had their own union. They approached the railways and said that they would like to go on a salary and no longer wished to be paid penal rates for overtime shift work or for working on Christmas Day. That was a proposal from the union. Members might wonder why the union would make such a proposal. Well it had a very good reason. It had quite a good superannuation scheme—not quite as good as ours but quite a good superannuation scheme—which is fixed on their base pay. They worked out that if they lifted their base pay then their superannuation would be better and over their whole lifetime they thought they would be better off. 
The railways agreed to the proposal. Why was that? Because the actual cost of working out penal rates overtime triple rates on Christmas Day—and the engine drivers used to get paid all sorts of different things such as wet money etc.—ran into millions of dollars and the railways would be better off if all the employees went on a salary. Under this bill even though those engine drivers voluntarily agreed to be paid an extra amount of money and that they would not be paid those payments along has come a Labour Government and said: “We override those freely entered into agreements and rail must now pay penal rates at Christmas time even though the engineers are getting paid a higher base rate because of what they gave up.” That story is repeated time and time again right through our shift-work industries. 
But there is another matter that is even more serious. The select committee is very ideological. The Labour members on the select committee are all former trade union officials of one sort or another. The select committee without consultation after it had heard submissions changed the whole basis of holiday pay which has been fixed in New Zealand for more than 60 years from ordinary time which we all know to a concept called “relative day’s pay”. What is a relative day’s pay? Well one goes back over the previous 4 weeks and works out all the penal payments that a person might have received including for example a payment for attending and that is put into the sick day or the day off on a statutory holiday. 
The effect of that is not that some people get paid more for staying at home; it is actually that all people do. The reason that they do is that it costs something to go to work and when that cost is deducted one is under the law now always better off to have a sickie. When we consider the shift-work industries like the meatworks and like Wattie’s—crucial export industries—the effect of establishing this on a relative day’s pay has actually been devastating—and I do use the word “devastating”. 
One example was given to us by Wattie’s which said that it had a worker—in this case it did not think he was trying to work the system—who went off sick just after he had received his 4 weeks’ production bonus. The result of that was that a worker who normally gets paid $16 an hour got paid $38 an hour for being sick. If he had turned up to work that day he would have been paid $16 an hour. But by not going to work he got $38 an hour. 
We were then told—as we were told by the meat industry—that people have worked out that there are certain days like just after they have received a bonus on which if they do not come to work they can get twice as money as they would get if they did go to work. Human beings being human beings are suddenly discovering they are sick. We have just heard the Green Party repeating the Labour Party line and saying that in the meat industry there has been no evidence of this sort of behaviour. The meat industry which is still our biggest export industry says that since April—that is not long ago—sick days have gone up more than 70 percent. Because sick days cost more they have gone up—they have doubled—and that is in only 6 months. 
We understand how human beings are. In fact this is an invitation for people to be sick on days when they can get paid double as in the example I gave. We are crippling those industries. Carter Holt Harvey which is the second-largest company in New Zealand has told us that its average employee has 100 days’ sick leave due. How is that firm even supposed to enter the contingency costs now? Under the relative day’s pay they cannot work it out. What it has worked out is that this is a statement by the Government to an international company like Carter Holt Harvey which has not invested at all in any job in New Zealand under Labour that it ought to move to Australia or somewhere else. One hundred days’ pay on average is owed to every single worker at Carter Holt Harvey and under this proposal its sickness bill has just doubled. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars. 
I say to the Government that we should reject this bill. It is better to get holiday pay fixed up than it is to pass a bill that is fixing up only a small part of what is a very substantial problem. This Labour Government which boasts that it is business friendly and boasts that it is doing well has actually passed a bill that will cripple our export industries. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which will be supporting this bill. United Future did not support the original Holidays Bill mainly because we foresaw a lot of the challenges that we are dealing with today. But I give credit to the Hon Paul Swain for seeing some of the issues that are a real challenge to business and industry at the moment and addressing them. I address what Wayne Mapp said by saying that as an employer yes I would rather have this minor tampering now than wait another few years to get the whole issue addressed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That’s not what they say. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: It is what they say. The member is not speaking to the right people. What I believe we are now able to deal with in an employer-employee relationship is genuine sickness because an employer has the ability to ask for a medical certificate from the person who is taking the sick leave. I disagree with Sue Bradford when she says that we are doing this because of a few dishonest employers. I think that for every dishonest employer there are probably 25 dishonest employees when it comes to sick pay. I agree with Peter Brown that employers should be free to agree to a salary that would include days that workers would have to work on public holidays. 
This bill I agree is by no means perfect. There are many areas that need to be addressed. I refer to the motor industry as an example. It is an industry I am involved in. Commissioned sales people sell on a 7-day-a-week basis. They may have a retainer that they are paid of say $10000 per annum but their annual income over a year may be $100000. 
 When it comes to the relevant daily pay for working on a public holiday this becomes a huge cost to those employers yet they still have to pay the same amount of commission to those salespeople for the product that they sell on that particular day whereas the person who takes on that job well knows that the major part of his or her income will be derived from what he or she sells. 
So yes there are certain problems like that. But on the other side of that coin I agree that it should be based on ordinary pay rather than relevant daily pay. Let us have a look at an example where we have a genuine worker who relies on the pay from working on a special day such as a statutory holiday or whatever it may be and is genuinely sick on that day. That person knows that on that particular day he or she would normally get a substantial increase in his or her take-home pay. 
If people are genuinely sick on that day—and I believe that this brings in checks and balances for the employer to be able to check that they are genuinely sick—I personally think it is more than fair that people get that to which they would normally have been entitled. Personally I believe that most good employers respect their staff and especially in the small-business industry they do intend to try to look after them. I have found many times when I have spoken to employers that even when workers have run out of their sick leave entitlement if they have been genuinely sick employers take the well-being of their workers’ wives and families upon themselves many times. I know in many many cases that employers pay sick pay if there is genuine sickness. 
United Future believes that this is a step in the right direction. We are a common-sense party. When we see legislation that is at least stepping in the right direction we will not be so ideological that we will throw the baby out with the bath water. This legislation is heading the legislation back in the right direction and as such United Future is pleased to support it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in favour of this bill. It is about correcting an unintended consequence that may have arisen out of the original drafting of the bill. Let me restate that the Government remains committed to the principle that if people work on a public holiday they deserve to get some recompense for that and of course we are here to defend the principle that 4 weeks’ annual leave should be a minimum for all workers not just parliamentarians. 
This bill brings to the House the work of a joint working-group of employers and unions that was set up to look at issues arising out of the Holidays Act. It found an unintended consequence and it is the same consequence that the National Party had objected to. The bill corrects it and so National opposes it. Let me say that again. There is an unintended consequence that National objects to; the bill corrects it so National opposes it. It seems to me that that is proof positive as if anybody in this House and indeed anybody in the nation needed another demonstration that National has a political death wish. National knows that most New Zealanders are proud of the spirit of fairness and decency that says a person who is a wage labourer with a family deserves 4 weeks’ holiday in the same way that some upper middle-class— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There is nothing to do with the 4 weeks in this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We are defending the 4 weeks principle and we are making sure that it works as intended. This bill corrects an unintended consequence that the party the member belongs to objected to—and he opposes the bill. Mr Williamson is without logic not unusually on this point. National Party members get themselves deeper and deeper into trouble. They cannot help themselves. They oppose provisions that are harmonised with Australia’s yet they go on about wanting harmonisation with Australia. Aussies get 4 weeks’ annual leave. But Don Brash said he would repeal that. That is part of the reason National opposes this bill as well. 
I say ladies and gentlemen members and the listening public the National members are contradicting themselves and like possums in the headlights they can see the third term of the Government coming at them. They have a political death wish and they are proving that again today. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 That was indeed an amazing speech. When the Minister started he said that he would only be brief. He actually was not brief in terms of my clock but his content was incredibly brief. He talked about a bill that has nothing to do with this. This is about a “Holidays (Fixing up the Botch-up) Amendment Bill”. It has nothing to do with the 4 weeks. The botch-up was created by this Government and by the Minister but did he tell us that? No. Did he then get on to what this bill is trying to fix up? No he talked about the 4 weeks stuff. Let me tell that Minister what is wrong with this bill Let me tell him in no uncertain terms. I will give him a nice little easy example and I will take him through it carefully. Unfortunately I do not have any pictures which would have made it easier for him to understand it better. However I will take it through slowly. 
The Government has introduced something called relevant daily pay so that when workers go on holidays instead of their holiday pay being a week of ordinary pay for each week they are on holiday this genius Minister has decided he will try to aggregate up all the payments that workers have been getting—that is overtime bonuses penal rates and all sorts of extra pay—and then work out what is an average daily pay they have been getting while they are in the workforce and that is what workers will get as an average daily pay when they are on holiday. 
Members of the public need to think about this because it is bizarre. I thought about it for myself. While I was at university I drove a truck for Wattie’s and Refrigerated Freight Lines. I could not believe it: I got a job as a truck driver and within a few days of being there I was told that not only did I get my wages as a truck driver but there were all the extras. I would get wet money trailer money cover money and rope money so that when the pallets are not put on and locked with bolts one could get extra money for having to put ropes on to hold them. If it was raining I would get extra money even though as a truck driver I would have expected at least half the days to be wet and certainly in the case of Wellington three-quarters of the days to be wet. Yet what is so bizarre is that the Government is now saying that instead of holiday pay being based on the number of days of a person’s ordinary pay it will aggregate all those special things that that person got for the circumstances of the day. For example when it was wet when one had to put covers over pallets and when one had to rope them down and do all those extra things the Government would make that part of a person’s holidays. 
I tell Government members that when a person is on holiday he or she does not have to put ropes or tarpaulins over things and get wet money. Most people would be on holiday at a beach resort somewhere enjoying the sun. What is bizarre about that? I will tell members. If workers at the trucking company have a fine day and do not need to put tarpaulins ropes and covers on they will not get a special payment. However their colleague who is on holiday for the day will get a higher rate of pay than they would get because of the accumulated equivalent rate of daily pay. How stupid is that? A person is on holiday and the rate at which he or she is being paid is higher than the rate some of his or her mates who are working are getting because it happened to be a fine day covers did not need to be put on or the pallets are containers and they are not carrying palletised stuff that would need to be roped down. How bizarre! 
Another issue members of this House need to address carefully is to do with one of the worst diseases that has spread across this country. I know that my colleague Lynda Scott would have seen this disease a lot closely through her medical practice. It is called “Mondayitis”. It is a shocking disease. When I was at Air New Zealand I talked to people in the human resources department who had graphed by the day how many sick-leave days there were—that is by the day of the week Monday to Sunday because Air New Zealand is a 7-day operation. 
Members should get this. A big chunk of Air New Zealand staff work on the 7 days of the week so weekends do not mean a lot if one is a pilot and is away and so on. It applied only to a percentage of the staff at any rate. There was a gigantic tower on the bar graph for the number of people who were sick on a Monday. Then it just dropped dramatically to Tuesday down to Wednesday Thursday and Friday. To be fair it did tick up a little bit on Friday. There could easily be a “Fridayitis” disease as well but it was nowhere near as severe as “Mondayitis”. Clearly the penicillin had been working but “Mondayitis” had been sweeping across that company. 
Employers keep saying to us that they are just not prepared to carry the cost of all that over and over again and what are we seeing with the legislation the Labour Government put in place? I have to say that my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry has just presented me with some tables from the Meat Industry Association submission to the select committee that one simply needs to look at and I wish I had a big overhead projector and a big screen to enable members of this House to see it up close. However members can see it from a distance. 
They can see how the tower on the left in each of these graphs is so small and how the tower on the right is so huge. I shall tell members what those graphs are. The first graph is sick days taken and the cost. The yellow line is the actual number of days taken and the blue towers on the graph are the cost. They compare what happened last year before the legislation was passed with what happened in the same period this year. What was interesting was that I went two pages over and I thought I saw the same graph but the numbers were slightly different. I thought that that was the same thing—sick days taken and so on. But no it states in brackets “This data is adjusted to create identical employee numbers.” In case the Government turned round and said that there was a different number of employees then so of course one could expect that this is corrected. It is normalised data corrected to base it on the same number of employees. 
If members look at this graph they will see it is worse. The number of days taken as sick and the cost is of the order of 70 percent up on what it was for the same period of time last year. How can the Minister hold his head up in this House without absolute shame written all over his face because that is a cost he has imposed upon the nation? 
But it gets worse. I suddenly wondered what the second graph down the bottom of the page was for. There are two. The top is sick leave. The second graph is bereavement leave. It is unlikely that one would have many relatives friends or neighbours die more in one particular time frame than another on average. I understand that someone might have a bad trot and might lose two or three members of the family within a couple of years but on average over the workforce one would expect the same number of deaths to be occurring over a reasonable period of time. Again this graph is adjusted to normalise it to get to the same comparative data—and I wonder whether Sue Bradford could answer this—so how could there be such a huge leap in the number of bereavements between one year and another simply because some legislation was passed? Did the legislation make a lot of people die? Let us hear from the Minister. Is that what happened? Once the Labour Government passed this legislation did a whole lot of people die? I do not think so. 
However there has to be an explanation for that and it is quite clear. It is shocking legislation and now we are trying to patch it up. When I say “patch it up” I mean that. I know that a lot of employer groups said that they would rather that than nothing. I tell you what—they would probably rather have 15 years’ solitary confinement than the death penalty. But it is not a terribly good choice. One would rather not serve any time at all. The employers begged the committee to take time to fix it up properly but it was quite clear why that would not happen. Every Government member on the select committee was ex - trade union. They were not going to give a damn about the facts they were not going to give a damn that the graph showed that things were now absolutely out of control and they were not going to give a damn about the poor old employer who has to try to foot the bill. No they realised that they had made such a botch-up that people were being paid treble time just when they were off sick. They realised that that was a bit much. 
I repeat to this House: even when this legislation is passed the Government would have created dramatic anomalies and it would have created dramatic incentives for people to take time off sick. Because as I said before there will be examples and we have given some already and we can give plenty more where people will get for that specific day more money than if they went to work. How can any Minister stand in this House and justify the sort of regime where this legislation is saying to people that if they want to take these days off they will be paid more than their colleagues who have turned up to work? No wonder this legislation is opposed! No wonder it is seen as an outrage! I am really happy to say the National Party is going to vote 27 votes “No” to this bill. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I am very honoured to stand to contribute to this debate in the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. Our Government remains committed to the principle of the Holidays Act which is about fairness and security. Like most New Zealanders we think it is fair that employees receive an additional payment for working on a public holiday. We remain committed to 4 weeks’ annual leave taking effect in 2007 to bring us in line with our major trading partners. Australian workers have had 4 weeks’ annual leave for 30 years. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I am horrified to be speaking in this Parliament on such junk legislation as this Holidays Amendment Bill. It just makes me so damn angry to look across the House at people like Darren Hughes who has just popped his golden head up. He has never employed anyone at his own risk in his life. He has no damned idea what is involved in actually employing people. Has he sat down and tried to work out the full cost implications of the Holidays Act which this bill amends—and fails to address? Has he ever sat down and tried to work out the costs for a business of relevant daily pay? I bet he has never even filled in the Inland Revenue Department forms for registered employers. Is he even an employer? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: No. Does he know what an IR330 is? Has he ever had an employee fill in his or her tax code? Does he fill in PAYE forms every month? Do any of the members sitting on the Government side of the House do that? Are any of them registered employers? I do not know whether any of the Labour members in this Chamber today are employers. I see the Minister of Police and Paul Swain. Let us hear from either of them. Are any of the Labour members registered employers today? Will any of them have to implement this junk? 
I am a registered employer and every month I have to comply with the crazy legislation of this Labour Government. One of the reasons why we have a House of Representatives is to have people from a range of walks of life—with experience in life—who can bring to this place the wisdom of knowing what it is like to do the things that a Government expects the people of this country to do. What do we have in the Labour bunch on the opposite side of the House? They are mostly former union members have never employed anyone and certainly do not employ anyone under the legislation that they seek to amend in this House today. 
The Labour members may say Lockwood Smith does not know what he is talking about but the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard successive representations from significant employers in this country who told the committee that this amendment bill would not fix the problems associated with the principal Act. When a business as important to New Zealand as Air New Zealand comes to the committee and says that the Act has cost it so far $17.5 million more than previously one would think the Government would take some notice. The amendments in this bill which simply makes changes in respect of how the Act affects sick leave will not fix the problem. The amendments contained in this bill do not fix the problem at all. 
I guess one could say that Air New Zealand is a bit special because it flies at all hours of the day and night and flies all days of the week. Therefore maybe one could argue the Act may affect Air New Zealand more than it does other businesses. But it was not that way. The select committee heard submissions from other businesses where they identified the costs of this Act that Labour has imposed on the businesses of this country. The meat industry is right at the heart of this country’s success and I am told the select committee heard from one meat company Riverlands. The committee was told that the cost of the Act to that company had been $6.5 million so far. Now Riverlands is not exactly—if my advice is correct that it is Riverlands that told the committee that—like AFFCO or Richmond Ltd. What on earth is the Act costing our really big meat companies? What is it costing Auckland Meat Processors to implement the dopey legislation that this inadequate bill seeks to change? 
I think this is a very very serious issue for New Zealand and what troubles me so much is we hear Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance come into this Chamber and pout and preen about the wonderful way that the economy is going under this Labour Government’s policies. What the Labour members do not seem to realise is that the economy is going quite well despite what they are doing to it. They inherited an economy that was growing at 5 percent back in 1999. They have slowed it down since then but they have not destroyed it totally—the growth has carried on. But what the Labour members do not seem to acknowledge is that the growth is not because of what they have done. It is not the employment law they introduced nor the Employment Relations Act nor the Holidays Act that have helped the economy to grow on. 
When the Labour members came into office they so scared foreign investment as we heard today in question time that investors’ dollars fled—billions of dollars fled the country and the exchange rate collapsed down to 39c against the US dollar. The export sector got a huge boost from that and it sure did lift the economy’s performance—for a short period. Then just as that boost was starting to die off as the exchange rate slowly recovered some crazed Arabs flew some aeroplanes carrying real human beings into the World Trade Center. As a consequence of that tragedy thousands more immigrants—thousands more people—came back to New Zealand and so boosted the domestic economy. That was nothing to do with this Labour Government unless it claims it is related to those crazed Arab bastards. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he cannot use that last word. I ask him to withdraw. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I withdraw. I am sure you will find it in the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 though. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not like that word to be used in this House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: OK. Unless the Government claims that it somehow had influence over those mad so-and-so’s it cannot claim that it was responsible for that boost to our economy. Now just as the domestic bubble is bursting and the number of people flowing into this country has reduced by thousands in the last few months we have world record commodity prices. I guess Darren Hughes will claim that he and Labour are responsible for the 20-year highs in our beef commodity prices. So OK the Government preens itself about how well the economy is going but that is nothing to do with what it has done. The economy is going well despite what the Government has done and the Act that this bill seeks to amend is simply one more nail in the coffin of the New Zealand economy. The economy cannot stand all these impediments to growth. One item on its own would not destroy it but the successively mounting impediments to growth that Labour has imposed on our economy will stifle it. 
If this Government had any experience at all in employing people this bill would contain far greater amendment to the Act than these trifling changes to how public holiday pay is determined and in respect of sick leave. It is totally inadequate. The National Party members on the select committee gave an excellent minority view following the select committee’s consideration of this bill. They pointed out the problems caused by the new definition of “relevant daily pay” and the problems that the way that sick leave is now being used under the Act are causing for whole hunks of the New Zealand economy. The National Party cannot more strongly oppose this totally inadequate type of legislation. The Act remains an absolute mill wheel around the necks of many businesses in New Zealand. All I can say is rest assured rescue is on its way. A future National Government will properly amend the Act so it no longer stifles the excellent businesses around this country. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I think that last speech contained more heat than light and ended up with the awful threat of a National Government to take us back to the era of economic doom in the 1990s. I am proud to be part of a Government that has made this country the easiest in the world in which to set up and do business. The Holidays Amendment Bill is a short sharp bill that is designed to tidy up the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the application of the Holidays Act and it is excellent legislation. We are about to go to the vote on the bill and I endorse it to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) 
First Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 This is routinely an annual bill to confirm and validate a range of regulations introduced in spring and passed by December. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm and validate 14 Orders in Council made under some nine Acts. It is customary that such bills are referred to the Regulations Review Committee and I shall again propose this course at the conclusion of the first reading. 
 Before the introduction of the bill Dr Cullen wrote to all parties in the House seeking their support and cooperation in moving the bill through its various stages. The responses were largely positive although one party did express misgivings relating to one of the 14 orders and I will return to that briefly following the description of the other 13. Four of the 14 orders deal with commodity levies which are voted upon themselves by growers of tamarillos meat wool and wine grapes. The levies serve to finance industry-good activities and are payable to industry organisations. Four of the orders apply movements in consumer price indices to the rates of social security pensions and war pensions and to the excise and duties on alcohol and tobacco products. Three of the orders apply biosecurity levies which contribute to the costs of dealing with American foul brood disease and bovine tuberculosis. One order recovers costs of product verification through animal product levies and another imposes levies relating to problem gambling. 
Finally one order extended by 1 year to 31 December 2004 the legal status of four codes of animal welfare. The codes cover circus animals pigs exhibit animals and layer hens. It is that order that is the subject of some misgivings on the part of the Green Party. The order will expire on 31 December this year whether confirmed through this bill or not. Although the confirmation of the order is not strictly necessary it was thought to be a matter of good faith to the House to propose that it be confirmed in the bill. This course acknowledges that the House earlier in this Parliament in passing amendments to the Animal Welfare Act in 2002 provided for the codes to be extended by Order in Council for a maximum period of 2 years subject to a confirming mechanism. 
So I wish Richard Worth and members of the Regulations Review Committee well in their consideration of the bill. The committee is asked to consider a further item of subordinate legislation made since the bill was finalised for introduction. That item is the Deer Industry New Zealand Regulations 2004. Those regulations were made on 20 September under the Primary Products Marketing Act. They lapse unless confirmed by the end of this Parliament. I trust that the committee will agree to adopt an amendment serving to confirm the regulations. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) going through to the select committee. This is an annual bill to confirm and validate a range of regulations. It may not be the most sought after or enthralling legislation but having sat on the Regulations Review Committee and having analysed what it all means I know that it is a very important piece of legislation and will need very close scrutiny. I was unaware of the late addition of the order relating to the deer industry that the Acting Leader of the House mentioned. One of the concerns we have found with legislation such as the Statutes Amendment Bill that goes to the Government Administration Committee is that there are always late entries. Departments think that they had better do something about an issue and bring forward legislation at the last minute. When we come to debate the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) I will make that point very strongly. It is unsatisfactory. If there is to be cooperation from all parties in passing legislation then it is incumbent on the Minister and on those departments to have that legislation before the House and the select committee in time for close scrutiny. In this case where regulations concerning the deer industry are due to expire and need to be renewed the same applies. Although I know that Richard Worth as chairman of the Regulations Review Committee will take that on board I think the message needs to go out that it is not our role to make sure departments get their legislation in on time. 
I move to what this bill is about. It has two parts. Part 1 “General and technical provisions” is a very small part. Part 2 “Confirmations and validations” comprises clauses 6 to 13. One area in particular that I have concern about is clause 11 “Gambling Act 2003” which refers to the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2004. I have asked parliamentary questions of the Minister about the process that is gone through. I asked specifically through an Official Information Act request for the commission’s report on the proposed problem gambling levy rates as provided for in section 318(5) of the Gambling Act and I have a copy of that here. It was not released at the time; I had to go to the Ombudsman to get that document. 
I found that satisfactory answers have not been given to my questions as to why there is a huge increase in the problem gambling levy. That huge increase has not been justified by any substantive research. There is a huge $55 million problem gambling levy to be spread over 3 years with no research from the Ministry of Health which will now be administering that legislation and no basis over the whole industry to justify and substantiate how that Ministry of Health levy has been arrived at. 
I will be sitting on the Regulations Review Committee which will be looking closely at this bill and I will be asking some questions there that I have not had satisfactorily answered by the Minister through my parliamentary questions. That is something I will be looking at very very closely. I know that under the chairmanship of my colleague Richard Worth this legislation will get close scrutiny and that the committee will perform its duties in a diligent way while considering this legislation. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) validates a number of pieces of subordinate legislation that are either falling short in their time or need clarification. But one issue that I would like to take up is the late inclusion of another item that is going to expire by the end of this Parliament unless members validate it. I find that action is typical of this Government. At the last minute it suddenly throws in an item that it has suddenly remembered is falling out of date and that happens with a lot of legislation. Members see Supplementary Order Papers coming in on last-minute issues and they find that disturbing in a very big way because they do not have time to consider those items carefully when the Government does that. Therefore we ask this Government to stop adding additional items that members have not been able to go through. New Zealand First is prepared to support this bill going to a select committee but when the Government starts throwing in items that members have not had time to consider then we will really reconsider that support in the future. 
It really concerns us that we are unable to consider items in caucus and go through our process when items are just thrown in at the last minute. So I ask the Minister whether in future he would not mind just taking a little bit more time to advise members in advance so that they can look at items a little more closely. I see the Minister acknowledging that and I appreciate it. 
New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee and we look forward to participating in the extended select committee process to further examine its parts. But as far as adding bits to it goes I ask the Government to please make sure that it advises members in advance. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 In the second reading debate on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) last year Mr Worth postulated that maybe members should not be wasting parliamentary time on this sort of bill because it is bland technical and a thing of low measure. I do not want to put too much emphasis on that or to criticise Mr Worth for that because on the face of it the bill does appear to be pretty bland and technical and people may well wonder why members spend time just looking at something that seems relatively straightforward and that seems to go through with a minimum amount of debate and certainly with the agreement in most cases of all parties. 
The effect of moving this bill through the first reading will be that it will go to the Regulations Review Committee which will then typically get a report from the relevant ministry on the particular provisions or regulations that are in it and then the committee reports back to the House usually on the basis that it accepts that the regulations are appropriate and therefore they are confirmed. 
That would seem to be pretty straightforward but I think that the important part of this bill is the way in which the legislature keeps the executive and particularly its ministries honest. It is a way for a ministry to know that if it is to put up and if the executive is to approve regulations that are out of step with what is reasonable it will be questioned about it. It will be taken to task by the legislature. Therefore perhaps the fact that these bills go through in a pretty straightforward manner almost every time is partly because of the awareness that there is that policing function. It is a valuable policing function that this House has to ensure that the executive does not overextend itself. 
The Regulations Review Committee provides an independent review that is cross-party and provides that watch and that can therefore look at it from all aspects of the public interest from the various interests that the parties represent. It comes to a conclusion in terms of whether the particular regulations are wise and within a reasonable bound. So I think that that is important. 
I note that one regulation United Future is particularly interested in is the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2004 which has come out of the Gambling Act. The whole area of the problem gambling levy is fraught with a lot of loaded issues. In particular United Future puts importance on seeing gambling reduced and obviously imposing a levy is one disincentive for gambling operators. It is a way of tightening up on the gambling industry and we have been pleased with the way the Government has been moving towards a tightening up in the industry. But also on the other hand it causes problems because of the inconsistency between gambling income being one of the few sources of community grants that the Government now provides and that money that is generated from the things that actually cause problems in society being used to try to solve problems in society. 
Nevertheless that is an area that the committee will examine. The purpose of the first reading is simply to get the bill through the first stage so that it can go to the Regulations Review Committee and be looked at in that measure of detail and issues in terms of reasonableness and the way that the Government is operating in those areas can be addressed. United Future is therefore quite pleased to support the first reading. It welcomes the bill coming through for scrutiny and it looks forward to the report that will come from the Regulations Review Committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) which contains 14 different measures that are being validated. There are within it some measures that everyone would agree with. For example I take it that the superannuation and social security validations are what enable us to increase pensions benefits and war pensions in line with the consumer price index. Those are all meritorious matters. Having said that I am not in favour of the validation of all the regulations set out in the bill and for that reason the ACT party will not vote for this bill. 
Let me direct attention to the particular measures that I object to most strongly and which the Minister of Finance did not explain to the House. This is taxation legislation. This Government with a surplus of over $7 billion has collected $7 billion more than even it is able to spend and here we are being asked to validate the collection of even more tax. Let me give the House the figures that the Minister failed to give. The Excise and Excise-Equivalent Duties (Tobacco Products Indexation) Amendment Order came into force on 1 December 2003 and adjusted the excise and excise-equivalent duties on tobacco products so as to reflect the movement in the consumer price index excluding credit services for the 12 months to 30 September 2003. Consumer price inflation in that period was 1.5 percent. By using Treasury’s ready reckoner which it supplies to enable us to do that one can work out that that is a tax increase of $12.175 million. We then go to alcohol on which the duty is also adjusted according to the consumer price index. In the same period the increase in the consumer price index was still 1.5 percent of course and by using the Treasury’s ready reckoner we can work out the change in the rate per litre of alcohol. Unfortunately it is not easy to work out the taxation changes on alcohol since Mr Anderton decided to tax old ladies who drink sherry so I have had to do a bit of an estimate—I am obliged to the library for assisting me with it. We came to a figure of $7120000. 
We have had the McLeod Tax Review. The Government paid $2 million to have an independent review of taxation and I do not think it has taken note of any of the recommendations. One of the things Mr McLeod stated was that there were no intellectual or rigorous reasons for the “sin” taxes. We in this House say that smoking tobacco is bad for people—and it is—and that we should whack it with tax. The Minister says the Government will use that money to help the poor people who smoke. We of course know that that is not what actually happens with the money. The money is used by the Government to pay for its treaty settlement processes and for all the other various things that this Government does and very little of it goes to smokers. 
Then we have the drinkers. People say drinking is bad for us. Actually it is not—a glass of red wine per day does not do us any harm nor does a glass of beer. It is only if one drinks to excess that alcohol— 
Brian Connell 
: Ten must be pretty good for you. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No the statistics are there for us to look at. The French who drink red wine have a lower rate of heart attacks than we do. 
Brian Connell 
: It reduces your cholesterol. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I thank the member; I am obliged to him. I am told that drinking red wine reduces one’s cholesterol. The point is that in itself—unlike tobacco where I think any amount of smoking is bad for people—alcohol is not bad for us. So where is the justification for increasing the tax on alcohol? The Minister did not give us any. I know where the justification comes from. It was an idea of David Caygill’s. He was the person who told Cabinet in 1990 that we would have a surplus and then we found out about the BNZ sometime after the election along with the incoming Government. No one in Cabinet knew about the fact that there was a huge hole. He said we should provide for an adjustment to the taxes on alcohol and tobacco by the consumer price index so we would not have to have a debate in Parliament to justify increasing those taxes. 
I think that is wrong; I believe we should debate it. I say to the Government that the ACT party will not vote for this bill because subsequent to the Government writing us a letter we discovered it is collecting $2.5 billion more in taxation than it asked the House to approve in May. There is no possible justification for increasing any tax in New Zealand even including that on a product like tobacco. Why do I say that? We all know that most people who smoke in New Zealand are people least able to pay tax. I think there is something a bit immoral about our being non-smokers—no ACT member of Parliament smokes and we are always told we are the wealthy party—and the Government collecting a disproportionate amount of tax from those people least able to pay it. There is something immoral about that. It may be electorally attractive. I have been studying the liquor taxes a little bit—and I have to say it is an informal bit of research—but as far as I can see the amount of crime committed by little old ladies does not appear to have gone up or down since Jim Anderton decided to whack a tax on sherry. I have not seen that make any difference to the crime statistics or to social habits except that it has altered the amount of sherry that is sold—that is true. 
Brian Connell 
: Are they binge drinkers? I don’t think they are. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: There might have been a few but most people who drink a glass of port are not known for being binge drinkers. I have never heard of anyone binge drinking on port but I guess technically it can be done. 
I point out to the National Party that its leader made a very good speech the other day saying that this Government is collecting an outrageous amount of tax. In fact I think that the revenue from taxation under this Government has gone up by 50 percent—it is some huge figure. 
Brian Connell 
: Forty. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Forty percent. There is no doubt that record amounts of taxation revenue are now being collected and now we are being told that if we send this bill to the Regulations Review Committee somehow it will review that tax. I have a lot of respect for Richard Worth and the rest of that committee but there is not an economist amongst them—not one. They will not look to see whether this bill has been properly drafted. As a bill like this comes up every year and has done for the last 14 years it is highly unlikely that there is anything wrong with its drafting. I have no doubt that this is very efficient taxation. The question I ask the Government—a Government that collects $7 billion more than it needs to—is why it should get another $12 million from smokers and another $7 million from people who enjoy a drink. We ought to have a justification of that from the Government. 
I say that there is no case for increasing any tax. There is an overwhelming argument for a tax cut. We should always remember that that money does not belong to us. It belongs to the people of New Zealand who pay for their cigarettes and their drink. Accordingly the ACT party as a protest about the Government—and there is something immoral about this—collecting more in taxation than it needs to collect will not vote in favour of this year’s subordinate legislation bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Regulations Review Committee. 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 5 October. 
Part 5 Amendments to Crown Minerals Act 1991  
(continued) 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 At first glance Part 5 of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill does not seem to be very significant. But it does have an important theme running through it: the theme of disclosure. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 47 “Functions of the Minister of Energy” and in particular to clause 47(d) which states “the collection and disclosure of information in connection with petroleum reserves and petroleum production in order to—(i) promote informed investment decisions; and (ii) improve security of supply in the gas and electricity markets.” I want to deal with subparagraph (i) first and to say that disclosure is important. It is important to the Crown so that the Crown is in a position whereby it can ascertain reserves. I say to the members of the Committee that that is a pivotal component in the planning of any economy—it is pivotal to our prosperity. How we get companies to cooperate in full disclosure is really a matter of contention and the way the Minister has gone about it is a way that I do not think is right. I believe that we would get much better disclosure if we relied on goodwill. Certainly we can legislate for and threaten all kinds of punitive actions just as the Minister is intending to do under this legislation—particularly under Part 4—but in the end that is the stick approach. 
The National Party suggests that we surely need a bit of a carrot. Surely it would have been better to design legislation that had the support of the industry. This is an issue that we cannot ignore. How can we hope to have goodwill for this legislation when all the major submitters said that we have it wrong? I want to name some of those submitters because they are big hitters. They are household names across this country: the Electricity Networks Association Contact Energy Ltd Federated Farmers Mighty River Power the Major Electricity Users Group Powerco Vector Ltd TrustPower Ltd—and the list goes on past that point. Surely we should have listened—or the Minister should have listened—to the concerns those industry experts were raising particularly if we want to be assured as a country that we are getting full disclosure about our petroleum reserves so that we can have some confidence that we can plan for our future prosperity. I come back to subparagraph (ii) of clause 47(d) which states: “improve security of supply in the gas and electricity markets.” That sounds good and of course we all want that to occur. But again how does one guarantee that security if one puts in legislation that the major industry groups say just will not fly? 
I know the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven would like to take a call and respond to that issue because it is a very critical question. I know that that member coming from New Plymouth where this is an important issue that he will be dealing with on a daily basis will want to rise and answer that question. If I go back to Part 4 briefly—that gets carried forward into the security argument—we have a situation whereby the Minister is prescribing in law that after having gone through exploration and having found gas or petroleum reserves the companies that have risked hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital will now be put into the position of having to share that infrastructure. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It seems quite extraordinary that we should be debating Part 5 in the context of the events that have happened in the last week. I think it was over the weekend that we saw the price of crude oil go past US$50 per barrel for the first time in history. As an immediate consequence of that we saw the finance leaders finance spokespeople and financiers of the G7 countries all rush off to Washington to huddle down with Alan Greenspan in order to look at the effect of that news on the economic future of the Western World. Believe me when petroleum does get to that kind of height—as I know very well because I worked in the industry during the 1970s—we really do have to start asking some questions about our economic future. It was interesting to me that the first thing to come out of the conference in Washington over the last weekend was the agreement of all the G7 nations that one of the vital things that has to happen is that we need to have better information about the world’s oil and gas reserves going forward. So it is amazing that the Minister on this occasion has had the foresight to identify a long way in advance of the rest of the world a problem that just in these last few days has really come into such critical focus. 
I would like to add too of course that we have had the scandal of the Royal Dutch / Shell Group probably deliberately understating its reserves by up to 20 percent and the huge fallout that has occurred all over the world when a company that was hitherto regarded as a bit of a paragon of virtue was found to be involved in deception if not in fraud to that extent. 
Brian Connell 
: This is not going to help that. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: This bill will help to address that because it states that the companies permanently need to give good information to the Secretary of Energy about what they have discovered in the ground here in New Zealand so that the results can be published and so that we all know what is going on. I ask the Committee to remember that I spent 14 years of my life in the oil industry so I do know something about this particular subject. I have been involved in the drilling of a lot of wells in this country and subsequently in bringing the oil on to the shore and processing it and so on and so forth. It is just simply true that we have had very very poor information on the reserves of petroleum and gas in this country. Sometimes the information has been deliberately withheld for a whole range of different competitive reasons. It is true that the very large oil companies are able basically to plug the holes in the ground even when they discover oil if they think it suits their books to leave it there for a few more years until the price goes up. That is quite common; it happens on a routine basis within the industry. That is really not very satisfactory from the point of view of New Zealand’s energy future. 
I believe that it is very very important for this bill to be passed so that we do henceforth get good-quality information about where this country is in terms of its oil and gas reserves. That will enable us all to plan sensibly to keep this country running. It is as simple as this actually: good decisions require good information and one cannot make good decisions without good information. This bill will provide good improved information about our oil reserves and our potential oil discoveries so that all of us can plan and make decisions accordingly. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 5 deals with the collection and disclosure of information in connection with petroleum reserves and petroleum production in order to promote informed investment decisions and improve security of supply in the gas and electricity markets as we have heard from the previous speakers. But there is quite a difference of opinion about whether the rest of the bill that we have been debating over the last few days will actually promote investment and investment decisions. Most of what we have heard indicates that it will not. The sharing of the infrastructure for processing will lead to decreased investment as people will have to share a processing plant at the direction of the Minister. 
It is markets and profits that drive a great deal of this exploration and we have heard that there are companies that do invest in searching for new reserves and do not give that information freely to others or competitors. They keep that information to themselves so that they can develop those areas when the price is right. Some of the development costs might be quite high because of the difficulty of exploration especially in offshore reserves where the extraction costs can be very high. 
 There is actually a need to have some information about what petroleum and gas reserves there are in order for the country to be able to plan for the future. One thing we do all know is that these are non-renewable sources and sooner or later we will have to invest in renewable forms of energy and develop them. I think most people in this country can remember unless they were born in the 1980s or later carless days and carpooling. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I got married on a carless day. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Our junior whip got married on a carless day. It would have been interesting getting everybody to the church on time. How did the member manage that? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good question! 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: A good question! People had to carpool and to use buses on Mr Tisch’s wedding day because it was a careless day. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It was 30 years ago. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: And it was 30 years ago. We do remember those times when all of a sudden there was a dramatic increase in the price of crude oil and New Zealand had great difficulty importing what we needed. We had carless days and carpooling and then “think big” to try to make New Zealand more independent. We now see that the price of crude oil has reached US$50 per barrel and may go higher and that will have a significant economic impact. So the disclosure of actual petroleum reserves and gas reserves around New Zealand is needed to enable the Government to plan. I have to say that the Government has been in power for 5 years and what has it done? What has it actually done to develop electricity and gas reserves? We know that the Maui gasfield is running down markedly but nothing has happened. The wheels of Government turn very very slowly. 
Brian Connell 
: It’s the Minister’s fault. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It is the Minister’s fault—that is quite correct. It is the Minister’s fault because Ministers are the ones who are in charge of actually getting something done. 
We know that submitters stated that many of the parts of this bill are wrong; Contact Energy Federated Farmers Mighty River Power and TrustPower should be listened to. They are the people who are out there. All too often this Government listens to the officials who sit in Wellington never get out in the field and do not understand how the actual economics is working on a day-to-day basis. They give information based often on theory as opposed to the facts and the Ministers listen to that and do not come up with the correct answers for this country. We have seen that time and time again—that the people who come to select committees are not listened to. I am a great fan of the select committee process. I think it is an excellent way to get industry players and those who are materially affected by a bill to come along and actually say something about the particular matter look at the details of the bill and make recommendations. Those people should be listened to. In this case a lot of the submitters have stated that in this part the Government has got it wrong. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. We are debating Part 5 and members have accurately identified that the most significant clause is the one that requires the disclosure of petroleum reserves and production information to the chief executive and their publication by the chief executive. When we hear about shortages of petroleum products that measure sounds sensible but I say to the Committee that it is just another case of people thinking: “Here’s a problem. Let’s pass a law.” 
Let me give an example. In the whole time that I have been a member of Parliament the field that has dominated has been the Maui field. It appears to me—I have some sort of theory about it—that about every 2 years the size of that field changes. Right at the moment it is on a downward slope and people are deciding that there is nothing there. I say to the Committee that I would not be at all surprised if the petroleum industry drilled a couple more holes and people came back in a year’s time and said: “Forgive us for saying that. We have found some more.” One might think maybe they have engaged in shenanigans—and there might have been a bit of that—but this is not a science. The size of petroleum reserves is not an easy thing to judge. 
At the moment the Shell company a mighty oil company is being hammered for having misstated its reserves. 
Gordon Copeland 
: It overstated them. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It overstated them and by quite a substantial amount. But it may be as I was reading in a different article that the overstatement of the reserves is actually correct and that the company got hammered because it had not actually drilled enough to be able to state its assessment with the sort of certainty that the stock exchange wants. When I look at this bill I see that there is nothing set out in this regulation as to how an oil company is to decide what its reserves are. This law is actually meaningless. It could not be enforced. One would not be able to prove anything. 
I am sure that Mr Copeland who comes from the oil area has had the experience I have had of various enthusiastic people coming to me to tell me that New Zealand is the next Saudi Arabia of the world. They are sure that there is oil out there. 
Gordon Copeland 
: It would be great wouldn’t it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I actually think it is and I can tell the member when we are going to discover it: on the day that someone comes up with a workable hydrogen-powered car! Then we will discover that New Zealand has been sitting on huge hydrocarbon reserves and if successive Governments had had a better tax regime we might have found that out—though it may well be that the style of our reserves is very much different from the sort of geology in Texas and that is why we never found them. One might ask “Why is that?”. Well the people who actually make the decisions whether to drill here are based in Houston rather than Auckland or Wellington. 
But I just say to the Committee that my objection to this part is really my objection to the whole bill. The Government thinks we can answer this problem by law and regulation and by the wisdom of the chief executive of the department whereas in fact the answer is the market—and it always has been. If we had had a freer market in oil and petroleum products I personally have no doubt at all that we would have found much more substantial oil reserves. I say to the member Mr Copeland who I know was in the oil industry and who has talked about fears of a rise in the price of petroleum products that yes we do see that China even though it is the fifth-biggest producer of oil is now a very substantial importer but there is no doubt in my mind that the market will actually produce an enormous quantity of oil products. It is just a matter of time for the market signals to go through. 
But here is a clause that actually states to people: “If you go to the trouble of finding oil of investing money this Government will make you give away that piece of proprietary information to someone who has not spent a dollar.” Why would people bother looking for oil when a socialist Government would socialise the advantages that they gained from their efforts in drilling for oil? I suspect that this clause will work as many laws do in the exact opposite way than members hope. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I did not intend to take another call but I was fired into action by Mr Copeland’s contribution. He said that he had 14 years of experience in the oil industry. If he says he has that experience then I accept he has it but from listening to his contribution I think it must have been spent down the well. His answer to the problems we are facing in New Zealand at the moment is to pass law like this. 
Mr Copeland should be very careful before he runs down companies like Shell and accuses them of perpetrating frauds. Companies like Shell have an international reputation and if we do not seek to look after that reputation I ask Mr Copeland why they would bother to invest in New Zealand especially given just how difficult it is becoming to invest here. 
Mr Copeland with his 14 years of experience—which must have been 1 year repeated 14 times—has told us that we need to pass this sort of law and that it will guarantee disclosure. I do not know which planet Mr Copeland has been on but passing another unnecessary law does not guarantee disclosure at all. I have said previously how we guarantee disclosure—that is that we get cooperation through goodwill. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Do you think I’m being dishonest? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am not accusing Mr Copeland of what he has accused Shell of being at all. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He did it in a good Christian way. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes he did do it in a good Christian way. He was very quick to point out that that company had perpetrated a fraud but in his own disclosure he left out some very critical components. This is not an exact science. When people start to drill they do not exactly know what they have got. The Government is asking some of these companies—companies that have invested tens of millions of dollars—to say to their opposition: “Come on in. We’ll give you a leg-up. We will share with you at our risk our information.” If that will not drive people into being very cautious about disclosure I do not know what will. 
I say to Mr Copeland and the Minister of Energy that they should have taken a more strategic view than just saying they would legislate. That is a bureaucrat’s answer to a pragmatic problem. I know that Harry Duynhoven does not believe in this stuff. He is a Minister who gets things done. He does not believe in bureaucratic responses to pragmatic problems. He knows that in order to attract capital to this country we have to put out a hand of friendship to businesses not slap them down every time they venture here. We should think through what is being suggested. We want full disclosure—we have agreed with that; all the parties in the House agree with that—but we are saying to companies: “Your having spent money finding petroleum reserves we are going to share them around with your opposition by inviting them in.” It just will not happen. Why would one give one’s opposition a leg-up? It simply will not happen. 
If we go through clauses 48 and 49 we can see how prescriptive they are. I again have to ask Mr Copeland and others whether they have thought about the compliance implications for companies coming into New Zealand. It is very prescriptive stuff. In fact it is almost draconian. Companies like Shell—the one that Mr Copeland wants to put down—have choices and options. They do not have to come here. He does not seem to understand that. If companies are to come here we must offer them an even playing field and this measure will not provide that. Let us have a look at clause 48 which includes some of the things that these companies will have to do. For example section 90A(1) states: “Every holder of a permit relating to petroleum must provide to the Secretary all information in connection with” whatever they have discovered. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to respond to a couple of points that have been made. First of all in relation to Shell the fact is that the chief executive officer and the chairman of that company resigned and that actually says it all. The company will now continue with its proud tradition of actually trying to avoid employing people like that again. As I mentioned it has hitherto been a paragon of virtue in the industrial world. It is a great company and I have always enjoyed my association with Shell. Anything construed otherwise is wrong. 
The contributions made by both the National Party and the ACT party made it sound as though they never expect to be in Government. If they are in Government in 2005—and I am open to that possibility by the way—then I think they will be very pleased that these provisions are here. The difference is that right now the Labour Party is in Government and in 2005 we intend to be in Government so therefore we think this will be a very useful thing for the Government of the day to have. Members should bear this in mind: it will be for the Government of the day to decide how it uses this information and some of the draconian sorts of scenarios that have been put up by the two parties of the right I find quite surprising because I rather hope that if they are in Government in 2005 they will apply these provisions very sensibly. I am sure they will. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 It is indeed ironic that we are debating clauses 1 and 2 with the current Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven in the chair because Clauses 1 and 2 are the retrospective clauses and of course the Minister in the chair Mr Duynhoven is the retrospective Minister in that he is in this Parliament by courtesy of this Government passing retrospective legislation so that it could keep him here and avoid going to the people as was the right thing to do within the law at the time. Now a change in the law is being sought retrospectively and that is being chaired through the Committee by the retrospective Minister. What an ironic situation we find ourselves in! The man who should have gone to the people who got the Parliament to change the law so that he could stay here sits in the chair tonight passing laws and will backdate them not just a few days not even just a few weeks but an extraordinary amount of time so that Part 2 will be deemed by the retrospective Minister to have come into force on 20 May 2003. That was 18 months ago. The Minister who should have gone to the people but got Parliament to change the law so that he could stay here retrospectively now wants the Parliament to pass a law that goes back to the middle of last year which is about the same time as he should have been on his hide around New Plymouth telling voters that he messed up and to have an election to see whether they still wanted him. 
The Minister finds himself in a very messy situation. We have proposed some amendments to the bill because we do not think this is good Government. We do not think it is good to pass legislation that has a clause that will deem Part 2 to have come into force on 20 May 2003 and includes the establishment of the Electricity Commission which is out there now. The commission is hiring people paying people all its rules are in place and it is doing its job and now a law is being passed to the effect that a whole lot of things governing it are deemed to have come into force in the middle of last year. 
But worse than that is that the retrospective Minister wants to pass a law under clause 2(1) to the effect that Transpower’s pricing arrangement all of its charging is deemed to have come into force on 26 January this year. If Transpower has charged wrong prices or has been out of time and there have been disputes—well to heck with any of that! A law is being passed on 7 October 2004 that Mr Duynhoven whose hide is in this House because of retrospective law is deeming to have come into force on 26 January this year. That is outrageous and National will move amendments to get rid of that retrospectivity. 
 I just want to make a comment on the Government’s handling of this bill because it has been an absolute shambles with the assistance of United Future all the way through. This bill was introduced into the House with a great flurry on 6 November last year—11 months ago. It was referred to the Commerce Committee. Companies were told to hurry up and make their submissions because the matter was really urgent and they had until 30 January. So the energy sector worked over the Christmas period through November December and January preparing technical submissions. The sector hired groups such as the Law and Economics Consulting Group to do a huge amount of work for it. The State-owned enterprises as one opposed the bill. The time for submissions closed on 30 January because we were told the bill was so urgent and we were required to get on to it straight away. Well we did. We met the deadlines that the House set yet the bill has sat here for months. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Brian Connell. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not do this in any way to upset my colleague but I just need from you some clarification because you are the only Chairperson who does not take a second call from me as the lead spokesperson. The other Chairpersons do and I want an assurance from you that under the Standing Orders you are treating senior spokespersons in an even-handed and a fair manner. The Standing Orders allow a member to have two consecutive calls so what is the point of having that Standing Order if the Chair is just going to ignore it? 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am very happy to assist the Chair by yielding my call to allow my colleague to continue— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: You can’t yield. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —on the basis that Mr Sowry gets the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I just say to Mr Sowry that he is not correct but if Mr Connell wants to yield to him that is fine. I call the Hon Roger Sowry. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think you need to explain the rules of yielding because they are quite complicated. 
Brian Connell 
: No I haven’t yielded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Brian Connell has decided not to speak. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No he has not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: He has not? 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 No I have not. I was only doing that to assist the Chair on the basis that you may have made a mistake and really wanted to call Mr Sowry. I am not yielding the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just make one thing perfectly clear. I have ruled on the point of order from Mr Sowry. He is quite wrong. He needs to go back and check  
Hansard 
 and he will see that he is quite wrong about the point of order that he raised. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I cannot ever recall a ruling from a Chairperson as being: “You are quite wrong. Sit down.” The Standing Orders allow a member to take two consecutive calls in the Committee stage and that Standing Order has been followed by the Chairpersons Ross Robertson and the Hon Clem Simich. I want to know why you have different rules. The point is that if you are not going to allow people to take consecutive calls when the Standing Orders state that it is allowed then I think we have every reason to ask why. 
Jill Pettis 
: My grandmother would say that your eyes are too close together. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Madam Chair are you going to sit and allow that? Are you going to allow that to happen or will you pull people into control here? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand and withdraw that remark. 
Jill Pettis 
: I am sorry. I apologise. I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just make this absolutely clear again to Mr Sowry. He is quite wrong in his assertion about consecutive calls and how I have called them in the past. If he goes back to check  
Hansard 
 he will see that he is absolutely wrong. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.