Volume 653 Week 10 - Wednesday 29 April 2009 
Volume 653 Week 10 - Wednesday 29 April 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2695] 
Wednesday 29 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following an agreement at the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break today at the conclusion of the Hon Dr Cullen’s valedictory speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax Cuts—Funding 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with the statements in the House by his Minister of Finance on 16 December 2008 that “Yes I can confirm that National will not be going back on any of those promises as we fully costed and funded them”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I agree with the statement the Minister of Finance made at that time. Since then as the member is well aware New Zealand’s economic and fiscal position has deteriorated significantly. The Government has been up front in saying that in light of the deepening global recession we will proceed with tax cuts in 2010 or 2011 only if they are affordable. If they are not affordable we will defer them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore confirming to the House that on the central promise on which he was elected which was tax cuts he is now going to renege by not proceeding with the tax cuts on 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011—yes or no? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am not confirming that. What I am confirming is that it did not take this Government 9 years to cut taxes like it did the Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the value of the Prime Minister’s personal guarantee set out on this document that he has signed where he personally pledged tax cuts on 1 April 2010 and 2011? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: A very high value. But the other thing I would say of course is that New Zealanders recognise that around the world the situation has changed dramatically in the last 5 or 6 months. New Zealanders are aware that the Government is likely to earn $50 billion less in revenue in the next 3 years. The one thing I would say is that members on this side of the House understand what we are doing. Members on that side of the House were telling us to cancel the tax cuts. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have seen this day after day and you know there is a Speaker’s ruling regarding conduct that is likely to lead to disorder. The Prime Minister’s comments at the end of his answer had nothing to do with the question that was asked. I ask you to bring him to order before the House comes to disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Leader of the Opposition has made a fair point. I urge the Prime Minister to limit that kind of comment if possible. 
Nathan Guy 
: Has the Government delivered on its promises? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is giving his valedictory speech at 5.30 so I will try to condense this so as to keep within that timetable. Yes we delivered a billion dollars’ worth of tax cuts on 1 April this year we have introduced the ReStart package we have introduced legislation to address law and order issues we have set national standards in literacy and numeracy we have fast tracked the funding of PlunketLine we have ensured that women receive a 12-month course of Herceptin—I could go on. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister now regret promising $4 billion more in tax cuts than the Labour Party at a time when he knew full well that the world was in serious recession but made those promises in order to get elected anyway and was that not simply dishonest? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not regret that. I will make just one simple point because it might help the Leader of the Opposition: the tax cut programme that National went into the election with in 2008 cost $250 million less than the one promised by the Labour Party. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: How can the Prime Minister still talk about implementing more Government spending in line with his election promises of 9 months ago when the pace of economic deterioration means that the ideas mooted 9 months ago are both irresponsible and unaffordable? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I would not agree with that statement. The Government is honouring its commitments. It is making sure that it is putting money into health and education. It is making sure that it is committed to and follows through with all of the promises from the 100-day programme. What is true is that the Government is taking matters seriously in terms of trying to save money. Our line-by-line review has been successful and when people see the Budget they will realise that we are taking the fiscal position going forward seriously as well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was yet another promise broken by the Prime Minister when he said to the New Zealand Public Service that it would be capped but that it would not have its numbers cut and what is his explanation now to the more than 880 decent ordinary hard-working public servants who have already been sacked? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and the only person who is going to be cut around here is the Leader of the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Nathan Guy. 
Nathan Guy 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of a Minister of Finance not merely deferring but in fact cancelling tax cuts? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen a report of a Minister of Finance announcing personal income tax cuts in the 2005 Budget but then cancelling them outright in 2007. When the Government was posting an $8 billion surplus he said that he did not want to go through with tax cuts because people would just spend the additional money anyway. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister promised the country that he was not going to touch superannuation entitlements did he also explain that he was going to cease pre-funding those entitlements so that inevitably his policy would lead to a crisis and a breach of those entitlements just a few years down the track? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The economic understanding of the Leader of the Opposition is quite woeful if he thinks that a minor deferment in payments into the Superannuation Fund—if that was to happen—would cause a crisis in the superannuation system in New Zealand. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House how it is possible in today’s economic circumstances to spend more this year than Labour did last year especially when households are having to spend less? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is because we are putting more money into things that we think are very important. I think if members were to look around the— 
Hon Member 
: Like what? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well $750 million into health and hundreds of millions of dollars more in other areas. The reason for that is that we are taking the approach that most westernised countries are taking which is that this is a time when Governments should use their balance sheet but we are not going to diet on debt forever. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister not consult in any meaningful way with Aucklanders as he had promised to do in his manifesto before jointly with Mr Hide determining and announcing what was best for them when clearly Aucklanders have rejected what he is trying to ram through and impose on them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: They are not rejecting what we are proposing for Auckland. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister as a result of all the answers he has just given the House confirm that the personal guarantee he wrote and the promise the Minister of Finance made in the House on 16 December both count for nothing because he has confirmed today that he has already broken not just one but three or four of his major promises—he has not met his undertakings to the people of New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can promise New Zealanders that this Government will show good economic leadership and that we will make sure that New Zealand comes through this recession. We are not a fair-weather Government that knows how to operate only under surpluses—that is for sure. 
Government Debt—Forecasts 
2.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What would be the impact on public services if no measures to restrain public debt were taken? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The latest projections show that if the Government continued with the rate of spending growth that occurred under the Labour Government gross debt would rise to 73 percent of GDP which would lift finance costs to $15 billion per annum. That amount would be enough to fund all of New Zealand’s superannuation entitlements almost enough to fund every district health board and sufficient to fund tertiary education several times over. That is why the Government is determined to change the direction of spending that built up under the Labour Government in order to prevent debt from accumulating rapidly to levels that are unsustainable. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why is public debt projected to rise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The primary reason that public debt in the preliminary Budget forecast was projected to rise to 73 percent of GDP was the undisciplined and reckless increases in spending under the previous Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with the recent New Zealand Institute report that states: “The loading of New Zealand’s net stimulus package into tax cuts is notable internationally and one of the likely reasons that New Zealand’s fiscal position is expected to continue to deteriorate while those of countries such as Australia and the UK are expected to recover … As a share of GDP New Zealand is giving the largest personal income tax cuts of any OECD country.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with the New Zealand Institute. But at least it knows what it thinks in contrast to the Labour Party where the leader of the party is for and against tax cuts and the spokesperson on finance is against and for them. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister therefore agree with Moody’s that New Zealand’s debt challenges are limited only and are not as severe as other countries and does he agree with the IMF’s chief economist that what is needed is forceful action on both the macroeconomic and financial fronts; if so why is his Government a global outlier in believing that it can deregulate and tax cut its way out of this recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I tend to agree with a number of things that Moody’s has said and with a number of things that the IMF has said. However this Government makes up its own mind about what is appropriate policy for New Zealand. That policy is focused on lifting this economy out of recession as quickly as possible. 
Chris Tremain 
: What has been the previous New Zealand experience with high debt levels? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Gross public debt peaked at 75 percent of GDP in 1987. At that point finance costs consumed 20 percent of all Government spending. As members may remember it required a monumental effort to get debt back down from that level. This Government has no intention of allowing the benefits of two decades of hard work by parties on both sides of the House to evaporate just because of the recklessness of the previous Government. 
Unemployment—Resourcing for Front-line Services 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Are there sufficient resources available to front-line staff to provide services to the growing number of unemployed New Zealanders who require assistance from the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Yes we are—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House has had its fun. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes but we are constantly having to re-evaluate the situation. 
Hon Annette King 
: How will making 180 people redundant from the Ministry of Social Development as proposed in a confidential briefing paper last week assist the Ministry in providing front-line services for New Zealanders particularly children and families affected by the economic crisis? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made it clear that it wants to move resources to the front line. In the case of the Ministry of Social Development that is particularly important because of the growth in the numbers of unemployed. I am surprised that the Opposition is asking that question because the Ministry’s plans for living within its budget were actually made under the previous Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: If resources provided to front-line staff are adequate why did the Work and Income office of Upper Hutt cut corners and use an employment broker who had been issued with an improvement notice by the Department of Labour for mistreating workers in Marlborough by cramming 22 of them into a house built for six to eight people and ripping off their wages? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If there was a genuine problem there I am sure the Minister will look into it. By and large though the Ministry of Social Development as that member will know has shown itself to be an efficient and innovative Government department. It will have huge demands to meet over the next 12 months. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps will the ministry be taking if it is shifting staff from the back room into the front room firstly to make sure that such staff are adequately trained to deal with the greater number of unemployed people coming through the door and secondly to deal with the very likely wage differentiation between the people coming for example from areas of policy analysis to be front-line case officers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those are essentially operational matters for the chief executive but we would expect that the ministry will train the people who are on the front line because it is important that anyone coming in the door who has lost his or her job gets the best service that the Public Service can offer. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware that 80 unemployed people were handed over by Work and Income to the said employment broker and sent to the Wairarapa to work only to have 20 of them be underpaid or receive no wages at all; and what is she doing to reduce the pressure that she has put on staff to get people off the dole at any cost? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If those events occurred I am sure the Minister will move to remedy them because people should be treated fairly. The Government makes no apology for the fact that the Ministry of Social Development does have the job of doing everything it can within reason to ensure that people do not go on to the benefit and it has been able to show a track record of some success in that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware that regional Work and Income offices are being inundated with recently unemployed workers wanting financial assistance and guidance and that officers are now barely coping with the number of new clients; and will she now admit that her comments about the growing number of unemployed being “just a blip” were wrong?  
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it is obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or knows about his or her community that unemployment numbers are rising. The Ministry of Social Development is going to work as positively as it can to ensure that as many as possible of those people who are unemployed are redirected into jobs so they do not have to go on a benefit and that those who are on the benefit get a good service. 
Police Staffing—Counties-Manukau 
4.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have received very good reports. Since National became the Government the number of police in Counties-Manukau has increased by 26 to 780. In addition police numbers in Counties-Manukau are expected to grow by a further 16 constables by 30 June 2009. Overall the police expect to achieve an extra 150 police this year and 150 next year. This boost of 300 new front-line police in Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010 is a key Government policy and I am pleased with progress to date. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has she received any other reports regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I am advised that a further 41 recruits destined for Counties-Manukau have just started at the Royal New Zealand Police College and are expected to graduate in August 2009. The police have many recruitment activities under way and are working hard to implement the Government’s policy. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What are the police doing to ensure that the additional police in Counties-Manukau include both new recruits and experienced police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The police have planned two intakes at the police college for former police who are rejoining the organisation. These two intakes will result in 40 experienced police officers rejoining the police. Each officer has between 5 and 12 years’ experience as a police officer. 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill—Collection of Levies 
5.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What advice has she received about the collection of levies that would be required by the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill from those officials in the Ministry of Justice who report to her? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 In late January I was briefed by officials on the offender levy: what it was for who was going to pay it how much money it would collect and proposed administrative arrangements for collection of the levy. I have also received documentation about the funding for the operation of the levy but this is Budget sensitive and the member will have to wait until the Budget. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is she aware of advice from the Ministry of Justice as contained in the document  
Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation 
 that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their “willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance”; and does this mean that the Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those most likely to pay while hard-core fine defaulters are let off the hook? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No not at all. The Government’s approach is that every offender who owes the levy fines or reparation will be held responsible for the payment of those. Anything else that the member has inferred is not going to happen because this Government is serious about collecting those fines. I will be introducing into the House pretty soon a courts and criminal matters bill that will address some of the matters around enforcement. But I stress once again that no offender who owes fines will be allowed to get away with not being responsible for them. 
Shane Ardern 
: What reports has she received about previous attempts to establish a victims’ compensation scheme? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: A very good question. I have seen three reports. In Labour’s 1996 election campaign policy the party promised to investigate the establishment of a separate criminal injuries compensation scheme. In Labour’s 2005 election campaign policy it said it would “inquire into the level of immediate financial support available to victims or families of victims of serious crime especially homicide and examine options for providing improved support”. Again in February 2008 in the Prime Minister’s opening statement to the House she said that Labour would look into a victims’ compensation scheme. We are a Government of action. We have taken less than 100 days to do something that Labour thought about for over 13 years. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does she reconcile her answer to my previous supplementary question in which she said that all those owing their levies would pay with the statement from the Minister of Justice—who also advocated a levy collection system that selectively targets some offenders over others based on how easy it will be to recover the money from them—who stated in a Cabinet paper of 26 January 2009 that enforcement actions such as seizure of property or bringing the defendant before the court will be used for some offenders but not for others because the cost of those enforcement actions “would be greater than the levy amount rendering it uneconomic to pursue.”? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I can easily reconcile them. Where a person owes only the offender levy enforcement actions will be limited to court-ordered deductions from wages a benefit or a bank account. That keeps overall enforcement costs from becoming greater than the value of the outstanding levy and recognises that the levy is not a fine. We will be endeavouring to collect payment on the levy although that will take second place to reparations. As I said this Government is serious about addressing the concerns of victims. The party opposite thought about the matter for over 13 years and did nothing about it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that the Minister has not reconciled the two answers are we now going to have two classes of victims: a first class of victims where offenders are pursued and compelled to pay their levy because of their “willingness and ability to pay” and a second class of victims where offenders make life difficult and are therefore let off the hook by this Government? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is rubbish. Nobody will be let off responsibility for paying a levy fines or reparation. No one will get away without paying the fines or reparation that he or she owes. Everyone will have to deal with his or her fines reparation or levy. One way or another people will be held responsible for what they owe. Those who decide not to pay will feel the full force of the law and quickly. Every day action is being taken to enforce payment by taking money out of wages benefits or directly from bank accounts by seizing and selling assets by clamping vehicles by arresting offenders— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer is excessively long. 
Food Safety—Initiatives 
6.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What initiatives is the Government implementing to promote food safety? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 This week I was privileged to be invited on to the Turangawaewae Marae in Ngaruawahia to launch the New Zealand Food Safety Authority guide  
Te Kai Manawa Ora 
. The guide has been designed specifically for a marae setting and provides food safety tips around gathering storing and cooking traditional Maori food. I am pleased to say the guide has been widely welcomed and will hopefully be put to good use throughout the country. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What further initiatives does the Government have planned? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Next week we will be releasing another food safety guide—a booklet titled  
Food Safety in the Home 
. The booklet aims to educate everyone on best practice in an effort to address food-borne illnesses which cost New Zealand more than $86 million each year through lost productivity and medical expenses. Salmonella and campylobacter-related illnesses are a big concern in New Zealand and the booklet offers expert advice on how to avoid bacterial risks. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that many New Zealanders are concerned about the adequacy of the food safety systems in some of the countries that we import food from and want to avoid buying food from certain countries? Will she therefore commit to introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling for fresh foods so that consumers can work out where their food comes from; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am aware that this issue certainly interests the Green Party and in fact that that member was the author of the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill which was actually voted down in the House in the last term. Mandatory country-of-origin labelling has long been debated. It is not a matter of food safety; incorrect labelling is covered by the fair trading legislation. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that more than 60 countries in the world already have mandatory country-of-origin labelling of food because their Governments accept that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from for many reasons including food safety? Why will the Government not make good on the promise the Prime Minister made earlier this year that he would consider introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling of fresh food? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We are always willing to listen to good ideas and to consider them. I have not personally counted each country that has mandatory country-of-origin labelling but I am happy to accept her word there are 60 of them. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the Minister’s benefit and for any member who is interested— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is seeking leave to table a document she should make that clear at the outset because the member cannot use a point of order to dispute what the Minister has said. The member may certainly use it to table a document but she should make that clear at the outset when she raises the point of order. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I was seeking leave to table a list of more than 60 countries that have mandatory country-of-origin labelling of food for the Minister’s benefit and any other— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Recession—Lane Walker Rudkin 
7.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has he received a request for or offered possible Government assistance to Lane Walker Rudkin; if so when? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister visited Lane Walker Rudkin in Christchurch since the election; if so when? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister ring the receivers for Lane Walker Rudkin yesterday; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. Like the rest of New Zealand I found out about the receivership on the 6 p.m. news. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the fact that as the Minister has just informed the House he found out about it on the 6 o’clock news what action did he take between 6 o’clock last night and 2.30 this afternoon? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: A very long list of actions has been taken by the Minister for Economic Development in the time period referred to by the member. People’s jobs are at stake here; it is a serious issue. A pathetic attempt to make some trite politics out of it is not fair to those people. Our understanding is that commercial solutions are being pursued and we watch and await the outcome of those commercial discussions. 
Broadcasting—Contestable Funding 
8.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent announcement has he made regarding contestable funding for broadcasting? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Last week the Government announced the establishment of a $15 million contestable fund to support New Zealand public television broadcasting. The Platinum Television Fund as it is known takes the $15 million that was formerly ring-fenced for Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) and opens it up for competition to the full range of national free-to-air broadcasters and independent producers. The money will be available from 1 July this year and will support a range of quality content that would not otherwise make it on to our television screens. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What will the Platinum Television Fund deliver? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: In the first year priority will be given to high-end drama and documentaries specialist current affairs programmes and special events programming. The aim is that at the end of each financial year the public will be able to see clearly how the $15 million has been spent and what it has produced. Under the previous Government it was not always clear what the $15 million of charter money actually went into. Under this Government the emphasis will be on funding high-quality public broadcasting content in a transparent manner and that is what the Platinum Television Fund will deliver. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the Platinum Television Fund help fulfil the Government’s visions for broadcasting? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Before the election National committed to funding the best possible public television content regardless of what channel it appears on. The Platinum Television Fund will allow all New Zealand free-to-air broadcasters and independent producers to compete for that funding. The National Government does not believe that one broadcaster has a monopoly on good ideas. We know that Kiwis want to access quality content and that they do not mind if it is on TVNZ TV3 or Maori Television. By making the Platinum Television Fund fully contestable we will ensure that the best possible content makes it onto our screens. That is what the public wants. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe. Kia ora tatou to the Minister. How will the provision of contestable funding support channels to meet their charter requirements to ensure that the participation of Maori can be clearly identified and the presence of a significant Maori voice can be heard? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is important to note that TVNZ is the only television broadcaster with a charter. Although this Government has signalled its intention to repeal that charter a statutory function that includes reflecting Maori perspectives will be included in the Television New Zealand Amendment Act. TVNZ has a specific Maori content strategy. I am advised that its commitment to Maori programming will not change. In addition one of the key statutory functions of New Zealand On Air is to promote Maori language and Maori culture. New Zealand On Air also has a specific strategy for Maori programming. Finally this Government is a supporter of Maori Television which received approximately $32.5 million in direct funding last year. It also received over $19 million in contestable funding from Te Mangai Paho. 
Broadband Roll-out—Cost 
9.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What is the Government’s response to a recently released Treasury report warning that it will cost between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion to connect 75 percent of New Zealand homes with ultra-fast broadband given this Government’s election promise to spend $1.5 billion to achieve this goal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 The report that the member refers to is a report that was written for Treasury not by Treasury—which Treasury assures me is an important distinction. It was written by a consultant Dr Murray Milner and was published on the Ministry of Economic Development website 4 weeks ago. It signals a wide range of deployment costs which vary considerably depending upon the deployment method used the level of take-up the technology chosen the level of consumer expenditure and whether the expenditure is an active or passive-level service. The figures quoted in the member’s question of between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion are at the extreme end of the range; the report also quotes much lower figures. 
Clare Curran 
: Can the Minister confirm that his Government’s $1.5 billion election promise to deliver fibre-optics to the home does include the cost of actually connecting to the home? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said to the member there is a wide range of possibilities. It does not necessarily include the cost of connecting 100 percent of homes but with the level of co-investment from the private sector that the Government expects and an appropriate level of use of existing fibre-optic infrastructure we believe we will get most if not all of the way to our goal of providing ultra-fast broadband availability to 75 percent of New Zealand homes. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What has been the reaction from submitters to the Government’s ultra-fast broadband proposal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Some 105 submissions have now been received. It shows a very positive engagement in the process. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hot under the collar! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Thank you Darren; sartorial assistance is always appreciated. The New Zealand Regional Fibre Group said that the “Government’s Broadband Investment proposal … will leap frog New Zealand to world class broadband.” InternetNZ said it “supports the broad approach outlined of an open access network providing dark fibre and some wholesale services.” Finally Telecom has stated that the Government has shown a “bold vision” for New Zealand’s broadband future which it supports and shares. 
Clare Curran 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealanders may face a personal cost of between $2000 and $3600 per household to connect their homes to the ultra-fast broadband provider to their streets and that this represents another broken promise by the National Government to all New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. 
National Administration Guidelines—Amendments 
10.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What risks to the health and educational achievement of young New Zealanders did education officials alert her to regarding amending the National Administration Guidelines in a briefing paper dated 30 January 2009? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Officials pointed to risks and to studies showing links between nutrition and educational achievement. I was convinced that by removing national administration guideline 5(iii) a move that school principals have applauded because of the guideline’s burdensome and confusing nature and retaining national administrative guideline 5(ii) which requires schools to promote healthy food those risks could be mitigated. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Minister not seek any advice whatsoever from health professionals or from the Ministry of Health after concerns about the health as well as the educational achievements of young New Zealanders and particularly Maori and Pacific Island children were clearly flagged to the Minister by her own officials? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that having a ban on the types of foods at tuck shops which can be easily thwarted by kids buying the same kinds of foods on their way to school or outside school grounds does nothing to help them. I quote for the member’s benefit from an email—and I apologise as it is a bit long—that came to me and was supplied to the member from someone from Otara which has a high Maori and Pacific Island population: “I am writing with a sigh of relief to see the clause removed. The last 2 years I have had to compete with our local dairy that sells up to 600 Big Ben pies and fizzy drinks on a daily basis. He constantly has pallets of chips”— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apart from the answer becoming very long the question that was asked was very straightforward. The question asked whether the Minister had received or asked for advice from health professionals. The answer immediately ignored the question and went on to a whole set of irrelevant information. It seems to me that the question Sue Kedgley asked was capable of being given a fairly simple and straightforward answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The questioner referred to the advice that the Ministry of Health provided to me that specifically refers to some of the risks around Maori and Pacific Island students which the member alluded to in her question. The answer I am giving is from someone who is actually in Otara—which as I said has a high Maori and Pacific Island population—and who is directly involved— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need any further explanation. I take the point the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has raised. The member as I heard it asked quite a specific question. It was not about official advice in general but about advice from Ministry of Health officials. Now they may or may not have given advice but I invite the honourable member to repeat her question so that the House can satisfy itself that it is being answered. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did she not seek any advice whatsoever from health professionals or from the Ministry of Health after concerns about the health of young New Zealanders particularly Maori and Pacific Island children were clearly flagged to the Minister by her own officials? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I did have conversations with the Minister of Health but at the end of the day this Government trusts boards of trustees and principals who are after all the parents of the children at schools. We trust them to make sensible decisions about the provision of food and drink in their schools. We retained the national administration guideline that requires schools to promote healthy food and drink. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you again Mr Speaker but I asked whether she had received advice from the Ministry of Health. She talked about the Minister of Health; she did not answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did actually say in her answer that she had had discussions with Ministry of Health officials. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will find the  
Hansard 
 will say she did speak to the Minister of Health. But she did not say anything about speaking to the Ministry of Health officials. She has not answered the question. I do seek your protection here Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I check with the Minister. Did the Minister say she spoke to the Minister of Health or to Ministry of Health officials? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I said I spoke to the Minister of Health. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask the Minister to answer the question which specifically asks whether she spoke to Ministry of Health officials. It is very easy to answer I would have thought. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Colin King 
: What reports has she received on the evidence used by those who would like to see the return of the “food police”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that some members in the House continue to rely upon a school lunch survey that they commissioned for themselves. This survey has responses from 50 schools. That is less that 1 percent of the number of schools in the country. I am also advised that for a survey of the New Zealand schools to be statistically credible one would need to survey at least 400 schools. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did she not seek any advice from the Ministry of Health before she scrapped the school food guidelines given that the ministry had worked for more than 4 years on developing the school food guidelines and had spent $4.5 million on doing so; is it because she knew that it totally opposed her decision? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I have explained to the member previously this Government trusts boards of trustees who are after all the parents of the children who are attending the schools to make sensible and responsible decisions about the type of food that is served to their children at their schools. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree with four public health experts who wrote in the  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 that her decision to allow the sale of junk food in schools on a routine basis is sending “a message to children that it is okay to eat junk food” that her decision will contribute to a “generation of young people facing a lifetime burden of obesity diabetes” and other chronic conditions and that it will have a hugely negative impact on the health system and the economy; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Education on 30 January 2009 advising the Minister against removing the school food guidelines. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table an article saying that a junk food diet— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask the member when she says this is an article whether it is a press statement. 
Sue Kedgley 
: No absolutely not. It is from the  
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Water-quality Standards—Reports 
11.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Has he received the reports he called for from officials on the water-quality standards due on 9 April and what do they say? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 No. 
Brendon Burns 
: When the Minister told this House last month it was ridiculous for local government representatives to be facing major upgrading costs for water supplies was he then aware of communities whose supplies are so poor they have had or have every reason to fear serious outbreaks of water-borne illnesses such as giardia cryptosporidium and E. coli? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Government is very aware of the need to ensure good safe drinking-water. The debate has been about the costs and the standards and that is why the report has been called for. 
Brendon Burns 
: What has the Minister of Tourism told the Minister about the impact on the tourism industry if a group of overseas visitors were to suffer illnesses caused by contaminated drinking-water supplies? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Minister of Tourism has not raised that with me. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What are the views of iwi relevant to water-quality standards that have emerged from the ongoing dialogue between the Crown and Maori leaders in relation to water management? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I understand that the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health are engaged in a constructive dialogue with iwi on water management and water-quality standards. The Government recognises that iwi regard water as a taonga with life-giving qualities and a spiritual essence. I am afraid that if the member would like to know more about where those discussions are at he will need to put a question down to my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table two papers from Otago University that show that New Zealand has some of the highest recorded rates of gut infections caused by cryptosporidium and giardia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Defence Policy—Review 
12.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What steps has he taken to review defence policy? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Last Tuesday the Associate Minister of Defence and I launched the 2009 defence review. This review will result in a white paper early next year that will set out the Government’s defence policy. There has not been a defence review since 1997 and the world has changed a great deal since then. 
Amy Adams 
: What reports has the Minister received on the various ways of running defence services? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are in fact a variety of ways in which defence forces can operate. For example I have read a report entitled “Outsourcing War” which discusses military companies like Blackwater Worldwide and suggests that we “recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy.” Interestingly enough this report came from Mr David Shearer a man with considerable experience in Iraq and I understand Mr Goff’s preferred candidate for Mt Albert’s by-election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the person he is seeking to undermine at this point has over the last 10 years constantly put his life at risk has won gallantry awards for saving the lives of children in refugee camps and in fact has done far more for humanity than John Key and the dirty-tricks brigade in the National Party who are seeking to undermine him? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I certainly have heard of Mr Shearer’s reputation. I have also heard that he has written in fact four articles and books: the first is entitled “Dial an Army” from  
The World Today 
 in 1997; the second is “Outsourcing War” from  
Foreign Policy 
 in 1998; the third is  
Private Armies and Military Intervention 
; and the fourth is “Privatising”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can this answer from the Minister possibly be in line with the question asked by Mr Goff? Mr Goff did not ask what publications the author had put forward and I think he is not responsible— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more about this at all. If the member had listened to his leader’s question he would have found that towards the end it was very politically loaded and it got the kind of answer that could be expected. 
Amy Adams 
: Has the Minister received reports on defence land sales? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes I have. Mr Goff was very keen to sell Whenuapai Air Base and had convinced the Labour Cabinet to sell that major defence asset. This Government of course rejected that plan because it simply did not make economic or operational sense. We are retaining Whenuapai Air Base as an active base and we have a substantial programme to upgrade that base because of all the maintenance that was deferred under the previous Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister confirm that the advice of his defence officials is that retaining the base involves a very expensive duplication of facilities; and is it appropriate that he is spending more here unnecessarily when he has sacked 880 good public servants who have lost their livelihood because of Government cuts? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In fact quite to the contrary the advice that we received was that it would cost $500 million to shift from Whenuapai to Ohakea so in that case there were no savings to be made from that and the previous Government’s plan was fundamentally flawed. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Minister explain why the Chief of Defence Force General Mateparae advised the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee only a few weeks ago that the closure of Whenuapai would result in savings and that in addition the military has a need for further expenditure to try to reduce its still high vacancy rate thereby creating jobs which the retention of Whenuapai would preclude? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is quite clear that when one expends $60 million on upgrading Whenuapai in terms of new runways and so forth one will actually generate a good deal of construction jobs. The advice from the Defence Force is that having the two facilities is highly desirable and that in fact closing one would cost more money. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can I put it to the Minister that he is getting close to misleading the House if he suggests— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a question? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can I put it to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right; the member may continue. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can I put it to the Minister that he is getting close to misleading the House if he characterises the retention of Whenuapai as being of net economic benefit to the military when the advice of the Chief of Defence Force is directly to the contrary? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No I certainly would not agree with that. 
General Debate 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In the last sitting week my colleague Kennedy Graham identified the magnitude of the challenge that faces humanity in the 21st century and the place and role of New Zealand within that. It is our conviction that the problems we face today are the direct result of our traditional political and economic beliefs. By clinging to an increasingly obsolete world view humanity has not only generated serious global problems; it is unable to perceive them for what they are let alone solve them. In New Zealand the National Party owes its heritage to the Western liberal tradition which responded to the strictures of absolutism and tyranny. Those concerns evolved into the politics of individual liberty and economic freedom. The Labour Party’s heritage lies in the Western socialist tradition which responded to the misery and injustice of inequality and insecurity. That evolved into the compassionate politics of State welfare and communal responsibility. 
For its part the Green Party owes its heritage to a new and modern tradition that responds to the ecological crisis and the politics of survival and sustainability. Born of an awakening concern about the silence in spring the environmental movement took political form in the Green parties of the 1980s and in our case descended from the visionary Values Party. Those parties entered Parliaments in the 1990s and are strengthening in the early 21st century. Today the Green Party exists to respond to the concerns of the contemporary world. Having earlier foreseen the onset of those problems it now works to develop a strategic policy response. 
The ecological overshoot is the product of individual freedom run amok. We in the West have carried economic growth to the level of addiction; we have geared our economic systems to require continual economic growth for any kind of stability. Because the resources on which continual growth feeds are finite it is not sustainable in the long run—nor in the short run as recent events have demonstrated. The planet simply cannot sustain the equation of numbers multiplied by greed. Policy makers who tinker with fiscal and monetary policy in order to restore an outmoded notion of economic growth do not provide the answer; they are the orchestra on the  
Titanic 
. The ecological overshoot can no more be remedied through an intensified pursuit of individual liberty than a drunk can be sobered through a trip to the liquor store. Pretending that exponential growth on a finite planet is possible through technological progress is a delusion. The self-evidence of this fact is screened only by powerful interests that are intent on short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability while the rest of us are desperate to believe what we wish were the case. 
But the politics of compassion are also inadequate to deal with the problems we face. Redistributive justice can remedy the inequality of wealth and poverty but it can no more reverse the ecological overshoot than a bird can fly backwards. 
In New Zealand National and Labour have philosophically merged into a conjoint political establishment with the same broad underlying beliefs: self-perpetuating economic growth corporate dominance and unfettered international trade and finance. Their combination is disastrous. The political struggle between the relative priority of individual freedom and equality is reflected in the left/right spectrum that is used today to analyse politics. But the tension between sustainability and profligacy cannot be placed on the left/right spectrum. A second and new axis is required: the sustainability axis. Without this we lack an accurate compass for navigating through the 21st century. 
As the contemporary generation matures so do its politics. It is apparent that the Green Party in this country as elsewhere carries the underlying beliefs that are relevant to our age and the party is maturing to the point where it is able and ready to lead. We welcome that challenge. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 To be asked to lead off the Government side is a somewhat— 
Chris Hipkins 
: They must be really desperate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —oh yeah the little gnome over there; the little gnome from Weta Workshop is here—it is a somewhat mixed privilege. But I want to take the opportunity to talk about and pass on my respects to Minister Paula Bennett for her sterling job and sterling work in the job summits. 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I want to say that. All those people say “Oh oh!” but I will tell the House what the summits did. They provided a forum for people to talk about new ideas. They kept everybody in the know about the latest economic news and they offered advice for those who were experiencing difficulties. Who laughs at that? It is the members on that side over there. They laugh at the companies and workers going through hard times. In a nutshell those summits were about protecting keeping and even creating jobs for joblessness threatens the very fabric of our society. I tell members that they can take it from somebody who knows about what it does to a community—a community that bears the brunt of a very very big downturn and a 23 percent rate of unemployment. Those members should see what that does to a community. So I take my hat off to the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Social Development who organised our job summits. 
But I want to take a bit of time too to show special gratitude to a group of people—people who have been maligned up hill and down dale in this country— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Labour Party. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and that is the immigrant community. No you see we do not make jokes about unemployment I tell the senior Labour whip. We do not make jokes about unemployment but I tell members that as the recession gets harder some—[ 
Interruption 
] You see not one of those people has ever been on the scrap heap—not one of them. But they purport to speak on behalf of the downtrodden. Well what a load of rubbish! I say tell them to give their salaries to the food banks and then I will start listening to them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the member? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh! The member asks whether I give my wages to anybody. I ask him how many people there are in my family that I look after. At least I have a family to look after. If he wants to go down that track away we go. 
Hon Member 
: So that’s the National Party standard is it? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I say to that member to calm himself down. 
Grant Robertson 
: You’re the one! Stop the personal attacks Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Calm down. I want to pay special attention to the immigrant community. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh! Members do not want to talk about the immigrant community—OK then. They arrive here with nothing and with a promise of nothing but they get down and dirty. They take all jobs— 
Hon Member 
: Like the member. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. If I could be like one of those immigrants I tell members I would be a better man than I am now. I believe it is about time—[ 
Interruption 
] Well we know you are a bigot. We know that you do not like the immigrants. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope the Speaker is not a bigot. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have already pulled the member up on it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised at your slowness on this matter. The member looked directly at another member of the House and called that member a word that is highly unparliamentary. Even for the former deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party in the 1996 election campaign that is a bit much. He should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I called the member to order anyhow. I did not want to interrupt because it was not such a huge offence but if offence has been taken I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I suppose as Corporal Jones said in  
Dad’s Army 
 “They don’t like it up ’em.” Do members know why? It is because when we start talking about the supposed groups that the Opposition is supporting it all comes home to roost. What I am saying about the immigrant community is that members opposite might shout and cry but we should take a leaf out of the book of the immigrant community—the hard and staunch work that the people of that community put in. They had nothing when they arrived in this country. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Actually this side of the House does take unemployment seriously. We even sought to support the Job Summit in a bipartisan way. But let us look at whether the substance has matched the rhetoric. The $2 billion credit fund—the big idea—fell over; nothing came of it. The 9-day working fortnight saw 117 jobs saved. Each one of those jobs is important but 117 jobs were saved when Treasury tells us that 60000 jobs will be lost to New Zealanders this year. Then there was the cycleway. Do members remember the cycleway? It is the one that the real Prime Minister said would be built not this year not next year and not the year after. I say to Tau Henare that his people are the people who have suffered because this Government did not give tax cuts to those who would have spent it on necessities and stimulated the economy. So I do not want any of those double standards paraded here. 
Amidst the growing list of broken promises is that of the promise that the National Party made before the election that it would consult Aucklanders after the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance had been made public. What happened? One week after the royal commission’s report John Key and Rodney Hide told Aucklanders what they had already decided for the people of Auckland and indicated that they would ram that model through Parliament under urgency. Where is the consultation in that? Not even the mayors were asked for their views before that decision was announced except for one—John Banks. This legislation is about a gerrymander to suit the political interests of the ACT Party the National Government and their wealthy cronies. Make no mistake about that! This legislation is not legislation by Aucklanders for Aucklanders; it is a political gerrymander to suit the wealthy business and political interests of the ACT Party and the National Party. 
It is no wonder that there is a rising anger across Auckland as Aucklanders consider that they have had absolutely no say over the changes to the city they live in which they will be asked to pay for—absolutely no say at all. It is little wonder that in every suburban newspaper across Auckland—and I tabled this yesterday for the House—the normally mild-mannered suburban newspapers have said that Mr Key and Mr Hide are stripping democracy from Aucklanders. They have said that this National Government is using its bullying tactics to force on Aucklanders legislation that they neither want nor will tolerate. In my time in Parliament I have never seen suburban newspapers use such strong and clear language as the language they used last week. 
Section 49 of the Local Government Act states that where there is restructuring polls must be held. This happens to be the biggest restructuring in Auckland’s and New Zealand’s history. Will the National Government hold a poll as a poll was held in Christchurch for the amalgamation down there? No. Why is a poll not being held as required under section 49? It is because the National Government does not have the courage of its convictions and it does not have the confidence that Aucklanders will accept what it is trying to ram down their throats. That is why the National Government is not seeking a mandate for what it is trying to force on Aucklanders. John Key knows that 72 percent of his electorate when polled rejected what he is telling Aucklanders is good for them. I have heard a lot about nanny State but I have never seen a Government that imposes legislation against the will of people without their consultation in the manner that the Government is doing here. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am proud to be part of a Government that is about action; not like this Opposition that does not even understand the meaning of the word. The previous speaker has no idea what the royal commission was all about; it was about consultation. He is a member—Goff—who is constantly trying to gain— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member for interrupting her speech but I cannot hear a word she is saying. Could members on both sides of the House please cease the barrage of interjection so that the House can hear the contribution from Sandra Goudie. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker but I was quite happy to go on regardless because this is a Government that is proud of its work. It is all about action; it is not just all talk like the previous Government which had 9 years and did nothing. Quite clearly Goff is constantly perverting the facts in a desperate bid to gain ground while it rapidly shifts underneath him. He clearly does not understand what a royal commission is for—that it is all about consultation. Does he not understand that? He is desperate to try to cobble together a few hundred people out of the hundreds of thousands who actually support progress in Auckland. What does he understand about it? I do not think he understands a great deal; it is all just for political purchase and it is rapidly slipping away from him. 
I am incredibly proud of National and the work it has been doing on the Resource Management Act. There has been a healthy debate which is ongoing and New Zealanders up and down the country are celebrating the fact that we are making some changes to the Act and that we want to make a difference. This Act affects the lives of New Zealanders across the country who have experienced the blockages in this legislation that were never addressed by the previous Government in its 9 years in office. It is an appalling indictment against the Opposition. Labour had 9 years when in Government of doing nothing while National has really been on the front foot and is working hard to make a difference. There has been healthy debate around changes to the Local Government Act to the Building Act and to a whole lot of other legislation. 
I can tell members of the excellent work done by the Minister Judith Collins on law and order. It is just another one of those factors of significant and positive change and making a difference as we go forward. We had only to listen to what she had to say in the House today about the extra policing for Counties-Manukau; that has been a huge step forward for Counties-Manukau and for the security and safety of New Zealanders. 
I will share with members the fact that since National became the Government the number of police in Counties-Manukau has increased by 26 to 780. In addition police numbers in Counties-Manukau are expected to grow by a further 16 constables by 30 June 2009. Overall the police expect to achieve an extra 150 in police numbers this year and 150 next year. This is a boost of 300 new front-line police to Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010. It is a key Government policy and we are delighted to be able to announce this progress to date under the auspices of the excellent Minister Judith Collins. A further 41 police recruits are destined for Counties-Manukau—all a part of the programme that she has under way that is making such a difference. So there is a lot of work going on in that regard. I will also mention the excellent work in justice by Simon Power. He is another really hard-working Minister who is making a difference. 
The Opposition cannot deny the huge amount of work that this Government has undertaken within 6 months which the previous Government could not even equal within the whole of its 9 years in office. It is outstanding work and the Government will continue to implement policies to protect jobs as well as create an environment that creates new jobs and make it easier for small businesses up and down the country to do business. This is about getting rid of as much red tape as possible so that people can get on with their jobs and not be bogged down by paperwork. This is all part of fulfilling that 100-day plan and it is fantastic to see the difference that has been made in this regard. 
As well as fulfilling our commitments in our 100-day plan we are continuing to implement our jobs and growth plan. The funding to Housing New Zealand has made such a huge difference. Members have heard stories in the House about builders who have been kept going as a result of the extra work made available to them by the funding being put into New Zealand housing and by the upgrading of New Zealand houses. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 The korero the word in Auckland is to join the hikoi on 25 May to target all National MPs who have the misfortune of imposing themselves on Auckland because they have misled Auckland. They have promised representation and consultation and Rodney Hide and John Key have refused to front up with the people of Auckland. In fact today they have been reduced to putting up the “Mangrove Maid” they dug up to fill in space. There can be no representation for Auckland for as long as those members are quietly shafting the people who voted for them. How pathetic! 
We saw Dr Mapp and the Prime Minister wander around on Anzac Day talking about the virtues of soldiers and their military contribution. But the very ideals those soldiers sought to protect and safeguard Auckland National MPs deny Aucklanders the ability to enjoy. They have no opportunity to decide their own future. There is no consultation. Representation is driven by the corporate personal interests of the architects of this new scheme who are based in Auckland. It will never fly. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abraham Lincoln didn’t say that. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There are two valedictory speeches today actually. We are to hear from Dr Cullen and there is the late Mr Quinn who was beaten by Winston’s younger brother; at least there is now someone with talent style and looks in rugby union. 
Only one other National MP has to follow that double-dipping episode—that is Sam Lotu-Iiga. He needs to stand down from the Auckland City Council and stop being a lion at home and a lamb in the House. He is the very man who has a mandate to be on the Auckland City Council but he will not stand down and is misrepresenting its views. 
The major casualties of the Auckland debacle are Maori. Dr Pita Sharples promised as a consequence of forming that foul pact with the National Government that he would deliver better Maori representation. He has a standard to live up to. From 1986 to 1992 the Auckland Regional Authority had Maori representation under a Labour Government and then from the south came that gargoyle Warren Cooper and just like that it disappeared. He has been reincarnated in the form of the current younger members. There is a history of Maori representation in local government in Auckland. It was Labour’s Nganeko Minhinnick for Western Maori and Waerete Norman for Northern Maori Tau Henare and others. 
The two Maori members in Cabinet Georgina te Heuheu and Paula Bennett—Pita Sharples is not in Cabinet—quietly told their colleagues: “Do not go ahead with Maori representation. Do not advance it. Use Pita Sharples’ clumsy language and vague thinking as a basis for hiding the real agenda.” Well come the hikoi they will have to explain to obviously the Pakeha voters whom they have already offended and to their Maori partner as to why there can be no representation. 
Of course deeper than representation woes is the Government’s inability to explain how much this reform will cost. Will it be $500 $600 or $700 per ratepayer once these reforms go through? There is the inability to influence local government through representation which is definitely unwanted in relation to consultation. I say that the Government cannot get the issues of representation and tax the wrong way round. If it is to tax people in Auckland through the levy of a rate to cover the reform costs then it has to allow people to be represented. That is where the Government is failing. 
Why is the Government doing this? It has its secret quisling in the form of John Banks. As soon as a Cabinet meeting is over or maybe 5 10 or 15 minutes later he knows everything. Well that is easy because in terms of putting everything into that vacant mind of his that is an endless task. He is already wandering around saying: “There will never be Maori representation in Auckland. There will be my type of corporate-based privatisation personality-cult approach.” 
That approach suits our friends on the other side of the House. It certainly suits Mr Hide but there is a campaign under way. The community newspapers have said that democracy is worth defending. They have pointed out that every Auckland MP belonging to the National Party is toast. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 After 9 years of watching the Labour Party in Government and after a couple of months of watching the Labour Party in Opposition I have come to the conclusion that Labour is much better at Opposition that it ever was at Government—and it is not much good at Opposition I can tell members. So far today we have seen three leadership bids from members on the other side and the number is still rising. The latest one of course is from another Harvard graduate who is sitting next to the other one who has a leadership bid running and who has just resumed his seat. 
I heard the previous speaker Shane Jones talk about taxation without representation but the most offensive thing about the last 9 years of Labour Government was the fact that our primary production sector—the engine room of the economy—was being heavily taxed the whole time with no representation in central government. Members opposite are crying out about the form of Auckland local government but that is an issue for Aucklanders to sort out amongst themselves. As far as representing New Zealand is concerned the National Government has put the country on a track that can lead only to recovery after what has been described as one of the worst depressions or economic downturns we have seen in a number of years. Let us talk about some of the positive things that have taken place so far under the National Government. We have a lot of extra police coming on stream. Law and order was a major election item and this Government has delivered. We have reduced taxation. It was interesting that the previous speaker spent so much time on the issue of taxation without representation but one of the very first things the Government did was to reduce taxation. 
Later on today we will listen to the valedictory of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and I will not discredit him at this stage because that would be ungenerous but I will say he was a very good manager of the House. He was superb at it and he was also quite truthful to his principles. He believed that one could tax and tax and tax and the economy would grow as a result. The evidence is that he was wrong. He will go from this place as someone who served the area he represented originally and the country well in his own view. There is no question about that and he will leave a big hole in the Labour Party. In my view on most of his economic management policy in regard to the lost opportunity from some of the best opportunity we saw in a lifetime he was wrong. The mistakes will be well recorded when the final analysis is done. It will probably be Dr Michael Cullen himself who does it because he is quite skilled in studying history but is not good at predicting the future. I say to the Labour Opposition it will have to do a lot better. 
On 8 November 2008 New Zealand made a decision to change direction substantially from where it was heading. It made that decision clearly because as a nation we were not going ahead; we were going backwards. Look at what has happened since the Government has changed. Look at what is happening in some of the agricultural indicators. The very figures that Dr Cullen should have studied but instead got Jim Anderton to study have changed. We are seeing growth year on year; despite the economic circumstances we are still seeing growth. Why would we not create a policy framework that allows those who have the entrepreneurial spirit—the entrepreneurial get up and go—to flourish and do well? The Government has come out with a number of initiatives in that area. We are coming out with policies that will help small and medium sized businesses. We are coming out with policies that will reward people who show entrepreneurial skills. We will reward people and show them how they can get ahead and do well. We are looking at investing heavily in science particularly in the sector that has the ability to help the economy. We are investing in infrastructure. 
Labour talked about investment for 9 years but did not do it. When we look at the figures in actual fact investment went backwards; percentage-wise investment went backwards and not forwards. The Labour Opposition’s response is typical; it is the same as it was when it was in Government: there must be a way forward and the way forward must be more taxation. Labour was wrong then and it is wrong now. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I quote: “I am sure that by the time this proposal for Auckland is rolled out we will have got it right”. With those immortal words John Key admitted what everybody in Auckland already knows; that is by goodness has National stuffed up on the super-city. Polls show that more than 70 percent of Aucklanders think National has got it wrong and 72 percent in John Key’s own electorate in Helensville think National has got it wrong. Nobody believes John Key’s public relations shuffle is all Rodney Hide’s fault because who put the fox in the chicken coop in the first place? 
It is no wonder that Paula Bennett is not here. She is in such a panic that she is floating like a giant blimp in west Auckland trying to harness a fight back because she knows westies are marching in the streets against this undemocratic nonsense. It is no wonder that every suburban newspaper is railing against the “stupid city” or the “stupor city”. They are sick to death of it already. It is no wonder that National’s honeymoon in Auckland is now firmly over because every Labour MP in Auckland can count their majorities rising as people take to the streets against that lot of promise breakers. Here is what National said in its manifesto: “Support . . . people within the Auckland region [expressing] their views” “Consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the Royal Commission are known.” “making sure each community in our biggest city feels appropriately represented.” This is a far cry from what we got today. 
It is no wonder that more than 1000 west Aucklanders marched in the streets last week. It is no wonder that more than 250 people came out to a cold wet Monday night meeting in Kelston. It is no wonder that National is worried because “John Hide” and “Rodney Key”—are those not Freudian slips—have stolen our eco-city they have stolen our art city and they have stolen our smart business city all to get John Banks elected as mega-mayor. It is no wonder because National has broken another election promise. It is no wonder because it is overriding section 49 of the Local Government Act 1974 that requires a referendum on structural reform. National has emasculated local democracy in Auckland where 22 local boards cannot buy a pencil sharpener without John Banks’ permission. They cannot buy a pencil sharpener and they cannot hire anybody. All they are allowed to do is license brothels and clean up rubbish. That is not local democracy that is not community development and that is why Waitakere residents are rising up to fight this plan. Labour stands alongside the people of Waitakere City. 
Labour wants a ward system where every councillor knows who his or her constituents are not one with eight white men from Remuera whose job it is to keep John Banks in power. Those at-large wards are a crying shame because hundreds of thousands of dollars are needed to run a campaign across Auckland. The real people in my electorate need not apply; they need not run because they do not have $250000 per letter drop to spend on contacting every Auckland home—that is for only the rich and the famous. Traditionally the white men of Remuera can run for and win an at-large ward. That means that the Auckland super-city will be permanently stacked to the right. National members know it they are smugly sitting there because they know it but what they did not count on was that every ordinary westie knows it. That is why westies are taking to the streets. That is why they are bombarding Ministers’ offices with letters and emails. That is why Paula Bennett is scurrying around Waitakere as we speak. That is why John Key is backtracking as fast as his public relations minders will let him and that is why the honeymoon is over in west Auckland. This issue has politicised the people of the west. It has told National members that if they thought they could get these guys elected and nothing would change they are so wrong. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the general debate today. It has been a great week for the Government so far. It has been a great month for the Government so far. It has been a great year for the Government so far. Unfortunately the Labour Party cannot say the same thing. It has been a tough month for the Labour Party so far. It has lost Helen Clark; it is losing Michael Cullen. The mum and the dad of the party are finally leaving—leaving the coop and leaving the children behind. But that is OK because the Labour Party is rejuvenating. Next week Damien O’Connor comes in. Two weeks ago the party forgot to tell Damien he was coming in. He was not sure when he was coming in but the party will let him know because he is part of the fresh blood that is coming into this Labour Party. And then who will come in to replace Helen Clark? If we listen to the rumours we hear it will be David Shearer. That fresh young face that young man is to come into the Labour Party to rejuvenate it. 
But this is not the first time that David Shearer has tried to come into Parliament via the Labour Party. In 1999 he was a list-only candidate for Labour. He was so good he was at No. 62 on the list. In 2002 David Shearer tried to come in again. He stood for Whangarei; he did not do very well. He did not win the seat and he was ranked at No. 45 on the list. I understand that Shearer also stood for Waitakere against Lynne Pillay but lost there as well. So that is the fresh blood the rejuvenation of the Labour Party. When David Shearer finally gets here maybe or maybe not he will be the new face of the Labour Party. 
What does David Shearer have to say? What does this new fresh face have to say? I do not know. Let us have a look at a little of what he has written. I quote: “The principal obstacle to regulating private military companies has been the tendency to brand them as ‘mercenaries’ of the kind witnessed in Africa 30 years ago rather than to recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy.” Legitimate multinational entrepreneurs instead of mercenaries—that is very interesting coming from someone who wants to represent the Labour Party. Does that sit well with his colleagues? Do they believe that as well? So far they have stood by exactly what he has said. Even more recently when David Shearer has been interviewed he has still stood by what he said. In fact he went on to say “Consequently regulation can be best achieved through constructive engagement.” That is how he will regulate his mercenaries. That is very interesting. 
Is that very Labour? Is that the new face of Labour that we are actually seeing? I do not see anybody standing up and saying it is not. All of a sudden the Labour Party members have gone very quiet. Only moments ago they were yelling across the House. I say they should stand up and defend this new member who is to come in. But no. [ 
Interruption 
] So now they say David Shearer is not going to be a candidate. That is not what we hear; that is not what Labour people are telling us. They are telling us something totally different from that. 
What else did David Shearer go on to say? I think he has even better ideas. I quote: “The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms can take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort.” Well that will be very interesting for Helen Clark to defend in her new job. 
So mum and dad—Helen and Michael—have now left the family. They have left the family behind and new siblings are coming in to replace them. What a new face this Labour Party will have! It will be so connected to the people of New Zealand—so connected to the causes of New Zealand. In fact I heard the other day that some of the members of Parliament for Labour went on a provincial road trip through the provinces of New Zealand. Wow! That will be the first in a while. Labour members have not been particularly connected with people. I think that the 1 million people who voted for the National Government would say they have not seen the Labour members of Parliament at the grassroots for a long time. It may take a little while for people to identify those Labour members of Parliament if they go through the provinces. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Greetings to you and greetings to the members of the House. When I listen to the speeches coming from the other side of the House I have to say that the impression I get is one of cavalier disinterest. We are discussing a very important issue and that is the issue of Auckland governance. It is an important issue. I ask the House to treat it with respect because whether or not we like it or love it the Government’s proposal to establish a super-city for Auckland means that for the next 50 or 100 years we will have a city that will impact on the lives not only of the people of today but of future generations. 
I say that Labour stands in support of Manukau City and its people. We support the people of Manukau City despite the mistake that some of them made in the last election by voting for the Hon Maurice Williamson the Hon Pansy Wong and the Hon Judith Collins. I would say that our people throughout Manukau City are very much in support of the work that we currently do and the encouragement and support that our colleagues like Ross Robertson and others are providing to the people of Manukau City. 
I want to lay some groundwork for my reasoning for saying this is an important issue. Manukau City has been around for 44 years. It has had only four mayors. The first mayor was Hugh Lambie the second was Sir Lloyd Elsmore who passed away not too long ago the third was Sir Barry Curtis and the present mayor is now Len Brown. The chief executive officers of Manukau City Council have numbered only three in 44 years. That gives an indication of the stability that the city has had. Those are men whom I have the deepest respect for. I have had the opportunity to know some of them and they are men who believe in the need to pursue a philosophy of social justice and social equity. They have maintained that belief throughout the 44 years of the city’s history. 
The establishment of a super-city means that we will do away with Manukau City. It means we will do away with Waitakere City North Shore City and Auckland City. But this is about more than doing away with just structures. We will do away with the work the sweat and the blood that past generations and people today have put into this city. We will do away with the special character and the spirit of Manukau City and there is no other city like Manukau City. It has a spirit of its own. I have said in this House and I will say it again that the young generation of Manukau City is not only beautiful but gifted. They will be future leaders of our country. 
What will it mean when this super-city is put in place by Mr Hide with the support of Mr Key and the Maori Party? They will put in place an executive mayor with executive powers. Along with Mr Ross Robertson and Mr George Hawkins I conducted a survey of our constituents throughout Manukau City. The feedback that we are getting is that too much power in the hands of one person is a dangerous thing. The proposal by this Government of putting up a mayor with executive powers who can appoint a deputy mayor and appoint the chairs of various select committees is a dangerous thing. Having a position where someone can hire his or her own staff to drive his or her agenda is a dangerous thing. The feedback that we are getting in terms of the Government’s proposal to have 20 ward councillors with six councillors at large— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who set up the royal commission? 
Paul Quinn 
: Labour. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Labour did set up the royal commission. Labour set up the royal commission with people on it who are very well regarded. But it is not Labour that is putting the super-city in place—it is National. When the royal commission recommended that the council should have three Maori seats for the Auckland region my kaumatuas in Mangere said to me that three seats is a good start. But what is this Government doing? It is scrapping the three representatives of Maori. What are they going to put in place for Pacific and Asian people? 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will start my speech in the general debate today by thanking the previous speaker from the Labour Party. He has made my job easier; not only because of his speech am I much more likely to be entertaining but he has gone a long way in making me seem much more intelligent than perhaps I am. I thank the member again for that. 
After being here for almost 5 months now and sitting here listening to this debate for the last 5 minutes I have worked it out: the members opposite have no friends and they have run out of ideas—those over there have no friends left and no ideas. But in my view from sitting here since 8 November 2008 it seems that now after 9 years in Government all of a sudden they have all of the answers. The members have all the answers after 9 years but no ideas left anymore. I think the people of New Zealand see that Labour is in denial and that there is a lot of confusion on the opposite side of the House. The members are walking around as if they have lost their souls. They are wandering the corridors of Parliament late at night shell-shocked and in denial muttering to each about where it all went wrong. They had this great big philosophy for 9 years but they are now wondering where it all went wrong. “Where did it all go wrong?” they are asking themselves under their breath. 
Do members know what the answer is? Labour stopped listening to everyday New Zealanders out there in the streets. Do members know what happened in the electorate of Rotorua? They stopped listening to the people of Rotorua and it took 9 years for us to work out that Labour members had given up on us and run out of ideas. Labour members still think they have all the answers but the people of Rotorua have moved on. Do members know who else has moved on? With the election last year the people of New Zealand have moved on. 
I have heard all the members opposite talk about Auckland and I respect most of their views but I have listened very closely to National members who probably represent more people in Auckland now than members opposite do. There are many more National members of Parliament from Auckland than there were 3 years ago and certainly 6 years go—a great party vote for National. 
I understand from turning on my TV 3 weeks ago that the Leader of the Opposition was wandering around parts of Auckland delivering leaflets and trying to re-engage and talk to people. When a lady in the street—I think she was from Auckland central and she was looking for a job—was asked what he was doing wandering around parts of Auckland she was heard to say: “I think he’s lost. He’s in Mt Albert but he thinks this is his own electorate next door—Mt Roskill.” Labour members seem to have all the answers now but how can Mr Goff be out campaigning so early in an electorate like Mt Albert before Labour even has a candidate? I suppose when he is desperate when he has lost his way and when he is a new leader of an old tired party he has to win in any way that he can. So I look forward to turning on my television this weekend and seeing Mr Goff filling in for the candidate who has not yet been selected in Mt Albert walking around and telling the people of Mt Albert about how much he needs their support how desperate he is to keep his job and how after 9 years it has all gone wrong. 
What has this National Government done since it came to office? What have we been focused on? Let us start with the economy and the job summits the first of which was in Auckland. Was it not surprising that members opposite could not find very much that was good to say about what was going on in those job summits? But what of some of their friends—members of unions who were involved in the process people from around the country business leaders and people involved in employment—who sat there listened and put their ideas forward? They found that all of a sudden the world had changed. After 9 years of nobody listening to them and nobody caring they have a new Government that is willing to entertain other ideas look for good ideas and bring those ideas forward to help New Zealanders. 
In other parts of the country—for example in the Waikato—there were great job summits. In my electorate of Rotorua 2 weeks ago we had a Bay of Plenty job summit. There was a great turn out. Mayors were there councillors were represented and there were employers from business and industry. The Chamber of Commerce was there as were workers. They were talking about the problems we face and some of the good measures we have brought forward as a Government that are happening in the Bay of Plenty. Do members know what those people were saying? They were saying: “We have confidence in this Government. We believe that this Government is moving us forward and that when the economy changes when we come out of this recession we in the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua will be ready to make the most of it. We are focusing on training people. We are looking forward to the investment of money in infrastructure in our region we are looking forward to having better and newer broadband in areas that Labour did not care about at all and we will be ready to make the most of the changes.” When the world’s economy changes slowly and improves the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua will be at the front of that and making the most of it. 
Do members know what else people at the job summit in Rotorua were saying? A man stood up and said “You know I haven’t always voted for the party in Government. I have not always been sure that I’ve liked what that party has spoken about but I like what I hear now and I like this new Prime Minister John Key. He is listening to me. Every day I turn on my television and from what I hear I think he is listening to me.” 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in this general debate and I will speak as my colleagues have on Auckland governance. I start by congratulating the communities across Auckland: the people of Manukau the North Shore Auckland City—despite their mayor—and the people of Waitakere. They have had a gutsful of the National Government’s actions its blatant disregard for the royal commission’s report and its imposition of a model that rips the heart out of our communities and the “local” out of local government. It is all to deliver a system that looks after the Government’s members and gives power to their rich mates. Well it did not work. Every community across the greater region has risen up and said very loudly and very clearly “No way.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s not true! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I tell Maurice Williamson to ask Paula Bennett. Those members have her on the run. There has been no consultation whatsoever. The Government is taking every resource from our cities and our communities. I acknowledge westies in this House for their opposition. We are westies. From their postcards to their rallies thousands in Waitakere turned out. Hundreds attended the Labour Party public meeting on a wet Monday night along with David Cunliffe Chris Carter Kelvin Davis and me to protest at this Government’s actions. We have been with the people of the Auckland region and all our cities every step of the way. 
Hone Harawira 
: Good on you Lynne. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Hone. I hope that member will take the next call on this because there is one left. We know in Waitakere that we are an eco-city a peace city a community city and the best place to live because of the relationship between our council and the communities who live there. We know that; we always have. Rodney Hide did not know that John Key did not know that and Paula Bennett did not know that but they do now. They are on the run. They are back-pedalling so quick to get in with the people of Waitakere the people of Manukau and the people of the North Shore—ask Darien Fenton who has attended public meetings. 
Where are the National MPs in all of this? I am really pleased that the National Government is starting to back track big time. I say all power to the people. Keep it up. Go on the hikoi. Good on Hone Harawira. Get it going but please take a call next because if you do not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker cannot take a call. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry Mr Speaker—if the Maori Party does not take a call then someone else will. We want to see a mayor in local government who is accountable to the city and Auckland City positions elected by wards. We want to keep the “local” in local government. We want an agreed system of Maori representation certainty and fair treatment of the staff who work in those councils and public ownership guaranteed in our councils. That can happen only if the people of our cities continue to fight this Government. I pledge very clearly that Labour will be there alongside them every step of the way saying that no way will we have the National-ACT Government impose on us conditions of government that as Su’a William Sio said before will be there for generations to come that will rip the heart out of our communities and our cities. That is not what the royal commission recommended that is not what Labour wants to see happen that is not what the people of Auckland want to see happen and that is not what the people of Waitakere want to see happen—or the people of the North Shore of Manukau City or many of the Auckland City councillors who have spoken out against their mayor. They want an inclusive vibrant regional structure that is represented by a ward system from every city in the region so they have a true voice. We want resources for all of our community projects for all of the great things that happen in our cities that Su’a William Sio spoke about and certainly we see that happening in Waitakere. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am delighted to take the last call in this general debate. As an Auckland member I tell the previous speaker Lynne Pillay that she was wrong when she said that every community in Auckland is outraged. I tell that member that my electorate Pakuranga has two major blocks of communities. There is the community of Pakuranga and the community of Howick. Those people are delighted at the general direction that this reform is recommending. They have some concerns about the very minor detail. I understand that and so does the Government. The Government is working through that. The reform will go to a select committee and it is likely that the minor details around the fringes still have some work to be done but the general principle of this reform is the best thing that could happen to Auckland. It can be summarised in one sentence: the big stuff is going up and the small stuff is going down. By that I mean that the big network issues like roads electricity and waste water will be run by one city council. Currently it is a joke. 
I used to make fun of the fact that we had 32 councils in Auckland. There was a Mount Roskill borough council a Mount Eden borough council and an Onehunga council. I used to make jokes that we were really lucky that our roads even joined up. Someone pointed out to me that there is a road just behind Eden Park called Burnley Terrace that runs from Dominion Road through to Sandringham Road. It does not actually join up. It has a little dog-leg in the middle because half of it was in the Mount Albert borough council area and half of it was in the Mount Eden borough council area and they could not even agree on the alignment of the street. 
What will be really good about this is those huge big issues will be run by one council. They include network and infrastructure issues and in my portfolio things like building consents. At the moment a builder in Auckland put in a consent to the Manukau City Council and got it through. He put the same consent into the Waitakere City Council and had it rejected. That is sheer madness. In return for that we also recognise that down at the smaller community level those people want some more say in the things that are relevant to them and I agree with that. The people of Howick want some say over their library or what colour the swimming pool is or whether there is disabled parking in front of the shopping centre. That is exactly what this reform is about. 
This reform is about putting the big stuff up to one big council and putting the local stuff back down to local people for them to decide. I do not know anybody in my electorate who is against this other than a couple of disaffected local body politicians and boy are they squealing like stuck pigs because they are going to lose their jobs. If anything in Auckland we are so over-governed by a huge regional council by the seven territorial authorities and then by all the community boards. This reform is a fantastic outcome. Let me ask some questions of members in the Chamber. Who set up the royal commission? 
Paul Quinn 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There we go; Paul Quinn is on to it. He has the answer. Who set the terms of reference? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Labour did. Who appointed the people to the royal commission? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Right. So when the report came out recommending a super-city with one executive mayor who were the ones bleating? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Exactly. Su’a William Sio has said that it is a disgrace that we are going to get rid of Manukau. I tell the people of Manukau right now that we are not getting rid of them; they will still be there. In fact they will have more democracy. The people of Mangere for example whom Su’a William Sio says he represents will get some more say about those things that relate to Mangere. The people of Howick will get some more say about those things that relate to Howick. But what will happen is the stupid internecine war the squabbling and the multiple sets of standards that have existed across roading construction infrastructure and a whole range of other things will go and I think it is overdue. 
I want to pay tribute to Labour. Let me do that right now openly and honestly. I pay tribute to Labour for what it did in 1989 with the first tranche of local government reform. Labour took Auckland’s 32 boroughs and councils and turned them into seven. I thought it should have gone further at the time but it did not. But I say good on Michael Bassett and good on Labour for not listening to the “wailing wall”. Listen to this—and I have the quote if anyone wants to see it—back then the Mayor of Newmarket said that if Newmarket was forced to join with Auckland City then Newmarket would not exist within 10 years. That is what he said. Now where is the bustling thriving heart of Auckland City? It is in Newmarket. That is exactly where it is. The bleating and the “wailing wall” that we are hearing is just from those who are affected. The councillors are saying that they do not like this because they might not have a job. I am delighted that Rodney Hide is leading this reform. I agree that there is some stuff around the edges about the representation about how many boards and so on but it is a great outcome for Auckland. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 28 April. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As I said last night when this debate started Labour will be supporting the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill at its first reading. The bill in its present form was drafted on behalf of the outgoing Labour Government. 
It concerned us last night when Sandra Goudie stood up and said that the reason for the bill’s extraordinarily long period at a select committee is so that the committee can investigate whether the powers of private investigators and similar positions of responsibility ought to be considerably enlarged. That is something that the previous Labour Government would have opposed. We do not think there is a case for giving powers to arrest or increased investigative snooping powers to private investigators any more than there is a case for giving those powers to lay people. They do not need them. There is no mischief to be overturned by changing the law and overturning the law would erode civil liberties that we ought to guard zealously. 
Private investigators unlike the police can be pursuing functions that are not being done on behalf of all people through the State. The police are obviously prosecuting crime on behalf of all New Zealanders. They are subject to various controls under the Police Act and to political controls through this Parliament and through the ballot box. Private investigators are subject to no such controls. They can pursue private vendettas on behalf of private clients. They can pursue politically motivated actions; the police cannot do that. Although we support the bill we will oppose increases to the powers of private investigators. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the first reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. As we have already heard this bill will repeal and replace the existing 1974 legislation which is of course the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. When the operation and sufficiency of that Act was reviewed a number of areas requiring further work were identified. The bill before us which was introduced at the end of the previous Parliament is the result of that work. 
In my time this afternoon I will speak directly about the importance of robust legislation in this area because I believe that shows the necessity to replace the law we have currently with stronger and more effective law. The need for appropriate and effective legislation in this area is at its heart recognition of the importance of the safety and security of our people and our information. The professional roles that are regulated by this bill are those entrusted with the care of exactly that—our people and our information. 
There are two words that I have been surprised I have not heard more of in this debate so far: “trust” and “reliance”. It is the trust and reliance that we put in these professionals that justifies and indeed demands a robust system of regulation that the public can have confidence in. If we consider first the personal security roles covered by this bill—personal guards security officers bouncers crowd controllers and the like—we see that the importance of those roles and of those who carry them out well is evident from just about any worst-case scenario that could be imagined. 
I am sure we are all very well aware of the image of crowd controllers and guards hovering around the fringes of people and events yet very few of us I imagine would be able to recall ever seeing any of them actually put to the task as it were—except perhaps taking down a streaker or two at the rugby or the cricket which I have certainly seen on occasion. It would not be too difficult to be lulled into thinking that they do not do much and that anyone could do it. I would suggest though that nothing could be further from the truth. 
The fact that these roles exist and increasingly so all the time tells us of the very real risks they guard against and it tells us what could go wrong if the people employed to do this work do not have the skills training or personal characteristics required to be effective in their roles. It is not just about having physical strength and in the case of catching streakers a good turn of speed. I would suggest that a fair degree of psychology behaviour management discretion judgment and self-control are required. The people in these roles have to be relied on to act instinctively yet still appropriately in highly charged adrenalin-laden situations. Getting that right is not just a matter of chance. It is a matter of careful selection skills training and experience. 
Through this bill we will have a mechanism to ensure that those who are in such roles are able to meet the threshold criteria. In addition I will just mention the ability to promulgate codes of conduct by regulation as I think this is an important part of the bill that will allow us to have a streamlined way of reacting to on-the-job issues as they arise and to set out the behaviour that is expected. Personal security is one of those fields where staff doing their job well as the vast majority do are almost invisible yet if the job is not carried out in the way that it should be even once the consequences can be significant. In fact they can be disastrous. 
All members of this House I am sure will also understand all too well the importance of the security of our information which is the other area that this bill caters for. Certainly in my previous professional role as a lawyer confidentiality was paramount. As a lawyer and now as a member of this House I am like other members aware that we are often entrusted with the most personal information about the lives of others or with highly sensitive commercial information. 
Although I have no doubt at all that those in professional roles and their staff understand that very well and work extremely hard to maintain that confidentiality I have always been extremely aware of how vulnerable that confidentiality becomes with regard to our computer security people our technicians our secure document storage people document destruction contractors and our site security. All those people wander through our places of work both physically and electronically and they have access to important and confidential information. Our ability to keep those confidences really rests not just on our own use of that information but also on the ability of those people to maintain the standards of professionalism and responsibility that we trust they have. 
We all place exceptional trust in the integrity of those who fill those roles. I do not think it is unreasonable that we should be able to rely on the fact that licensing systems are in place to ensure that suitable training has been undertaken and that the people who are engaged in those roles have the skills and the reputation that we would expect them to have. 
The framework was set up under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 but in this bill with the advantage of our ability to review 35-odd years of operation under the existing legislation we are now able to address existing weaknesses and make sure that the framework is as robust as we want it to be. We can address the shortfalls and we can encourage our communities to have faith and trust in and reliance on the people who carry out such important work. 
The types of professionals required to be licensed under this bill hold roles of trust and safety as I have said. Society has a right to demand standards of conduct from people who hold themselves out as being able to perform these roles. As I mentioned earlier when these roles are carried out as we expect them to be we often do not stop to think about what would go wrong if they were not. We do not think about the potential consequences of unqualified or inappropriate people who hold themselves out as doing this work are engaged in doing this work and have access to all sorts of situations. 
I know that everyone in this House will have heard stories about patrons of bars or clubs being seriously hurt or killed in altercations with bouncers or indeed with other customers. I am sure we have all seen television footage from overseas of people being trampled to death when crowds and riots have got out of control. We all know about or can imagine the damage that can be done through identity theft or the improper use of personal or confidential information. These are the very real and very significant risks that this bill addresses. 
The other thing I want to mention in relation to bills like this is that the good people in this industry the vast majority who carry out their roles with the highest degree of integrity and take pride in their work stand to gain as much as society. Any industry is degraded by the presence of cowboys. Therefore those who hold themselves out as able to perform those roles with integrity and skill are protected by a bill ensuring that that is the case. We can have faith as a society that the people carrying out those roles have the skills and the training and that serves to enhance the reputation of the profession as a whole. 
I will look for a moment at who is covered by the requirements of this bill but I will start by considering who is excluded. Just as members on this side of the House want to provide appropriate levels of protection we certainly have a healthy reticence about putting in place any new compliance regimes where they are not justified or where any perceived benefits are likely to be outweighed by corresponding costs. Certainly volunteers neighbourhood patrols community watch groups and the like who give up their spare time to make their communities safer will not be put through hoops. They will not have to fill out forms and be approved. Equally our policemen and policewomen our Department of Corrections staff and other Crown employees will not need to prove themselves on several separate occasions. 
This bill will not mean that in-house security provided in an employment relationship has to be licensed with the exception of crowd controllers. I want to comment on that for a moment because I think there is an important reason for that distinction. If employers employ their own in-house security staff then the risk is theirs and if they choose to employ inappropriate people then so be it. But when crowd control staff are employed the risk is the crowd’s. That is why we are entitled to make that distinction and say that crowd control staff employed or not should have to be licensed so that the crowd can have faith in their competence. 
I acknowledge the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and Mr Ron Mark for their work on the development of the bill. I would like to thank the Hon Richard Worth for his role in making sure that this bill is progressed after three reviews this millennium—there were three reviews but nothing happened. The bill was finally brought to the House at the end of the last parliamentary term but it is the Hon Dr Richard Worth who brought it to the House. I support the first reading and I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I rise in support of the first reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. The Labour Party supports this bill—in fact it was introduced by the previous Labour Government on 11 September 2008. This bill is yet another introduced by the previous Labour Government that the National Government is progressing. I congratulate the National Government on progressing all of the bills that the previous Labour Government—the very diligent and hard-working Labour Government—left on the Order Paper. I am looking forward to seeing some new ideas and new bills from this new National Government. National has had 6 months to come up with some ideas and we are still waiting to see what it might come up with. 
This bill is very important. The aims of the bill are to prevent certain people from either running businesses or working in various roles in the industry to ensure that the participants in the industry have at least a minimum level of appropriate training to require industry participants to comply with appropriate rules of conduct to prescribe penalties for offences against the Act and to ensure the effective and efficient administration and enforcement of the Act. 
Labour introduced this bill to ensure that there are suitable checks and balances for the private security industry which has broadened in scope and responsibilities in recent years. We have seen some pretty dodgy cases of private investigators in recent years and I refer in particular to a case that will be well known to the House although it occurred before my time here. It is the case of the private investigators engaged by the Exclusive Brethren in concert with the National Party to investigate senior Labour Party figures in order to gather dirt to smear the then Labour Government. I found it ironic to listen to National Government members heaping praise on Helen Clark during the last House sitting week—the week that she gave her valedictory speech—when those members spent years trawling around with their Exclusive Brethren mates trying to find any piece of dirt they could. They were aided and abetted by dodgy private investigators who were paid for by the Exclusive Brethren with the knowledge and support of the National Party in order to smear the previous Labour Government. Is it not ironic that National members are now supporting a bill that cleans up an industry that has done so much for them and so much to get them into their position in Government now? 
One might think that the National Party has turned over a new leaf that its members have left their Exclusive Brethren days behind and that they have forgotten about the fact that John Key cosied up to the Exclusive Brethren. There is TV footage of him cosying up to the Exclusive Brethren but National members have forgotten about that. They have turned a new page. They are in Government now; they are going to clean up their act. They are going to leave behind their days of digging dirt and smearing Labour politicians. But what did we see only yesterday? National is so desperate about Mt Albert that the National research unit was trawling around in order to find dirt on a person who may be a Labour Party candidate. National is so desperate to exceed expectations that before the Labour Party candidate has even been selected National members are already digging for dirt against the candidate. They are up to the same dirty tricks that they were up to when they were aided and abetted by the Exclusive Brethren and the private investigators who were paid for by the Exclusive Brethren with the knowledge and support of the National Party. 
National members want to defame and smear a person who as Phil Goff said today has put his life at risk and has done more for humanity—receiving gallantry awards for saving the lives of children—than anybody in the National Party. National members wanted to smear him so they got their amateur unregistered private investigators to go out there and dig for dirt to see what they could find. That should not happen. The private investigation industry needs to be cleaned up and the National Party needs to clean up its act as well. Is it not interesting to contrast those standards? National members are willing to trawl through and try to find any piece of dirt they can on Labour Party politicians but what about a case in their own backyard where there are serious issues of public transparency and accountability? What are they willing to do about that? They are willing to do nothing. 
Is it not ironic that the Hon Dr Richard Worth who cannot even follow the most basic rules of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 is the Minister in charge of a bill that aims to clean up an industry by requiring industry players to comply with appropriate rules of conduct? Let us think about the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and whether Dr Worth himself has applied the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry. Has he complied with the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry? The answer to that would be: “No he has not.” Richard Worth failed to declare to the Prime Minister a serious conflict of interest when he went on his junket around the world. The conflict of interest was revealed on 30 March 2009 when he was caught out travelling to India as a Minister to talk up aviation training in New Zealand all the while operating as a director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and holding shares and directorships in the India Trade Group. Let us continue. On 30 March the Prime Minister John Key said that Dr Worth’s actions were stupid and unwise and that he had given him a bollocking. He said that he did not expect to see Richard Worth’s poor judgment repeated. Already a Minister in Mr Key’s own Government is failing to comply with the appropriate rules of conduct for his industry; this bill seeks to impose rules of conduct on a number of other industries including the private security industry. 
It gets better. On 2 April Dr Worth continued to hold shares in WSD Global Markets an Indian-focused company and J P Morgan Indian Investment Trust despite assurances that he had resigned from “absolutely everything.” Then on 6 April when John Key was asked whether Dr Worth had no more chances or lifelines John Key said “Yeah.” It goes on— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that this member is new to the House and I appreciate that this is a wide-ranging debate but the member’s speech has to be within the topic of the bill. I believe that the new member is straying far away from the topic of the bill and I ask you to call him back to the main substantive part of the bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a point. I just make the observation that it is unnecessary for the point of order to relate to the experience of the member—I think it does not add to the substance of it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need anyone speaking to the point of order thank you—I am ruling. The point that has been made by the member is valid; I think the member should be talking about the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. It is fair enough to make some other observations but that should not be the basis of the substantive part of the member’s speech. The occasional reference to other things is acceptable but I think that at this stage we have dealt with that matter sufficiently. The member will continue. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I refer in particular to clause 77(e) which allows for the cancellation of a certificate for a potential private investigator if he or she “has been guilty of misconduct or gross negligence in the course of the business to which the licence relates:”. Of course that rule is a code of conduct. Were these rules to apply to Cabinet Ministers Dr Richard Worth could be deemed to have breached them and he could have had his licence revoked. In fact he could have had his ministerial warrant revoked were this Government to have any standards of conduct for its Ministers whatsoever—which we know it does not. On 7 April when Dr Worth failed to disclose that he was a director of WSD Global Markets and its associated company in the Cook Islands John Key said that he had an extensive discussion with him. John Key had previously said that Dr Worth had no more lifelines and he was on his final warning yet Dr Worth continued to breach the code of conduct for his profession. This Minister now brings a bill into this House that seeks to impose a code of conduct on other professions yet he is not willing to abide by the code of conduct for his own profession. 
One of the aspects of this bill is about ensuring that private security personnel have appropriate levels of training. There is a question here: did Dr Worth receive appropriate levels of training in conflict of interest issues? Did he receive appropriate training about the conflict of interest criteria in the  
Cabinet Manual 
? It would appear that he did not or if he did that he ignored them. 
Would Dr Worth pass the vetting process that bouncers will have to go through under this bill? The bill allows the licence authority to weed out people who have serious criminal convictions or who have been guilty of gross negligence or misconduct in the performance of their duties. We know that Dr Worth has been guilty of gross misconduct as a Minister yet John Key continues to turn a blind eye to that gross misconduct; he will not do anything about it. 
The Private Investigators and Security Guards Act has been largely unchanged since its passage in 1974. It is now outdated and major reforms are needed. Private security personnel perform a valuable and responsible role in the community and the risks associated with their work need to be addressed. We need to ensure that appropriate people are working in this sector who are properly trained for instance in dealing with potentially violent situations for their own protection or the protection of the public safety. Currently businesses and their staff are required to be licensed if they offer services in security consultancy work—for example installing burglar alarms—or if they are doing private investigation work. However there are some serious gaps in the current legislation and standards among private security businesses and staff vary widely. This bill introduced by the previous Government extends the licensing requirements and introduces mandatory training for private security staff and it will bring New Zealand into line with the United Kingdom and Australia. I am glad that the National Government has picked up this bill in order to raise standards. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government but was left without anything being done. That Government kept introducing bills but did not have time to pass them. The bill is very important because security personnel have become a very important part of our lives. Security personnel can be seen at large public events and sports events where they have the huge responsibility of maintaining discipline. As members may have recently seen at one of the cricket matches between India and New Zealand the public became very rowdy and started throwing bottles on to the grounds; it became a security issue for the players and other officials. Security personnel need proper training so that they can handle such situations and this bill provides special instructions for them to have special training. As members know the Rugby World Cup is coming to New Zealand and we will need to have a lot of tight security during that big event. It is a prestigious event for our country and we cannot labour that point enough. 
This bill will require the following groups of people to hold licences: private investigators security technicians security consultants property guards and crowd controllers. This bill will stop any Tom Dick or Harry from becoming a private investigator which is what many members opposite claim would happen. These categories of licences can be held by either individuals or public companies. In-house security personnel who are required to provide security directly to their employers do not have to have licences with the exception of people employed by bars like bouncers; they will be required to have a licence or a certificate of approval. Security personnel can find themselves in situations where there is a risk of violent physical confrontation. It is in the best interests of both the public and the industry that security personnel are adequately trained and briefed for such situations if they arise. 
The bill also requires security personnel to take special training for these purposes. It ensures that there will be better screening and monitoring of individuals who want to enter this industry. It will disqualify any individuals or companies from holding a licence if they have been previously convicted or if an individual wanting to enter the industry has a history of mental health issues. A licensing authority will be established and it will manage and monitor the industry to enforce the licensing requirements. The cost of the licensing authority will be met through the licensing revenue. The bill intends to reduce the compliance burden as it requires full renewal of the licence after 5 years. There will be an annual return with updated information about the licence holder and responsible employees. Licence holders will have to pay an annual fee but they will not have to go through a full licensing process each year. 
This bill will create flexibility in relation to the different types of training that can be imposed on different classes of personnel. The use of regulations will provide the power to impose training which also creates the flexibility to respond to the changing circumstances and technology. As we know the technology is changing on an everyday basis and we need to have security personnel updated through training so that they can maintain the technology. I stand here to support the bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justice and Electoral Committee consider the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill 
 and that the committee finally report to the House on or before 30 March 2010. 
Motion agreed to. 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1  Amendments to principal Act 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in this Committee stage I first preface my speech with a couple of comments perhaps as a reminder that the bill before us gives effect to the recommendations of a review held in 2003 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found there were delays and also inconsistencies around the legislative procedure of the Act. As well as that there was confusion—there still is until we remedy it—about some of the definitions and a general lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. 
If we think about the circumstances under which an individual might need the protection of the Act we realise that it is not going to be a happy time for that individual. Let us take the example of somebody who works in a Government department or perhaps a district health board. If that person identifies a degree of wrongdoing on the part of somebody else with that employer he or she has to go through a considerable degree of soul-searching before being prepared to blow the whistle as it were. That is not an easy thing for an individual to do and we know that because history has shown us that sometimes whistleblowers can themselves become victims. So any steps that this Committee takes to improve this legislation can only be good for all of us but also most particularly for those people who are prepared to stand up and speak out against fraud or wrongdoing when they see it in front of them. I can only reflect—with regret probably—on the circumstances surrounding the huge fraud that occurred in our Otago District Health Board. If somebody had had the confidence or knowledge to speak out about that fraud then perhaps the people of Otago might have had more hip operations or cataract operations. 
In speaking to Part 1 of the bill I will refer now to new section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” which is inserted by clause 6. When someone is a whistleblower or wishes to speak out about something that person is not always in a great position to comply fully with the Act. So I am pleased to see in new section 6A(1) that “A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—” the person does not follow the process correctly. 
I will give an example. A person whom we will call Person A—this is the example given within the bill—is an employee of a certain organisation. The internal procedure for that organisation if Person A wishes to make a complaint or impart some information is to go to the organisation’s human resources manager using a particular form. But in reality a person who has some information to convey may not have a great relationship with the human resources manager and may not be particularly familiar with competent in or happy about filling in forms so may instead provide the information to the organisation’s chief executive. That does not strictly comply with the procedures under that organisation’s policy but that person may be otherwise substantially complying with the legislation. So the failure to comply in those circumstances is to be regarded as merely technical and under new section 6A the disclosure will still be “a protected disclosure … for the purposes of this Act”. 
If we think back to the situation of somebody who was working in an organisation particularly a large organisation we can ask whom that person could turn to. Perhaps he or she had discovered that something was very wrong within that organisation had done a degree of soul-searching I am quite sure and felt that the person to go to—the person with whom he or she felt most comfortable—was the chief executive. Well so be it—for the purposes of this legislation the failure to comply will be regarded as being merely technical and the disclosure as I have mentioned before will still be treated as a protected disclosure. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be rising to speak on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Funnily enough it is another bill of the previous Labour Government after the last one we were discussing. This one is in the name of the Hon David Parker my excellent colleague. So it is good to see that the National Government has picked up this important bill and is taking it through its stages. We await with interest the new ideas from such up-and-comers as Simon Bridges and Amy Adams—we are waiting for their new ideas to come forward. 
This bill is important and Part 1 deals with its substance. We can just remind ourselves that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Protected Disclosures Act works properly so that those people who are whistleblowers those who are able to see wrongdoing or corruption are supported to blow the whistle on those matters and not feel there will be consequences against them or that the process works against them. I think that that is a very laudable goal and Part 1 outlines the ways in which that will happen. 
The timing of this bill is in fact perfect; right now plenty of potential whistleblowers are out there in the Public Service. Public servants were told by National in the election campaign that National would cap not cut the Public Service. National was going to keep the services that were there under Labour; that was what would happen. But we have seen consistently since National came into office job cuts in the Public Service. We have seen important positions in places like the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Justice and the Tertiary Education Commission cut out by National against its election promise. In the end the people of New Zealand will suffer because the services that New Zealanders rely on will be cut. We know that people in those public sector organisations need to be protected and that is what this bill will do. They need to be protected from a National Government that is on a slash-and-burn exercise. It is under the radar admittedly but it is still a slash-and-burn exercise. 
I can tell the Committee that plenty of people in the public sector are already blowing the whistle and this bill will provide them with further protections. But what they are blowing the whistle on is the National Government going through and looking at each department and agency—not looking at the kinds of services it should be providing but rather looking at whom it can cut out. The National Government is not thinking about what New Zealanders would actually benefit from in terms of public services but about how it can cut jobs. That is the agenda of the National Government here—to simply reduce the number of people working in the public sector regardless of the services they actually provide. So we need protections for those people. We need protections so they can blow the whistle and point out the kinds of wrongdoing. 
It would be interesting to hear a Minister perhaps take a call to tell us whether public servants who see serious wrongdoing in their department—as people’s jobs are cut out and as people are excluded from their particular roles in Government agencies and ministries—would be covered by legislation like this. It would be an interesting thing to hear a Minister take a call on. 
But we know that in public sector agencies from time to time there is a need to address these sorts of concerns; there is a need to blow the whistle. One of the things we learnt from the Protected Disclosures Act in its earlier incarnations was that although it was a good Act not enough was done to ensure that it could be used properly. In particular— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Under a Labour Government that would have been happening. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It was reviewed I tell Ms Dean; that is exactly right. It was reviewed by the Labour Government after being brought in in 2000. It was reviewed in 2003 and it is a good thing to see how an Act goes how it works. The changes were then brought forward to this House. 
One of the most important changes is in the enhancement of the role of the Ombudsmen to provide good information not only to the people who are blowing the whistle but also to the agencies and departments where those people work. Under new section 6B to be inserted in the principal Act by clause 6 the Ombudsmen’s role will be extended so that they can provide guidance and information to employees. This is important because a lot of people do not necessarily know what all the rules are—what serious wrongdoing is and how they can bring matters forward. In the end this provision will mean that the Ombudsmen will have the ability both to weed out complaints that perhaps should not be going through under the Protected Disclosures Act and to shed light on those areas where people are unsure and need some reassurance that they can take matters forward. Section 6B does that by enhancing the Ombudsmen’s role. New section 6C which is also to be inserted by clause 6 also allows the Ombudsmen to request information on the internal procedures of an agency to see whether they are up to scratch. 
Simon Bridges 
: It’s a great section. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is a great new section I say to Mr Bridges because it means that agencies will now be required to have proper internal procedures. People will have to follow those procedures if they are to lay a complaint under this legislation. At the moment not everybody knows where to find those procedures or even whether they exist at all. The Ombudsmen can now look into those procedures and ensure that people will have that information. 
New section 15B which is to be inserted by clause 8 further enhances the Ombudsmen’s powers because it means that they can review and guide investigations. There has been a suggestion that from time to time investigations get shuffled around within a department. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Indeed Part 1 which we are talking about is the substantial part. As stated in the commentary “The bill will give the Ombudsmen a larger guiding reviewing and investigating role in relation to disclosures of serious wrongdoing with the Office of the Ombudsmen facilitating a collaborative cross-agency approach.” 
It is very important to realise the genesis of this bill of how it came about. It amends the 2007 amendment Act which amended the original Protected Disclosures Act of 2000. I acknowledge here the work of Mary Scholtens QC in reviewing the original Act in 2003; she pointed out that there was limited information available about how the Act was working at the time. I might say that by 2006 only eight cases had been brought under the Act into the public arena and this is probably part of the reason why it needs modifying now. Mary Scholtens said it appeared that the Act had had only limited use that some of that use had been inappropriate and that no significant issues were raised by the major employer or employee groups. She went on to say however that a number of important themes had emerged and that it was unlikely the identity of a person making a protected disclosure would remain confidential. That of course is of extreme concern. She also said: “It appears to me that where the provisions of the Act have been incorporated into an organisation’s culture of risk management and at institutions relating to appropriate ethical conduct the procedures worked well.” 
It seems rather rich that the previous speaker Grant Robertson from the Labour Party suggested that— 
Simon Bridges 
: He’s not rich. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No maybe not—he is a humble man indeed. The part about it that is rich is the fact that the Labour Government spent so long in getting on to doing something about this issue. Here they were with the Public Disclosures Act in 2000 and the review in 2003 yet it was not until 2007 that this amendment bill was actually brought into the House under the Labour Government. 
Hon David Parker 
: It was a serious bill—a bill that needed serious thought. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well we hear the Hon David Parker opposite but this is a classic example of the languid lazy Labour Government taking months—years—before it finally gets around to bringing important legislation into the House. This is a classic example. There the bill languished from 2007 and right through 2008. Fortunately the new National Government which is absolutely out to make a difference has taken the bill up with alacrity. Here it is today and it is a great pleasure to be speaking on it. 
The National Government does indeed support this very important amendment bill. We expect that with the better tools provided by this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and will be able to hold the Government to account. 
It was during the time of the previous Labour Government of course that there was the shocking situation in Hawke’s Bay where Mrs Deborah Houston was unable to successfully raise her case of whistleblowing without being identified. She was acutely aware of the importance of getting this disclosure legislation right and I guess that this is one of the reasons why it has come before us this evening. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; it requires the ongoing operational improvements that are absolutely at the essence of the functioning of this bill. There is no doubt that silence is not in the public interest. The very fact that there were only eight cases until 2006 is a stark reminder of how the previous legislation was just not working. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. It is an excellent bill. As my colleague Grant Robertson said it was introduced in the name of the wonderful Minister of State Services in the Labour Government David Parker. 
I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee which considered this bill. For the benefit of the previous speaker Paul Hutchison I say that the bill spent some time at the select committee. That committee was chaired by Mr Shane Ardern. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: He did his best. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He did a very good job and I think he would be fairly insulted to hear the member talking about it languishing. In fact it took a Labour Government to bring in any sort of protective disclosures in the first place after what happened in the 1990s to Neil Pugmire at Lake Alice Hospital. It took a Labour Government to do something about that and to recognise that a climate of fear had developed in the 1990s and that there was an appalling culture in the public sector where people were afraid to speak out. This amendment bill and the Protected Disclosures Act have an underlying principle of fair and reasonable treatment for those who seek to speak up about serious wrongdoing and who in doing so are potentially putting their jobs at risk. 
The issues that gave rise to the original Act are particularly important in today’s circumstances with the economic downturn. As my colleague Grant Robertson observed the Government is hell-bent on taking the knife to our Public Service jobs. I particularly want to mention the 6000 workers in Auckland who work for local government who are fearful for their jobs who have enormous uncertainty and who have a Government that is not following previous examples of rolling them over to be employed by the new local body for a decent period of time so that things can bed in. I think we will see some real fear. I hope they will be brave enough to blow the whistle if corruption emerges particularly if we have the sort of— 
Grant Robertson 
: What if your job’s going to go? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is the problem. That is the thing that really worries me about it. I think it is worth recording again the roll-call of job cuts that we have seen and the impact that they have on people who have been prepared to speak out: 86 jobs at the Ministry for the Environment 88 at the Ministry of Justice 250 at the Inland Revenue Department up to 500 at the Ministry of Social Development 22 at the State Services Commission 32 at the National Library and 76 at the Tertiary Education Commission. Those job cuts are just the beginning. This Government is just getting started. We should add to that the sinking-lid policies particularly in the district health boards across New Zealand. The number of hospital administration staff being employed is capped at the level in December 2008. A lot of workers—a lot of whanau—are facing a miserable winter because this Government does not believe that public sector jobs are worth saving. 
We have had 120-odd jobs saved in the private sector because of the 9-day working fortnight and thank goodness for that. It is a good thing those jobs have been saved and that is thanks to the unions which negotiated a fair deal for those workers. But around 1000 jobs in the public sector are not worth saving. They do not qualify for any Government assistance. There is this nonsense about backroom workers—bureaucrats—who are ineffective and do not do anything. The National Party really pushed that throughout the election campaign. It is not fair and it is not right. The Government needs to recognise that people are the most important asset of organisations and that the skills and knowledge of public sector workers are as much a part of public infrastructure as roads hospitals and school buildings are. I want to know where the investment in them is. 
Protected disclosures in this environment will be difficult for workers. Speaking up will be frowned upon. When jobs are up for grabs keeping one’s head down will be the best approach. I am fearful for the Public Service and for New Zealand’s reputation for being No. 1 in the international transparency stakes. I am fearful about where we are heading with our very very good Public Service which after all is about providing services to the public. It is not about providing jobs for people though that is important; it is about providing services to the New Zealand public which needs them even more in this economic climate. That is why Labour supports this bill and the boosting of protections in Part 1. We think it will make it easier for whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoing to light. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill after the impassioned speech by Dr Paul Hutchison on this significant and serious topic and after what I thought were interesting contributions by Darien Fenton and Grant Robertson. I wondered how Grant would manage to talk about cuts to the bureaucracy in this debate but he did it well and I admire him for his skill. 
Bills like this one are important and it is important that we have a whistleblowing bill. David Shearer is whistle-blowing right now about what has been happening in the Labour Party and about its secret agenda in relation to the private military. Through him we see the kind of example of what we need to do and why we need to improve laws like this. 
It is interesting to look at the background to this legislation. I agree that the primary legislation came in under Labour in 2000. We had a review led by a very able Queen’s Counsel to look at what we could do to improve this bill and now—not under a Labour Government but under a National Government—this amendment bill has been brought in. The bill uses the term “protected disclosures” which is the term that has been used around the Western World where similar bills have been introduced. However as I say in common parlance we talk about whistle-blowing. 
It is important that we improve the primary legislation because at heart what this bill is saying—and what Part 1 gives effect to—is that in New Zealand we do not want to live in some sort of Soviet-style satellite State where there is a climate of fear. I know that Chris Hipkins would quite like to have that situation in Rimutaka but we do not like that in the National Party. We do not want a Soviet-style satellite State; we want things to be open and we want things to be exposed to light. That is why we are serious about improving the legislation. 
This bill does a couple of things. In essence it enhances the role of the Ombudsman. I am a big fan of the Office of the Ombudsman; I think that office provides a good solution to many issues of Government and I will come back to how the bill enhances that role if I have time. The second thing this bill does very well is that it makes it easier for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate what has gone on following disclosures by whistleblowers. 
In Part 1 where the substance of this bill is we see that things are made easier for whistleblowers through provisions such as clause 5 and new sections 6A and 6B. I will not take Committee members through the detail but they provide— 
Grant Robertson 
: Go on! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Would members like me to? 
Grant Robertson 
: Why not. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: All right. Clause 5(2) add new section 6(3) which states: “If an employee of an organisation believes on reasonable grounds that the information he or she discloses is about serious wrongdoing in or by that organisation but the belief is mistaken” that employee will nevertheless be protected. That is a good thing; that is reasonable. Where whistleblowers are acting in good faith but are wrong they will be protected if they have been doing it in a reasonable way. That is right. I think everyone in this Chamber would say that is right. 
New section 6A which my colleague Jacqui Dean has talked about states that technical failures to comply with the Act will not necessarily mean that the whistleblower is hung out to dry. A very good example is given in new section 6A(1)(b) which refers to “Person A” being an employee of “Organisation B” and talks about the internal procedures for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing. Although Person A does not comply with those procedures to the letter of the law in the example provided the failure is technical. Under this bill that person will be protected and I think that is absolutely right. New section 6A(2) backs up what we see at the end of the bill as well in that there is no contracting out of this legislation. That is a good thing. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Fundamentally the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is about accountability and the abuse of power and I think we want to consider that for a moment. Jacqui Dean talked just before about the Otago District Health Board; I thought that was a really good example of where some serious wrongdoing was uncovered and because it was uncovered was able to be dealt with. One of the important aspects of the protected disclosures legislation is that the people who do that kind of uncovering of wrongdoing can be protected and do not lose their jobs. What is really important too of course is that the people who then fix up the mess created by that do not get sacked as well. That was certainly not so in the case with the Otago District Health Board which Jacqui Dean mentioned because the chairperson who then intervened and cleaned up the mess was sacked for political reasons by the current Minister of Health. That person did not get due fair process but was simply sacked because the new Minister of Health wanted to swagger around to try to prove the point that he was in charge of things. 
I would also like to talk a little bit about some of the other people who might be covered by this legislation. It is always good to put these things in a context so I will talk—hypothetically—about a staff member in a Minister’s office who was concerned about serious wrongdoing within that office. For example if the staff member had uncovered and had knowledge of the fact that the Minister had failed to declare a shareholding in a business he or she was using his or her ministerial capacity to promote we would want to ensure that the person who disclosed that had some protection. If the staff member wanted to disclose the fact that the Minister had used a diplomatic passport to travel overseas to promote a business in which he or she had a financial interest we would want the person who disclosed that to be protected. If the staff member wanted to use the legislation in order to disclose that the Minister had failed to disclose that companies he or she was associated with were being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office we would want the staff member to be protected. If the staff member wanted to use the protected disclosures legislation to disclose that the Minister he or she worked for was in fact in charge of a bill that altered the powers of a local authority for which that Minister had been identified as the lead legal adviser we would want that staff member to be protected if he or she decided to disclose that. Ultimately this legislation is about power the abuse of power and protecting people who disclose the abuse of power—and those who abuse power include Ministers. 
I want to alert members to some of the changes that this bill puts in place. Under clause 4(2) new paragraph (g) is added to section 3 of the Act to extend the definition of an “employee” to be someone who works “as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work.” A good example of that would be parliamentary interns. They fit that definition: they work in a Minister’s office “as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work.” and they see an awful lot. So they would be in a position to disclose information about the gross misuse and abuse of power by a Minister of the Crown. This legislation extends the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act to them and that is something I think we should be in favour of because ultimately there has to be high standards of conduct within the Public Service. 
It is importance for public confidence in the Public Service that the public knows there are high standards of conduct in the Public Service but is it not regrettable that we cannot say that about the Ministers in this Government at this present point in time? 
Even though it has been disclosed through one means or another that there has been serious misconduct by a Minister in this Government still the Prime Minister continues to refuse to do something about it. He has called the Minister “stupid” in public. He has given him a bollocking. He has said that the Minister has no more lifelines and no more chances yet every time there is another revelation about what that Minister is involved with the Minister continues to hold his ministerial warrant and he is given one final warning and then another “final” warning. 
We want to ensure that anybody who has information about that kind of thing—whether he or she works in a Minister’s office as a staff member a volunteer or an intern—should be able to make a protected disclosure without fear of retribution or reprimand. I think that is a very important part of this legislation. This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government so of course we will be supporting it. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I will pick up on some of the comments of the previous speaker but first will talk about the bill in the context of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. As in previous speeches of mine on various issues I have acknowledged and again salute a woman known as Ms Deborah Houston who is known as the whistleblower in her involvement with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I have talked of the difficulties she has had and her allegations of retaliation the restructuring out of her job and the restructuring of departments. All have helped lead to the bill we have before us today. 
I will be speaking around clause 6 in relation to the role of the Ombudsmen. I just note that the whistleblower known as Ms Deborah Houston has actually received an apology. I would like to quote from the  
Dominion Post 
: 
“The whistleblower in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board conflicts of interest saga has finally received an apology from the board’s chief executive.” I acknowledge the outgoing chief executive for doing that although he is no longer with the board. That fact puts it in context after this particular person did the whistle-blowing. At the meeting this person identified herself as the whistleblower and therein lies all the problems around communications and maybe confusion of process in that case. Without relitigating the issue which took probably almost a year to resolve I can tell members that the whistleblower contacted the board chairman under the Protected Disclosures Act over allegations that she had made on a conflict of interest issue and that allegation led to a lengthy Ministry of Health investigation which I have alluded to. I just note that the elected members of the board were recently reappointed in a governance capacity. 
I would like to pick up on one point and will quote shortly from a speech made by Deborah Houston to the Australasian Compliance Institute entitled “Protection for Whistleblowers: What needs to be done?”. I will later ask for leave of the House to table the document because this matter is serious. The previous speaker tried to get a bit clever about the Otago District Health Board but this person has suffered emotional financial and reputational distress because of—to put it gently—unclear shall we say procedures in our hospital in Hawke’s Bay in regard to the board and some senior management around how protected disclosures should work. 
Let me read out the conclusion of her speech: “What happened to me and what happened to the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board should never happen again. It is incumbent upon the Crown to do the right thing by its employees its elected public officials and of course its ministerial appointees. The public expects no less.” I would be incredibly surprised if anyone in this Chamber disagreed with that statement. It continues: “When all the facts are looked at I believe it is clear that the right thing was not done by me or more latterly by the board. I have continued to fight for accountability for what has been done. I have done so because I believe that the public administration in New Zealand must be honest must be transparent and that its tradition of political neutrality must be maintained.” That speech was made on 21 August 2008; the issue began in January 2006. The speech was made more than 2 years after that person started the ball rolling and as an individual fought against a bureaucratic machine to effect change. That change we see in the bill before the House right now. I do not want to relitigate the issue; we have all moved on— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I bet you don’t! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: —but I will if the member wants me to because the man who said he was running the show actually did a lot of damage to Labour. He is now on Labour’s front bench. I am trying to respectfully talk about the person who actually suffered. That is why this bill is before us today so that people do not innocently suffer because of the misinterpretation of previous legislation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Then tell the truth. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I can be gentle or I can go hard. I will try to go as gently as I possibly can because we have all moved on but if those members want me to I will go hard. I will be quite interested to see some of the other combatants in this debate. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to return to where we were slightly earlier in the debate when talking about the Ombudsmen’s increased powers. In my earlier call I was talking about the Ombudsmen’s ability to review an investigation or guide an investigation that a public sector agency had under way. Under section 15A inserted by clause 8 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen can take over an investigation in a department. They can take over that investigation if they believe for instance that the authority or the organisation has decided not to investigate the matter for some reason or it has decided that it cannot progress it in a reasonable time period or because the Ombudsmen do not believe that the agency is actually capable of doing that investigation because it is so closely aligned with them. 
It is probably helpful at this time to take an example of what that might be. What is the situation where that would occur? Could it be the case of an official who is working away diligently on a proposal that he or she has been told to work on—for example a cycleway because there are proposals about things such as cycleways—and has been told that that it is important and that it came from a significant event like the Job Summit? So the person has been working away on it and has been putting forward ideas and then he or she finds out all of a sudden that the other people who have been working on the cycleway idea are not there any more; they have gone because apparently the proposal is not going to be funded this year next year or the year after. Those people have gone those jobs have gone and the people are out of the way. That official might be very concerned about what is going on there—what kind of wrongdoing has been undertaken in that department. The official has the right to raise a complaint and we know that the Office of the Ombudsmen is now empowered to be able to say that the office will take over the investigation because that action is not appropriate. 
It just gives us cause for thought at this time to think about the kind of staffing that the Office of the Ombudsmen will require to be able to implement this bill. Four or five key new tasks are being given to the Office of the Ombudsmen and they are the ability to take over an investigation the ability to look into people’s internal procedures on these issues and the need to provide information to people who wish to be whistleblowers. That is a lot of extra work. I think National members might want to take a call and tell us whether the funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen will be protected under this Government. Over the last few months we have consistently seen cuts into the Public Service cuts into agencies that we would not think would be taken down—like the Inland Revenue Department. If people think they have had problems getting hold of staff in that department in the past it will get worse under the National Government. We know that 250 staff will be cut from the Inland Revenue Department. 
Who is to say there will not be staff cut from the Office of the Ombudsmen? That office has been given an increased role under this bill so one would think there would be no way that staff numbers in the Office of the Ombudsmen could be cut. But the Inland Revenue Department was given an increased role. The department has been asked to look after tax changes changes to KiwiSaver and a new independent earner rebate. We would think it would need staff. But no! The National Government came into power and those 250 staff were told: “Out the door!” even though the department is doing the significant and important work that ordinary taxpayers expect it to do and from which they expect to receive good services. 
The Office of the Ombudsmen which has increased roles under this bill is the kind of agency that we would expect to be funded properly. Part 1 covers the extensions to the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen and we would expect the office to be funded properly. But we have no guarantee from this National Government that it will fund the office properly. Perhaps a speaker on the other side of the Chamber would like to take a call and guarantee that the Office of the Ombudsmen will receive the additional resources that it needs to fulfil its obligations which are outlined in Part 1. We have not seen any commitment from the National Government to adequately fund those kinds of key public services. 
We remind ourselves again that the Ombudsmen can take over an investigation. I think that is an important point because a lot of Public Service officials will be worried about their jobs under this Government—worried that their jobs will be cut. Will they be encouraged in that environment to blow the whistle? If they uncover a wrongdoing will they be encouraged to say they want to do something about that? We have no guarantee of that. It is vitally important that the Ombudsmen can move in where an employee is concerned about his or her ability to blow the whistle—and they will be concerned in the environment that the National Government is creating. The Ombudsmen’s enhanced powers are important they are significant and they must be resourced because the Office of the Ombudsmen is a key part of our democracy. We have seen other key parts of the Public Service run down—the Inland Revenue Department the Ministry of Social Development. It cannot happen to the Office of the Ombudsmen and we need a guarantee that the Ombudsmen will have the resources to implement the additional powers they will have under Part 1. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In this Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill it is appropriate that we give due consideration to the extended powers and authority of the Office of the Ombudsmen because it underpins the credibility and integrity of the amendment bill. The Office of the Ombudsmen is an Office of Parliament that is highly regarded and it has an independence that will help the procedures of the amendment bill as it is put into the body of the Act to work more effectively. 
We have talked a lot about the amendments. I think it is appropriate that we go back a little bit and look at what the Act currently says in section 7—the point that Jacqui Dean made when she spoke of the accuracy that a person had to follow in making a disclosure. I direct members’ attention to section 7 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which states: “Disclosure must be made in accordance with internal procedures”. Just by the nature of that it challenges us as to how accurate we have to be in making disclosures. Section 7(1) states: “An employee must disclose information in the manner provided by internal procedures established by and published in the organisation or the relevant part of the organisation for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing.” I draw the attention of the Chamber to that as that in itself makes it very difficult to cross every “t” and dot every “i” and to clear the hurdles and hoops that are placed in the way of a person who could be a whistleblower. In technical situations section 6A of the bill inserted by clause 6 is appropriate. A person has to proceed with a reasonable degree of accuracy—roughly in accord with the process. We do not want to get bogged down in absolute detail. If the procedures say that we should report to the human resources manager but we actually choose to go to the chief executive officer then that should suffice. In their role the Ombudsmen are there to oversee the process and I think we can take great comfort from that. 
National supported the review that highlighted such points because in effect it is about the smooth running of that process. The eight cases where the Act had been previously used underlined the officious approach that the existing Act has. The role of the Ombudsmen to walk alongside and support a person—who would be for all good intents and purposes a whistleblower—is highly appropriate. Not rushing on too far with the intricacies of how it would work in the workplace but looking just at the very mechanics of it I believe the amendments are appropriate. It will help the public to have greater confidence in the Public Service and this is what it is all about. Our democracy is very often underpinned by the independence of the Office of the Ombudsmen and that is reassuring. Silence is not in the public interest when it comes to the functioning of our Public Service. 
When we look at this Act we see that the early parts of it are very succinct and clear. But this bill adds to the smooth running of the process around declaring information ensuring that New Zealand’s democracy is upheld and ensuring that there is clarity and transparency in the various organisations that we so depend on. We congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the hard work it has put in in bringing this bill forward. It will sit comfortably inside the Act and it will enhance the Act to progress matters around transparency. We have heartfelt sympathy for the person who had the courage to blow the whistle on the situation that occurred in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In speaking to the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I am reminded by Part 1 that we are amending the principal Act brought in in 2000. If we reflect on why it came in at the time it is interesting to note that it is often the health sector where great use is made of this particular Act. I cannot remember the very brave man’s name; it used to be etched on my memory. [ 
Interruption 
] Neil Pugmire—I knew one of my colleagues would bring the name forward—was a very brave mental health nurse I believe from Canterbury or somewhere—[ 
Interruption 
]—from Wanganui who unfortunately did not have the protection of this legislation but he is the man who brought this gap in legislation to the attention of this House. 
What happened in 2000 and what probably happened during the course of 1999—because the legislation was enacted in 2000—was that Neil Pugmire had tried to use all of the processes available to him within his hospital setting to raise concerns about the lack of resources and the lack of proper attention and care being given to mental health patients in Wanganui at the time. He was doing that using his advocacy role as a health professional as we would all want him to do—as all health professionals are educated and trained to do when they go through their training. What did he get for using his advocacy role as we would want him to do? He lost his job. He was sacked because when the internal processes did not give him a result and his issues were not being heard he dared to take the matter further and alerted authorities over and above the hospital board about the concerns that he was raising. He went public with his concerns about how mental health patients were being treated at the time. He got sacked because there was no such legislation in 1999 that protected his interests even though he had not only the right but the responsibility as a health professional to advocate for the patients and the people he was seeing and to require a better service for them. 
In 2000 the incoming Labour Government brought in the Protected Disclosures Act as we now know it. It is timely that some 8 or 9 years later we are reflecting again on this legislation because that was the first time we had had such a protection in law. We have discovered through the passage of time that the Act does need amending and Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsmen. I think it is timely for another reason not only because approximately 9 years have elapsed since this legislation was first drafted but also because in 2009 I am certain there is something of a climate of fear particularly among the public service in New Zealand. Therefore strengthening the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill at a time when public servants fear for their jobs is important. Public servants know that the knife is out for their positions and such a climate must make it extremely difficult for them to address any issues that concern them. There is a climate of fear. We know that public service jobs are under the knife and that must make it exceptionally difficult for public servants to raise any concerns that they might have. 
Many of my colleagues have raised very good examples of the sort of work undertaken by public servants at the moment. Those public servants may have some concerns about that work. They may not be able to do the work on the cycleway because the Minister of Finance has said that there is no money available for it this year next year or the year after that. So a public servant required to do work on that piece of work might have concerns that he or she wants to raise. My other colleagues have raised many other examples. It is very timely that we look again to the gaps that are in the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—very timely in the current environment. 
I want to speak very briefly on how Part 1 enhances the role of the Ombudsman. The bill will give the Ombudsman the ability to review an employer’s protected disclosures procedure. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I want to focus in particular on Part 1 but before I do that I will just take a broader perspective on the reasons for the amendments as contained in Part 1. The amendments in Part 1 to the principal Act the Protected Disclosures Act are intended to provide some improvements to the original legislation. 
As we know the original Act was passed by the previous Labour Government in 2000. At that time the person who precipitated that legislation was a fellow by the name of Neil Pugmire as the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said. Mr Pugmire was a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. He expressed concern to management over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. He was suspended and later dismissed for his actions. It is very interesting to think that the person who precipitated the legislation Mr Neil Pugmire stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in December 2000 that even the new law passed then would not be enough to protect employee whistleblowers from having their careers tainted. So it was pretty clear right from the outset that there were some flaws in the legislation that the Labour Government passed and a review was commenced by that same Government in 2003. 
The very eminent Queen’s Counsel Mary Scholtens conducted a considered and thoughtful review that highlighted the need for improvements. That review was 6 years ago. It has taken 6 years to take the very good ideas that Ms Scholtens’ review highlighted draft them into the bill introduce it to the House send it to the Government Administration Committee have the committee report back to the House and come to the position that we are in now—6 long years. Such is the importance that the languishing lazy languid long out-of-touch Labour Government placed on that amendment. 
Frankly I am amazed that the Labour Opposition should raise the issues surrounding the $17.8 million fraud at the Otago District Health Board in the context of this debate. The fraud was described in the House as the single largest employee fraud in State sector history. I am advised that not only was it the single largest fraud in State sector history but also it was the single largest employee fraud in any organisation at any time in this country. So the Labour Opposition is using to make a point a case where during the 5 long years of the single biggest employee fraud in this country no one blew the whistle. Not only that but also it appears that many people were asleep with the whistles in their mouths. 
As we know the genesis of this legislation came out of the health care setting. In that context many health employees are required to raise issues of considerable patient concern and quite rightly they need to be able to do that in an environment where they can be protected from the consequences of doing so. I think we have seen in society a move towards that framework. We have a number of pieces of legislation that do that not the least of which is the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. 
I will also touch on a couple of other examples where in a health care setting people have been required to blow the whistle at their peril. A general practitioner in Southland was contacted by the police in 1995 and asked whether he believed his patient should hold a firearms licence. The reply from the doctor was a brief note saying that he did not think so. Three things happened subsequently. The person did not get his firearms licence but the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee formally censured the doctor for breaching privacy. The fellow who was the subject of the application went on to be jailed for 2 years on a charge that was scaled down from attempted murder to one of causing grievous bodily harm. There are a number of other examples where people have in the best interests of the people they advocate for raised issues and been punished for them. 
I think the intent of the Act as it was passed is a very good one. These amendments need to be made to improve that legislation. I look forward to that happening. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In accordance with the decision of the Business Committee for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to make his valedictory statement I suspend the Committee of the whole House for the Speaker to resume the Chair. 
Debate suspended. 
Valedictory Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In rising to give my valedictory speech I am immediately conscious of three things. The first is that such a speech represents an opportunity denied to most mortals—that is to deliver one’s own funeral oration or at least a progress report thereon. The second is that my maiden speech was unfortunately and unintentionally one of the most oft-quoted—if not the most oft-quoted—maiden speech in the history of this institution a fate that I hope to avoid today. Although I comfort myself that the most famous maiden speech in British history was that of Benjamin Disraeli in the 1830s—he was shouted down and he said: “You will listen to me someday.” Of course he was later Prime Minister. The third is that most colleagues especially the newer ones probably have limited patience for an elderly gentleman engaged in extended verbal borborygmus or tummy-rumbling for those of you who do not know the technical language. 
I came to this place in 1981 a young senior lecturer in history fresh from current battles over the Springbok Tour and the proposed Aramoana aluminium smelter. It was an odd career choice for somebody who used to have a strong fear of flying and was ill at ease with strangers. My family background was not untypical of many 20th century stories. Three of my grandparents grew up in great poverty. My maternal grandparents were children in late 19th century London in an area classified in a ground-breaking and great contemporary social survey as “very poor bordering on the semi-criminal”. My paternal grandmother was one of three daughters of a widowed charwoman in the days before the welfare State. The British keep their detailed census records and the household record I think in 1891 shows my great-grandmother the three daughters and a male lodger some 5 years younger than my great-grandmother—so there may be some more stories there yet to be discovered. Only my paternal grandfather dead well before I was born was not from such a background. He was one of a line of four tradesmen ending with my father which had been preceded by generations of Somerset agricultural labourers. 
On top of that background particular circumstances contributed I suspect to my political philosophy. My mother was born 10 days after the outbreak of World War I. My grandfather as an army reservist had been called up immediately. He was captured in the first battle fought by the British Expeditionary Force. For months my grandmother did not know whether he was dead or captured. My own mother the first in the family to go to secondary school gave birth to me at home because she was suspected of having TB and was not allowed in hospital. This proved enormously useful in the 1980s when the Home Birth Association was seeking speakers on various issues and I could tell them that I was actually a home birth. My mother’s fierce determination to see me succeed through education eventually led me here via 13 years of scholarships and an academic career—the first in my family to go to university. 
It is not surprising then that there have been three basic themes to my political philosophy. The first is a profound belief in the essential equality of all human beings. It is an ideal found as far back in the English radical tradition that I claim as my heritage as the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 when John Ball asked: “When Adam delved and Eve span who was then a gentleman?” or to translate: “When Adam was digging the fields and Eve was spinning wool who was the member of the landed gentry at that point?”. The second is a hatred of poverty. Not of wealth—to which within reason we can all aspire—but of poverty with its grinding degradation and fundamental unfairness. The third is that economic and social policy must be guided by the ideals of security and opportunity the two sides of the coin of an enduring and just society to which we must now add the imperative of sustainability.  
It was perhaps inevitable then that I would gravitate towards the Labour Party. So when I was approached one Friday night in 1974 in the George Street Tavern by the late Professor Eric Herd to join the Labour Party I could not think of a good reason to say no—which of course is how most of us join voluntary organisations in New Zealand. I became more active because of events in Australia as much as here. I was a visiting fellow at the Australian National University on the fateful day the Whitlam Government was dismissed in 1975. I well remember a colleague who was writing a thesis on the powers of the Australian Governor-General emerging into the corridor pale-faced and in a broad Australian accent exclaiming: “Jeez I’ll have to rewrite that whole bloody chapter.” So on coming back home I made the fateful decision to go to the annual general meeting of the Castle Street branch of the Labour Party—always a mistake in New Zealand because I ended up on the committee. From there on the path seemed to lead almost inevitably towards becoming the candidate for St Kilda in 1980.  
Hence I arrived at this place in November 1981 with my basic philosophical baggage in tow and I started to settle into the job. It is salutary to remind myself and all my colleagues here today that most of those who then dominated this place have long since been forgotten. The one obvious exception was a kind of walking example of a Hobbesian state of nature whom many wish they could forget. The entire assistance available to individual backbench MPs at that time was one-half of a secretary. Initially that did not matter too much since Parliament did not actually meet until the following April. So I busied myself as the MP for St Kilda with electorate work under the tutelage of my friend and colleague Stan Rodger. Following his example I immediately began to send sympathy letters offering help to those who had suffered a bereavement. Death was the one aspect of electorate work where St Kilda was well above the national average. One 83-year-old wrote thanking me for my offer of help but informing me that she could still manage the garden herself. I suddenly had this awful vision of becoming the lesser-spotted mower of South Dunedin a kind of political hire-a-hubby for thousands of widows. Once Parliament finally met in April 1982 it then sat continuously until mid-December with no adjournment.  
In that light I hope that one of my lasting contributions to this great institution has been to have played for 24 years a central role in the reform of its procedures starting with my time as senior Government whip. In 1982 the set-piece debates of the Address in Reply which was annual in those days the Budget and the Estimates took a total of over 10 weeks’ sitting time. Voting was done by way of long tedious and time-wasting divisions in the lobbies. Oral questions were set down days in advance—not that morning—but many questions were not reached as question time was limited to 45 minutes. Urgency meant continuous sitting 24 hours a day without a break. All these matters have been substantially reformed to provide a more rational system. Time-limited debates party voting meal and sleep breaks in urgency and regular short adjournments have all proved successful initiatives.  
Question time is much more immediate timely and flexible and it deals with all questions put down. Despite criticisms from some it is in my view by far the most effective test of the mettle of Ministers and of their opponents of any Westminster-style Parliament. Just watch the farce that is Australian question time to see the contrast. Imagine for example how well George W Bush would have survived question time on a daily basis if he had been our Prime Minister. It would have taken many Grecians bearing many sorts of gifts to get him through the experience. Such testing is the real purpose of question time. It is not to elicit a recitation of simple facts—as I tell my colleagues you really ought to know the answer before you ask a question that is a factual one—but to hold Ministers to account and test their mettle. That is why it is easily the most popular part of the televised proceedings and as some members may have gathered over the years it is the part of Parliament that I have most enjoyed over a long period of time.  
I would go further. Much of Parliament is a form of theatre a stage on which ideas and personalities contest for dominance. It is neither a simple legislative sausage machine nor a company board nor some kind of policy group-grope—or as we now call them summits. The vast majority of MPs come here to try to improve the lives of their fellow New Zealanders however much we may differ as to the means of so doing. I think we sometimes need to recognise that fact of each other. So the most depressing comment about MPs that I can recall was when one senior press gallery member claimed that the default position of politicians was to lie. One might easily respond that the default position of journalists is to misrepresent and manipulate. Neither statement is a fair reflection of the truth. I would assert that for all its faults and the occasional silliness the system works far better than any known alternative.  
There have been enormous changes in form over the time I have been an MP and enormous change in the nature of members of Parliament. As Helen referred to in her validictory statement there were just eight women MPs after the 1981 election—I think that actually doubled the total before the 1981 election if I recollect correctly—there were a small number of Maori MPs and that was the total contribution in terms of ethnic diversity in the New Zealand Parliament. But the substance of the place has changed much less even with the changes under mixed-member proportional representation. Certainly the belief of those who promoted MMP—that there would be some kind of beautiful consensus style of politics in this place—was at best a delusion and perhaps a complete falsehood to try to convince the public to vote for the change. We simply changed from a simple straightforward boxing match to a tag-wrestling match where sometimes people seem to change their shorts between each team as they move along. That is one of the problems of course with televised coverage of Parliament.  
I arrived in this place at a time when my party was divided a division that in one form or another lasted through to the middle of 1996. I came knowing I was the MP for St Kilda for one reason alone: I wore a Labour jersey. Since that time it has been my desire to help create a strong modern and unified social democratic party wearing the proud old name of Labour. That was not easy. In the 1980s the urgent and necessary process of modernisation and reform—and it was urgent and necessary—lurched off into ideological excesses underpinned by the belief that there was no gain without pain. That came to mean that pain must inevitably lead to gain and then to a kind of political sadomasochism in which pain almost seemed to become an end in itself. It is interesting that when we look at the data we see that the great gap in GDP per capita and incomes between Australia and New Zealand opened up between 1984 and 1993. Australia essentially carried out most of the same reforms that we did. The essential difference was that in Australia far greater attention was paid to the transition costs and in helping people through the process of reform. We simply threw thousands of people on to the scrap heap and assumed that somehow or another the miracle of the market would then take them up again into some better life. For many that better life never actually arrived.  
It certainly caused me a little financial pain. The biggest speeding fine I ever got was driving back from Whakatane to Wellington in January 1990 when I heard a report on the news claiming that Geoffrey Palmer was thinking of reinstating Roger Douglas as Minister of Finance. I hit 134 kilometres an hour before a firm but polite traffic cop restored me to my senses. 
The persistent divisions the consequent weakening of the Labour Party and the introduction of MMP meant that in the early to mid - 1990s it appeared far from impossible that we in Labour would cease to be the dominant voice of the centre-left in New Zealand. At times we were the third or fourth party in opinion polls. The need to build a policy platform of a socially progressive economically literate fiscally conservative party was obvious. It could and should have been done in the 1980s. It was done under Helen Clark’s leadership and I am proud to have had some small role to play in that regard. That laid the basis for a long period in Government. 
The fifth Labour Government succeeded I believe in hauling the pendulum of economic debate back towards the centre. But there are still flaws inherited from the extreme free-market view of the world that need to be addressed. In particular the current economic crisis must lead to coordinated international reform of regulation of the financial sector. If not the whole cycle will be repeated again with even more disastrous consequences. I believe that reform must have four clear elements. The first is a series of principles-based rules rather than attempts to write black-letter law regulation which only provides the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage. The second is very strong disclosure requirements on all those involved within the financial sector. Indeed one of the problems creating the current crisis was that even those in the financial sector did not know what the various parts of their own organisation were doing which led to some of the difficulties. The third is to give the national regulators broad coercive and intervention powers that are not excessively specified so that people again cannot manoeuvre their way around what they think may be going to happen. Finally there has to be international coordination between the national regulators and international exchange of that disclosed information so that again people cannot play the game of arbitrage between different national jurisdictions. 
If we do not do those things every Western Government will have raised its level of debt by some enormous amount trying to compensate and trying to save the financial sector to keep the real economy moving for those who run the financial sector will repeat the entire cycle again with new clever instruments and at that point—same again—the same working middle-class people will be dipping into their pockets in terms of future taxes to pay for the errors that have been committed. That is what we now face in New Zealand as we face it in the US as we face it in UK and as we face it in almost every developed economy around the world. We are now committing our children and even grandchildren to higher taxes because of what we are having to do at the present time to prop up the economy. 
It has been said that there are two sorts of finance Ministers: those who fail and those who get out just in time. Let me assure colleagues that I did not personally organise the world recession to avoid being categorised as one of the former. During my stewardship I have claimed fiscal conservatism accompanied by a consciously counter-cyclical management of the economy was accompanied by crucial initiatives in tax reform a long overdue addressing of our dismal savings record—an issue on which I have changed my views completely over the last 20 years—the creation of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund a much more pragmatic approach to supporting business a massive increase in infrastructure spending and a sharing of the fruits of growth particularly through Working for Families low unemployment cheaper primary health care and the restoration of the level of New Zealand superannuation. I am immensely proud that we were the first Government for decades to reduce inequality in New Zealand. Consciously or unconsciously all Governments engage in social engineering. The real issue is whether the structures thus created are ethically sound. I am particularly concerned that the current Government still has not grasped the significance of the profound contribution that the growing gap between saving and borrowing economies has made to the present economic crisis in the world. It is not all due to the incompetence the short-termism and the greed of the so-called banksters. I am certainly convinced that a future Government will have to rebuild KiwiSaver to play a bigger role in dealing with those imbalances and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund must be continued as part of our long-term fiscal strategy. 
I also have to say that I am fearful that the essence of the tertiary education reforms may be unwound. If they are we will inevitably see a recurrence of the mushrooming of wasteful expenditure on low-value courses. If the recession is causing a higher demand for training and education then the answer is not to reinstate a drive to expensive competitive mediocrity and duplication. Indeed the current crisis provides the opportunity for a major push on skills particularly to accelerate the implementation of the New Zealand Skills Strategy. This will do much more to increase future productivity than many other policies that have been put forward. The crisis is also a chance to intensify investment in a greener economy not to wind back on it. Every day brings more evidence of the urgency of that task. 
Apart from being Minister of Finance Leader of the House and Minister for Tertiary Education I have enjoyed other portfolios. It was great fun to be Attorney-General and to prove—going by many kind messages from senior members of the judiciary and the legal profession—that the Attorney-General does not have to be a lawyer any more than the Minister of Education has to be a teacher the Minister of Health a doctor or the Minister of Corrections a convict. My year as Treaty negotiations Minister was a wonderful experience which I hope set the pace and tone for the future. I wish this and future Governments well in dealing with Treaty issues and look forward to further engagement in them. No issue more profoundly goes to the heart of our nationhood. No Treaty settlement ever does or can fully right the historic wrongs. Every Treaty settlement so far has been generous—generous by the Maori party in the settlement not by the Crown party in the settlement. But settlements can provide the basis for acknowledging the past and providing a more secure basis on which to move forward. 
The highlight of my time as Minister of Social Welfare was to rewrite a flawed Children and Young Persons Bill that I inherited and to produce the 1989 Act which has stood the test of time in its basics and will continue to do so providing it is properly resourced. If it is not then it will actually fail. Being Acting Prime Minister on many occasions had its moments of drama as well as opportunities for pratfalls. Of course I should note that being Acting Prime Minister in the modern world of technology particularly with Helen Clark as Prime Minister was not exactly one with a large number of degrees of freedom—although I am notoriously loath on occasions to read texts and email messages so sometimes the comments came after decisions were made. My best pratfall was to refer on the radio to the military leader of Fiji as “Barmy Mariner”. I am still not sure I was wrong of course. 
Any long political career will also have failures and low points and mine has been no exception. The failure to stop the philistine obscenity of the Clyde high dam the lack of a consensus around the foreshore and seabed issue—and I wish the panel well in its work—the difficulty of getting a simple approach to the problem of leaky homes and I have to say and I hope that this will not be misinterpreted by the friends upstairs the failure to get the majority of the press gallery to understand fiscal policy were just four of my many failures. At a deeper level it is sad to see our continued national insecurity and self-doubt even before the economic crisis hit home. Anyone who visits Australia frequently will know how different the underlying mood is there especially among the business community. There is a much higher level of underlying confidence and self-assurance. An Aussie believes a little ripper is something good. We are just as likely to fear it might be the son of Jack let in by mistake by immigration. We need to remind ourselves that over the last 50 years we have maintained a First World quality of life despite an international trading system massively biased against what we do best in this country. That is a major achievement. So as we carry on building that network of free-trade agreements and as we hope the World Trade Organization can again pick up the issue of a comprehensive fair and free trade agreement that is the most crucial key to our prosperity in the long term within this country. 
The ever-increasing trend towards a purely punitive approach to the problem of crime is a self-defeating journey that we continue to travel ignoring the fact that it leads nowhere. On the other hand the increasing litigiousness associated with so much of our lives must sooner or later prompt a radical rethink of our legal system. Perhaps those two issues are linked in some way or another. And there have been personal low points when I have turned to family friends in the caucus and others for help and have received it. 
But today I want to emphasise the many good things that I have been part of. Apart from some of those I have mentioned already the end of the right to rape one’s wife which was still a legal right in 1981 when I entered this Parliament; the end of the attempt to prevent gay people being themselves which was still the law in 1981 when I entered this Parliament; the end of corporal punishment in schools which was still the law and practice in 1981 when I entered this Parliament; the greater openness about domestic violence and mental health issues which were still being swept under the carpet in those days; and the increasing diversity richness and tolerance of our society are all things to be celebrated. 
New Zealand is in fact far less of a “nanny State” than it was in 1981 in terms of both social and economic freedoms. It takes a peculiarly warped sense of values to equate using an obsolete inefficient light bulb to the right to be who you are. 
I have so many people to thank that I dare not start a comprehensive list for fear of missing somebody out. Many of them are in the gallery but many are not. So I would just wish to mention in particular two people: my friend and leader Helen Clark and my wife Anne. I have gone one better than the old saying about successful men—there has been one good woman behind me but also another in front. 
I leave now with a profound sense of gratitude at the chance to serve a belief that my staunchly Labour maternal grandfather would have been proud of me and the hope that my grandchildren will be. I wish you all well especially my Labour colleagues who have been so loyal and so patient. Politics is at times a rough and a bruising business. I apologise to all those I unfairly or unnecessarily have been harsh to. Please note the qualifications in that sentence. And that also applies to those who are not in the Labour Party. Sometimes a quick wit and a quick tongue can move too fast. Slow down; you do move too fast on occasions. To those in Government good luck but remember that some day the political wheel will turn again; it does. And a genuine thank you for the New Zealand Post appointment. When I attacked National last year for swallowing so many dead rats little did I think that some might see me as one of them! 
To my Labour friends good luck. Look forward to the day the political wheel will turn again and make sure you give it a damn good shove in the meantime. I know I leave you in good hands with Phil and Annette. To the Greens good luck. But loosen up a bit. Saving the planet needs to sound less like punishment for our sins if it is going to succeed. To all of you remember one thing. Your job is to serve the people not yourself. If you ever start to feel a sense of entitlement about being here look around these walls at the names there and understand what true sacrifice and service means. So Mr Speaker it has already been goodbye from her and now it’s goodbye from me. Kia u kia maia kia manawanui. Hei konei ra. 
Sitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1  Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to refer to an aspect of Part 1 that I have not spoken about yet in this debate. 
Colin King 
: You haven’t spoken about any of it! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I know that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be surprised that there is an aspect of Part 1 that I have not yet talked about but I want to talk about clause 4 “Interpretation” in which the definition of “employee” is changed. This is a very important change because it extends the protections provided under the Protected Disclosures Act to a couple of other classes of people. I will look at some examples of the kinds of people who might now have the protections of this legislation extended to them. 
Firstly the definition of “public official” has been changed in clause 4(4) to read: “public official means a person who is an employee of a public sector organisation”. It is a wide definition and covers many many people. I had cause to reflect over the dinner break on whether that definition would cover somebody who is employed in one of the independent commissions that help to support our processes of government. Those commissions are indeed public sector organisations by most definitions. In particular I was thinking of the Human Rights Commission or indeed the Race Relations Commissioner. 
That brings us back to the concern raised by a number of members on this side of the Chamber about how people will feel in the climate of fear that the National Government is beginning to create in the Public Service. It is a climate of fear borne of people being worried that their jobs are on the line. How many jobs in the public sector are on the line under the National Government? That climate of fear means that people will not want to speak out. They will not want to blow the whistle on something in case their job is gone and they are chopped off. 
We have recently seen the interesting example of an independent public sector official Joris de Bres who was in Geneva at the UN conference on racism. Mr de Bres is an independent commissioner who along with race relations commissioners from all over the world went to that important conference. He is a public official and obviously has a lot of important things to say about an important issue like racism. 
Hon Member 
: Independently. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Independently as my colleague says. Mr de Bres made some comments about what he felt were the reasons why New Zealand was not represented there. He made those comments in his independent position and suggested that perhaps New Zealand was simply slavishly following behind other countries rather than taking an independent stance. He was immediately subjected to a tirade of abuse from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully who accused him of all manner of things—including I might say of being a Labour Party hack. Mr McCully made all kinds of suggestions about Mr de Bres’ independence. It was an outrageous attack of bullying by the Minister and we have to wonder when Mr de Bres and others are faced with this kind of bullying simply for expressing themselves how much confidence we can have that the people who now have the protections of this legislation extended to them will continue to be looked after. 
This emphasises once again the important role of the Office of the Ombudsmen which is another independent office in our system that can now take over investigations. It may well be that Mr de Bres and other officials who feel they have something to talk about will now under this law have to make use of the Ombudsmen. Clearly they can have no confidence that the National Government sees them in an independent light. It is shameful that Mr McCully took it upon himself to attack Joris de Bres in that way. Mr de Bres is an independent official who had every right to be at that conference. 
The other class of employees that is being brought under the Act is employees who work for organisations as volunteers without reward or the expectation of reward for that work. That definition extends things out quite a long way. My colleague Chris Hipkins talked earlier on about the example of somebody who works as an intern. Clause 4(1) will also extend the provision to people who are board members of some organisations as well. Clearly board membership is an important role because once again we have seen the National Government politicise the board appointments process. We have seen the National Government take people off boards and appoint some of its own people. That can be an issue of significant concern. If people feel that their job on a board is under threat are they likely to be able to disclose a problem they see? They will not—they will be intimidated. The extension of this provision is important because those people now have additional protections. But can we have confidence that they will be protected? Under this Government we cannot have confidence that they will be protected. The only thing I can say is that this bill which was drafted by the Labour Government— 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I speak in support of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I will revert to the bill and not drift off on to unrelated and irrelevant matters such as those the Opposition raised. The bill is designed to build on the current purpose of the principal Act which is in place to promote public interest in different ways. There are two primary ways: the first is by facilitating the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing and the second is by protecting employees who in accordance with the Act make such disclosures. 
Many in the Chamber have already referred to the report that was tabled in this Chamber in 2003 by Mary Scholtens. Quite why it has taken 6 years to get the issue through Parliament is questionable indeed. Miss Scholtens is a Queen’s Counsel. Her report concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal or used very well. Without a central coordinator the range of appropriate authorities to which employees could disclose such information was quite confusing. Miss Scholtens also referred to a strong perception amongst those who were consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistleblowing employee would not be protected. This bill gives the Office of the Ombudsmen that enhanced role. It also picks up a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protections and processes. 
As many in this Chamber have already said the bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee which was very well led by Mr Shane Ardern. The first change is the insertion under clause 6 of new section 6C(2). That provision states: “An organisation is not required to comply with a request made under subsection (1) if it is not a public sector organisation.” The amendment makes it clear that a private sector organisation is not obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsman for information about that organisation’s internal procedures. The second change is the insertion under clause 8 of new section 15E(3). This amendment includes a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act and makes it an offence to refuse to provide to an Ombudsman the information specified in new section 15E. The Ombudsman will also be authorised to provide information and guidance to public or private sector employees on using the Act at any time not just on request. 
Public sector organisations are required to have internal procedures on how disclosures are to be made to them and how such disclosures will be investigated. This legislation requires that whistleblowers disclose in accordance with their employing organisation’s internal procedures but complying with internal procedures can be difficult if there are none. New section 6C inserted by clause 6 empowers the Ombudsman to request internal procedures and related information from an organisation. As a result organisations may be encouraged to have a good effective protected disclosures policy in place. Employees’ confidence should also increase if they know what the employing organisation’s internal procedures are. Under new section 15B inserted by clause 8 the Ombudsman also has new powers to review and guide public sector organisations’ investigations of whistle-blowing. The power to guide investigations is facilitated rather than directed and the power will be activated either on the organisation’s request or at the Ombudsman’s discretion. This should help to prevent disclosures of serious wrongdoing from circulating around various agencies without proper and appropriate resolution. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I would like to talk a little bit now about how some of these enhanced provisions of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill may apply in practice. In particular I will talk a little about the health sector and how these enhanced amendments may apply to it. I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 4(1) in Part 1 which amends the definition of an employee by “adding ‘(including a person who is a member of the board or governing body of the organisation)’.” I refer back to the comments I made earlier on an item raised by Jacqui Dean which was to do with the Otago District Health Board. The situation was that the chairperson who was the person responsible for correcting the problem for correcting the mistakes that had been made and for dealing with a very serious issue ended up being sacked by the new National Government. So he had no protection at all. 
I think that it highlights that even though the Protected Disclosures Act brings board members within its ambit the problem is that it does not preclude political interference by the Government of the day. People are still liable to lose their jobs if they are not seen to be onside with the Government of the day no matter how good the work is that they have been doing to deal with any issues arising under the Protected Disclosures Act. I think that that is a really important point. 
The protected disclosures legislation has potentially never been more important than it is now at a time when public service numbers are being cut. Again I refer to the health service here. I want to talk about senior doctors and nurses and so on who may want to raise concerns about medical services being dangerously cut to the bone under this current Government. This Government has gone back on its promise made prior to the election to only cap the Public Service. This Government said it would cap the Public Service but it is cutting it. As a result people’s lives in the health sector could be put at risk and people may want to use the protected disclosures legislation to dob in this Government and to reveal its shortcomings. But under this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Muzzled! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —well they will be muzzled in a number of ways—at least because of the good work of the previous Labour Government there will be some enhanced protections. I also want to talk about the fact that this bill gives the Ombudsmen some more powers and to consider what that might mean. I believe that this is the second piece of legislation we have debated in this term of Parliament that gives the Ombudsmen more powers. Yet we have not really seen any evidence that the new National Government is willing to front up with the resources that the Ombudsmen will need. 
Grant Robertson 
: Quite the opposite. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: In fact it is quite the opposite; it will probably cut them. That is really important because the Ombudsmen probably struggle to deal with the phenomenal volume of work they have already and of course the work has gone up under the present National Government. This is a Government that does not respond to any of its Official Information Act requests so the Ombudsmen are continually being asked to investigate breaches of the Official Information Act. 
In fact I had a very good example just the other day of a Minister in this House refusing to release information under an Official Information Act request and I had to complain about that to the Ombudsmen. I was asking a particular Minister who is under a little bit of pressure in this House at the moment about which stakeholder and lobby groups he had met with and he refused the request on the grounds that it lacked “due particularity”. So he wasted the Ombudsmen’s time when they had to look into that because he did not want to reveal whom he had met with. It was the Hon Dr Richard Worth who had refused to reveal whom he had met with. 
As a result the Office of the Ombudsmen must be under a lot of pressure because that is not a lone case; that is common under this Government. It is refusing to comply with the law and that results in more and more complaints to the Ombudsmen. This bill we are discussing puts even more responsibility on to the Ombudsmen. It increases the amount of pressure on the Office of the Ombudsmen and therefore could potentially lead to greater pressure on the office without any additional resources from the Government. 
I will talk about some of the other areas where people may wish to raise concerns and particularly about the Ministry of Social Development. Its staff deals with some pretty tricky issues there but 500 staff will be cut from that ministry under this Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: 500? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Five hundred staff are going to be cut. I can see the member for Maungakiekie scratching his head—he is clearly confused by that. He believed John Key when John Key said he was not going to cut the Public Service. Actually that member was hoodwinked because that is exactly what National wanted to do all along. So the Ministry of Social Development which deals with some of the most vulnerable people in this country is having 500 staff cut. It may well be that some of those 500 people will want to blow the whistle and say that the department has now been cut dangerously to the bone. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
It is very relevant to talk about the health sector in relation to this bill. I reiterate what my colleague Craig Foss brought up about the situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board where Deborah Houston contacted the board chairman under the Protected Disclosures Act and was dismissed in a shocking manner. As Mr Foss pointed out she said in a public speech that there is no doubt that the public administration must be transparent and it must be honest. The Labour Opposition members talk about a climate of fear; they have to look at themselves in a mirror. When they were in Government a very unjust dismissal occurred fairly and squarely under their watch. But I will go further than that. In 2007 the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey found that of the respondents working in our district health boards only 23 percent knew about the Protected Disclosures Act—only 23 percent. The rhetoric of the members of that great Labour Government is all about the district health boards and openness but only 23 percent of respondents said they knew anything about the Act or how to apply it. It is quite ridiculous for those Labour members to now get up on their high horse and talk about a climate of fear when undoubtedly they were heavily involved in the creation of one. 
The whole purpose of this bill is to make it much easier for whistleblowers to comfortably complain when that is appropriate. I think that is exactly what comes up in the bill’s new section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” inserted by clause 6.The situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was one where Mrs Houston unfortunately talked to the board chairman when she should have talked to the human resources personnel and a calamity—an injustice—happened to her. Of course section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” states: “(1) A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—(a) of a technical failure to comply with sections 7 to 10 if the employee has substantially complied with the requirement in section 6 to disclose the information in accordance with this Act; or (b) the employee does not expressly refer to the name of this Act when the disclosure is made.” A clear example can be made of how Mrs Houston could have applied this new provision. Clearly this bill is a constructive attempt to ensure that people like her will not be treated in the same way that she was treated under the Labour Government. 
I was quite appalled when I heard Grant Robertson talk about a climate of fear. If anyone is generating a climate of fear it is Mr Robertson and the members of the previous Labour Government. After all their Government’s poor-quality public spending over a period of 9 years has put New Zealand in a very difficult position. It spent $10 billion in the last Budget which left the cupboard bare at a time when the previous Government knew that an economic crisis was looming around the world. Furthermore I heard Chris Hipkins talk about Richard Thomson the previous chairman of the Otago District Health Board. But he was not a whistleblower. The chairman’s job is to ensure and to be accountable for the efficient and effective running of that district health board. Yet under his watch New Zealand’s biggest-ever case of fraud occurred. Under his watch that fraud went on for 7 years. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I shall carry on from the previous speaker in speaking about an open environment in the health sector. Tonight we have heard examples of staff losing their jobs for example in the Otago District Health Board. I tell Dr Hutchison who was an obstetrician and a gynaecologist that in the public sector and district health boards senior medical officers as that member once was are terribly nervous now about the Minister of Health’s new—it is like a shining light he has just seen—“clinical leadership”. He says let us bring in clinical leadership as if it were a new idea. It had been there for 9 years. However we cannot lead without the troops and the troops behind the clinical leaders and senior medical staff are the ward clerks and booking clerks. I ask how the Government is ever going to get waiting lists down for things like cancer therapy treatment and emergency triage without that team behind it. Senior medical staff members are saying they cannot do their jobs in the environment of fear that is now in the district health boards where the health teams will be cut to meet terms of efficiency for this Minister. 
There is an environment of fear. It is out there right now. We heard before about other senior people who are losing their jobs. That is why in 2003 following a report to Parliament about the Protected Disclosures Act the Labour Government at the time came up with the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill that we are debating in this Chamber tonight. The bill will protect staff. Those staff who support senior doctors can speak out and say “enough” and that they cannot go on in the health sector without the safety of patients being at risk in the name of clinical efficiency and fast tracking of patients in the hospital sector. Those people in that health team are beginning to ring us now in Opposition to tell us about that climate of fear I say to Dr Hutchison. I am sure that that is something the Government never intended to bring about in the name of efficiency. 
I am very pleased that with this bill the ward clerk the clinical booking clerk the librarian and the cleaner can speak out and say they can no longer do their jobs in the name of efficiency and that bottom line in health. I heard Government members when they were in Opposition railing against the extra expenditure that went into health. Now it will cut that very fine public health service so that we can bring in privatisation by stealth and not look after the best interests of the public of New Zealand. I am pleased that we took action following that report in 2003 and said we would do something about it and that we would protect people who speak out. Those are the very people whom Dr Hutchison talks about. 
Of course he would talk about chairmen and chairwomen and people who are on higher levels. Let us talk about those who are on the ward floor and who actually see the impact of what will happen with those cuts. Those cuts will go to the very heart of the public health system in this country that we on this side of the Chamber when we were in Government were so proud to build up into a health service that was second to none. Yes we will make it easier for whistleblowers and they will be protected; and yes only 23 percent knew about the previous protected disclosures legislation. The strengthening of the legislation will put in place systems of accountability in every sector—health education public service and private sector—so that people know how they can safely disclose information. I think that is a very good aspect of this bill. After this bill goes through all stages members will see that the awareness among employees of their rights to speak out about what they see that is wrong and unjust will increase inordinately. I am pleased we are debating this bill in the Chamber tonight. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to move the conversation on a little during this Committee stage. I will focus on the amendments the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill makes to section 15 of the Protected Disclosures Act. The bill adds quite a considerable amount of value to that section. When we look at the bill we see clause 8 inserts a new section 15A. Under the original Act there is only section 15 and nothing else. In the bill we get new sections 15A 15B 15C 15D and 15E. I must admit that these new sections are very much about the body of this bill. They add transparency and confidence. They have everything to do with what the Ombudsmen’s responsibilities are. 
New section 15A takes us through how the Ombudsmen may take over some investigations or investigate in conjunction with a public sector organisation. That is a very good move in the sense that along with the trust that the public must have in the public sector organisations we also have the credibility integrity and respect of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When we take our view down to new subsection (1) we see that it states “An Ombudsman may take over an investigation of a disclosure of information by a public sector organisation or investigate a disclosure of information in conjunction with a public sector organisation.” It goes on through new paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) and it talks about the very cases where that applies. When we go down to new subsection (2) however it says that new subsection (1) “does not authorise an Ombudsman to act if the protected disclosure of information is in respect of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” That is quite interesting. At first we might ask why not? When we stop to think about it we realise it is probably quite appropriate because the Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament. It would not be appropriate to have an Officer of Parliament investigating another Officer of Parliament. 
That does bring to mind an incident that happened during the last term of Parliament between 2005 and 2008 when we had a serious issue. It was not with regard to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; it was actually with regard to the Ministry for the Environment. If people cast their minds back to the occasion of the lying of a lazy Labour Government Minister by the name of David Benson-Pope and the incident around the dismissal of a media employee because of her relationship with a person who had political affiliations it just draws us back to the points that were made before on the other side of the Chamber around the politicisation that can occur. 
It is worth mentioning in this Committee stage that the politicisation from within this Chamber is something that needs to be given consideration to in the future around this particular bill. Under the previous Labour Government we saw the politicisation of the Public Service. That particular case which meant a media employee was dismissed because of her relationship with a National Party employee was treated quite unscrupulously. I say that members opposite will now realise that that was a terrible situation to fall into. Effectively that was the death knell of the previous Government and the final nail in its coffin because it had allowed that politicisation to occur and did not protect the individual. I would moot with some confidence that in the future what will happen around this legislation is that we will have to do our utmost to protect the individual over and beyond what this bill represents. When we look at how the Ombudsmen behave and conduct themselves we see that we are thinking quite seriously about the individual. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have had enough of this. I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Otago District Health Board and I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Ministry for the Environment. I am going to pick one of those three points and tell my story. I will not talk about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board even though I was the Minister of Health at the time when the chair of the district health board rang me on the whistleblowing issue one January. I will not talk about that because I have information regarding folk who are unable to defend themselves. The information involves employees of the district health board which is why it is not proper. 
For the same reason I will not talk about the Ministry for the Environment even though I know David Benson-Pope rather well of course and even though I know the Secretary for the Environment at the time and even though I was the witness to the investigation that was carried out by the Solicitor-General. I was a witness to those hearings that he carried out with David Benson-Pope. The reason I will not comment is that that information also involves private individuals—not Mr Benson-Pope or the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment—and it would not be proper. But I can talk about the Otago District Health Board. 
I can talk about the Otago District Health Board for several reasons. First of all the board is in the area that I happen to represent—Dunedin North. I was Minister of Health at the time I know Richard Thomson and I know the chief executive Brian Rousseau. I know most of the board members; they are either friends or acquaintances. Some of them I do not know well but most of them I do. I have never met Michael Swann by contrast. The story is that Michael Swann set up what was to become the biggest fraud in public history before Mr Thomson became chair of the board. Mr Swann did so in a series of techniques that were revealed in court and are on the public record. They are no great secret. But those techniques were regarded by the Serious Fraud Office and others who were involved in the investigation as clever—sufficiently clever that Audit New Zealand when it looked at the Otago District Health Board on six separate occasions in the intervening years did not see anything. 
The fraud was not seen when the district health board as a matter of ordinary managerial behaviour decided to do a quick run on its information technology expenditure and found it to be a little below normal—not above normal. It was not found when the major contracts of the Otago District Health Board in another ordinary managerial activity were taken aside and one by one they were sent out and inspected by independent folk to make sure that they were all on track. The reason that the information technology contracts were not covered in the 10 biggest contracts is that they had been atomised by the fraudster so that they could not be seen as one contract. 
It is a matter of fact that the fraudster had big flash cars in the car-park. One very clever Minister of Health was heard to ask only a few months ago: “How come nobody noticed the Lamborghini alongside the Toyota Corollas?”. People did notice; the previous chairman noticed. He said to Mr Swann: “What are you doing with that sort of car on the salary we give you?”. Mr Swann’s reply was: “I’ve developed some software which I have licensed to Microsoft. I am independently wealthy. I come to work because I love my job not because I need it.” So the idea was born that this guy was clever. It was later discovered that Microsoft was not very keen on licensing software and that that was a manufacture as well. But those are the sorts of techniques that the gentleman used. 
There was therefore no way of knowing that the fraud had taken place—until one day the chairman of the Otago District Health Board received a tip-off. It was not firm but it was sufficiently concerning so that the chair of the district health board took a number of actions. He advised the police who did nothing. He then ran using some very clever techniques involving the chief financial officer of the time a series of— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We are getting away from the bill. I know there has been a kind of political debate on either side of the Chamber but I think we have concluded that. I would like to draw the debate back to relevancy to protected disclosures— 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me offer to knock it off in 2 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give you 2 minutes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me speed up. At the point that the chairman became aware a series of activities took place that led to the fronting of Mr Swann. He was subsequently released from his duties that day and the information technology system in the Otago District Health Board was then secured There was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office a series of court cases and Mr Swann was found guilty on all charges and now is in a jail in Dunedin where I hope he spends some time. After that the incoming Minister of Health decided—years later—that he wanted someone to be held accountable. So what he did in response— 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that the speaker on the other side of the Chamber is now departing from the tolerance that we were affording him on this side and he is starting to attribute blame. I would call the member back to the bill or to be seated. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am in some difficulty here. The member is giving an explanation and I gave him another 2 minutes for that. I do not want to have a political situation arise where I have to give someone on the other side of the Chamber the same. I really want to get back to the bill. I ask the member to contain himself to detail—and this is a bit of an unusual step for me. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I understand this very well. I make one simple point: that if one has protected disclosure legislation in front of the House then one needs to be very careful about the whole idea of sacking the person who did the disclosing. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 We have just had 7½ minutes from an apologist on behalf of the Otago District Health Board—the member for Dunedin North the Hon Pete Hodgson former Minister of Health. But for a number of years at the Otago District Health Board the largest fraud was being undertaken by Mr Michael Swann and his colleague and it went unnoticed by everybody including the Minister of Health of the day who was the man whose responsibility it was to take charge— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We understood your ruling before and again I think we are now going wide of the mark on the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Here is the difficulty I did not want to get into. If the member wishes to make an analogy that can be drawn back to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill I will tolerate it. But if we are going to get into a debate just about an issue that is very very obliquely related or not even related to the bill then we are not going to have that. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I was referring to the apologist for the Otago District Health Board the Hon Pete Hodgson who whilst Minister of Health at the time he was in Government oversaw unknowingly—apparently—the largest fraud ever undertaken in a district health board in New Zealand. The direct consequence of that was that a number of my constituents failed to get hip operations cataract operations and any manner of the medical treatments they needed were funded for and deserved because at the time various Ministers of Health were apparently turning a blind eye and are now shamefully in this Chamber apologising for doing so. I have already outlined— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not do this very often but I take offence at the idea that I might have turned a blind eye. That suggests that I might have knowingly allowed a fraud of this nature to continue. That is an offensive proposition; I ask for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Opposition speakers have spent a large part of their contributions this evening in taking credit for the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill but we need to remember that the bill is the result of an inquiry held in 2003. Some 5 or 6 years later the country finally has a National Government—to the great relief of most people—and finally we have this bill back in the Chamber for its Committee stage. Of course had this legislation been enacted in 2003 it may well have made things easier for those people who knew something about what was happening in Dunedin Hospital and at the Otago District Health Board. It may have given them comfort to go to the chief executive or to whoever was designated under the legislation to hear a complaint or be told of some sense of disquiet because maybe those people had noticed the Lamborghini in the car-park as a lot of other people had. Maybe if the previous Labour Government had got off its chuff in 2003 and brought this legislation to the House we would not have had that fraud visited on the Otago District Health Board and the people of Otago would not have missed out on a great many services as a consequence. How many millions were defrauded? Can anyone remember? Was it $13 million? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: $16 million. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So $16 million was defrauded from the people of Otago. Had this legislation been enacted at that time maybe—just maybe—the person who walked around the car-park of the Otago District Health Board saw the Lamborghini and saw the big boat parked up in the harbour might have thought: “There’s something funny going on here. I think I’ll go and see the chief executive.” So it is a little bit galling to hear members of the Opposition apologising and explaining away the events that happened to the Otago District Health Board. I find that a little hard to believe. 
National utterly supports the broad approach to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. We believe in accountability just as we insisted on accountability at the Otago District Health Board. We welcome accountability which is why we fully support the broad approach of this protected disclosures legislation arising out of the review in 2003. I think it is worth noting that the Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and across the community as a whole. I go back to the Otago District Health Board issue which I do not think we can turn away from in this instance because the events there are very relevant to the discussion on this bill. I do think that the Office of the Ombudsmen with the increased powers that are given to it under this bill could have been a viable alternative for the person who walked around that car-park. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to bring us back to the bill after that interesting fairly predictable speech from the National Government member. The original Protected Disclosures Act required a review within 2 years and that was carried out by the previous Labour Government. That is what we did and we asked Mary Scholtens to do the review. A review cannot be carried out in 5 minutes; it took a long time. It is a very interesting and comprehensive report and I suggest the National Party members actually read it. They might find some information there that has an awful lot more to do with this bill than have some of the speeches we have heard from them. 
As I said in my contribution before I was on the Government Administration Committee and interestingly there was not a huge wave of submissions. The committee asked to hear from the Public Service Association at my instigation and it confirmed Mary Scholtens’ observation that the procedures were not necessarily widely understood or widely used in the public sector. I have some questions that I would like to ask the Minister about that. If this amendment bill is going to do better I would like to know what resources the Minister proposes to provide to the Office of the Ombudsmen—a question that was asked earlier by my colleague Grant Robertson. If this amendment bill is going to do better and given that we are placing a lot more obligations on the Office of the Ombudsmen the office needs to be properly resourced. 
The next question I would like the Minister to address is about the low level of take-up of the procedures. The National Government has criticised that fact but one could take the view that the reason the procedures were not taken up was that not a lot of protected disclosures needed to happen because we had such a good Public Service and such a good Government in power—unlike the previous period the 1990s. I note again that the reason the Protected Disclosures Act came about in the first place was the problems and the culture of fear that had developed in the 1990s around the issues with Neil Pugmire and Good Health Wanganui—a ridiculous name! Given the low level of take-up of those procedures as identified in the report I ask what the Minister plans to do to ensure that the new procedures and rights under this bill are properly promulgated to all workers in all parts of the Public Service. We must bear in mind that we are talking about not just the core public sector but also the health sector the education sector the community sector and the non-governmental sector—all sectors that actually receive Government funding—and this bill now extends the protected disclosure procedures to volunteers by widening the definition of “employee”. 
I want to make a couple of other points in response to some of the contributions from National Government members. I was interested in the contribution from the member for Maungakiekie Sam Peseta Lotu-Iiga because I understand that some New Zealand Educational Institute workers and school support staff went to see him the other day and they were talking about their wages and how shocking they are. Apparently he got on the phone to the Minister of Education Anne Tolley and assured those people that he had her ear and she would address the issue of school support staff. These workers are on $12.94 an hour! I ask the Minister whether given the threats the public sector is facing those people will use these protected disclosure measures. I would like to hear from the member for Maungakiekie what the response from the Minister was and whether there were any assurances that those people will get decent pay increases in the current wage round. By all means he should take another call on that question. 
I go back to the issue of Mrs Houston which members have gone on and on about. As I said I was on the select committee so I heard from Mrs Houston and indeed she went through a difficult time but what I would say about her situation is that she took a personal grievance action against the district health board. If people read her submission to the committee they will see that that happened and that she ended up settling with the district health board. I do not have the amount of money in front of me but she did receive a settlement as often happens in these situations. May I say that that was able to happen because the Labour Government brought in the Employment Relations Act which brought in personal grievance protections for workers in that situation. In fact the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which this bill amends refers directly back to the Employment Relations Act and the right of workers to be protected under that Act. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to have another call on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker that Mary Scholtens’ review was a substantial and a significant one. I was not lucky enough to be on the Government Administration Committee that deliberated on the bill but I have taken the report out and I note that it is indeed very substantial. One of the points she made was that the Office of the Ombudsmen would also be able to help to conduct initial screenings to determine whether the nature of the complaint was such as to warrant a referral. She made the comment that after noting the jurisdictions of a number of appropriate authorities the ministerial also noted that no single agency currently has a clear perceived role of providing advice and counselling to individuals considering making disclosures outside their employing organisations. 
So that was the situation in 2003. It was noted there were gaps in the jurisdiction between these authorities and there was a need to maintain and develop the coordination and transfer of referrals between authorities to ensure those existing resources are used effectively and that continued coordination between agencies and the provisions made for counselling and facilitating disclosure were important. It is quite significant that 4 years later when the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey was carried out we learn that only 23 percent of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. 
But I go on further than that. The other revealing finding was there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. I think that is extremely concerning for all of us here. Undoubtedly this was the ethos of the Labour Government of the time and it must fall squarely and fairly on it. When Darien Fenton talked about the reparation that Deborah Houston finally received it was in a climate that was quite unsatisfactory. 
The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State Services Commission average their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. That is again a very strong reason why this bill is so important and why the various provisions that we have here are set to give the whistleblower extra help both through the Ombudsmen facilitating and through the various other amendments to the principal Act. These include the technical failures to comply or refer to the Act as set out in new section 6A inserted by clause 6 and in clause 4 where a person who works for the organisation as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work is also included in the definition of an employee. Public official of course means a person who is an employee of a public sector organisation. 
If we continue we find that Part 1 answers many of the problems that were identified by Mary Scholtens and addresses many of the problems that were identified in the Public Service survey that was carried out. I want to emphasise just how important are the various aspects of this bill. I refer to new section 15 inserted by clause 8 whereby the Ombudsmen may escalate disclosures to an appropriate authority or Minister or investigate disclosure and here of course the Ombudsmen may refer the disclosure to a Minister of the Crown. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2  Transitional provision 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on Part 2 because obviously it is a very brief part in itself being just the one clause. It is a transitional provision that states in clause 13: “The amendments made by this Act apply to disclosures of information made after the commencement of this Act.” That is quite a normal clause in many ways but it does give me cause to refer back to Dr Hutchison’s speech—not the one we just heard but the one before that—where he accused me and my Labour colleagues of creating a climate of fear in the Public Service. I have to say that nothing is further from the truth. In fact this transitional provision although it is quite conventional gives rise to concern about those public servants at the moment in that climate of fear who may feel that they need to make some kind of disclosure under this Act but who will be feeling that they cannot. At the moment because they are not able to make disclosures under the bill until it comes into force they do not have the extensions that have been granted under this Act. I say to Dr Hutchison that the climate of fear is not being created by the Labour Party; the climate of fear has been created by the National Party’s strategy. Admittedly National was to do it all under the radar—to make these cuts in public services under the radar. John Armstrong wrote about this in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 He said that National had learnt from the past. It was not going to do a big public slash-and-burn exercise in the Public Service; it was going to do it under the radar. Chief executives would be making the announcements not Ministers. They did not want to be associated with it. 
But I tell Mr Hutchison that I am proud of the fact that I am standing up for public servants. I am proud of the fact that I am going out there and saying to people that this is what is happening these are the jobs being cut—250 jobs at the Inland Revenue Department 80 jobs at the Ministry for the Environment 70 jobs at the Tertiary Education Commission—because it is the National Government that is making these cuts and it is ordinary New Zealanders who will suffer. A climate of fear has been— 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are on Part 2 the transitional provision. This is a very tight part of this bill. The amendment is made and this is forward-looking. That member is extremely wide of this very tight Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have cautioned the Committee. We want to talk about the bill; I ask the member to come back to Part 2 clause 13. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I do not have a lot to say here. I am just making the point that the clauses and the powers in this bill come into force only when the Act comes into force. At the moment we have public servants in the interim period before commencement who are in a vulnerable position. They are in a vulnerable position because the National Government has cut jobs in the Public Service and has cut back on services and those people are operating in a climate of fear where they will not be able to disclose the wrongdoing they see because of their fear. I think that is wrong. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses  1 to 3 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the title of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I was quite interested to read the second reading speech of the Maori Party regarding this bill where the speaker Rahui Katene suggested that the title be the “Workplace Whistleblowing Bill”. I thought she was absolutely right-on; so often we do shroud our titles with terminology that the public find quite hard to understand. Undoubtedly Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is quite correct technically because it is the amendment bill to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which was brought in at that time and reviewed by Mary Scholtens QC in 2003 and to the amendment Act of 2007. I thought Rahui Katene made an interesting point at that time because one of the problems with whistleblowing is that the public themselves are not aware of the facilities that are available. But one would hope very much that given this current reading there will be some publicity and that people in organisations up and down the country who have genuine grievances will have the opportunity to utilise the extra facilities and protections afforded by this bill. Maybe when the media are talking about it they might talk about it as the “Workplace Whistleblowing Bill” and I hope that it will be practical and applicable to all ranges of people through both public and private institutions. 
Once again I think it is important to reiterate the fact that the review by Mary Scholtens QC in 2003 was comprehensive and did lead to the amendments in 2007. When the amendment Act was brought in in about November 2007 the Government Administration Committee set about gathering submissions but for a whole year absolutely nothing happened under the previous Labour Government. That is how little Labour thought of the importance of a bill it is now trying very hard to politicise. Basically Labour did very little. It had plenty of opportunity to bring in the second and third reading but it failed to do so. So it is very satisfactory indeed that a new National Government—which is forward-looking and determined to put things right—has in the first 6 months managed to get this bill through and hopefully will have it passed into legislation within the next few weeks. 
There is no doubt that in genesis the whistleblowing legislation has gone through several decades of iterations. There is no doubt that several Governments have tried to wrestle with it; we can see that if we think of the fact that the Neil Pugmire incident occurred back in the 1990s. Then of course there were the more recent occurrences at Hawke’s Bay and even more recently at Otago—but I would not regard the latter as a whistleblowing incident at all. That was a situation where the chairman of the Otago District Health Board was required to ensure the efficient effective running of that board so that was quite different from the normally considered matter in which this legislation can be applied where someone in an organisation sees a wrong feels helpless to do anything about it and then may or may not go to the right person. This bill certainly affords a far greater certainty that anyone in an organisation will be assisted practically if he or she wishes to whistle-blow. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a fairly brief call on Part 2 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in relation to the title and commencement clauses. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: A brief one does seem like a long one though! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is Mr Mapp’s opinion and anyone who has to listen to that member speak would probably echo exactly what the member just said. 
In relation to the title l want to talk about the Protected Disclosures Act. Let us talk about what protected disclosure actually means. It is disclosure in the public interest of serious wrongdoing. The member who just resumed his seat Paul Hutchison talked about different titles whistleblowing and so on but let us talk about the serious nature of the title and when we unpack it what protected disclosures are. A “serious wrongdoing” includes unlawful corrupt or irregular use of money or resources. These are serious issues. The members opposite may not think so but I think it is worth putting on the record what protected disclosure means particularly under this National Government and particularly for those 6000 workers in Auckland who are employed by local government and may be thinking about this issue as they go through very uncertain times over the next couple of months. “Serious wrongdoing” also means conduct that poses a serious risk to public health public safety the environment or the maintenance of law; any criminal offence; and gross negligence or mismanagement by public officials. So protected disclosure is a serious matter. It is more than whistleblowing which is one example. I want to put on the record exactly what we are talking about when we talk about protected disclosure. 
My other comment is in relation to the commencement date. The commencement date is the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. I have a serious question about that and it relates to the 90-day trial period bill. What will happen to somebody who seeks to make a disclosure under this legislation—when it is passed—who has been employed under the 90-day bill? How the heck will that person have the courage to step up and make a disclosure about serious wrongdoing when he or she is under the threat of the sack in 90 days and has no personal grievance protection—no protection? In that 90-day period awful things can happen in public sector organisations. 
Right now the country is going through a period of pandemic preparedness. We have a serious situation. I am thinking about the workers in hospitals whom I know very well. I am thinking of the contract cleaners the ones who clean the wards the workers who prepare the food and so on. They are all probably the most vulnerable workers when it comes to the 90-day bill. How on earth will those workers be able to step up and under the Protected Disclosures Act say that they think their hospital rest home or disability service is taking shortcuts? How will they be able to say that they are worried about their employer opening up the rest of the population to infection? Those workers will want to use this legislation but where will they find any protection and how will they have the courage to do that? This is a very serious situation that we face right now—we all know that. Luckily it seems that we have a swine flu that is not particularly virulent. It is virulent but it is certainly not affecting our people in the way it is affecting people in Mexico. But if we put ourselves in the situation where we have a bird flu pandemic which we contemplated when we did the pandemic preparedness legislation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can we just come back to the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Let us think about what this might mean under the commencement date and the title of this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just making an appeal to those members over there who think this is very very funny. They do not think about these important things when they bring in their mad ideas such as sacking workers after 90 days. 
The commencement date is very very important. Let us be aware that the bill we are passing is important. There will be consequences for workers in vulnerable workplaces who provide health services education services and other services and who have been employed under the 90-day bill. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will take a reasonably brief call on the title clause of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. When we talk about the title clause it is worth coming back as my colleague Darien Fenton did to what the bill is fundamentally about. This bill is about the abuse of power and protection for the people who blow the whistle on it. I think as I listen to the debate that there is general consensus on both sides of the Chamber that those people should be protected and the provisions in the bill introduced by the previous Labour Government are worthy in that regard. 
One possible alternative title for this bill would be “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill”. Once again here we are discussing yet another bill that was introduced by the hardworking and conscientious previous Labour Government. There is very little evidence that the National Government has any ideas of its own although I have to say that it is refreshing to be debating a bill that is not in the name of Simon Power. Just about every other bill we have debated so far in this parliamentary session has been in the name of Simon Power. I am not sure whose name this bill is in. It is difficult to know how many of them are actually doing any work. Anyway I come back to the point about the bill being called “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill.” Clearly we are still waiting. 
The bill could also be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill” and actually that is probably the most pressing issue—the public service really needs protecting. Despite the National Party’s promise not to cut the public service we have seen 70 jobs go from the Tertiary Education Commission. Five hundred jobs have gone from the Ministry of Social Development. That department deals with the most vulnerable people and its staffing has been cut. Thirty jobs have been cut at the National Library; 70 jobs have been cut in the Ministry for the Environment; and 250 jobs have been cut from the Inland Revenue Department. These are the reasons why this bill could be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill”. Thirty-seven jobs are going from the Ministry of Justice despite National’s pre-election rhetoric about capping and not cutting the public service. National members did not mean a single word of it. They went out and promised tax cuts that they knew they could not afford. But it gave them a justification once they got into Government to cut public spending which was their agenda all along. 
This bill could be called the “Extending Protection to Chairpersons Bill”. They need it. As we have seen from the Otago District Health Board the chairs of boards under this National Government need more protection. Under this National Government it is clear that if the Government does not like a person no matter how competent that person is and no matter how good he or she has been at dealing with serious issues within whatever entity he or she is chair of that person will be sacked by this National Government. People will be sacked without any justification simply because the Government does not like them or even worse because the Government thinks that their politics are wrong. It is only interested in having National Party cronies on boards. A valid point was raised—by Paul Hutchison I think; I cannot quite remember—about the lack of awareness of the Protected Disclosures Act. 
Grant Robertson 
: That was Paul Hutchison. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I think it was Paul Hutchison who raised that point. It certainly would not have been Paul Quinn; there are no valid points there. It is heartening to see in this bill the ability to promote the Act and particularly the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen in promoting the Act and advising people on it has been enhanced. That was a very long-sighted move by the previous Labour Government. It was among the many initiatives the previous Labour Government had that were sound and well researched—something this Government does not know anything about. Its members certainly do not do any research and they do not listen to any advice. In fact they are sacking all the people who could potentially provide them with advice so that Government members might sound intelligent. Perhaps they might be able to come up with some legislation of their own were they not in the process of sacking everybody who might be able to help them come up with legislation. 
To finish because I said I was going to be brief the Labour Party supports this bill. It is a bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government and we will continue to vote for it. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I will speak to the title of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill; I am not going to ramble on like some of the previous speakers. This bill is about the protection of disclosures and the protection of those who choose to take the risk to point out injustices within public organisations. As I stated in my earlier representation to the Committee the bill is designed to improve aspects of an Act that currently exists. It gives the Ombudsmen an enhanced coordinating and helping role. It should allow whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoings to light while protecting their interests and making it easier for organisations to investigate people effectively. 
This is a good bill. It is not about the current Government persecuting and chasing after bureaucrats; it is about the protection of those who are willing to raise up their voices against injustice and willing to raise up their voices against fraud and crimes which we heard about earlier today. It is not about the political machinations of mistakes that have been made in the health sector which certain members have alluded to. It is not about apologising for mistakes that were made under 9 years of quite incompetent oversight of the country and of Government departments. It is not about that; it is about protecting those who have said “I see something wrong within my organisation or my place of work and I am prepared to take a risk and speak out against some of the injustices.” 
Some of the changes to the principal Act are commendable. Some of those changes have been alluded to by a number of members in this Committee without getting into the political debates around some of the examples that have been used. This amendment bill has been based on a report a comprehensive report that was submitted to the Government Administration Committee some time ago. I am glad that all members and all parties within this Chamber have come together to promote this bill. The National Government is closing this bill. We are closers; we do not just talk it up. We are not going to ratchet it up. We are closing this because we believe in it—whether or not the Opposition also believes in it. We are a Government of action unlike the previous one that sat around with a bare Order Paper for the last 3 years of its term in Government. We are a Government that has a full Order Paper whether or not some bills were initiated under the previous Labour Government and we are proceeding with some of the actions in this bill. 
We support the broad approach of the principal Act and we support the efforts to improve its operation as well as its administration. Some members here tonight have talked about the resources to be applied to implementing some of the changes within this legislation. That is not something for me to look at. Our debate tonight is really about changing the principal effects of the Act in order for it to run in a smooth and efficient manner. As some have already said tonight the Ombudsmen are held in high regard across this whole Parliament and it is a good fit to increase the facilitation and coordination role of that particular office and those particular persons within their place in Government. We expect that this bill will provide better tools to enable Government agencies to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner. It is not just about the legislative changes that are going on; some changes do need to be made both within organisations that will use this bill and also among the leadership of those organisations. And some speakers here tonight have pointed the finger at some of those leaders. 
Finally all parties here agree that silence is sometimes not an option and that it is in the public interest that sometimes confidence is broken in order to go after some of the wrongs that have been committed within the public domain. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 There has been a very interesting and fulsome debate on considering the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Seen in the context of the Committee here and the bill’s significance the title is appropriate. I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee but I see that it was well chaired by Shane Arden under the previous Parliament. The bill has come back to the Chamber and it will progress through this Committee stage. No doubt it will progress further to receive its third reading and pass into law. 
But we must not forget about the procession of events that have led to where we are today. I heard members on the other side of the Chamber talking about those early days in relation to Lake Alice Hospital. I think we have to reflect on that and be aware of the consequences of a person there who was moved from the heart to report the occurrence of things that were not right and who suffered the ultimate embarrassment of being dismissed—and dismissed probably under some form of fabricated excuse—rather than being treated as a person who was actually trying to make sure that a Government department behaved at a very very high level of integrity. 
We have moved on down through the situations. We heard about the case before the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and that too cannot be dismissed. It showed us that it was very important that a review of the Protected Disclosures Act was entered into. That was done in 2003 and done with a great deal of integrity and we are now applying ourselves here to the bill that emanated from that review. 
The Committee effectively agrees on the bill’s appropriateness and I believe that two areas epitomise it all: no longer do whistleblowers have to stick to the very letter of the law; as long as they stick roughly to the processes that have been adopted by a public organisation they should then be taken seriously. And they can go to the Ombudsmen who should get alongside them and walk them through the process where necessary. That will do a lot for the general public. 
We heard from Dr Paul Hutchison that only 23 percent of people working in Government departments—I believe that may have been in the health sector—knew about the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. That is really shameful. If anything is achieved with this bill and with the introduction of these amendments into the Act and if that raises the public profile of the procedures required to improve the process around the protection of people who genuinely believe that wrong things are being carried out within a Government department—and they can have that level of protection—then this bill should be commended. I think we have to keep challenging ourselves because really if we leave it just there there may be no improvement whatsoever and we want to see that people can have confidence and can speak out freely. We notice also that the bill talks about the immunity that people can experience if they are wrong and I think that that is also appropriate. However if a person blatantly abused that situation it would not stand the test of natural justice. 
So the title of the bill—the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—is appropriate. It is appropriate for a number of reasons but more particularly because the Act it amends is called the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Thank you. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 This is a very important bill judging by the support it has received across the whole of Parliament this evening. That just shows how important it is. I wish to make a contribution on the title and the commencement date of this bill. The bill will repeal and replace the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. 
There are some very important parts of this bill. I do not care to politicise it as the Labour Opposition has tried to do this evening. Even though those members are supporting the bill they are out there trying to scaremonger. It just shows that the departure of Dr Cullen who delivered his valedictory this evening has really put pressure on the interesting people who are busy doing the numbers down the corridors now. Maybe they will be working very hard now that they have lost two of the very key components of the Labour Party—but I digress. This is an important bill. It is important because the following people will have to hold a licence: private investigators security technicians security consultants property guards and personal guards. These people will be required to hold a licence which is extremely important. 
The other important thing— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I am sorry to interrupt but I was very confused there. The Government member was talking about security guards. This debate is on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Earlier today we were debating issues around security guards and private investigators but that is not what this bill is about so I cannot see what Mr Guy was talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. The bill is clearly the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It just shows that the new member from Wellington Central who has been in here a short time does not actually understand— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is out of order to comment on a Chairperson’s decision. The member is invited to continue with his speech. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I will talk now specifically to the title which is the important part of this bill— 
Hon Members 
: What is it? 
NATHAN GUY 
: —the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—and also to the commencement date which will occur after the third reading. The important part of this bill is to do with the Ombudsmen. We have had some very good discussion across the whole of Parliament this evening. I wanted to make a particular comment on new section 15D which is to be inserted into the Protected Disclosures Act under clause 8. The provision relates to the Ombudsmen and it is very important; I will make some comments about it. The Ombudsmen are particularly busy as we all know. Section 15D states: “The Chief Ombudsman may by written notice appoint a person to perform an Ombudsman’s functions under this Act.” That is vitally important because the Chief Ombudsman is under a huge amount of pressure. This provision will mean that the Chief Ombudsman can delegate part of his or her role to get on top of the functions of that role. 
This bill has received a huge amount of support across the whole of Parliament this evening. The transitional provision has been talked about and that is enabled with this bill. The bill is not retrospective; it is looking forward. It was drafted under the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines which is very important and that is why I believe this bill will be passed. It is very important that this Government carries on with the good work and that is why National the main Government party is supporting this bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Maori Trustee Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1  Amendments to principal Act 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill particularly to Part 1. Supplementary Order Papers containing some technical amendments and an amendment to the commencement date have been lodged by the Minister of Maori Affairs and we certainly support them. 
The history of this particular bill is that it has been well debated in this House. The previous Labour Government introduced it with two specific components. One was to have the office of the Maori Trustee established as a stand-alone entity and the other was to do with accelerating Maori development. The Maori Affairs Committee at the time gave the bill quite a full hearing and what we now have in the Committee stage are some minor but useful amendments. 
As I point out some of those issues I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu sees fit to take a call because what has happened is that of the two parts of the bill as it was introduced by the previous Labour Government the first part of the bill has remained all but intact with some useful amendments and the second part regarding Maori development has been left for a further conversation. 
I was not a member of that select committee but I remember the debate in the House. It is interesting that people tend to forget what they have said in Opposition once they are in Government. I have a particular statement here which is a very forceful one: “National believes that the role of the Maori Trustee needs fundamental revision. National believes that it is time to have a deep think about how Maori land should be reviewed particularly the assets involved with the Maori Trustee. It is fundamentally wrong to have this approach. It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred to iwi back into a centralised approach … It simply transfers assets that could have been transferred back to iwi back into a centralised approach.” That was said by none other than Dr Wayne Mapp during the first reading debate. What he was saying there basically is that what Labour was doing in trying to set up the Maori Trustee office as a stand-alone entity was not the right thing to do— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh rubbish! You’ve got it wrong. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: —and that we should in fact give all the assets back to iwi. I have that statement here I say to Mr Henare and I am quite happy to table the statements made by Dr Mapp when he was in the House. 
Actually the important thing about this particular issue is what it leads one to think. National now that it is in Government has a real ability to add things into the Maori Trustee Act. When National members were in Opposition they talked about the types of things they said they would do. Now that National is in Government it has the prime opportunity to do those things and it has not done so. 
I will give an example. One of criticisms voiced by Mr Henare when he was in Opposition was that it was difficult to find Maori landowners. Many of the Maori electorate MPs—in fact many of the Maori MPs in this House—know just how difficult it is to find Maori landowners and to try to ascribe a lot of those unclaimed moneys. Is there anything in the Supplementary Order Papers that suggests a way of putting greater obligation on the Maori Trustee to do this? There is nothing. Members opposite when in Opposition criticised things that were very difficult to do and they said that this should be done and that should be done. Now they have an opportunity to do that and they have not done so. I have raised that point because it is very interesting to hear what people say in Opposition and do not deliver on when in Government. 
Largely this bill is not controversial. I think everyone would agree that setting up the Maori Trust Office as a stand-alone entity is a good thing. I see that it is the strong intention of the Government to make sure that the Act comes into force by 1 July and I think the sooner the better. That is very important. The Act is to be read in line with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and I do want to pick up on some comments made by Dr Wayne Mapp in the previous debate. I also agree that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is in need of review and some changes should and must be made. 
This is a slight departure from the debate but it is a useful one I think. When we consider a number of the inhibiting and constraining factors around developing unproductive Maori land we see that part of it lies in a legislative solution and part of it lies in policy but a great part of it lies in a reorientation of how current policy is used. I am particularly pleased to see that Te Puni Kokiri is continuing its review of Maori land with regard to the valuation of Maori land and the rating of Maori land. I think this in part may help to loosen some of the constrictions. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill during the Committee stage and I am sure my friends and colleagues from the Opposition will be pleased to know that I intend taking a number of calls on it. There is a lot to share with them and for them to understand and come to grips with. 
But I want to start by reflecting on one statement that my friend and colleague Master Hipkins has reiterated throughout this evening in respect of the previous bill—that this is a Labour bill that National is bringing forward. The truth of the matter is that he is right but what he has not said is that Labour was unable to get things done. It has been left to the great National Government that we are becoming to clean up and clear the slate. This bill is a classic example. Let me if I may take a moment of the Committee’s time and read from the select committee report: “Because it is desirable that changes to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation be passed into legislation before the close of this Parliament we resolved that splitting the bill along these lines was prudent.” In recognition of trying to get this bill through the previous Parliament Labour split the bill but it still could not deliver. 
The Opposition might remind us from time to time that when this great National Government was in Opposition we opposed this bill. That is correct as well. But the reason National opposed the bill was as my honourable colleague the previous speaker Nanaia Mahuta has pointed out that this was part of a much larger bill commonly referred to as the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. In fact because of the great stewardship and leadership shown by the select committee members who considered this bill which I note was made up of a majority of members who are now Government members they were able to bring some focus and some common sense to the reality of “let’s just deal with the Maori Trustee aspects of this”. 
We were opposed because on the one hand there was a need to deal with the specific issues around the Maori Trustee and the Maori Trust Office but the then Government also on the other hand tried to create this monolith Maori Development Corporation to which it was going to appoint a whole lot of ministerial cronies and create this huge slush fund for them to spend. We opposed that because time and time again we have had reference made to political appointments. My learned friends on the Opposition benches are past masters and colleagues of this particular skill. We were opposed to that and through our great vision and drive and the majority we had on the select committee we were able to separate it out and create a focused bill to deal specifically with the issues confronting the Maori Trust Office. 
As we work our way through this bill I think it will provide an excellent opportunity to focus on the work that the Maori Trust Office does and needs to do because there are a number of aspects in this bill that will drag the office and the Maori Trustee into the 21st century. For instance there are clauses in the bill that deal with the fact that the Maori Trustee no longer has to just sign cheques and cheques only but will be able to use other means of efficient distribution and so on. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will pick up from where I left off. In terms of the opportunities provided by this bill and the associated mechanisms that may help to support the development of unproductive Maori land which I think falls on the Maori Trustee to try to aid the real issue is trying to review Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to look at how the role of the Maori Trustee can support the development of unproductive Maori lands. Many of these lands might fall under his purview. I think further thinking can happen in that space. It was interesting to listen to the speaker on the other side of the Chamber Paul Quinn. Not once did he mention a lot of the detail of Part 1 but then as a new member he may not have read the full part of the bill. 
There are obviously some practical issues in respect of setting up the Maori Trust Office. At the moment the Maori Trustee exists under Te Puni Kokiri. They co-locate in many regions. Their office spaces share resources. The new opportunity that is afforded here is that the Maori Trustee will be set up as a corporation sole and it will have in its own right the capacity to employ people. It will continue to have deputy trustee officers who will have certain delegations. I think that is all well and good and it is really important. My only concern in terms of the transitional issues that the two parties will have to consider is the fact that we are in a recession. I hope they do not lose the opportunity if and where useful to continue to co-locate. There are some very sound financial reasons why I think that is really important. 
The other aspect that could be considered—and I am not sure whether the Maori Affairs Committee deliberated on it—is that of the annual reports. Given that the trustee is to be set up as a stand-alone entity that will be fully accountable for its operations I hope the annual reports provide greater clarity to the beneficiaries of unclaimed monies. Those are exactly the kinds of things that the Maori Trustee will undertake on their behalf. The devil will be in the detail and in the reporting. 
I welcome under schedule 2 the insertion of “the Maori Trustee” to schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act which will give a level of accountability that will be very important to many of the beneficiaries who have a right to know what the Maori Trustee is doing on their behalf. The explanatory note and some other information I have read suggest that some beneficiaries will choose or elect to retain their small shareholdings within the Maori Trust Office. That may well be the case and that is why greater transparency around annual reporting will be helpful to them. 
The other aspect of Part 1 that I want to comment on in particular relates to the termination of appointment of the Maori Trustee. I will take some time on this because I have some questions to ask. The criteria for terminating the appointment of the Maori Trustee are well set out in the bill. Essentially there could be a situation whereby the Maori Trustee is appointed for 5 years and rolls over for another 5 years or the trustee could be terminated according to express criteria in the bill. If the Minister chooses to terminate the employment of the Maori Trustee who then carries out the functions? It is not clear. Although there are deputy trustees who have specific written delegations if the Minister is required for some very public reasons or based on some very public criticisms to suspend the office of the Maori Trustee what happens to those delegated functions in that time period? In the way the legislation reads one must have express written delegations to the deputy trustee. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to clarify that particular question for no other reason than to highlight that there could be a bit of a difficulty there. Often with appointments like this the consideration of termination or suspension of time in office is carried out purely for political reasons. That presents a difficulty in terms of the smooth functioning and running of the office. I would like the Minister to take a call to clarify that. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I am mindful that the previous speaker in her opening 5-minute speech said that what members say when they are in Opposition is the opposite of what they say when they are in Government. But I am not sure whether she was talking about us or them. 
Opposition members have mentioned that the Maori Trustee will stand alone they have mentioned Wayne Mapp and they have mentioned all those flowery things that could happen to the Maori Trustee. Actually all of those things are happening under this bill. As for the stuff that is not happening—the development stuff that Nanaia Mahuta talked about—I ask Labour members why they did not put it in the bill when they were in Government. Oh that is right—they did not do that. They tried to cleverly siphon off $35 million into some sort of development fund but nobody knew how that development fund was to be worked out. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Will the member take a question? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I am not a Minister. I should be—but OK that is not for me to say. All of the things the previous speaker talked about—the corporation sole and a stand-alone Maori Trustee—are good excellent ideas. That is why the previous Maori Affairs Committee—chaired I might add by Dave Hereora who did a pretty good job—had already agreed to do all of that. So it should not come as a shock. 
If other things should have been added to Part 1 why did that last Maori Affairs Committee not have those things in front of it? It is because the previous Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia in his wisdom thought otherwise. In his wisdom he brought the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill to this House and to the select committee. We have split that bill in half because there was not too much agreement on its second half but there certainly was on the first half as we see here in Part 1. This bill is about a corporation sole and about making the Maori Trustee more responsible and transparent. It is about making sure there is a reporting regime so that all of the beneficiaries can see what the trustee is up to. 
The bill addresses the termination of the trustee but I bet a year’s salary that if the trustee were terminated one of the assistant trustees or another person—maybe it would be the Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri; who knows—would be put in place. There would be a process whereby the office of the Maori Trustee would have a leader for however long. 
So the previous speaker can go on about what should have been in the bill what is in the bill and what is not in the bill but here is the question: if so much is missing from this part of the bill and from the part that was shaved off by the previous Maori Affairs Committee why did the present Opposition not do something about it during its 9 years in Government? This is not a big criticism but it is in response to the previous speaker saying that what members say in Opposition is different from what they say when they are in Government. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I will make a few observations particularly in relation to the matter raised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta which my colleague the Hon Tau Henare also made some comment on. 
By way of a preliminary I thank the Maori Affairs Committee for its work. This bill is very important to the National Government. When National was in Opposition its members on the Maori Affairs Committee were very clear that they supported the setting up of the Maori Trustee as a separate organisation in order to make sure that it had independence. As has already been referred to by one of my colleagues National did not agree with what the Labour Government of the time tried to include in the original Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill hence the split into the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill. When National was in Opposition it clearly did not support the original bill. There was no support for it and it was not raised in consultation with Maori at the number of hui that were held around the country. The setting up of the Maori Trustee as an independent organisation was supported but the other part of the bill was not. The select committee worked quite hard last year to make sure that when and if the bill emerged in the House again it would deal with the core issue which was to create the Maori Trustee as an independent organisation. 
Under current law the Maori Trustee is independent from the Crown but also it is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri. Under current arrangements there is potential for the perception of a conflict of interest; that matter has been raised by Maori over a long period of time. The setting up of the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation will underline its independence as I have already said; there was broad support for this stand-alone Maori Trustee at consultation. Those are very important points and it was on the basis of those points that the National Opposition last year opposed the bill as it was originally brought to the House by the Labour Government. That is why we are very pleased to be here in the Chamber tonight in the Committee of the whole House and to see this bill as it is now—as the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill—progress through Parliament. 
I want to make some comments though; I think it is fair as the Hon Nanaia Mahuta raised the issue. One of the questions raised by the member was how the Maori Trustee is able to be removed from office. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: If they’re removed— 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes—what will happen if the Maori Trustee is removed from office? In that event—and we hope that it would never occur—grounds are set out. New section 6B(5) explains that the Minister of Maori Affairs may remove the Maori Trustee from office on the grounds of “(a) undischarged bankruptcy misconduct or neglect of duty; or “(b) inability to perform the functions and duties of the Maori Trustee.” We should be very clear that this threshold is very high—very high indeed—and is similar to the thresholds applying to the removal from office of the Auditor-General. The bill makes explicit the Minister’s requirement to observe the rules of natural justice—again that threshold is very high. The Minister must also publish any removal or suspension in the  
Gazette 
. 
The member asked who if by some unfortunate chance that event should occur will then take up the role. The Deputy Maori Trustee will if one is appointed by the Maori Trustee; the deputy will pick up delegated responsibilities. It would be very very unlikely that there would be no deputy in place. So that is the provision that deals with that issue. As I say I ask the Committee to note the high threshold for removal of the Maori Trustee. If the position is terminated by the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister is also in a position to make a new appointment. Thank you. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the Hon Georgina te Heuheu the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs on rising to her feet to give us a very detailed explanation of her understanding of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. I think that it is very appropriate that she should have done that given that she was one of the three members in this Parliament who was part of the Maori Affairs Committee under the previous Government. The Hon Tau Henare and I were the other two. But it is interesting that although there were two members on the select committee from the same party their recollection of events and of the issues raised and interpreted in a number of ways are quite different. But let me backtrack a little because I think I can bring a better understanding of the intensity of the discussion that took place at the Maori Affairs Committee when we were considering and deliberating on this particular bill. 
There was considerable support for the Maori Trust Office to become a stand-alone organisation and necessary changes were made to the legislation to ensure that the level of accountability and the responsibilities of the Maori Trustee were very clear in law. But it is a pity that when the opportunity was put before the committee to establish a funding arm to encourage Maori economic development because of the political differences around the table it basically met with considerable resistance—not on the part of the members of the previous Government but on the part of the members of the previous Opposition. When I say that they are wrong it is amazing how people from the same party recollect things in different ways which is what I am going to speak about at this point in time. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu did say that that proposal for Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand or for a Maori business development organisation was tagged on as part of the consultation on the review of the Maori Trust Office. If I have misunderstood what the Minister said I apologise but I understand that she said that it was a tag-on and that as a result the members of the Maori Affairs Committee were very very concerned. But that is not entirely true. In fact there were submitters who were of the view that it was a cloak-and-dagger approach on behalf of the Government; that was not true at all. The proposal was raised as part of the consultation for the establishment of Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand and put before the select committee. Although the Maori Trustee had his concerns about it the select committee was required to make its decision or its views known based on the evidence placed before it. 
I was one of the Government members at that time on the select committee who was more than satisfied with the level of discussion that had taken place prior to the matter coming before the committee. I would like to say that that was an opportunity that was lost. I concede that there was still a bit more work to be done on the proposal and the Maori Affairs Committee was in a position to do that. Instead the Opposition at that time raised the issue strongly enough for the proposal basically to be shelved until another day and I believe that that is what is happening at this point in time. But as I said before different members on that committee have different levels of recollection. 
I will congratulate the Maori Affairs Committee because it was a very intense discussion and people came in support not only of the Maori Trustee being a stand-alone organisation but of the concept of the development of a Maori development organisation out of the putea. And that was referred to in this House as the establishment of a slush fund for certain people’s friends. That is a phrase I have not heard in a very very long time because I do not believe that it happens any more. A former Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Tau Henare may recall that those things may have happened during his time. But we are now in the 21st century and those sorts of practices as I might term them are no longer apparent with the former Minister of Maori Affairs and I certainly would say with the current Minister of Maori Affairs—unless he wants to prove me wrong and I would like to see that happen! But I congratulate the current Minister of Maori Affairs on supporting this bill to this stage and say that it is also good to hear from the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs who is currently in the chair expressing views on this very very important bill. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. It is important to note that the Labour members opposite are not saying they will vote for the bill; they are doing everything they can to talk about the outlying issues of this legislation but they will not actually commit to supporting it. They will not say they believe that National is doing the right thing in putting this bill forward with our Maori Party colleagues and they will not admit that this bill is in the best interests of Maori. 
Labour Party members do not see the benefits in establishing the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. It is important that we do establish it as a stand-alone organisation because we need to give that degree of accountability and transparency to any Government position and given the issues that have been so prominent in recent times. In creating that stand-alone position of the Maori Trustee this bill leads to that transparency and that accountability. The Maori Trustee will be free from political pressure. 
The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill provides for better and more open communication between the Maori Trustee and its beneficiaries. The provisions of this bill enable the beneficiaries of the Maori Trustee to be sure they are receiving equal income from the common fund. In all this bill is a very positive step forward by the National Government taking into account what can be done in the best interests of Maori. It is very disappointing to see that Labour members cannot stand up and admit to that. They cannot stand up and say that this bill is in the best interests of Maori and that they will support it. In this legislation members will see that support and see the support from the people who see the benefit of having the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. It is part of the National Government’s commitment to having a strong relationship with Maori. 
In this current economic climate it is important that public entities are seen as transparent and accountable because difficult times are coming. We need to make sure that the best processes are there for our people going forward. The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill is part of providing that transparency and accountability. 
Hon Member 
: 2 minutes David. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is important to see that Labour members are now trying to create some havoc in this debate. They will not actually stand up and support the bill or constructively add value to the debate. They talk about what happened in the select committee in past Governments; we look at what is going forward for Maori. This bill will provide a future and a solution to this issue. This bill shows that the Government is listening to the people is taking on board the issues people see as relevant and is providing constructive solutions. These solutions are what we need. This is a Government based on solutions that are fair and proper. These solutions take into account that there are issues that need to be dealt with through a Maori Trustee that is open independent and not subject to political pressure. That is why we need to have it as a stand-alone organisation. That is what we have achieved through this legislation. I think the National Government and its colleagues can take great credit for the way this issue has moved forward. We now have a situation where the Government will pass legislation that enables there to be a stand-alone organisation to take advantage of the requirements of Maoridom and this community to see that kind of respect and legislative impetus behind it. 
This bill includes a few major amendments to the creation of that stand-alone organisation that the Maori Affairs Committee has worked on. It instructs that in exercising authority to terminate the appointment of the Maori Trustee the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Anyone listening to the debate right now should know that that was a second-term Government member—unfortunately from the Waikato but who must have drunk too much water from another catchment. I say to Mr Bennett that if he had listened to the debate he would have known all too well that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill as introduced was actually introduced by the previous Labour Government so that is half of his speech gone. On the second half about the issue of a stand-alone entity it is well agreed within this Chamber that people believe that the Maori Trustee should be a stand-alone entity. Really if Mr Bennett wants to get involved in debates such as this one he should take a leaf out of the old marae handbook: titiro whakarongo then korero. He certainly did not do any of that when he talked in this debate; I think his two mates next to him in the Chamber must have given him a big side ball. Anyway I appreciate his efforts to try to contribute to this debate. We all agree that the Maori Trustee should be a stand-alone office. But this is a Committee stage debate and Mr Bennett knows well that it is an opportunity to debate the clauses within the bill not just to talk at some random level. Everybody is being so polite to David Bennett in the Chamber. 
Anyway I want to get back to acknowledging the Minister in the chair the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I thank the Minister for taking a call on the issue I raised. It was a very serious question about practicalities if a termination of a Maori Trustee did occur; there were some practical things that I thought were not as clear as they could have been. Firstly the issue of termination is a direct matter between the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Maori Trustee. It must occur in writing and the criteria are clearly set out in the bill. The reason I raised the question is that the bill also sets out the basis upon which a delegation occurs which must be by written authority. The Minister has clarified in part that the threshold for termination is very high and I accept that. But I do think there is the potential for a practical difficulty to occur when a Minister has had reason perhaps to suspend the Maori Trustee while an investigation is occurring. During that period of time at which notification occurs there has not been any authority delegated to the deputy trustee and it is not clearly expressed in the legislation what happens if for the practical reason of a time lapse the Maori Trustee is suspended before a written delegation occurs. That is the nature of the question but I accept the explanation that the Minister has given on the basis that it is a high threshold in the first instance. I just invite the Minister to maybe consider that there is a potential loophole there. 
Mr Henare made an interesting contribution as well. I often like to go back to what he said in the Chamber because holding him accountable is so easy. He said “National fully supports Maori economic development but don’t go and steal other people’s money to do it.” I re-state that on the record. He says time and time again that “We will privatise services and get people to use their own money instead.” In fact the Government has convinced the Maori Party that if we privatise prisons it will be a good thing for Maori. Maori can then use their own money to invest in rehabilitation programmes to try to improve the lot of those who unfortunately are in prison. That is the ethos of Mr Henare. 
But I have a serious question. I could ask the question of the member directly or of the Minister. I would prefer to ask the question of the member because he is the one who raises these types of issues in the Chamber and because he has been a Minister before. I want to know what assurance that member as a member of the Government will give that the retained earnings of the Maori Trustee will not be used by the Government for any other Maori development purpose. Would the member answer that because I think it is a very important question? Is there a commitment to ring-fence the Maori Trustee’s retained earnings so that the Government cannot draw down on that for any other development opportunities? There is silence. I could ask the question of the Minister but out of courtesy I will not. The implication of what Mr Henare said was that the Government will not touch it. The Government will leave it to Maori beneficiaries and not touch it at all. So I challenge that member to get up in this Chamber and be accountable for the information he gave that the National-led Government will retain the earnings of the Maori Trust Office in its own entity and will not draw down on it at any point in time in the future for Maori development. I suspect he will find difficulty in answering that question. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Mr Chair tena koe. Tena tatou katoa. I am delighted to rise and take a call on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill as this is my first opportunity as a new member of the House to participate in a Committee of the whole House. I will address my attention to Part 1 and specifically to a couple of clauses within it. I would also like to make some general comments in support of this bill. 
First I would like to acknowledge the select committee that did all of this work and the approach from both sides of the House in attending to this important matter. The key reason for my support of this bill is that it symbolises the coming of age of a very old institution that has been a very important part of Maori development. The bill recognises the need for the Maori Trust Office and the Maori Trustee to be a stand-alone organisation and to be accountable transparent and disciplined in the manner that the functions of that office are discharged. Currently the Maori Trustee is an employee of a department of the State. The separation of the Maori Trustee from this ambiguous and confusing situation is a really important step away from the State’s constant oversight of all things Maori. The bill represents the long-overdue maturing of the State in terms of respecting the ability of Maori and those in charge of Maori assets to take responsibility for to organise and to direct those assets in the interests of the beneficial owners. I am delighted that the Maori Trustee is to become a stand-alone organisation. 
Similarly I am delighted that the bill will update some of the core processes and functions within the Maori Trust Office so that it may be comparable with other like trust entities. Maori beneficial owners may expect like other beneficial owners of trusts that they will be well treated that market conditions will apply and that there will be transparency and discipline in the way that the functions of the Maori Trustee are carried out. Clauses 9 9A and 9B set up a new appropriation account for funds received from the Crown. They also repeal the current sections 19 and 21 of the Maori Trustee Act which relate to the way that payments by the Maori Trustee can be made. Why are these changes necessary? It is because the Maori Trustee’s existing accounts had been set up for separate specific purposes that are set out in the statute. The setting up of a new appropriation account for Crown funding will provide transparency and will enhance accountability to the Crown and to the beneficial owners. 
As everyone in this House knows and is aware under this fresh new National-led Government there has been a focus on getting greater discipline within State departments and on ensuring that they are not oversubscribed in terms of the processes but do meet the best professional disciplines possible. This bill gives the opportunity for a very old institution to be brought into modern times. It recognises that banking procedures have moved beyond purely cheque accounts. It recognises that it is possible to take advantage of new banking instruments and to use the technology that is so much part and parcel of our very secure and stable banking system which has helped to provide a very strong and resilient foundation to Aotearoa New Zealand during these challenging times of recession. So the changes ensure that the Maori Trustee can operate a very contemporary practice and in so doing can provide a better and more professional service to the beneficial owners of the Maori Trustee. 
There are changes in clause 11 to the way in which income from the common fund is to be paid to account holders. Account holders will now be paid what the Maori Trustee receives less a management fee. Why are the current provisions being changed? At present the interest rates paid on funds held in trust are set by the Maori Trust Office Regulations 1954—from a time before I was born. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports—we do indeed—the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. We support changes to establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri as many people have mentioned already this evening. The bill will establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation and we all support separating it from Te Puni Kokiri. This will underline the independence of the Maori Trustee in carrying out the position’s fiduciary responsibilities. I refer to clause 5 “Independence of Maori Trustee” which states that “the Maori Trustee must act independently free from any direction or instruction from the Crown.” I support this in that it ensures the integrity of the Maori Trustee. It is important that the integrity of the Maori Trustee is not jeopardised just by direction or instruction from the Crown but also by direction or instruction from any organisation. Just by carrying the name “Maori Trustee”—or the name “Maori”—means there is responsibility on the Maori Trustee to be seen to be highly independent and existing right away from any sort of undue influences. There is a saying that Maori have to work twice as hard as other people to be seen to be half as good so it is really important that the Maori Trustee is seen not to have any bias or favouritism in what it does. 
New sections 26 to 26B substituted in clause 11 relate to money held in the common fund being invested in the fund and in part section 26(1) states: “and any income derived from investment of the money forms part of the Common Fund.” I want to talk about investing this fund because particularly at this time of global recession I think that Maori need to be seen to be investing in Maori initiatives. Our tupuna were entrepreneurs. When Europeans first came to New Zealand it was our ancestors who grew the crops and exported them and who created an economy that sustained the people. So we have a history of being entrepreneurs but there are a number of Maori initiatives and Maori businesses that could do with support from the Maori Trustee fund. 
We heard today about a really exciting Maori business development in the information technology and broadcasting industry that has been successful internationally but to sustain the business research and development investment is needed. It would be really cool if the Maori Trustee were able to invest in that business and help to sustain it and grow it further. A number of Maori businesses up north could do with investment through that fund. I think specifically of relations of mine who are in the honey industry. They are looking for ways to expand and grow their business to develop it and spread it further and to look for new markets; the Maori Trustee would be a great way of investing in this Maori-owned business and enterprise. Other successful Maori industries such as the oyster farms up north are in jeopardy. They are very successful but the Northland Regional Council is asking for a $22000 per hectare bond on those oyster farms. That affects our relations up north and I can think of one relative in particular who has had to fork out $250000 just on bonds. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call on this important bill the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill and Part 1 of it which we are speaking on. I was sitting in my office looking at the television and I saw my great friend Paul Quinn up on his feet telling the Opposition what this bill is all about. I was moved enough to walk from the building on the other side of the parliamentary complex and come to the Chamber to support Paul. He is a great speaker. 
I make reference to something that others have said earlier—in particular the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and her concern that the public of New Zealand should know that this was the previous Government’s bill. In fact all I have heard over the last 5 months is “Here is another one of our bills that we brought forward.” I put this down to the scattergun effect of a re-election strategy on the part of the previous Government. It put up a lot of bills did nothing at all about them but pretended it was doing everything so that the world would be a great place. When it was thrown out of Government by the people of New Zealand it said “This was our bill; we were going to fix this problem.” Labour had its chance and it did not fix the problems. 
Nanaia Mahuta also spoke about the very great member of Parliament for Hamilton David Bennett a second-term member who is now in Government. The member was saying she was unsure whether the people of the Waikato were proud that he was representing them. I ask David what his majority was on election night. Did it go up from that of 3 years ago? I think the answer to that is yes it did. I can confirm to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta with whom I had the pleasure of sharing a television platform and talking about issues to do with Maori people during the election campaign that I enjoyed doing that. She spoke a lot of wisdom there and I thought she was a very nice lady; I am not sure whether that is the case today. She has not yet said she will support this bill but I know she is going to despite all the excuses she gives us. Nanaia Mahuta spoke about my good friend David Bennett in Hamilton and she said he had been drinking too much water from the Waikato River. I have been to Hamilton. [ 
Interruption 
] It was from another catchment was it? Well I have been to Hamilton with David Bennett and I can confirm that that member does not drink water at all. 
As I come directly to the bill and Part 1 of it I say there are some very important things here particularly about the way that the Maori Trustee will be appointed. The Minister of Maori Affairs will appoint the Maori Trustee for a period of 5 years. This appointment must be made in writing. Trustees cannot take up the position until they receive their letter. They can be reappointed for other periods of time up to 5 years. It is important that the legislation states what is to happen in the case that a Government or a Minister has not decided on who may replace a trustee when the 5-year period is up. Let us think about the importance of that in the bill. Let us think about the situation a good 15 years from now when the members opposite are hoping to weakly limp back into Government. That could be three more appointments of trustees from now. A new Minister who has limped from the Opposition into Government 15 years from now might not be able to make up his or her mind whom to appoint or what should happen to the important money that is tied up in trust which the trustee administers on behalf of Maori landowners. What this legislation means is that the trustee would stay in place. The bill specifically says that until a Minister is able to decide who is to be appointed then upon the termination of his or her appointment the current trustee remains in place and continues to look after the people he or she is responsible for. 
When I looked at the Maori Trustee’s website I saw it makes great comments about Part 1 of this bill. It says the Maori Trustee’s role is to protect and enhance the interests of Maori clients and their resources. That is why it is important that Ministers make good decisions. Let us hope 15 years from now that the Opposition does not limp into Government because the current Minister of Maori Affairs is going to do a very good job in this area. 
It is important that the Maori Trustee is a stand-alone organisation. Why is this important? The Maori Trustee deals with a number of disagreements that have taken place between different agencies and sets those aside so that those who would benefit from the funds being held in trust can do so. The bill of course amends the Maori Trustee Act 1953. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I made the point as clearly as it could have been made but for the benefit of the previous speaker I say the point was not so much about whom to delegate to. The point was that within the way that the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill is written the process for terminating or suspending the employment of the Maori Trustee is that it has to be in writing between the Minister and the Maori Trustee. The process by which delegated authority occurs is by written delegation. The issue I was raising if the member was at all interested in the point I raised was that there could potentially be a time lapse. A meeting with the Minister to inform the Maori Trustee that some issues may have arisen or been brought to the Minister’s attention and that therefore a suspension is impending has to be followed through by a written letter. And it may be for practical reasons—or in the court of public opinion things have to happen sooner rather than later—that the Maori Trustee has not written formally greater delegations than those already held by the deputy trustee. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill without amendment and progress on the Maori Trustee Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.